Music programs in year-round schools in Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Music programs in year-round schools in Florida current status and implications for future development
Physical Description:
xiii, 243 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Haworth, Janice Lee, 1959-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Music -- Instruction and study -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Year-round schools -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Music thesis, Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Music -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1995.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 231-242).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Janice Lee Haworth.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002056306
oclc - 33662117
notis - AKP4317
System ID:
AA00009026:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text








MUSIC PROGRAMS IN YEAR-ROUND SCHOOLS IN FLORIDA:
CURRENT STATUS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT












by

JANICE LEE HAWORTH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1995



























Copyright 1995
by
Janice Lee Haworth













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As I have finally reached the end of this goal, I realize that I could
not have accomplished any of these steps on my own. There are many
people who have been very helpful along the way.
I would like to thank the chair of my supervisory committee, Dr.
Charles Hoffer, whose guidance, patience, and encouragement have
resulted in the completion of this project and my degree. I would also like
to thank the members of my supervisory committee, Drs. Phyllis Dorman,
Russell Robinson, Budd Udell, Arthur Jennings, and Panos Livadas, for the
practicality of their help and support in this research project.
There are several friends whom I would like to acknowledge and
thank for their encouragement and support throughout this degree process:
Mary Jeanette Howle, Ronald Howard, Debra Hess, Jill Hooper, Joanne
Engel, Evelyn Williams, and Jerri Goffe. I am also indebted to the many
year-round music teachers who took the time to complete the
questionnaire. It was my goal to write a dissertation that would make a
difference in the music education profession. Without their help none of
this would have been possible.
Most of all, I would like to thank my parents and my brother for
their unending interest and encouragement. Their maps, news clippings,
and video tapes have kept me informed, up-to-date, and constantly aware of
their love and support. To God be the glory.












TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... ......................ix

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................xi

ABSTRACT...................................................................................xii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION................................ ...........................

Statement of the Problem....................................................... 1
Music Teachers in YRE ......... ..................................................4
Factors in Music in YRE.......................................................5
Statement of Purpose........................................ ...............7
Overview of the Study................................................ ...7
Delimitations........................................................................8
L im itations......................................................................... 9
Definitions ................................................................... 9
General Calendars .........................................................9
Year-Round Calendars.................................................. 10
Calendar Designs..................................... ................. 11
Teacher Contracts..................................................... 12

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE....................................... 13

Introduction ....................................................................... 13
Historical Overview ................................................ ... 13
Needs of an Agrarian Society........................................ 14
Early History: 1904 to 1938 ........................................... 14
The Quiet Years: 1940 to 1970 .................................... .. 16
Calendar Reform: 1970................................................... 17
NCYRE: 1972 to 1986................................................... 18
NAYRE: 1987 to the Present........................................... 20
Current (1993-94) Status of Year-Round Education................. 22









Popular Calendar Designs............................................ 23
1993-94 Statistics for the United States ....................... ...... 30
1993-94 Statistics for Florida.......................................32
Relevant Studies on Year-Round Education............................ 34
Does YRE Save Money?..................................... ........ 34
Does YRE Improve Student Achievement?.........................39
Does YRE Improve the Quality of Education?.................... 43
Public Response to YRE .............................................. 48
Sources on Music and Year-Round Education.....................53
References by Music Teachers ......................................... 54
References from Music Conferences.................................. 56
M usic as a Subtopic..................................... ............ 57

3 A BRIEF HISTORY OF YEAR-ROUND EDUCATION
IN FLORIDA ........................................... ........... 59

Earliest Beginnings ... ............ ..................................... ...... 60
Innovative Governmental Leadership ..................................... 61
Enhancing Curriculum........................... .............. ... 61
Improving Overcrowding.................... ............................ 61
Legislative Acts............................................................ 62
Early Calendar Innovations............................................ ...... 63
Looking Ahead and Preparing for the Future......................... 64
Polk County Feasibility Study ................................... ....... 64
Orange County Planning ............................................... 65
The Early 1970s .................................................. ............. 65
The Dade County Quinmester Plan................................. 65
NCYRE Conference in Florida .................................... 66
45-15 Comes to Florida ......... ........... ............ ........... ...... 67
Jupiter's Concept Six ......................................................... 69
The Silent Y ears ............. ... ............................................... 70
Marion County Begins It All Again.......................................71
Banner Growth in the 1990s............................................... 72
Orange County Goes Year-Round ..................................... 72
FA Y R E ....................................................................... 73
Brevard County Parents Vote .............................. ...........73
Duval County Dual Tracks ............... .......................... 73
Lake County Pilot Program .............................. ..........74
Osceola County Rapid Growth .......................................... 74
Seminole County Goes Year-Round................................. 75
Volusia County..................................................... ...........76
Charlotte, Polk, and Clay Counties Join In ........................76









Sarasota and Broward Counties....................................... 77
Future of YRE in Florida ........................ ..... ....... ........... 78
Return to Traditional Calendars .................................... 78
New Year-Round Programs............................ ........... 78
Investigating for the Future ............................ .........78
Growing on Track...................... ..................................... 79
Conclusion ............................................. ...................... 80

4 M ETHODOLOGY .............................................................81

Introduction .... ........... .......................................................... 81
G rounded Theory ................................. ............................81
Four-Step Process...................................... .......... ..... 82
Grounded Theory as a Research Tool ........................ ...... 82
The First Phase: The Exploratory Study............................. 82
The Second Phase: Surveying the Teachers............................ 84
Developing the Questionnaire ..........................................84
Sample for the Study.................................... .......... ... 85
Music Teacher Names ........................................... .. 85
Procedures .......................................................................... 86
Teacher Contact ............................ ......... ................... 86
Instrum entation .............. ............ ......... ........... ........... 87
D ata A nalysis........................................ ................ ............ 88

5 RESULTS OF THE EXPLORATORY STUDY.................... 91

Introduction .. ....................... ....................... .................... 91
Results of the First-Phase Exploratory Study ....................... 91
Contract Options for Music Teachers................................. 91
Does YRE Benefit the Music Program? YES....................95
Does YRE Benefit the Music Program? NO ....................... 96
Complex Issues and Simplistic Answers .......................... 97
The Future of Music in Year-Round Education.................... 103

6 RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE................................... 105

Introduction .................................................................... 105
School Calendar................................................................. 106
Teacher Contracts............................................................. 107
Contract Design............................................................ 107
Extended Contracts....................................................... 110
Track Contracts............................................................. 112









Music Teacher Views and Opinions...................................... 114
Community/School Relations ......................................... 114
Single-Track Schools .................................................... 118
M ulti-Track Schools ..................................................... 119
Personal Views............................................................. 121
Elementary Music Programs in Year-Round Schools.......... 131
Elementary General Music Classes ................................. 132
Effect on Music Teaching......................................... 135
Effect on the Music Classroom Environment.............. 141
Elementary Performing Groups..................................... 143
Secondary Music Programs in Year-Round Schools.............. 150
Secondary General Music Classes.................................. 150
Secondary School Performing Groups ......................... 150
Classroom Environment........................................ 153
Year-Round Preparation................................................... 155
Teacher Demographics................................................... 157
Suggestions....................................................................... 159

7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH ............................................................. 164

Sum m ary ....................................................................... 164
C conclusions .................................. .................................. 167
Implications for Administrators and Music Teachers in
Year-Round Schools................................. ........ 170
M ulti-Track is the Future................................. ........... 170
General Music Classes That Easily Adapt...................... 170
Performing Groups and YRE ..................................... 171
Concerns for Administrators to Address....................... 174
College Responses.......................................................... 176
The Future of the Implications....................................... 176
Recommendations for Further Research............................ 177
C oda ....................................................................... ....... 178

APPENDICES

A STATEMENT ON YEAR-ROUND EDUCATION................ 179

B NATIONAL AND FLORIDA ASSOCIATIONS FOR
YEAR-ROUND EDUCATION...................................... 183

C ELEMENTARY MUSIC TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE...... 185









D SECONDARY MUSIC TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE........ 196

E PRELIMINARY CONTACT.............................................. 206

F APPROVAL FROM THE INSTITUTIONAL
REVIEW BOARD ....................................................... 208

G COVER LETTER............................................................. 210

H FOLLOW-UP MATERIALS.......................................... 213

I LIST OF SCHOOLS THAT RESPONDED........................... 217

J 1993-94 FLORIDA YEAR-ROUND SCHOOLS
BY CO UNTY .............................................................. 226

REFEREN C ES.............................................................................. 231

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................. 243













LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1 Increases in Building Capacity by Calendar Design.................. 36

2 Calendar Design................................................................. 107

3 Responses Regarding Choice in the Selection of
Teaching Schedules ....................................................... 108

4 Open-Responses Regarding Recommendations on Track or
Extended Contracts ............ ........................................ 109

5 Extended Contract Teachers on Teacher Bum-Out................ 111

6 Use of Certified Music Substitute Teachers........................ 113

7 Changes Seen in the Needs of YR Families.......................... 114

8 Teachers Enrolling in College Courses Over Last
Five Years ............................... .. ....................... ...... 116

9 Needs to be Addressed by School Districts........................... 117

10 Effects of Single-Track Scheduling on Music Programs......... 119

11 Effects of Multi-Track Scheduling on Music Programs.......... 120

12 Perceived Advantages to YRE......................................... 122

13 Perceived Disadvantages to YRE ........................................ 124

14 Disadvantages of YRE Grouped by Teacher Categories.......... 125

15 Future Plans on Teaching in YRS ....................................... 126

16 Continue Teaching in Year-Round Schools .......................... 128

17 Elementary General Music Class Schedules.......................... 132









18 Personnel Involved in Scheduling Elementary
General M usic Classes ................................................ 134

19 Effect of Year-Round Education on Sequencing .................. 136

20 Effect of Year-Round Education on Curriculum Content/
Concept Development.................................................... 137

21 Effect of Year-Round Education on Student
Understanding ............................................................ 138

22 Raw Data Comparing Student Understanding and
Y ears of Y RE .................................. .......................... 139

23 Effect of Year-Round Education on Material Retention......... 140

24 Effect of Year-Round Education on Teacher Burn-Out.......... 142

25 Performing Groups in Year-Round Schools.......................... 144

26 Effect of Year-Round Education on Quality of
Perform ances ............................................................. 145

27 Dealing With Off-Track Students and Multi-Track
Performing Groups...................................................... 148

28 Off-Track Students Coming On Campus for Rehearsals ........ 149

29 Secondary Music Students and Music Tracks......................... 154

30 Year-Round Music Teacher Demographics......................... 158

31 Non-Workshop College Courses Taken Over the
Last Five Summers........................................................ 159

32 Music Teacher Suggestions for a Successful Year-Round
M usic Program ............................................................. 160












LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1 Basic schedule format for a traditional school calendar ........... 24

2 Basic format for block scheduling in a single-track
year-round design ........................................ .......... .. 24

3 Basic format for a multi-track year-round calendar
(5-tracks).......................................................................26

4 Basic format for a four-quarter year-round calendar ............ 29

5 Florida counties and the number of 1993-94 year-
round schools in each district ........................................33









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University
of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

MUSIC PROGRAMS IN YEAR-ROUND SCHOOLS IN FLORIDA:
CURRENT STATUS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

By

Janice Lee Haworth

May 1995

Chairman: Dr. Charles R. Hoffer
Major Department: Music
The focus of this study was the effect of year-round education on
music teachers and music programs in Florida. Year-round calendars
create particular problems for music teachers and their programs. In
order to investigate the nature of these problems and to determine what
solutions had been tried, or were needed, a history of Florida year-round
education was compiled, and a two-phased study was designed.
The first phase consisted of preliminary interviews that focused on
designs of teaching contracts, year-round effects on music instruction, the
complex issues involved, and the future of music in year-round education.
Based on the findings from these interviews, a questionnaire was developed
and distributed to all the year-round music teachers in Florida.
From the results of the music teacher questionnaire, several
conclusions were drawn: (1) Multi-track calendars create more problems
for music programs and music teachers than do single-track calendars;
(2) Most music teachers feel unprepared to begin teaching in year-round
schools-both in general and also specifically with regard to music;









(3) The conflict between teacher-needs (track-contracts) and student-needs
(extended-contracts) have created a problem in teaching contract options
for multi-track music teachers. A new contract design is needed so that
music teacher concerns about teacher bur-out and program consistency
can both be addressed; (4) General music programs experience problems
with the timing and use of holiday music in lessons, and the problem of
keeping track of individual classes in the curricular sequence; (5) Multi-
track performing groups, on both the elementary and secondary levels,
have difficulties with students rotating in and out of ensembles and never
having the entire ensemble together.
Innovative solutions to reduce the negative effects of year-round
education on music programs include (1) new teaching contract options for
music teachers, (2) sequencing general music lessons numerically and
lessening the role of holiday music in general music plans, and (3)
organizing performing ensembles by tracks. Other suggestions from the
teachers themselves were offered to help lower the stress level of music
teachers in year-round situations.












CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


In an age of shrinking educational funding and growing numbers of
students, many school systems have been forced to look for new ways to
deal with the problem of providing sufficient space for students to learn.
One solution that has received a great deal of interest in recent years is the
year-round school calendar.

Statement of the Problem
The focus of this study is year-round education, with a particular
emphasis on its effect on music teachers and music programs in the state of
Florida. Historically, year-round education (YRE) is not a new idea;
neither has it been easily accepted by the American public. Although there
are dozens of variations in the format and school calendar, the basic
principle of YRE is that the long summer vacation is divided into several
shorter holidays throughout the school year. This calendar shift is viewed
as an asset to learning because there is less time for students to forget and
less time spent in review of previously learned material.
By having different groups of students on vacation at different times,
an economic benefit has been realized by the proponents of YRE: more
students can be accommodated in the same amount of classroom space.
Different schedules reflect different gains, but an increase of 20 to 50
percent in the number of students using a building is not uncommon.









