well, the cost data is the most compelling. you can effectively operate fewer schools because of the student track rotation. 25% of the population is on break at all times, so you only have to handle 75% of what you normally would. as far as academic data, it seems to pretty much be a wash...
Except that the plan is not a track 3 in, 1 out rotation. The current calendar, can be viewed on the JoCo (..there I said it...) School Board website. http://johnstoncounty.nc.schoolwebpages.com/education/page/download.php?fileinfo=MjAxMC0yMDExIEFjYWRlbWljIEVuaGFuY2VtZW50IENhbGVuZGFyOjo6L3d3dzEwL3NjaG9vbHMvbmMvam9obnN0b25jb3VudHkvaW1hZ2VzL2F0dGFjaC8xMTQwNTMvOTU1MDJfMTE0MDUzX2F0dGFjaF8xOTMwNS5wZGY= It's called an "Academic Enhanced Calendar". And I feel that by promoting it with a powerful monicker, they hope to gain some traction. I also know what a road apple is, and to not step in one. So far, the "AEC" is "KID" - Kept In the Dark. Of course, they could be really creative, calling it RAMROD, as that's apparently the way it'll be handled...Random Academic Measurables, Rejecting Objective Data.
oh, so what we're talking about isn't year round school at all, is it? your link shows that summer vaca is june 10-july28. 7 weeks isn't a long enough summer? all we're talking about is a couple of weeks. do you commonly vacation for two+ months each summer?
I think the schools job is to educate children and as many of them as they have capacity for. If that means readjusting the schedule to accommodate more children and make better use of the facilities then so be it. If year-round helps them do that without having to build more schools at capacity and hire more teachers (use more tax dollars) then so be it. I do not think it is the schools responsibility to worry about junior's summer vacation. As for teacher burn-out...I am sure any adjusted calendar will also accommodate teacher's time off as well. I get three weeks of vacation a year. Of course, I can take it whenever I want to but no one worries about me burning out. I am having a hard time making sense of the information a couple of people have provided here, but it doesn't seem like everyone is discussing the same thing anyway. If the schools are having trouble keeping up then they need to adapt...and so do parents.
I'm just not for change, for change sake. There is equivocal data. If they can't demonstrate a positive, why change it? If a change is needed, why change all? What about offering some families the option for year round as well as the different schedule?
We have friends that do the year round school thing and the coach usually works with the families during their track-outs...a make it if you can policy, or a be here if you aren't on vacation policy. The sports teams seem to do fine at the year round schools. But the original post was not about a year round calendar, it was about a modified calendar which is not the same thing. I like the calendar because I feel like my kids wouldn't feel as burned out as they do at certain points in the school year, and the summers are so hot here they might as well be inside in the air-conditioning learning during most of August, with a couple weeks of hopefully better weather in the fall. Just another thought on the sports thing...we have friends with kids that play high school sports that are required to be at school to practice on Saturday mornings. Mine has also had Saturday practices. I think if your child participates in school sports at the high school level you are expected to be relatively inconvenienced--it's just part of the deal, but I also think that most coaches understand if your child has to miss practice because of a family commitment, or sometimes even work. Probably varies from coach to coach, and sport to sport, just how understanding they are.
I talked to my elementary child's principal about this and it is a fact that all elementary principals are to start the process on this "Academic Enhanced Calendar". It was mandated at this month's Board of Ed meeting. The principals are suppose to talk to their staff and have at least two parent meetings before the survey is passed out. If 50% of the staff AND 50% of parents vote yes, then they will go back to the Board of Ed to put their school in for consideration to go to this type schedule. She said she didn't know how many they were going to approve and I'm betting they're waiting until they get all the preliminary work out of the way. I am personally against this schedule as I DON'T think seven weeks off in the summer is enough. My kids barely have enough time with the 2+ months off to unwind and do fun things or nothing at all. And the week they have off for remidiation or enhancement between nine weeks, as they do both for those that want to do it, or at least that's what my principal said they will be doing, would mean those kids that opt in for those weeks are in school basically year-round. Too much for kids, if you ask me. Let kids be kids and have their fun summers to enjoy.
My concern is that the last survey showed an overwhelming NO! Seems that the test score is being lowered for a more achievable tolerance level. So, if one school is 50/50..is that a yes or a no? what if a couple of schools are yes, and others are no? Who decides? And, without an option for parents to switch, this seems ripe for legal action. Said legal action, almost a guaranteed result, is only going to cost the schools money to defend a policy at great expense, with doubtful outcomes. As I said earlier. RAMROD Or, as those of us military service recognize it. BOHICA
Perhaps planning for future growth? Making changes to the calendar before it becomes a problem? Seeing as the information being provided in this discussion so far seems to be heresay and speculation rather an official communication from the public schools, it might be best not to get our underwear in a know about it just yet.
Stay on topic, stay on topic... You seem to have it all figured out to, eh? For the record I feel that good infrastructure is rarely a waste of tax payer dollars...and neither is education. I am glad we never used any tax payer dollars to expand our road system, airports or sewer system for that matter as our area grows. Sometimes change happens.
And apparently, you're mistakenly considering that this is the land of transparency and open mindedness. FWIW, my underwear is neither in a knot or a know. Pretty much, you won't find an employee on here discussing it that we know about. The system and some of the people in it are vindictive enough that adverse things do happen to those who do not sing the party line. Lest you think otherwise, I've seen it happen.
