# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Storyworks-Should Every Kid Get A Trophy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Storyworks-Should America Get Rid of the Penny

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Storyworks-Is It Good To Be Bored Sometimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Storyworks-Are Screens Hurting Your Friendships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summer vacation can be a much-anticipated and much-needed respite from the demands of a rigorous school year, both for teachers and students. There is a growing trend in the United States, though, of students attending year-round school. What becomes of summer vacation then? What effects does this have on students?

Before diving into the pros and cons of year-round school, here are a few facts to help you understand more of what year-round schooling looks like.

Facts About Year-Round School:

10 percent of public school students attend year-round schools.

There are over 3,000 year-round schools in the United States in 46 states.

Schedules are typically:

45 Days On, 15 Days Off

60 Days On, 20 Days Off

90 Days On, 30 Days Off

Students still attend school a total of 180 days per year.

The predominant traditional school schedule with summers off was originally established to allow children to help their families with crops and farming, as well as accommodate for facility limitations in controlling the temperature of the school buildings in hot summer months. These really are no longer issues, though, as America is not as dependent on an agrarian calendar and most of our buildings are now climate controlled.

As with most issues relating to a child's best interest, there are proponents on both sides of the year-round school discussion. This is a potentially divisive issue in communities, and school boards must consider all sides and all ramifications before implementing year-round education in their districts.

Benefits of Year-Round School:

Perhaps the most publicly cited reason in favor of year-round schools is reducing the impacts of summer learning loss. Studies show that students experience dramatic learning loss in all academic areas over the course of summer break, some losing up to two months of math skills. Without that break, it is thought that this loss in learning can be eliminated and academic performance actually improved upon through remedial and enrichment classes.

For those communities where overcrowding in schools is an issue, year-round education running on a multi-track plan helps to maximize the number of students attending in the same building. By operating on varied schedules for students, they are able to facilitate more students without having to fund new schools being built.

Having more frequent extended breaks may help to reduce teacher and student burnout. Instead of a marathon approach with a long recovery after, year-round schooling is more like a race with frequent water breaks. For those students who get overwhelmed and stressed as the year progresses, they may benefit from having more frequent breaks to recover mentally and physically from the demands of school. In fact, the dropout rate for year-round school is two percent, compared with five percent for traditional school schedules.

Cautions of Year-Round School:

From a fiscal perspective, year-round school increases expenses for facility maintenance, student transportation, employee benefits such as paid vacations, and overall administrative costs. This could strain already over-extended budgets and take away from other beneficial programs and activities.

If year-round school is not implemented district-wide, multiple issues arise. If siblings are not on the same school schedule, then issues like day care and vacationing become problematic. After-school activities and sports have to be coordinated within the varied scheduling, oftentimes making those difficult to implement.

There is also the very real concern over summer jobs. Many high school students rely on summer jobs to fund their own activities, their family needs, or their college education. If these students do not have the summer break to work and save, then they will be forced to work part-time in the evenings during the year, risking academic and social consequences.

Is year-round school better for your kids? The question is best answered on an individual basis, and each family and student is unique in their learning requirements and needs. Studies continue to be conducted as to the universally best approach to education, and families and school administrators must evaluate all benefits and cautions of year-round school in order to implement the best possible approach for their students.

Do you think schools should continue year round? Please comment below with your thoughts on year-round education-we'd love to hear from you!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Year-Round School Better for Kids? - Learning Liftoff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summer vacation can be a much-anticipated and much-needed respite from the demands of a rigorous school year, both for teachers and students. There is a growing trend in the United States, though, of students attending year-round school. What becomes of summer vacation then? What effects does this have on students?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Think year-round school might be right for your child, but not sure if they'll miss summer vacation? Before you make the decision between year-round school vs. traditional school, here's a look at what this school system looks like and the pros and cons of year-round school.

What is year-round school?

Kids who attend a year-round school go to class the same number of days as students on a traditional school schedule. The only difference? A year-round school calendar is spread out more evenly over the year. Students get more frequent breaks, but their breaks are shorter and they don't get a traditional 10- to 12-week summer break.

Here are some of the pros and cons of year-round school.

Longer-lasting learning with shorter, more intense bursts of instruction.

More difficulty scheduling meaningful family time.

Shorter breaks in learning, which can cause a decline in academic skills and knowledge.

Possible child care challenges, if the care options in your area follow a traditional school track.

Less boredom during long summer breaks.

Fewer unique learning opportunities that come with traditional summer vacations.

The pros of year-round school

Eliminating any sort of long break from school can improve a child's academic achievement. Long summers are known to cause "summer slide," or the decline of academic skills and knowledge over the course of the extended vacation. Even if you hire a tutor to help your child in subjects like math, it may not be enough to prevent at least a little of this "summer slide" from occurring. This loss in learning varies across grade level, subject matter and family income, according to the National Summer Learning Association, but it affects all children in some way.

"If your child doesn't have a long break, it helps prevent summer learning loss," says Carol Lloyd, the executive editor at Great Schools. "Summer learning loss is a major issue for kids. All children - no matter their economic level - experience a slide in math over the summer months." The slide varies for other subjects.

Though it may seem fun, a summer break can often lead to boredom. Year-round school eliminates the need to fill 12 weeks of vacation with activities to keep your child interested and engaged.

"If the American summer is not structured, it's almost too long," Lloyd says. "A lot of kids don't have enough to do during the summer - they get bored."

The shorter, more intense bursts of instruction along with more breaks is another pro of year-round school, says Matthew Lynch, a writer, education activist and the former dean of the school of education, psychology, and interdisciplinary studies at Virginia Union University.

The cons of year-round school

The most obvious downside of year-round school is the effect it can have on families. Quality family time is important to the emotional and developmental well being of a child. Not having a summer break can make it difficult to schedule meaningful family time.

"The major drawback is the assumed detriment to family structure," Lynch says. "American families have become accustomed to the traditional long summer vacation. Parents may find it difficult to schedule vacations and family reunions."

Finding child care that works well with year-round school is often another challenge for parents - no matter whether you're considering hiring babysitters or nannies.

"Child care could also become a concern, particularly if multiple, shorter school vacations are scheduled throughout the year, at times when parents are working," Lynch says.

In addition, the absence of a true summer can be a negative for all concerned. Summers off have long been a light at the end of the tunnel for teachers after an intense school year.

"Every job comes with its share of headaches and, at one point or another, employees in all industries claim that they are burned out," Lynch says. He adds that this is of particular concern in education because tired teachers can have a direct effect on their students.

Finally, traditional summer vacations can provide unique learning opportunities you can't get in a classroom. Taking that time away from kids means they could miss out on art, culture and special adventures.

"During summer break, kids are getting all sorts of experiences they wouldn't get in school," Lloyd says. "Summer is a great supplement to what your child is getting in school. If they're in year-round school your child will miss out on those experiences."

Is year-round school right for your family?

Deciding whether or not you send your child to year-round school is a very personal decision. Here are a steps to take before making your final decision:

Weigh the pros and cons of year-round school.

Visit the school in question.

If your child is old enough, see what he thinks about this new school plan.

Consider any difficulties you may have securing child care.

Ultimately go with what's best for your family.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Think year-round school might be right for your child, but not sure if they'll miss summer vacation? Before you make the decision between year-round school vs. traditional school, here's a look at what this school system looks like and the pros and cons of year-round school. What is year-round school?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kids who attend the year-round schools become present in the class the same number of days as that of a schedule of a traditional school. The only difference lies in the fact that the calendar of a year-round school is more evenly spread all throughout the year. Students can get more frequent breaks but these breaks are shorter, and there is no provision for getting a traditional 10 to 12-week summer break.

Many school areas are looked at the issue of a growing population of student combined having a lack of school facilities and insufficient funds for new services. Accordingly, a few locales are embracing or investigating year-round training (YRE). Notwithstanding augmenting the utilisation of existing schools for more significant quantities of students, some training specialists assert that year-round school enhances learning for students.

With YRE, students go to class for a similar number of days every year (180 days, as indicated by the U.S. Bureau of Education), however, school breaks are orchestrated unexpectedly. A prominent YRE calendar utilises a plan of 60-20, with students going to class for 60 days and afterwards going on break for 20. Other mainstream designs incorporate 45-15 and 80-40. The primary component with YRE schedules is that the students go to class consistently and, rather than the three-month summer break, have a few little breaks scattered.
Problems with Year-Round Schooling
There are specific problems with the year-round schooling.

Frequent breaks can disrupt family life

Regular breaks are always a welcoming thing, but there are various disadvantages associated with it. But Year-Round school do not follow the same types of schedules throughout the year. The plan also varies depending on the school, but the common denominator is that the students attend the classes for three or four months that is having breaks for some weeks before the start of the cycle. While some consider breaking for relaxation as benefits, some people find it as discouraging. All the Year-Round schools do not follow the same schedule.

Frequent holidays come from frequent breaks. Guardians may need to require significant investment off from work now and then to stay with their youngsters amid breaks. Additionally, the individuals who don't have relatives or companions to watch over their kids need to discover childcare arrangements. Far more atrocious, a few children can sit unbothered at home so that guardians can keep on working.

For older students, breaks mean an opportunity to procure salary from a full-time summer work. Notwithstanding, with short breaks, that won't be conceivable as a few organisations want to go up against somebody who will most certainly leave after only a couple of days.

It does not help the students who have difficulty with attention

A few students find extended hours troublesome in the classroom. Regardless of whether the explanation behind their failure to focus is because of incapacity or they are quite recently not prepared for drawn-out concentrate stretches of time, the primary point is that they are likely not picking up anything much. The fundamental purpose of broadening time in the classroom is to take in more, however, for those with trouble cantering, that is quite recently counterproductive. Likewise, this may prompt behavioural issues in the classroom which is something that teachers need to maintain a strategic distance from. There are certain

Extracurricular Scheduling Challenges

Students make themselves involved in sports, a band as well as clubs to gain a more well-versed school experience. With a year-round calendar is harder to plan practices and events for a few exercises. If there is a break for 15 or 20 days in the middle of a season, for instance, the school must figure out a way to work out a schedule or make the students come from home to practice each day.

There are also difficulties regarding scheduling in year-round schools for the families of the students. The year-round schooling is a district-wide policy and but it is not the same in every case.
There are some other disadvantages of year-round schooling.

Multi-track year-round calendars help in dispensing with the possibility of a single class using a single classroom. More storage room required for students and teachers.

Multi-track year-round calendars put extra demands on school support staff and cafeteria, custodial and support administrations.

Special facilities need to be made for yearly school occasions like graduation and parent gatherings.

Teachers who customarily proceed with their particular instruction amid the late spring break need to discover elective types of training and preparing.

Working parents may think that it is harder to find childcare for shorter breaks amid the year than for the long summer break when summer camp and other full-time exercises are accessible.

Families with kids in various schools or locale might be looked with clashing school break plans.

Many grown-ups, both the two parents and non-parents, trust that children learn useful life lessons by going to summer camp or working amid long summer breaks.

Advantages of Year-Round Schooling A lessened summer learning loss effect
Summer is the time when students can at long last have a fabulous time. Contingent upon the standards of the family unit, they may openly watch appears on television or hang out with their friends even more. This is not something they can appreciate amid school days as they need to dedicate time and regard for not simply school work but rather to class extends also.

In any case, some have discovered that teachers lose a considerable measure of what they realise amid the school year when they go into summer get-away. This equitable implies that when school resumes, teachers will probably be looked with clear gazes as opposed to a genuine comprehension of a lesson. For example, an examination distributed in 1996 found that late spring learning misfortune is more articulated for math realities, spelling and other scholastic material that is concrete instead of reasonable.

The job of a teacher is to make the students understand anything, but it would be impossible if they lose the clutch of the concepts that they have learned the previous years. Furthermore, it is not exactly clear on whether the Year-Round schools will be able to provide the appropriate solutions in eliminating the problem.
Summer programs do not need for remediation
Some schools roll our remediation programs amid the late spring to get the students reacquainted with the ideas they learned, and which they ideally persist from summer back to the classroom. While some discover this honourable exertion, only one out of every odd place can stand to incorporate summer school into their nearby spending plans.

With Year-Round schools, the requirement for summer programs disposed of, and remediation is tended to inside the school year.
Frequent breaks allow students and teachers to recharge
There is always a chance of getting tired of the teachers as well as the students. They required enough time for recovery from the academics and teaching in schools, and the year-round schools can provide this. Breaks on a frequent basis allow both to keep their focus on the things other than the academics, though the duration of the vacation is very short. For many students, it is enough to get inspired and return to work after the holiday.
Institutional advantages
The school district gets benefitted by a year-round schedule also. With constrained budget plans, school authorities are worried about the wasteful aspects of the working structures amid the mid-year when a couple of educators, executives and student are at school. With a year-round calendar, the building is utilised all the more proficiently consistently, particularly amid the periods when teachers are in-class. Schools can likewise make money amid off-times by leasing space to group gatherings.
There are some other advantages.

