Press - Block Schedules
Dear Harford County Board of Education,
Unfortunately,
my schedule was unable to allow me to attend the May 16, 2005 work session to review the
proposed revisions to our public school system. I
was among the many concerned citizens who would have been at the meeting if it were not
for a scheduling conflict with the terrific performances at the high school music
recitals. Please accept these comments in
lieu of remarks I had intended to express at the meeting.
I would like to begin by thanking the board for its continual attempts to improve
our terrific education system. The current
proposal contains many good and noteworthy ideas, including instituting a uniform schedule
throughout the system and a requisite fourth year of mathematics.
I do not believe that the proposed block schedule is a similarly advisable idea,
however. It is evident from the postponement
of voting that the board recognizes potential problems, and the many comments from
citizens adverse to the plan have added to your reservations.
There are many problems with the block schedule that I would like to address. Given the large number of illustrations of flaws
in the schedule that have already been proffered, however, I will suggest only 1
comparison. At the University of Baltimore School of Law, where the average student age is
26 years, a 10-15 minute break is given for any course longer than 75 minutes
long—and that’s in law school, where duress is a teaching mechanism. If students who are, on average, 10 years older
than our county students are not expected to focus for 90 minutes of material, how can
this schedule be reasonable? Regulating class
periods to a duration of 90 minutes is asking far too much of our high school students
(and their teachers).
This block schedule would be detrimental to
students’ ability to learn. In contrast,
the county has several schedules that have proven to be effective. The rotating schedule of Bel Air High is similar
to that of several other county schools. This
schedule gives teachers and students different class durations, so that lesson plans may
be tailored to allow a variety of instructional methods.
By rotating the schedule, students do not
risk missing unproportionate time in one subject matter.
By having seven courses, students have the ability to focus on a
subject matter, while still having options to take a variety of classes. By limiting time in class, students can actually
focus on the lesson plan and teachers can give energized and efficient instruction. By avoiding the block schedule, teachers have more
actual class time to teach and more time to prepare good lesson plans or due further
research.
Harford County is proud to have a good
education system. We have several high
schools that have similar schedules with proven results.
Using successful, existing scheduling systems within our county is surely
preferable to instituting a new system with questionable merit that we have not tested. The board is doing well to look to continue to
improve our system, but we must remember that we have a great foundation to build upon if
we are to continue to progress.
Thank You,
Brian Young
Cc: The AEgis
______________________________
Reply: BOARD OF ED UCA TION OF HARFORD
COUNTY
Mr. Robert B. Thomas, Jr., President
Re: Comprehensive Secondary School Reform Plan
Dear Mr. Young:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Secondary School
Reform Plan (CSSRP) and, in particular, the proposed 8-period block schedule. On behalf of
the Board of Education we appreciate the time you have taken to express your views and
concerns regarding this proposal.
With respect to 90-minute classes, there are currently two schools (North
Harford High and Joppatowne High). which operate on a similar block schedule. Both schools
have had 90-minute classes for well over a decade, with minimal negative impact to either
students or faculty members. More specifically, the proposed 90-period block schedule is,
in my estimation. a hybrid of the existing North Harford schedule. Although the 8-period
block schedule has been in place at Aberdeen High School for the past year. similar block
schedules with classes of 90-minute duration have existed for over a decade. thus we do
have some experience with such schedules.
As a father of two students in the Harford County Public School system,
one of which graduates this year, I have discussed this schedule with both. Neither
believes 90-minute classes are unreasonable. nor have been or will be a detriment to their
education.
I will certainly share your comments and concerns with members of the
Board as we continue our deliberations and discussions regarding the CSSRP. Once again, we
thank you for taking time to express your views regarding this plan. A final decision
should be forthcoming regarding a standardized high school schedule in the near future.
Veiy truly yours,
Robert B. Thomas, Jr., President
Board of Education of Harford Coun
cc: Members. Board of Education
Jacqueline C. I-laas. Superintendent of Schools
________________________________
May 28, 2005
Dear Mr. Thomas,
Thank you for
your response to my letter.
You have
addressed one of the several points that I made against the proposed 8-period block
schedule. I do not believe that any of your
comments in any way support the proposed changes, upon which the burden of proof rests,
but that they are meant to address one of the many concerns that I, and thousands of other
Harford County students, parents, and residents, have expressed (concerns you acknowledged
in Friday’s Aegis).
I am unaware of any statistical evidence indicating that
90-minute (or 90-period) courses have “minimal negative impact.” While I am glad that we both recognize the
existence of some negative impact, I believe that any negative impact is significant—
especially when the proposal is to change from something that already works.
While I respect your children’s
expression that the 90-minute schedule will not hurt their education, it does not indicate
a reason to change. Furthermore, it is
evident that your children are in the slight minority of county students, given the study
conducted by our county’s school students.
As a former employee of a respected
research company, I can vouch for the integrity and merit of the survey. While Mr. Volrath may challenge the quality of the
work of our students, I take great pride in their ability to conduct professional
research.
While I appreciate that you took some
time to respond to my comments, I believe that your letter could have been more
informative and reviewed. I remain
unconvinced of any legitimate superiority of the proposed schedule. In fact, it adds to my questioning the wisdom of a
plan that does not seem to be defensible.
While your letter implies that the
adoption of the proposal is a foregone conclusion by stating that it will not have a
negative affect on your children’s future, I continue to disagree through personal
experience, research, and the support of the supermajority of county residents.
Please Seriously Reconsider,
Brian Young
Cc: Aegis
_________________________________
May 27, 2005
Dear Mr. Young,
Thank
you for the interest that you have shared regarding the Comprehensive Secondary School
Reform Plan. As you are aware, this project has been
on-going for almost three years in response to the original
town meetings that were conducted county-wide and later to the expectations of the No
Child Left Behind Act. There are several comments you
have made that I feel compelled to clarify.
