Extended school year a tough sell to teachers, administrators

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A proposal which would make major changes in the length of the state's school year sailed through the Oklahoma House of Representatives this week.

But there's a big storm on the horizon.

Under House Bill 3122, lawmakers would add "about three days" to the state school year and use hours instead of days to measure time in spent in the classroom.

Written by state Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore, the bill would require a minimum of 1,080 hours per academic year.

Jones, chair of the House Education Committee, said the measure would make schools stronger.

"This will give our schools more flexibility to teach how and when they see fit," he said. "If school districts want to leave their school year exactly as it is right now, this bill gives them that option. But, if they want to extend each school day so the needed academic time is placed within a 4-day week to save money on utility and bus costs, this bill gives them that flexibility."

However, in addition to adding time to the school calendar, the bill would reduce the number of professional development days available to teachers. Currently most teachers have about five professional development days.

Under HB 3122, those days would be reduced to two.

"The bill ... protects 15 hours of professional development for teachers each year," Jones said in a media release.

And while Jones claims the bill will "help our students compete not only nationally, but globally," area school administrators and teachers' union officials are questioning that reduction and the lack of funding for the longer school year.

The measure, union officials said, doesn't include any funding for those three extra days.

"The bill is an unfunded mandate," said Moore Association of Classroom Teachers President Jill Dudley. "They took three of our professional development days and turned those days into instruction days. So where will the money to pay for the extra time, the support staff, the extra cafeteria food and things like that come from?"

In addition, Dudley said teachers don't want to lose their professional development days.

"What those legislators don't understand is those five days are not all about professional development," she said. "We also have to accomplish many things before the beginning of the school year. We have organizational meetings, we meet with subject area coordinators, we review test scores and remediation efforts. We need time to do those things, too."

Democratic state Rep. Bill Nations agreed.


Nations, from Norman, voted against the bill. He said he, too, didn't like the idea of trading teachers' professional development days for days in the classroom.

"I voted against it because they (the House GOP) won't tell the truth," he said. "You're trading three days of professional development for three more days in the classroom. Oklahoma has some of the best teachers in America and I'm not one who wants to take those professional development days away from them."

Representative Jones, Nations said, "doesn't want to come out and say that's what they are doing and that somehow, we're going to get three extra days in the classroom. This was the cheapest way to get them."

The real cost, some administrators say, is much higher.

Norman school superintendent, Dr. Joe Siano, said each extra day of instruction would probably cost an additional $18 million, statewide.

Siano, part of a task force appointed by state school superintendent Sandy Garrett to study the issue, said the additional school days would be expensive.

"Our task force studied three areas," he said. "The quality of instruction time, the cost of instruction time and the quantity of instruction time."

And while the task force recommended adding a total of 15 days to the school year, Siano said the group also recommended those additional days be added in five day increments and that the state provide the extra funding -- between $80 million and $100 million -- to cover the costs of those additional five days.

"I think extending the school year is something we ought to consider," Siano said. "The more time with kids is going to be impactful and I like the part of the bill addressing the school year in hours instead of days."

However, like both Dudley and Nations, Siano said he, too, "was concerned" about exchange of professional development days for instructional days.

"I think that, in the end, if you begin dismissing the importance of professional development, you're going to minimize the impact of additional instruction," he said.

The Legislature, Siano said, should "fund everything they are already underfunding and meet schools' operational obligations."

"Then you're going to have to pay for the extra days," he said.

And this year, money is tight.

"One of the challenges that we've encountered is clearly the funding portion of the bill," state Rep. Scott Martin said. "There isn't just loads of extra money sitting around. If we're to expand the school year, as it has been proposed, then we're talking about millions of new dollars."


Martin, a Norman Republican, said he voted for the measure because he was "in favor of some of the changes that have been proposed."

"I don't think the change of the school days to hours impacts us too much," he said. "But I am concerned about changing professional days to instructional days."

Still, even with the measure's 67-33 vote, Martin said House members will get another chance to review the measure before it's sent to the governor's desk.

On Feb. 21, Jones moved to remove the measure's title and enacting clause. That action forces the bill back to the House of Representatives before it can be sent to Gov. Brad Henry.

"We're gong to get another look at it," Martin said. "Changing of the school days to hours was an easier sell at this time. We're going to see if we can fund it appropriately. If it comes down to it and all we can do is change from days to hours, then that's all right. We can wait until we can find the money."

However, even those changes might not prove enough to satisfy the area's school teachers.

"None of us are opposed to adding more instructional days," Dudley said. "But you gotta pay for it. You just can't push the burden off on the district."

And, Dudley said, should the measure not include funding, teachers' union officials will work to defeat HB 3122 in the state Senate.

"If we can't beat it in the Senate, then we'll ask the governor to veto it," she said. "The districts can't bear any more unfunded mandates.