# data[].attributes.body
una clasa para dormir

# data[].attributes.body
¿Son hotdogs un sándwich?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
National Hot Dog and Sausage Council Announces Official Policy On 'Hot Dog as Sandwich' Controversy

# data[].attributes.body
mas  crédito adicional en todos clases

# data[].attributes.body
¿perros o gatos?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Dogs Better Than Cats? 10 Reasons Why They Might Be

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should you get a dog or a cat? Let's compare the species. Here are 10 reasons why dogs might be better than cats.

# data[].attributes.body
levante el edad para consumir alcohol a veinticinco?

# data[].attributes.body
Es golf aburrido?

# data[].attributes.body
es wii deportes un deporte????????

# data[].attributes.body
computadoras o libros

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This site was archived on Nov. 28, 2022. A reconsideration of the topic on this site is possible in the future.

Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies - Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic - capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.

Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.

Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background ...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 4

E-textbooks on tablets cost less than print textbooks.

According to the School Library Journal, the average price of a K-12 print textbook is approximately $70 compared with $45-$55 for a 6-year subscription to a digital textbook. E-textbook prices continue to drop with VitalSource reporting, on average, a 31% drop in price between 2016 and 2018. Tablet prices also continue to drop, making them increasingly affordable. Tablets cost on average $489 in 2011 compared with $299 in 2018.
Read More

Pro 6

Tablets contain many technological features that cannot be found in print textbooks.

Tablets give users the ability to highlight and edit text and write notes without ruining a textbook for the next user. Tablets have a search function, a backlighting option to read in low light, and a built-in dictionary. Interactive diagrams and videos increase student creativity, motivation, attentiveness, and engagement with classroom materials.
Read More

Pro 7

Print textbooks are heavy and cause injuries, while a tablet only weighs 1-2 pounds.

Pediatricians and chiropractors recommend that students carry less than 15% of their body weight in a backpack, but the combined average weight of textbooks in History, Mathematics, Science, and Reading/Language Arts exceeds this percentage at nearly all grade levels from 1-12. According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, during the 2011-12 school year more than 13,700 kids, aged 5 to 18, were treated for backpack-related injuries. The rate dropped to 6,300 in 2016 - a 54% decrease - thanks in part to the increasing use of tablets.
Read More

Con 4

People who read print text comprehend more, remember more, and learn more than those who read digital text.

The brain interprets printed and digital text in different ways, and people generally read digital text 20-30% slower than print. According to Pulitzer Prize winning technology writer Nicholas Carr, peer-reviewed studies show that reading hyper-linked text may increase the brain's "cognitive load," lowering the ability to process, store, and retain information, or "translate the new material into conceptual knowledge." In addition, students who type lecture notes instead of write their notes by hand tended to write more, process less, and perform worse on recall tests.
Read More

Con 6

Manufacturing tablets is environmentally destructive and dangerous to human health.

According to the New York Times, the "adverse health impacts from making one e-reader are estimated to be 70 times greater than those from making a single book." One tablet requires the extraction of 33 pounds of minerals, 79 gallons of water, and 100 kilowatt hours of fossil fuels resulting in 66 pounds of carbon dioxide. Print books produce 100 times fewer greenhouse gases. Two gallons of water are required to make the pulp slurry that is pressed and heat-dried to make paper, and only two kilowatt hours are required to form and dry the sheets of paper.
Read More

5. During the 2011-12 school year more than 13,700 US children, aged 5 to 18, were treated in hospitals and doctors' offices for backpack-related injuries (5,000 in emergency rooms) such as contusions, sprains, fractures, and strains to the back and shoulders; in 2016, the number had dropped to 6,300 - a 54% decrease - thanks in part to the increasing use of tablets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tablets vs. Textbooks - 15 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say tablets help students learn more material faster. Opponents say tablets are too distracting and easy to break.

# data[].attributes.body
las pruebas estándar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Standardized tests have been a part of American education since the mid-1800s. Their use skyrocketed after 2002's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual testing in all 50 states. US students slipped from being ranked 18th in the world in math in 2000 to 40th in 2015, and from 14th to 25th in science and from 15th to 24th in reading. Failures in the education system have been blamed on rising poverty levels, teacher quality, tenure policies, and, increasingly, on the pervasive use of standardized tests.

Proponents argue that standardized tests offer an objective measurement of education and a good metric to gauge areas for improvement, as well as offer meaningful data to help students in marginalized groups, and that the scores are good indicators of college and job success. They argue standardized tests are useful metrics for teacher evaluations.

Opponents argue that standardized tests only determine which students are good at taking tests, offer no meaningful measure of progress, and have not improved student performance, and that the tests are racist, classist, and sexist, with scores that are not predictors of future success. They argue standardized tests are useful metrics for teacher evaluations.
Read more background...
Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Standardized tests offer an objective measurement of education and a good metric to gauge areas for improvement.

Teachers' grading practices are naturally uneven and subjective. An A in one class may be a C in another. Teachers also have conscious and unconscious biases for a favorite student or against a rowdy student, for example. Standardized tests offer students across the country a unified measure of their knowledge.

Aaron Churchill, Ohio Research Director for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, stated, "At their core, standardized exams are designed to be objective measures. They assess students based on a similar set of questions, are given under nearly identical testing conditions, and are graded by a machine or blind reviewer. They are intended to provide an accurate, unfiltered measure of what a student knows."

Frequently states or local jurisdictions employ psychometricians to ensure tests are fair across populations of students. Mark Moulon, PhD, Chief Executive Officer at Pythias Consulting and psychometrician, offered an example: "If you find that your question on skateboarding is one that boys find to be an easy question, but girls find to be a hard question, that'll pop up as a statistic. Differential item functioning will flag that question as problematic."

Moulon continued, explaining, "What's cool about psychometrics is that it will flag stuff that a human would never be able to notice. I remember a science test that had been developed in California and it asked about earthquakes. But the question was later used in a test that was administered in New England. When you try to analyze the New England kids with the California kids, you would get a differential item functioning flag because the California kids were all over the subject of earthquakes, and the kids in Vermont had no idea about earthquakes."

With problematic questions removed, or adapted for different populations of students, standardized tests offer the best objective measure of what students have learned. Taking that information, schools can determine areas for improvement. As Bryan Nixon, former Head of School at private school Whitby, noted, "When we receive standardized test data at Whitby, we use it to evaluate the effectiveness of our education program. We view standardized testing data as not only another set of data points to assess student performance, but also as a means to help us reflect on our curriculum. When we look at Whitby's assessment data, we can compare our students to their peers at other schools to determine what we're doing well within our educational continuum and where we need to invest more time and resources."
Read More

Pro 2

Standardized tests offer meaningful data to help students in marginalized groups.

