I grew up in the American public school system (and a decent one at that). One thing I could never understand was the purpose of summer break. I understand that to many kids, summer break was a sacred multi-month period but to me, the opportunity cost seems significant. In those summers, I learned geometry, physics, biology, multivariable calculus, and read tons of books while other kids had "traditional" vacations that did nothing to reinforce what they had learned the year before.
I know that rest and relaxation are also important to fostering a child's creativity and independence, but there is certainly a tradeoff, and I am wondering if we are nowhere near the correct balance.
Some of summer break can be explained by farming... but...
Summer is to learn all the other stuff like playing and working and socializing. Summer is the time to do what you want and figure out who you are. Summer is the opportunity to experience programs and activities that schools just cannot do.
The break is important and school isn't the only teacher. The idea of 12 month schools so students "won't forget what they learned" tells me the aren't really learning it anyway.
Studying should not be the most important part of childhood, and knowing how to enjoy time off is a life skill that a lot of "high achievers" are sorely missing.
Oh I completely agree. This is still something that I struggle with 20-25 years after elementary school. Again, I'm questioning the balance. There probably is something to be said for more frequent but shorter breaks too, which I am taking a liking towards.
I grew up in Russia and attended school there until 9th grade and when I went to American HS it buffled me that regular school day is so much longer but the quality of education in STEM is so much poorer. If I had to stay through out the summer studying then I probably would end up with ritalin for 'ADD'. I did not enjoy HS in US at all, it was like one big kindergarten for teenagers, so dreadful. It did not prepare me for college, but it's ok because my freshmen year was nearly identical in difficulty.
With STEM in the US unfortunately, you will find that the quality varies heavily depending on the socioeconomic status of the school district's inhabitants.
In my observation, you're correct. School teaches a narrow subset of what must be learned, and emphasizes a passive attitude toward learning. It's better to let kids learn on their own. Some of them will grow up to be socially powerful, or athletic, or even self-starters like hackers, and for them, this "free time" is more important than school.
If I could hazard a guess, I think the popularity of abolishing the summer break started around the time when the sunbelt started to see a huge migration influx. Energy costs skyrocket for large buildings (like public schools) during the summer months, plus outdoor sports are untenable because of the extreme heat, so it would be a huge obstacle for many organized sports.
Just a guess. I agree otherwise. Public schools could have a more rigorous curriculum while being much more relaxed if the semesters weren't condensed into 4-5 months.
Summer break is older than air conditioning. It was design to accomodate the farming lifestyle, where kids needed to work the farms when crops were cropping up.
The average student does not give a flying fuck about what they study. That 4 month break is the only thing that keeps them going. It sucks, but I see it as beneficiary to people who are interested in their subjects. It's a good balance.
I know that rest and relaxation are also important to fostering a child's creativity and independence, but there is certainly a tradeoff, and I am wondering if we are nowhere near the correct balance.