The
variables that determine the success of a high school are broad in scope, highly complex,
and intricately interconnected. No causal data exists that directly correlates this
measure exclusively to a specific schedule format. To imply that the degree of Be! Air
High School’s success is attributed to their schedule format is equally erroneous.
The
singie-most consistently documented variable in successful instruction, continues to be
the proficiency of the teacher. Outstanding teachers who possess mastery of content, who
comprehend student-centered learning methodology and who apply effective instructional
delivery strategies, will be successful regardless of the period format. The same
strategic planning for instruction that allows an elementary teacher to effectively
segment lessons into smaller periods of various engagements for 5-6 hours each day, can be
employed by secondary teachers to accommodate ninety minutes.
Perhaps
the traditional attempt to appease what we perceive as a shortness in the high school
learner’s attention span, is actually nurturing the very inattentiveness that you see
among students in higher education?
The
proposed format provides for increased teacher planning time, less engagement periods per
day, and internal structures that will promote educational dialogue and collaboration
among teachers who share students with common interests.
Finally,
the schedule format being proposed actually allows for rotation among four different
periods in the afternoon and four different periods in the morning, thereby both
permitting more students to access educational and developmental experiences outside of
the traditional school day and minimizing the impact of a stagnant schedule.
Feel free
to contact me if I can be of further assistance in understanding the Comprehensive
Secondary School Reform Plan.
David A. Voirath
Executive Director
Secondary Education
______________________________
May 28, 2005
Dear Mr. Volrath,
Thank you for
your response to my letter published by The Aegis on Friday, May 27, 2005. In the interest of our schools and students, I
have decided to reply in the hopes of a regular correspondence toward their best
interests.
It is not
erroneous to draw a connection between the performances of Bel Air, C. Milton Wright, and
Fallston High School and their similar schedules. If
there is any relationship, direct or otherwise, between the schedule and good performance,
there is enough reason to promote these schedules—it does not need to be, and indeed
is most certainly not, the exclusive reason for good performance.
Nor
did I state that this was the only reason for their success, but just as there is no data
to indicate a connection, there is no evidence to indicate that none exists. As you are proposing a new and untested change,
and countless points against your plan have been proffered, and as two other Maryland
counties have found fault with programs similar to your proposal, the burden of proof
falls upon you.
In Friday’s Aegis,
Board of Education President Robert Thomas was recorded as saying that “after talking
to dozens of students from different schools…[the finding is that] they don’t
want to change from the schedule they have.” This
is supported by the student-conducted survey, which indicates a supermajority of students,
81-92%, are against the proposed plan.
As a former employee of
a respected research company, I can vouch for the integrity and merit of the survey. I strongly regret that you questioned the quality
of the work of our students in Friday’s Aegis, as I take great pride in their
professional efforts.
The Comprehensive
Secondary School Reform Plan contains many sound ideas.
Mr. Volrath, please recognize that everything suggests that the proposed
block schedule is not advisable. Take pride
in the majority of the work of the project and revisit uniform scheduling with the support
and wisdom of the citizens of our great county.
While you falsely stated
that evidence of our three traditionally highest performing schools having similar
schedules does not advocate the advisability of that scheduling format (a statement which
in no way promotes your own plan), it is your comparison of Secondary Instruction to
Elementary programs that is clearly erroneous. Elementary
school teachers break their 5-6 hour days into various subject matters, changing the focus
of students’ minds in the same manner of class changes for Secondary students. The
difference in material content at the two levels requires a change of teachers to impart a
more full understanding of deeper topics in Secondary School—a fact that actually
encourages more frequent class shifts.
While outstanding
teachers will be able to have an impact on students in any setting, it must be the primary
goal of this study, the Board of Education, and the county to facilitate them in doing so.
Changing to an untested plan simply because outstanding teachers should be able to reach
children anyway is a ludicrous proposal—the plan must best benefit the teachers
ability to reach students. This is especially true as not all teachers may be outstanding
(if they were, they would no longer be outstanding) and we must enable all teachers, and
all students, to excel.
Student attention spans
are not unlike that of any other age group. Business meetings, lectures, public speeches,
and similar events that our students are being trained to excel in rarely last for so long
as 90 minutes without break. Many teachers in systems with 90-minute courses give students
breaks, further decreasing actual class time. Even if we are actually nurturing our
students to optimally focus for an hour, the stronger focus and more complete
understanding gained from more actual class time will surely present a more complete and
successful working adult to the world our students are being prepared to enter.
I am, furthermore,
unaware of how teachers will be able to have less engagement time per day under the
proposed plan. Assuming teacher have students
for only 3 periods a day under the new plan, they will be teaching for 4 ½ hours. If a teacher has 4 periods of classes and only 1
off under a 7-courses, 5-periods per day schedule, they will be teaching for approximately
4 hours. This seems to indicate that the
proposed schedule takes away from planning time. Furthermore, 90-minute periods will
require more planning time for each class than is currently necessary.
While I appreciate this
discussion, I do not feel that any of it justifies the proposed controversial changes. It will detract from actual class time,
ineffectually attempt to focus great quantities of information into excessively long
periods, require students to transport more heavy textbooks, require more hours of
homework a night, magnify varied learning curves, and has been discarded by Howard and
Anne Arundel Counties. Dozens, if not hundreds, of other detracting factors have been
mentioned.
A proposal for radical
change must be supported by strong evidence, not by indications that it might not be
detrimental or statements that those it impacts should be able to excel regardless of
their environment. As you stated in your
letter, the most important impact on quality education is the proficiency of the teacher. Please admit the faults of this plan so that we
may all return to focusing on this most significant of factors.
Sincerely,
Brian Young
Cc: Aegis