Keri Rodrigues, Co-founder of the National Parents Union, explained, "If I don't have testing data to make sure my child's on the right track, I'm not able to intervene and say there is a problem and my child needs more. And the community can't say this school is doing well, this teacher needs help to improve, or this system needs new leadership... It's really important to have a statewide test because of the income disparity that exists in our society. Black and Brown excellence is real, but just because a kid lives in Dorchester [Massachusetts] does not make his or her life is less valuable than a child that lives in Wellesley [Massachusetts]. And it is unfair to say that just by luck of birth that a child born in Wellesley is somehow entitled to a higher-quality education... Testing is a tool for us to hold the system accountable to make sure our kids have what they need. "

Sheryl Lazarus, PhD, Director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes at the University of Minnesota, stated, "a real plus of these assessments is that they've really shone a light on the differences across sub-groups. And they have led to improvements in access to instruction for students with disabilities and English learners... Inclusion of students with disabilities and English learners in summative tests used for accountability allows us to measure how well the system is doing for these students, and then it is possible to fill in gaps in instructional opportunity."

Advocates for marginalized groups of students, whether by race, learning disability, or other difference, can use testing data to prove a problem exists and to help solve the problem via more funding, development of programs, or other solutions. Civil rights education lawsuits wherein a group is suing a local or state government for better education almost always use testing data.

Chris Stewart, CEO of brightbeam, summarizes, "We only know that there's a difference between White students and Black students and other students of color because we have the data. We only know about that because we have assessments."

A letter signed by 12 civil rights organizations including the NAACP and the American Association of University Women, explained, "Data obtained through some standardized tests are particularly important to the civil rights community because they are the only available, consistent, and objective source of data about disparities in educational outcomes, even while vigilance is always required to ensure tests are not misused. These data are used to advocate for greater resource equity in schools and more fair treatment for students of color, low-income students, students with disabilities, and English learners... [W]e cannot fix what we cannot measure. And abolishing the tests or sabotaging the validity of their results only makes it harder to identify and fix the deep-seated problems in our schools."
Read More

Pro 3

Standardized tests are useful metrics for teacher evaluations.

While grades and other measures are useful for teacher evaluations, standardized tests provide a consistent measure across classrooms and schools. Individual school administrators, school districts, and the state can compare teachers using test scores to show how each teacher has helped students master core concepts.

Timothy Hilton, a high school social studies teacher in South Central Los Angeles, stated, "No self-respecting teacher would use a single student grade on a single assignment as a final grade for the entirety of a course, so why would we rely on one source of information in the determination of a teacher's overall quality? The more data that can be provided, the more accurate the teacher evaluation decisions will end up being. Teacher evaluations should incorporate as many pieces of data as possible. Administration observation, student surveys, student test scores, professional portfolios, and on and on. The more data that is used, the more accurate the picture it will paint."
Read More

Pro 4

Standardized tests scores are good indicators of college and job success.

Standardized tests can offer evidence of and promote academic rigor, which is invaluable in college as well as in students' careers. Matthew Pietrafetta, PhD, Founder of Academic Approach, argues that the "tests create gravitational pull toward higher achievement."

Elaine Riordan, senior communications professional at Actively Learn, stated, "[C]onsiderable research suggests that interventions that help students improve test scores are linked to better adult outcomes such as college attendance, higher incomes, and the avoidance of risky behaviors... In other words, creating learning environments that lead to higher test scores is also likely to improve students' long-term success in college and beyond... Recent research suggests that the competencies that the SAT, ACT, and other standardized tests are now evaluating are essential not just for students who will attend four-year colleges but also for those who participate in CTE programs or choose to seek employment requiring associate degrees and certificates. The researchers argue that all of these students require the same level of academic mastery to be successful after high school graduation."

Standardized test scores have long been correlated with better college and life outcomes. As Dan Goldhaber, PhD, Director of the Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, and Umut Özek, PhD, senior researcher at the American Institutes for Research, summarize, "students who score one standard deviation higher on math tests at the end of high school have been shown to earn 12% more annually, or $3,600 for each year of work life in 2001... Similarly... test scores are significantly correlated not only with educational attainment and labor market outcomes (employment, work experience, choice of occupation), but also with risky behavior (teenage pregnancy, smoking, participation in illegal activities)."
Read More

Con 1

Standardized tests only determine which students are good at taking tests, offer no meaningful measure of progress, and have not improved student performance.

Standardized test scores are easily influenced by outside factors: stress, hunger, tiredness, and prior teacher or parent comments about the difficulty of the test, among other factors. In short, the tests only show which students are best at preparing for and taking the tests, not what knowledge students might exhibit if their stomachs weren't empty. External stereotypes also play a part in scores: "research indicates that being targeted by well-known stereotypes ('blacks are unintelligent,' 'Latinos perform poorly on tests,' 'girls can't do math' and so on) can be threatening to students in profound ways, a predicament they call 'stereotype threat.'"

Students are tested on grade-appropriate material, but they are not re-tested to determine if they have learned information they tested poorly on the year before. Instead, as Steve Martinez, EdD, Superintendent of Twin Rivers Unified in California, and Rick Miller, Executive Director of CORE Districts, note, each "state currently reports yearly change, by comparing the scores of this year's students against the scores of last year's students who were in the same grade. Even though educators, parents and policymakers might think change signals impact, it says much more about the change in who the students are because it is not measuring the growth of the same student from one year to the next."

Further, because each state develops its own tests, standardized tests are not necessarily comparable across state lines, leaving nationwide statistics shaky at best.

Brandon Busteed, Executive Director, Education & Workforce Development at the time of the quote, stated, "Despite an increased focus on standardized testing, U.S. results in international comparisons show we have made no significant improvement over the past 20 years, according to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). The U.S. most recently ranked 23rd, 39th and 25th in reading, math and science, respectively. The last time Americans celebrated being 23rd, 39th and 25th in anything was ... well, never. Our focus on standardized testing hasn't helped us improve our results!"

Busteed asks, "What if our overreliance on standardized testing has actually inhibited our ability to help students succeed and achieve in a multitude of other dimensions? For example, how effective are schools at identifying and educating students with high entrepreneurial talent? Or at training students to apply creative thinking to solve messy and complex issues with no easy answers?"
Read More

Con 2

Standardized tests are racist, classist, and sexist.

The origin of American standardized tests are those created by psychologist Carl Brigham, PhD, for the Army during World War I, which was later adapted to become the SAT. The Army tests were created specifically to segregate soldiers by race, because at the time science inaccurately linked intelligence and race.

