I received the school surveys mentioned by other readers. And I sent them in. Check your kids’ backpacks, and you’ll find a lot of things you thought you didn’t get. And you could fill the survey out online (which was advertised in the local newspapers several times).
As to the calendar we have now, it meets the needs of teachers AND students. The frequent breaks prevent both student and teacher burnout.
Many of my children’s teachers have mentioned that they have to do less review at the beginning of the year with a shorter summer.
And the kids still get just as many days off, and go the same number of days as they used to. Now it’s configured in a way that’s best for both students and teachers.
The school year ending in May allows teachers to go to college to further their education. It’s not just about convenience. Colleges start their summer semesters in early June. Teachers can’t go if they are still in the classroom. I want my children’s teachers to have the best education they can get.
When the semester ends before Christmas break, high school students get their exams and projects complete before the break. When the semester ended in January, the break was really about studying and doing projects; now students actually get a real break from schoolwork.
As to childcare during the mini-breaks, you have plenty of time to plan for it. I suggest you don’t wait until the last minute to do it.
Several of the local daycares offer programs during these breaks for school-aged children. I know lots of high schoolers that would be glad to baby-sit during these weeks too. Use your vacation time wisely, and you can take a day or two off with your children.
My children, their teachers and my family are far better off with the calendar we have now than they were with the antiquated traditional calendar.
Cathie Coppedge Rising Starr and Starr’s Mill parent Peachtree City, Ga.
Kedron gets it right; export to all schools
There are two points I’d like to make to The Citizen and its readers.
First, I like the notion of the Free Speech section being a place where individuals can more freely say what’s on their mind.
The problem is the temptation of slinging mud with no need to sign one’s name. I’d recommend making the forum more honorable by including the contributors’ names, else the title probably should be changed to “The Bathroom Wall.”
Second, pursuant to the first point, several have said anonymous derogatory things about Kedron Elementary where my daughter is in second grade. I’d like to share the following letter I wrote to Kathy Cox last October when I heard she had visited this school. Please note I signed my name.
“Dear Ms. Cox: I understand that you recently visited Kedron Elementary School in Peachtree City. My daughter Melanie is a second-grade student there, and I want to tell you something about this school.
“But first let me admit my inherent distrust of the public school system in general because of a long history of poor performance, and I foresee at some point needing to spend money on private school for my child. So you may understand that I enrolled Melanie in Kedron Elementary with some misgivings.
“Kedron Elementary has turned out to be an outstanding school, and I have a particular reason for telling you my views. The best summary I can give while sparing you a long list is to say: everything works.
“Throughout the Kedron staff there is an attitude of excellence that becomes evident over time. There is a can-do attitude from the office staff to the teachers to the after-school program, and parents are treated as welcome guests. Teachers and staff not only do a fine job in the classroom, they convey an attitude of caring and nurturing the kids as if they were their own.
“The parents of kids from Kedron Elementary I know feel the same way, and occasionally say with a little astonishment things like, ‘You know, this really is a great school for our kids!’
“On Friday my second-grader came home with her mom from her first Halloween festival at the school, her face flushed with excitement and telling me all the things she had done, reminding me Kedron is not just a school, it is part of our community.
“I’m telling you all of this for just one reason: please study Kedron, find out how they do it so well, and export the magic to other schools.
“I don’t know the principal, Ms. Bullock, I have exchanged just a few words with her. But I do know this from having hired and fired lots of workers and managers in my business life. Excellence in an organization comes from the top, through leadership by example and a firm hand that insists on excellence every day. It comes from hiring the very best people, demanding the best from them, and giving them the support they need to do a great job.
“As a concerned parent, I have hopes I will find the same excellence when Melanie is ready for middle and high school. But my expectations are more realistic, and I know I might find compelling reasons to consider private school. It doesn’t have to be that way. Use the example of Kedron Elementary to spread the expectation of excellence in our public schools. Please.”
Terry L. Garlock Peachtree City, Ga.
Big buildings a blessing, not bane
The Rev. John Hatcher is a well-meaning man and I agree with the intentions of most of his columns. But he continually misrepresents certain aspects of Christian history and traditional Christian worship.
In [a recent] column, the Rev. Hatcher says that when Constantine converted in “about the 3rd century” (it was actually the early 4th century), he “thought the church should have big, impressive buildings like the government” that were used only a few times a week.
