By Teresa Rochester

School in August? It's a move by the school district that may irk students, definitely angered teacher union representatives and may be a reality as early as next year.

The Board of Education Thursday night held a public hearing on a controversial and tentative plan that would push the beginning of the school year to mid-August over a three-year period.

District officials said the move would allow high school students to be better prepared for a host of exams including Advanced Placement tests. Younger students would also have more school days to better prepare them for assessment tests.

"We are being compared on a national level on these tests," said Sue Gee, assistant superintendent of curriculum. "Perhaps we are at a slight disadvantage. Moving the calendar forward would allow us to add days of school and instruction before the SAT9."

If approved, high school students would wrap up final exams before winter break and not have to study during the recess. Spring break would be cut down to one week to "reduce the gap in learning time for all students," a staff report stated. Officials said that ending the school year earlier would give high school students a chance to participate in college and university summer school programs.

The proposed calendar was hailed by Santa Monica High School administrators and parents but met with a barrage of criticism from some teachers and their union representatives, who said they had been duped by the district and cut out of the process.

"I believe the scheduling thing is something that we need to consider," said SAMO High's vice principal Frank Nishimora. "I really think it's educationally sound."

Nishimora said the two-week winter recess doesn't really allow for a break, since students either spend their time studying or working. Parents agreed with that assessment.

"From the beginning of the school year to when it ends the kids in 11th and 12th grade really don't get a break," said SAMO High parent Gaye Saxton. "Give our kids a break by beginning the school year earlier and end it earlier."

"We are the only district along with Virginia Beach that starts after Labor Day," said SAMO High teacher Gretchen Davis. "Please support a three-year calendar that starts before Labor Day."

For months, district officials and teachers from all the district's schools ironed out a calendar proposal calling for a one-year calendar. To the chagrin of teachers on the committee, district staff presented the board with a different, three-year proposal, prompting a barrage of criticism from teacher union representatives.

"I served on the committee that recommended a calendar based on the majority of members," said John Adams Middle School teacher, Amy Fowler. "Needless to say we felt like the rug was pulled out from under us."

Fowler said district officials did not alert committee members of the changed proposal and that she heard about it from union representatives. "People are thinking we negotiated falsely …that's not acceptable."

"I'm very angry that once again the leadership excluded SMMCTA (Santa Monica/Malibu Certified Teachers Association)," said union president Beth Muir. "The trust we are losing now is the trust of our own members when we send them to meetings and this happens.

"We're in a pickle," Muir said. "This isn't really about the start date. It's about the process. This is just another time that we are looking silly and embarrassed. We both are. I'm fed up with it."

Muir and union member Jim Jaffe called for the plan to be pushed back one year, arguing that the negotiation process started well behind schedule in January. Calendar negotiations usually start in November. Board members also expressed concern about the short notice and what they perceived as a lack of public input.

"I've heard about surveying teachers and surveying surrounding areas, but we have not surveyed the families, and I have a problem with that," board member Dorothy Chapman said.

"We had a public hearing tonight, and there are a lot of people out there that don't know what's going on," said board member Julia Brownely. "That's a problem for me."

Superintendent Neil Schmidt said that the calendar would not be pushed back and negotiations on the matter will have to be completed by May.

"We knew at the time there were risks associated with this," said Schmidt. "It is late notice. This will have to be the process we use by bringing it here tonight. We'll be looking at one year and considering any changes. We only have three to four weeks to come to an agreement on this."

The board will work on the calendar in closed session negotiations. A final decision is scheduled to be rendered in early May.