Racial bias has not been stripped from standardized tests. W. James Popham, PhD, Professor Emeritus at the University of California at Los Angeles and former test maker, explains how discrimination is purposefully built in to standardized tests, "Traditionally constructed standardized achievements, the kinds that we've used in this country for a long while, are intended chiefly to discriminate among students ... to say that someone was in the 83rd percentile and someone is at 43rd percentile. And the reason you do that is so you can make judgments among these kids. But in order to do so, you have to make sure that the test has in fact a spread of scores. One of the ways to have that test create a spread of scores is to limit items in the test to socioeconomic variables, because socioeconomic status is a nicely spread out distribution, and that distribution does in fact spread kids' scores out on a test."

As Young Whan Choi, Manager of Performance Assessments Oakland Unified School District in Oakland, California, explains, "Too often, test designers rely on questions which assume background knowledge more often held by White, middle-class students. It's not just that the designers have unconscious racial bias; the standardized testing industry depends on these kinds of biased questions in order to create a wide range of scores." Choi offers an example from his own 10th grade class, "a student called me over with a question. With a puzzled look, she pointed to the prompt asking students to write about the qualities of someone who would deserve a "key to the city." Many of my students, nearly all of whom qualified for free and reduced lunch, were not familiar with the idea of a 'key to the city.'"

Wealthy kids, who would be more familiar with a "key to the city," tend to have higher standardized test scores due to differences in brain development caused by factors such as "access to enriching educational resources, and... exposure to spoken language and vocabulary early in life." Plus, as Eloy Ortiz Oakley, MBA, Chancellor of California Community Colleges, points out, "Many well-resourced students have far greater access to test preparation, tutoring and taking the test multiple times, opportunities not afforded the less affluent... [T]hese admissions tests are a better measure of students' family background and economic status than of their ability to succeed"

Journalist and teacher Carly Berwick explains, "All students do not do equally well on multiple choice tests, however. Girls tend to do less well than boys and perform better on questions with open-ended answers, according to a 2018 study by Stanford University's Sean Reardon, which found that test format alone accounts for 25 percent of the gender difference in performance in both reading and math. Researchers hypothesize that one explanation for the gender difference on high-stakes tests is risk aversion, meaning girls tend to guess less."
Read More

Con 3

Standardized tests are unfair metrics for teacher evaluations.

16 states and DC have stopped using standardized tests in teacher evaluations. [79] [80] As W. James Popham, PhD, noted, "standardized achievement tests should not be used to determine the effectiveness of a state, a district, a school, or a teacher. There's almost certain to be a significant mismatch between what's taught and what's tested."

Margaret Pastor, PhD, Principal of Stedwick Elementary School in Maryland, stated: "[A]n assistant superintendent... pointed out that in one of my four kindergarten classes, the student scores were noticeably lower, while in another, the students were outperforming the other three classes. He recommended that I have the teacher whose class had scored much lower work directly with the teacher who seemed to know how to get higher scores from her students. Seems reasonable, right? But here was the problem: The "underperforming" kindergarten teacher and the "high-performing" teacher were one and the same person."
Read More

Con 4

Standardized tests scores are not predictors of future success.

Standardized tests can only, at best, evaluate rote knowledge of math, science, and English. The tests do not evaluate creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, artistic ability, or other knowledge areas that cannot be judged by scoring a sheet of bubbles filled in with a pencil.

Grade point averages (GPA) are a 5 times stronger indicator of college success than standardized tests, according to a study of 55,084 Chicago public school students. One of the authors, Elaine M. Allensworth, PhD, Lewis-Sebring Director of the University of Chicago Consortium, stated, "GPAs measure a very wide variety of skills and behaviors that are needed for success in college, where students will encounter widely varying content and expectations. In contrast, standardized tests measure only a small set of the skills that students need to succeed in college, and students can prepare for these tests in narrow ways that may not translate into better preparation to succeed in college."

Matthew M. Chingos, PhD, Vice President of Education Data and Policy at the Urban Institute, explained, "earning good grades requires consistent behaviors over time-showing up to class and participating, turning in assignments, taking quizzes, etc.-whereas students could in theory do well on a test even if they do not have the motivation and perseverance needed to achieve good grades. It seems likely that the kinds of habits high school grades capture are more relevant for success in college than a score from a single test."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. The earliest known standardized tests were administered to government job applicants in 7th Century Imperial China.

2. The Kansas Silent Reading Test (1914-1915) is the earliest known published multiple-choice test, developed by Frederick J. Kelly, a Kansas school director.

3. In 1934, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) hired a teacher and inventor named Reynold B. Johnson (best known for creating the world's first commercial computer disk drive) to create a production model of his prototype test scoring machine.

4. The current use of No. 2 pencils on standardized tests is a holdover from the 1930s through the 1960s, when scanning machines scored answer sheets by detecting the electrical conductivity of graphite pencil marks.

5. In 2020, states were allowed to cancel standardized testing due to the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standardized Testing Pros and Cons - Does It Improve Education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the tests offer objective measurements of education. Opponents say tests only show which students are good at taking tests.

# data[].attributes.body
instagram o snapchat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are a lot of comic book superheroes onscreen these days. And there are filmic fights going down offscreen, too, but which studio has it right?

# data[].attributes.body
escuelas durante todo el año

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At more than 3,000 K-12 campuses around the country, school's not necessarily out for the summer.

Year-round schooling, in which a single summer break is swapped out for a series of shorter breaks throughout the year, has become increasingly common, both as an academic improvement strategy and as a solution to overcrowding.

Year-round schooling inspires strong reactions. Advocates argue, among other things, that it can stem summer learning loss, reduce teacher and student burnout, and help working parents manage schedules. Opponents counter that it complicates schedules for parents, takes a financial toll on districts and tourist economies, deprives children of a needed respite from the classroom, and distracts from other, more effective school improvement strategies.

The idea of changing the school year's structure has surfaced in national policy conversations since at least the 1970s. A landmark 1994 report from the National Education Commission on Time and Learning describes the nation's schools as "Prisoners of Time" and advocates for more schools to break away from the traditional Labor Day-to-Memorial Day school year. More recently, a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service, which provides policy and legal analysis to the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, surveyed the research and the state of year-round schooling around the country.

Year-round schooling is not necessarily the same as expanded learning time, which entails lengthening school days or the school year. Many year-round schools simply reorganize the standard 180-day school year.

Here are some answers to common questions about year-round school:

Year-Round Schooling: The Pros

Year-round education is sometimes introduced as an academic remedy and sometimes as a logistical necessity. Advocates for both often describe the traditional school year as outdated, based on an agrarian calendar, and not suited to modern society's needs or structure.