Somehow, the Rev. Hatcher then jumps to the conclusion that this caused churches to move out of the town square and out of the home and that now we suffer the consequences. Not only do I not understand the argument, but the historical reality flatly contradicts the Rev. Hatcher’s assertion.
The reason church gatherings were in homes for the first three centuries of Christianity was due to persecution, not preference. The early Christians had no choice but to meet in private homes because they were not allowed to have buildings devoted to worship.
When Constantine legalized Christianity in 313, he did indeed donate some buildings for use in Christian worship. But it wasn’t like he had to force people into these larger buildings. People gladly jumped at the opportunity to worship together in large groups, to pool their resources and build something beautiful for God and his people.
As a result, Christianity flourished and the church building itself became the heart of the city or town, a place not only of worship, but of refuge, education, healthcare, and charity of all sorts. It was hardly a marginalized space used a few times a week.
The large size and beautiful architecture of those churches were not signs of a deficient Christianity, as the Rev. Hatcher suggests, but rather the expression of the people’s love and respect for the worship of Christ.
After all, in Revelation heaven isn’t exactly described as a four-walled room with wooden benches. It is a space filled with beauty, with candles, and jewels, and gold, and pearls.
The beauty of a church reflects the beauty of God. The exhilaration we get from seeing a soaring Gothic steeple or a multi-colored stained glass window is meant to lift us up to God just like the music or the preaching does.
No, Rev. Hatcher, the reason for declining Christianity in our country is not the size of our church buildings, or our lack of home services. It is the lack of a common voice amongst Christians that weakens us the most.
When young people or non-believers see churches who can’t agree on abortion, the sanctity of marriage, the dignity of every person, or the divinity of Christ, they understandably conclude that the whole lot of us are either crazy or hypocritical.
I can’t blame them. This fragmentation of belief is made worse by people retreating into ever smaller groups to worship.
The most basic rule of battle is divide and conquer. We are a church divided, and we are being conquered by the secularists and materialists who so dominate our national culture.
Our antidote to that erosion is unity. Even if we are of separate denominations, there is much we can agree upon. We should do so and present, as much as possible, a united front to the world.
Trey Hoffman Peachtree City, Ga.
Social Security not so easy to solve
Every mature American knows, or should know, that there has to be some kind of adjustment to the way we have maintained the Social Security system.
I for one, though, am becoming very apprehensive about some of the proposed solutions being bantered about. I get that “Throw the baby out with the bath water” feeling every time I hear one of those Johnny-come-lately neocons babble about how easy it is going to be to solve our Social Security problems.
These neocons never saw a social program they approve of and it is apparent to me that their ultimate aim is to do away with Social Security altogether.
Every American owes it to him- or herself to get the facts on this matter and stop these frantic unjustified calls for a total overhaul on a system that has worked quite well for some time now.
I for one also feel that privatization can be one of the eventual solutions to the anticipated shortfall beginning in the year 2042, not 2018 as some have screamed recently. These private accounts cannot be created at the expense of the current system though.
Without changes, by 2042 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted. By then, the number of Americans 65 or older is expected to have doubled. There won’t be enough younger people working to pay all of the benefits owed to those who are retiring.
At that point, there will be enough money to pay only about 73 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. Even without changes, you’ll still receive approximately three-fourths of your scheduled benefit.
It’s not as gloomy-and-doomy as we are often led to believe. As long as there are workers paying FICA taxes, the program will have money.
Listen carefully to all sides of this issue and keep a sharp ear out for the “Wall Streeters” who are on the sidelines licking their chops.
Oh, by the way, when we all have private accounts and we are able to pass those accounts on to our estate as proposed by some, who will then take care of the widows, orphans, disabled?
Think about that. Social Security was never intended to be solely a retirement plan. It is also old age and disadvantaged insurance for the ones who are unable to contribute like the rest of us.
John T. Russom Sr. Fayetteville, Ga.
Bush brave on Social Security
The President is brave to take on the challenge of saving Social Security.
There is no guarantee of Social Security. The current funding threat makes the continuance of Social Security unlikely.
Something must be done. The President’s plan is the only one that provides a long term and permanent fix.
Allen Baldwin Peachtree City, Ga.
Why is the PTC Council even considering the John Wieland annexation?
I, too, like Dana Kinser, am frustrated with the John Wieland annexation process. I can’t believe Peachtree City is even considering it.