"Academic Enhanced Calendar" Don't say YEAR ROUND or you'll get yelled at.... Yup it's the pre-curser to the same thing but with out ANY TAX DOLLARS Saved... None, zippo, nada. It's not a multi track plan with better use of the buildings and buses; it's a re-arranged school calendar for ELEMENTARY Schools that were in ACADEMIC NEED. Bottom Line: No tax Savings, Shorter Summer holiday; NO THANK YOU!! I agree the "AEC" is "KID" - Kept In the Dark.
I agree with you. I seem to recall that the survey at South Smithfield showed an overwheming opposition by parents to the enhanced calendar and a new survey was ordered. It managed to come out with the end result that the Board/Administrators/etc. wanted. From what my principal said, it would be up to the Board to decide who goes to the enhanced calendar. So it's time now to start calling & e-mailing those board members to let them know your position. As well as be at the meetings and make your voices heard.
really again???? We were told it actually costs MORE to run the enhancement calendar........we shall see. We have not had the discussion yet (at my school)......I guess we will be hearing soon.
I'm spoke with a teacher today from one of the 4042 area elementary schools. Her understanding is that a decision is desired by the end of March. We've got precious little time, folks. Let the board know, CC us on here so we can follow.
Letter emailed to JoCo School Board and Dr Croom. Dear Mr. Strickland and members of the board, As a former member of Polenta Elementary School’s advisory board, I was and remain a proud graduate of and supporter for NC public school education, especially in Johnston County, serving as the biggest cheerleader when we do it right, and the first to criticize when we do it badly. Along with many others, I am vehemently against consideration of the adoption of the proposed “Academic Enhanced Calendar”, for several reasons: 1. There is no evidence that the AEC benefits all students, schools, and academic scores, ceteris paribus. 2. The JC schools touted as successful under this calendar as significantly improved are actually Title One schools who receive additional funding and resources designed to improve low scoring schools. In effect, we are comparing West Smithfield Elementary and South Smithfield Elementary schools to schools in the Cleveland area, which is not a valid comparison. Apples are being compared to oranges. Yes, both are fruit, yet not interchangeable. 3. There is no alternative available if the Cleveland area elementary schools go to the AEC. If each school votes with a 51-49 basis, and the perception is that the majority of all schools supports the adoption, this will leave many families not desiring adoption with no other option. 4. Principals who are discussing this with their staffs have indicated that the onus is on them to make the change. In this, it seems that the principals are in a competition to see who gets to first base quickest, regardless of whether change is desired or not. Staff feels railroaded. 5. There is no economic benefit demonstrated with adoption of the AEC. Furthermore, the costs seem to increase, especially having the schools cooled longer in July and August than currently necessary. 6. TAs will get no break from driving their routes, as it currently stands. If, as one hears, the consideration is afoot to contract out bus services and remove TAs entirely, this is a shortsighted move. While the county may save some money from displacing the TAs, those students who receive the assistance needed between teacher and assistant will adversely be affected, especially if the expectation for instruction to be differentiated to all students within a classroom. 7. Staff members with whom I have spoken have a concern that if they don’t jump on this bandwagon, that somewhere down the line, they may feel repercussions for their stance. 8. The adoption of this calendar is not family friendly, especially if a family has children in different levels of school. A 1st grade child will have one schedule, where their siblings in middle school and high school will have a different one. 9. Certainly, given the confusion in Wake, and the perception that Johnston is trying to emulate their city cousins, the effort to convince parents of a change of this magnitude will require substantial time and resource allocation, which would be better utilized in the classroom. 10. This issue, one of great magnitude, seems to be rushed and conducted with a minimum of family input. Certainly, there will be a court challenge of the process used to adopt, as well as the lack of options for parents who seek a traditional calendar, representing yet again, the use of scant resources to defend an unpopular and unproven approach. 11. If the data being presented from the two elementary schools is being used to entice other principals to adopt this, this is not a transparent move by the schools, more a ‘smoke and mirror’ one-size-fits-all approach, which we all know not to be true. The data for WSES and SSES are applicable to those schools, and the additional resources must be taken into account. 12. No credible data is available to demonstrate that the adoption of the AEC will benefit the schools in the Cleveland area. 13. “Bradley McMillan, from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, examined achievement differences between year-round and traditional-calendar students using data for more than 345,000 North Carolina public school students. He found that achievement in year-round schools was no higher than in traditional schools (2001). A much smaller study compared the mathematics performance of 44 students in 5th and 6th grades on a year-round track with that of 40 students on a traditional track in the same school. Again, there were no significant achievement differences between the groups (Ferguson, 1999)”. 1 14. Hearing that the principals from West Smithfield and South Smithfield will be bringing their school "fix it" show to other elementary schools is a poor use of their time. They should remain at their own schools in a Continuing Improvement Process. For these, and several other reasons, the effort to pursue adoption of the Academic Enhanced Calendar must be stopped. The precious resources of time and effort being consumed by this ill advised maneuver must revert to the classrooms. Best regards, ........................signature................ Notes: 1 http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/year-round-schooling/
Amen. Can I stand on your soapbox too? I'm against this proposed calendar change for the schools....any school....period.