For schools with shortages in a facility, a multi-track year-round calendar enhances school capacity.

Year-round schools bolster consistent learning. Teachers have since quite a while ago noticed that understudy maintenance endures amid the long summer break and many trusts that shortening school breaks will enhance achievements of students.

Year-round school can supplant summer school, which many areas have scratched off because of spending cuts. For teachers who go to summer school since they require remediation, year-round school enables remediation to be tended to consistently.

With a customary logbook, most teachers spend half a month toward the start of the school year checking on the earlier year's work. Shorter breaks permit this survey time to be diminished.

Teacher and understudy push is lessened by the regular breaks gave a year-round schedule.

Many families value the opportunity to take vacations consistently all through the year.

Children from distraught families who might be in danger amid long summer breaks with unscheduled time staring them in the face advantage from shorter breaks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids who attend the year-round schools become present in the class the same number of days as that of a schedule of a traditional school. The only difference lies in the fact that the calendar of a year-round school is more evenly spread all throughout the year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bottled water might seem like a silly product to consider using thanks to the reliability and safety of tap water around the world, but there are still many locations that need this product for basic life essentials. It is also very common to use a bottle of water as a way to stay hydrated while working, participating in athletics, going to the gym, and the other physical activities of life.

One of the reasons why it is such a common product is that it is highly affordable. For about 50% of the cost of a soda, juice product, or tea, you can purchase a zero-calorie option that can leave you feeling refreshed. Although glass bottles are sometimes available in some locations, small plastic containers tend to be the most popular option to use when bottling water.

The idea of drinking bottled water over a sugary beverage can make it seem like this product has multiple advantages and no concerns to evaluate. When we look at the bottling and disposal process that goes with this product, there can be some circumstances where the purchase of a bottle of water may not be the best choice.

List of the Advantages of Bottled Water

1. Bottled water provides a superior form of hydration.
When you are drinking a bottled water product, then you are consuming something that your body naturally wants when you feel thirsty. The reality of personal care in the United States and other developed countries is that 75% of the general population remains voluntarily dehydrated every day. If you have a portable water product that can go with you to any location, then it is easier to meet the needs of your body.

By drinking water, you won't be adding sugars, sodium, or other unhealthy ingredients to your body's systems that could lead to future health problems if the alternative items are not consumed in moderation.

2. Bottled water is a product of convenience.
Whether you choose to use your own bottle or container to bring water with you during the day or you purchase one from a store, you can take this beverage with you almost anywhere. You might be working out or practicing somewhere that doesn't offer a source of water when you become thirsty. Most offices will allow you to keep bottled water at your desk so that you can take care of your personal needs.

The convenience of this product is undeniable. You can purchase a reusable bottle to fill it up wherever you happen to be, or you can decide to buy some at most convenience stores or similar locations.

3. Bottled water can store for a long time.
If you have an unopened bottle of water, then you can usually store it indefinitely. The only requirement to meet when trying to use this advantage is that you keep it in the correct environment. Even if you decide to follow the shelf life requirements of the manufacturer for this product, you're still going to get 1-2 years of storage from the product.

Because bottled water is a food product, you should keep it in a similar environment to gain this advantage. You'll want to store it in a refrigerator instead of leaving it out in the open, like placing it in a shed or a garage. It must be kept away from chemicals, solvents, and fumes to maintain its profile. If you open a bottle of water that has algae, smells funny, or may look to be a different color, then either dispose of it or boil it before using it as an emergency supply.

4. Bottled water has a better flavor to it.
One of the primary reasons why many consumers purchase bottled water over using what they have at the tap is because of the flavor profile they receive. Some tap water can receive high levels of chlorination to ensure that it is safe to use, which can leave a funny taste and a smell when pouring yourself a glass to drink. Most commercial products do not have this concern.

Although you could purchase a filter at home to create your own bottled water from the tap (which is basically what some companies do to sell branded water), the convenience of picking up a bottle when you feel thirsty is what helps to drive the industry forward.

5. Bottled water is guaranteed to be of a specific quality.
When you purchased bottled water products, then you are buying an item that receives full monitoring during the manufacturing cycle. It is strictly regulated to ensure that it is completely free of contaminants that could make you sick. When households don't have access to tap water that is clean and safe to drink, purchasing bottled items can make sure that any adverse effects from contamination don't have a chance to settle in to become problematic.

The EPA in the United States sets standards and regulations for the presence or the amount of over 90 potential contaminants in the drinking water, including salmonella, E. coli, and cryptosporidium. You can check with your local utility to see what the latest testing results are for your community. If you are on well water, then you'll want to have independent testers check on the quality of your water.

6. Bottled water is a highly regulated product.
Most countries in the world regulate their bottled water supplies. In the United States, the EPA considers this product to be a food item, so it falls under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. There are specific guidelines in place that require producers to follow Good Manufacturing Practices during the creation of a sellable product, including licensing and monitoring requirements that ensure the quality of the water.

"Tap water can pick up pesticides which have been washed into streams and rivers," writes Toby Amidor for Food Network. "Chlorin e is added to tap water to help disinfect it, but it can react with fallen leaves to form a toxic byproduct. Even your own pipes can contaminate tap water with lead."

7. Bottled water offers several different options from which to choose.
If you rely on tap water to quench your thirst, then you have one basic choice for your drinking needs. When you choose to purchase a bottled water product, then there are several more options from which to select. Mineral water is a popular choice, as it comes from an underground source and contains a specific nutrient profile that might not be available with what comes from the faucet. Spring water is another option that producers can collect from the surface.

You can also purchase purified tap water in bottles as a way to take advantage of the convenience of this item without needing to do the extra work at home.

8. Bottled water does not use up a significant amount of freshwater resources.
The annual production of bottled water represents less than 0.02% of the total ground water withdrawals that occur in the United States each year. Even when a drought occurs in a region water supplies are part of the production chain, it is easy for producers to change their manufacturing processes to lessen their impact on the local supply chain. This product is one small part of the puzzle instead of being the primary driving force behind what we have, so it is essential not to mischaracterize the amount of waste that occurs in the system.

9. Bottled water waste does not make up a significant portion of our trash.
Although the statistics on bottled water waste and recycling can feel shocking, the reality is that the convenient-sized bottles that most people use each day account for less than 0.03% of all waste produced in the United States in the average year. Having better compliance with recycling programs can help to reduce this number even further. There might not be as much compliance in Asia with their developing economies, but there is a better understanding of the issues involved so that the impact we leave on the world is minimal.

List of the Disadvantages of Bottled Water

1. Bottled water will always cost more than tap water.
If you are using tap water to take care of your thirst, then you have one of the most inexpensive resources that is available on our planet today. You can meet your drinking needs for just pennies per day. When you move to bottled water as an alternative, then you'll be paying up to 100 times more for the convenience and availability of this product. Even if you filter your water at home, you'll pay about 10 times less than you would for the bottling, transportation, marketing, and retail costs of purchasing a grab-and-go item.

Even if you opt for the most inexpensive brands that are available in stores today, you'll still be paying a lot more for this product than with tap water. That's why many families are purchasing reusable bottles that they can take with them to meet their thirst needs.

2. Bottled water can still create health problems.
Although it is true that bottled water carries with it fewer health risks than the average tap water serving, you can still encounter problems with this product. Older bottles of water may have bisphenol A, or BPA, in them, and this chemical is known to seep into the water. There can be other contaminants present in the bottle materials as well. Depending on how you store the product, you can encounter issues with algae or mold growth that could be an issue too. You can even have the fumes from chemicals or cleaners seep into the fluid over time to create a higher risk of an adverse outcome.

3. Bottled water might still have contaminants in it.
Bottled water may be healthier than tap water in a direct comparison of averages, but that doesn't mean this product is 100% free of items that you don't want to put in your body. The primary requirement for this item is that it cannot contain an amount that exceeds the recommended guidelines that are put in place by the overseeing government entity or regulator. You'll have a local or federal maximum allowable concentration of components like arsenic or lead.

4. Bottled water creates a recycling problem for most communities.
When you pay for a bottle of water, then 90% of the expense goes to the plastic in the container instead of the fluid that you want to drink. Since 80% of these items never make it to a recycling facility, there is a lot of plastic waste that goes into landfills or exists as environmental litter around the world. Over 38 million plastic bottles that held water make it to landfills in the United States each year.

For the average American, 167 bottles of water are consumed annually that require some sort of disposal method. Since bottling and shipping it creates transportation costs to consider as well, this use of our resources is the least-efficient way to stay hydrated in the history of human cultures.

5. Bottled water can just be tap water in some circumstances.
The bottled water industry generates over $18 billion in revenues for the economy each year. What many people may not realize is that the Beverage Marketing Association admits that almost 50% of all of the products in this category in the United States is just purified tap water. The regulation standards for both products are very different. The only real difference between the two is that manufacturers use the bottled item as a product that is specific for human consumption.

That means you could purchase purifying agents for your tap or well water at home to receive a similar result. If you want information about what is in your water, then you can check your local government's website to see what type of filter would work best for your needs.

6. Bottled water doesn't contain fluoride.
Depending on your perspective, this could be an advantage or a disadvantage of consuming bottled water. Most municipalities add fluoride to their tap water as a way to encourage stronger teeth in children. In an Australian study on the comparison of drinking tap water vs. bottled water with children, those who primarily drank a bottled product had a higher risk of cavities, even with proper tooth care, compared to those who usually drank tap water instead.

There are some risks to consider with fluoride which are scientifically documented. Children under the age of six should not use a mouthwash with fluoride to avoid problems with fluorosis. Excessive exposure can lead to bone, thyroid, and neurological problems as well.

7. Bottled water creates a significant danger to animals and the environment.
The caps on the bottled water containers are often loose from the product on disposal. They make their way into the environment, including the ocean, where animals can accidentally ingest the product. Mammals, birds, and sea turtles tend to consume them the most, which creates injuries and a higher risk of a fatality because of the litter.

The amount of plastic litter in the ocean is enormous, with over 150 million metric tons currently circulating in our marine environments. An additional eight million metric tons gets added to that amount each year. That is why we must have recycling programs that take care of these bottles.

8. Bottled water leaves a significant carbon footprint.
It takes between 17-24 million barrels of oil each year to produce the plastics which are used to create bottled water products. That means you're contributing to the release of greenhouse gas emissions that could play a role in the overall warming trend of our planet. Even though the water may be healthy to consume, the processes used to create the item in the first place may actually use more freshwater than what you would have from the tap.

9. Bottled water labeling can lead to consumer confusion.
There are several different labels that you will find on bottled water products today. Drinking water is in a sealed container with no added ingredients except for fluoride, which is optional. Purified water can either come from a municipality or a spring, and then goes through an improvement process. Spring and mineral water come from natural resources, with the latter containing not less than 250 ppm of total dissolved solids. Sparkling bottled water contains extra carbon dioxide.

Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Bottled Water

Bottled water is an effective way to stay hydrated throughout the day. The overall availability of this product makes it easy to get something that should be healthy to drink whenever and wherever you happen to be. The only problem is that you're paying, hundreds, if not thousands, of extra dollars each year to take advantage of this convenience. When you purchase this item, most of your cost goes to the plastics manufacturing instead of the liquid you want to consume.

Testing from the NRDC found that over 30% of bottled water samples showed signs of contamination. That means it may not be safer than some tap water options that are available in the United States and around the world.

The best solution is to purchase a filtering product, or even a reverse osmosis system, that you can use at home with your current water supply. Then you can invest in resusable water bottles that will help you to stay hydrated at a fraction of the cost of the individual bottles you might be purchasing.

Author Biography
Keith Miller has over 25 years of experience as a CEO and serial entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur, he has founded several multi-million dollar companies. As a writer, Keith's work has been mentioned in CIO Magazine, Workable, BizTech, and The Charlotte Observer. If you have any questions about the content of this blog post, then please send our content editing team a message here.

---

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
18 Advantages and Disadvantages of Bottled Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bottled water might seem like a silly product to consider using thanks to the reliability and safety of tap water around the world, but there are still many locations that need this product for basic life essentials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For many years now, bottled water has been growing in popularity. People seem to favor the taste and convenience that this product can offer. It is water that is purified, is made safe to drink, is put into glass or plastic containers and is sealed. It has been a good choice of beverage for hydration and many other health purposes.

But while water is undeniably great for you, what about the other factors, such as the whole bottled part? Let us take a look at the pros and cons of bottled water to help you decide if it is best for you.

