It can very easily be noticed that the first perspective is staunchly supportive of a year-round school year, and the third is supportive but not in favor of immediate implementation. The second, however, is definitely not in favor of the new school year model being proposed. The second perspective makes its point made with several lines stating things such as "Students already spend too much time in the classroom", "There's no reason to abandon a model that has proven successful", and "simply increasing the number of hours that students spend in the classroom won't fix the problems." These lines are contested by the other two perspectives with lines such as the following: "Doing so would be in the best interests of current and future students, the United States, and the world in which the students …show more content…
I firmly agree with the statements on how excelling means the sacrifice of longer breaks. Without the longer breaks, comes shorter, but more frequent, sabbaticals that allow a students mind to relax, but not forget what they were taught. As a student myself, I can firmly say that if the United States educational model were year-round, I would hope to see improvement in both myself and my peers. I do, however, also agree with the third statement when it says that there should be an experimentation period with willing schools, students, and parents, to test the effectiveness of the new