Below you will find an illustration of the current proposal.

An illustration of the first proposal is at the end of this first long post for reference and to show the evolution of the proposal thus far.

Goals for the Proposed New Schedule
(from Joe Greenberg)

1. Slow the pace of the school down
2. Limit the number of courses a student takes per semester, and teachers teach in order to allow for more focus, attention and support for successful completion

(last year over 50 M.S. and close to 50 H.S. students did not successfully meet expectations in one or more courses)

3. Incorporate Essential Area/Team meetings into the schedule
4. Aid in shifting some aspects of our culture that need a dose of a fresh start
5. Needed supervision assignments during lunch, especially with more space and students
6. Designed for more interdisciplinary course offerings
7. Better for a project- and performance-based portfolio system

Dear LACS Community,

As many know, the idea of moving to a new schedule was initially proposed over three years ago. Research has been done, both externally as well as analysis of student performance, staff and student feedback about the pros and cons of our existing schedule, and also systemic observations many of us have made about the ways we do and don’t honor our stated values and goals as a school.

The research on whether a schedule with fewer class sessions meeting and allowing in-depth and focused attention through extended-time periods is all over the place. My research has included extensive reading, and also contact with other schools that have implemented block scheduling. The conclusion reached is mixed regarding the effectiveness of implementing a block schedule, mostly dependent on factors such as staff buy-in and openness to be innovative with teaching practices, which aligns with the need for adequate and continued professional development.

The concept for the new schedule was presented to the school last spring and received a large amount of support from students, as well as a growing number of staff.

With the growth of the school, the question and challenge before us is how do we keep a larger school feeling small? I believe the new schedule should and can help us address this question, as among the goals of the new schedule is to decrease the number of students staff are responsible during any given semester (a targeted principle from the Coalition of Essential Schools calls for teachers to have no more than 80 students under their tutelage at a time. Our teaching staff generally work with about 150 students or more per semester when adding in courses, projects, committee, family group, etc.).

Questions proposed by staff (with responses from Joe Greenberg)

• Can you cite the research that says this block is better?

Below are excerpts from two articles related to block scheduling that I found interesting that address the research of block scheduling, and in our case would be more of a hybrid block scenario as a means of transition.  Another question to consider is the research, or perhaps lack of, that led us to our current schedule.

The goal of an extended block schedule is to allow time for in-depth learning, investigation, and contemplation by narrowing the scope of the curriculum and lengthening time blocks. Every teacher, whether in elementary or middle school, has a certain portion of the curriculum to cover each day. Getting to all of this content is difficult, if not impossible. The answer to meeting each day’s curriculum expectations is found in a paradox. We must consider smaller topics for longer periods of time if we are to accomplish more. This can be seen clearly at the middle school level, where recent research findings have made it evident that block scheduling, small classes, “advisory” periods, and other changes improve student behavior and academic performance. When students have more time in longer blocks to explore content in depth, they can learn re search skills, write about content, and revise and improve their work over time. Narrowing the curriculum fosters student achievement. Working to align your school’s curriculum with your state’s standards is a good way to begin narrowing the curriculum. At first, this might seem contradictory. There appears to be a great deal to cover at every grade level and in every subject area in these standards documents. But alignment is not the same thing as simply adopting a state curriculum. Alignment means finding ways to combine and integrate content areas through themes or units that allow students and teachers to work together to explore skills and subjects.

By changing classroom structures, schedules, and teaching practices to reflect an appreciation for children’s real experience of time, we can dramatically improve learning. When children have time to ask questions and to wrestle with ideas, they learn enduring skills: reflection, contemplation, observation, investigation, communication, cooperation, responsibility, and empathy. Given time to experience school without constant hurry and to be deeply involved in the learning moment, children steadily gain a sense of perspective as well as a sense of competence, significance, and order in their lives. By changing schedules and structures, we can improve overall school climate and the well-being of the adults and children who spend their days in our schools. If we truly wish to transform our schools into challenging, exciting, and secure places, we need an education system that is dedicated, from top to bottom, to giving teachers more time to teach and children more time to learn.