List of Pros of Bottled Water

1. It is a good hydration solution on the go.
Bottled water offers you the option to drink water anywhere. It is highly portable, durable (the bottle it is) and can be sealed. These reasons make it ideal for working out, traveling or doing virtually any activity where you may need to drink water.

2. It spells convenience.
Just connected to the first advantage, bottled water is very convenient to transport or carry, especially in places where drinkable water is not guaranteed, hard to find, found at a great distance or not available at all. This is certainly one of the top benefits of bottled water, where you can just purchase it anytime and anywhere conveniently. Convenience is definitely its main selling point.

3. It can easily be stored.
Due to the fact that it does not expire and can easily be stored, bottled water is ideal for emergency and disaster situations. It is really always a good idea to keep some of this product stored in a safe place at home just in case.

4. It has a great taste.
Most of us would agree that bottled water tastes exponentially better than tap water. This is because of the purification process that it goes through before it is made available for drinking, unlike tap water.

5. It guarantees cleanliness.
Production of bottled water is strictly regulated and monitored to make sure that it is clean and free of contaminants. This puts the product highly in demand because clean and safe tap water is not always available. After a natural disaster, water lines might be disrupted, leading to contamination of water supplied to households. In situations like this, bottled water can be life-savers because it is clean and safe to drink.

6. It is safer to drink than tap water.
Directly relevant to the previous advantage, bottled water is safe to drink due to the tests for all sorts of chemicals and bacteria it would undergo before being bottled. For tap water, it can easily become contaminated, leading to severe illnesses, especially in developing countries.

7. It is highly available.
Bottled water is readily available in supermarkets and grocery stores and comes in various sizes and content per bottle, giving consumers more choices depending on their needs.

List of Cons of Bottled Water

1. It is more expensive than tap water.
The costs of purifying, bottling, advertising, transporting and storing bottled water can trickle down to the cost of the water itself. This means the product is significantly more expensive than tap water.

Buying bottled water is even more expensive if you are doing it very often. However, the cost will still depend on its size and brand. Remember that its price usually covers packaging, advertising, shipping and administrative operations. Experts even revealed that it is more costly than milk.

2. It is not a money-saving option.
Though you are drinking bottled water with a water-filtering system, you can still save more money in the end by filling your own water bottles, if you like to drink bottled water every day.

3. It poses health risks due to the chemicals in plastic.
Mostly, bottled water products contain chemicals, such as bisphenol A (BPA), in the plastic container. These compounds can seep into the water, which means you are most probably consuming them. This risk is greatly increased if the content is stored in hot areas, like those where direct sunlight is present.

4. It offers no difference with tap water in many cases.
Truth is, many bottled water products are just filtered tap water. This has been a troubling fact for many of us, but it has been proven time and time again. Most bottled water is produced by the same factories that are making soft drinks, using the same water.

5. Bottled water can have similar (or even worse) quality than tap water.
Considering that you may not even be getting better quality water when you buy bottled water, it can be a plain common sense to fill your own instead. You just need clean water and a good water bottle.

6. It has no fluoride.
Governments supposedly add fluoride to tap water to help protect our teeth from decay and other dental problems. On the other hand, bottled water are produced without the substance.

7. It promotes more use of fossil fuels.
Production of bottled water increases the use of fossil fuels. With this in mind, you will be avoiding this by filling your own water bottles. Also, the manufacture of the plastic for the bottles actually utilizes more water than it takes to fill your own water bottles.

8. It poses many unfavorable environmental hazards.
The problem can start when empty water bottles are not properly disposed, which contributes greatly to the whole pollution problem. Huge percentage of bottles are ending up in trash cans and landfills, having harmful effects on the environment.

According to a report, Americans buy more than 30 billion liters of water per year, most of which are contained in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. This means nearly 900,000 tons of plastic, which also take 17 million barrels of oil to produce. What's worse, it is found that only 20% of these bottles make it to the recycling bin.

The bottled water trend might be doing more for good health, but it is affecting the environment negatively big time.

In conclusion, bottled water certainly has its place in today's society. It makes staying hydrated on the go more of a breeze. However, people should start lessening their dependency on it and again become accustomed to the taste and simplicity of tap water.

About the Author
Brandon Miller has a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a seasoned writer who has written over one hundred articles, which have been read by over 500,000 people. If you have any comments or concerns about this blog post, then please contact the Green Garage team here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 Principal Pros and Cons of Bottled Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many years now, bottled water has been growing in popularity. People seem to favor the taste and convenience that this product can offer. It is water that is purified, is made safe to drink, is put into glass or plastic containers and is sealed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our bodies are composed primarily of water, between 55 to 78 percent. This is why water is vital to us. Human beings can live on water alone. In fact, we can last for several weeks just by drinking water. Without it, we can only last for a few days due to dehydration, causing our vital organs to malfunction and eventually fail.

Now, there are basically two sources of drinking water: tap and bottled water. What is the difference between the two?

Tap water comes from our taps or faucets at home. Although these are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, some water from taps are carried by lead pipes, which means that led can leach into the water you are drinking.

Bottled water is monitored by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It goes through sterilization and purification processes to rid tap water of any chemicals and substances that may be harmful to human beings. And because it’s also convenient to use and consume, many people prefer using it over tap water.

While there are proponents of the use and consumption of bottled water, there are those who oppose it, too. To better understand why, let us take a look at the pros and cons of bottled water.

List of Pros of Bottle Water

1. It is convenient to take with you.
Wherever you are, you’ll always find a store that sells bottled water. You can also carry it around with ease wherever you are, especially in places where there is no access to drinkable water or not guaranteed safe.

2. It helps prevent dehydration.
Because bottled water can be consumed wherever, whenever you get thirsty, you won’t get dehydrated. Bottled water can be resealed, ensuring that it will always be clean and safe to drink.

3. It is safer to drink.
Water placed in sealed bottles have been tested for all kinds of chemicals and bacteria. And because water in bottles are sealed, it has a lower risk for being contaminated with disease-causing germs.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) said bottled water goes through special treatments like distillation and ozonation to make water free from impurities. It also offers better and more consistent quality control.

4. It tastes better.
Aside from the fact that bottle water comes in several varieties, like fizzy, flavored and vitamin-enriched, it generally tastes better because of the purification process it goes through.

5. It is cleaner.
Because the production of bottled water is strictly regulated, you can be sure that water is clean and contaminant-free. This is especially useful in times of natural disasters. Since water lines can be damaged in the event of a calamity, it would be unsafe to drink tap water. Thankfully, there is water contained in clean and sealed bottles that everyone can consume.

Aside from that, lead levels are lower in bottled water. In fact, tap water is at 15 parts per billion (ppb) while bottled water is at 5ppb.

6. It is readily available.
You can find different brands of bottled water in grocery stores and supermarkets. What’s more, bottled water comes in different sizes and content per container, ensuring that all nutritional needs are met.

List of Cons of Bottled Water

1. It costs more.
There are countries where bottled water is sold at relatively high price. These include Singapore and the United States, to name a few. However, this can be justified by the processes and materials required to produce clean and contaminant-free bottled water.

2. It contains chemicals.
According to the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), plastic bottles used in containing water may contain high amounts of phthalates, which could leak into your drinking water. The NRDC also said that bottled water can also contain E.coli and arsenic, to name a few.

3. It can harm the environment.
This is because companies that process bottled waters use seventeen million barrels of oil to transport tons bottle water.

4. It removes can important benefit.
Due to the many processes bottled water has to go through, it has removed the benefits of fluoridation, which helps prevent tooth decay.

5. It increases the problem of waste management.
Although most plastic and glass bottles are recycle, a large number of these containers still end up in the trash, increasing the chances that they are going to be burned in landfills, which is one of the major causes of the decline of the ozone layer. In fact, the NRDC said that only 12 percent of the 40 million bottled water being produced every day is recycled.

6. Its source and processes are sometimes unknown.
The NRDC said that a lot of bottled water manufacturers do not list their water source, which could mean that it could be from one of the 170,000 municipal water suppliers. Aside from that, some companies also do not list how their water has been treated. This could mean that bottled water could undergo less testing than tap water.

7. Its sale is not well regulated.
According to a research company, the sale of bottled water is only regulated across state lines. This means that FDA regulations do not apply if a manufacturer sells their products in the same state as they are bottled. This could be abused by other manufacturers, which could put the people’s lives in danger.

Conclusion

Bottled water has definitely become quite useful when it comes to keeping people hydrated, especially in times when there is no access to clean, potable water. Bottled water has also made hydration easier and convenient since you can easily take a bottle or two with you, whether you’re going to the gym, on your way to the office or just around the house.

As for the impact of plastic and glass bottles in the environment, you can help minimize this by recycling the containers. You should also encourage other people to recycle. If you are concerned about the safety of bottled water, you can contact the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) as well as read the EPA’s Water Health Series: Bottled Water Basics.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Impressive Pros and Cons of Bottled Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our bodies are composed primarily of water, between 55 to 78 percent. This is why water is vital to us. Human beings can live on water alone. In fact, we can last for several weeks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans consumed 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018, in what has been a steadily increasing trend since 2010. In 2016, bottled water outsold soda for the first time and has continued to do so every year since, making it the number one packaged beverage in the United States. 2020 revenue for bottled water was $61.326 million by June 15, and the overall market is expected to grow to $505.19 billion by 2028.

Globally, about 20,000 plastic bottles were bought every second in 2017, the majority of which contained drinking water. More than half of those bottles were not turned in for recycling, and of those recycled, only 7% were turned into new bottles.

In 2013, Concord, MA, became the first US city to ban single-serve plastic water bottles, citing environmental and waste concerns. Since then, many cities, colleges, entertainment venues, and national parks have followed suit, including San Francisco, the University of Vermont, the Detroit Zoo, and the Grand Canyon National Park.

Should Bottled Water Be Banned?

Pro 1

Banning bottled water would reduce waste and protect the environment.

About 70% of plastic water bottles bought in the United States were not recycled in 2015, which means the majority end up in landfills or in the oceans, harming the ecosystem and poisoning animals.

Almost all plastic water bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the raw materials for which are derived from crude oil and natural gas. The Pacific Institute found that producing enough plastic for the bottles of water consumed by Americans in 2006 took about 17 million barrels of oil. Since 2006, American consumption of bottled water has increased 65% from 8.3 billion gallons in 2006 to 13.7 billion gallons in 2017, increasing the need for more plastic water bottles and thus more oil and gas.

Between 2012 and 2016, a ban on plastic water bottles in 23 US National Parks prevented (per year) up to 2 million plastic water bottles being purchased and up to 111,743 pounds of PET being produced.

A nationwide ban on bottled water would lead to an estimated 68 billion fewer plastic water bottles being manufactured, purchased, used, and discarded.
Read More

Pro 2

Banning bottled water is good for your health.

Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and requires weekly testing; tap water is more stringently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency through multiple daily tests.

A study published in Environmental Science & Technology found that the chemical antimony (Sb) can leach from plastic PET bottles into the water within. After six months storage at room temperature antimony (Sb) concentrations increased on average 90% in 48 brands of water from 11 countries. Exposure to antimony (Sb) can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, higher blood cholesterol, and low blood sugar.

Banning bottled water would reduce the number of plastic bottles manufactured via a process that emits harmful chemicals. Studies indicate that communities living close to PET factories suffer from increased levels of chronic illness and birth defects. In Corpus Christi, TX, where the US' largest PET factory is located, birth defects are 84% higher than the state average.
Read More

Pro 3

Banning bottled water would save money, and public water fountains are convenient and plentiful.

Mathematicians at Penn State University estimate that spending $20 on a reusable water bottle can save the average American up to $1,236 a year. For a family of four that amounts to nearly $5,000.

In San Francisco, where single-use plastic water bottles are banned, 31 water fountains have been added to public areas with 20 more planned. New York City, where Mayor Bill DeBlasio banned single-use water bottles via executive order in Feb. 2020, has 51 water fountains, with another 500 planned by 2025. With public fountains easily available, people can refill reusable water bottles.
Read More

Pro 4

Banning bottled water would protect local water supplies.

Almost 64% of the water being bottled comes from municipal supplies, which can drain water sources relied upon by local communities.

In Michigan, the state allowed Nestlé to pump and bottle clean water from the state's reserves while local residents in Flint fought for access to clean water.

In Pakistan, groundwater levels were depleted in a village neighboring a Nestlé bottled water production plant, resulting in the local water supply turning to sludge.

According to Matthew Davis, PhD, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire, "during droughts, bottling plants could dry up wells and wetlands or deplete the streamflows in the immediate area."
Read More

Con 1

Banning bottled water removes a healthy choice and leads to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks.

Increased consumption of zero-calorie bottled water in place of high-calorie juices and sodas has cut trillions of calories from American diets.