The academic argument for year-round school centers around preventing the so-called summer learning loss that occurs when students are out of school for extended periods of time. Others argue that year-round schedules can enrich students' educational experiences by allowing for the addition of intersessions or creative courses.

In other school systems-primarily those looking to avoid overcrowded classrooms-schools and districts organize students into different tracks in order to maximize the use of building space.

In both cases, advocates often point to side benefits of having a school open year-round. In an era when schools are often hubs for health care and other services, year-round schools have the added perk of allowing access to such services to continue throughout the calendar year. Some also argue that offering more regular breaks prevents burnout of both teachers and students. Several federal programs, including the School Improvement Grant program and waivers from the requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, have offered financial incentives for expanded learning time. That includes some, but not all, year-round schools.

Year-Round Schooling: The Cons

A major thread of argument against year-round schooling as an academic intervention is basically: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Since research is mixed as to whether or not year-round schooling actually helps students, the logistical barriers mean it's not worth a change, according to this line of thinking.

Others cite the financial toll involved in switching the calendar. Tourism and other industries that count on summer vacationers might suffer. High schoolers might be less able to get summer jobs. And the transition can bring added costs to school districts, which have to pay for (and sometimes install) utilities in buildings, stipends for teachers, or other associated expenses.

Still others argue that year-round schooling burdens parents, and takes away from students' time to experience anything outside of the classroom, and reduces teachers' time for professional development and growth. In districts where some schools are year-round and others are traditional, families may have to juggle conflicting schedules.

Statistics: How Many Year-Round Schools Are There? Is the Idea Becoming More Popular?

During the 2011-12 school year, the most recent year for which data is available, about 4 percent of public schools were operating on a year-round schedule, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. That's 3,700 schools, 400 of which are charter schools.

That's a marked increase from 1986, when just 408 schools overall were on a year-round schedule. The number of year-round schools increased by 26 percent between the 2006-07 and 2011-12 school years. The Congressional Research Service reports that year-round schools are more common in the South and West than in the Northeast and Midwest.

The growth in part reflects the traction the idea has gained with state and federal lawmakers in recent years and the increasing availability of funding to support new schedules. The National Association for Year-Round Education, which advocates for and collects research on the topic, was also resurrected in 2015 after an eight-year hiatus.

At the same time, some districts that adopted year-round schedules in the past have changed course. The Los Angeles school district, which embraced year-round schooling as the city's population boomed in the 1980s, had just one school that remained on a year-round schedule by 2015.

The Schedule: How Year-Round Schools Work

Instead of having one long summer break, year-round schools break the academic year up with several medium-sized (think two- or three-week) vacations. This is often referred to as a balanced calendar.

The length of breaks and marking periods vary. Some schools have four 45-day sessions followed by 15-day breaks; others have three 60-day academic sessions followed by 20 days of break; and some have two 90-day sessions and two 30-day breaks.

Other schools extend the school year as well as shifting the schedule, sometimes by adding an "intersession" period of a week or two, during which students take academic courses that are outside their normal courseload. The Congressional Research Service found that the average year-round school is open 189 days per year-nine days longer than the standard 180-day year.

Schools in which the entire student body is on a single year-round calendar are called single-track schools. In other schools, especially where year-round schooling has been adopted to reduce overcrowding, groups of students at the same school have different academic calendars. This is referred to as multitracking.

Studies: How Year-Round Schooling Affects Students

The academic case for year-round school stems from studies that show that the achievement gap between low-income students and their higher-income peers is exacerbated during the summer. But the current research on the academic impact of year-round calendars is inconclusive. One meta-analysis of research from the University of Minnesota, published in 1999, found that 42 studies showed no positive impact from year-round school, while 27 studies showed a significant positive impact. The authors determined that the overall impact was positive, but cautioned that most research on the topic did not control for other relevant factors, such as students' socioeconomic status.

A review in 2003 also found a small positive impact from year-round learning. The authors of that review also raised concerns about the quality of relevant research.

A 2015 study indicates that more advanced students were more likely to benefit from additional days in school than their peers who struggled academically. And a 2005 study of multitracked schools in California found that students were more often tracked along racial and ability levels than in schools with traditional calendars.

Glossary of Terms

Year-round school: An approach to school calendars in which instructional days are spread over the course of the entire year, instead of broken up by a single long summer break. Some year-round schools have longer-than-average school years; others spread the standard number of days over a longer stretch of time.

Extended school year: A school year that has more than the traditional 180 days of instructional time. An extended school year may also be a year-round school, or it may have a traditional long summer break that is shorter.

Expanded learning time: Adding either hours to the school day or days to the school calendar, usually as part of an effort to improve academics. The federal government first included a definition of expanded learning time in the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015.

Balanced Calendar: An approach to structuring the school calendar in which longer periods of time off are spread throughout the year instead of concentrated in a long summer break. An example would include a school with three 60-day academic sessions and 20-day breaks.

Single-track school: A school in which all students and teachers use the same calendar.

Multi-track school: A school in which courses and students are organized into groups that operate on distinct schedules. Usually used as a way to maximize the use of limited space.

Resources and Research

Education Week Resources

How to Cite This Article

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2015, December 18). Issues A-Z: Year-Round Schooling Explained. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/year-round-schooling/

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At more than 3,000 K-12 campuses around the country, school's not necessarily out for the summer. Year-round schooling, in which a single summer break is swapped out for a series of shorter breaks throughout the year, has become increasingly common, both as an academic improvement strategy and as a solution to overcrowding.

# data[].attributes.body
comida o postre

# data[].attributes.body
El salario mínimo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Minimum Wage
The federal minimum wage, introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was initially set at $0.25 per hour. The federal minimum wage has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. Most states plus DC have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage, though several states do not have minimum wage laws (which means workers in those states default to the federal minimum wage). Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Raising the federal minimum wage would not only allow minimum wage workers to afford basic living expenses, but would also reduce income, gender, and racial inequalities.

The current minimum wage is not high enough to allow people to afford housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, "In 2022, a full-time worker needs to earn an hourly wage of $25.82 on average to afford a modest, two-bedroom rental home in the U.S. This... is $18.57 higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25.... A full-time worker needs to earn an hourly wage of $21.25 on average in order to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home in the U.S."

Further, 35% of families with full-time year-round employment do not earn enough to pay for essentials including food and childcare. 59% of Hispanic families, 52% of Black families, 25% of white families, and 23% of Asian families that work full-time year-round cannot cover basic needs. Overall, families would need to earn $11 more an hour to cover basic costs, with Black and Hispanic families needing $12 more an hour.