Who wants this annexation? Everyone, of course, who gets tossed a bone if John Wieland gets his moneymaking proposal approved: PTC Youth Soccer Association, senior citizens, etc. And, of course everyone who lives off MacDuff Parkway.
Those living near the airport want the airplane noise to go away, those along the railroad track wish that horrible noise would disappear, and those homeowners backing up to a golf course wish golf balls would not hit their homes. But no one forced these people live in these locations. It was a 100 percent voluntary choice.
Every person living off MacDuff Parkway knew that there was but one way in and one way out when they moved there. Nothing has changed.
But now they want the government and the citizens of Peachtree City to bail them out of their poor choice. I don’t feel sorry for them in any way, shape, or form.
The thing that makes PTC such a wonderful place to live is the green spaces and the mature trees all around our homes. The annexation would change all that.
If you want to see a preview of the density John Wieland would be imposing on our city, check out the Lexington development, next to McIntosh High School. It would be a two-step process. First, every tree would be clear-cut. Second, a multitude of homes would be shoehorned in.
I chose to live on a cul-de-sac home that backs up to Lake Kedron. Should I expect the city to build a new bridge across the lake to make my trips north more convenient? Of course not. If I lived on the south end of town it would be a longer trip, but it would be because I CHOSE to live there.
We have a massive congestion relief effort currently in progress on Ga. highways 54 and 74. It will fix most of our traffic problems.
It will not, of course, remedy the problems caused by someone making a poor choice as to where to live. That is not the government’s job.
The Peachtree City lifestyle should not be compromised to rescue some people who ignored what was right in front of their faces.
We do not need this annexation and I implore you to tell your representatives (http://www.peachtree-city.org/) if you think the same way.
Bill Webster Peachtree City, Ga.
Wieland will still extend MacDuff
Re: Annexation of approximately 360 acres located between Ga. Highway 74 and Line Creek (“Property”) and the extension of MacDuff Parkway
Dear Mayor and Council: I’m writing to amend our request for annexation based on our discussion at the Feb. 3, 2005, mayor and council meeting.
At that meeting, we heard that, while MacDuff Parkway needs to be completed, 750 lots were too many. Therefore, we have revised our request by reducing the density to one lot per acre (360 lots) and eliminating the amenities, village and civic area that was included in the original annexation proposal.
Nevertheless, should our annexation request be approved as submitted, we are willing to move ahead with the MacDuff Parkway extension from the northern boundary of the Centennial neighborhood to Hwy. 74.
As you are aware, the property is currently zoned in the county for 2-acre minimum lots. While the requested density is more than would currently be allowed in the county, the benefit of having MacDuff Parkway extended in the near future (without charge to the taxpayers), the additional tax revenues generated from the upscale homes and the impact to the overall quality of life in the city should be studied further.
Your approval to move to Step 2 does not guarantee annexation. However, it will allow everyone an opportunity to study the facts and the impacts of such an annexation.
We hope you will allow us complete the various feasibility studies that will provide details related to the benefits and costs of such annexation. Cooperation between the staff and our professional team will allow us to develop a clear understanding of the annexation proposal, the goals and limitations, and how these might fit the city’s desires.
This community’s input will be critical in developing a realistic, creative proposal while at the same time be economically feasible.
Over the years, we have enjoyed our relationship with Peachtree City and are proud to be in Peachtree City. We would appreciate your consideration of this request.
Please don’t hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Dan Fields, vice president John Wieland Homes
Mayor disappointed in revised plan
I must admit that I am saddened that this proposed site is becoming more of a homogenized variety of single family development.
The abandonment of the public amenities such as the soccer fields, pavilions and senior center is truly a blow to the citizens living on our city’s westside.
Creating a second-tier development without first letting our staff, the adjacent homeowners and our community have an opportunity to shape the initial effort, shows a lack of faith in our ability to plan in the public forum.
The removal of the 340 senior units that would have almost no negative impact on our community schools and traffic was a significant price to pay for the public amenities that we stand to lose. In fact, the single-family home count remains almost the same.
Never in our city’s history have we seen such overwhelming support for a promising annexation from the adjacent homeowners, churches, businesses, public safety chiefs and the Board of Education. For this proposal never to make it to the Planning Staff is disheartening.
I can almost assure everyone that Wieland Homes will not place their newest proposal on our sewer which leaves us with numerous septic tanks adjacent to our future water supply. From a water quality and safety standpoint, this is our worst-case scenario.
