From: kedleman@mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us (Keith Edleman)
Subject: Restructuring Time for Math Class
Date: 26 Apr 1995 23:34:01 GMT

This posting is directed toward high school teachers. Many schools have [changed] or are in the process of changing the teaching day from 7-8 periods to 4 blocks of time. My question is for anyone with experience in both systems of scheduling. Can the students process as much material in a semester in block as could be processed in the typical yearly schedule? Any other relevant comments, ideas, and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I am in favor of the change ASAP to allow me more time to develop projects with the students but not all of the members of the department are as excited about changing. Thank you for anything that you can volunteer.

From: hayden@oz.plymouth.edu (Bob Hayden)
Subject: Restructuring Time for Math Class
Date: 26 Apr 1995 21:45:19 -0400

I'd like to offer a comment based on teaching stats. in college - mostly in service courses for business majors. For Stats. I (mostly sophomores, many with no major declared) I prefer 50 min. classes 3 times per week so they don't forget they are taking the course, while for Stats. 2 (mostly senior business majors) I prefer two 75 min. meetings per week because the content requires more in-depth treatment. While these courses are not taught in most high schools, the question I want to raise is whether one can say that one schedule is "best": what works best may depend on the course content, the audience, and the teaching style.

From: hgehlba2@cc.swarthmore.edu (Hilary Gehlbach)
Subject: Re: Restructuring Time for Math Class
Date: 26 Apr 1995 22:22:45 -0400

I confess I'm not a high school teacher, but I thought I'd add my two cents worth nonetheless. While I was in high school, my school changed its scheduling from the regular 45-50 minute periods daily to a rotating schedule in which most classes were still regular length each day, but one class each day met for 2 hours. Thus, every eight days, you would have math for 2 hours, but on other days it would be 45 minutes. This seemed to me an effective system - it gave the teacher the opportunity to do something a bit different or more in depth during the long periods, but didn't lose student interest since it was only every week or so. Hilary Gehlbach Swarthmore College

From: bmarthinsen@keypress.com (Bill Marthinsen)
Subject: Re: Restructuring Time for Math Class
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:58:18 -0800

I am not currently in the classroom, but was for 18 years. Over the course of two years my school experimented with "block scheduling." The results seem to corroborate the comments of both Hilary Gehlbach and Bob Hayden.

In the first year of our experimenting, we tried it once every other week. Odd numbered periods met on Tues. for twice their normal length of time, and even numbers met on Wed. The following week returned to normal scheduling. The week following that the block schedule and so on through most of a semester.

We structured it the way we did to make the transition easier for teachers at the school. We were used to the 50 min. period. Our lessons and teaching repertoire assumed that structural element. We needed time to try out something new, time to reflect on what we tried, time to revise for the next time it occurred, and time to develop a repertoire for longer class periods. The response was very favorable. Most teachers and student liked the change of pace. Science and art teachers wanted to institute it wholesale. Foreign language teachers were the most resistant (they said the daily contact was needed to develop the speaking vocabulary). --- Overall, this is much like the reaction Hilary described.

The next year we dove into it full time and it was a total disaster. Many who had liked it the first year changed their minds. It did not meet the needs of everyone, just as the old system did not meet the needs of everyone. Teachers were not ready for the increased demand of revising all lessons to the new time frame and students were discombobulated by a new time structure. They really resented the imposition of a system on them. As did many of the teachers. It fell apart that year and we abandoned block scheduling. --- What works best as Bob Hayden said is different for different purposes and for different people.

The moral of the story: too much of a good thing is not a good thing ... variety is the spice of life ... In retrospect, I wonder how our trial model would have done if we had continued it. I hope this is of some use to those considering such stuctural changes.

Bill Marthinsen
Key Curriculum Press

From: Marksaul@aol.com
Subject: Re: Restructuring Time for Math Class
Date: 27 Apr 1995 22:12:40 -0400

Well, a high school education has long been something of a classical object, so that the slightest change constitutes a revolution.