The first year-round school program was created in 1904 by
William Wirt of Bluffton, Indiana, as a four-quarter plan in which students
attended three of the four quarters and 25 percent of them were on
vacation at any given time (National Education Association [NEA], 1987).
By 1993-94, the National Association for Year-Round Education (NAYRE)
reported that there were 32 states involved with year-round schools, with
1,905 schools serving 1.4 million students (1994a).
Throughout the twentieth-century educational innovators have
claimed that they were drawn to this concept, both as a financial panacea,
but more often in an effort to improve the quality of education for their
students. In spite of the beneficial possibilities of YRE, it has not been
easily accepted by the public. Parents tend to object to the fact that it is
difficult to schedule family vacations when their children are split into
different tracks at school. In addition, they express concern about child-
care for their children when they are out of school during the traditional
school year.
Although there are many variations to the traditional school
calendar, Shepard (cited in NEA, 1987) groups them into three categories:
summer school, extended school year, and year-round school. All of these
are often considered to be "year-round education," but there are actually
some clear differences that are important to this study.
Summer school is a short-term program offered in the summer
months as either enrichment (generally voluntary) or remediation (often
required attendance). It is usually set up as a supplement to the regular
school year rather than an extension or continuation. The four-quarter









YRE schedule uses summer school as an additional term within the school
year.
The extended school year is an attempt to improve the quality of
education by increasing the number of days that students are in class. Most
school districts in the United States follow a 180-day school year.
Year-round school is a change in the way the calendar is organized
without adding any days to the schedule. Instead of a three-month vacation
in the summer, shorter vacation periods are scattered throughout the year.
In over-crowded school situations it is possible to increase the capacity of
the school by staggering the vacation periods so that one group, or "track,"
is always off campus. This definition of year-round education, 180-, or
fewer, days with shortened vacation periods, is the focus of this study.
Since 1980 the number of schools using modified year-round
calendars has been increasing (NEA, 1987). Since 1990 the number of
schools involved has mushroomed. As more states and districts suffer
from under-funding, over-crowding, and a public mandate to raise
educational standards, year-round scheduling is being seen as an innovation
with great possibilities.
Florida, the focus of this study, is the third largest state in the
country in terms of YRE enrollment. Only California and Texas exceed it
(NAYRE, 1994a). Since its beginning in the early 1970s until the 1993-94
school year, YRE in Florida has grown to 105 schools in 12 districts.
Several districts in Florida have incorporated extensive planning
time prior to the opening of their first year-round school. Generally that
planning is more geared to the school as a whole rather than to specific
programs within the school. Most members of the school staff deal with









one fixed group of students (i.e. five periods of a particular subject or a
single classroom of children). Other than the shifting of the vacation
schedules, most school staff in a modified calendar situation experience
little change in their actual curricular offerings or teaching style. This is
because they either follow the same track-schedule as their students or
incoming students are grouped with other like students to form new classes.
Teachers and administrators who deal with the entire student body
face a different set of problems than do those who deal with one fixed
group of students. These problems are often overlooked in the planning
and preparation for the implementation of year-round scheduling in a
school or district. In addition to the problem of needing to be concerned
with the entire student body, music teachers also face the challenge shared
by athletic coaches: their work is, by its nature, publicly critiqued.

Music Teachers in YRE
Year-round education creates some specific problems for the music
teachers involved. Although there are many different kinds of resources
available to districts, schools, and teachers considering a change to YRE,
there are no resources, other than private contacts, available to help the
music teacher. Access to information about music and YRE would allow
for more informed decision making on the part of music teachers and
administrators. Because of the growing number of year-round schools in
the state of Florida, an in-depth study and analysis of the existing music
programs in such schools is needed.









Factors in Music in YRE
A fundamental factor for both elementary and secondary schools is
the design of the school calendar. The group of modified calendars
included under the heading of "year-round education" are designed to be
flexible to meet the needs of the community. These flexible calendars, part
of the strength of YRE, have a significant effect on certain aspects of the
school teaching and learning environment, like the music classroom, while
affecting others very little.
Another area for investigation is the type of contract received by the
music teacher. Some districts allow the individual teachers to choose the
length of their contract, either following a specific track, or working under
some form of an extended contract. Other districts unilaterally require
that all music teachers work extended contracts.
Certain aspects of YRE have more import for some age groups than
others. An important area of interest for elementary music teachers is the
question of how to schedule multi-track general music classes and still
provide a sequential curriculum for all students. Under the traditional
calendar, most elementary music programs are designed around a five- to
ten-day rotation of classes. Under a year-round calendar, with classes and
teachers coming on- and off-track, it is not unusual for scheduling
difficulties to create blocks of four or more weeks when particular classes
do not have music instruction.
Another problem at the elementary level is the extracurricular
performing group and how to implement and maintain it when the entire
group is never together at any one time. One music teacher in central
Florida, director of an after-school Orff instrument ensemble, had all the









students and parents involved sign contracts stipulating that they would
attend rehearsals even when they were "off-track" and on vacation. Many
other schools have simply stopped their elementary choruses and
instrumental ensembles due to the problems incurred under YRE.
The problems faced by intermediate and secondary year-round music
teachers tend to be more visible to the community. The bands and choruses
that dominate these music programs suffer because the students are never
together at the same time. The solution, often mentioned in the literature,
is to "invite" off-track music students to come on campus for rehearsals.
This is problematic and short-sighted. Public performances, festivals,
contests, parades, and ball games still require presentations by these
performing groups, with little regard for the missing voices or
instrumentation.
In support of the music education philosophy of "Music for every
child," most multi-track music teachers have been hesitant to institute a
"music track" that all band or chorus prospects would be required to enroll
in. The result, combined with the fact that it is difficult to find a qualified
substitute music teacher for extended periods of time, is that intermediate
and secondary music teachers generally have to work all year to keep their
programs from suffering. Although as of this writing there are no high
schools on year-round calendars in Florida, there are several middle
schools facing this problem.
A final area of investigation is to gather information from the music
teachers themselves about how to make year-round scheduling function
more effectively. Much of the current literature is written by curriculum
specialists and others who are not actually in the classroom. Many creative









music teachers have found ways to succeed. Their ideas can be an
important resource for other music teachers.

Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate, describe, and provide
information with regard to the music programs in year-round schools in
Florida. The existing literature on the subject does little more than point
out that there can be problems and encourages music teachers to "be
flexible." The overall goal is to provide a source of help and information
for future music educators and administrators planning to implement YRE
regarding the specific problems facing the music program.

Overview of the Study
The main goal of this study was to expand the knowledge about
music education in year-round schools and to provide assistance for current
and future music educators and administrators involved in YRE. The
method of inquiry used to gather this information was preliminary
interviews, and questionnaires sent to the year-round music teachers in
Florida.
The first step in this process was to create a roster of year-round
music teachers from information available through the National
Association of Year-Round Education, the Florida Department of
Education, Florida Music Educators Association, and the counties/districts
themselves. The questionnaire was then field tested among a small
sampling of teachers. Since the elementary and middle school music
situations were so different, two separate forms were used, including a
common section that was included in both forms.









The questionnaire was a combination of both open- and closed-
format questions. Much of the demographic information could be solicited
through 'check-list' answers. Other information, in particularly the
specifics on each situation and the creative measures that that particular
teacher found effective, was more appropriately gleaned through open-
format questions.
There were several specific goals behind the choice of questions and
topics on the questionnaire. The first goal was to create a picture of year-
round music education in Florida through information about the calendars
used, teacher contracts, and scheduling. The second goal was to identify the
specific problems that these teachers had encountered under modified
calendars. The third goal was to collect their ideas, solutions, and
recommendations on what had proved to be effective in helping their music
programs succeed.
The decision to preface the questionnaire with personal interviews of
year-round music teachers was based on the fact that there is almost no
literature on this topic. Rather than enter the field with preconceived
ideas, this methodology, similar to that of 'grounded theory' developed by
Glaser and Strauss (1967), seeks to collect data and develop theory that is
'grounded' in the core problems and processes themselves.


Delimitations
In the 1993-94 school year, the state of Florida had 105 schools
using some form of year-round calendar. These schools were found in
twelve counties and included 95 elementary schools and 10 middle schools.
At this time there were no high schools on year-round calendars in
Florida.










Limitations
The focus of this study was limited to year-round schools, that are
neither summer schools nor extended year schools, that were in operation
during the 1993-94 school year, and that had certified music teachers.
Both single- and multi-track schools were investigated.
This study was limited to the year-round schools in Florida. It was
chosen for its proximity and availability for access to the actual music
classrooms. It was also selected due to the variety of programs, plans, and
reasons behind the different calendar implementations.
Due to the fact that there were no high schools on year-round
calendars in Florida, this study was limited to the elementary and middle
schools that fit these criteria.

Definitions
The following definitions of terms are applicable to this study.

General Calendars
The traditional calendar, Traditional School Calendar, or TSC,
refers to the standard 180-day, September-to-June, calendar.
The school year runs from July 1 to June 30.
Secondary schools will include both middle and high schools.
Modified calendars include any variation from the traditional
calendar, including all forms of year-round education.









Year-Round Calendars
Year-Round Education is a change from the traditional school
calendar in order to use the school plant and facilities in a more efficient
manner and respond to the educational needs of the students. Instead of a
three-month vacation in the summer, shorter vacation periods are scattered
throughout the entire year.
Tracks are the particular schedules each group of students and
teachers follows. In Florida they are often referred to by a color, e.g.
Yellow Track or Orange Track in multi-track situations.
Single-track or Block-track scheduling is the simplest form of YRE.
The entire school follows one calendar, with everyone in school at the same
time and on vacation at the same time. Typical single-track schedules
include a short winter and/or summer vacation in addition to the scattered
vacation periods.
Multi-track scheduling houses more students on a campus without
overcrowding by rotating the vacation periods so that one group, or track,
is always off campus. Typical multi-tracks schedules include from two to
five tracks on a single campus.
Off-track students or teachers are those who are on vacation between
the shortened regular terms. Those who are in school at any given time
are referred to as on-track.
Intersessions refer to the blocks of time between terms.
Mesters is a term coined by some year-round administrators to
distinguish the change from the traditional semester calendar terms.
Cross-tracking allows students to participate in courses that are not
in their particular track. For example, if band were only offered on one









track, it is possible that students from other tracks could participate during
that class period in their schedule.
Singleton classes are courses which, generally due to small
enrollments, are only offered once, rather than on every track, in multi-
track schools.
Rainbowing refers to multi-track music classes and ensembles where
students from all the tracks go in and out of the same groups.
Retention is used to identify the quantity of material that students
have learned, remembered, and can build on at a later date.

Calendar Designs
45-15 is a popular form of YRE. Students, either single- or multi-
track, attend school on a repeating cycle of 45 days (9 weeks) on and then
15 days (3 weeks) off. This cycle is repeated four times each year.
60-20 is a variation of the 45-15 in situations in which districts
prefer a longer teaching block and fewer 'restarts' during the year.
60-15 is the most widely-used design in Florida. It is similar to the
60-20 except that the entire campus has a four- to five-week vacation in the
summer.
Four-quarter is the oldest variation of YRE and has, historically,
been the least successful. Students are divided into four equal groups and
attend school for three of the four quarters each year.
Concept 6 is a relatively new alternative to the 45-15 plan. The
students are divided into three groups with one group always off-track
resulting in up to a 50 percent increase in student capacity. Concept 6
schools have longer but fewer days than the other variations.









Double sessions were a frequently used, and still occasionally
threatened, way to deal with over-crowding by having two groups of
students and teachers use the same facilities each day.

Teacher Contracts
Extended-contracts enable teachers in multi-track schools to work up
to 240 days a year, generally with commensurate pay scales, benefits, and
retirement.
Track-contracts enable teachers to teach the same number of days as
one particular track of students. In multi-track situations, teachers on
track-contracts follow the particular on- and off-track times of a specific
track.












CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
This chapter contains an overview of the existing literature and
research on year-round education in general and on music in year-round
education. It is organized into an historical overview of year-round
education, a review of the current status and studies on year-round schools,
and an overview of the references to music in year-round education. The
review on the current studies focuses on the main concerns of year-round
education:
1. Does it save money?
2. Does it improve student achievement?
3. Does it improve the quality of education? and,
4. How do the families, communities, and school personnel respond?
The National Association for Year-Round Education was particularly
helpful as a source for historical information and a current list of the
individual schools and districts involved in year-round education. The
history and impact of this organization will be presented during the
discussion of the historical overview of year-round education.

Historical Overview
Although year-round education is often viewed as a recent
innovation in school reform, the idea of molding the school calendar to fit
the needs of the community is a long-standing tradition in American









society. The concept of a generally uniform nine-month, 180-day school
year was not common until after World War II. Prior to that time many
of the major urban areas operated calendars of up to eleven or twelve
months a year (Hermansen & Gove, 1971). In the mid-nineteenth-century,
the large numbers of foreign-born immigrants benefited from
culturization, educational, and language opportunities that lasted all year.
"New York City held classes for 245 days; Chicago 240; Buffalo 250;
Cleveland 215; Detroit 259; and Philadelphia 252" (Glines & Bingle, 1993,
p. 3).

Needs of an Agrarian Society
At the same time, many rural schools were only meeting for a few
months each year because the students were needed at home to help on the
farm. As the country became more unified, the rural and urban school
calendars grew closer together in design and compromised through a
longer school year and a substantial summer break so the students were still
free to help with the crops.

Early History: 1904 to 1938
1904: Bluffton, Indiana. Dr. William Wirt, Superintendent of
Schools in Bluffton, Indiana, is generally considered the 'father' of year-
round education. In 1904 he developed a rotating four-quarter calendar in
which students could choose to attend any three quarters each year (Wirt,
1906). The purpose of their program was not only to create more space,
but also to improve the quality of education (Glines, 1992). After four
years the calendar was dropped because they were unable to maintain an
equal distribution of students in the four quarters, which limited their









ability to plan for space and budget needs (National Education Association
[NEA], 1987).
1912: Newark, New Jersey. In 1912 the Newark, New Jersey,
schools implemented a similar program to the Bluffton experiment with a
four-quarter school year designed to benefit the many immigrants in that
area. Rather than have the summer term as an enrichment or remediation
time, their fourth quarter was a continuation of the regular school year.
Corson (1918), superintendent of schools at that time, identified the
objectives of their calendar reform as (a) saving time by having students
complete their schooling in fewer years, (b) proving that students are not
injured as previously feared by summer study, and (c) reducing waste in
time and in building use. As a result, the immigrant students accelerated
through the program, and it was determined that many of them graduated
at too early an age to function successfully in society (Shepard & Baker,
1977). This calendar ran for nineteen years until 1931.
1922: Nashville, Tennessee. Nashville, Tennessee, began a similar
continuous four-quarter plan in 1922 which ran for ten years. George
Peabody College for Teachers evaluated the Nashville program and found
that "students attending the summer quarter did no better than those not
attending. Possibly this was a result of high attendance by disadvantaged
blacks" (Hermansen & Gove, 1971, p. 12). It was felt, however, that many
of the participating students advanced further in their education than they
would have without the summer quarter plan.
It is interesting to note that, up to this point in history, all the year-
round or extended-year programs were designed to benefit the
disadvantaged immigrant students. These programs were not popular with









taxpayers and were all abandoned during the Depression years of the early
1930s. "The public was not ready to pay for 'enrichment' with tax money"
(Hermansen & Gove, 1971, p.12).
1928: Aliquippa and Ambridge, Pennsylvania. A dramatic change in
year-round education began in 1928 in the towns of Aliquippa and
Ambridge, Pennsylvania, with the advent of the first mandated K-12
program designed to provide space for more students. The Aliquippa
experiment was considered to be very successful, saving over five years an
estimated $200,000 annually in debt service and teachers salaries
(Hermansen & Gove, 1971) and increasing the high school population from
1600 to 2200 without adding extra buildings (Glines & Bingle, 1993). The
neighboring town of Ambridge was less enthusiastic with the program,
citing problems with family vacations and increased drop-out rates for
students. When opportunities were provided to build more school
facilities, the year-round calendars in both towns were abandoned.