Changing the Pace of School: Slowing down the Day to Improve the Quality of Learning Author(s): Chip Wood Source: The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 83, No. 7 (Mar., 2002), pp. 545-550

Goodlad (1984) emphasized that reform in high schools needed to include the creation of smaller schools,, the development of a core curriculum, the elimination of tracking systems, and the reexamination of time because “time is virtually the most important resource” available to schools (p. 30). Sizer (1984) asserted that “the clock is king,” that there is “a frenetic quality to the school day, a sense of sustained restlessness” in which “the student rushes from class to class to collect knowledge” (pp. 79-80). Similarly, Boyer (1983) reported, “Just as the arrangement of space is standardized in the American classroom, so is the use of time. If ideas are to be thoughtfully examined, time must be used wisely. Time is the student’s treasure” (p. 141).

Both Goodlad (1984) and Sizer (1984) called for restructuring how students interact with subject matter and their teachers, eliminating the meaningless exchanges that characterized teaching and learning. Although Goodlad and Sizer were not championing any form of block schedule, they sought systemic reform for the practice of schooling adolescents. Goodlad’s message was clear: We must not stop with providing only time. I would always choose fewer hours well-used over more hours of engagement with sterile activities. Increasing [time] will in fact be counterproductive unless there is, simultaneously, marked improvement in how time is used. (1984, p. 283) With the typical high school day punctuated by up to six class meetings, totaling 30 periods per week, the block schedule was seen as a way to increase the depth of coverage by extending classroom periods while reducing the fragmentation experienced by students moving from one class to the next (Cawelti, 1994). The 1994 report, Prisoners of Time, exhorted that “Learning in America is a prisoner of time” (National Education Commission on Time and Learning, p. 7).

Observing that the perennial problem of schools running on a “fixed clock” continued to promote educational inequalities, the Commission urged schools to “reinvent [themselves] around learning, not time, and to fix the design flaw [by using] time in new and better ways” (p. 29). In a study examining time during school restructuring from the perspective of the limitations that are placed on teachers’ work, Watts and Castle (1993) stated: The schedule is God. You can implement any innovation you want in your class- room as long as you don’t mess with the schedule. Traditional, inflexible scheduling is based on administrative and institutional needs. New, more flexible scheduling patterns are based on pedagogical practices, the educational needs of students, and the professional needs of teachers. (pp. 306-307) Block scheduling patterns offered hope for altering the ways that teachers worked and students learned. Block scheduling as a restructuring effort for the high school emerged as a means to accomplish the following: * Include more “hard subjects” in the curriculum * Increase graduation requirements * Implement more rigorous standards * Reorganize the day through alternate schedules * Promote smaller learning communities

Block scheduling has been promoted as a tool through which instructional time in schools may be maximized (Canady & Rettig, 1995). Specifically, block scheduling has been given credit for * Reducing the number of students for whom teachers must prepare and with whom teachers interact each day and/or each term * Reducing the number of classes, and the assignments, tests, and projects that students must address during any single day of the term * Reducing the fragmentation in traditional schedules, a complaint that is especially pertinent to classes requiring extensive practice and laboratory work, such as science, agriculture, and technology courses * Providing teachers with blocks of time that allow and encourage the use of active teaching strategies and greater student involvement * Allowing students variable amounts of time for learning without lowering standards, and without punishing those who need more or less time to learn (Hottenstein, 1998) The Study As a reform strategy, changing how time is used by modifying the schedules.

Teachers’ common concerns included covering the required curriculum, maintaining discipline, and keeping students on task. Overall, the teachers reported that teach- ing in a block schedule was less stressful than in a traditional schedule, and their planning periods were more productive.

Innovative teachers were more positive about block scheduling “than those who tried to force traditional methods and activities into the new schedule.”

Author(s): Sally J. Zepeda and R. Stewart Mayers Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 137-170 Published by: American Educational Research Association

• Is it pedagogically sound for a student to have a cycle or semester layover in between Foreign Language courses, English, math, etc?

Below is a response from George Wood, principal of Federal Hocking H.S. in Ohio. This school is a longtime mentor school in the Coalition of Essential Schools. George has offered to talk with us about the rationale for their school’s shift to the new schedule and the benefits and challenges.