Eight years ago, our high school changed from 40 minute periods to 55 minute periods--something less than the change you contemplate. It was tough at first, but virtually everyone got used to it.

From my own experience, I can tell you that it easier to lengthen the class periods for high-ability students (we group by ability [whatever that means] and are proud of it). These kids can learn in almost any environment, and at least going from 40 to 55 minutes was, for traditional teachers, merely a change in bookkeeping--when you ended one lesson and began another. As for me, I felt that the extra time was a great luxury and could use a less formal teaching style, more natural to me, than I could earlier.

Middle range classes also went well, with the exception of Regents classes. In New York State certain curricula are driven by exams set and graded in Albany, and here the time element is critical. We have stopped giving certain Regents exams--which I see as a constructive step. Time to get used to this: about 3-4 years.

The difficulty, for everyone, was in the lowest ability classes. For some of these kids, concentrating on math for more than 1/2 hour is very difficult, and longer periods mean more wasted time. On the other hand, of course, you can do may alternative-type things with these kids in a long period. Still, the greatest change occurs here. I took over many of these classes exactly because others couldn't, or didn't want to, change their styles to accommodate the longer time. So I have to say that many of my colleagues have never adjusted to the longer (by 15 minutes!) periods.

Finally, I must make a comment on my experience with scheduling. I don't know how it's being done in your school, but in ours it was done from the top down. Many reformers, including some in my own school, see changing the schedule as a way of twisting teachers' arms to try something new. I think this is unprofessional, and an abuse of the role of educational leadership. It always backfires, except that the person advocating a new schedule gets to put it on his/her resume, as another achievement of their innovative leadership.

Beware the opportunist and careerist. He or she does not have the best interests of your school or your students at heart

From: hot@SOE.Berkeley.Edu (Henri Picciotto)
Subject: Re: structuring time
Date: 2 May 1995 11:00:31 -0400

I work at the Urban School of San Francisco. I have much experience in the block schedule (many years). In this message, I will answer some of the questions that have been asked about block scheduling, and comment on some of the statements that have been made. In the following one, I will re-post a description of our schedule and some comments on it.

> Can the students process as much material in a semester in block
> as could be processed i n the typical yearly schedule?

The answer is yes, in one sense, since our students end up going to many competitive colleges and function well there. However, to be honest, our goals are not to "process" large quantities of material. You have to decide to cover less, but more in depth. This is a bit of a problem for our AP classes because of teaching to an outside test. But otherwise, it provides the kids with a much more thoughtful education.

It is of course easier to do projects and labs in the block system. This in turn has substantial advantages from the point of view of motivation.

> what works best may depend on the course content, the
> audience, and the teaching style

Unfortunately, schools cannot easily have blocks for some teachers and courses, and traditional periods for others. So it becomes imperative to evaluate this question as a policy decision for the whole school. Such an evaluation is difficult to do objectively, since teachers always tend to favor the status quo -- it's a lot easier to continue teaching in the format you are accustomed to.

Of course, the question in the end is not what is best for the teacher, but what is best for the student. But to make any changes, teachers have to agree. At my school, schedule changes are discussed by the curriculum committee and approved (or not) by vote of the faculty. Using schedule changes to force teachers to do things is a real loser.

> Science and art teachers wanted to institute it
> wholesale. Foreign language teachers were the most resistant

There is no doubt that block scheduling works very well for science and art. At my school, foreign language teachers feel that shortening the period from 75 to 70 minutes, which we did last year, was a big loss. Their feeling is that long periods contribute to immersion in the language. (Our language courses include much conversation.) For history and english, in addition to discussions, they are able to do in-class writing, watch movies and discuss them, and so on. For math, we can do both group work and whole-class discussions in a typical day, and many more labs with manipulatives or technology than we would in a traditional schedule.

> The difficulty, for everyone, was in the lowest ability classes.

I cannot comment on this based on my own experience, since our classes are not tracked. But I have heard good things about double-period algebra classes for lower tracks in Texas. It's entirely a question of how you use the longer period, which gives you the opportunity to bore the kids for longer with lectures and drills, or the opportunity to get them engaged with lessons involving cooperative learning and labs.

Specifics of the Urban School schedule in next message.

--Henri

From: hot@SOE.Berkeley.Edu (Henri Picciotto)
Subject: Urban School's block schedule
Date: 2 May 1995 11:20:05 -0400

I work at the Urban School of San Francisco, an independent progressive high school. Our schedule is a refinement of a schedule I designed a number of years ago. It is based on a four-period day, and three 12-week quarters.

At any time, a student is taking four classes. Because of the long periods, a one-year course takes 24 weeks to complete (two quarters). A one-semester course takes one quarter (12 weeks.)

The school day goes from 8:30 to 3:00.

A given course meets three times a week for 70 minutes, and once a week for two and a quarter hours (not continuous: there's a 15 minute break). The "long day" class takes all morning, or all afternoon.

The four periods are called A, B, C, D. The week looks like this:

Mo: A, B, C, D
Tu: A, B, C, D
We: A, C
Th: B, D
Fr: A, B, C, D

In addition we have

• a weekly 30-minute meeting of teachers with their advisees, (a sort of homeroom.)

• a weekly 30-40 minute all-school assembly

• two weekly "consultation and study periods" (office half-hours -- students can request or be required to meet with any teacher)

• the three 70 minute periods give enough time to do something in depth, or preferably to do more than one activity -- eg group work, all-class discussion, labs with manipulatives or graphing calculators, etc. (Of course, each department interprets it their own way.)

• the half-day period makes it possible to take field trips, pursue major projects, do ambitious labs, see movies, etc. It is even possible to extend into lunch, making for an even longer stretch.

• students are juggling fewer subjects and can concentrate better on those they are taking -- both at home and in class. The atmosphere is less frenetic.

• teachers see fewer students a day, and know them better

• teachers usually teach three periods, consisting of two different preps

• there are far fewer homework opportunities (less than 96 assignments, instead of the normal less than 180) -- however assignments can be more substantial.

• at some times, when students are taking "four solids", it's a lot of intensity. However a typical quarter involves three academic classes and one art class, or an off-campus project, or other non-academic class.

• planning longer periods can be challenging for teachers who are new to this -- but it's also rewarding when you get the hang of it

--Henri

From: Marksaul@aol.com
Subject: Re: Urban School's block schedule
Date: 2 May 1995 11:53:11 -0400

Your schedule sounds terrific, and I find your comments on it solid and honest. You are perfectly correct in noting that reactions to schedules depend on personality (both of the group and of individuals) and not on the subject being taught. Change of schedule, as you note, implies changes in teaching style, and cannot be forced on people.

The only point on which we disagree a bit is in stating that we must judge what's best for the kid, not what's best for the teacher. Here I feel we must compromise. A teacher who is being forced to do something she is not suited to will not do the best for the kid.

If you have any more information at the ready, could you send it electronically? Or, if you need my mail address, let me know.

I'm not very sanguine about instituting this in my own school--there's too much bad history associated with schedule changes. But it's nice to dream, and to see alternatives that work.

Thank you for your comments.

From: hot@SOE.Berkeley.Edu (Henri Picciotto)
Subject: Re: Urban School's block schedule
Date: 2 May 1995 15:27:02 -0400

> The only point on which we disagree a bit is in stating that we
> must judge what's best for the kid, not what's best for the
> teacher. Here I feel we must compromise. A teacher who is
> being forced to do something she is not suited to will not do
> the best for the kid.

We don't disagree on this. Good educational leadership consists of navigating between those two poles (the needs of the kids and the needs of the teachers). It's only in the final analysis that the needs of the kids must prevail. In practice, the two are intimately intertwined.

--Henri