The Quiet Years: 1940 to 1970
Widespread interest in school calendar reform lagged during the
years following World War II except in scattered pockets across the
country. Omaha, Nebraska instituted a voluntary four-quarter plan in
1953. The Florida State University Laboratory School tried a seventy-five
day trimester plan from 1962 to 1967 (Shepard & Baker, 1977). In 1963
Nova High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, began a 220-day,
nongraded, trimester program. This experiment was stopped three years
later (Neal, 1978) citing problems with strain on teachers and students
from a lack of vacation time, and a psychological 'let-down' for students









"who had to stay in school for seven weeks while their playmates were on
vacation" (Hermansen & Gove, 1971, p.31).
The money that was available for educational reform during the
1960s kept the innovations of year-round education going and many
feasibility studies were done by school districts looking for ways to
improve their programs. Few of these feasibility results were actually
implemented, however, due to the basic problem that the American public
just did not like the four-quarter concept that had prevailed thus far.
The interest in the concept was still there, however. The first
national conference on year-round schools was held in Fayetteville,
Arkansas, in 1969 and was attended by 150 educators, school board
members, and other personnel from more than thirty states (Glines &
Bingle, 1993). The stage was set for a simple innovation that would
revolutionize year-round education.
Calendar Reform: 1970
Valley View: 45-15. The Valley View School District in
Romeoville, Illinois, under a situation of severe overcrowding and newly
mandated kindergarten, developed a year-round calendar that they called
the 45-15 Continuous School Plan (Thomas, 1973). Rather than the old
four-quarter system, each student attended school for forty-five days and
then had fifteen days off. By running four tracks of students and having
three groups in school at any given time, the Valley View School District
was able to increase their school capacity by one-third without having to
build any additional school facilities.
What made this plan more palatable to the community was the fact
that every student had a three-week vacation period in every season in









addition to the week at Christmas and a week in the summer when the
entire school was closed down. This quickly became a very popular
design for a year-round calendar, and it was an important milestone in the
development and popularity of year-round education.
Miami Quinmester. In 1970 the Dade County (Florida) Public
Schools began an influential experiment that they called the Quinmester
Plan (McLain, 1973). The school year was divided into five nine-week
terms and the student body was divided into five groups. Each group then
attended four of the five quinss' (with an option of attending the fifth).
This involved some radical revising of the school curriculum (Todd, 1973)
but it brought some immediate advantages: it would theoretically increase
the school capacity by 25% (Christian, 1970) and it was not dramatically
different from the traditional school calendar (TSC).

NCYRE: 1972 to 1986
In 1972 the National Council on Year-Round Education (NCYRE)
was formed to provide direction for the growing interest in year-round
programs. The wording in their title was carefully chosen because this was
to be a council for the study, support, and dissemination of information on
year-round education (Glines & Bingle, 1993). The term 'education'
rather than 'school' was chosen because the group viewed year-round
education as a philosophy, whereas year-round school is simply a
"mechanical scheduling system designed to house more students" (Glines,
1987, p.14) with little regard for the educational needs of the individual.
The original NCYRE quickly developed into an annual meeting held
in different parts of the country and attended by those interested in school
calendar reform.









The 2nd National Conference, in 1970, was held in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. Many of the innovations, including the brand-new Valley
View 45-15 plan, were eagerly discussed. A statement on year-round
education (see Appendix A) was drafted and unanimously adopted by those
in attendance (McLain, 1973).
Brevard County (Florida) was the site of the 3rd National
Conference in 1971, hosted by the Brevard County School District (Wayne
White, Superintendent), Florida Technological University, and the Florida
Department of Education (Glines & Bingle, 1993). The focus of that
meeting was the different operational calendars that were currently being
utilized across the country.
The 4rd National Conference was held in San Diego, California, in
1972 and sponsored by the San Diego County Department of Education.
Many of the 982 registered participants were able to visit actual year-round
school sites and see the programs in operation. At this meeting the
National Council on Year-Round Education was officially formed with
Wayne White as its first president (Glines & Bingle, 1993). A quarterly
newsletter entitled the Year-Rounder was begun and published in
conjunction with the Virginia Polytechnic Institute in Blacksburg, Virginia
(Glines & Bingle, 1993).
The next three National Conferences (1973 in Virginia Beach,
Virginia; 1974 at the Valley View School District, Illinois; 1975 in Denver,
Colorado) suffered from sinking attendance numbers but the ideas and
innovations that were being created and discussed kept the interest level
high.









The 8th National Conference in 1976 was held on board a one-week
cruise on the Queen Mary out of Long Beach, California and set an
attendance record that was unmatched for thirteen years. Eleven-hundred
people spent the week studying, discussing, and 'getting excited' about
year-round education.
The 9th National Conference (1977) was the beginning of a serious
time of decline in the interest and support of year-round education. That
conference, the first to be solely sponsored by the NCYRE, was postponed
from its original date and poorly attended.
The next three National Conferences were all held in California
districts (1979 in San Diego; 1980 in San Francisco; 1981 in Anaheim) and
their budgets and attendance numbers all reflected the sluggish turn in the
development of year-round schools in the country. The San Diego County
School District offered office space in their School Board building for the
NCYRE and allowed Dr. Charles Ballinger, then the San Diego County
YRE coordinator, to assume the part-time job as Executive Secretary of the
NCYRE (Glines & Bingle, 1993).
Beginning in 1982, at the 13th National Conference in Los Angeles,
California, national interest, conference attendance, and innovations in
year-round education started again to rise. This trend continued through
1986 with the 17th National Conference held again in Anaheim.

NAYRE: 1987 to the Present
In 1987 a new organization was formed that incorporated all of the
history and structure of the old NCYRE and emerged with a shift in focus
as a new National Association for Year-Round Education. "The major
change was one of position, to that of an association for YRE, rather than a









council studying the concept" (Glines & Bingle, 1993, p.2). Dr. Charles
Ballinger was retained as the Executive Secretary of the new organization.
Their statement of purpose was as follows:

1. To encourage objective study and research of continuous
education programs and the effects of these programs on all aspects
of the education endeavor.
2. To foster the concept of year-round education as a possible way to
improve educational programs in terms of:
a. providing quality education
b. adapting the school calendar to the community and living
patterns, and
3. To provide an organized channel for disseminating information
about year-round education (NAYRE, 1994b, p.3).
Since the 1987 meeting in Anaheim, enrollment has continued
to rise, and, reflecting the preponderance of California schools involved in
year-round calendars, it was decided to keep the national conferences in
California until such a time as a more national interest would warrant a
more national location.
The Queen Mary attendance record was finally broken at the 21st
National Conference in San Diego in 1990, overflowing the hotel and
meeting rooms (Glines & Bingle, 1993) with more than 1700 participants.
This record-breaking trend continued in 1991, with 2100 attending and
1992 with 2600 registered.
The 24th National Conference in 1993 represented a major
breakthrough for year-round education, because the meeting was held in
Las Vegas, Nevada and year-round education was recognized as an
educational reform with national implications. The Silver Anniversary
25th Conference was held at the national headquarters in San Diego in
February 1994 (Glines & Bingle, 1993). The 26th Conference will be held









in February, 1995 in San Diego, California. The 27th Conference will
return to the east coast, meeting in Orlando, Florida, in 1996.
Although the flexibility inherent in year-round scheduling makes it
difficult to institute a national movement, the primary momentum, since
the mid-1970s, has come via the National Council on Year-Round
Education and the later National Association for Year-Round Education.
These organizations have been a clearinghouse for information, and have
provided a clear voice for the future and potential of year-round education
through their publications and national conferences.
Membership in the National Association for Year-Round Education
is available on the individual, institutional, and commercial level (see
Appendix B), and it includes a copy of their annually updated reference
directory of year-round education programs in the United States. Other
publications that are available include resources for parents, information
on the history of the YRE movement, and a review of research on student
achievement and financial costs. A directory of individual schools on year-
round calendars is also available.

Current (1993-94) Status of Year-Round Education
At the time of this study, interest in and support of year-round
education has never been greater. The National Association for Year-
Round Education has been instrumental in developing much of that
support. Many districts and schools are turning to modified school
calendars as a means of best meeting the needs of their communities and
students. This section, a look at the current status of year-round education,
focuses on three topics: calendar designs that are widely used, the 1993-94
statistics for the nation, and the 1993-94 statistics for the state of Florida.









Popular Calendar Designs
45-15: Single-track. Since its development by the Valley View
School District in Romeoville, Illinois in 1970, the 45-15 plan has been the
most popular and widely used design in year-round calendars (Shepard &
Baker, 1977). The premise of the design is that each student attends school
for 45 days and then has 15 days off. The fifteen days are referred to as an
intersessionn' and can include such services by the school as remediation,
enrichment, or day-care classes. Figure 1 demonstrates the traditional
school calendar with a long summer break. Figure 2 is a single-track 45-
15 calendar in which the summer holiday is divided into 15-day
intersessions. The single-track aspect of this design is important. Schools
that use a single-track calendar do not gain any benefit from increased
population capacity. The main reason that this design is used is as an
educational benefit, with no savings in costs (Quinlan & George, 1987).
The advantages of the 45-15 plan over the traditional calendar
include the following:

1. Provides consistent pacing of instruction.
2. Breaks up long three-month summer vacation, thus reducing
learning loss.
3. Costs approximately the same as the September-June calendar.
4. Provides vacation in each season of the year.
5. Allows flexible time for substituting if a teacher wants to work a
longer contract year (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum & Poimbeauf, 1987,
p. 18).
The main disadvantage of the design is that it requires more starting
and stopping times than many of the other designs.
45-15: Multi-track. Schools and districts suffering from
overcrowding often modify the single-track 45-15 by adding tracks of











CO

-1.1
-0A





School in session


Summer vacation


SWinter vacation (entire school)


Figure 1. Basic schedule format for a traditional school calendar (TSC).



o









School in session


Intersession break


SWinter vacation (entire school)


Figure 2. Basic format for block scheduling in a single-track year-round
design.









students and creating a multi-track design. By off-setting the intersession
times, school capacity can theoretically be increased by 33 percent in a
four-track calendar and 25 percent in a five-track calendar. This is a
theoretical increase because it requires that all tracks be equal and this is
rarely possible without mandating track assignments (something most
districts are hesitant to do). Figure 3 is a five-track design with a
staggered intersession or vacation period. The entire school is generally
closed for a winter break and often a short summer break as well.
The advantages of a multi-track 45-15 plan include all those
mentioned for single-track and, in addition, enable student population
increases of up to 50 percent (in a two-track design) without building
additional facilities. As a frequent reason for districts to consider year-
round education is overcrowding, the multi-track plans are quite common.
Multi-track problems. The disadvantages of a multi-track 45-15 plan
are quite complicated. On the elementary level, multi-track scheduling
often means that some teachers and classes are 'rovers,' meaning that they
change classrooms every three weeks (Utah State Office of Education
[Utah], 1989; King, 1994c). It also means that teachers have to pack up
their classrooms completely when they go off-track, which creates a need
for secure storage space (Quinlan & George, 1987).
Communications between teachers and administration also become
much more difficult on multi-track calendars because there is no time when
every teacher is on campus at the same time. Scheduling is more
complicated, especially for teachers and administrators who deal with the
entire student body rather than just one classroom of students.

















Track A
Track B
Track C
Track D
Track E


nirn


School in session


Intersession break

Winter holiday (entire school)


Figure 3. Basic format for a multi-track year-round calendar (5-tracks).









Multi-track calendars are a particular problem for elementary music
teachers, who can either work one track (leaving the rest of the school to
either have no music class or to have a substitute teacher when the music
teacher is away) or work all year (giving the teacher extra pay but no time
off). Elementary music ensembles such as chorus, recorders, and bells
suffer in that there are students entering and leaving every three weeks,
and the entire ensemble is never together.
On the secondary level, multi-track calendars create problems with
scheduling in general and with 'singleton' classes in particular. Singleton
classes are courses which, due to low enrollment, are generally only
offered once each year. If a secondary school is operating with five tracks,
it is not always possible to offer French IV, Advanced Band, or Theory I
in every track. If these classes are not offered on every track, then one of
two problematic possibilities occurs: either students are grouped into tracks
by their interest or ability level or one section is offered of each and
students come and go every three weeks.
60-20: Single- and multi-track. 60-20 is a variation of 45-15 in
which students attend school for three sixty-day periods with three twenty-
day intersessions. This schedule is preferable for many schools because
there are fewer starting and stopping times.
60-15: Single- and multi-track. The 60-15 calendar is by far the
most popular design in Florida year-round schools. It is similar to the
other designs in that students attend class for sixty days and then have a
fifteen-day holiday. An advantage of this calendar is that a common three-
to four-week summer vacation can be given to the whole school (Ballinger
et al., 1987; Nelson, Morell, & Howard, 1993).









Four-quarter. The four-quarter design is the oldest of the year-
round schedules. The school year is divided into four 60-day periods
where students choose or are assigned to attend three of the four quarters.
In situations where overcrowding is not a problem, students can attend all
four quarters for remediation, enrichment, or acceleration (Shepard &
Baker, 1977). Figure 4 is a basic four-quarter design.
Concept Six. Concept Six is a relatively new design in which the
school year is divided into six periods of approximately 43 days each.
Students then choose or are assigned to attend four of the six terms. This
design is popular for high schools because it creates two long vacation
periods when students can participate in outside employment. When
overcrowding is not a problem, Concept Six schools often have a few
overlapping days when the entire student body is on campus. In schools
where space is critical, the students attend approximately six fewer days
per year, but each day is a few minutes longer than in a traditional
calendar. Some of the advantages of the Concept Six schedule include
fewer beginning and ending times, two extended periods of classes and two
vacation periods in opposite seasons. This design requires the least amount
of curricular revision in that it follows the basic idea of the traditional
calendar. Palm Beach County (Florida) implemented a Concept Six
schedule in the town of Jupiter in the mid-1970s (Neal, 1978).
Quinmester plan. Dade County (Florida) developed and
implemented the Quinmester Plan in the early 1970s in which the school
year is divided into five forty-five day quinss' and students attend four of
the five. This plan entails a great deal of curricular revision (Todd, 1973),
because the length of each term lends itself to shorter, more intensive non-
















Track A

Track B

Track C

Track D


BuIln
IuIIrz
IULJVid


I I I


School in session


I Intersession break

SWinter vacation (entire
school)
Figure 4. Basic format for a four-quarter year-round calendar








sequential courses than the usual longer semester (Rothstein & Adams,
1971). Although this plan requires much work in creating new courses, it
allows for a richer curriculum, encourages experimentation, and reduces
long-term failure (Christian, 1970).
Orchard plan. Although most year-round multi-track plans have a
goal of increasing the campus population capacity, the only plan which
attempts to lower the number of students in each class is the Orchard Plan
(Gandara & Fish, 1991). This is similar to the five-track 60-15 except that
students in all five tracks are found in each class and 20 percent of the
students in each class rotate out every three weeks. Thus, a classroom with
35 students would only have 28 students at any given time (Glines, 1990a).
The problems that this creates for the teacher in that classroom are similar
to the problems faced by music teachers who have ensemble members
rotating in and out every three weeks. One big difference, however, is that
classroom achievement is based on the individual student, while ensemble
achievement is based on the group effort.