Councilwoman Rutherford’s position of the westside homeowners getting what they deserve for moving there shows a significant lack of compassion and vision.
It is the City Council’s job to improve the quality of life of all our citizens regardless of where they are residents in our community. The city allowed for Centennial, Cedar Croft, Wynnmeade, Ashton Reserve, and Summit Apartments so the city must be accountable for their health, safety and welfare.
Steve Brown, mayor Peachtree City, Ga.
Debate continues: Anti-Americans, let’s examine some facts about U.S.
Clearly Mr. Parker and I have made some unwarranted assumptions about how the other thinks. In the interest of clarity, let’s look at some facts.
The United States of America is a constitutional republic. We elect fellow citizens to represent us for periods ranging from two to six years. Our political parties have evolved into a two-party system, Republicans and Democrats.
Constitutionally, the Congress is empowered to declare war, but since WWII, for reasons of rapid response and others, both parties have tacitly agreed that the President has the power to decide when and with whom the U.S.A. will make war.
Once a war has begun, Congress generally supports it with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Constitutionally, the president is commander in chief of the armed forces and makes decisions about how the war will be prosecuted.
So, in the U.S.A., it is the president in office who decides whether or not to make war, but it is the entire country that is at war. That is the essence of our representative government.
Hint for the anti-war crowd: If you want to prevent the U.S. from going to war, you have to get pacifist candidates elected.
Good luck, because as we saw in the last election, most Americans like living and they like for the government to perform its most important function of protecting us from our enemies.
Once a president has decided to go to war, if the war has not concluded by the next election, that election can become a referendum on the decision to go to war and the way it is being prosecuted.
That is exactly what happened in the last election. Apparently Mr. Parker didn’t notice but every conceivable question was asked about the reasons for war, the costs of war, and the way it was being fought.
Since President Bush won reelection by a far greater margin than his original election, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the voters support his efforts to a greater extent than they do the proposals of his opponents.
We have had the referendum on war and the opponents still shout shrilly, and to the delight of our enemies, that the president and the war are wrong.
The only thing this accomplishes is to weaken our position. To profess love of country while taking public actions which weaken the country and promote loss of the war is simply ludicrous, disingenuous rhetoric.
Once war is joined, we can either win or lose decisively or anything in between those extremes. Winning decisively is infinitely preferable to any form of loss.
We are now, according to our constitution, laws of the land, and traditions of practice, at war with terrorists and their supporters. That process will continue until we win, we lose, or we give up the effort, which is just another way of losing.
Winning will increase the power and prestige of the U.S. worldwide. A decisive win will tend to deter others from making war on us.
Losing will have the opposite effect. The same or new enemies will make war on us with ever increasing frequency. As economic, political, materiel, and human loses mount, we will have to either fight back on a much larger scale or succumb to our enemies.
This is a pattern that has persisted since the dawn of civilization. There is no sign that any change in this pattern is in sight.
Winning wars leads to fewer wars and fewer deaths among friends and enemies alike: Pax Americana. Losing wars leads to more wars and more deaths among friends and enemies alike.
As with every other decision made by our representatives, some people either oppose going to war, or the way it is being fought, or both.
Since winning war is always preferable to losing, those who oppose the war should not oppose it publicly lest they give aid and comfort to the enemy.
As we have seen in the past, while apparent national unity makes the enemy feel less confident of success, public dissent about the war gives the enemy the correct impression that he has allies in the American camp.
It is this condition of war involving enemies opposed to our nation as a whole that makes protest of ongoing war different than protesting any other government action.
So what is an honorable opponent of a war to do? One, accept it grudgingly like many other aspects of government he may not like.
Two, try to get elected as one opposed to war or support the election of others opposed to war.
Three, conclude that America is too warlike and move to a place more to his liking.
To depart from these honorable options of opposition and to foment public opposition to the war is anti-American because it is not in accordance with the procedures of our chosen form of government and tends to prolong the war, bring more death to our citizens and enemies, cause loss of American power and prestige, and leads ultimately to our defeat.
If sufficient numbers of American voters do not want the war to continue, they can try to elect candidates who will end the war short of a decisive win and perhaps at a considerable loss.
They can continue not to fight in defense of American interests until our nation and ultimately Western civilization join many others in the ash bin of history.
Weakness in the face of our enemies and pacifism as a political objective is honest but foolhardy in a dangerous world.