Michael C. Bellas, Chairman and CEO of the Beverage Marketing Corporation, says "Imagine a person cutting 161 hot dogs, 126 chocolate doughnuts or 87 cheeseburgers from their diet last year. That's the kind of difference we're talking about when we quantify the number of calories saved due to this widespread shift to bottled water."

In Aug. 2017, the National Park Service discontinued its policy that encouraged national parks to ban sales of plastic water bottles stating that, "The ban removed the healthiest beverage choice... while still allowing sales of bottled sweetened drinks."

The International Bottled Water Association noted, "research shows that if bottled water isn't available, 63 percent of people will choose soda or another sugared drink - not tap water."

In Spring 2013, the University of Vermont banned the sale of single use plastic water bottles on campus. The ban resulted in increased sales of higher calorie beverages in place of zero-calorie water; sales of low-calorie (10-50 calorie) beverages increased 12%, juices increased 11%, and sugar-sweetened beverages increased 10%.
Read More

Con 2

Other types of beverages have plastic containers that are more harmful than plastic water bottles, and bans don't necessarily reduce waste.

Plastic water bottles contain much less polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic than soft drink bottles that require a thicker plastic container due to the drinks' carbonation - 9.89 grams of PET v. 23.9 grams for a 16.9oz bottle.

A study by Quantis found that between 2007 and 2015, bottled water providers reduced the amount of material used in 8oz-2.5 gallon plastic water bottles by 42.8% - PET plastic is the most common material used in these bottles.

Another study by Quantis, commissioned by Nestlé Waters, found that the packaging and distribution of "sports drinks, enhanced waters and soda produce nearly 50% more carbon dioxide emissions per serving than bottled water."

Plastic water bottles make up 3.3% of all drink packaging in US landfills, which is less than both plastic carbonated soft drink containers (13.3%) and aluminum cans (7.9%).

A study on the University of Vermont's ban on selling single-use plastic water bottles found that total shipments of plastic bottles actually increased 20% as consumers increased their consumption of less healthy bottled beverages rather than switching to using reusable bottles and drinking from water fountains.
Read More

Con 3

Bottled water is a practical emergency water supply.

If tap water is not drinkable, then bottled water is a necessary replacement, making its availability essential to public health.

Ready.gov, the Department of Homeland Security's preparedness website on how to prepare for natural and man-made disasters, recommends everyone "buy commercially bottled water and store it in the sealed original container in cool, dark place."

In Apr. 2014, officials in Flint, MI, changed the city's water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River. Flint River water is highly corrosive - it eroded water pipes delivering tap water to residents' homes resulting in iron and lead leaching into the water, poisoning those who drank and bathed in it. Between Jan. 2016 and Apr. 2018, the state distributed free 16oz bottles of water to residents for use instead of tap water - it was estimated that a family of three used 151 of these water bottles a day.
Read More

Con 4

Banning bottled water restricts consumers' access to a product they want, and negatively affects small businesses.

A survey by Harris Poll for the International Bottled Water Association found that 93% of Americans think "bottled water should be available wherever drinks are sold," with 31% saying that they only, or mostly only, drink bottled water.

Research by Kantor Panel Worldwide found that "40% of all water servings come in the form of bottled water."

As one blogger said, "everyone tells me that I'm wasting away money and harming the environment, but if it weren't for bottled water I honestly wouldn't drink any water at all... My personal choice is just not tap. I don't like it."

Daniel Kenn, owner of Sudbury Coffee Works in Sudbury, MA, where a plastic water bottle ban was enacted, said, "people want water, it's probably the biggest money maker in that cooler... almost every other town still allows plastic water bottle sales, which will put Sudbury Coffee Works at a competitive disadvantage when the ban takes effect."
Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Should single-use plastics, such as water bottles, be banned? Why or why not?

2. Should other single-use beverage bottles (soda, sports drinks, etc) be banned? Why or why not?

3. What other ways might we prevent plastic from ending up in the ocean? Explain your answer(s).

Take Action
1. Consider the argument that single-use plastic is a " serious climate change hazard."

2. Explore which cities and states have single-use plastic bag bans.

3. Evaluate the argument that bottled water bans harm the environment and public health.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the "other side of the issue" now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources More Environmental Debates
Should the United States Continue Fracking? - Proponents say natural gas is a bridge fuel to 100% clean energy. Opponents say we need to immediately move away from all fossil fuels.

Should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Be Grown? - Proponents say GMO foods have been proven safe. Opponents say studies have not confirmed the safety of GMOs.

Can Alternative Energy Effectively Replace Fossil Fuels? - The pros and cons of the alternative and renewable energies debate include arguments for and against solar, wind, and nuclear powers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bottled Water Bans - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say bottled water bans protect the environment. Opponents say bans lead to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I often hear of arguments saying bottles of mineral water should be banned. The logic of banning bottled water is that it is a strong commitment to reducing single-use plastic which has high environmental costs. However, others argue it is a rather drastic measure which only tackles small part of the problem.

Reasons to ban bottled water

1. Plastic bottles require oil, water and environmental costs of transporting. This use of oil and plastic contributes to global warming, carbon emissions and is unecessary.

2. Creates unnecessary landfill. Many plastic bottles end up as litter in the sea or the countryside where the plastic doesn't degrade. This is both a visual eyesore but can cause problems and even death for wildlife.

3. The water footprint of a bottled water is greater than just the water involved. Bottled water requires water in the packaging, production and distribution stage.

4. Banning bottled water will encourage people to choose sustainable alternatives - refillable water.

5. Already airports are providing places to top up water bottles rather than expect people to buy new ones.

Reasons not to ban bottled water

1. Water has a lower water footprint than other drinks. According to IBWA water has the lowest water footprint of any drink

It takes:

1.39 litres to make one litre of bottled water

2.02 litres for one-liter soda.

4 litres of water for one-litre beer

4.74 litres for one-litre wine.

34.5 litres of water for every litre of alcoholic spirits

2. Encourages less healthy options. If bottled water is banned, but people want to drink they will be forced to choose less healthy options such as sugary and carbonated drinks. The problem of single-use plastic is not reduced, but we just see a rise in demand for other types of bottled drinks.

3. It takes away people's choice of whether to buy water. Why should we ban bottled water, but not soda and alcohol which is worse for you?

4. There are better ways to deal with the problem of single-use plastic. Rather than ban bottled water, it would be better to tackle the wider issue. This could involve an 'environmental tax' on all plastic, single-use drinks. This provides a financial incentive to cut back on buying plastic bottles. The revenue raised could be used to fund clean-up operations in the sea and rivers.

5. Tap water may be unsafe or more likely to contain contaminants. Even in the US, potentially millions of people are drinking unsafe tap water. ( Science Mag) One study found that during the Flint water crisis in 2015, nearly 21 million Americans-about 6%-were getting water from systems that violated health standards.
Personal view
For what it is worth I'd like to give my twopence worth on this topic. But, first, I have to admit my bias and prejudices. The thing is I don't drink alcohol, I don't drink soft drinks - I really hate Coke and things like that. I'm vegetarian. I cycle to work. I vote Green (if I ever get round to voting). I get up at 6 am in the morning to meditate. But, I do have one weakness - I really like drinking bottled water.

Sometimes, I like to sip the nicely carbonated San Pelegrino, other times I like to drink the pure still Evian. Sometimes I drink filtered tap water. But, water is the only thing I like to drink. I know it's a bad habit - But, I've tried to kick it without success.

And I'm sure people are right when they say Thames tap water is much better for your health than Evian. (I mean all those nitrates, and chlorine is good for you right ?) And the fact tap water gets recycled seven times means it must be very eco.

Tax Bottled Water

Now as an economist I'm very fond of Pigouvian taxes. I believe we should have higher taxes on petrol, Fatty foods e.t.c

If people think bottled water has negative externalities (pollution, unnecessary landfill) then I'd be happy for an appropriate tax to be placed on bottled water so bad people like me can pay the true social cost.

But, if we tax bottled water shouldn't we tax soft drinks? And is not water good for you? Maybe we should subsidise bottled water and tax soft drinks to encourage people to drink sugar-free liquid?
Related

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Bottled Water Be Banned? - Economics Help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I often hear of arguments saying bottles of mineral water should be banned. The logic of banning bottled water is that it is a strong commitment to reducing single-use plastic which has high environmental costs. However, others argue it is a rather drastic measure which only tackles small part of...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Would Banning Plastic Bottles Help or Hurt the Planet?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instead of taking a full Summer vacation, a year-round school provides learning opportunities throughout the entire year. The school continues to operate on a 180-day learning schedule, which is mandatory in the United States. It simply takes shorter breaks between each term.

In the standard year-round format, students attend school for 45 days. Then they receive 15 days off. That's the equivalent of attending school for 9 weeks, then taking three weeks off.

It is a change from the traditional idea of having a Summer break. There are questions about the value of having a continuous schedule instead of one with a longer break. Here are the pros and cons of year-round school to consider.

List of the Pros of Year-Round School

1. It can ease overcrowding issues in some school districts.
One of the unique aspects of the year-round schedule is that it can provide three different tracks for students to follow. That means there are only two tracks attending school at any given time during the year. The year-round schedule, when employed on a 9/3 track, makes it possible to reduce school population sizes by 33% automatically. That allows the buildings to be in constant use while keeping classroom sizes low, which increases student learning opportunities.

2. It keeps the learning process ongoing.
During the traditional Summer vacation, students can lose much of the information they learned from the previous grade. Year-round learning changes this dynamic. The students stay engaged with the learning process throughout the year, which reduces information loss. Even though the students at a year-round school attend the same days, they are at a slight advantage because the shorter breaks help them keep more of what they learned.

3. It eliminates the boredom of an extended break from school.
Although the prospect of a long Summer vacation seems inviting, for many students, the reality of Summer is that it becomes very boring. Even families who have their students engaged in multiple activities can struggle to keep their children fully engaged during a break that can last as long as 12 weeks. By creating shorter breaks throughout the year, the opportunities for boredom decrease, which means there are fewer chances to get into trouble.

4. It reduces the need for remediation classes.
Remediation is the process of re-learning what was already learned. Under the traditional school structure, the first 2-3 weeks of a new school year require remediation because of the extended Summer holiday. Under the format of a year-round schedule, the needs for student remediation can be addressed throughout the entire year, which makes the learning process more effective for students.

5. It reduces the need to have a Summer school.
Many schools are already struggling with their budgets. Under the traditional schedule, a Summer school is often necessary to reduce remediation rates in high-risk students. Summer programs are implemented to keep students engaged with core educational elements. These all come at a cost. By keeping the school open year-round instead, the benefits of ongoing education are received without the added costs.

6. It gives families more options for vacation scheduling.
Because there are extended breaks offered throughout the year, families in a year-round district have more opportunities to schedule a long vacation. They are no longer confined to the 12-week window of Summer or the 2 weeks offered at Christmas. Although this benefit may not apply to every family, it does offer options for some. Traveling during off-season days is also cheaper at most locations, which allows families to have the same amount of fun for less of a cost.

7. It is a proven format for schooling.
Many countries around the world already employ the year-round schedule successfully. The traditional American Summer vacation is actually a global outlier. The data from other districts around the world show that there are numerous learning benefits which come from staying in school with shorter breaks throughout the year.

List of the Cons of Year-Round School

1. It can make it difficult for students to get involved with their work.
When you're in school for only 9 weeks at a time, you're just getting geared up to begin the learning process when you're released from school for an extended break again. For students who struggle to focus already, the frequent process of gearing up and winding down throughout the year can make it more difficult for them to stay involved with their work. It ends up creating more disruptions instead of preventing them.

2. It changes the family schedule.
Instead of dealing with Summer supervision issues, working parents in a year-round school must deal with finding daycare for their children at periodic points throughout the year instead. It can be so difficult to juggle work and school with this type of schedule that two-parent households may have one parent stay at home to help manage it. Even if that is not necessary, the traditional summer vacation and other planned holidays require changes to fit with the calendar demands of the school.

3. It doesn't provide year-round activities.
Just because the school is going year-round doesn't mean the district is providing activities for the students throughout the year. Most high schools do not provide competitive sports throughout the year. Teens want to be able to find a job, especially during the Summer months, to save up some cash or buy things they want. That process goes away if the school is wanting compliance with a year-round schedule.

4. It reduces building maintenance opportunities.
Schools need to be maintained, just like every other building. When they are being used all year, every year, the opportunities to perform heavy maintenance activities, like resurfacing a floor, are reduced. That can increase the overall cost of maintenance for districts because they are forced to be proactive in how they maintain their facilities, which ultimately means taxpayers and home owners end up footing the extra expenses. Cost increases of 10% in this area are common.