1993-94 Statistics for the United States
The 1993-94 statistics reveal a fifteenth straight year of increased
year-round activity (NAYRE, 1994d). "More than 1.4 million students in
366 districts in 32 states now take classes on a year-round basis, without the
traditional 10-week summer break" ("Year-Round School Enrollment,"
1994, p. B-7).
The 1993-94 school year saw a total of 1,949 public and private
year-round schools in this country. Of that total, 1634 (83.8%) are
elementary schools, 172 (8.8%) are junior high/middle schools, 89 (4.5%)
are high schools, and 54 (2.7%) are special/atypical schools (NAYRE,









1994a). In spite of the fact that most people view year-round education as
a means of dealing with overcrowding, it is interesting to note that only
1,143 (59%) of these schools have multi-track schedules. The other 806
(41%) are single-track schools that gain no benefit in student capacity or in
cost-savings.
The Twentieth Reference Directory (1994d) lists the 53 designs of
modified calendars that were being used during the 1993-94 school year.
The 45-15 format that revolutionized the public perception of year-round
education was being used in some form in 507 (26%) schools. The 60-15
design so popular in Florida was found in 193 (9.9%) schools. The most
widely used plan was the 60-20 design with 684 (35%) schools; 502
(73.4%) of these 60-20 schools were built on a four-track schedule. Only
two schools followed the Orchard Plan (60-15, 5-track), in which 20
percent of the students rotate out of each classroom every three weeks.
California is the state with the largest number of year-round schools
at 1,212 for the 1993-94 year. Texas is next with 222, Florida has 105,
and Utah and North Carolina finish the top five with 90 and 71,
respectively (NAYRE, 1994d). In terms of year-round student enrollment,
California is again in the lead with 1,029,553. Texas is next with 92,184,
Florida has 82,196, and Utah follows with 74,051. Number five in this list
is Nevada with 26,642 students.
The largest district in terms of year-round enrollment is Los Angeles
Unified School District (California) with 208 schools and 201,400 students.
Three of the top fifteen districts are located in Florida: Orange County is
fourth with 42 schools and 30,000 students, Duval County is eighth with 20









schools and 18,650 students, and Seminole County is thirteenth with 17
schools and 16,361 students.

1993-94 Statistics for Florida
Florida had 105 schools on year-round calendars during the 1993-94
year.1 These schools were located in twelve counties, generally in the
center of the state. (Florida school districts are organized by counties.)
The number of schools in each county were as follows: Brevard 2;
Broward 1; Charlotte 1; Clay 4; Duval 20; Lake 1; Orange 42; Osceola 5;
Polk 1; Sarasota 1; Seminole 17; and Volusia 10 (Florida Department of
Education [FDOE], 1994, with the Polk County information corrected.)
Figure 5 is a map of Florida divided into counties with the number of year-
round schools in each county indicated. Based on information obtained
from the NAYRE (1994c) there were 95 elementary schools, and 10
middle schools in Florida on year-round calendars. In 1993-94 there were
no high schools on modified calendars.
Overall, 97 (92.4%) of the Florida year-round schools follow a 60-
15 design (in either one, two, or five tracks). One school's calendar
(Sarasota County Schools) was simply described as 'modified.' The other
seven schools (6.7%) follow a 45-15 calendar (in either one, three, or five
tracks) (NAYRE, 1994c).
There were only ten middle schools in the state on year-round
calendars during 1993-94. Of these ten, 80 percent of them were single-


'Florida State Department of Education records indicate that there
were 106 schools, with the difference being found in Polk County.
Correspondence with the Polk County Director of Fine Arts indicate
that the 105 total was correct.










































Figure 5. Florida counties and the number of 1993-1994 year-round
schools in each district





34


track (one was 45-15; seven were 60-15). The two Duval County middle
schools operated on a 60-15 design with five tracks in each.
Year-round enrollment by counties was as follows: Brevard 1,302;
Broward 822; Charlotte 587; Clay 3,086; Duval 18,650; Lake 780; Orange
30,000; Osceola 3,986; Polk 786; Sarasota 900; Seminole 16,361; and
Volusia 4,936. The total year-round enrollment in Florida during 1993-94
was 82,196 (NAYRE, 1994d).

Relevant Studies on Year-Round Education
The overview on the relevant studies that have been done on year-
round education focuses on four main questions:
1. Does YRE save money?
2. Does it improve or increase student achievement?
3. Does it improve the quality of education for the student? and
4. What kind of response does YRE elicit from the families, the
communities, the administrators and the teachers involved?

Does YRE Save Money?
The question of whether or not year-round schools can save money
is one of primary interest to many school districts and communities.
Unfortunately, the answer is not clear. The costs involved in YRE are
centered in three areas: capital outlay, operational costs, and transitional
expenses (Zykowski, Mitchell, Hough, & Gavin, 1991).2




2The California legislature has additionally implemented a financial
incentive program to encourage schools and districts to implement year-
round calendars.









Capital outlay. The public perception of school buildings sitting
empty and unused for three months each summer is often an impetus for
year-round education. If, theoretically, the building were used to its
capacity, then fewer new school buildings would be needed and classrooms
would no longer be overcrowded. This is the reasoning behind the
development of the multi-track calendar: by staggering the vacation periods
of groups of students, more students can use the same school facilities over
the course of the year (Brekke, 1990).
There are many different designs of year-round calendars. In
addition to the specific needs of the community, the amount of increased
capacity that each design enables is often an important consideration in
selecting a calendar. Glines (1990b) reports that building capacity can be
increased by 25 to 50 percent, depending on the multi-track calendar used.
Table 1 demonstrates some typical calendars used in Florida schools and
the benefit they bring in terms of building use.
If more students can be housed in the same school facilities, then
theoretically fewer new buildings are needed and costs are lowered. The
actual cost savings only occur in situations where the tracks are equally
divided by population and in situations of overcrowding (Brekke, 1984;
Rasberry, 1992). Otherwise, year-round programs can sometimes appear
to cost more than traditional calendars, especially if attendance by track is
not mandated and the program is voluntary (Thomas, 1970).
Operating costs. Many school administrators are disappointed when
they discover that operating costs for the school do not appear to decrease
with the implementation of year-round calendars. Often these
administrators seem to have failed to realize that the actual per student cost










Table 1
Increases in Building Capacity by Calendar Design


Calendar
45-15 (3-track)
45-15 (5-track)
60-15 (2-track)
60-15 (5-track)
Concept Six
Quinmester
Four Quarter


Percent Increase
50
25
No increase3
25
50
25
25


has gone down, but that far more students are being housed within the same
facility.
Reports vary on per student savings. Jefferson County, Colorado,
found a per pupil per year cost savings of 74 cents in sick and personal
leave costs (White, 1987). Virginia Beach, Virginia, calculated an $8 per
student savings-and later abandoned the year-round program due to the
minimal savings (Sincoff & Reid, cited in Merino, 1983). McLain (1973),
preparing an economic analysis based on national average expenditures,


3Unless they operate on a double-shift schedule, two-track schools do not
increase school capacity, because there are many days when both tracks are
on campus at the same time. The main reason for having a two-track
calendar is in preparation for future overcrowding when more tracks
would be implemented.





37


estimated a possible per pupil savings of $3.83 to a possible per pupil
increase of $26.05. Gove, Assistant Superintendent of the Valley View
School District (Illinois), speaking at the House of Representatives before
the General Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education
and Labor, reported that his district expected to save from 2 to 4 percent
on the total educational cost per child (House Committee on Education and
Labor, 1972). Palm Beach County (Florida) estimated a savings of
$645,000 a year "even with slightly higher operating costs" (Gienger,
1994, p. 1B). Clay County (Florida) abandoned their year-round program
in 1994 and cited a savings of "$90,000 in eliminating the modified
calendar" (Fields, 1994, p. 1).
Some specific cost changes that are involved include more for
janitorial and clerical help (unless those positions were already 12-month
allocations) and less for textbooks and nonconsumables. Theoretically
teacher salaries would remain constant, although the availability of
certified teachers to serve as substitutes would create an increase in
substitute pay. In addition, "multi-track year-round schools are often
associated with lower socioeconomic level neighborhoods because these
neighborhoods also tend to be overcrowded. Such schools should have
greater than average representation of resource personnel" (Quinlan &
George, 1987, p. 55).
McLain (1973) reports that no additional administrative costs would
be involved as administrators generally work all year anyway. Many
Florida situations, however, have found that assigning one Assistant
Principal to each track is much more successful than having the entire
administrative staff attempt to manage all the tracks.





38


Obviously there is no easy way to predict cost increases or savings
because accurate records are not always kept on new programs in view of
the many 'hidden' costs involved. After Jefferson County (Colorado)
ended their year-round program, district leaders were dismayed to
discover unreported savings in operating costs that were not apparent until
the district built new schools and went back to the traditional calendar
(White, 1991). Another study (Hough, Zykowski & Dick, 1990) found that
the school district could always expect to save money by using a year-
round calendar, but that the state and taxpayer could either get savings or
extra costs.
Transitional expenses. Although changes in operating costs can be
difficult to trace, the expenses involved in changing from the traditional
calendar to a year-round calendar are easier to identify. Some areas have
found it difficult to operate in the summer without adding air conditioners
to the school plant (Perry, 1991). Many districts spend large sums of
money in polling parents and community leaders (Gienger, 1994) and later
in keeping them involved in the development process. Palm Beach County
"voted to hire an independent consultant to conduct a public survey on the
popularity of year-round education. The cost of such a poll has been
estimated to be as high as $25,000" (King, 1994a). Some calendar designs
involve massive curricular restructuring and have many expenses involved
in hiring teachers and other specialists to create the new courses that will
be used (Todd, 1973).
Synthesis on cost savings. Although it is not always easy to identify
the exact dollars being saved or spent, it is clear that in most situations
year-round calendars can save money-at least at the district level. Cost





39


savings alone are not a sufficient reason to implement a modified calendar,
although there is evidence that year-round schools do save more money
after the first year (Fardig, 1992). If schools are dramatically
overcrowded, year-round scheduling does save money by eliminating the
need for additional schools to be built. No studies have been conducted on
whether or not this increased usage causes the buildings to wear out faster,
and "most, if not all, studies have failed to consider ... the greatly increased
cost factors of inflation in construction costs and rising interest rates"
(Young & Berger, 1983, p. 54).

Does YRE Improve Student Achievement?
The National Association for Year-Round Education publication, A
Review of Recent Studies Relating to the Achievement of Students Enrolled
in Year-Round Education Programs (1993), outlines the results of thirteen
studies published since 1985 and noted that "there hasn't been a great deal
of research activity in this area" and attributes that to shrinking educational
budgets and the fact that "there may not be a felt need for the information
if school districts are satisfied that year-round programs generally are
accomplishing the purposes for which they were implemented" (p. 4).
The data on student achievement in year-round schools are actually
as inconclusive as the results on cost saving. Many teachers and
administrators believe that by breaking up the long summer holiday into
short vacation periods throughout the year, students should learn better,
learn more easily, and retain more. The results from standardized tests do
not fully support that belief.
Positive results. Some research studies have produced statistically
significant results that year-round calendars aid student achievement. The









San Diego Unified School District completed in 1990 (cited in NAYRE,
1993) an 8-year study of students in grades 3, 5, and 6 that demonstrated a
higher percentage of year-round schools maintained or improved the
percent of students who scored above the 50th percentile on the
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills than did their traditional calendar
counterparts. A study was conducted comparing the achievement results of
students in traditional and Orchard Plan schools in California (cited in
NAYRE, 1993) with a focus on both regular and disadvantaged students.
"In 16 of 34 comparisons, the year-round schools outperformed the
traditional schools; one comparison favored the traditional schools" (p.13).
Marr (1990) found a positive effect on second grade students from a low
socioeconomic situation in reading that was not seen in students from a
higher socioeconomic situation.
No difference or inconclusive. Not all the test results have indicated
a positive result of statistical significance. An internal evaluation for the
California State Department of Education comparing multi-track, single-
track, and traditional calendar schools found that the single-track schools
did better than the traditional, but the multi-track did worse (cited in
NAYRE, 1993). Fardig (1992) reported that student achievement was not
negatively affected in the Orange County (Florida) year-round schools. A
similar first year evaluation on the year-round schools of Provo City,
Utah, revealed no clear-cut gain in standardized test scores, but they did
not reveal any loss either (Van Mondfrans, Quinn, Moody & Aslott, 1985).
Negative results. Overall, year-round education has not been seen to
have a negative impact on student achievement in complete studies, but
there is some evidence of problems for certain subgroups. Two doctoral









research projects (Johnson, 1985; Kuner-Roth, 1986) have found evidence
indicating that females score higher than males in traditional calendar
schools, but that they scored significantly lower in year-round schools.
Research conducted by Quinlan, George, and Emmett has revealed
that students in multi-track schools perform below traditional calendar
schools in reading and mathematics (cited in NAYRE, 1993). Stimson
(1992) attributes part of this problem to the urban culture that most multi-
track schools are found in and the large number of 'combination' classes of
more than one grade level in a classroom that uneven scheduling often
creates.
Disadvantaged students. Speaking before the National Council on
Year-Round Education, Ballinger (1985) reported that year-round schools
are particularly effective for disadvantaged students. Many of the earliest
year-round and extended year schools had been established to benefit the
immigrant students needing to learn a new language and culture. The
situation in some areas of the country is similar today.
Doctoral research by Miranda (1993) found that year-round limited
English proficient (LEP) students had significantly better attendance, grade
point averages, and oral language acquisition than LEP students in
traditional schools. Bishop (cited in Alcorn, 1992) notes that the pace of
learning drops off considerably during the summer months and that this is
particularly hard on disadvantaged students who go home to an often
unstimulating home environment (Oxnard School District, 1992). By
breaking up the long summer vacation, the students lose less ground before
picking up their studies again.