Approximately 91% of workers who would benefit from a raised minimum wage are over 20 years old, with 68% over the age of 25. Most are the primary wage earners for their families, averaging about 52% of their family's income, and most are women and people of color. The current federal minimum wage prevents these individuals and families from meeting basic needs like shelter and food, as well as creating significant obstacles to healthcare, finances for an emergency, and other expenses such as car upkeep.

Increasing the minimum wage would not only bring relief to workers struggling to make ends meet, it would also raise the incomes of people who make slightly more than minimum wage. The Brookings Institution found that increasing the minimum wage would result in higher wages for the 3.7 million people earning minimum wage and up to 35 million workers who make up to 150% of the federal minimum wage.

The White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) found that an increase to just $10.10 an hour would raise wages for 28 million Americans-about nine million of those due to the ripple effect.
Read More

Pro 2

Raising the minimum wage to match inflation and productivity would benefit the economy by increasing consumer activity and spurring job growth while lowering the federal deficit.

As journalist Megan Cerullo summarizes, "The federal minimum wage of $7.25 buys less today than it has at any point over the past 66 years.... The current value of the minimum wage in real dollars is at its lowest level since February 1956, when the lowest U.S. wage was 75 cents - the equivalent of $7.19 in June 2022 dollars." Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation would ensure that low-wage workers could adopt a standard of living commensurate with the current economy.

Further, while the estimates of how much the minimum wage should be increased vary, many economists agree that if the wage had kept pace with rising productivity and incomes, it would be higher than the current $7.25 an hour. [14] [17] [18]

With an economic boom and more securely employed workers, the federal deficit would decrease. According to James K. Galbraith, Professor of Government at the University of Texas in Austin, "[b]ecause payroll- and income-tax revenues would rise [as a result of an increase in the minimum wage], the federal deficit would come down."

Further, raising the minimum wage would help reduce the federal budget deficit "by lowering spending on public assistance programs and increasing tax revenue. Since firms are allowed to pay poverty-level wages to 3.6 million people - 5 percent of the workforce - these workers must rely on Federal income support programs. This means that taxpayers have been subsidizing businesses, whose profits have risen to record levels over the past 30 years," according to Aaron Pacitti, Associate Professor of Economics at Siena College.
Read More

Pro 3

Increasing the minimum wage would have numerous social benefits including reducing poverty and crime, and increasing school attendance and the healthy population.
Read More

Con 1

Raising the minimum wage would increase housing and consumer goods costs for everyone and greatly disadvantage minimum wage workers.

Raising the minimum wage could decrease employee benefits and increase tax payments, further costing the employees. According to James Sherk, MA, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a single mother working full time and earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour would be over $260 a month worse off if the minimum wage were raised to $10.10: "While her market income rises by $494, she loses $71 in EITC [earned income tax credit] refunds, pays $37 more in payroll taxes and $45 more in state income taxes. She also loses $88 in food stamp benefits and $528 in child-care subsidies."

Raising the minimum wage also creates more jobs for more skilled workers, disadvantaging teenagers, young adults, and those with less education and experience. If employers have to pay an employee more, they will expect the employee to have a more experienced skill set, essentially removing the job from the tier of jobs available to minimum wage workers.
Read More

Con 2

Raising the minimum wage, instead of allowing the free market to determine an appropriate rate, will decrease employee compensation, while forcing businesses to close, use automation, or outsource jobs.

Increasing the minimum wage increases costs for businesses. If a business cannot or will not support the increased cost, the first method of cost correction is to cut hours or lay off employees. Researchers found that "For every $1 increase in the minimum wage, ...the total number of workers scheduled to work each week increased by 27.7%, while the average number of hours each worker worked per week decreased [sic] by 20.8%. For an average store in California, these changes translated into four extra workers per week and five fewer hours per worker per week - which meant that the total wage compensation of an average minimum wage worker in a California store actually fell by 13.6%." The decrease in hours also meant erratic schedules that are difficult for employees to maintain and a decrease in eligibility for benefits such as retirement packages and healthcare.

Businesses that cannot or will not pay a higher minimum wage may also turn to more robots and automated processes to replace service employees. Oxford University researchers explain "robots are already performing many simple service tasks such as vacuuming, mopping, lawn mowing, and gutter cleaning" and that "commercial service robots are now able to perform more complex tasks in food preparation, health care, commercial cleaning, and elderly care."
Read More

Con 3

Raising the federal minimum wage would exacerbate income disparities and the cycle of poverty.

Cost of living varies wildly in the United States. For example, living in New York, California, and Hawaii costs significantly more than living in Mississippi, Kansas, or Montana. If the federal government raises the minimum wage significantly, the wage will be proportionately much higher in lower income states, meaning employers will not be able to afford the costs of paying employees and residents will not be able to afford the cost of living increases necessary to make up the difference. Small rural communities would especially suffer from the disparity.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. America's minimum wage law was signed in 1938. The minimum wage was set at 25 cents, which is equivalent to $5.19 in 2022 dollars.

2. 44% of minimum wage earners are under 25 years old.

3. 30 states and DC have set minimum wages above the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. As of Jan. 12, 2023, the highest is DC, at $16.50 an hour, followed by Washington state at $15.74 an hour.

4. The federal minimum wage has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour.

5. The first state minimum wage laws, introduced between 1912 and the early 1930s, only covered women and minors. The first to cover men was introduced in 1937 in Oklahoma.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say raising the wage will increase economic activity. Opponents say raising the wage would force businesses to lay off employees.

# data[].attributes.body
la gente pasa muchas tiempo en telefonos cellular y computadoras

# data[].attributes.body
¿Es cheerleading un deporte?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Being a Cheerleader - Is Cheerleading a Sport? - Varsity.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every cheerleader gets fired up when someone sparks the "Is cheerleading a sport?" debate. Whether it's a football player in one of your classes, a teacher who talks down about cheerleading, or a friend who doesn't understand why you're not involved in something else "more athletic," you want people to know that cheerleaders are athletes.

# data[].attributes.body
Es la tecnología buena o mala para los estudiantes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What do you think the perfect classroom would look like? If you were asked this question 10 or 15 years ago, you might have said comfy chairs, big desks, a chalkboard and maybe even one computer. When we think about the perfect classroom now, we think of a technology filled room from Smart Boards to laptops and everything in between. Technology to students today is just like a dictionary or an atlas to students a decade or two ago; all are simply used as tools for learning in class. These technological tools can be very beneficial to students for learning and for making school more interesting. Technology can also benefit teachers, by making their jobs easier and by allowing them to focus more on every student’s needs. But these technologies can have a negative impact on students learning. So here is my question, is technology in the classroom actually beneficial? Let’s take a look at the pros and cons.