“We have now been on this schedule for 17 years…hard to believe.  There was some concern about drop off, as you mention, but what we have found is that while the drop off occurs, the depth of coverage allows kids to pick back up rather quickly.  We have also been careful how we schedule, thus, if a young person takes Spanish 1 in the first semester, we make sure s/he takes Spanish 2 the first semester of the next year.  We have also done some creative things with math all year for the Sophomore year.”

–George Wood, principal

• Is this a model for half-year courses? Does this mean semester long courses become ¼ year courses? – Would classes be full year credit for half a year of double classes? – In HS, students done with a course in one semester? In MS, students change every 9 weeks for math?

The intent of the schedule is to have more semester-long options for students, and thus chances to start fresh mid-year. For some courses, it would simply be part II of a yearlong option (but students could take part II at a later time, or not at all—but could have implications on portfolio completion). The plan was not to necessarily include 9-week options, but we could if we chose to. Students would be able to earn a full credit in an extended block semester course. Students who did not meet expectations to receive credit in a semester-long English course could sign-up for another course second semester and earn the equivalent credit. The hope is that it would leave students not being relegated to summer school or negotiating incompletes that are not warranted due to simply blowing off a course, etc. The hope is that it would allow us to hold students to a standard without it putting them off pace to complete their requirements.

• What happened to mixed single and double schedule?  Possible to do blocks in morning and shorter periods in the p.m.? Or vice versa?

In looking at the 90-minute block only option presented last spring and again with staff before the December break, it was realized that there were some issues. The current concept does include a mix of extended-class periods with shorter ones, and gives us more curricular options and flexibility in meeting other goals of the new schedule.

Teacher training/meeting/schedules

• What time/$ is available to train in how we teach in longer blocks? Will there be training for teachers on how to keep a course engaging and fruitful for the long classes?

Having talked with the powers that be that are asking schools to consider ways to “reconfigure” how learning happens in our school, I am told that time and money will be available for professional development leading up to the shift to a new schedule format, as well as support for continued training and development while implementing. Our Asst. Supt. For Curr. & Instruction has already shared names of people she thinks would be great for training us in the move towards a new schedule that includes extended blocks, etc.

• How would we organize team teaching?

The intent would be to work it so that teachers team-teaching would be scheduled for a common planning period. The other goal is to have common time for Essential Area meetings that could allow for cross-Essential Area meetings to occur also.

• What’s the staffing requirement for a doable schedule?

Based on a 1.0 FTE, teaching staff would be responsible for 2 or three classes depending on the length of the class—90 min. or 45 min.  A teacher might offer two 90 min. classes per semester, or one 90 min. and two 45 min. ones. A 1.0 teacher would lead a FG/Committee (combined or separate), and offer two projects per week.  As it stands now, full-time teachers have the equivalent of 11 commitments (4 courses, 4 projects, 1 family group, 1 committee, 1 other). The new format would reduce the number to 5-7 (2-3 courses, 2 projects, 1 family group, 1 committee, or a combined FG/committee no other).

Part-time teachers would have their schedules equitably prorated to reflect the time they are contracted to teach.

• When will we be creating these new courses and how will be compensated for that work? Will teachers be designing new courses, or would we be amending existing classes?

The hope is that the new schedule will inspire the creation of some new courses be designed, and certainly will require some amending of most courses. The possibility exists to have some existing courses merge with current ones that are single discipline 45-minute classes, and perhaps the reintroducing of some courses taught in the past—e.g. Applied Physics and Trig. The hope is that it will also trigger some reimaging of family group, especially if staff are not as overextended with the workload currently being asked.

As far as compensation is concerned, if the work is done in the summer or outside of contracted time then it is fair to expect a per diem rate of pay for the planning and development of a program of studies for our new schedule.

Projects & Learning labs

• What about things like community service that take different/longer amounts of time?

In listening to Jon about how community service could evolve in a new schedule with extended time blocks to become more integrated into the courses with more emphasis of curricular related service learning. Still, things such as internships and other community service do warrant more time and that is one of the adjustments made to the format of the new schedule proposal based on student and staff feedback.

• Will there be academic help during “Project Time”?