Year-round calendars offer another benefit to schools with large
migrant populations. States with unusually warm climates often have
harvest seasons in months other than summer. Oxnard School District
(1992) found that "3-5% of the District's student population-primarily
children of migrant farm-workers-will leave Oxnard ... for a period of
four to six weeks" during the months of December and January (p. 31).
Year-round education not only met the immediate needs of these families,
but it also enabled many of these students to remain in school.
Gifted and talented students. The effects of year-round scheduling
on gifted and talented students showed that the scores for these high
achieving students remained constant throughout the year in year-round
situations, as opposed to the sharp rise at mid-term and dramatic drop in
scores at the end of the year for similar students in traditional schools
(Ritter, 1992). At the end of the year the difference in the scores between
the groups was not significant.
Dropouts and failures. One often unanticipated result of year-round
calendars is a lowering of the dropout and failure rate. Jefferson County
(Colorado), found that many students returned during their vacation terms
to take extra classes. "This virtually eliminated the dropout problem at the
high school" (White, 1988, p. 106) as the dropout rate was reduced from 5
percent to 2 percent of the official enrollment after they went to a year-
round schedule (White, 1987). The Newark, New Jersey, experiment in
1912 "found that these schools-in an industrial, low-income area-
graduated 22 percent more students than their nine-month counterparts"
(Engh, 1966, p. 142).









Retention. Research evidence to support the belief that students
retain more during shorter, more frequent vacation periods is not clear.
The 'gut reaction' of teachers, however, is that students come back ready to
learn and generally pick up right where they left off, with much less time
spent reviewing.
Synopsis on student achievement. An interesting correlation between
year-round education and student achievement is the fact that those who
benefit most from modified calendars are often those who need the most
help. YRE does not appear to be beneficial for girls, but there is no clear
evidence as to why that is true. In spite of the inconclusive evidence,
educational reasoning supports the principle of 'spaced practice' that is
demonstrated in many year-round calendars.

Does YRE Improve the Quality of Education?
In examining the components of a quality experience in education,
four factors, each influenced by the year-round calendar, were chosen:
attendance, morale, discipline, and the intersession experiences, as well as a
look at some unexpected benefits.
Attendance. As with most research on year-round schools, the
results are not always clear on the question of whether or not attendance by
students and teachers is improved by the year-round calendar design. Most
research indicates that attendance is better (Ballinger, 1987; Loyd, 1992).
White (1987) reported that attendance at the elementary and senior high
level improved the first year of the new calendar and that the difference
was due to the flexible possibilities of the scheduling. Brekke (1984) found
a 1.1 percent drop in excused absence rate and a 0.1 percent drop in the









unexcused absences when comparing traditional calendars and year-round
schools.
Teacher attendance is also improved because the frequent breaks ease
the perceived need for 'mental health days.' Observers have noticed "much
less teacher fatigue and burnout and that when people can see the 'light at
the end of the tunnel,' they tend to keep going to the end of the term"
(Quinlan & George, 1987, p. 84). The savings created solely by these
teachers being in school and not having to hire substitute teachers was
found to be a per pupil cost savings of 74 cents (White, 1987).
Not all the research supports this increase in attendance, however.
Starr-Hearn (1982) found that the implementation of a year-round schedule
did not significantly affect the absences of teachers or students. Both were
still more often absent on Mondays and Fridays. A Duval County multi-
track music teacher reported that attendance had not improved and that
parents took their students out for extended trips at will, with little regard
for the planned holiday weeks.
Morale. Although little research has been conducted on the question
of improved morale, many teachers report that the increased vacation
frequency and the reduction of overcrowding in the classrooms has
resulted in an improved sense of teacher and student morale (Webster &
Nyberg, 1992). Studies on the year-round programs in California cite
"high satisfaction with both the duration and frequency of vacations. Many
felt that the year-round calendar provided relief from stress and that year-
round teachers were not as subject to burnout as their counterparts in
traditional programs" (Quinlan & George, 1987, p. 88).









A Florida district music supervisor stated that if the teachers say they
come back to more enthusiastic and refreshed classes, that that 'says a lot.'
"Anything that improves teacher fatigue improves academics." Those who
were less enthusiastic with the new vacation schedule cited problems such
as the inability to take extended vacations, or attend summer school, and
found the frequent starting and stopping to be disruptive.
Another important factor in teacher morale provided for by year-
round education is the possibility of longer teaching contracts and
opportunities for substitute work during the intersessions and other off-
track times. For most teachers, this is viewed as an easy opportunity to
increase their salary without taking an out-of-field summer job. For
teachers (including many music teachers) who do not have a choice in the
matter, and who are required to teach the full year (with extra pay), the
lack of freedom and the lack of choice can make this problematic.
Discipline. The few sources that mention research on student
discipline report that discipline is improved in year-round schools (Loyd,
1991; Webster & Nyberg, 1992). This is probably due, at least to some
extent, to an improved sense of morale on the part of the teachers and
students. School vandalism and burglary is reduced (Brekke, 1984;
Oxnard School District, 1990) and juvenile crime is lessened (Richmond,
1977) partly by the absence of long periods with little to do, and partly by
splitting up the numbers of students that are out of school at any given
time.
Intersession opportunities. According to some educators, the
strength of the year-round school concept is the tremendous possibility of
the intersession opportunities. Schools operating with shorter periods









between school terms (generally three weeks) are often able to offer one-
to two-week intersessions for remediation and/or enrichment. As of this
writing no research has been found that focuses on these intersession
opportunities. The flexibility germane to year-round education means that
schools have the freedom to offer whatever best meets the needs of that
community. Because these short 'holidays' are actually the students'
vacations, many schools set up programs designed for fun and enrichment.
A Duval County elementary school offered a 'fun track' at the school that
included such activities as crafts, folk dancing, puppet shows, making
commercials, field trips, and other opportunities for students to be
refreshed during their vacation time while still meeting a child-care need
for the parents.
For students needing remediation, the intersessions are a good
opportunity for problems to be handled before they cost the student an
entire year's work. Students who are having trouble can be held back one
term without losing an entire year (Engh, 1966). Many times, however, by
addressing the need right then with some concentrated remedial work, as
opposed to waiting until summer school at the end of the traditional year,
the student can be put back on track and continue on with their class.
Unexpected benefits. Hermansen and Gove, both pioneers in the
development of the 45-15 Valley View Year-Round School Plan, suggest
some 'unexpected benefits' to year-round calendars:

1. Expect to reduce teacher turnover. Your better paid teachers, in
particular, will stick with you.
2. Expect learning retention to improve. That's the opinion of 70
percent of the teachers in the first three grades of the Valley View
schools, after five months of experience with the 45-15 plan.









3. Expect more flexibility in individualized instruction. Teachers
will be willing to hold up slow learners for 45 days, when they
might be unwilling to set children back a full year. Likewise,
teachers will be willing to accelerate rapid learners by 45 to 90 days,
when they might be unwilling to move children ahead by a full year.
The time gained can always be devoted to further enrichment of the
'gifted' students.
4. Don't expect to save money on teachers' salaries. Teachers will
expect that they get paid at the same daily rate for winter and
summer.
5. Don't expect spectacular savings in year-round operating costs.
Some costs will go up; some down. The big saving, of course, is the
cost of building and financing the new school buildings you will not
need. Also expect to make savings in the salaries of the extra
administrators, secretaries, nurses, and custodians to staff the
buildings you do not build.
6. Expect that teachers may at first mistrust your motives in
considering calendar revision. Level with them. Let them know that
they will be paid at their full daily rate during the summer months,
and that their retirement-pension benefits will be increased
proportionately to their extra earnings.
7. Iron out any differences you may have with your teachers'
organizations before you undertake a calendar revision program.
Don't let any old grievances muddy the waters.
8. Expect better utilization of libraries, books and equipment; but
expect greater wear on books. Most of them will be outdated before
they are worn out, anyhow.
9. Expect total transportation costs, including maintenance costs, to
increase. But busing costs per pupil may decline. Bus drivers will
generally be paid one third more money each year. Depreciation of
vehicles is a factor of age, not mileage.
10. Expect no serious difficulties with maintaining school buildings
under a year-round program. After all, hospitals stay open 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks out of the year. And they're
generally cleaner than schools. In addition to afternoons and
evenings for scheduled maintenance work, there are still three
significant periods of time when no children or teachers will be
present (Christmas, Easter, and the end of June) in which major
maintenance work can be performed.
11. Make your year-round school plan compulsory; but make minor
concessions in scheduling to fit the vacation plan of individual









families. Only 24 families out of 6,000 requested a change in group
calendar assignments at Valley View.
12. Be sure that all of the children in one family belong to the same
group and that they attend school on the same days. Do the same for
all of the children in a single neighborhood. It keeps schoolmates
together, and it makes it easier for parents to trade off baby sitting
chores.
13. Finally, let the school calendar revision plan stand on its own
feet. Even though you may foresee some curriculum changes, don't
tie the school calendar change up to teacher negotiations, a new
education program, tax referendums, or school board elections.
(pp. 145-146) [Reprinted with permission of the copyright holder]

Public Response to YRE
The response of the families, communities, administrators, and
teachers involved is an important consideration in regard to implementing
and succeeding with year-round education. The change to a year-round
calendar is a change that can impact every aspect of that community.
Those who are closest to the situation and those who are 'loudest' tend to
have their needs addressed in planning and providing for year-round
schools.
Administrators and YRE. Several doctoral research projects have
been conducted on the changes that year-round education brings to school
administrators, principals in particular. Lawson (1981) found that year-
round principals feel that they have more work required, and they view
their year-round roles as more managerial than as an instructional leader.
Although a majority of the principals in this study supported the idea of
year-round education, half said they would be willing to return to a
traditional calendar. Winger (1992) also found principals concerned about
the managerial role they had been moved into, but also found that the









principals were aware of the benefits year-round education had for students
and teachers and considered these benefits to be worth their extra efforts.
Mussatti (1981) polled principals and found that their greatest area
of concern about year-round education was administration and scheduling.
McBryde (1989) studied the comparative burnout factors between year-
round and traditional principals and found that year-round administrators
had significantly lower burnout scores than their counterparts in traditional
schools. Another study by French (1992) found similar results: year-round
calendars do not lead to higher principal burnout.
Other states have been less successful. Jefferson County (Colorado)
Schools abandoned their 14 years in year-round education, citing
administrator burnout as one of the key factors (White, 1992). The title of
a study by Goldman (1990), perhaps best describes principals working with
modified calendars. His study, entitled "Life's a Non-Stop Carousel for
Year-Round Principals," profiles administrators and points out the problem
of having no time for any long-term planning.
Classroom teachers. Studies on the attitudes and responses of
classroom teachers to year-round education are relatively uniform in their
results: teachers do not usually like the idea of changing to a year-round
calendar (Hoffman, Wallace & Reglin, 1991), but once they have made the
change they prefer the modified calendar to the traditional September-to-
June system (Smith, 1986).
From a professional perspective, teachers recognize that the students
learned more and were less fatigued and more enthusiastic about school
(Christie, 1989). The evaluation report on the Wake County Public School
System (Serow, 1992) found that 97 percent of teachers viewed YRE as a









better means of meeting the needs of children than traditional calendars.
After one year of year-round education, 100 percent of the teachers
involved in the Provo City School District (Utah) thought that YRE should
be continued (Van Mondfrans et al., 1985).
On the personal level, teachers who work on specific tracks like the
frequent breaks (Sturdy, 1993); extended contract teachers like the extra
pay. Sturdy also found that the specific track assignment made a difference
in the perceived benefit for the teacher.
Families: Parents and students. One of the surest ways to kill a year-
round program before it has even begun is to send out a survey and ask the
community if they want a year-round school (Hermansen & Gove, 1971).
In those school systems that proceed with the plan, however, the parents
and students involved tend to be very pleased and supportive of the year-
round calendar (Quinlan & George, 1987; Smith, 1986; Utah, 1989) on the
condition that family and neighborhood groups are tracked together (Hill,
1980). Most concerns on the part of parents include the fear of change,
inability to have a family vacation, sufficient child-care, and what to do
with off-track children (Hawkins, 1992).
Community response. Many unsuccessful year-round programs had
their demise guaranteed by a lack of response on the part of the community
surrounding the schools. Changing the school calendar has a fundamental
affect on the life of the community. Those communities who fail to adjust
to meet the new needs create undue hardship for the families involved.
Many districts require teachers to take college courses every few
years for continued certification. A 1966 study (Engh) cited that only 10
to 15 percent of teachers use the summer to go back to college but a year-









round calendar would probably complicate that possibility. Obviously
colleges and universities will need to make changes in their course
offerings and schedules to meet the needs of their perspective clientele.
The American Camping Association held a symposium on year-
round school lamenting the loss of the 'great American summer camp'
(Popkin, 1990). Trotter (1990) spoke at the same conference on "how not
to be a victim of change and find opportunity in the future" (p. 49).
Sending children off for three months of summer camp may no longer be
an option with year-round calendars but shorter camping opportunities
scattered throughout the year may make the experience assessable to even
more children than before.
One parent involved in the Palm Beach County (Florida) Concept Six
experiment (four-months on/two-months off) in the mid-1970s reported
that her children had the months of January and February off (after a
several-week Christmas holiday) and there was nothing that she could do
with them during those months. The school provided no child-care and
nothing extra was planned for the students. She felt that her children could
not even participate in school activities because they were 'off-track'
students.
Child-care for off-track students is a major concern for parents.
Even with schools that provide intersession child-care activities, teachers
report that children need to get away from the school buildings for at least
part of the year.
A study was done in Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the community
services affected by a change to year-round calendars (MacDonald &
Anderson, 1974) found that most of the community agencies had modified









their programs to meet the needs of the year-round students. Few
provisions, however, had been made for organized or supervised
playground activities for off-track students. Society is 'used' to students
being off and playing in the summer. Changing that perspective to see and
provide for students all year long may be a difficult but not insurmountable
task.
Helping YRE succeed with the public. Districts considering the
change to year-round education are well advised to consider the reports of
those who have tried and failed as well as those who have succeeded. Most
studies suggest involving all parties, including parents, in every step of the
process (Hermansen & Gove, 1971; Oxnard School District, 1990; Peltier,
1991).
Another suggestion is to keep the program flexible enough to truly
meet the needs of the students, teachers, and community. E. Trimis, a band
director in California, wrote "I believe the major contributing factors to
the success of the program have been strong administrative support,
successful working of the year-round schedule, and freedom to design the
program the way I want to" (personal communication, February 9, 1994).
After watching the successful 14-year year-round program
abandoned in Jefferson County, Colorado, White made the following
suggestions to help make YRE work: preserve neighborhood schools,
decide what YRE means to your district, assign administrators carefully,
beware of the appeal of new construction, develop the district calendar
around instruction, and evaluate carefully (1992).