The Pros of Classroom Technology

Benefits for the Students

Technology is creating many opportunities for students, from learning more to having fun in class. With technology, students are able to learn so much more than if they were learning from a single textbook. Technology allows students to learn from many sources all over the world. An endless supply of information is at the tips of students’ fingers (typing anything in a search engine will allow students to learn about that subject). Also, students are able to learn in their own way at their own pace on specialized internet devices. This allows students to learn in the way that benefits them the most. Technology is making the students of today more intelligent than ever!

Moreover, teachers are able to take advantage of educational apps which trick younger students into learning even when they are playing or creating. Online learning games make students more comfortable with answering questions because even if they lose the game (get the wrong answer), they have the chance to try again, learning from their mistakes. Also, a lot of students learn better when doing activities rather than watching the activities be performed. Apps give hands-on students the opportunity to perform labs, tests and activities. Another benefit of apps is that most students are able to remember theory after performing an experiment or activity. An example is interactive online labs which get students more involved in the class and allow them to understand the material taught in the lectures much faster. After I do a chemistry lab, I easily remember the associated content which helps me when studying for a test.

Furthermore, I believe that technology is keeping learning fun and interesting for the students. The use of technological devices makes students excited about being in class. Students no longer see teachers as boring lecturers. As a result, students pay attention to their teachers and also respect them more. Let’s be honest, as students, we all know that if the teacher is boring, we are going to zone out or find something more interesting to do. I am guilty of putting my head down on the desk and sleeping in class during boring lectures. In high school, instead of listening to my teacher lecture, I would do my homework assignment for that night so that I could benefit from being in class. Kids and teenagers have short attention spans and if the teacher and the material are not interesting, we lose all motivation to focus in class.

Minorities and Students with Low Income Families

It is important that all students have access to technology in the learning process. The everything is becoming more technologically advanced and young kids need to learn how to function in this digital world. I believe that technology in classrooms is important because many students cannot afford to have technology at home.The world is very high-tech, from jobs to higher education, so students need to learn the ins and outs of technology while they are young in order to prepare them for the future.

It is important that students learn through technology not only for their futures but also because it is more interesting. Technology in schools has shown to increase student interest and decrease dropout rates. Learning through technology is especially important for minorities, who have a higher dropping out rate, because it sparks more interest, keeping them in school.

Students with Disability

When I talk about technology, I do not just mean computers; I also mean automatic doors or elevators for students with physical disabilities. If we want kids to learn, they need to be in class, and if getting to class is harder than the class itself, what is the point of going. I understand first-hand the difficulties of getting around school because I had knee surgery and was on crutches for 3 weeks. Luckily my school had an elevator so that I did not have to go up and down stairs all day. Furthermore, technology helps teachers reach all students no matter their disability. For students with disabilities, technology is very beneficial for note taking (whether the student uses voice recognition software or the teacher emails the student the notes), for blind students (textbook reading software) or for students with impaired hearing. When I was in elementary school, a boy in my class wore hearing aids and my school had a special microphone that would amplify the sound of the teacher’s voice in his hearing aids. Technology can also help kids with mental disabilities like Autism learn. Technology is breaking the barrier of learning impairments.

Benefits for the Teachers

I believe technology is very important in learning because it benefits not only the students but also the teachers. Teachers no longer have to carry around lots of books and notes because they are able to have everything on a laptop or iPad. Also, technology benefits teachers as they can easily plan and make lessons, access the curriculum and monitor students’ progress. Teachers can customize lessons for each student’s individual needs and learning type using apps like ActiveGrade, making them better at their jobs. Moreover, laptops and the internet allow teachers to make learning more interesting and interactive with videos, pictures and online activities.

The Proof

The School for Digital Kids

A school open in 2009 called Quest to Learn which is based on game is like learning. The students have one big challenge or “mission” that they cannot solve at the start of the term. The students go through a 10 week program of smaller challenges, learning how to do things that build up to solving that “mission”. The quests get harder and harder as students accomplish the challenges because they are continuously developing their knowledge and skill. Students cannot move on from a quest without completing the level. Moreover, kids get to design games. Game design can help kids think deeper and more abstractly, and can increase their creativity.

The Smart Table

Smart Table 442i

The Smart Table 442i is a new technology which allows collaborative multimedia learning for 8 students. It is a touch screen table that students are able to sit at and participate in one of the many pre-made activity packs. Or teachers can create their own lesson plan using the Smart Table Toolkit. This is proof that technology is making learning more fun, interactive and collaborative as well as making teachers jobs easier.

More Classroom Technologies

Go!Animate lets students create stories and animation videos.

The article discusses 10 different tools that can help teachers make their teaching methods more efficient. Also, these technologies help students learn by making everything from class interaction to assignments easier. This article gives examples of how technology is improving education inside and outside of the classroom. I would recommend taking a look at this article because there are a lot of really cool technologies shown. It makes me wish I was still in elementary school because of all the technology students today have the opportunity to use. When I was in elementary school, I had very little access to technology (not that I am that old, but my school did not have the money to buy computers). Because of my lack of time spent on a computer, I am terrible at all things technology. I cannot even type properly (yes I am typing this blog with my 2 index fingers only)!

The Cons of Classroom Technology

Cost

Unfortunately, many schools do not have the funds to purchase technology and others are just unwilling to buy them. These new technologies can be very pricy. Teachers would have to be trained to operate these technologies which takes time and cost schools more money. Also, with new technologies coming out on a regular basis, it can be very expensive for schools to remain current. And schools are spending so much money on technology, that they do not have enough money for necessities like desks, paper and pencils.

Inexperience with Technology

What students find online might not be appropriate or correct information if they do not know how to properly use the internet. For example, a group of grade 5 student wanted to know if they could put a picture of a so-called “Sasquatch penis bone” that they found online in the science fair. Teachers will need to spend time with students to teach them how to use the internet properly. If they do not do this, the internet will not be beneficial to kids.

Furthermore, some teachers do not know how use technology to benefit students. They tend to avoid technology in general because they are aware that some things you find on the internet can be disruptive. If teachers were taught in teachers college or in training courses how to us technology properly, it would be more beneficial to students. Unfortunately, teachers have not learned how to use technology in teachers college and school boards are not paying for technology training programs. Also, untrained teachers can easily become confused when trying to use the technology, which negatively affects the students by either wasting their time or by confusing the students too.

The Distraction Factor

The major downside to technology in the classroom would be the distraction factor. With the wide variety of websites on the internet, kids are able to google anything to avoid paying attention in class. These distractions can inhibit students from learning and can seriously affect their academic performance. If I have my laptop open or my phone out during class, I have no clue what my prof is talking about. And I am a University student (at this point, my education actually matters)! Imagine how distracted elementary and high school student would get, knowing that their education has not started to become important yet.