One of the goals is to separate academic support from “projects” since the spirit of project time is intended to foster different relationships among students and staff that emphasize our belief statement of valuing affective learning as much as academic. We have seen this intended purpose of projects erode over time and it has had an impact on staff and students’ ability to share and pursue interests and opportunities due to requires labs, needed academic help, etc. The format of the new schedule intends to provide learning labs separate from project time.

• How is the learning lab going to be used?

• a) don’t need academic help?

• b) need more than one kind of help?

The way the learning lab is envisioned is that there would be two lab times offered per week. Students would be required to sign-up to either support learning (for service credit perhaps) or solicit help in learning. Essential Areas could have their team meetings during one of those lab times and then alternate with teachers in other Areas on opposite lab days. For instance, on one lab day the math, science, P.E., art Areas would have team time and the other teaching staff would be hosting learning labs, and the reverse would be true on the other lab day. Students could shift from one lab to the next based on the areas of help needed at a given time. Remember, students will only have up to four classes being taken at a time, so the scope of help needed is hoped to be less intense.

Support Issues

• How does this new system work for HS and MS resource room teachers?

The expectation is to have more consultant teaching being done by our Special Ed. teaching staff rather than the more traditional resource room model. With that said, many students still have a resource room assigned via their I.E.P.s and the new schedule provides room for one out of the four learning blocks to be available to students, while still allowing their course needs to be met. There is flexibility in the new format in that the special ed. team may find the extended time blocks useful for things such as a literacy lab that emphasizes intensive reading instruction with a writing element that could be helpful to some students.

• How does it leave room for RTI, CSE and support team meetings?

The revised schedule format should allow for adequate time options for support meetings and the like to be held, although perhaps not at times now currently thought of as appropriate.

• How will this schedule impact our most at-risk students? Would it be a good thing for them or might it create new, unforeseen problems for them?

The schedule intends to support all students’ needs, in particular those with special education needs or other at-risk factors. Slowing down the pace of the day with fewer transitions and a more manageable course load are all viewed as favorable conditions for students, again especially those with special needs or who are at-risk in some way.

And all the Rest!

• How will the new schedule affect room use? Are the rooms that were divided going to be made big again? Are the modulars going?

It is probably best to consult the new schedule, the sample student schedule, staff schedule and room assignments to gauge how the new schedule will align with our reconfigured space and enrollment increase. See attached.

The room use issues are not different than if we maintained our existing schedule, and based on analysis we should have adequate space to accommodate our needs, although flexibility will remain a constant—but hopefully not as stressful as it sometimes now is. The modular building goes away once the construction project is complete. The rooms divided are likely to stay divided unless our needs call for the partitions to be opened for a given semester without having to open and close them throughout the day.

• Will students be able to meet GBE requirements with this schedule? Are we going to be able to cover all of our core courses and still have room left over to offer electives? Can students get to the in-depth level?

Yes, students will still meet State and district course distribution requirements, as well as their GBE expectations. In fact, the hope is that students will have more options and opportunities with the new schedule to experience different learning experiences. Again, the hope is that they can focus on fewer at a time and thus lead to a greater number of students successfully completing courses. Fulfilling “In-Depths” should work with the new schedule too.

• What is the impact on students taking NYS assessments?

We are not a school that allows our curriculum to be driven by the State tests. At this point, we are still required to administer the ELA Regents to 11^th graders, as well as the battery of M.S. State tests. In general, our students perform fairly well on these tests without as much emphasis as many other schools. I would suspect and hope that this continues to be our attitude.

• Does this affect the ability to have multiple sections of the same course?

I believe it would limit the number of sections in a given semester of some courses, but these courses could be offered once in one semester and then again the following semester in a way that we cannot currently do. So, it will be different in how students create their roadmap for accessing some courses, but the plan would be for them to have the same options over time.

• Can we pilot this in any way?

Certainly, the schedule will have to be implemented carefully and piloted with the understanding that there needs to be room for assessing and making adjustments to have it work for us as effectively as possible. I believe that if we move to a new schedule it would not be fair or prudent to quickly abandon it and revert back to our old schedule format. As well as our current schedule works for some, it has not proven to work well for everyone. If we opt to make this change, we need to embrace it and look for ways to build upon it until we arrive at a format that we believe best aligns with the teaching and learning objectives and values we espouse and aspire.