School year start: Let it be local

By Phil Pfuehler

Thanks, but no thanks. That's what local school representatives say to a state-mandated school year start of Sept. 1 or later.

The mandate, pushed by Gov. Tommy Thompson and the tourism lobby, offers an escape clause. After holding a public hearing, a school board can set its own starting time.

However, this review process must be done every year.

"The law seems like a non-law because you can change it if you want," school board vice president Hans Zoerb said. "We're a big state, we're not all the same. This issue should be determined locally."

Zoerb doesn't feel strongly one way or another about when the school year starts. His main concern is to keep the current number of class instruction days.

Board member Max Neuhaus said if the school year started after Sept. 1, it would push the final school day into the first or second week of June. Otherwise, the school year would be compressed, with fewer vacation days between fall and spring.

"I'm not saying our school calendar is best for Wisconsin, but it is definitely best for River Falls," Neuhaus said. "This should be an educational decision, but the later start seems to be market driven."

Neuhaus found the state's new mandate intrusive. He said the Legislature and governor continue to ignore the concerns of those lobbying on behalf of schools.

"Local control, it's such a simplistic issue. But lawmakers don't seem to be listening," Neuhaus said.

Board member Karen Clayton Ebert said she prefers the local tradition of starting the school year in late August and ending before Memorial Day. Board President Alison Page agreed, though she added that starting after Sept. 1 "wouldn't have a huge impact on the calendar year."

Page pointed out that hundreds of local students already take summer classes and therefore deal with blending work and school schedules.

"All that means is the mark between when school ends and when it begins is less important than it used to be," Page said.

Superintendent Sarah Noonan said the school board passed a resolution last spring opposing the later start.

Noonan also sent a letter to Gov. Tommy Thompson with objections to a later start:

"The reason for the opposition is the negative impact on student learning of compressing the school schedule. Research shows quite clearly that when students are continuously engaged in school learning, their achievement gains are retained. The River Falls Board of Education has also opposed starting school later because local citizens do not want to see the school year extended into June.

"You have taken a national leadership role in ensuring that we 'stay the course' with regard to student achievement. Why not 'stay the course' with regard to what we know is best for student learning?"

Noonan and others also say that ending the school year in June might cause hardship for teachers who attend summer college to upgrade their credentials.

Academic Community Services Director Ed Schramm said the district's calendar committee, not knowing what the Legislature would do, created two school calendars for next year.

One goes from Aug. 24 to May 31, the other from Sept. 5 to June 7. The second reflects not only a later ending, but also cuts several vacation days during the school year to compress the school-year calendar.