Too much Focus on the Gadgets, Not on the Learning

Yes schools are getting praise for how innovative they are for having technology in their classrooms, but are the students really benefiting from it all? In some schools, students’ tests scores have been increasing, but in others there have been no improvements. Teachers are letting technology take over the entire curriculum. Teachers are putting too much emphasis on digital skills and are not spending enough time on the basics like math, reading and writing. This all comes down to knowing how and when to use technology.

The Verdict

There are more pros to technology in classrooms than cons. But the cons would need to be fixed in order for technology is classrooms to truly be beneficial. Governments need to give more funding to school so that they can purchase the necessary technologies. Teachers also need to be trained in using technology. Unfortunately, the distraction factor will always exists, so all teachers can do is make their lessons as interesting as possible. Lastly, teachers need to learn how and when to use technology.

How and When to Use Technology

I think almost everyone, including myself, can agree that technology in classrooms is beneficial to a certain extent. One of the big reasons for this is that low-income families do not have the means to purchase tech gadgets for the home, so it is important that schools allow students the access to technology. The real question is how much technology is beneficial? The idea of students bringing their own laptops or tablets to class may make other students uncomfortable because they cannot afford new technologies for themselves. I can relate to this because in high school, I did not have a laptop, tablet or smartphone. So when kids brought them to class to do work, it made me feel inferior to them because I could not afford anything high-tech. In my opinion, students should not bring their personal gadgets to class. I think that schools should provide the appropriate technologies to students and nothing more. There are exceptions like for students with disabilities who should bring the technologies they need to facilitate their learning.

Moreover, it is important for both the teachers and students to know how to use technology as an educational asset and not just see an iPad or laptop as interesting and expensive gimmicks. If used properly, technology has been proven to engage students as well as improve intellectual skills like reading and problem solving. And to use these devices properly, teachers will need to be trained. Professors and graduate students from Harvard believe that future teachers need to understand technology and learn how to apply it to education. Harvard actually holds seminars on how to use technology in the classroom in many different ways for current faculty and staff as well as graduate students.

Furthermore, technologies allow choice and diversity in teaching which promotes positive development in students. But this positive development does not come from simply using technology; it comes from using it well. Just because a teacher has technology in the classroom does not mean that students will learn to use the technology properly for their benefit. Teachers need to plan what technology is used to ensure everything is educational.

Tips for Using Technology Properly in the Classroom

Technology should be used for more creative activities, no just as a digital worksheet.

Technology should be used for a purpose, not just to keep students busy.

Technology should be used for new things you cannot do on paper or on the chalkboard.

Technology should be used to access information you cannot get from a book (videos, pictures, information from all over the world – Teachers, you have no excuse to not have the appropriate resources!)

Technology should be used for doing things in more efficient ways (online books reading apps instead of CD’s or cassettes)

Technology should be used for sharing and learning (students are able to get support from family and friends)

Technology should be used to connect with other classes and resources (through Skype, Twitter and blogs for example)

Technology should be used to create choice (all students are different – options create customized learning for each student so they can learn in the most effective way possible)

In Conclusion

Technology in the classroom has many benefits for students as they learn in interesting, interactive and personalized ways. Technology also has consequences because of teachers not knowing how to use it properly. Moreover, technology causes lots of distractions for students, affecting their learning. Unfortunately teachers cannot do much to stop kids from getting distracted, but they can be taught how to use technology properly. With a little work by teachers, technology in classrooms can be an excellent resource. Now it is up to schools to start introducing these tech gadgets to the class if they want to ensure that their students learn properly to benefit their futures.

# data[].attributes.body
La ropa en escuela

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Clothing as a primary means for expressing ideas for students is as primitive as clothing itself, yet schools across the country often grapple with whether to enforce strict dress code policies that may interfere with a students' right to self-expression.

While school boards are generally allowed to create and enforce dress code programs within their districts, they must do so without violating the constitutional rights of students.
School Dress Code Laws
The first school dress code law was established in 1969 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, known as Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, involved several high school students who wore black armbands to school in a planned protest against the Vietnam War. In a far-reaching decision, the Court essentially decided that schools may limit student expression (such as enforcing dress codes) if there is a legitimate concern that such expression will be disruptive to the learning environment or violate the rights of others.

Today, most states have laws that allow school boards to make dress code rules for students within their district to promote a safe, disciplined school environment, prevent interference with schoolwork and discipline, and to encourage uniformity of student dress. For instance, dress codes that prohibit clothing that is vulgar, obscene or worn in a manner that disrupts school activity are generally permitted - whereas dress codes that censor student expression because educators do not like the message are generally not permitted.
Dress Code Policies vs. Freedom of Speech
Not all speech is protected in a school setting. For example, students who wear clothing that follows the latest fashion trend - such as oversized shirts and slouchy jeans for boys, or short skirts and mid-drift cut-out shirts on girls - or clothing that supports a particular sports team, religion, or political point of view, may be prohibited in dress code policies if the student's choice in clothing draws attention away from the school's learning environment.

Therefore, limits on dress codes have including the following:

Limits on 'gang-related' clothing, sometimes described as over-sized clothing and other clothing meant to show affiliation with a certain gang or group, such as certain colors, logos, brand names, or arrangement

Ban on suggestively-themed T-shirts, such as Marilyn Manson t-shirts

Requirement to wear school colors only

Limits on skirt, shirt, and pant length

Ban on clothing that depicts lewd, sexually explicit, or idecent drug use

Seasonal closthing restriction, such as limits on midriffs and lower backs not being exposed in hot weather

"Baggy pants" restriction prohibiting students from wearing clothin that exposes underwear or body parts in a way that is indecent or vulgar

Freedom of Religion Issues
In contrast to limits on dress as a means to providing a safe learning environment, school dress codes, in most cases, cannot be used to prevent students from expressing their religion beliefs. Both the Constitution and most state laws protect students' rights to wear religious attire inool school, such as the wearing of a turban, yarmulke, or head scarf.

Below are situations where dress codes have been challenged on religious freedom grounds:

Muslim Girl suspended for wearing a head scarf

Ban on cross necklaces

Bans on wearing traditional dress (such as feather or tribal cloth) to graduation

Ban on the wearing of non-US flag necklaces

Ban on rosaries

Requirement that boys cut their hair to comply with a campus dress code

What Schools Can Do
Generally, schools have the right to create rules that provide an effective public school education for its students. Both students and staff of primary, elementary, junior and senior high school campuses have the right to be safe and secure in their persons. This means that school may include in their dress codes methods which further the goals of a learning institution and that prevents violent or abusive behavior.
What You Can Do
Students and parents should obtain a copy of your school's dress code policy to get an understanding of what may or may not be acceptable clothing at school. For questions concerning whether the policy infringes on your constitutional rights, you may wish to consult with an education attorney in your area who can advise you of the laws in your state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Clothing as a primary means for expressing ideas for students is as primitive as clothing itself, yet schools across the country often grapple with whether to enforce strict dress code policies that may interfere with a students' right to self-expression.

