About 12 years ago the district I am in decided to be yet again be on the forefront of innovative educational practices and to adopt a block scheduling format for the high school schedule. This decision was met with outrage from most faculty and many, many parents. The arguments against the decision were that the schedule didn't allow for continuity in subject matter, that foreign languages in particular would suffer and that test scores would suffer as a result. Also it was felt that personalization wouldn't be as strong as teachers would only have students for 1/2 the year rather than a full year. It meant that fewer books could be read in Language Arts classes and that there would be fewer opportunities for longer research papers wouldn't be possible. Many parents and staff members felt that 80 mins. was just too long a period for students to stay in one class.
On the plus side it was pointed out that there would be more instructional time because less time would be spent passing between classes, that teachers in classes which required set-ups such as art, physical education, lab sciences could well use the time, and that in all classes there would be more opportunities for in depth learning. Teachers were told that they would have to change their teaching style (even if they saw nothing wrong with the way they were doing things) and that they would be encouraged to do a lot less talking and a lot more cooperative learning activities to make the 80 mins. go by quickly.
Fears of lower test scores, less ability in foreign language, student disinterest were brushed aside (some would say tossed!) and block scheduling was put into effect. However, every group that complained was given some appeasement. So the semester block schedule was amended so that foreign languages were taught in an A/B format; AP science classes were taught in a 3/4 year format; some ELL and remedial classes were taught all year long; some classes were 1/4 classes and there were probably a few more variations to all of these.
This hodgepodge led to some inequities. Foreign language teachers felt they bore the brunt of all of the problems, but math teachers were observing that math skills were forgotten when students went almost a year between classes. So, what happened? After all this time the faculty has come to really like block scheduling (except for a few depts. along with foreign languages), students loved the schedule, and many of the parents who were so against it either pulled their children out and sent them to private schools or moved. But something was still not right. Test scores did drop and it was obvious teaching foreign languages every other day was not working.
So now after being on the forefront of scheduling innovations we are now looking at alternatives. I joined the committee that was charged with finding an alternative schedule for our school. This group was made up of parents, teachers, administrators, and students. We were led by an outside consultant. It was clear that the consultant was in favor of a type of schedule called the Copernican plan. Our group after months of discussion voted to recommend this plan to the entire school- both teachers and students. Students weren't happy but it was felt that they could be swayed to accept it but when the full teaching staff was given the plan it was soundly rejected.
On the plus side it was pointed out that there would be more instructional time because less time would be spent passing between classes, that teachers in classes which required set-ups such as art, physical education, lab sciences could well use the time, and that in all classes there would be more opportunities for in depth learning. Teachers were told that they would have to change their teaching style (even if they saw nothing wrong with the way they were doing things) and that they would be encouraged to do a lot less talking and a lot more cooperative learning activities to make the 80 mins. go by quickly.
Fears of lower test scores, less ability in foreign language, student disinterest were brushed aside (some would say tossed!) and block scheduling was put into effect. However, every group that complained was given some appeasement. So the semester block schedule was amended so that foreign languages were taught in an A/B format; AP science classes were taught in a 3/4 year format; some ELL and remedial classes were taught all year long; some classes were 1/4 classes and there were probably a few more variations to all of these.
This hodgepodge led to some inequities. Foreign language teachers felt they bore the brunt of all of the problems, but math teachers were observing that math skills were forgotten when students went almost a year between classes. So, what happened? After all this time the faculty has come to really like block scheduling (except for a few depts. along with foreign languages), students loved the schedule, and many of the parents who were so against it either pulled their children out and sent them to private schools or moved. But something was still not right. Test scores did drop and it was obvious teaching foreign languages every other day was not working.
So now after being on the forefront of scheduling innovations we are now looking at alternatives. I joined the committee that was charged with finding an alternative schedule for our school. This group was made up of parents, teachers, administrators, and students. We were led by an outside consultant. It was clear that the consultant was in favor of a type of schedule called the Copernican plan. Our group after months of discussion voted to recommend this plan to the entire school- both teachers and students. Students weren't happy but it was felt that they could be swayed to accept it but when the full teaching staff was given the plan it was soundly rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment