Comments about ‘Senators OK 3 bills boosting education’

Some of the most exciting education legislative moves on the hill in years. Republicans seems to be stepping up and begining to deal with this important issue. My first congratulations to Sen. Stephenson ever.

I don't see how this will be a good thing for a lot of families that plan trips and other activities during the summer months. It seems like it would be very disruptive to scout camp, family reunions and other things that traditionally happen during the summer.

My daughter is interested in a career in animation and uses the summer months to attend community college drawing/painting courses. If her High School adopts some sort of a year-round program, it would greatly impact her opportunity to participate in these kind of courses.

This would also make it that much harder for high-school aged students to obtain summer jobs, as employers would be reluctant to hire these young workers if they only have a couple of weeks off between year round school classes.

The last point is a lot of students choose to take summer courses to either graduate early, or retake a course they struggled with to catch up. If there isn't a long break like summer vacation, would there still be a way for students to have this option?

Year round school should never be implemented in High School. Doing so disrupts so much more making things like college admissions, band, choir AP and other such programs more likely to fall on the cutting room floor.

Sure legislators like the idea. It did fail when done in California, so naturally they are attracted to it like a fly to dead meat.

Interesting idea.... I'd like my representatives to ask the following questions before deciding pro or con on Sen. Stephenson's idea.
1) the summary says under this proposal Students would only be required to attend 180 days - it's the teachers and schools that would be open 220. Does that mean that this 'year round school' would just be for remediation (catching students up to grade level), optional academic or vocational 'summer courses' or other educational 'enrichment' opportunities (like a science camp at school?)
2) I can see that paying teachers for an additional 40 days of work would increase their teaching pay, but would it reduce their annual income - making it difficult for them to work in the seasonal jobs they traditionally do to augment their low teacher salaries?

This is something that needs to be implemented, but will fail and exacerbate the teacher shortage if something isn't done to empower teachers and improve school discipline. I am a teacher and my colleagues are saying they would retire earlier or get out of teaching if schools went year round. We simply can't handle the stress of being responsible for students who really don't have to obey us.

Laurence Abel

Pastghistory most of the time is an indicator of future behavior. Howard Stephenson and Chris Buttars have long been opponents of public education and have voiced as much many times. Any idea that they sponsor/approve is immediately suspect. I hope that legislators will look beyond the "good idea" to see the ulterior motives of these two. Chris Buttars has admitted that he does not read the bills that cross his desk, so how does he know this is a good bill? His buddy told him so.

The year round bill sounds great but will cause so many disruptions to families that it will be dead before it even starts.

Why do we keep trying things that have failed over and over again and then call them new innovations?

I am just amazed at how the legislators believe that if they apply market place models to public education that it is going to impact in a positive way.

Students will then HAVE to attend school daily because if they do not then they will be required to withdraw (just like getting fired from a job). Students will have to do their work EVERY DAY or.....Students will have to be respectful to their teachers (just like being respectful TO THEIR EMPLOYER).....Oh my goodness, I am in favor of this!!

Please, legislators.....give us the marketplace so that we as educators can function as if what we do IS the marketplace...and then see what happens!

Legislators, teachers would be interested in differentiated pay as soon as the legislators start making their pay differentiated. When a Salt Lake Senator agrees he should be paid less than a Provo senator simply because he isn't needed as much, teachers will happily do the same!

The answer is smaller schools! They are better academically. They are safer. Parents are more satisfied. Teachers are happier. Check out my website for the research supporting this at www.smallerschools.org. Concerning retaining teachers, one article at this site "Smaller, Safer, Saner, Successful Schools" p. 13 says:

"A number of studies concluded that teachers in small schools are much more satisfied than are teachers in large schools (Bryk, Raywid). A study of more than 2,400 Midwestern superintendents shows they recognize the importance of small schools in retaining faculty. In fact, urban, rural, and suburban superintendents whose districts have restructured schools to make them smaller rated this action the single most effective way to retain teachers (Hare).

We also need community-sized school districts. These two things will be more likely to bring about long-lasting improvement and do what everyone else is wanting.

More pay = more teachers


A first grader could tell you that...

David, I am sure that teachers in smaller schools are more satisfied than teachers in larger schools. However, it does not translate into cost effectiveness for schools and districts. There is that fine line that districts have to walk, and another fine line that parents say to never cross. That fine line deals with raising taxes in order to pay for services. The U. of Utah study that came out a year ago dealing with large vs. small districts showed that larger districts can provide greater cost savings to the taxpaying public than smaller ones. There in "lies the rub". Everyone wants smaller schools and districts but no one wants to pay for it. When the final bill comes around on the split in Jordan....I will bet the RANCH that taxes will go up on both sides of the valley and people are going to be screaming, especially on the eastside. They voted for it and they deserve what they are going to get.

To Anonymous:
More pay does not equal more teachers. In fact with Senator Stephenson's bill, it depends on fewer teachers, because none of the money allocated for this program goes for the extra pay for teachers. It is only for building costs, electricity, etc. (M&O money). The money to pay for the 40% increase in a teachers salary comes the assumption that with teachers teaching 220 days, there will be fewer needed, so some will have to leave and go to other districts. Their salaries will be used to pay the extra 40% that the remaining teachers receive.

Look at SB51(amended), lines 68-74 to see what the grant money can be used for. It isn't teachers' salaries.

SO in this case "More pay = less teachers".

Sorry, that should have read SB41.

Smart. It reminds me of master yoda in Star Wars talking to his young students. Sometimes the most obvious answer is so hard to see. Until Utah's legislators get a clue you're going to see teachers numbers/ quality continue to slide. The avalanche is coming.

I am a teacher of ten years. I remember receiving a letter from Gov. Leavitt's aids regarding pay and my frustration saying work a few years and you'll see your pay and situation improve. Well its been 10 years- gas has tripled in price, food has doubled, housing costs have doubled, and teacher pay has done nothing. I have made less and less each year. After some discussion, my wife has told me enough is enough. As a band director my groups have continually ranked among the states top 5, but what difference does it matter? I am paid the same as all other directors on the same pay scale. Utah doesn't reward exceptional teaching. I already work year round with summer marching band, yet the district pays me only a small stipend for an activity I am expected to do- same with basketball and football games.

Alta High, you'll miss your football coach

Very insightful. Thank you.

I hope legislators are reading this message board and not just listening to their buddies as Mariposa noted.

A project has just completed four years in Title I schools in five districts. The results from Iowa test scores are now available for the 2007/2008 school year. This comparison is of the 2006/2007 and the 2007/2008 in one district with 28 schools.
Grade schools Title I 2006/2007 2007/2008
3 16 YES 35 %ile 36 %ile
3 ALL 28 59 %ile 50 %ile

Grade 5 had almost identical results. The point is that the 16 Title I schools held their own and the district overall dropped 9 %ile. Why!!!!

More pay = more people getting into education as a career instead of a two or three year stint while hubby is in college.

The legislature likes to lecture us about market competition, but they always seem to ignore the other end. If a prospective teacher is looking at Utah as a place to teach, but has to work another 40 days to get the same amount of money for working 180 days in Colorado, what would the most logical choice be? This does nothing to solve the teacher shortage problem. The legislature reminds me of shady car dealers or home mortgage lenders, who create confusions to obfuscate what should be simple financial calculations. The real and only solution is to simply pay more. It is basic Economics 101. If you can't attract employees to your company because another similar business is paying more, you have to either compete or go out of business. Dear Utah Legislature, that is the true marketplace.

... and the unfortunate thing about legislators not paying attention to this true marketplace is that it is the children who suffer.