5. It reduces opportunities for extra-curricular activities.
Some teens need to work to support themselves, even in the United States. A year-round school schedule makes this difficult to accomplish. There are rules about how many hours a teen can work during a school day. For kids who are 14 or 15, they can only work 3 hours per day, or 18 hours per week, when school is in-session. If school is not in session, then they can work for 8 hours, up to 40 hours in a week. Many students must be home by 7pm as well with local youth employment laws on school days, providing further limitations.

6. It may cause some families to be on different schedules.
When there are multiple tracks involved with a year-round school, some families may find their children on different schedules from each other. Under the 9/3 schedule, if a family had 3 kids, it is theoretically possible that one child would always be home during a break all year long. Schools do their best to prevent this from happening, but "doing their best" is not the same as a guarantee. That puts some families into a very difficult financial situation.

7. It prevents teachers from maintaining a secondary employment.
Teachers often take a short-term, part-time job during the Summer as a way to supplement their income under the traditional format. That ability goes away during the year-round schedule. Although teacher wages have been rising in the United States in recent years, the national average starting teacher salary is still just $38,000, which is below the median income level. In Montana, starting teachers only make $30,000. Going to a year-round schedule may make it difficult for some teachers to be able to make ends meet.

8. It may create classroom environmental issues.
In the United States, the schools that are being used in many districts are several decades old. The last survey of building age for public schools discovered that the average public school building is more than 40 years old. Many of these buildings are not equipped with air conditioning. Trying to hold classes in that environment, during the warm months of Summer, may be detrimental to the learning process.

9. It reduces the impact of traditional Summer programs.
Many private companies and not-for-profit organizations rely on the extended break in the traditional American schooling schedule to fund their activities. Youth camps, for example, would need to change their entire way of providing services to accommodate the differences in the year-round schedule. Organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts would need to restructure themselves in some ways as well. These impacts have financial costs which are not often calculated when looking at the advantages and disadvantages of year-round schooling.

The pros and cons of year-round school show that some families will thrive in that type of environment, while others do not. Students get the same amount of instructional time. Some will be focused. Others will not. That is why each key point must be individually evaluated to determine if this type of school schedule will be beneficial.

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instead of taking a full Summer vacation, a year-round school provides learning opportunities throughout the entire year. The school continues to operate on a 180-day learning schedule, which is mandatory in the United States. It simply takes shorter breaks between each term. In the standard year-round format, students attend school for 45 days.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Did you go to a school that required uniforms? Do your kids wear school uniforms now? If you answered "yes" to either question, you probably have strong feelings about uniform requirements in schools. Even if you don't have a personal connection to uniforms, you might be interested in the topic. If so, check out our guide to the pros and cons of school uniforms below. You can also see how the school uniform requirements relate to the states with the highest rated education.

School uniforms, while heavily debated, can provide some positives for both the kids who are asked to wear them as well as the school itself. This is why many private schools require uniforms and why more and more public schools have started to follow the trend. Here are the four largest benefits to school uniforms:

1. They Can Break Down Class Barriers Between Students

When students don't wear school uniforms it can be easy to spot kids with the most - and least - economic privilege based on what they wear to school. One argument used in favor of school uniforms is that when kids wear uniforms visible class markers between rich kids and poor kids are decreased or eliminated, which may lead to more social mixing along economic lines.

2. They Can Increase Student Focus

Another argument that's often raised in favor of uniforms is that they may increase student focus. The evidence for this seems to be thin, but many proponents of uniforms argue that when students don't have clothing to notice, comment on or respond to, they can spend more mental energy on learning. Uniforms, this argument goes, add to a sense of disciplined learning in school.

3. They Can Increase the Sense of Community in a School

Uniforms may also build community in a school as students of all ages - and alumni, too - bond or commiserate over the outfits they all associate with their school days. When schools that have traditionally required uniforms toy with removing the uniform requirement, it's often the alumni who speak out in favor of preserving the tradition of school uniforms.

4. School Uniforms Can Promote Safety

In areas where students may be gang-involved, uniforms can increase safety by preventing students from wearing clothing that declares - intentionally or inadvertently - gang affiliation. Some proponents of school uniforms argue that uniforms can increase student safety in school and outside of school, as well as increasing students' ability to blend in and focus on learning without having to worry that their clothing choices might make them a target.

Cons of School Uniforms

With all the positives that come with school uniforms, there are also some drawbacks. These are all related to the personal impacts that the requirement might have on a kid or the family of a child who is asked to wear these uniforms. The four largest cons of wearing school uniforms are:

1. They Can Be Expensive for Parents

Keeping a child in school uniforms may be more expensive for parents and guardians than buying regular clothes would be. Often, uniforms are only available from a limited number of suppliers and the lack of competition (and captive market) keeps prices high. Or, a uniform will include pricier items like blazers and dress shoes, which some families might struggle to afford.

2. Uniforms Limit Student Self-Expression

Another argument made against uniforms is that they limit students' self-expression. Teenagers, in particular, are famous for needing to express their emotions and their tastes in music, fashion and art through clothing, hair and piercings. School can be tough on kids and teens as it is, without taking away one of the few areas where they can exert some control and express themselves, say opponents of school uniforms.

3. Uniforms Might Be Sexist

Some uniforms may strike students and parents as sexist. For example, if a uniform requires girls to wear skirts and pants are not allowed, some students and parents may object, leading to conflict with the school administration. Not all girls want to wear skirts and some may resent being told to wear traditionally "feminine" garments. Also, if a student is unsure of their place on the gender spectrum or is experimenting with different forms of gender presentation, school uniforms can present a real challenge.

4. Uniforms Lead to More Policing of Students

If a school has a uniform policy, it generally tries to enforce that policy by monitoring students' clothing and punishing students for violating uniform requirements. Of course, even schools that don't require uniforms may police student clothing that's deemed too revealing or offensive, but uniforms may add to the attention focused on student dress.

This can make students feel that they're being scrutinized and punished for their appearance, which could have negative effects on student self-esteem or attitudes toward the school. And if students are sent home for uniform violations, they will miss valuable learning time. Plus, policing student uniforms takes time and effort on the part of administrators.

If back-to-school shopping in your household involves shopping for a school uniform, you might be familiar with some of the arguments for and against uniforms. By some accounts, school uniforms are becoming more popular in the U.S., which means more households may find themselves debating the merits of uniforms in the years to come.

Tips for Paying for School

Paying for private school or college for your kids can be expensive. It's important to make a financial plan to know you have the right amount available for your kids when the time comes. The best way to do this is with a financial advisor. SmartAsset's free tool matches you with up to three financial advisors who serve your area, and you can interview your advisor matches at no cost to decide which one is right for you. If you're ready to find an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now.

If you're trying to determine how much you need to save to put your kids through school, or yourself, it's important to use a student loan calculator.

Photo credit: ©iStock.com/Wavebreakmedia, ©iStock.com/DGLimages, ©iStock.com/Tomwang112

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did you go to a school that required uniforms? Do your kids wear school uniforms now? If you answered "yes" to either question, you probably have strong feelings about uniform requirements in schools. Even if you don't have a personal connection to uniforms, you might be interested in the topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A student's opinion on school uniforms varies depending on factors like age, gender, and socio-economic status. While many kids instantly dismiss the idea of school uniforms because they want to be able to choose their own clothes, others point to more compelling reasons, such as gang involvement and school pride, for why they should or shouldn't wear specific clothing.

Disadvantages of School Uniforms

The vast majority of kids don't want to wear school uniforms. According to one districtwide survey in Volusia County, Florida, nearly 70 percent of students said they were against a uniform policy. The reasons why kids don't want to wear school uniforms are diverse, from not wanting to wear ugly school uniforms to wanting more self-expression. Kids' opinions on school uniforms include the following.

School Uniforms Are Ugly

Uniforms don't follow any of the current fashion trends and often they have been the same for generations. Kids feel that uniform colors and styles are too old-fashioned. Young Post, part of an English newspaper in Hong Kong written for and sometimes by kids, offered students a chance to share what they'd change about their school uniforms in 2016 and many said the ugly school uniform style was most in need of help. Savannah, age 13, says "Our uniforms are scratchy, boring, and ugly... I want them to be as nice looking as our casual, everyday clothes."

"I think they SHOULDN'T have to wear uniforms because it makes them insecure" -- Reader comment from Markeya

School Uniforms Restrict Individuality

Kids love to experiment with their clothing and accessories; a student's apparel is an extension of her personality. People say you only get one chance to make a first impression, and for kids, clothing is an important part of that first impression. Kids often feel constricted by the rules and regulations of the classrooms and school uniforms only further emphasize that restricted feeling. As Maryam, age nine points out on Discovery Girls "Sometimes clothes can show your emotions and expression... and you should be happy you're different." Ashley, age thirteen, adds "People should have choices." According to The Comet, many kids feel uniforms limit self-expression. Sophomore student Deandre Jones says: "...everyone should be able to wear what they want."

School Uniforms Are Expensive

One idea advocates for school uniforms push is uniforms save families money. However, kids are quick to point out that they still want to buy stylish clothing to wear outside of school or more unique accessories to wear with their uniforms. This means that students essentially have two wardrobes. If they didn't have uniforms, they could wear a lot of their same clothes to school. On one classroom blog, third-grader Kaitlyn shares how expensive it can be for parents to buy items of clothing that cost around $30-$40 each especially because "kids are sometimes careless with their clothes" and "if they get them stained or dirty, then their parents have to spend more money." Kaitlyn adds "there are never sales" on this type of clothing.

"(Y)eah you can only wear school uniforms in school and nowhere else!" -- Reader comment from ali

Uniforms Aren't Flattering

Uniform requirements often require tucked in shirts for boys and girls and skirts for girls. Some kids feel these styles aren't flattering to certain body types, and they increase students' feelings of insecurity. In a 2016 article for Howler News from Westside High School in Houston, Texas, students share opinions about fashion and school uniforms, including concerns over fit. Miguel comments "When students have to wear the same outfits, rather than being allowed to select clothes that suit their body types, they can suffer embarrassment at school."

Advantages of School Uniforms

There are some students who support the idea of uniforms although they may feel like a minority for their positive opinion on school uniform dress codes. Their reasons for agreeing with the implementation of uniforms include the following.

Uniforms Eliminate Clothing Competition

Kids who wear uniforms don't feel the need to compete with each other on buying the latest, and sometimes most expensive, clothing brands. Irish media outlet TRTE polled viewers on their opinions about school uniforms in 2017 and got a variety of results including several comments about eliminating bullying based on clothing brands. Amelia says, "I think uniforms... help prevent bullying. You are less likely to be teased about the cost or style of your clothes."

Uniforms Eliminate Choices

Some kids love the idea of not having to decide what to wear each day. Instead of spending time putting together outfits, a student simply puts on his uniform. Chant'e Haskins shared her opinion after going from a school with no uniforms to one with uniforms. She says after wearing the uniform for a whole school year she "was so used to wearing the uniform it did not even bother me anymore." Chant'e adds she saved time in the morning by not having to pick out an outfit and was able to customize her look with accessories to keep some individuality.

"Uniforms equalize everyone. There are no hierarchies in the uniform world. That needs to be realized. It makes dressing up more fun after school, too!" -- Reader comment from aja

Uniforms Create Equality

Kids who are proponents of uniforms also point to the fact that everyone looks virtually the same, cutting down on socio-economic cliques throughout the school and helping identify everyone as part of the same student body. Callum from the TRTE poll suggests "... it makes all children equally the same." In the same article, students from Ms. Gill's class add uniforms "... show that everybody goes to the same school, all are included and are a part of the school."

Uniforms Promote Positive Behavior

Proponents suggest kids who wear school uniforms feel more connected to their school, encounter less bullying, and have a more professional attitude. All of these factors contribute to more positive behavior in the school. In one school's online survey, about 25 percent of student respondents said they believe school uniforms would promote positive behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Do Kids Think About School Uniforms? | LoveToKnow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A student's opinion on school uniforms varies depending on factors like age, gender, and socio-economic status. While many kids instantly dismiss the idea ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate over whether students should wear school uniforms has been going on for more than a decade. While some people argue uniforms have a positive impact on the school environment, others fear they prevent kids from expressing themselves through their clothing choices.

The research on school uniforms is often mixed. While some schools have found uniforms to be beneficial, other research has found that they have little effect. (Some studies have even reached the conclusion that uniforms can be harmful.)

Let's take a closer look at some of the potential benefits, as well as the challenges, of requiring students to wear uniforms.

Student Safety

Some people think that school uniforms can help make schools safer for kids. When Long Beach, CA, required all students in grades K-8 to wear uniforms, reports of assault and battery decreased by 34%.

Additionally, assault with a deadly weapon decreased by 50%, fighting incidents declined 51%, and sex offenses dropped by 74%. Possession of weapons dropped by 52%, possession of drugs went down 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%.