Bringing weakness to our nation by slandering elected officials, comparing them to Nazis, and calling them stupid fools, along with constantly carping at every move they make while our soldiers are still facing the enemy is dishonorable, disgusting, and anti-American.
In time of war, we have the right of free speech and the freedom to protest, but we have the moral responsibility to support the side we are on. If you are not big on moral responsibility, how about having the common sense not to try to bring ruin to your side.
Yes, I purposely used the word “facts” in my first paragraph. Wouldn’t it be delightful if anyone who feels the need to respond could do so by evidentiary questioning of my facts, or provision of pertinent facts I have overlooked.
On a personal note, Mr. Parker has a talent for irony that I simply cannot and do not care to match. In this series of letters he has called me more vile names than I have ever before had come my way and yet he still has the chutzpah to call me intolerant. It truly boggles the mind.
In all his ranting across the entire spectrum of political name calling, I was only hurt when he said I could be considered a “sniveling liberal.” Ouch!
Don Dickinson Peachtree City, Ga.
Foreign trade deal: Even a used car salesman would envy
[Have you heard] the howls of frustration bellowing from Wall Street and Washington [recently]?
The foreign trade numbers were unveiled and despite all of the overzealous rhetoric from our political and corporate leadership over the past decade, our nation’s trade deficit set an all-time high of over $60 billion. Even more troubling, our nation’s exports once again fell by 2.3 percent.
These numbers have caused Wall Street executives to scratch their heads in bewilderment and sent politicians scrambling to figure out how to spin it correctly.
There is a lot at stake for these two interest groups, their reputation first and foremost, as the American public begins to realize that we were sold a poor bill of goods.
Just over a decade ago, corporate America and the Washington elite joined forces in a combined effort to sell us on the idea of open trade between us and the world at large. They of course made it sound like such a one-sided deal.
Oh, sure, American consumers might purchase a few more six packs of Coronas from Mexico, a few more truckloads of lumber from Canada, some cheap imitation watches made in Korea and a lot more inexpensive novelty items and toys for McDonald’ Happy Meals from China.
In return for this slight increase in imports, unsuspecting countries throughout the world would be rushing to buy our beloved American goods. It was going to be the type of one-sided deal that even a used car salesman would envy. It would be the deal that would ensure our economic dominance for decades to come.
What a shock that it hasn’t worked out that way. As it turns out, the rest of the world isn’t as naive they were made out to be.
The Chinese, for instance, are good at producing a plethora of consumer goods. One need only to walk through the electronics aisle at your local Wal-Mart to find how many televisions are manufactured there.
Two weeks ago it was announced that Chinese car manufacturer, Shanghai Automotive Industries Corp, will be selling its vehicles in the U.S. later this year.
The average price of their new cars will be around $14,000, thanks to their cheap labor force, a price point that is expected not only to impact domestic automobile sales, but make a dramatic impact on the used market. These vehicles will come with a 100,000 mile warranty.
China, by the way, most recently usurped Germany as the third largest manufacturer of automobiles in the world.
For the past several years, Washington has been assuring us that although the trade deal hasn’t worked out exactly like they figured, the impact of the U.S. dollar that is at record low levels compared to other currencies across the world would make our products cheaper to foreign markets.
This would certainly be the clincher that would ensure the success of their original plan.
The November trade report proved this wrong and now everyone is left scratching their heads.
The answer, however, is quite clear, so clear in fact, I am amazed that no one seems to have put their finger on it. Allow me to offer the simple explanation: The world is now Wal-Martized.
Yes, foreign consumers are just like us when it comes to consumer behavior. They want the lowest price. They enjoy being able to go to a Wal-Mart-like store and paying $19.95 or less for almost anything in the store, which is why other Western countries like Australia are also accumulating record trade deficits.
Citizens of Australia and other countries are also experiencing the same hangovers as us as well, as we purchase cheap Eastern manufactured goods and then kick ourselves for doing so when we hear on the evening news that another U.S. company has closed its doors due to the incapacity to compete with cheap foreign labor.
In a trade borderless global world in which capitol and information runs freely, it is the country that has the cheapest labor pool that wins.
The question is who played who? Did countries like China, India and Mexico talk a naive political establishment into this one-sided arrangement or did corporate America pull a fast one on us through an envious PR campaign?
Like the Vietnam War, it will take a long time for our nation’s leadership to admit their errors, but unlike Vietnam, we can’t just call the troops back. All the jobs will be permanently over there, and they won’t be coming home.
