Scheduling for a Change

What is it that keeps this wheel of change turning in education?  Why do central offices, school boards, principals, and teachers think it makes sense to alter the way things are done every time a new study comes out?  Why are we so insecure that we keep changing the way we do things, not because we have seen it work but just because someone told us it would?  Why can we not simply grasp that education is about teaching children, and that focusing on the children is what really matters?

Back in the olden days, way back in 2006, I began a career as a teacher in a school that operated on a 7-period schedule.  Classes were about 45-50 minutes long, and students had to see every teacher in every class every day.  Reading and language arts were taught separately, which meant that “core” subjects – math, English, science, and social studies – took up five of those periods, leaving one for gym and one for elective classes which included everything from music and art to foreign languages. 

The day was fragmented and hectic, and classes went by very quickly. It seemed less than ideal, but teachers made it work.   We planned to teach in those quick bursts, we gave students work that was easy to pick up in the next class, we spread major assignments over entire weeks, and we tried to ensure that everything could be done in 30 minute chunks. 

It wasn’t ideal, in any practical sense, but at the time the district had class sizes capped at 20, so at least we had a workable number of students in every class. 

Then, because important research revealed that in some district entirely not the one we were teaching in with an entirely different set of circumstances, test scores had improved with a change to the schedule, we switched to a modified block, where the all-important  and heavily over-tested “core” subjects still met every day, but electives met only every other day on an A/B schedule.  It gave us more time to work on skills, while expanding the number of electives we could offer.  It was a win/win!

Except that at the time the school district was undergoing a housing boom that was swelling class sizes and the five-period day meant that a single “core” subject teacher could only teach a total of four classes. Had this been planned for, it might have been okay.  If the central office had bothered to think things through, they would have hired based on that growth in class sizes and made sure we had the additional teachers we would need to meet that demand. 

Of course, that didn’t happen.  Administrators were left to reshuffle existing staff, and very few additional teachers were hired.  Class sizes swelled, and classrooms became more crowded.  Meanwhile, reading and language arts were combined into one class, which meant that the amount of time spent on English was essentially cut in half, and the amount of material that individual teachers had to cover in that class was doubled. 

Nothing bad or good came of it.  Administrators and teachers at the school level adapted, and the change amounted to mere window-dressing.  It was, like every change handed to us from outside of the classroom. It was change for the sake of change.  If nothing else, it gave the stuffed shirts at the central office the opportunity to say they implemented something, which is usually their main objective anyway.

Now I teach in a different middle school in a different district, where we have a standard 5x5 block.  Most classes meet every other day, and with 10 available openings over two days, we are able to have a robust program of music and arts and offer plenty of electives. It also means that “core” subject teachers are available to teach eight classes each, maximizing the number of classes available.  Classes are between 80 and 90 minutes, and while class sizes are larger than they probably should be, it works fine. 

Which means, naturally, we need to change it. “Research” shows that students benefit from being in English and math every day, so change is necessary, and that change needs to happen right now. Never mind that it was only a few years ago that these same people were touting “research” that said the exact opposite. 

Not that the change is necessarily a bad thing. I would love to have more time with my students, and as an English teacher I don’t think any amount of time is too much.  More time in English means more time for the two most essential skills any student learns in school: reading and writing.  More time would allow me to cover more material, read longer and more complex works in class, analyze things more deeply, and write more developed essays and stories. It would also allow me to reach out to teachers in other disciplines so we can spend time working on the written portion of projects in science, social studies, and other subjects.

If a schedule change gives me more time, I’m all for it. 

Of course, teachers in other subjects would make similar arguments.  We all want more time, but the amount of time available is limited.  Nobody wants less time, though, and nobody wants to see the number of options for electives once again squeezed so students don’t have options.  There are a lot of factors at play in how the schedule is set up. The fact that the current one is working at all is good thing.

None of which really matters, because there really isn’t any pressing need to change the schedule anyway. Teachers and schools should be constantly looking at the way things are done and considering ways to do them better, but this isn’t fixing a problem that currently exists.

Which may actually be the main thing that needs to change about education.  There are no magical fixes, there are no secrets that will give one school district an advantage over others.  The only changes that really matter are the ones that happen among the students and the teachers in the classroom, and even those only matter when actual existing problems are being addressed.

And the schedule, currently, is not a problem for anyone.  No one even says it is.  Let's leave it alone.