The Sparks Middle School in Nevada reported a decrease in gang activity after instituting a uniform policy. They also reported a drop in fights, graffiti, property damage, and battery. Overall, there was a 63% drop in police reports.

Other proponents of school uniforms report that it prevents students from concealing weapons under clothing. And some also believe intruders would be recognized faster, making the students and staff safer in the event someone from the community tries to enter the school.

Not all studies have found that uniforms reduce discipline issues, however. In fact, a peer-reviewed study found that school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 per year in the most violent schools. The Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management found that fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of making uniforms mandatory.

Focus on Education

For many students, clothing can be a major source of stress. Not having certain brand name clothing or not wearing fashionable items could lead to feelings of insecurity.

Some people feel students are better able to concentrate on school when they all wear the same clothing. Researchers in Australia noted that students who wear uniforms had improved discipline and academic performance.﻿﻿

Not all studies have found that uniforms improve grades, however. In fact, at least one study found that school uniforms had a negative effect on achievement.﻿﻿﻿﻿

Attendance Rates

Kids may show up to school more often when they're wearing uniforms. A study by researchers at the University of Houston found that the average attendance rate for girls in middle and high school increased by 0.3 to 0.4 percent after school uniforms became mandatory.﻿﻿﻿﻿ A study by Youngstown State University also found that attendance rates increased and suspensions decreased once students began wearing uniforms.﻿﻿﻿﻿

Students may also be more likely to show up to school on time when they have to wear uniforms. If they don't have to spend time choosing what to wear every morning, students are able to get out the door more quickly. This means fewer late arrivals.

Discipline Issues

Proponents of uniforms report that it can improve behavior in students. One school that found this to be true is the John Adams Middle School in Albuquerque, NM. When they mandated school uniforms, discipline referrals dropped from 1,565 in the first semester of the previous year to 405.﻿﻿﻿

An Australian study also concluded that students wearing uniforms were more disciplined and they listened significantly better. Classes were also more likely to start on time.﻿﻿﻿﻿

Not all studies have found this, however. Some research has found that disciplinary issues and bullying didn't decrease after instituting a mandatory uniform policy.

Dress Code Enforcement

Many school officials spend a lot of time policing dress codes. Enforcing policies can require a lot of resources as teachers may send kids to the office, and administrators have to determine whether clothing is too baggy, inappropriate, or revealing.

Kids who violate dress codes may spend a lot of time in the office awaiting consequences, or they may receive suspensions for repeated violations. School uniforms can keep kids in the classroom more and prevent staff from wasting time trying to enforce policies.

Cost for Families

Parents may spend less money on school clothes when kids wear uniforms. There is less pressure to buy expensive name-brand clothing, and school uniforms might be more affordable.

Opponents of school uniforms, however, say that requiring parents to buy specific articles of clothing goes against the idea that students should be given free education. When public schools force parents to buy uniforms, this could be placing a hardship on some families.

Impact on Self-Esteem

Proponents of uniforms report that they have a positive impact on student self-esteem.﻿﻿ Wearing the same clothing as everyone else means that students don't have to worry about whether their clothing choices will be acceptable to their peers.

But opponents argue that uniforms may have a negative impact on some students' body image. Research conducted at Arizona State University found that students without uniform policies actually reported higher self-perception scores than students with uniform policies.﻿﻿﻿

When all students wear the same clothing, they may be more likely to compare themselves to their peers as clothing fits differently on everyone's body.

The Problem With Uniform Research

A Word From Verywell

Before any school adopts a uniform policy, it may be wise to review the literature. While there certainly may be a lot of benefits to making uniforms mandatory, there are also some potential drawbacks and challenges you might face. Parents, teachers, and administrators may want to weigh the pros and cons before instituting any type of clothing policy for students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of School Uniforms for Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The debate over whether students should wear school uniforms has been going on for more than a decade. While some people argue uniforms have a positive impact on the school environment, others fear they prevent kids from expressing themselves through their clothing choices. The research on school uniforms is often mixed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of School Uniforms
Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions, school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. According to a 2020 report, the percentage of public schools that required school uniforms jumped from 12% in the 1999-2000 school year to 20% in the 2017-18 school year. School uniforms were most frequently required by elementary schools (23%), followed by middle (18%), and high schools (10%).

The first recorded use of standardized dress in education may have been in England in 1222, when the Archbishop of Canterbury mandated that students wear a robe-like outfit called the " cappa clausa." The origin of the modern school uniform can be traced to 16th Century England, when the impoverished "charity children" attending the Christ's Hospital boarding school wore blue cloaks reminiscent of the cassocks worn by clergy, along with yellow stockings. As of Sep. 2014, students at Christ's Hospital were still wearing the same uniform, and according to the school it is the oldest school uniform still in use. When Christ's Hospital surveyed its students in 2011, 95% voted to keep the traditional uniforms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

School uniforms deter crime and increase student safety.

In Long Beach, California, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district's schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon "look-alikes") decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%.

And, school uniforms prevent the display of gang colors and insignia, reducing gang activity and pressure to join on school property. The U.S. Department of Education's Manual on School Uniforms stated that uniform policies can "prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school" in order to "encourage a safe environment." Educators in the Long Beach Unified School District have speculated that the sharp reduction in crime following the introduction of school uniforms was a result of gang conflicts being curbed. Osceola County, Florida School Board member Jay Wheeler reports that the county's schools had a 46% drop in gang activity after their first full school year with a mandatory K-12 uniform policy. Wheeler explains that "clothing is integral to gang culture... Imagine a U.S. Armed Forces recruiter out of uniform trying to recruit new soldiers; the success rate goes down. The same applies to gang recruitment." [35] [37] [67]
Read More

Pro 2

School uniforms keep students focused on their education, not their clothes.

Wearing uniforms also enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit, which can boost interest in education. A study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform "reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community than reported by students in the standard dress group." Christopher P. Clouet, former Superintendent of the New London Public Schools in Connecticut, stated that "the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride." Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of the Center for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, points out that uniforms help troubled students feel they have the support of a community: "There is a sense of belonging." Further, "teachers perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust... throughout the school" and "students are made to feel 'important' and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform," according to a peer-reviewed study.

Plus, school uniforms can improve attendance and discipline. A study by researchers at the University of Houston found that the average absence rate for girls in middle and high school decreased by 7% after the introduction of uniforms, and behavioral problems lessened in severity. School uniforms make getting ready for school easier, which can improve punctuality.
When uniforms are mandatory, parents and students do not spend time choosing appropriate outfits for the school day. According to a national survey, over 90% of US school leaders believe school uniform or formal dress code policies "eliminate wardrobe battles with kids," make it "easier to get kids ready in the morning," and create a "time saving in the morning." Tracey Marinelli, Superintendent of the Lyndhurst School District in New Jersey, credits the district's uniform policy for reducing the number of students running late. Lyndhurst student Mike Morreale agrees, stating that "it's so much easier to dress than having to search for clothes and find out that something doesn't match." A Youngstown State University study of secondary schools in Ohio's eight largest school districts found that school uniform policies improve rates of attendance, graduation, and suspension.
Read More

Pro 3

Students' legal right to free expression remains intact with mandatory school uniforms.

Besides, students can still express their individuality in school uniforms by introducing variations and adding accessories. Junior high school student Amelia Jimenez wrote in her op-ed for the Pennsylvania Patriot-News that "contrary to popular belief, uniforms do not stop students from being themselves. Uniforms do not silence voices. Students can wear a variety of expressive items, such as buttons or jewlery." Students can inject their personal style into their daily look with hairstyles, nail polish, and colorful accessories such as bags, scarfs, and fun socks. 54% of eighth-graders said they could still express their individuality while wearing school uniforms.

Further, students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers. A 1994 peer-reviewed study found that students in uniform were perceived by teachers and fellow students as being more academically proficient than students in regular clothes. The study also found that students in uniform were perceived by peers and teachers as having higher academic potential, and perceived by peers as being better behaved. Students need to learn a balance between free expression and working within the confines of expectations.
Read More

Con 1

School uniforms do not stop bullying and can actually increase violent attacks.

Further, a peer-reviewed study found that "school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 [per year] in the most violent schools." A Texas Southern University study found that school discipline incidents rose by about 12% after the introduction of uniforms. And, according to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management, fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of introducing mandatory uniforms.
Read More

Con 2

School uniforms do not improve attendance, academic preparedness, or exam results.

The problems arise because focusing on uniforms takes attention away from finding genuine solutions to problems in education. Spending time and effort implementing uniform policies detracts from more effective efforts to reduce crime in schools and boost student performance. More substantive improvements to public education could be achieved with smaller class sizes, tightened security, increased parental involvement, improved facilities, and other measures. Tom Houlihan, former Superintendent of Schools in Oxford, North Carolina, stated that school uniforms "are a distraction from focusing on systematic and fundamental transformation to improve our schools."

That uniform policies are a distraction is most evident when we realize that the push for school uniforms is driven by commercial interests rather than educational ones. Americans spend around $1 billion on school uniforms every year. Retailer J.C. Penney Co. says school uniforms are "a huge, important business for us." In one year alone, uniform company Lands' End spent $3 million on marketing efforts directed at public schools and districts. Multiple studies used to promote the effectiveness of uniforms were partly funded by Lands' End, and at least one of those studies is "so wholly flawed as to render itself useless," according to David L. Brunsma. Reuters reported that retailers were "sensing their opportunity... stepping up competition in the uniform aisles and online. Walmart has set up 'uniform shops' or temporary boutiques within some stores."

The commercialization of school uniforms in public schools also undermines the promise of a free education by imposing an extra expense on families. Parents already pay taxes, and they still need to buy regular clothes for their children to wear when they're out of school and for dress-down days. The Children's Commission on Poverty (UK) found that over "95% of parents on low incomes reported difficulties in meeting school-related costs," including uniforms, despite their children attending tuition-free schools. Anderson, Indiana, parents Laura and Scott Bell argued against their children's school uniform policy, saying the $641 for their children's uniforms broke the guarantee of a free public education. In York County, Pennsylvania, a local NBC affiliate reported that some children were missing class because their families couldn't afford to purchase the required uniforms. And, all of that is before the uniform policies themselves are examined. Most operate like dress codes and are classist, racist, and sexist.
Read More

Con 3

School uniforms restrict students' freedom of expression.

Uniforms take away the ability to use clothing as means of expressing support for social causes. Students at Friendly High School in Prince George's County, MD, were not allowed to wear pink shirts to support Breast Cancer Awareness Month and 75 students received suspensions for breaking the school's uniform restrictions. Removing these choices can delay the transition into adulthood. Adults make their own clothing choices and have the freedom to express themselves through their appearance. Denying children and teenagers the opportunity to make those choices may make them ill-prepared for the adult world. Adolescents see clothing choices as a means of identification, and seeking an identity is one of the critical stages of adolescence, according to the late developmental psychologist Erik Erikson.

When students have to wear the same outfits, rather than being allowed to select clothes that suit their body types, they can suffer embarrassment at school. Child and teen development specialist Robyn Silverman says that students, especially girls, tend to compare how each other looks in their uniforms: "As a body image expert, I hear from students all the time that they feel it allows for a lot of comparison... So if you have a body that's a plus-size body, a curvier body, a very tall body, a very short body, those girls often feel that they don't look their best." A study by researchers at Arizona State University found that "students from schools without uniforms reported higher self-perception scores than students from schools with uniform policies." Some students also find uniforms less comfortable than their regular clothes, which may not be conducive to learning.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. The first school district in the United States to require all K-8 students to wear uniforms was Long Beach, CA, in Jan. 1994.

2. Americans spend around $1 billion per year on school uniforms.

3. Students at Eton, one of England's most prestigious schools, were required to wear black top hats and tails on and off campus until 1972.

4. US schools with a minority student population of 50% or more are four times as likely to require uniforms than schools with a minority population of 20-49%, and 24 times more likely than schools with minority populations of 5%-19%.

5. A government agency in Sweden declared that mandatory school uniforms were a human rights violation, stating that students should decide their dress and appearance as "a matter of the individual's freedom and integrity."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Uniforms Pros and Cons - 13 Arguments For and Against

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say uniforms may increase student safety. Opponents say uniforms restrict expression. Explore both sides of the debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Debate Topic: Should schools require students to wear uniforms?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Schools Require Students to Wear Uniforms? | What are the pros and cons of school uniforms?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Happy, an Asian elephant, lives at the Bronx Zoo, in New York City. But the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) says the zoo doesn't provide the space and socialization that Happy needs. The NhRP is taking the Bronx Zoo to court. Its case will be heard in 2022.

