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