Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I wonder, then, if it's inefficient use of infrastructure that is causing the problem(s). Students only occupy those buildings for about 50% of the year. Perhaps moving to a full-year system that utilizes the buildings for 100% (or close to it) of the year would be better. We'd need about half the schools. Move teachers to a more standard work schedule (start with three weeks off, earn more holiday with tenure) and quit building new schools. Maybe even sell off some of the current schools.
|
I don't see how that's viable or even possible. Schools are in use about 38-39 weeks a year, so you'd need to have kids going to school on weekends and through holidays, as well as have longer days to get their instructional hours in only 50% of the year. That'd be a nightmare from a child care perspective. And I don't know how you'd begin to create a functional student/teacher setup with that kind of scheduling.
Normally school districts will do the opposite to save money. A 4 day week with more hours per day cuts the support staff and utility costs down considerably. But again, you're essentially offloading education costs onto parents who'd need to pay increased child care costs, so it's sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
There are year round school systems but they simply have more breaks that are shorter in length. So something like three 13 week terms with three month long breaks. There are advantages that come from that, but they're in the form of improved academics rather than cost savings.