BLOCK SCHEDULING
By Penney Holtsford

The parents at Montgomery County High were given the option to vote on whether or not they wanted block scheduling two years ago. Due primarily to apathy, most parents did not do any investigating as to what four block scheduling actually was and only a small number participated in deciding to incorporate block scheduling.

As a result, the parents have been in for a shock. Some students have two P.E. classes this semester. Others have three electives. We need to look past the information we are being given by the Montgomery Public School system and find out BOTH SIDES of the story regarding block scheduling.

We are being told that we must change our scheduling to incorporate more electives. It is implied that students need more credits to graduate from high school, therefore making the 4-block scheduling necessary. The State of Alabama Graduation Requirement Task Force has raised the minimum requirement for graduation from 22 to 24 credits. Local school systems may offer as many as 32 or more - but only 24 are needed to graduate. There is no need for these extra electives. YOU DO NOT NEED THEM TO GRADUATE. This is simply more "watering down" of the curriculum. Less time spent on important subjects to allow for more fluffy electives.

The recommendations of the task force also states that the seven period day is the predominant schedule, with six period days following a close second. FOUR BLOCK IS THE LEAST USED SCHEDULE!!! And for good reason.

Why is block scheduling being pushed so strongly? Politics. Education is now fully engulfed in politics. What's new and innovative looks good. And every elected city official wants to look good and be on the "cutting edge."

We are being told to look to Dothan as an example of where this is a success. Daniel Cunningham, principal of Frederick High School in Frederick, Maryland went to Dothan to discuss the block schedule before it was implemented. He told them that Thomas Guskey, a University of Kentucky Professor evaluated their system and approved. A computer search revealed that Guskey is an expert on OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION/MASTERY LEARNING. If you don't know what OBE is, you owe it to your children to find out.

Dothan parents ordered "Debunking the Semester Myth", a Canadian study of block scheduling conducted over a period of 20 years that stated that the four period day is "detrimental" to student achievement. The Dothan school system was given the reports from the studies conducted in Canada on four block scheduling, yet they deliberately misled the parents of Dothan by stating that the researcher, Dr. David Bateson, had repudiated his study and now supported the four period day. The Dothan parents contacted Dr. Bateson and he sent a letter adamantly defending his position AGAINST block scheduling. After having block scheduling in place for only one year, the Dothan School system is declaring it a success and encouraging other systems to join in this experiment.

Systems are being led into the block scheduling with no objective data, merely attitudinal information. All the administrators know is what they saw at the school they visited and the puffy propaganda they have been given to read. They have gathered no objective data because THERE IS NONE.

A Dothan handout stated that there would be six hours more instructional time than in a seven-period day. In actuality, students will receive approximately 20 hours less instruction time for each subject per year. TWENTY HOURS LESS!! And they will cover the same amount of material in half the time.

Some have argued that the block/semester schedule is the same schedule used in universities and that high school students should have no problem with starting the same type of schedule in high school. The problem with this reasoning is that the majority of high school students will not be attending college. In college, students are there because they WANT to be there and they are more willing to apply themselves to their studies. With block scheduling, students sometimes cover an entire chapter of material in a day, and in some cases, they review and are tested within the same day. This is TEACHING TO THE TEST and is not true EDUCATION. It eliminates the need for retention.

It is detrimental to require that they cover such a vast amount of material in such a short period of time.

According to a Dothan information sheet, "students will be able to take both years of foreign language in one year." "However, an absence will result in missing more work." If you are out ONE DAY with block scheduling, it is the same as missing two days of work.

An article in NEA Today about Wasson High school in Colorado Springs, CO dated April 1993 states after three years, "A's are down . . .We've had demographic changes, such as increased student mobility, that might be associated with lower grades," explains Watson Principal George Houseman.

"Courses cover less. Many teachers have found they can't cover as much in one 90 minute session as they could in two 55-minute sessions."

"Students may lose continuity between course levels because block scheduling keeps them away from a subject for as much as a summer and a quarter."

With these negative reports in addition to negative results from various studies, the NEA continues to support block scheduling. It should be noted that the NEA also supports gay/lesbian teachers, gay/lesbian tolerance courses for students and outcome based education as well.

According to Dothan information sheets, block scheduling: -promotes an instructional format which encourages the use of a variety of instructional methods - Teachers must use a variety of methods to sustain student interest for 96 minutes (isn't it difficult enough now to keep their attention for 55 minutes?) - Teachers must tighten up delivery of instruction (MORE must be taught in less time) -Teacher comment "You must plan more activities, must use motivational techniques" -Student comment ". . .gee, I only have three real classes." -Administrator comments "This schedule has the potential for fostering critical thinking." (you should research the definition of critical thinking before assuming this is positive)

Recently, in a 10th grade class in a local Montgomery High school, a math problem was worked out in this method: Children were placed in groups of six students each. One child in the group washed a large window while another child washed a smaller window. The other children in the group timed them. They were then instructed to figure out how much money each child would make per hour if they charged $1 per window. Is this an example of a "variety of instructional methods" and "critical thinking" suitable for the 10th grade??

This problem used to be written in math textbooks as: "Johnny can wash 10 windows in an hour. How much money will Johnny make if he charges $1 per window?" A simple multiplication problem that any 6th grader should be able to do within a few minutes.

QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ASKED:

1. Why are parents not being shown the Canadian research studies as well as the "pro-block" literature?

2. Will band students and students in competitive sports take band and P.E. all year?

3. What new courses will be offered with the new scheduling?

4. What OBJECTIVE data and research supports the transition to block scheduling?

5. What school systems in the United States, after having been involved in block scheduling for five or more years, report increased academic performance?

6. What happens if we vote NO?

7. If there is any doubt as to whether this is a positive change for our students, WHY are we changing?

8. Why are we being led to believe that it is necessary for students to take up to 32 credits for graduation when the requirement is only 24?

Page created by: efny@optonline.net
For legal inquiries contact:
http://www.rutherford.org/welcome.asp