Actually, my principal is where I got this information. The remediation during those weeks will be provided from 8:30 -11:30 and it is free. There will be educational day care offerred all day during the intersession weeks and it will be paid for by the parents. Transportation nor lunch will be provided either, so parents will have to take and pick-up their kids, as well as send lunches with them. How many kids that really need the remediation will be there if they have no transportation? Currently, the two Smithfield schools that are on this calendar do provide transportation and it is paid for by grants. I'm not sure about lunches for those schools. I also believe those intersession weeks are free to all children that go to them due to those grants as well, but I'm not positive. But I do know those grants run out after next year, so they'll be in the same boat as all other schools that will have to find the money to pay for the remediation and those parents who have come to rely on buses running those weeks will have to provide their own transportation as well.
As a parent with a child in high school, one that will start middle school next year, and one in elementary school, this calendar will absolutely NOT work for our family. 1. Summer Breaks- My high school student helps in watching my younger one during the summer. This will cause me to have to pay to find child care during those weeks that she is back in school. Yes, I do pay my high schooler but not nearly as much as a camp would be! 2. Limitied Child Care Options- We are not set up like Wake County that has has a large variety of options due to the mulititute of multi-track year round schools. I do not want to have to settle on the same type of camps currently found in Johnston County. I train camps and after-school programs throughout the state on providing quality programs and we just do not have enough of them here. 3. Vacation- We will not be able to use the weeks throughout the year for a vacation because our other children will be in school. We will have to squeeze family vacation in with sporting events that are NOT geered to the year round student, educational opportunities, and camps 4. Intercession- This will be useless to our family. We all work and will not be able to provide the transportation! I can see where this would work for some families, but it is unfair to push this on everyone without the the ability to opt-out!
There may no direct charge for those students requiring the remediation. It is unclear that the intercession period is open to students not needing remediation. It appears that these children will not be offered the opportunity to attend, although our tax dollars are paying for it. The cost for attendance will be for the families to provide transportation to and from remediation. The costs for families whose children do not meet inclusion for remediation is a day care expense, plus finding suitable care, if it is available. One would hope that if the emphasis is on retention and remediation, that the daycares and other activities of those children not afforded remediation will be meaningful and relevant, not just warehousing those kids whose misfortune is that they exceed the minimums. The families of those students who push their kids to learn and excel are once again, cut out of the picture, and the funding is targeted to getting everyone to the minimum passing score. Why are the children not challenged to do more and become more? Why are the AIG children's needs relegated to being funded only after all others are provided for? Do we want our scientists and surgeons, our teachers and leaders to be those that passed or those that excelled because they were challenged and whose education was an investment by all, not just their parents? Will one really feel comforted by meeting a cardiac surgeon who had X do overs, and finally passed certifications when the standards are lowered to his or her ability to pass the test, rather than being earned and achieved by the best?
Intersession With our school the intersession is optional to attend. Transportation is provided if needed and the students must attend every day of the intersession. I believe the time is from 8:30 to 1:00. Childcare is available through the school at a small cost but I can't remember how much it is for the whole week. I think it is around $50 or $60 for the week.
It appears that remediation is optional for any and all. Is remediation required? What is the response if a student is recommended for remediation, but the family chooses to not send their child. IS there a policy in place concerning absence of a student during the remediation week? The question was, whether or not a student not recommended for it could still attend, and if so, at what cost. Lunch will not be provided for any of the students. And parents will arrange for transportation for their students. It appears to me that we've tried almost every social science experiment with public education except one...FULLY FUNDING it, so that we can pursue excellence in life long learning. Yet, given the attack from the legislature on public school education, Adequate funding, much less hope for full funding is a pipe dream.
Substandard funding levels creating a lack of quality education is a myth. Washington DC public schools has the highest funding per student in the country yet they score among the worst schools in the country. Conversely, there was a recent study that showed 7 of the top 10 performing school systems in the country were funded below the national average. Public, aka government, education as a whole in this country is a colossal failure.
Once they get to middle school they are separated by ability anyway. Does everybody in the workplace get paid the same amount, get the same raise, etc? No. We had reading groups and math groups based on ability when I was in elem school. Guess what, I was middle of the road and I didn't suffer because of it. It made me try harder and be honest with myself about my strengths and talents.