The case has restarted conversations about whether or not zoos should still exist. Some say zoos save species from extinction and teach people about conservation. Others argue that living in captivity is bad for an animal's mental and physical health. Here, TIME for Kids readers weigh in.

KELLI NICOLE PHOTOGRAPHY
Grace Hipp, 8 Nashville, Tennessee
Many animal species are saved from extinction thanks to zoos. This past summer, I saw the California condor at the San Diego Zoo and learned about the breeding program there. Several decades ago, these vultures were almost wiped out in the wild. But the zoo has taken some of them in and helped them breed. Now there are many more California condors.

COURTESY WINKI WARRENSON
Yanni Warrenson, 12 San Francisco, California
We should not have zoos. In zoos, animals might not be given proper living conditions. They might also be mistreated for entertainment purposes. Animals can feel stressed by cage restraint, an unfamiliar environment, and the presence of humans. A 2003 study of 35 species of carnivores found that zoo enclosures were too small for some of the animals to carry out their normal routines.

LIFETOUCH PHOTOGRAPHY
Shane Madrak, 10 Foster City, California
We should still have zoos for a few reasons. Zoos provide animals with food and a habitat that is made to resemble their natural habitat. Zoos also breed animals to increase their population. And most zoos have educational programs that help children learn about different animals and conservation efforts.

COURTESY ANNSLEY SLAWSKY
Susie Slawsky, 9 Pelham, New York
Animals are kept away from their homes, where they have lots of space to roam, and put in fenced areas or cages. If it's a crowded day at the zoo, some animals might get overwhelmed. When they're in zoos, they can also lose their natural instincts. If they were released into the wild, they wouldn't know how to survive. An animal's health is more important than our entertainment.

The Next Debate! Should the government set screen-time limits? Email your opinion to tfkeditors@time.com by January 6, 2021 for a chance to be featured in an upcoming issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Happy, an Asian elephant, lives at the Bronx Zoo, in New York City. But the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) says the zoo doesn't provide the space and socialization that Happy needs. The NhRP is taking the Bronx Zoo to court....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Zoos have existed in some form since at least 2500 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia, where records indicate giraffes, bears, dolphins, and other animals were kept by aristocrats. The oldest still operating zoo in the world, Tiergarten Schönbrunn in Vienna, opened in 1752.

The contemporary zoo evolved from 19th century European zoos. Largely modeled after the London Zoo in Regent's Park, these zoos were intended for "genteel amusement and edification," according to Emma Marris, environmental writer and Institute Fellow at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. As such, reptile houses, aviaries, and insectariums were added with animals grouped taxonomically, to move zoos beyond the spectacle of big, scary animals.

Carl Hegenbeck, a German exotic animal importer, introduced the modern model of more natural habitats for animals instead of obvious cages at his Animal Park in Hamburg in 1907. That change prompted the shift in zoo narrative from entertainment to the protection of animals. In the late 20th century, the narrative changed again to the conservation of animals to stave off extinction.

Controversy has historically surrounded zoos, from debates over displaying "exotic" humans in exhibits to zookeepers not knowing what to feed animals. A gorilla named Madame Ningo, the first gorilla to arrive in the United States in 1911 who was to live at the Bronx Zoo, was fed hot dinners and cooked meat despite gorillas being herbivores, for example.

The contemporary debate about zoos tends to focus on animal welfare on both sides, whether zoos protect animals or imprison them.

Should Zoos Exist?

Pro 1

Zoos educate the public about animals and conservation efforts.

As of Apr. 2021, there are 241 accredited zoos in the United States. The zoos attract over 181 million visitors annually, which is more than the approximately 131 million yearly spectators of the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB combined.

According to a study of 26 zoos worldwide published in Conservation Biology, visitors to zoos increased their knowledge of biodiversity and specific individual actions to protect biodiversity.

Robin Ganzert, PhD, President and CEO of American Humane, stated, "zoos provide people, especially impressionable children, with the opportunity to see these remarkable animals up close. People won't protect what they don't love, and they can't love what they don't know. No matter how closely programs like Planet Earth depict animals, nothing will match the bond of seeing them in real life. Just look at a child's eyes at the zoo when he or she encounters a tiger or similarly majestic animal."
Read More

Pro 2

Zoos produce helpful scientific research.

228 accredited zoos published 5,175 peer-reviewed manuscripts between 1993 and 2013. In 2017, 173 accredited US zoos spent $25 million on research, studied 485 species and subspecies of animals, worked on 1,280 research projects, and published 170 research manuscripts.

Because so many diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans, such as Ebola, Hantavirus, and the bird flu, zoos frequently conduct disease surveillance research in wildlife populations and their own captive populations that can lead to a direct impact on human health. For example, the veterinary staff at the Bronx Zoo in New York alerted health officials of the presence of West Nile Virus.
Read More

Pro 3

Zoos save species from extinction and other dangers.

Corroboree frogs, eastern bongos, regent honeyeaters, Panamanian golden frogs, Bellinger River snapping turtles, golden lion tamarins, and Amur leopards, among others, have been saved from extinction by zoos.

Zoos are also working to save polar bears, tigers, and wild African elephants from habitat loss, apes and rhinos from poachers, dolphins and whales from hunters, and bees and butterflies from population declines, among many other efforts to help many other animals.

Przewalski's horses, the last wild horses, were declared extinct in the wild in the 1960s when about 12 lived in zoos. By 2018, breeding programs at zoos increased the number to 2,400 horses, and 800 were reintroduced to the wild.
Read More

Con 1

Zoos don't educate the public enough to justify keeping animals captive.

A review published in Animal Studies Repository concluded, "to date there is no compelling or even particularly suggestive evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote attitude change, education, and interest in conservation in visitors." Even a study widely cited to justify the argument that zoos educate the public stated, "there was no overall statistically significant change in understanding [of ecological concepts] seen" because visitors know a lot about ecology before going to the zoo.

TV shows such as Planet Earth bring wild animals into living rooms, allowing people to see the animals in their natural habitats without causing harm to animals such as the endangered snow leopard. Romesh Ranganathan, a British comedian, stated, "It still slightly surprises me that anybody thinks that we should have zoos at all. The animals always look miserable in captivity... [T]he idea that kids only get excited about things they can see in the flesh is ridiculous. My kids are obsessed with dinosaurs that no longer exist, and Skylanders, which have never existed."
Read More

Con 2

Zoos are detrimental to animals' physical health.

A study of 35 species of carnivores, including brown bears, cheetahs, and lions, found that zoo enclosures were too small for the animals to carry out their normal routines, which led to problems such as pacing and more infant deaths. Polar bears, for example, had an infant mortality rate of 65% due to small enclosures.

About 70% of adult male gorillas in North America have heart disease, the leading cause of death among gorillas in captivity, although the condition is almost completely absent in the wild. Other great apes have similar health problems in captivity.

Captive elephants live about half as long as wild elephants: 18.9 years v. 41.7 years for Asian elephants and 16.9 years v. 35.8 years for African elephants. Of 77 elephants in 13 zoos, 71 were overweight and spent 83% of their time indoors, contributing to early death.
Read More

Con 3

Zoo confinement is psychologically damaging to animals.

A study of captive chimpanzees found that "abnormal behaviour is endemic in the population," and includes behaviors such as eating feces, twitching, rocking back and forth, plucking hair, pacing, vomiting, and self-mutilation, among others. The study concluded that the cause of such behavior could be mental health issues.
Read More

Discussion Questions
1. Should zoos exist? If you believe they should, consider whether they should remain the same or change. If you believe they should not, consider how else to accomplish zoo's conservation efforts.

2. Extend the debate to other human-made animal habitats, such as safari parks and animal sanctuaries.

3. What other conservation efforts are important to saving wildlife? Explain your answer(s).
Take Action
1. Analyze " Eight Reasons Zoos Are Good for Conservation " from conservation scientist James Borrell.

2. Consider the pros and cons with a video from Above the Noise.

3. Explore conservationist Damian Aspinall's opinion that zoos are "outdated and cruel."

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the "other side of the issue" now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say zoos educate the public about animals. Opponents say wild animals should never be kept captive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A zoological garden, which is sometimes referred to as an animal park or a menagerie, is a facility which houses animals within an enclosure and displays them to the public in a manner that is safe for everyone involved. Most of us referred to these parks as a zoo. The first modern one was opened in 1828 for scientific study in London, and then eventually became open to the public about 30 years later.

Over 180 million people visit zoos in the United States each year. There are thousands of them around the world, with every continent except Antarctica hosting at least one.

Not only can we benefit from the experience of learning about new animals and their habitats by visiting a zoo, but it also gives families an opportunity to spend time together while enjoying the outdoors. This advantage comes at the expense of the animals which are forced to spend their lives in an enclosure. Although there are efforts to replicate a wild habitat, a small display area is hardly the same as being free to roam.

There are additional pros and cons of zoos that are essential to consider as well.

List of the Pros of Zoos

1. Zoos have a significant financial benefit for their communities.
A report out of George Mason University found that zoos associated with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums employed almost 40,000 people. For every $1 million spent by zoos on their operational outlays, there were nearly 30 jobs supported. Another 23 jobs were supported for every $1 million that zoos spent on construction projects. That created a total economic output in the United States of more than $17 billion per year, with $2.4 billion in spending and $5.4 billion in personal earnings on top of that figure.

The indirect spending that zoos provide for their communities are significant as well, adding another 62,000 jobs across the United States to support visitors.

2. A zoo can provide a protected environment for rare and endangered species.
Animal products like elephant tusks or shark fins create a financial market where the health and welfare of a species is secondary to the profits which are possible. Some species have been poached to near extinction because of this market. By having these animals in zoos, there is another layer of protection given to these hunted species so that their survival chances are greater.

That hasn't stopped some poachers from breaking into zoos to harvest what they want, but it is preventing the levels of harm that we have seen in the past. Because poaching activities qualify as criminal conduct, most attempts are thwarted.

3. These facilities can provide an educational resource to their community.
Most zoos got their start because local scientists wanted to get to know wild and exotic species better. Although the initial methods of retrieval were brutal, sometimes killing the parents to take the young one back for study, the overall goal was to extend human knowledge. This emphasis is still present today, with many facilities offering educational programs, behind-the-scenes tours, and various activities which encourage visitors to learn more about the animals which live there.

You will also see the staff members from local zoos making presentations at local schools and businesses to raise awareness for what they do. Specific programs at the zoological grounds encourage visitors to interact with the animals in unique ways. Although not everyone can afford a visit to their local zoo, there are still plenty of ways to learn more about the various animals who share this planet with us.

4. We can protect some of the rarest animals in the world in zoos.
If you visit the Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans, then you can see a rare white alligator. About 15 out of the 5 million animals currently alive are believed to have this rare condition that changes the color of their skin. When you visit the Memphis Zoo, then you can see an Okapi. The Red Panda can be found in St. Louis, and there are fewer than 10,000 of them in the world today.

Additional rare animals which receive protection in U.S. zoos include the Addax, Amur tiger, Borneo elephant, and the Pacific walrus.

5. Animals receive care from specialized trainers in zoos.
Zoos provide specialized care for the animals that are kept on the grounds. Instead of keeping them in small cages, there is an effort to replicate the natural habitat to accommodate the natural instincts of each animal. Each person in a caretaker role is highly educated, trained to know the mannerisms, health needs, and characteristics of the animal to ensure the highest levels of safety. These efforts have created a significant reduction in the number of attacks and accidents that occur.

The animals are given special activities and nutrition that works with their instincts as well to give them the most natural existence possible. Although these efforts do not entirely replicate migration or hunting, it does reduce the amount of boredom that occurs during their stay in the zoo. These efforts have helped to reduce the risks of premature death in many species as well.

6. Zoos are regularly inspected and accredited for the services they provide.
Zoos receive regular inspections on multiple levels to ensure they are in compliance with care and safety regulations. Careful supervision of policies and procedures allows for trainers, visitors, and the animals to maintain a higher level of safety in every facet of care. If zoos are unable to maintain standards of cleanliness, animal engagement, and habitat structure, then the facility can lose its accreditation and ability to operate.

The animals would then be transferred to zoos where the proper care would be given to them. Because there isn't a monetary transaction that occurs, there is no way for the non-profit organization providing supports for the zoo to recoup their losses. If they don't follow the rules, they essentially go out of business.

7. Most zoos use veterinarians and work with professionals from degree programs.
The Smithsonian Zoo is one example of many that works with local institutions to build programs at every post-graduate level to ensure the future safety of animals. There are residency programs, veterinarian internships, and a variety of other educational opportunities which allow for a high level of treatment for the conditions which may development.

You can find animal treatment teams including specialists, pathologies, and trainers to ensure that every care plan is followed to the letter. Quarantine procedures are part of the zoo's overall structure as well. The overall goal always remains the same; to ensure the best possible care for every animal in care.