# data[].attributes.body
El peligro de jugar el fútbol americano

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
e just completed another regular season of NFL football. Now let's see if we can make it the last such season ever played. In its current state, professional football is immoral and we as a society should end its existence.

I imagine some fans of American football felt their hackles rise upon reading that. "Immoral" is a strong word, impossible to type from anywhere other than the saddle of a very tall horse, which isn't the most comfortable seat for me.

I ate foie gras with Christmas dinner last week and enjoyed it immensely. I know that its production involves torturing ducks, which I think is wrong. In eating it, I am putting my own pleasure over the wellbeing of another living creature.

So I don't take the moral high ground lightly. But I value human life more than avian life, so I will continue to scold those of you who put the pleasure you derive from watching football (and in so doing, paying money to the NFL, propagating its immoral practices) above the wellbeing of the players you're watching play.

The damage football players suffer need not be debated at this point. The new Will Smith movie, Concussion, is based on one of the many books detailing the mountain of scientific evidence proving that the sport shortens lives. Efforts to make it safer with better equipment will not work, because the damage happens inside the players' skulls, when the brain sloshes around and smashes against its bone casing. It's the speed and power with which players ram their helmeted heads into other players that's the problem. The game as it is played today kills the people who play it, period.

I have been arguing about this a lot over the past year with my friend Todd, who is a football fan and also a good person, I believe. Todd's defense of professional football is based on the notion of freedom: NFL players are adults, he says, and they should be free to do whatever they want with their bodies, including destroy them by playing a game for which they get paid a lot of money. Todd brings up my individualistic positions on abortion (pro-choice) and drug use (legalize it) and assisted suicide (same) in his efforts to sway me. These are pretty good arguments. Is there inconsistency in my calling for an end to the NFL?

But I approach the issue from the other side: it's not the players who I am calling immoral. The onus is on us, the fans (and, more directly, the team owners) who pay the players to hurt themselves for our enjoyment. Huge amounts of money, let-your-parents-retire-and-set-up-the-next-generation-of-your-family-to-go-to-college money, "make him an offer he can't refuse" money. The money is there, so if one 20-year-old does muster up the sense to say no, there'll be 20 others waiting in line to say yes. Football fans are like Roman citizens cheering as gladiators fight to the death in the Colosseum. NFL team owners, who make money from the spectacle, are more on a level with Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained.

Todd counters that we pay lots of people in lots of other professions for the risks they take, the danger they put their bodies in. Ice road truckers, halibut fishermen, fire jumpers, underwater oil rig welders, police officers. Should we outlaw all these professions? There's risk involved in just about anything, if you look for it. At a certain point, society would crumble.

The difference here, I would say, is in the "for our entertainment" part. That's where the NFL tips into immorality. (Like eating foie gras.) We don't need to watch football - we choose to - and everything we get out of it is non-essential. It is a luxury. It satisfies something deep inside us: bloodlust, that same inclination that causes backups at accident scenes and the popularity of videos of lunchroom brawls posted on World Star Hip Hop. We watch an airborne human body get absolutely pummeled by another airborne body, helmet first, and we can hear the crunch of the bones - we can feel the crunch of bones. "Owwww," we say. That's gotta hurt!" And we reach for the remote control and hit the rewind button.

We should be more honest about how ugly and shameful our bloodlust is (and about how natural it is, too, and how inherent to the human condition), and we should try to channel our need for catharsis in this regard into forms of entertainment that don't leave real broken bodies their wake. Violent movies, I would argue, are far more easily defensible on moral grounds, as are gangsta rap and first-person shooter video games.

But many football fans avoid confronting this central aspect of the game. They'll say they enjoy it more for the strategic acumen displayed by the best coaches (try to find the name of New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick written anywhere without the precedent descriptor "genius". It's not easy.) Or they'll mention its display of core American values like teamwork, discipline and individual sacrifice for a greater good. For how a well-thought-out, well-executed gameplan can neutralize a physical advantage one team holds over another, and how on "any given Sunday" an underdog can buck the odds and win. It's a metaphor for war, it's a metaphor for life, etc, like all sports we like to watch. I'm all right with that. I love a good metaphor like the way I love my own mom.

Here is where something Todd said in one of our arguments carries the day, I think: "The real solution is to go back to the time when players didn't wear helmets," he said, surprising me. "It's weird, it's counterintuitive. But no helmets, no headfirst collisions. They just couldn't do it - they'd be knocked unconscious and wouldn't be able to play any more. No headfirst collisions, no brain damage. It would actually make the game much safer."

This is right, I think. And I'm not the only one. "Football helmets are creating more problems than they solve," wrote the Sporting News's Tadd Haislop a couple of months ago. Even the co-chairman of the NFL's own health and safety advisory committee, Dr John York, told the BBC that he can envision a helmetless future for the NFL. "Can I see a time without helmets? Yes," York said, noting that it would require wholesale changes in the way the game is played. "It's not around the corner, but I can see it."

Football without helmets would be more like rugby, or even the " powder puff " flag-football version popular with young women at American high schools and colleges than the brutal NFL incarnation of the sport.

Would football fans still watch? Enough of them to support the $7.24bn-per-year industry the NFL has become? It would be an interesting experiment to try, to see if Americans are as enamored with the strategic aspects of the game as the intelligentsia claim to be.

It would not, however, be a fiscally sound gamble. Shortly after making his comments to the BBC about envisioning a helmetless future for the NFL, Dr York " clarified " his statement for CBS News: "The co-chairman of the NFL's health and safety advisory committee believes that helmets in American football are part of the culture and tradition and doesn't foresee an NFL where helmets aren't being used."

Which leaves us with one moral option: illegalize it, the whole operation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American football is too dangerous, and it should be abolished | Dave Bry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
e just completed another regular season of NFL football. Now let's see if we can make it the last such season ever played. In its current state, professional football is immoral and we as a society should end its existence. I imagine some fans of American football felt their hackles rise upon reading that.

# data[].attributes.body
Tarea de los maestros - ¿Es importante tenerla?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Homework Good for Kids? Here’s What the Research Says

# data[].attributes.body
YOUR TOPIC TO DEBATE:
las horas de la escuela

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teens May Do Better When School Starts Later

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teens aren't wired to wake up so early, so middle and high schools should start later, sleep experts say.