SirPutz, Kelyel, and others who support ending consideration of this AEC, please at least call the Central Office at let them know... 919-943-6031
I always like to know what both sides of the coin look like before I support or decided to not support an idea. The following was taken from a website of a school that recently switched to a modified calendar. I just thought it would help shed some light on the other side of the coin from Hat's: Why use a modified school calendar? Research shows that there are many benefits to a modified school calendar, some of which are outlined below. * Learning is continuous with a modified school calendar. The extent of learning loss that results from interruptions in learning due to school closure is reduced when learning is spread out over extended periods. * Studies show that children do not maintain the same rate of learning over the summer as they do during the traditional school year. Low-achieving students are more seriously affected by this decline than average and high achievers. * Studies also show that students remember more information, especially in reading and math, which means increased performance in the classroom. * Intersessions will result in less stress and burnout for teachers and students. The break refreshes teachers and students and increases enthusiasm and motivation for teaching and learning. * Schools who have adopted the modified school calendar report increased student attendance, fewer discipline problems, and a reduced student dropout rate for older students. * The new calendar provides families with a more flexible way to plan family gatherings and vacations. For the convenience of families with children in other ACPS schools, the winter and spring breaks and the last day of school coincide with the traditional Alexandria City Public Schools calendar. ^I thought this last part was particularly interesting as far as how they attempt to accommodate conflicting schedules within families. This information was taken from http://www.acps.k12.va.us/tucker/faq.php
I tend to go along with the philosophy of, "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it". The Superintendent and the School Board are going to have to show me that Cleveland and other Cleveland area schools are broken for the majority of students and teachers for me to willingly sacrifice what I feel to be a perfectly fine calendar, not to mention that I thought our schools were already the highest performing for the most part. I don't disagree that there is probably data to show a small benefit to those below average performing students, but to say that, "The new calendar provides families with a more flexible way to plan family gatherings and vacations", I don't buy it. I have 3 children, 1 in 4th grade, 1 pre-k, and one that just turned 2 years old. This coming school year will be the only year that I will have all my school age children in one school. The year after will already be a new challenge when dealing with 2 different schools, now I may have to also deal with 2 different calendars??? I will go down fighting on this one. As a parent of a school age child I have my child do activities during the summer that help her retain what she's learned. Most teachers web pages have links and lists of great resources for helping your child maintain what they've learned. I also go to Stone's School Supply every year before school lets out and buy several books for my child to work in. It helps. I remember one year my child came home from school with work from her teacher, what a great idea. Maybe this is something that should be considered a requirement. Send the children home with activities and work that they are to complete over the summer to help their retention and have the parents and the students be required to turn in back in at the beginning of the school year. I'm just throwing ideas out there, just saying. I will be writing, emailing, and calling our board members, superintendent and principal with my thoughts.
The school cited, (school singular) is part of the Alexandria Virginia school system. This allows for 2 immediate and applicable points: A. Comparing Virginia schools, which have been better funded historically than NC schools is an apples and oranges comparison. B. Tucker Elementary is in an urban area, which economists and social scientist will demonstrate that the demographics also make a difference than in suburban-rural schools, which we have. It's about access to infrastructure, libraries, public transportation, etc. Whose research? As I stated, the results I have seen are equivocal. Depending on the slant of the researcher, one can find data to support either position. I've acknowledged that. Show me the peer reviewed, disinterested party data. So far, I have seen info from sources such as NAYRE, whose website proclaims, "A non-profit organization which advocates improved K-12 education through the implementation of alternative schedules." Kinda hard to claim that they're independent. My degree is in economics. And when theorizing, economists always include the disclaimer, ceteris paribus, meaning all factors held constant. That way, one can examine individual effects of change. Using the two schools on this calendar as comparators for the Cleveland area elementary schools is NOT ceteris paribus, unless the Cleveland schools are performing worse than we've been advised. Need I add that the two elementary schools were FAILING schools. They failed to achieve AYP/EOG or other scores for a sustained period. As such, they received Title One designation with additional resources targeted towards their coming up to standard. If our area elementary schools are at risk, then that discussion is long overdue and points more to those with knowledge of such keeping parents in the dark, does it not? I'm a big believer in evidence based approaches to change. Which also supplements the point, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If things are broken, why the sudden rush? Is this a CYA kind of measure? If you examine my posting history, you will see a long held pattern where I brag and cheer lead about the schools when we do it right, and am among the first to criticize when we do it badly.
Hi Hat, I just picked this particular excerpt because it seemed to wrap up, in layman's language, those points that seem to always be used to advocate for modified calendars being implemented. I also wondered as I read it why they didn't name the source(s) for their experts/research. But like I said, I was just trying to find a piece that might list the arguments that come from the other side. I think some of their points have some weight to them, but I also think that your argument was nicely written and also had many strong points. I just like to examine both sides before making a decision. I don't like to make emotional, snap decisions and thought this might help others weigh the balance too. Personally, I like the modified calendar, but I hate that the only way I have even heard that they are considering changing it is through this forum. I don't like it when huge decisions like this are made behind closed doors, or made in a way that is deceptive to taxpayers and their wishes, etc...So I would be inclined to vote or stand against it for those reasons alone. I feel like the families effected need to be heard on this type of an issue.
the cleveland/clayton schools do fairly well, but there are other schools in the county. smithfield and selma elementaries do fairly poorly. maybe the could benefit. don't remove an option from some in the county just because you don't want or need it. as far as whether or not it is known, the dpi website shows test scores to anyone with a computer. it's not a secret that schools elsewhere in the county have eog rates in the 50's and 60's, not the 80's and 90's like the western part of the county. those schools are broke and need fixing.
Parents will receive a survey after the staff has voted. Bass Ackwards, if you must ask. Teachers without school age children have no weight to evaluate changes on family schedules as we have. Their self interest in less enlightened. But, my personal feeling is that the powers that be are oriented on this course, and don't seem to be transparent with the idea. That lack of transparency concerns me, as it does you. I am also bothered that a change of this magnitude seems to be presented to the staff first. As the taxpayers, the schools work FOR US! And I object to the tail trying to wag the dog. Survey the parents, after an open and transparent discussion of the pros and cons. If parents support this in an fair and open manner, then present it to the staff. As for the suggestion that perhaps teachers could offer work to be done over the summer, this was tried at Polenta. It turned out to be a waste of paper, as little, if any of the work was turned in at the start of school. Parents of academically high performing students consider the education to be an ongoing enterprise, not something that happens just during school hours and during the school year. Some parents, it seems, are comfortable with letting the schools do all the work and it shows. That's why in most classrooms, there are students who barely meet the standard, most working at standard, and some far above. I have seen few child prodigies. My conclusion is that intensely involved, sustained effort parenting makes the difference. We stand together believing that the schools owe us transparency and responsiveness.
I agree with you, to the extent that other schools elsewhere in the county may need/benefit from this. I am questioning the apparent desire to change our schools from something that is obviously working well. Yet, it seems that the push is for all elementary schools to get on this band wagon. I see no need for change unless need for change is demonstrated.
there may be a general "push" towards it as you say, but aren't we still talking about shool-by-school voting? please be specific in your protests about which schools you wish for this not to come to. "our" may mean cleveland to you, but one could easily misunderstand that you're trying to keep it out of the entire county, even in areas where you do not live and where those schools might benefit.
I refer to the three elementary schools in the Cleveland area. I received a well thought out response from Dr Peggy Smith, and acknowledgement of receipt form Messr's Strickland and Wooten. I am hesitant to quote Dr Smiths response in its entirety here, for the space it would consume. If there is interest, please advise and I will either post it, or forward it, presuming you provide an functional email.
I inquired about it today from our teacher and from what I was told the staff was recently told at their last "meeting" - she did not really know that much about it yet, but apparently it is out there and coming. She was not sure what % of the staff would be in favor of it - I hate being in the dark!! I love to see the e-mail if you'd send it to me Hatteras. I'm on the NO vote so I'll do all I can.
Emailed the latest update 5 to M. Venito and one other who provided an email address. If you PM'd me requesting to be in this loop, but didn't provide an email, please do so. I've got enough to research without trying to find you.
A friend who is a teacher that has children in high school said they are considering finding another school to work at if this goes through, since their children will be on a different schedule than them. This may end up running off several of our great teachers. Things to ponder.
No one with the schools admin I know of admits to reading 4042. Perhaps you should email this concern to the Bd of education. Dr Peggy Smith has been quite responsive, and I do believe she's like to know what's going on.
Is there a calendar posted somewhere. I can't really decide if I want this plan or not until I know what it is. If the kids go back a little earlier in August and get out on Memorial day and have a fall, Christmas, and spring break--I am all for it. If they have little or no summer and long breaks throughout the year I am opposed. We don't even know what we are deciding!
EC, Go to the Johnston.k12.nc.us website, and look under schools, select West Smithfield, and view their calendar. This is the one that's proposed for the elementary schools in the Cleveland area, that the principals are seemingly pushing to adopt, based on anecdotal reporting. There is no evidence that compares those schools to ours, as we are different demographically and economically. Note that the students will be in school for the 180 days for either calendar. If your kids need remediation, that will add up to 15 days per year, so your kids will get less vacation. Also, you will have to transport the kids during intercession, and it's only a half day, unless you have daycare to pick them up. With three schools in this area, and assuming 600 families per school, the criteria for adoption is if 50% of staff vote for it, then presented to parents. If 50% of parents want it, that school will adopt. Theoretically, the schools could choose to adopt this with the support of 900 families...600 * 3 = 1800, divided by 2 = 900. Yet that leaves 900 families who didn't want this schedule with no option, because it's what the schools want to do, not what a significant portion of the families want. If they are determined to do this, (and it appears that the principals are really pushing for this) then they should experiment with one school trying this, and allowing the parents of kids who want it to go to that school, and allow the two other Cleveland area schools to remain. Then next year, allow another school to change to the schedule, still giving 1 school a traditional calendar choice.
Thanks Hat I would still like to see the proposal for 2011-2012 I do not need my kids home for three weeks in Dec-Jan when it is too cold for them to be outside!! Another question--Has anything been mentioned about how this calendar will affect the AIG center kids?--assuming of course it is still in existence.
While I haven't heard specifically, I think that this is a move to try to move the calendar to offer some sense of summer school. Sumer school, as we now know it, will be lost because of the budget. As needed as it is, and should be expanded to offer more, it appears that the dollars to support the AIG center will be cut, if not eliminated, which really puts the screws to those kids and families who push for academic excellence. Seems that we're sacrificing the AIG kids, aiming for the middle part of the stats curve. Assuming a standard distribution curve, 68 % of the population is within one standard deviation to each side of the median. Within 4 standard deviations (2 on each side of the curve) we cover 98 % of the population and with 3 on each side (where one gets the Six Sigma idea) we cover 99.7 %. Figure AIG kids are to the right side of 1 sigma, and those kids requiring remediation are on the left of -1 sigma. The budget favors supporting the mass of kids in the middle. Kids on the left hand side receive additional resources, as they should. Kids on the right are left to their parents devices, as we should, but poorly fund, AIG resources. Yet, these are the kids who go on to medical, veterinary, research, and higher level critical thinking pursuits.
