Wednesday, March 27, 2002
|
Wednesday, March 27, 2002 |
|
Why is 'balanced calendar' the only choices offered? A few years ago our school calendar was changed to have classes start in mid-August and finish in May. Two main reasons were given for this change: Aligning our system with college schedules allows teachers to attend continuing education classes in the summer, and having the first academic semester end prior to Christmas break allows students and teachers a true break without upcoming finals to worry about and prepare for. While we personally didn't care for an earlier start date in August, we found the reasons were valid and beneficial to both teachers and students. Since that change four years ago, the Fayette County Board of Education has continued to "adjust" the calendar, starting the school year even earlier in August, and adding more breaks throughout the year. Now the school administration is looking to change to the Balanced Year Calendar, with even more weeks cut out of summer vacation and longer breaks throughout the year. Whatever happened with matching the college schedule? Does that reason no longer matter? Why change to a Balanced Year Calendar? There is no valid academic reason for instituting this new change; in fact, there are many reasons for not adopting a Balanced Year Calendar. FCBOE cites remediation for students as one reason for changing to this new calendar. But data shows there is no significant improvement in academic achievement through this additional offering of remedial and enrichment classes. Studies even discovered that these frequent breaks throughout the year do more harm than good by promoting forgetfulness of lessons and increasing the need for more review and remediation. The second reason given for adopting this new calendar is to provide relief from stress and burnout for both students and teachers. However, if teachers are called on to teach an extra 20 days per year and students are attending remediation classes during these breaks, how is either group getting the relief that those breaks are supposed to provide? This doesn't make any sense. One reason for the break is negated by the implementation of the other reason. FCBOE also hopes that the remediation and frequent breaks will improve academic achievement, but the data and statistics to date show that just doesn't happen. Increased cost is another factor for not implementing this new calendar. While the Georgia Department of Education will provide some funding for the extra remedial days, where will the money come from to pay for the extra air-conditioning of schools during the hottest weeks in August? Who will pay for the administrators who must work those extra 20 days during the year? Certainly they won't be working for free. Add in the costs of janitors, school nurses, secretaries, etc., and this is going to cost a lot more money for no academic improvement. If educational achievement is not significantly improved through the use of a Balanced Year Calendar, why do it? We applaud Kathie Prado, who wrote a letter to The Citizen last week, for doing research into the benefits and negatives of a "balanced calendar" for our school system. After reading her letter, we decided to verify her facts. Everything she stated in her letter is true. In the past 20 years, 95 percent of school systems have rejected a Balanced Year Calendar after trying it. Most schools reject Balanced Year Systems within five to seven years of implementation, as they do not bring the benefits promised and dissatisfaction is rampant among parents and teachers. Why such dissatisfaction with the Balanced Year system? Schools that have tried it and rejected it have found: · Balanced Year systems have shown NO academic improvement over traditional systems. · Balanced Year systems have a decreased attendance rate. · Balanced Year systems cost more to operate. · More frequent breaks during the year require more remediation and review of lessons. · Remedial and enrichment classes are poorly attended, are usually not curriculum-oriented, often are not taught by certified teachers, add to operational costs, and do not increase academic performance. · Family life, extracurricular activities and summer jobs are all disrupted with these systems. The school administration says we have three "choices" of calendars. But all three choices are variations of the "balanced year" calendar. Why is there no choice to retain the calendar we have now? Why is there no choice to go back to a more traditional calendar, as so many school systems have done? The bottom line is: There is plenty of evidence that a Balanced Year Calendar DOES NOT improve academic achievement, and it is disruptive in so many ways. So why is the Balanced Year Calendar the only option being offered for our school system? Ron and Chris Baran ptcsahm@aol.com
|
||