How to kill a year-round program. Hermansen and Gove (1971)
offered a (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek list of suggestions entitled "how to
kill a year-round school plan,"

1. Send out a community questionnaire, asking the people, "Do you
want a year-round school?" They'll tell you, "No!"
2. Form a large study committee of lay people, and study the
problem to death. (This was the experience of Jefferson County
schools, in the suburbs of Louisville, Kentucky.)
3. Attempt calendar revision with a board that is strongly divided-
some for the year-round school; some against it; and some with no
commitment. Batter the problem to death in open school board
meetings.
4. Go to Atlanta, Georgia, and come back with the finding, "Year-
round school cost $2 million a year to operate, and our district can't
afford it!" (Atlanta schools and Fulton County schools, in Georgia,
offer an extended school year, with fifteen extra weeks of classes,
which are attended by about one third of the students. The Atlanta
plan has little chance of adoption in any areas where the public is not
committed to spending "more money" on schools, not less.) (p. 144-
145) [Reprinted with permission of the copyright holder]
Although intended to be humorous, this list probably accurately describes
the experiences of many unsuccessful year-round programs.


Sources on Music and Year-Round Education
Although there is much literature available on the topic of year-
round education in general, there is very little on music in year-round
education. This paucity of references can perhaps be attributed to the
following: music teachers are a tiny minority in the big picture of
education, the problems facing music teachers are not the same as those in
other subjects, and, due to the 'public performance' nature of their subject,
music teachers tend to do whatever it takes to make their programs









succeed. Therefore, they are generally too busy to write articles about
what is happening in their classrooms.
The few sources that are available can be grouped into three
categories: articles by and about music teachers, handouts and references
from music conferences, and sources that mention music in passing. This
section is an overview of these references. Further information from these
music sources is included in Chapter V in conjunction with the exploratory
investigations and interviews.

References by Music Teachers
Campbell: Jefferson County, CO. Three articles have been written
on the topic of music in year-round education by actual music educators.
Campbell, music coordinator for the Jefferson County School District
(Colorado), wrote an article in 1975 published in the Music Educators
Journal (MEJ) entitled "The Year-Round School: Implications for the
Music Program." The Jefferson County Concept Six calendar was
described as having affected the music programs both positively and
negatively. The non-performance music classes fit very well into the
"quarterized curriculum approach" (p. 54). The performance classes did
not fare as well. Specific problems faced by ensemble directors as well as
suggestions on how to help the programs succeed were presented.
Trimis: Los Angeles, CA. Trimis, a multi-track high school band
and choral director in California, wrote an article for MEJ in 1990 entitled
"Can Year-Round Scheduling Work for Your Program?" Trimis, a
member of the California Music Educators Association Task Force on
Year-Round Education, is an outspoken proponent for the possibilities of
music in year-round education. His article is a description of his program









with advice on 'rainbowing' students into classes and ensembles by ability
level rather than simply by track. In 1991 he was transferred to
Huntington Park High School and faced a music program "on the brink of
extinction" (Berg, 1993). His enthusiasm has resulted in growth from "30
to 470 singers and musicians" (Berg 1994) and the development of a
"music major" for students anticipating studying music in college.
Steuart: Zephyrhills, FL. Steuart, band director at Zephyrhills High
School, wrote an article for the Florida Music Director, in 1993, entitled
"The Band and the Year-Round School." This is a report on the Pasco
County, FL, 45-15 calendar and lists the advantages and disadvantages of
year-round scheduling for bands. The advantages that Steuart mentions
include: increased pay, the opportunity to play all year, and summer band
trips. The disadvantages include not having the entire band together,
performances, calling extra rehearsals, and teacher burn-out. He concludes
his article with a list of five recommendations for success in music in year-
round schools:

1. Develop dedicated students who are willing to give up a part of
their vacation time for the good of the organization.
2. Allow students access to the band room at any time during the
school day for those on vacation to come in and practice and
rehearse. There will be a few who will almost live in the band
room. They can be of real assistance in helping the younger players.
3. Hold at least one rehearsal in the evening before a scheduled
event, to allow students who work during vacation to participate.
Maintain a positive reward system to give those students who come
during vacation extra incentive. This reward could take a variety of
forms such as a bonus grade when they return to class.
4. Assess your enrollment according to tracks and try to schedule
your concerts when the largest number of students are available.
This suggestion also applies to fund-raising and other events that you
may schedule.









5. Be understanding of students who are caught in a bind when their
parents insist they go out of town while on vacation. It doesn't
improve matters to penalize the students for a situation they cannot
avoid, even if it goes against the principle of "everybody-must-be-
present-or-else." As long as the students are treated fairly about
their vacation times, they are willing to try to meet the needs of the
band. (p. 39)
CMEA Task Force. The California Music Educators Task Force on
Year-Round Education is made up of music teachers and supervisors who
are actively involved in helping music education in California's year-round
schools. In 1991 they published a resource packet that included a section
on definitions and sample schedules, interviews with five successful year-
round music teachers, reprints of two articles, as well as an in-depth report
on the music programs in two California school districts.

References from Music Conferences
Often in response to the practical needs of local music teachers,
many districts and state associations have begun sponsoring 'support
sessions' or seminars for year-round music teachers at conferences.
Handouts from several of these sessions were obtained and used as
references in this study.
NAYRE: 1990. In 1990 a group of teachers from Duval County,
FL, attended the national conference of the NAYRE in San Diego, CA. S.
G. Teachey, a Duval elementary music teacher, prepared a report from the
conference sessions and included reprints of two articles on Florida year-
round education.
FMEA: 1991. The 1991 meeting of the Florida Music Educators
Association in Tampa, FL, included several sessions on music in year-
round education presented by D. Locker, Program Consultant for Year-









Round Education, and A. L. Willett, Department of Education, Program
Development and Analysis. Handouts from these presentations included
reports on successful music programs in other states, sample schedules, and
suggestions for teachers in special areas (music, art, P.E., and gifted).
CMEA: 1994. The California Music Educators Association
Conference in Santa Clara, CA, in March, 1994 (D. Doyle, conference
coordinator), distributed a handout that included the pros and cons of
different year-round calendars for music, as well as the results of an
interview with two year-round music teachers. The interviews included
questions on scheduling, problems faced, facilities and equipment, stress,
and changes in teaching strategies.

Music as a Subtopic
Several articles and books have made passing references to music in
their discussion of year-round education. A report by the California
Department of Education (Quinlan & George, 1987) mentions that
instrumental students are often invited to come back while they are off-
track to attend rehearsals and performances. The same advice is given in
Thomas (1973). Webster and Nyberg (1992) say the same thing, although
they admit that this can be problematic at times because "off-track students
can be out of town during an important performance" (p. 24). Schmieder
and Townley (1992) advocate the possibility of students involved in team
activities while off-track so that they do not have the distractions of regular
school work. This article does not cite music specifically, but it does
mention other co-curricular activities such as athletics, Spanish club, and
the yearbook staff.









Haney (1990), superintendent of the Hesperia Unified School District
(CA), wrote an article on some of the extra-curricular concerns of teachers
and families facing year-round education entitled "What About My
Summer Vacation?" Ultimately his advice for music teachers was "to look
at music programs in non-traditional ways" and to do more concerts a year
to reflect the new calendar design (p. 56).
V. F. Neal, a Florida teacher, wrote a doctoral dissertation (1978) on
Jupiter (Palm Beach County, Florida) High School's Concept Six
experiment in which one of her focuses was student attendance in extra-
curricular activities. She found that there was a significant improvement in
the percentage of students participating in school clubs but that there were
some distinct problems with operating the music program on the Concept
Six calendar.












CHAPTER III
A BRIEF HISTORY OF YEAR-ROUND EDUCATION IN FLORIDA


Florida has had a special place in the history of the year-round
education movement. Although California has both the largest number of
students and schools on year-round calendars, Florida has consistently been
involved in the leadership of the movement, and later in the formal
organization of a Council and then an Association for year-round
education. The first president of the National Conference on Year-Round
Education (NCYRE), Wayne White, was a Florida educator. One of the
first NCYRE conferences was held in Brevard County, Florida. In 1996
the group plans to return to Orlando for their national conference.
One of the reasons for Florida's strong connection with year-round
education is the balmy Florida weather. Not only is the climate an
enticement to many new residents, thereby creating overcrowding
problems in many Florida school districts, but the lack of cold winter
weather means that parents tend to be less negative about 'winter holidays'
for their children.1



1The early experiments in year-round scheduling focused on a four-quarter
design where, theoretically, one-fourth of the students would always be
off-campus. In reality, the four-quarter design was not successful because
parents in the cold weather states where this was first being implemented
objected to their children being home on vacation during the entire winter.
Because of the parental objections, it was never possible to divide the
school population evenly over the four quarters. The cost savings were
never realized and the educational offerings were uneven.









Earliest Beginnings
The concept of a year around school program in Florida began in
1947, with a legislative act "that provided for the employment of one of
every eight teachers during the eleventh and twelfth months. These teacher
units were to be used almost entirely for enriching educational experiences
for young people" (Williamson, 1969, p. 12). These voluntary programs
offered such courses as swimming, crafts, music, camping, reading, typing,
science, and sports. In 1957 more than 45% of Florida's school children
participated in summer enrichment programs (Bailey & Maynard, 1958),
which was the first in the nation to be offered on a statewide basis.
At the same time (1957), the Florida Department of Education
(FDOE) conducted a feasibility study on the possibility of running Florida
schools on a four-quarter, twelve-month program ("Early Study," 1969;
Crenshaw, 1969). The study determined that no money would be saved
and that additional problems would be created with regard to school
upkeep, disruption of family lifestyles, and difficulty in scheduling. The
FDOE concluded that "year-round use as a means of avoiding the cost of
constructing new schools is a delusion. The plan just doesn't work well.
Significantly, every school system that has tried it has abandoned it" (p.
15). T. D. Bailey, Superintendent of Education for Florida, also reported
that year-round education was a poor choice because different grade levels
would have to be combined within classrooms, in addition to many
increased costs ("Florida Says 'No,'" 1957).









Innovative Governmental Leadership
Enhancing Curriculum
In spite of the lack of support for the four-quarter calendar,
educational leaders in Florida were still interested in improving the
curriculum and educational opportunities through calendar improvement
(Christian, 1970). "The legislature enacted permissive legislation to allow
districts to develop year-round educational programs. The intent of this
legislation was to encourage innovation" (Neal, 1978, p. 47).

Improving Overcrowding
The Florida legislature was also interested in alternative ways to deal
with the overcrowding that was anticipated in the public schools. The
major source of funding for new school construction in Florida is the
Public Education Capital Outlay, better known as PECO. A 1990 study by
the Florida Department of Education (cited in Nelson, Morrell, & Howard,
1993, p. 9) estimated that "Florida would need the equivalent of 9 new high
schools, 74 new middle schools, and 397 new elementary school by 1992-
93. Over the next 20 years, Florida will need more than 600 new schools
at today's cost of $9 billion." The PECO funds, at that time, were only
expected to be able to provide "8 percent of the need in K-12 by 1992-93"
(p.9).
During his 1990 gubernatorial campaign, Florida Governor Lawton
Chiles was an outspoken proponent for year-round education in Florida.
He was quoted in the St. Petersburg Times (cited in Nelson et al., 1993, p.
45) as saying, "We're not doing this to save money; we're doing it because
we can save up to 25 percent of classroom space and we can provide a
better education, which is the important thing."










Legislative Acts
Blueprint 2000. Blueprint 2000, the 1991 Florida legislative
response to the national educational plan, America 2000, was also
encouraging to year-round education. This plan called for individual
school accountability and offered "new stimulus to districts to bring
innovative practices to their school improvement plans" (cited in Nelson et
al., 1993, p. 45).
Increased Utilization Account. Two additional 1990 legislative acts
provided financial incentive programs for Florida schools to use year-
round calendars. The Increased Utilization Account (s. 235.435(5),
Florida Statutes), begun in 1992, rewarded schools that increased their
school usage without overcrowding or double sessions. "To receive funds
from the account, a school must increase its FTE student capacity by at
least 20 percent as a result of using a modified school calendar" (Nelson et
al., 1993, p. 46). In 1992-93, the first year of the program, "each school
district qualifying for funding under the account may be paid up to
$100.00 per FTE student per eligible school site for a maximum of five
years for each eligible school provided the funds are available" (Nelson et
al., 1993, p. 111).
Maximum Utilization Fund. The 1990 legislature also created the
Maximum Utilization Fund by earmarking $1.5 million for "renovations
for existing schools that need remodeling in order to make the transition to
a year-round program" (Nelson et al., 1993, p.46). Schools that received









money from this fund had to have the renovation work completed by the
first day of the year-round schedule.2

Early Calendar Innovations
Two innovative programs were developed during the early 1960s
that incorporated modified calendars to improve educational opportunities,
and, in one case, increase enrollment capacity. Each of these programs
used extended year calendars that increased the number of days that
students were in school.
Nova Schools. In 1962 the Nova Schools in Ft. Lauderdale
(Broward County) created a non-graded trimester calendar in which
students could work at their own rate (Neal, 1978). The school year was
extended to 200 days for elementary students, and 210 days for secondary
students (Smith, 1969) enabling them to take more classes at a slower pace
over the course of the year. The Nova program only ran for three years
and was unsuccessful in increasing building use, because the schools were
unable "to get reasonably balanced tracks through voluntary sign-ups"
(Neal, 1978, p. 24). The Nova administrators concluded that mandated
attendance tracks were the only way to make a significant increase in
building capacity.
Florida State University School. Also in 1962, the Florida State
University's Department of Education University School conducted a five-
year pilot study with a similar 225-day school year organized into



2The legislative funds cited here are very similar to the incentive monies
allocated by the California lawmakers to schools operating on year-round
calendars. Unfortunately the funding was stopped in 1994.









trimesters. The extended school year enabled students to take enrichment
classes and/or accelerate their course work and graduate earlier.