Some voting in.... I have mentioned some economic terms before. I'd like to offer a reminder that there are two types of statements that can be made: 1. Normative statements which are based on value judgments and include words like should or ought to be or not be, thus difficult to measure accurately and difficult to prove or disprove. And, 2. Positive statements that can be proved or disproved. All I have seen so far is the overwhelming use of Normative statements, feel good statements, should be statements, might work statements, versus a defined function using similar data and similar investment, X happened or did not happen. I've heard that a majority of Polenta Staff voted for this and that Cleveland overwhelmingly voted it down. Another question is the source of funding for remediation? Does this come out of funding for new technology in the classrooms, like smartboards, etc? If the funding is based on grants, where are the future dollars for this? Can we afford to make a change of this magnitude, based on anecdotal data or data that applies to one set of demographics versus those of the Cleveland area as some grand experiment that may not be funded in the future? Again, this idea is coming across more and more to me as a "this sounds neat" to do. Nothing wrong with that. It might also help to equip every child with a laptop, or every home with high speed internet so they can access expanded opportunities to learn. It sounds neat to ensure that every child receive more than just nutritionally adequate food. It'd be nice to ensure that every student lives in a home that has a support structure to ensure their success. Yes, anecdotally, we all 'know' that these would make it easier to educate our children. I am still concerned with the apparent disconnect between providing resources for the children needing remediation and those students whose families push their children to excel and whose children seek to extract as much learning as they possibly can. These resources for higher level critical thinking children are as important to them, to us, and to society as ensuring that all children meet the standard. Even I recognize that Life itself doesn't guarantee that all will pass and I believe that reinforcing this artificiality to children sets them up for bigger falls later down the road. The reality is that there is a disconnect between remediation funded for a few kids to the detriment of the kids needing AIG services, as well as benefiting all children in a classroom. If the statistical curve is valid, and the populations of each extreme of the curve are valid as well, then the resources for those at the right end (the AIG kids and families) are being cut off to benefit others. If remuneration and revenue in the form of income taxes and ROI for educational investment to society is considered, the future looks even less bright for society as a whole by removing resources for the AIG kids. No doubt, one of the AIG level kids who becomes a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist will bring about a significantly higher economic benefit to society than several of the others. Such is the nature of economics, positively viewed. Fostering a flame for learning and preparing our children for the 21st century, using emerging technologies so our students will be proficient in high tech...are these just nice to repeat slogans that roll off one's tongue easily? Not using high tech resources to expose our kids to high tech, and teach them high tech only places their future at risk. We rank far down the list of academically oriented 1st world nations. Perhaps we need to benchmark using their proven models. It seems that the staff who voted on this, based their decision on normative statements which may not pan out, versus positive ones which are predictable in some fashion. One wonders what arguments were presented, and why such a decision of this magnitude was presented before all possible effects were discussed. Disclaimer....other than a mostly wasted year at a private religious institution in the area, I am a proud product of public school and public university education. From 1st to 12th, I had teachers that taught, and were respected for doing so, and in how they did it. They established high standards of achievement and expected us to achieve, by hard work..and for those like me..working harder still. FWIW, I would have been allowed to fail a class, and repeat it, suffering the peer embarrassment, and serious but whippings as negative reminders of my choices. We saw what happened to those without an education. Few of us chose that route.
This is really all that needs to be said re: education. Our failed government education system pushes kids through without hesitation or reservation. Kids might graduate but they are hardly educated relative to 30 years ago.
How long has it been since you were in public school? See my post above. I'm comparing back then (generally speaking) vs today (generally speaking). Obviously there are cases of quality public schools. I, too, attended very good public schools but I can tell you via testimony from a father in law (former principal), mother in law (former teacher), wife (former teacher) and sister (current teacher) that the educational system is broken and is getting worse with each passing year.
the aig center has always sort of been an oddity to me...what if, in conjunction with what hat sees as an increase in remediation funding at the expense of aig, the aig center was closed and those same funds used to enhance aig curriculum at the base school? maybe i don't know the numbers, but it seems those aig dollars could be spent more efficiently. the extra facility, the extra transportation, the extra teachers...doesn't seem cost-effective to me.
As I am currently screaming to anyone that will listen, the numbers of AIG identified students at the individual schools is not big enough that any administrator is going to put the time and money into duplicating the Center at the base schools. My child's elementary school has TWO kids that go to the Center. Two. Throw in the cluster kids and some of the brighter kids in the school and maybe you'll have a class full but at different stages of their academic growth so you still wouldn't be able to duplicate the type classes and experiences in full that they do at the Center. So that's why closing the Center is not a good idea until our people in charge change the way our brightest students are educated. Currently, they have to have an extraordinary teacher who takes the time to see that they are being challenged in the classroom. Not all AIG students have that, even if their teachers are AIG certified. You know, we have South Campus that is an all-day, every day school for those that, for whatever reason, are unable to attend their base schools. Why not do the same for AIG students and make it an all-day, every day school for them? Why not open a magnet school for these kids? More focus needs to be put on our brightest population because their educations are just as important as those that are struggling. So far I haven't seen that on the school level or at Central Office.
And I don't remember posting this here but my principal said the extra money for the interesssion rememdiation will come from federal or state funds, don't remember which, designated for remediation as well as the money from not having summer school will be redirected to the schools for this. But those funds will not cover the entire costs so each school will have to find the rest in their budgets.
I believe that incorporating the learning tools that the AIG uses in our main schools would be very interesting. My daughter tested AIG early. I was skeptical and when presented with the option of allowing her to leave school and attend the AIG Center I wrote down the positives and negatives. She wanted to go because they have a class that actually dissects animals. That was awesome to her as she has an interest in science. I decided not to send her to the Center as I did not want her on the road, having homework from two sets of teachers and I wanted to try to incorporate that teaching style to our main school. While I was never entirely successful in getting that whole style incorporated my daughter and I were successful in some small gains. We understand that the cost of having a Center in each main school would probably not be beneficial but are of the belief that the teaching style would be. A more interactive class with items that intrigue the mind would be great. I still believe in Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. I don't think those subjects are getting enough time. My daughter started college this year and still cannot spell. I am constantly correcting her and shaking my head. Even when she was in Clayton and going through the school system I would shake my head when she would bring a paper home with a good grade on it where spelling and grammar were incorrect. I'd correct it and hand it to her and she'd tell me that the teacher gave her an A and that is all that counts. I would try to explain it to her but she never got it. Why don't teachers grade on the spelling and grammar even if it is a history or science paper? They did when I was in school and I am all the better for it. Still have some trouble with a few words but much better than this generation. Spend money on SPELLING and GRAMMAR, please!!!! Sherry
Yep, spelling and grammer are being left in the dust. My son has to write a letter to a state rep for a Scout project and we had an unholy battle about sentence structure last night. Yeah, he is only in 6th grade, but still!! He should have some more basics down!
Perhaps there are many more who qualify but the parents opt not to send them to the center. Perhaps they would perfer a program at the school.
and cursive writing too! mine have no clue how to sign their names. AND, addressing an envelope? fuggettaboutit.....:banghead:
