MUSIC ADVOCACY: Caring Enough to Put the Student First
June 13, 2006
Educational Reform Movements: Part 8 of a series Two Options for Four-Period Block Scheduling
After calling this meeting of the Schedule Task Force to order, the administration distributed a large packet of information in support of its proposal to adopt a Block Schedule format.
The administration started by reminding members about the initial goal of the Task Force – to eliminate the grades 9 and 10 scheduling “bottleneck - and then suggested that research showed adopting the Block Schedule would be the best way to meet this goal.
Research Claims About Block Schedule
During their presentation, the administration showed research to indicate Block Scheduling would:
• Eliminate the bottleneck by allowing students to enroll in 8 courses per year. • Allow students to earn up to 32 credits during the 4 years they are enrolled in high school. • Allow students to potentially fulfill the minimum requirements for graduation (24 credits) in only 3 years by taking 8 credits each year. • Increase "time on task" by expanding each class period from 55 to 85 minutes. • Increase test scores because of increased "time on task." • Increase graduation rates (reduce drop-outs) because of increased student success. • Improve grades in the general student population.
When they finished outlining the basic research about Block Schedule, the administrators in favor of this schedule format outlined two options to implement a Four-Period Block Schedule.
Option 1: The 4 x 4 Block Schedule
Students would take up to four courses per semester.
Each course would meet daily for 85 minutes.
Each course would fulfill the requirements of a (previous) full year course.
"Skinnies" may be implemented for courses outside the (perceived) core, such as music and other electives, including courses like band, choir and orchestra that need to meet for an entire year. [Note: A "skinny" is half of an 85-minute period.]
Option 2: The A/B Block Schedule
Students would take up to eight courses per year. (Some districts require the students to take one study hall, allowing only seven courses per year.)
Each course would meet every other day (A/B) for 85-minutes for the entire year.
Each course would be considered as fulfilling the requirements of a (previous) full year course.
Similarities between these two options included the following.
A course that was previously a full year (or 1 credit) would be "semesterized." That is, since the course was now meeting for a significantly longer period of time requirements for that course could be fulfilled in one semester.
The length of the day would remain at 355 minutes, but students would only pass between classes three times instead of four. Therefore, the extra ten minutes gained would be added to class time.
A teacher's load would be reduced from five 55-minute periods per day to three 85-minute periods per day.
A teacher's load would increase from five courses per year to six courses per year.
A teacher's daily student load would be decreased.
Controversy and No Decision
From the beginning of the meeting it was evident that this proposal was going to be controversial. In addition to the preliminary research done by the Music Coalition, other Task Force members had done their own research, scouring the Internet for information related to Block Schedule.
There seemed to be a general "sense" that Block Schedule was where the administration was headed from the very beginning. Some individuals even expressed concern privately that the Task Force had been appointed as a "token committee" and that, even though the administration and board had involved the community, they intended to decide in favor of Block Scheduling regardless of public opinion or concerns. Even the teachers seemed divided over the concept.
Discussion on the two options was extensive and lengthy, but no clear recommendations emerged. Therefore, it was decided that there would be a second meeting on the topic of Block Schedule, with the Task Force divided into sub committees according to the two options. People were asked to go to their various constituencies with the information, do their own research, and then come to the next meeting ready to present specific summary reports and comments on the two options.
Those summaries will be presented next time – and the discussion should be a lively one!