Looking Ahead and Preparing for the Future
Polk County Feasibility Study
In 1965, S. Boone, Superintendent on Public Instruction of Polk
County, contacted the Florida Educational Research and Development
Council (FERDC) to ask them to conduct a feasibility study of year-round
schools for Polk County (Lakeland). The study was completed and
published in 1966, and included a brief survey of the available literature, a
study of the attitudes of all those involved, particulars on the Polk County
school situation, and a summary and recommendation on each of the
feasible plans (White, Johns, Kimbrough, & Myers, 1966). The Council
concluded that

No plan of staggering the school term will save money, and such
plans are likely to lower the quality of education. Parental
opposition is inevitable.
The only feasible all-year school plans developed for reducing costs
involve all pupils attending for an extended school year, and
acceleration of pupils to reduce enrollment.
Any type of all-year operation of schools would require air-
conditioning of all schools.
Any type of all-year school or summer program must be provided
by taxation, not fees (FERDC Study, 1969, p.15).
In recommending a year-round calendar to the Polk County
administrators, the Council also concluded that, if the county did not wish
to make major changes in their curriculum or administration, the
recommended plan would be to add either a voluntary or compulsory (for
failed courses) summer school program. If, on the other hand, the county
was willing to make major changes to improve the quality of education,









with some additional costs, the recommended plan would be an extended
year of 210 days for all students (White et all., 1966). Ultimately, Polk
County chose to try none of the plans at that time.

Orange County Planning
Orange County realized that it too would be unprepared for the
rapid growth of the Orlando area and the barrage of students expected to
enter their school system within the next few years (Higginbotham, 1969).
Their long-range planning, done in 1969, identified the possibility of
double sessions, staggered year-round tracks, or summer terms for
acceleration with teachers and students strongly encouraged to participate.
No actions were taken at that time.

The Early 1970s
The Dade County Quinmester Plan
Calendar revision. In June, 1971, Dade County (Miami) began an
innovative and influential calendar plan, which became known as the "Dade
County Quinmester Plan." The school year was divided into five nine-week
terms, or quinss," and the student body was divided into five groups
(Todd, 1973). Each group attended four of the five quins with the option
of attended the fifth for remediation, enrichment, or acceleration. The
advantages of this calendar were that it would, theoretically, increase the
school capacity by 25%, and the calendar was not dramatically different
from the traditional school calendar (Neal, 1978).
Curricular revision. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the
Quinmester Plan was the need for a complete revision of the curricular
offerings (Christian 1970). To accomplish the curricular revision, Dade









County teachers spent a year preparing short-term, highly specialized
courses such as "Practical Statistics," "The Power of Words," "Living
Shakespeare," "Bull and Bear: The Stock Market," and "Eco-politics"
(Todd, 1973).
Teacher and state support. Two strengths of the program were the
fact that the teachers were highly involved in the entire process, and there
was state and local legislative funding to support the program. It is unclear
how long the program lasted, although the Dade School Board funded it
with $250,000 annually for three years (Christian, 1970).
Design problems. Among parents and teachers in Dade County,
there was a perception that the curriculum was too fragmented; there was
also a problem with 'track-jumping'-students attending courses when they
were supposed to be off-track-which resulted in further overcrowding
rather than relieving that problem. Ultimately it was determined that,
although "the voluntary nature of a year-round program is necessary for
public acceptance, ... if a year-round program remains only voluntary,
then it cannot meet its goal of cost-effectiveness" (Nelson et al., 1993, p.
50).

NCYRE Conference in Florida
In 1971, the third annual conference of the National Council on
Year-Round Education was held in Florida, hosted by the Brevard County
School District, Florida Technological University and the Florida
Department of Education (Glines & Bingle, 1993). Wayne White, a leader
in the NCYRE, and a powerful advocate for year-round education, was
superintendent of schools in Brevard County at that time.









45-15 Comes to Florida
In the fall of 1973, Pasco County (Zephyrhills) became the first
district in the south and the largest district in the nation to adopt the 45-15
calendar plan (Ellena, 1974). It was also the only time in Florida history
when an entire school district went year-round at one time. This drastic
move was made to avoid double and triple sessions in some of the most
overcrowded schools, reduce the number of new schools needed, and
encourage curricular reform (Malone, 1974).
Insufficient preparation. There were 24 schools in Pasco County
(five high schools, two middle schools, three junior highs, and 14
elementary schools) at that time. In spite of the successes of the Dade
County teacher involvement, Pasco County apparently made the mistake of
not involving all those teachers in the planning process and insufficient
time in preparation (Berger, 1975; Nelson et al., 1993). As a result, the
disgruntled teachers were powerful and hostile antagonists against the
reform. "A teacher survey released by Pasco County Schools
Superintendent ... shows that 88% of the responding teachers expressed
'significant dissatisfaction' with the 45-15 extended school year plan....
Over half the teachers (58%) favored scrapping the 45-15 program as
'educationally unsound'" (Berger, 1975, p. 421). They also ran into
problems with transportation, building upkeep, and scheduling.
Class designs. Classes were in one of three designs: (1) lock-in
classes in which the teachers stay with the students; (2) dual-track classes in
which the teachers teach two of the four tracks; and (3) multi-track classes
in which the teachers teach classes with all four tracks in them. "Multi-
track classes in the high schools are necessary because of the needed









flexibility for scheduling, the number of classes offered, and the number of
teachers allocated to a high school" (Malone, 1974). Although these multi-
track problems were all significant issues for the music teachers involved,
they were also problems for other sequential, skill-based subjects (such as
foreign languages, typing, and mathematics). W. C. Malone, principal of
Pasco Comprehensive Senior High School in Dade City, concluded

Teachers in these areas have substantial reasons to be concerned
about multi-group classes. A more refined method of
individualization, lower class loads, and hard- and software support
such as individual language labs, do offer promise in correcting the
situation. To remove the frustration, doubts, and difficulties of
teachers who teach multi-group classes will not be easy. We do owe
it to the profession to try before we say it cannot be done (1974, p.
540).
The Pasco County teachers also objected to the fact that, since the tracks
were unevenly distributed, the teaching loads were very inequitable
between teachers and from semester to semester (Berger, 1975).
Debilitating problems. The program in Pasco County was
terminated in 1977. Some unexpected problems were cited: scheduling
multi-track classes, budgets for supplies and other consumables were
exhausted before the end of the year, and counselors were spending all
their time scheduling. An additional problem encountered that is not
usually seen in research on year-round education: increased absenteeism.
In this situation absenteeism was due to parents taking their children out of
school for family vacations, off-track students encouraging their on-track
peers to 'skip school,' and the first and last weeks of each 45-day term
being viewed as a waste of time (Neal, 1978). Additionally, participation
in extra-curricular activities declined, and no difference in student
academic achievement was observed.









In 1976 a vote was put to the public on whether or not to continue
the year-round calendar. Fifty-one percent voted to return to the
traditional calendar (Nelson et al., 1993).

Jupiter's Concept Six
In 1975, Palm Beach County began a year-round program in Jupiter,
a geographically separated town in the north end of the county. Jupiter's
four schools (Nelson et al., 1993) were grossly overcrowded, and a bond
issue in 1974 had been defeated by the voters. A Joint Advisory
Committee made up of Jupiter parents, teachers and administrators was
charged with finding a solution. Their mandate was to develop a plan that
would house more students, would be an improvement educationally,
would be sound, and valid enough to last for a long period (Neal, 1978).
Calendar design. The Concept Six calendar was chosen to be used
for all the schools in Jupiter: one high school, one middle school and two
elementary schools.3 One of the considerations that led to the choice of
that calendar design was the music program. "Music activities are a
problem with any year-round model. But Concept Six presents the least
problems with that of any because students can come back an extra master
to participate" (Neal, 1978, p. 49).
The Committee chose Concept Six with the following provisions: all
the classrooms had to be air-conditioned, a curriculum had to be developed
that was equal or superior to that used before, all standards had to be met,


3A doctoral dissertation from Florida Atlantic University (Neal, 1978)
cites the start date of Jupiter's Concept 6 experiment as January 1976 and
lists only three schools involved: Jupiter Elementary, Jupiter Middle and
Jupiter High School.









new school construction was still a top priority, tracks were to be assigned
geographically, the program was to begin no earlier than January 1976,
and buses were to be provided for off-track students to participate in
school activities. The Committee additionally recommended the following
contract provisions for teachers: no teacher had to teach more than 196
days and no one could be required to work on an extended contract, pre-
and post-planning days were still provided, locked storage cabinets were
assigned for each teacher, off-track teachers could not be required to come
back to school, and teachers could be involved in the development,
implementation, and evaluation of the Concept Six program (Neal, 1978).
Program demise. In spite of the long-term objectives and intentions
of the original Committee, the Jupiter program was terminated in 1981
(Nelson et al., 1993). Many of the teachers and students (King, 1994c)
involved liked the year-round calendar, but the community as a whole did
not support it. As money became available to build a new high school and
to add an additional elementary school, the year-round program was
dropped.4

The Silent Years
The mid-1980s were a period of growth across the nation in both
interest and enrollment in year-round programs following a decade of
decline. In Florida, however, between the years of 1981 and 1987 there
were no year-round schools in the state. It is difficult to determine exactly
why Florida was so out of sync with the rest of the nation, except to



4Jupiter High School was the last year-round high school in the state of
Florida to date.









speculate that the negative experiences encountered in these few Florida
districts had a profound effect on the thinking of other district leaders.

Marion County Begins It All Again
In 1985 Marion County (Ocala) was faced with extreme
overcrowding and an inability to fund the building of more schools. The
Marion County school board liked the idea of using the existing facilities
more efficiently and began to try and sell the concept of a year-round
calendar to the community. Initially there was much antagonism toward
the plan and the school board members became known as the 'Notorious
Five' (Parrish, 1989).
The plan continued, however, and, in 1987, Wyomina Park
Elementary went on a five-track, 60-15 calendar (Nelson et al., 1993).
The program was successful and in 1991 two other elementary schools
went to a multi-track, 60-15 calendar.
Marion County was a leader in the rebirth of Florida year-round
education. Teachers and administrators from several other Florida
districts sent representatives to visit and observe the Marion County year-
round schools (Parrish, 1989).
Overall, the responses of the parents, teachers, and administrators to
the Marion County program were very positive: morale was higher,
parents felt that children had no difficulty in readjusting to school after
three-week vacations, the system of reporting grades was favorably
received, communication was good, and discipline referrals were down
(Nelson et al., 1993). On the negative side, there was some concern about
family vacation schedules, school unity when a certain percentage of









teachers were always off-track, and scheduling music, art, and physical
education classes.
The Marion County year-round program was ended in 1993. The
reasons behind this demise are unclear. Just as many districts of the state
were renewing their interest in modified school calendars, Marion County
ended its seemingly successful program.

Banner Growth in the 1990s
Orange County Goes Year-Round
In February 1989, the Orange County school board decided that
year-round calendars were the only way to deal with their overcrowding
problem. Anticipating a negative public response, school board Vice
Chairman B. Barnes was quoted in The Orlando Sentinel (Meehan, 1990, p.
A-1) as saying, "This is where we are going, folks. The best thing you can
do is help us be successful."
In July 1990, the first three elementary schools began their modified
calendars: two on a multi-track calendar, and the third on a single-track
calendar. A year later two more schools opened with modified calendars,
with an additional five in 1992 (Nelson et al., 1993). By the 1993-94
school year there were 42 Orange County year-round schools; all of the
elementary schools in the county are expected to be year-round by 1995.
Part of the strength of the Orange County experience was the
extensive preparation and planning that was conducted prior to the actual
implementation. Great care was given to involve the parents, teachers, and
administrators in the early planning, as well as other community agencies
that were involved with child care services (Nelson et al., 1993).









FAYRE
In 1990 the Florida Association for Year-Round Education
(FAYRE) (see Appendix B) was formed in affiliation with the National
Association for Year-Round Education. Dr. R. S. (Skip) Archibald, then
school superintendent of Marion County, was elected president of the new
organization (Nelson et al., 1993).

Brevard County Parents Vote
An interesting regulation in the Brevard County (Melbourne) school
district requires that individual schools ratify the decision of whether or
not to go to a year-round calendar. Seventy-five percent of each school's
staff and parents must agree, via a telephone vote, to implement a plan. In
1991, two schools elected to begin the calendar. A third school was
selected but was unable to garner the necessary votes and support (Nelson
et al., 1993).

Duval County Dual Tracks
Year-round education began in Duval County (Jacksonville) in July
1991 with three elementary schools. "All three used a 'dual-track'
approach, offering both the traditional and a modified calendar in the same
school, and allowed parents to choose" (Nelson et al., 1993, p. 51).
The traditional school calendar is referred to as 'red track' in Duval
County. Although more and more families have been switching over to
non-red tracks, and more schools go year-round each year, the district is
still strongly divided in its support. An article in The Florida Times-Union
(Hennessy, 1994) quoted Duval County school board members complaining









about the costs for 16 teachers and administrators to attend the national
conference of the NAYRE.

Lake County Pilot Program
In 1991 Lake County began a pilot program with one elementary
school, Tavares Elementary. Their preparation had begun two years
earlier with extensive studies, reviews, and visits to other counties and
programs. P. Campbell, curriculum specialist at Tavares Elementary
School, stated (cited in Nelson et al., 1993, p. 52),

Communication with parents and the community began immediately.
Parents accompanied us when we visited year-round schools in other
counties, and we had guests come in from those counties to talk to
parent and faculty groups. Then last year, we set up parent/faculty
committees to work on all the different issues involved in switching
to year-round--calendars, track selection, child care, etc.

We opened July 22, 1991, and have had absolutely no parental
conflicts. No one switched schools, and we have had nothing but
positive remarks. That's been a real surprise to us and to our
superintendent. We attribute that to the fact that we did our
homework, took things gradually, and involved parents right from
the beginning.

Osceola County Rapid Growth
Osceola County (Kissimmee), one of the most rapidly growing
counties in the state (Nelson et al., 1993), saw year-round schools as a
viable alternative to building more schools. The county

has been building one or two elementary schools every year and
increasing the capacity of each school by 28%, which also meant
redrawing the lines of school attendance zones. Parents were
concerned that their children were having to switch schools almost
every year, and administrators were concerned about keeping up
with the population growth (Nelson et al., 1993, p. 52).










Plans for the calendar change began in 1990; the first school,
Deerwood Elementary, began a single-track year-round schedule in July
1991. The following year three more elementary schools and one middle
school began single-track calendars.
Other than three Florida districts that only have one year-round
school each in them, Osceola County is one of only two districts in Florida
in which all the year-round schools operate on the same calendar.5 All five
of the year-round schools in Osceola County are single-track, 60-15
calendars.6 In order to eliminate some of negative public perception that
has plagued some of the surrounding districts' year-round attempts,
Osceola County uses the term 'modified calendar' as opposed to year-round
school. County administrators anticipate that the entire district will be
year-round, and probably multi-track, within the next few years, because
of the growth in the area (Nelson et al., 1993).

Seminole County Goes Year-Round
Seminole County, part of the greater Orlando population explosion,
began their first year-round elementary school in 1991. "At Lawton
Elementary in Oviedo, Seminole County's first year-round school, three
portable buildings have been removed and several classrooms are vacant,
even though enrollment jumped this year from 875 to 930" (Nelson et al.,
1993, p. 53).

5The other being Clay County.

6The 60-15, single-track model is the most popular design in Florida year-
round schools. Of the 105 year-round schools in the state (1993-94), 59 of
them are 60-15, single-track.









In their original planning, Seminole County officials planned for
both elementary and middle schools to go on year-round calendars. Their
first year-round middle school began in 1993. In 1993-94, Florida only
had ten year-round middle schools in the state. Of these ten, four of them
are located in Seminole County (NAYRE, 1994c).

Volusia County
Volusia County (Daytona Beach) began its year-round experience
with five elementary schools in 1991. S. Isbell, the Modified School
Coordinator for the county, attributed much of their success to the support
of the district leadership. "The district gave us a lot of leeway in school-
based administration. That's been a real plus in this whole transition"
(cited in Nelson et al., 1993, p. 53).

Charlotte, Polk, and Clay Counties Join In
In 1992 three additional Florida school districts joined the state
interest in year-round education: Charlotte, Polk, and Clay Counties. Both
the Charlotte (Punta Gorda) and the Polk (Lakeland) districts had only one
year-round school at the time of this study. The Charlotte County school
was a single-track, 60-15 design; the Polk County school was described as a
'modified' 45-15, three-track design (FDOE, 1994).
Clay County, home of Green Cove Springs, and much of the
southern overflow of Jacksonville growth, had four elementary schools on
year-round calendars beginning in 1992. All four schools operated, unlike
neighboring Duval County, on a single-track, 45-15 calendar. The teachers
there felt that the single-track design was particularly helpful for









disadvantaged students, especially in conjunction with a well-planned
remedial intersession program such as they had.
Clay County had planned a three-year experiment with the schools
on year-round calendars. One year into the program, however, a new
superintendent, Dr. Phyllis May, was elected who was not a supporter of
the year-round plan, and who chose to cut it from the 1994-95 budget.
This budget cut created a "savings of $90,000 in eliminating the modified
calendar" (Fields, 1994).7 The four Clay County programs lasted two
years and then returned to the traditional calendars.

Sarasota and Broward Counties
In 1993 Sarasota and Broward Counties joined the Florida year-
round school districts. Sarasota, on the west coast below Tampa, had one
year-round school on a calendar that was simply described as 'modified'
(NAYRE, 1994c).
Broward County also had one year-round school in the town of
Hallandale, south of Fort Lauderdale. This elementary school operated on
a 60-15, five-track calendar. A new superintendent was recently elected in
Broward County who was committed to building new schools.
Philosophically the district supported the idea of year-round calendars in
elementary schools, but viewed this as a five-year, temporary solution at
best.




7Although, historically, most districts who have tried the year-round
calendar design have ultimately returned to the traditional calendar, it is
rare that that is done to save money. On the contrary, most districts who
try year-round school do so with a specific interest in saving money.









Future of YRE in Florida
It is difficult to characterize the present and future trends in Florida
year-round education. On one hand, more districts are beginning year-
round schools; others are investigating or planning towards that goal. At
the same time, other districts are canceling their programs and returning to
traditional, nine-month calendars.

Return to Traditional Calendars
Two districts, each leaders in the year-round education movement in
Florida, have ended their programs in the last few years. Although it is
sometimes difficult to discover the real reasons behind a decision of that
nature, the loss of these counties has dealt a blow to the year-round
momentum that has been building in this state.

New Year-Round Programs
Several years ago year-round schools were proposed in the
northwest, panhandle section of Florida. At that time the parents were not
receptive. Today, in the face of overcrowding and rapid population
growth, the prospect has been viewed more favorably and will, in fact, be
implemented in Escambia County (Pensacola) for the 1994-95 school year
(Banks, 1994).

Investigating for the Future
Palm Beach County (West Palm Beach) is investigating the
possibility of implementing year-round schools to deal specifically with
massive overcrowding in some areas of the district. "School
Superintendent Monica Uhlhorn has made it clear that year-round









schooling would not be done to boost student achievement, but rather to
accommodate the stream of new students" (King, 1994a, p. 5B). With
5,000 new students expected each year, district leaders are looking to
drastic measures to ease the overcrowding. Most of the target area schools
are already 25 to 40 percent over capacity. One of the worst is Sandpiper
Shores Elementary which has 1,500 students but with a building capacity of
only 750 (King, 1994a).
In almost a classic script, the local newspapers and the school board
have attempted to present the year-round alternative as a 'best of the worst'
solution: better than double-sessions, better than another bond issue or
borrowing $100 million in certificates of participation (King, 1994b), and
better than overcrowding. In an effort to measure the community support
of such an idea (Gienger, 1994), the Palm Beach County school board
voted to "hire an independent consultant to conduct a public survey on the
popularity of year-round education. The cost of such a poll has been
estimated to be as high as $25,000" (King, 1994a).

Growing on Track
In spite of the uncertainty facing other districts, several Florida
school districts, all facing rapid population increases, have continued to
embrace the year-round concept and are 'on-track' with their original
designs.
Two counties, Orange and Seminole, expect to have all the
elementary and most, if not all, of the middle schools on year-round
calendars by the 1995-96 school year. Although the majority of Orange
County year-round schools are still single-track, the district is facing









financial problems and many of the music teacher positions have been cut
in the elementary schools.
Seminole County expects to move to multi-track calendars and will
require all music teachers to work on extended contracts by 1995-96.
Osceola County plans to decide at the end of 1994-95 if the entire county
will go year-round or if the entire county will return to the traditional
calendar.


Conclusion
The history of a long-term educational movement is difficult to
trace. Often much publicity is given to the beginning of a process while
almost none if given to its ending. This is typical behavior with all
innovative programs in education. Although many hours have been spent
looking through area newspapers, issues which seem to be 'local issues'
tend to not be publicized outside of the immediate locale, and it becomes
difficult to find beginning and ending dates and to find uncontradicted
information. Such has been the problem in tracing this history of the year-
round education movement in Florida.
It would be pointless to speculate on where Florida schools will be
20-, 50-, or 100-years from now. Obviously, overcrowding will be a
severe problem. Some areas are already inundated with immigration
problems; others are experiencing the influx of thousands of new students
every year from the north. Sufficient school buildings to house these
numbers cannot be built in this state. Drastic measures will be needed.
Those involved in year-round education at this time may sometime be
viewed and respected as prophets.












CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY


Introduction
The overall purpose of the study was to determine what effect, if
any, year-round education had on music teachers and music programs. As
has been evident from the literature review, this is a new area of study. Not
only is there little literature on music in year-round education, there also
has been no prior systematic research performed to date. To pursue the
information needed, a two-phase, qualitative design was developed around
preliminary focus interviews and a questionnaire sent to all the year-round
music teachers in the state of Florida.
This methodology is similar to the design developed by Glaser and
Strauss (1967) which they termed "grounded theory." A brief summary of
grounded theory is included, as well as a report on the exploratory study,
the criteria used for the selection of the sample, the instrumentation, and
the data analysis used.

Grounded Theory
"Grounded Theory is based on the systematic generating of theory
from data" (Glaser, 1978, p. 2). This approach was useful in this study
because of its support of the idea that problems are not inherent in people
and the idea that the data are defined by the participants themselves (Cline
& Freeman, 1988). Rather than begin with a preconceived ground,
grounded theory enables the researcher to discover the 'ground'-in this









case theories on the problems/challenges of year-round education on music
teachers and programs (Cline, Engel, & Johnson, 1989; Rudestam &
Newton, 1992).

Four-step process
Grounded theory is a four-step process that enables qualitative data
to be collected in a systematic and rigorous fashion (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). The four steps are: (1) focus group interviews; (2) identification of
the salient issues; (3) surveying the sample; and (4) generating theory based
solely on the data collected. It is important to enter the research setting
with as few predetermined ideas as possible: the researcher's "mandate is to
remain open to what is actually happening" (Glaser, 1978, p. 3).

Grounded theory as a research tool
Grounded theory is an improvement over the traditional view of
qualitative research consisting of detailed descriptions reflecting little
systematic or rigorous study. It is a basic change from the old view of the
data fitting the theory, to one in which the theory is designed to fit the data
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The research questions in this study necessitated
a qualitative study of this nature, because it was an initial study in a field.

The First Phase: The Exploratory Study
In the initial stages of this study, when it became evident that there
was little literature available on music in year-round education,
information was pursued through interviews with music teachers in year-
round schools.









Focus interviews. Initially a 'convenience sample' (Smith, 1988) of
14 year-round music teachers and supervisors were contacted. These
contacts were selected on the basis of their accessibility to the researcher.
Because it was not possible to conduct a group interview with these
teachers, they were interviewed independently, seven by telephone and
seven through on-site interviews in their school teaching situations.
The telephone interviews generally followed an open-format outline,
with the emphasis being to pursue any topics that the teacher felt important
in their year-round situation. The on-site interviews were more
ethnographic in nature, additionally providing the opportunity to observe
what was actually happening within a year-round music classroom. The
on-site aspect enabled the researcher to note different aspects of the
teaching and classroom climate that appeared to be effected by the year-
round schedule. The results of this exploratory phase of the research on
music and year-round education are included in Chapter V.
Identify salient issues. Based on the information gleaned from these
interviews and visits, several general topics were determined to be of
interest for the second phase of this study: teacher contracts (including paid
leave and substitute teachers), school calendars, teaching schedules, and
performing ensembles. At this point it was determined that the focus of
this research should center on the teachers themselves and whether or not
they were being affected by year-round scheduling. Any changes that
occurred in the classroom or student learning were viewed in terms of how
they were created or affected by the music teacher and the scheduling.
(For example, whether or not 'steady beat' was taught was not a concern









unless the year-round scheduling limited the experiences received so that
there was not time or opportunity to cover that aspect of music.)

The Second Phase: Surveying the Teachers
The second phase of the research project consisted of interviewing,
via a questionnaire, each year-round music teacher in Florida.

Developing The Questionnaire
Two versions of a questionnaire (see Appendices C and D), one for
elementary music teachers, the other for secondary music teachers, were
designed by the researcher to obtain information from the teachers being
studied. The salient issues identified by the exploratory study--contracts,
calendars, schedules, and performing ensembles-were explored in both
open- and closed-format questions. As much of the basic information as
possible was presented in a check-list format in which the teacher could
simply identify the answer appropriate for their situation. Topics that
required more thought and reflection were presented in an open-format
with space for the teacher to use for response.
A pilot study was conducted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of
the questionnaires before they were sent to the sample population. Five
year-round music teachers were selected to participate in the pilot study.
The teachers were selected on the basis of their availability, representation
of a cross-section of the teaching situations to be studied, and willingness to
participate. These teachers taught in three different school districts, both
elementary and middle school, both single- and multi-track calendars, and
both band and choral. The responses from the pilot study indicated some
problems with terminology, clarity of some of the questions, and the length









of the survey. These problems were corrected for the final forms that
were mailed to the teachers.

Sample for the Study
In 1993-94, the National Association for Year-Round Education
listed 105 schools in Florida using year-round calendars. To obtain further
information and the national directory, the researcher joined the NAYRE
as an individual member. The listing that was obtained included a list of
the Florida schools with their address and principal's name and phone
number.
Because of the small total population, the entire list of Florida year-
round schools was chosen for the survey (Rainbow & Froehlich, 1987).
This decision allowed the maximum amount of information to be gathered.
In addition, it was found that some of the schools in the list did not, in fact,
meet the criteria for this study: Florida public schools on year-round
calendars with functioning music programs and certified music teachers
during the 1993-94 school year.
Since the music teachers of only one state were being studied, it
would be difficult to infer any generalizations about music teachers in
other states. As a qualitative study, however, it represents base-line,
beginning research on music in year-round education. Future studies can
then be designed to test the theories and ideas generated.

Music Teacher Names
In order to improve the potential survey response rate, it was
decided to obtain a current list of the names of the music teachers in these
105 schools. Several state-wide agencies were contacted, including the









FDOE, the office of the state Arts Education Specialist (June Hinckley),
and the Florida Music Educators Association (FMEA). No current list was
available.
Through the FMEA a list of music supervisors was obtained and a
list of year-round coordinators was received from the NAYRE. Eight of
the twelve districts involved had music supervisors. These supervisors
and/or coordinators were contacted to request an accurate list of the
schools in their districts and the names of the music teachers at those
schools.
Prior to the original mailing, lists of music teacher names and
schools were received from seven of the 12 districts. It was determined
from this information that three schools of the 105 involved had no
certified music teacher. These schools were excluded from the study. Of
the remaining 102 schools, two had two music teachers each (Crown Point
Elementary and Mandarin Middle Schools, both in Duval County). At the
start of the second phase, 104 questionnaires were sent out: 93 to
elementary music teachers, 11 to middle school music teachers.
Unfortunately it was not possible to determine prior to the mailing which
teachers were off-track at that time, and which, if any, of the 102
remaining schools had no music teacher.

Procedures
Teacher Contact
Approximately one week before the mailing of the survey
instrument, a postcard (see Appendix E) was sent to each music teacher on
the list telling them about the project, the intended use of the information,
and inviting their subsequent participation and response.









The questionnaire packet, approved by the University of Florida
Institutional Review Board (see Appendix F), was mailed the following
week to the school addresses addressed to the music teachers by name, if
known. (The others were marked for the attention of the music teacher.)
The packet included a cover letter (Appendix G) explaining the purpose of
the study and instructions for completing the questionnaire, a copy of the
questionnaire (either the elementary or the secondary version), and a self-
addressed, stamped return envelope.
As one of the primary problems with survey research is the
percentage of responses, two incentives which have been found by Fuqua,
Hartman, and Brown (1982) to be significant in improving response rate
were used: preliminary contact and follow-up contacts. Reminder
postcards, and phone calls/messages were used to encourage teachers to
respond. All of the follow-up materials used are included in Appendix H.

Instrumentation
The survey instrument used in this study utilized both open- and
closed-format questions. Questions that could be answered by checking a
response were used to obtain demographic data about the teacher and the
school program. Although more difficult to codify and tabulate, the basic
information was gained through the open-format questions.
In an attempt to reduce the length of the questionnaire, those topics
and questions pertaining solely to either the elementary level or the
secondary level were grouped together into separate forms. Each teacher
received a copy of either the elementary or the secondary version,
depending on the level at which they taught. Both forms contained a




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EOLPXXZ4A_M4JQZ7 INGEST_TIME 2012-02-29T18:54:54Z PACKAGE AA00009026_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES