Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

I have wondered for some time why our school district has never considered year round school.

I believe the teachers have 200 day contracts. That is 180 days to teach our children and then 20 extra days to prepare. This is out of a maximum number of work days in a calendar year of 260 work days.

If we subtract 10 holidays like cooperate America that leaves them with 240 work days.

As I look around our neighborhood during any work day this neighborhood is deserted. Mothers are all working. They work in the winter and they work in the summer. Many times children are left unattended when they should not be.

By going to a four quarter school year we could relieve the over crowding with just a schedule change. It could provide baby sitting for a number of mothers that should have baby sitting in the summer vacation months.

It also would create an additional class room space in brick and mortar school buildings of 2300 students. It would reduce the average daily attendance at our most over crowed schools. It would fully utilize our current facilities and maybe provide for some creative new initiatives in education.

Oh I forgot about the teachers. Amend their contracts to allow the district to determine their SELECTED 200 WORK DAYS EACH YEAR.

Think about it.



By Quarter pounder

It has been considered

I do not know what the current facilities committee has done in this regard, but the 1997 committee, on which I served, took a very careful look at this option, along with quite a range of others. There should still be a copy or two of our report floating around. If you can find one, you should have a look at our findings.

There are several ways to structure year-round school. The one on which we focused would have had kids attending school for four 9-week sessions, interspersed with 3-week intersessions in which kids would be off. These intersessions would be structured so that, at any given time, 1/3 of the student body would be on intersession, which would thereby increase enrollment capacity by approximately 1/3.

Breaking up the 12-week summer vacation into four 3-week intersessions would have some educational benefit, since students lose a good part of what they learn over the summer, and must spend the first part of each year reviewing last year's work.

On the other hand, such an arrangement would limit course offerings available to students, since the faculty, like the student body, would have to be broken into four equal teams. There would not be enough students on some teams to justify offering some courses. Also, the students on a given team would be limited to the courses offered by teachers on that particular team.

Such an arrangement also would make extra-curricular activities very difficult to schedule. Students who wanted to play football, for example, might not be able to play baseball or basketball, and would be limited to the courses offered on the ''football track.''

Because all schools would be in continuous use, maintenance would be difficult. Also, keeping school in session year-round would increase utility costs.

Once a school district adopts such an arrangement, it is very difficult to go back to a conventional schedule. To do so, for example, it might be necessary to increase the school district's building capacity by 1/3.

Finally, in terms of building capacity, all such an arrangement really does is buy a school district some time -- and not that much time. In fact, we found, in 1997, that some of our schools would still be over capacity, even on year-round school. I believe that would still be true today at grades K-4, but have not run the numbers.

Thus we decided, in 1997, not to recommend year-round school. I do not believe the pertinent facts have changed significantly since them. But you are right about one thing -- the PLSD always should consider all possible options, this one included.

Keeping looking

First I think the 1997 facilities committee report is probably outdated because of growth, time, and changes in the local governments.

As for the so called current facilities committee, I did not hear too much from that group. If I am reading that group right it was only formed to justify the three options they recommended to the School Board for the May 3rd ballot.

There seems to be some movement with City Hall and their impact fee study. I seem to remember there may be more to come from our City Hall. In conjunction with City Hall, I believe we are seeing some cooperation between the Township and Pickerington. My point is we should allow some of these programs and plans to become public and hold another community summit. As an example, if the Twp and the City are successful in slowing growth then some of the findings of the current facilities committee will be wrong.

I believe Bruce did point out some issues of school maintenance and busing with year round school but I think with some work those issues could be worked out.

I think where our community has failed in the past is with its community meetings where there is a meeting controller at every table to promote the administration?’s ideas not the general consensus of the community (see the boundary committee). I believe a summit type meeting with the community leaders would be a first step in creating a true community and with community solutions. This time our community leaders should listen only.

I suggested year round schooling because it has been mentioned to me a number of times. I raised the question and the idea and our community leaders need to look at the idea objectively. In the past out of the box ideas were countered with committees that only found ways to oppose the idea. Many of the problems Mr. Rigelman cited could be worked out if there was wiliness on the part of our community leaders.






By Quarter Pounder

Still working

The current school facilities committee was formed to:

1) Make a recommendation to the board for a school bond issue. They had 5 proposals, and brought 3 to the board for consideration.

2) Review and update the 10-year master plan. They are currently still working on that plan, and are expected to present their report to the Board in June.

A number of people who were appointed to the committee dropped out after the committee made their initial report, but the committee is still working with about 18-20 members, from the original 25. There are administration officials present at the meetings, but they are NOT directing the discussions; they are available to answer questions and provide information if requested.