When I was in North Carolina, a friend told me about an interesting school program based in Raleigh. Her kids are in a year-round school. They go to school for nine weeks and then have three weeks off. There is no summer break.

She said it worked well for her family, because they could take vacations at multiple times during the year. Without that long break in the summer, kids didn't forget skills. Camps arose in the area to cover the multiple three week breaks, so the working parents weren't burdened.

She was a former teacher who had taught in that school system. She said that the teachers liked this system, because they didn't suffer from the March/April burnout. 

The long summer break and the multiple winter breaks arose to save fuel and to help schools that couldn't afford air conditioning. (My kids have never been in a school with air conditioning.) If this program were  scaled up, it would require a sizable investment in new heating and cooling systems for schools. However, the schools in NC believe that they are saving money, because the schools can manage a larger number of children. School is always in session in these schools. There are three tracks of teachers and students who rotate their 9/3 school year.

I thought that this was a marvelous system. I did a highly scientific survey of a few people in the swim club yesterday, and they liked the idea, too.

I would really like to see more studies of the educational impact on children. Do they learn more? Do they lose the first week every nine weeks, as teachers and students get oriented? Arne Duncan has been pushing this idea.