Branding hurts bit though.
Still, a system like that would prevent stagnation of the mind (as many students appear to undergo during summer holidays) but on the other hand, the end of a year is often the point when students are examined, etc. A stressful time (although I don't understand why it's considered stressful), the summer allows time for students to calm down and become something sociable again.
Although I fully agree it is far too long in the current systems that we find in much of the western world, and it does hark back to the days when crops were planted with hand tools and farms tilled using an ox or horse or [insert land mammal of choice]; a 30day summer break (or 4weeks, 2days) would be rather short. It also may not even prevent the mental stagnation that currently occurs.
Overall, I doubt it would actually, change anything. Lazy students would still be lazy, enthusiastic students would still be enthusiastic, anti-social children would still be anti-social. The only viable reason I can see for this is because the current system is old and even that I think is foolish as a reason, if something is old, it isn't inherently bad.

Well, in this case it is bad, but my personal opinion is they're taking it in an even worse direction.

Really, the way they force you to take all the "core classes" just means kids are forced to cram their heads with stuff they really don't care about and often aren't likely to have a use for. Then you only have so many electives to choose from because they keep the options limited to avoid interfering with the core classes.

I can understand forcing things like math and English (or whatever is the native language) all the way through, and history and science up to a certain point, but not forcing kids to take all of them plus gym class all throughout their education.

Basically, I think gym should be an elective, because not everyone is a sports star any more than everyone is a band member, and while it's nice to think you're solving obesity, you're really not, because they're going to walk out and buy soda and chips for lunch. History is one of those that's not really useful due to all the bull it's filled with and the incredibly limited applications, but if someone wants to learn about stuff like ancient Egypt, the option should be available. And not all science is for everyone. I'm much better with chemistry than I am with physics.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you let kids study subjects relevant to their interests, you're probably going to see a spike in grades, too. Forcing them to stay in school year round might let them forget less, but that just means their heads are full of more stuff they'll never need.



But the BIGGEST failing I see of the school system is that ENGLISH CLASSES NEED TO TEACH SPELLING!

It's often argued to be good for team building excercise but TBH, we can do that in other classes.

I actually feel that I would have done far better in a year round school. You still get breaks and ~month long days off, but I was always a guy to go into a library during summer breaks in Atlanta and not necessarily socialize with a lot of kids in my neighborhood.

I think that it would be a lot better to keep them focused on their studies and the kids that do this will build up a small network of friends, same as in a regular school with the 3 month long break.

I still think that the 3 month break does more harm than good. What would you do if you were given a 3 month leave from your job and nothing to do in the interim?

Making them focus on studies won't mean they do better, however. Soem kids are just apathetic about it. :(

Travel? Visit family you don't get to see often? Disney? Pool? Video games? Job?

What are these concepts?! :rolleyes:

Mess, you are now banned from the internet.

So blues, if work gave you a three month vacation, you'd... go to work?