List of the Cons of Zoos

1. Zoos are often used to exploit people, animals, and even communities.
Did you know that one of the first zoological gardens in the Western Hemisphere featured humans instead of animals? This first effort displayed people who had different physical traits that were unusual - something similar to the "freak shows" of the traveling circuses in the 19th and early 20th century. Even the Catholic Church got involved with this effort at displaying people in cages, maintaining facilities deep into the 16th century.

Humans as part of zoological exhibitions did not fully stop until the early 20th century. Ota Benga was part of an exhibit in the Bronx and in St. Louis, purchased by a Christian missionary who wanted to put African people into an exhibition. Now some would argue we do the same thing with animals or try to hold communities hostage because of the potential financial gains that a well-run zoo can provide.

2. It changes the lifespan of the animals held in captivity.
Even when you take into consideration the educational benefits that come with a zoo, the fact is that most wild animals do not adapt well to confined circumstances. It places enormous pressure on the mental health of many species, causing them to live much shorter lives than they would in the wild. The difference can be as much as 50% when comparing the lifespan of a wild species compared to one kept in a zoo.

Orcas can live for more than a century on their own, but when you keep them in captivity, the average lifespan for a male is less than 20 years. National Geographic notes that elephants can live for up to 70 years when they live in protected areas of the wild in Africa or Asia, while those kept in zoos is just 17 years for African elephants born into captivity.

3. Zoos are losing their influence on the educational industry.
When the first modern zoo was established in London in the 19th century, the purpose was purely scientific. Even when these facilities began to open to the general public, the purpose was still to provide an educational resource to the community. Although there are some around the world which continue to place their primary emphasis on teaching, research, and saving endangered species, more facilities are focused on the entertainment experience instead.

Visiting the zoo requires people to have respect for the fences, borders, and safety enclosures that separate the animals from their trainers, keepers, and families. When an incident causes an individual to fall into the enclosure of a wild animal, the facility will usually save the person by killing the animal.

4. It changes the behavior of the animal.
The behavior of animals will change when they encounter long periods of captivity. This disadvantage occurs because there is no longer a need to hunt for their survival. Even injured animals can encounter this problem if their recovery time is lengthy. Being stuck in the same enclosure every day also disrupts the natural migratory patterns of the species, which can have a dramatic impact on their mental health.

Elephants become more aggressive when they are unable to travel and explore, which is caused zookeepers to euthanize almost 100 individuals in the past decade because of the danger they caused to others. Predatory animals encounter a similar problem when they are kept in a zoo as well, even if there is no way to safely introduce them back into the wild.

5. Animals can become dependent on the facilities.
Animals which are born in captivity can often adapt to their circumstances if given enough time, but they will still encounter the lifespan issues of their parents. That problem will not go away no matter how many generations remain in captivity. What we see is a process that eventually leads towards domestication, which is why it is a struggle for injured or wild animals to finish out their lives in a zoo.

When dealing with a predator species in particular, any children born in captivity cannot be released into the wild because they have no hunting or survival instincts. That means a cycle of dependency begins that requires ongoing resources to maintain because that animal has no ability to live on its own.

6. Zoos are ultimately a business that needs to make money.
Przewalski's horse is a success story for zoos because this species was believed to be extinct in the wild. Only a dozen individuals were left in one facility by the 1940s, but their numbers are now in the thousands today because of the conservation programs that were initiated to save them. There are now wild herds in Europe and Mongolia, closely monitored by scientists, which are thriving.

Zoos can do an excellent job at conservation if they make the effort, but far too often profit is the primary motivation. When animals move from zoo to zoo, trading money or other resources in exchange for another display opportunity to the local population, then it is our welfare we are concerned about instead of theirs.

7. The best natural habitat enclosures are a poor substitute for the real thing.
Some animals travel more than 50 miles per day as they wander about their wild habitat. The actual territory of some individuals and packs may be over 300 miles in width. When you keep the animal in a zoo instead, then they might have 1,500 square feet to roam, and sometimes even less. Even the Greater Vancouver Zoo, which seeks to replicate the natural environment for their animals, cannot supply a large enough space to accommodate these natural behaviors.

Some elephant herds in the wild can grow to become 40 members strong. When we look at zoo management, it is not unusual to take calves away from their mothers before they fully mature simply because there is a new marketing opportunity available somewhere else.

8. Some zoos are unable to care for their animals.
If you wanted to visit the San Diego Zoo in 2019, then a one-day pass for an adult will set you back $50. Kids 12 and up qualify for the adult rate. A child's ticket is going to cost you $46. If you have four kids that you want to take there for the day, then you could be out $300 before you take your first step onto the grounds. Even those prices are not enough to keep the zoo financially solid.

The San Diego Zoo offers an annual Gala fundraiser were tickets begin at $450 each, while preferred seating options are priced at $900. You will find employer matching, tribute gifts, exhibition sponsorship, and financial wildlife adoptions are all part of their financial picture each year as well. Most zoos struggle to survive, which means the animals kept in those facilities are also at risk.

9. Even the best zoos can have animals develop severe health problems.
Animals need to be kept in temperate zones which are similar to their natural habitat if they have any hope of being successful in the zoo. Elephants don't do well when they are kept in locations that are cold and snowy. Polar bears don't do well in tropical locations, even when they receive ice as a coping mechanism for the climate. Their health degrades rapidly when conditions are not favorable to them, sometimes even incapacitating the animal under extreme circumstances.

Verdict on the Pros and Cons of Zoos

There are times when a zoo is absolutely necessary to the survival of the animal. Then there are the circumstances where we try to profit off of their circumstances. We might be talking about animals who may not have the same level of conscious thought as humans, but how we treat other species says more about who we are than it does about the animals we keep.

Zoos can excel when they have the proper funding to meet the needs of their animal population. They must have staff present at all times who understand what it takes to have a safe experience. Even highly trained people miss an open lock or find themselves in dangerous circumstances with predatory animals, so there is always some level of risk involved.

The pros and cons of zoos are often dependent on whether you view an animal as property or an independent individual. There are times when wild animals should stay that way. When that possibility is no longer a choice, then this option might be the next best thing.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
16 Biggest Advantages and Disadvantages of Zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A zoological garden, which is sometimes referred to as an animal park or a menagerie, is a facility which houses animals within an enclosure and displays them to the public in a manner that is

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Visiting the local Zoo is a treasured part of any great childhood and for most people, it is the first and only experience they will have of being up close and personal with some of the world's most beautiful and rarest animals.
Yet in recent years, Zoo's have been met with some controversy, with welfare concerns being highlighted repeatedly by the mainstream media.

But are these isolated cases, or are Zoo's inherently bad places for animals to live?

In this post, we will explore the main pros and cons of modern-day Zoo's and demystify some of the most common questions people have.

The Main Pros of Zoos

Firstly, we will discuss the major benefits of Zoo's officially termed zoological garden and explore why they first came about almost 2,000 years ago and why they are still relevant today.

#1 Educational Tool

When people visit the Zoo, they are not only witnessing living and breathing animals for entertainment purposes, but also learn a lot of valuable information too.

Modern zoos often provide tours, information points and actively seek to educate and teach the next generation of children the importance and value of conservation and biodiversity.

Of course, individuals and children can read about animals and conservation in books, but actively engaging with animals allows them to truly empathize with their plight.

#2 Conservation of Endangered Animals

Perhaps, it's a little obvious, but Zoo's offer a safe haven for endangered animals to live and on many occasions thrive.

This is of paramount importance for some of the world's most threatened animal species and allows leading experts and researchers to discover their habits, breeding patterns and as a result learn how human's can help them survive, breed and therefore increase their dwindling numbers.

#3 Economic Boost for the Local Community

As well as offering a safe haven for some of the world's most majestic creatures, Zoo's are also local and sometimes national attractions.

This means that Zoo's are often a magnet for families, school trips and other individuals wanting to spend their time and money in the local area.

This doesn't just benefit the Zoo itself, but it also benefits local businesses, creating jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities.

#4 Halt Extinction Events

Zoos don't just work independently to help animals they home and rescue. They also work in harmony with other Zoo's throughout the world, as well as Safari parks, in order to organize breeding programs for some of the world's rarest animals.

This is very important for animals that are currently threatened in their natural habitats, but it is absolutely essential for animals on the verge of extinction.

For illustration, if the numbers are drop so low within a certain species in the wild, the chance of them finding each other and then breeding is extremely unlikely.

Therefore, in these circumstances, zoos play an important role and some great examples of animals saved from extinction include the Arabian Oryx and the Puerto Rican Parrot.

#5 Veterinary Care

Zoo's typically had on-site medical and care facilities for all animals on site. This means that if they experience any health concerns, they can be assisted by vets almost immediately.

This is extremely important for some of the world's rarest animals, whose own survival and the survival of their offspring is vital.

As well as providing breeding programs, animals can be regularly assessed for parasites, infectious diseases, and cancers.

#6 Professional Training

Each animal species requires an in-depth knowledge to help them; this includes medical, health, dietary and behavioral knowledge.

In order to provide such high-level of assistance and expertise to such a varied amount of animals requires professionals and veterinary experts to undertake specialist training.

Therefore, Zoos offer a unique opportunity for undergraduates and trainees to study and gain practical knowledge of specific animals, which would be almost impossible in the wild.

For this reason, it is commonplace for Zoos to work with local educational institutions, such as Colleges and Universities.

By working in conjunction, they can ensure the next generation of experts are well prepared to help some of the world's most vulnerable animals succeed in the battle for survival.

The Main Cons of Zoos

Now that we have highlighted some of the main advantages of Zoo's, it's equally important to realize that they are by no means a perfect environment.

Even though the importance of conservation cannot be overstated, it's important to be aware of the limitations and failures of modern Zoo's.

#1 Ethics of Captive Animals

Many wild animals have evolved to thrive in a certain environment, habitat, and climate and not suited to the confines and containment of captivity.

Unfortunately, even though Zoos often try their best to mimic a specific species natural habitat sometimes it has little impact on their behavior and well being.

For example, an Orca in the wild can survive as long as 100 years, yet in captivity, they typically don't reach 30 years of age.

This illustrates that the Zoo environment does not always succeed and there are many reasons behind this.

#2 Captive Offspring are Often Dependant

Although one of the main aims of zoos is to have successful breeding programs for some of the world's rarest animals, the resulting offspring doesn't always result in successful integration in the wild.

Many animals born and raised in captivity fail to successfully make the transition from captive to wild environment, meaning that sometimes there is no choice but to keep them in the Zoo for the remainder of their lives.

#3 Financial Problems

In recent years, it's become apparent that many popular zoos have been failing financially, which in turn has a knock on effect to the health and welfare of captive animals.

Staff shortages and limited budgets often mean healthy animals have to be euthanized or sold to other Zoo's.

This reliance on a constant inflow of money is also a constant burden for modern Zoo's who always have to prioritize their finances.

For example, the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle is one of the most popular Zoo's in the US, yet in 2015, their expenses exceeded their incoming revenue.

#4 Altered Animal Behaviour

Some animals are just not built for Zoo's, particularly animal species with certain behaviors that Zoo's don't cater for, such as hibernation and migratory animals.

For instance, Elephants are often the biggest animals within Zoo's and many argue their enclosures are simply too small and since they have to resist their natural instinct to migrate; this can result in behavioral issues such as aggression.

#5 Health Problems can Develop

Sometimes the measures Zoo's take in an attempt to mimic a natural habitat just doesn't work. A natural habitat is also related to climate, so some animals can develop problems in some locations that can get relatively cold in comparison to their natural habitat.

For instance, a polar bear that is used to arctic temperatures can find it extremely difficult to cope with heat and humidity. Yet, some Zoo's still seem to put profit before well being of their animals and animals such as Polar bears continue to suffer in some Zoos.

#6 Some zoos are Profit Only Zoo's

Unfortunately, for some Zoo's, conservation and breeding programs to save some of the world's most endangered animals are little more than a marketing tactic to get customers through their doors.

Even though many Zoos claim to have a mission statement that lives up to an ethical and moral viewpoint most people would agree on, behind the scenes there is very little effort made in this direction.

Having said that, it's important to note that many Zoos' do make an active effort in the mission to save and conserve species, but many do not.

Instead, they partake in the sale of animals for profit and their bottom line is profit over animal welfare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visiting the local Zoo is a treasured part of any great childhood and for most people, it is the first and only experience they will have of being up close and personal with some of the world's most beautiful and rarest animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos go by several different official names. They can be called "animal parks," "menageries," or

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos are fun experiences for everyone. We get to learn about beautiful, exotic animals that most of us don’t get to see often. We also get to hang out with friends and family, but it is not this way for the animals that stay here. We should get rid of all zoos. When animals are…