Recently, debate has arisen over the changes that Governor Larry Hogan and the Board of Education have made to next year’s school calendar.  A major component of the changes is moving the start date to after Labor Day.  I support the new school calendar, since it provides many benefits for students, parents, and the economy.

The new 2017-2018 calendar, which was unveiled by the Board of Education in mid-December, is composed of 182 days instead of the usual 184 days of school.  School ends on June 14, which is two days earlier than the closing date for the 2016-2017 school year.

As always, these dates may change if enough days of school are cancelled due to severe weather.  However, the new calendar has a plan to account for these closings.  The new school calendar adopts two of the days during Spring Break, March 26 and 27, as possible instructional days in case of emergency closings.  And even if those instructional days are not used, next year’s Spring Break will be one day shorter.

Despite an abbreviated Spring Break, many students have defended the actions of the school board.  “While I do understand that we need our vacation [during the spring], I think that the Board is doing the best to account for those emergency closings,” said sophomore Daniel Lopez. Cutting days off of Spring Break is a feasible way to reach the required 180 days of instruction.

Some RM students are riled up about the possible shortage of Spring break vacation. “I don’t think it’s fair to both kids and parents to take days off Spring break,” said senior Noah Montemarano. “It’s the perfect time period to visit relatives and go on vacation. The Board must have a pretty good reason to cut off these days.”

The new calendar has several reasonable benefits for the entire county. It would give students a summer break that extends until Labor Day. This would provide families the opportunity to travel and enjoy a relaxed vacation to a fuller extent.

Not only will a later school start date benefit students, but it will also boost the state economy.  According to the Bureau of Revenue Estimates, a post Labor-Day school start would generate 74.3 million dollars in direct economic activity. This will bring financial prosperity to the government as well as the families of Maryland.

Many have shown opposition to Hogan’s executive order requiring schools to start after Labor Day. Critics argue that impoverished families will struggle with the financial burden of providing child care and meals to their children for a longer period of vacation.  While this may be true for kids and parents in the poverty range, I believe that these families should not have to depend on school for daily meals. The economic issues at the root of this problem go beyond school, and should be solved separately from the calendar decision.

Opponents of the later start date also claim that the longer summer vacation increases “summer slide” learning loss.  Yet this does not provide a strong counter argument against the new calendar. The length of summer vacation is not the only factor that impacts education. Rather than focusing on this, our school system should be looking at other ways to bolster education.

Many Democratic board members view the new proposal as Governor Hogan’s attempt to counter local school-board jurisdiction. Despite Democratic opposition, a recent Washington Post/University of Maryland poll found that 75 percent of respondents approve of the new schedule.

Although the new calendar is facing criticism, I firmly support it.  The later start date will allow families to enjoy an extended summer vacation and the economic activity that results will benefit everyone.