 |
 |
Dr. David Hopson |
||||||||||||
October 23, 2006 One of the many interesting facets of looking at how time is used in schools is the school calendar. Gateway’s school calendar is developed with the teachers’ association (union) and is set well in advance of the actual school year. The calendar is constrained by two factors. First, the school year must be at least 180 days and must be completed by the end of the fiscal year (June 30th of each year). Second, we cannot start before September 1st unless the teachers’ union votes in favor of an earlier start (as required by their contract with the district). For these reasons, I touch base with the teacher’s union leadership regarding vacations, activities and other dates of interest before developing three different calendar options for the teachers’ association to vote on. Historically, two of the three calendars have school starting after September 1st with the third calendar starting before. Two calendars have the traditional winter and spring break (and a corresponding late finish in June) and one has only one March break (and an early to mid-June finish). In the case of the traditional calendar with a late June finish (start in September and vacations in both February and April) any snow days in excess of five may be made up during April vacation. In the calendar year we’re now considering, all days in excess of 5 will be made up during April vacation. Changing the calendar (i.e., starting before September 1st, having only a March vacation) would have a great impact on many families; planning vacations, summer activities, scheduling work and child care are just a few examples. Many school systems have changed their start dates to before September 1st to allow more flexibility in making up missed days and to allow more time in school before the standardized tests required under No Child Left Behind (i.e., MCAS in Massachusetts). Some have even rethought the entire school calendar to consider year-round schooling (to address the issue of how much knowledge is retained or lost by students over the summer break). Each of these adaptations has positive and negative aspects to consider. Most of the positive aspects show data tied to improved student achievement; many negative aspects are based upon parent and staff disapproval of changing the traditional concept of the school year. Other factors—such as the potential for both an extended school day/year and influenza pandemic—need to be considered as we move ahead with overall planning. If we are ever faced with an influenza season that forces us to close schools, or extra loss of days due to weather (i.e., hurricanes, ice storms) it is unlikely that the state will waive the 180 day rule for schools. With a mandatory finish by June 30th we would have little choice but to add hours to the day, to eliminate vacations, or to attend school on Saturday. We’ve been lucky with both weather and influenza outbreaks so far, but the odds increase each year that one or both of these incidences will occur. I would be interested to know your opinions regarding this issue—would you prefer to work towards an earlier start to school (prior to September 1st) or to stick with the traditional calendar and face the annual possibility of cutting April vacation or (in the worst case) adding hours to the school day or attending school on Saturdays? As always, you may reply to myopinion@grsd.org or by mail at 12 Littleville Road, Huntington. ### |
||||||||||||