Poor Communications

Don't miss my comments at the end of this letter.

From the T&G:


Parent missed out on comment time for calendar

Dear Editor,

It was with some amazement that I read the story concerning the 2007-2008 school calendar for Camden County. Where was the public input on this issue? The BOE website states "During the February 2007 Board of Education meeting, the Board approved both the 2007-2008 School Calendar and the 2008-2009 School Calendar. These calendars are the result of input provided by both school system employees and the general public." I am a parent of two students attending Camden County schools and I was certainly never given an opportunity to comment. Had I been aware that the calendar was to be a topic of discussion at the Board meeting I most assuredly would have attended.Last year the Board sent proposed calendars home for parent comment. What happened this year? While it appears that the Board ignored last year's comments, this year they apparently didn't feel the need to even notify parents of the meeting.
Starting school on August 1 is ludicrous. The only attempted justification I have heard for the early start date is the assumption that students perform better academically if the first semester is complete prior to the winter break. Research simply does not support this assumption and in fact the evidence supports later start dates to improve academic performance.Of the top 10 ACT and SAT scoring schools for 2003, only one began school prior to September 1.The American Legislative Exchange Council's "Report Card on American Education State-by-State Analysis: 1981-2003" details that of the top-10 rated states, no school districts began school prior to the fourth week in August.Further, in 2003 the South Carolina Legislature commissioned Stephen C. Morse, Ph.D., economist from the University of South Carolina, Columbia to conduct a study of the economic impact of earlier school start dates. Dr. Morse cites overwhelming evidence that beginning school prior to Labor Day costs the state approximately $180 million in lost tourism along with additional utility costs of cooling schools during the hottest part of the summer.

At a time when our district is expressing concern for possible cuts in funding, should we not be looking to reasonable cost-cutting strategies? The Tulsa World News, on Nov. 17, 2002, reported that Tulsa Public Schools saved nearly $500,000 in utility costs by delaying the start of school until after Labor Day. In a Daily Oklahoman article from January 16, 2003, the paper quotes "District officials say the delay (August 18 to September 2) will save the schools at least $150,000 in utility costs."I encourage our school board to revisit this issue. With overwhelming evidence that no academic benefits from early school starts have been shown to exist, I'd like them to justify their decision to once again move up the school start date and take summer away from our families.
Mary Johnson
St. Marys

Reviewing the RED:
First of all the board has never communicated anything properly. They should post an agenda in the paper every month. They are not required to by law so they won't do it. The only time they communicate with the public is when there is a big football game and they might close schools. I wonder why we have not closed schools for the girls basketball games. I am sure these girls are just as excited in the playoffs as the football team was in their playoff bid, yet no mention of closing the schools for their playoff games. Just trying to keep it fair.

Second, the board does not look at how to save money, never have. They voted to raise taxes twice last year. One was for the impact money, which is still unclear whether or not we will receive it. If you look just at the payroll for our schools you would see there are many cuts they could make, but they won't take money away from the family, friends or football coaches.