May 18, 2006

Educational Reform Movements: Two Options for 7-Period Scheduling

The meeting of the Schedule Task Force of the Students Central School District (SCSD) was called to order, and this week’s agenda deals with two proposals to resolve the grades 9 and 10 scheduling “bottleneck.”

Members were introduced and asked to share their role on the Task Force. Music advocates were pleased to see that the administration did an adequate job of ensuring representation by various constituents of the district – one member was specifically chosen to represent the SCSD Music Coalition and the chair of the music department also served on the committee. Several other people on the Schedule Task Force were members of the SCSD Music Coalition, but their official roles were to represent specific schools or boundary areas in the district, senior citizens, and the teachers’ union.

The district reviewed the issues of the scheduling problem and several assumptions that had been adopted by the Board, and then presented the Task Force with two options for moving to a seven-period day. Basically, moving to a seven-period schedule could be accomplished in one of two ways: by increasing the school day by an extra hour or by adding the extra period without lengthening the school day.

The 7-Period Day: The Pros & Cons

The Task Force was divided into two groups. Each group was asked to develop pros and cons for one of the options. Here’s a summary of their results.

Option 1: Convert the current six-period day to seven periods by adding one hour to the school day.

Pros:

* Students would have more flexibility in their schedule.
* Periods would continue to be the same length (55 minutes).
* Students would be able to take 28 credits during the four years of high school, resolving the issue of increased graduation requirements and the scheduling “bottleneck” problem for the near future.

Cons:

* The length of the school day would be increased by 60 minutes, which could cause a problem with after-school activities.
* Since the current contract with the teachers’ union calls for a maximum number of teaching minutes and classes taught per day, the contract would need to be renegotiated.
* Since it is unlikely that the union would add another period to the current teaching load, it is probable that this plan is not financially feasible unless the district holds a levy referendum asking voters to fund the increased costs of hiring new teachers to provide instruction for the additional period. (Note: In some cases a district may use a process like this to establish a basis to call for a levy referendum. The resolution of a major problem for students is often a significant motivator for the “yes” voter.)

Option 2: Convert the current six-period day to seven periods within the available time frame.

Pros:

* Students would have more flexibility in their schedule.
* The length of the school day would not change.
* Students would be able to take 28 credits during the four years of high school, resolving the issue of increased graduation requirements and the scheduling “bottleneck” problem for the near future.
* Increases in costs appear to be minimal, if the teachers’ union would agree to teach a sixth period (6 out of 7). This may be possible, since the number of teaching minutes required daily to teach six periods would increase by only one minute.

Cons:

* The length of individual periods would be reduced from 55 minutes to 46 minutes, significantly decreasing the student’s “time on task.”
* While the number of teaching minutes would remain basically the same (assuming the teachers were to teach 6 periods per day), the student load of the teacher would increase by 30 students. It is unlikely that the union would accept this without major financial adjustments.
* If the union would not agree to the additional period of instruction (even though the number of minutes remains basically the same), then the increase in costs would be similar to Option 1.

The Outcome: Examine Further Options

To members of the Task Force, it was evident that the cons of both Options 1 and 2 outweighed the pros. In general, Option 1 was preferred over Option 2 due to the concern of the shortened class period. The Task Force was also realistic about the issue of the additional costs of Option 1. Members of the Task Force agreed that other options should be discussed and then introduced three additional suggestions for discussion at the next meeting:

1. One parent suggested that moving to a seven-period day was a shortsighted option, and thought it would be better to consider an eight-period day. This would offer students the possibility of achieving 32 credits during the four years of high school and allow students to receive a much broader education.
2. A second individual suggested that it might be possible to resolve some of the negative issues raised about the two seven-period options presented in this meeting by examining a rotating schedule.
3. One of the administrators (new to the district) was quick to add that the district would resolve all of the scheduling issues if they adopted a Block Schedule format.

Discussion on all three suggestions was tabled, and the administration was charged with examining their feasibility at future meetings of the Task Force.

Agenda for the Next Meeting: 8-Period Day and Rotating Schedule

The agenda for the next meeting will focus on suggestions number 1 and 2 above; and the administration was asked to make a presentation on Block Schedule at the subsequent meeting.

Until the next meeting,

John Benham