I am involved with the PTA and have been urged by my principal to help get the word out that nothing is being decided yet. These surveys are not votes that will make this schedule happen or not. The school board will be discussing the option and wants feedback from teachers and parents. At our school, Dixon Road, we will have a meeting when we present questions. Then there will be another meeting when all of the questions will be answered and then a survey will go out. It is also my understanding that it will not be a county wide thing, but more of a school by school choice.
Originally I thought that they were doing a multi track year round. Multi track year round does save money but does not have an impact on student success. It also creates scheduling chaos. I would not have been in support of this. The new calendar on the other hand I could go either way with. My child will attend JCO schools either way and will be successful b/c of the wonderful teachers he has and the support he gets at home. I also want to see other children be just as successful despite their learning differences/home situation. If this new calendar will help with that I am will to be "inconvenienced" one or two weeks (and enjoy a longer Christmas holiday) in order to do that. Single track has been proven to boost success rates. I will miss the AIG Center but I am sure that the schools will fing just as good of a way if not better to continue to meet the needs of my child just as they are trying new things to meet the needs of other children. Also, I am currently not employed at Johnston County Schools.
Presuming you haven't taken the time to read the VOLUMES of discussion of items concerning local schools and education of our children on this board, not just this thread, it appears that you are basing your posts without full awareness. As the spouse of a career public school educator, I don't belittle educators or public education. I do hold educators to a high standard and will be the first to admit that not all those who teach in our classrooms should be doing so. It seems that you also presume an unenlightened class of parents, who are clueless as to the educational needs and processes of our schools and our children. Who best to direct the needs of a child? I submit it should be the parents. And educate, in conjunction with those who would teach the children, regardless of setting. To blithely dismiss parental responsibilities under the assumption that elected officials, their employees, and local schools and teachers always know what's best is an attempt to disengage oneself from any responsibility for your child's success or failure. My issue with this process has been that elected officials, spending tax dollars are incommunicado, by their choice. My issue with this process is that it appears to be based on "this has worked in other schools, so we'd like to try it" without the benefit of comparative data. I've seen no data on which to compare, just data that shows the change MAY benefit certain subgroups in a school system, but not the overall population. And the population at large is the collective responsibility. The responsibility for the education of an individual child belongs with the family that supports, or does not support that child's education. We seem to support those who do not support their own more than we support those who deeply involve themselves and push their children towards excellence, not just achieving the minimum passing level. Teacher burnout is the same as ER doctor burnout, except for the speed at which poor decisions are noticed.
So is it being done because it's cheaper or because it helps improve academics? Stop moving the goal posts.
Research on summer learning loss vs. year round school I actually found research from Paul von Hippel at Ohio State University that has studied the comparison of academics between year round and traditional school calendars. The research can be summed up by his ending quote, " “On the other hand, if a school is considering a year-round calendar in hope of boosting academic achievement, it seems unlikely that those hopes will be realized,” von Hippel said. I encourage you to take a look at it. Feel free to google his name and it should pop up quickly.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED397129.pdf Also it is my understanding that they have had some success in the Smithfield pilot program.
There is a significant difference in the success of the studies of multitrack and single. You will find a lot of negative about multi track.
Two schools failing AYP and told to get better or else, given additional resources, and with different demographics than the Cleveland area schools. Comparable data, not general comparison.
That doesn't mean it won't work at boosting our children's retention though. It just means that the average child in Cleveland area does not have as much to lose by not adopting it.
I don't want to go tit for tat on debating research other than to say that the link suggesting that there may be promise is from 15 years ago. I will continue to look at BOTH sides of the debate utilizing current data, similar circumstances, and similar population to Johnston County. Any research should be looked at for validity, relevance, and current data. It is easy to pick and choose statements without looking at the whole picture or long term-data. It is difficult for me to look at something studied one year in a pilot program that also utilized other education methods and see the LONG term advantages or disadvantages.
Somehow, I'm unfamiliar with the logical argument of supporting a change by use of a double negative. I don't hear of law enforcement stating that if criminals commit crimes, they won't need a bigger budget. By that same token, state fairgoers could claim that the less they pay to enter the fairgrounds, the more they could spend on the rides. By your argument, we could claim that increased parental involvement brings about better academic results. Cleveland schools already demonstrate that. It just depends on the point from from where one measures change. I'm happy for those students in Smithfield that the resources were applied to turn around FAILING schools. I don't see where that applies to the Cleveland ones. Your logic is emotive. I'm seeking statistical comparison. And the 'proof' so far is lacking.
Are you aware that study is 15 years old? Got anything more relevant? Lots of things have changed in the past 15 years.
If you just look at the EOG scores (which we measure the success of our students on) as just pass/fail then it does not matter if we increase them at all. Then just keep everything the way it is. No harm no foul. Cleveland schools are fantastic and almost everyone makes the grade. But what if our succeeding children could do better? I know my child goes back into school in September reading a year behind what he left with in June. He is still well above grade level but what it we did not have to spend the first 2 months of school regaining what we lost over the long break? What is he could advance 2 years in reading over the course of the year instead of 1.5? I am just giving analogies. The studies suggest (and children are children and reading is reading and scores are scores the gains are still ral even if it was 15 years ago) that this would curb some of the summertime loss. That the children learn more and test better when their breaks are not as long.
So maybe during break you hold his heels to the fire still with reading so the long break isn't an issue.
Who is responsible for this child? I would submit that if a parent allows a child to 'data dump' learning, instead of building on it, they are at fault for letting educational opportunities pass by, and for doing nothing to change it. By your sentiment, children should excel if they went 2 days on, 2 days off, all year around, with a small Winter break.
ALL children "data dump" to some extent over the summer. I know this as a parent and a teacher. Teachers will tell you it takes some time at the beginning of each year to get them back where they were before summer. My child reads all summer long and it still takes some time for him to get back into the swing of things. All this aside, it is not about my child as he is successful and will continue to be b/c he gets the attention and resources he needs. He will pass the EOG and will allow Cleveland Schools to keep their banner. The question is could we do better and could we do better for all children?
hat, i'm gonna look at that info you posted as half full instead of half empty. the results in difference in calendar are statistically insignificant to just slightly leaning to the positive (even if only by tenths), and has been proven to help in "economically disadvataged" student populations. there have to be those in cleveland who fall into that category on some level, even if not to the level of other entire schools identified as such. the upshot as i read that is that it shouldn't hurt the status quo on performance, and may actually help some.
Based on the data I have seen, i have to agree with you. I don't understand why, if it is not hurting the high performing students and is helping the lower performing students, people would be so adamantly against it. Many have spent time calling people who agree with the calendar self-serving, but it seems to be the other way around. I also i have to note that I find it disheartening to see people belittling other's intelegence, parenting skills, opinion, etc. simply because they do not agree with them. Comparing data and sharing opinions is one thing, but posters on this forum seem to go into attack mode when someone, especially someone new, disagrees with them. No one noted that Hatts data was 8 and 10 years old respectively. Is it because they agree with him? Because he is a 4042 veteran? Idk, but it is interesting.
