The Deseret Morning News recently published an article by Jennifer Toomer-Cook (June 14) on a proposal for year-round school that has been endorsed by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. This article prompts me to point out a couple of issues.

The article indicated that the proposal would add an average of 10 additional days to the typical school year for students. The main points of the article as I read it were: (1) Year-round school will help teachers earn a more competitive salary; (2) Year-round school will provide better utilization of the large buildings on each school campus; (3) Year-round school is being promoted as budget neutral; and, (4) Year-round school will help students progress better, particularly in the areas of math and science.

I would like to see more in depth information on each of these items.

1. In my view, teachers are generally underpaid for the critical work they do and the long hours they work. Extending the time in class by an additional 10 days means teachers work for an additional 10 days at an underpaid rate. This may actually be a hit on a teacher's total take-home pay. Many teachers utilize the 80- to 90-day summer break to work a summer job to augment their annual salaries. In some cases the rate of pay is greater than their teacher position pays, but the work may be seasonal. Under a year-round plan, these opportunities would be eliminated with only 10 additional days of salary as compensation.

2. Large building utilization will increase, but with that increase comes more wear and tear on facilities and increased maintenance and operational expenses. Schools would be in operation longer, so costs of operation would be increased for the number of days of increased class time plus start-up and shutdown days for each trimester. Currently, summers are used to complete extensive repairs and maintenance not feasible in shorter intervals. Under a trimester system the same work would need to be completed during three much shorter intervals.

My background is engineering, and I can assure you that this will definitely increase maintenance costs. Mobilization and overhead costs of such projects will occur three times. Premium pay to contractors will increase as more must be done in a much shorter time. And, since the buildings will be used more, the actual amount of repairs to complete will increase.

3. The budget-neutral idea is more of a dream of lawmakers than reality. As indicated, if you are operating schools and paying teachers for extra days, you will pay more. If you are operating programs during the summer, costs of logistics and support must also be added. It would be very unlikely that such a proposal is budget neutral.

4. An additional 10 days may be helpful to students, particularly in the areas of math and science. But these might be better provided as 10-day workshops at the end of the year. Additionally, under the current system, summer programs are already offered to help students who have fallen behind. To its benefit, the trimester system does keep a student in the learning mode and somewhat mitigates the problem K-12 teachers now face of spending two to three weeks at the beginning of the year getting students back to where they were when school ended previous school year.

The costs and benefits of the trimester system should not be improperly intertwined with other separate issues such as low teacher salaries.

---

Kenneth M. Nielson lives in Leamington, Utah.