It’s almost showtime for the high school’s four-period day committee.
After months of meetings and study, the 16-member group will be ready Feb. 11 to present several schedule options to the South Whidbey Board of Education and interested community members.
The board is expected to make its final decision on Feb. 25 after a Feb. 11 public hearing. The chosen schedule will go into effect next fall.
Opinions on the four-period day vary widely. Students and most teachers and school administrators seem to love it. Some vocal parents and other opponents think a change is in order.
The committee — which is comprised of the high school principal, vice principal, superintendent, assistant superintendent, four teachers, two students, five parents and the vocational director for the district — has been meeting since last fall to determine what issues are being raised about the four period day, prioritize theses issues and find ways to address them by researching various schedules and teaching tools form other high-performing schools.
Advantages of the four-period block schedule, supporters say, include the flexibility needed for student to take more courses within one subject, thus helping both the high and low ability of students. The schedule also allows a student to build a competitive transcript which includes high course levels, and reduces the number of class changes and movement of large groups of students during the school day.
At ground level, longer classes allow for better discussion of topics, longer science labs, and more teacher-student contact. For Jim Gardner, a math teacher for the past 31 years, the advantage of the schedule is simple.
“The longer periods give teachers more opportunity to help individual students,” he said. “The block schedule requires a different style of teaching that is beneficial to the student.”
He also said the math department was able to add another math class — pre-calculus — to its curriculum when it changed over from a six-period schedule in 1993.
But the committee is also thinking about the disadvantages of the schedule. Dan Blanton, the school district’s assistant superintendent and a member of the committee, said concerns about the block schedule and a mandate from the state board of education inspired another look at it.
“The committee was formed to address concerns expresses by parents, students and members of the community,” Blanton said.
However, those concerns do not have Blanton on the side of those who want wholesale change.
“We want to improve on what we already have,” he said.
Another concern expressed by at recent public meetings is how universities look at prospective students coming from a block-schedule high school. Paul Segeut, the assistant director of admissions at the University of Washington, said the number of periods in a school day makes little difference.
“Students are admitted on their g.p.a. and other factors whether they were taught in a block or six period schedule,” he said.
The review of South Whidbey High School’s schedule started when the school board hired Northwest Region Educational Laboratory to study the four-period day using surveys sent to parents, students and community members. Part of the impetus for the study was a request from the state board of education asking for more information about the effectiveness of the block schedule. The state grants an annual waiver to South Whidbey High School because students on the four-period schedule receive fewer than the 150 hours of classroom instruction per credit the state requires.
The $12,950 NREL study last spring recommended combination of some 90-minute block classes and 60 minute classes, which would increase in-class “seat time.”
The longer classes would suit some courses better than others. High school Spanish teacher Jenny Gochanour opts for the longer classes.
“The 90-minute classes offer more depth and quality for the students,” she said. “They can relax into a subject and the increase in time allows more indepth study and research.”
One of the frustrations expressed by parents and students is with scheduling classes where students may have to wait up to a year to take a class they want. For instance some who may take Algebra I first semester as a freshman, may not be able to take Algebra 2 until the second semester of the following year.
Dr. Martin Laster, the district’s superintendent said this is one of the problems that shows there may be room for improvement in the current schedule.
“We will be looking at what is helpful in our existing schedule and what we can do to improve it to benefit more students,” Laster said.
Getting class sequencing right takes time, said Dan Blanton. He said the district is close to getting the sequencing right with its current schedule.
“It took us three or four years to smooth out the problems with sequencing,” Blanton said. “But I think we have. Most students are able to arrange their schedules to suit them.”
Gwen Styke, a parent of an eighth and a fifth grader, wanted to find out the facts for herself. She did a study of schools throughout the state of Washington.
“My purpose was to see what other high school are doing and what is successful,” she said. “My interest is finding the best education for my children.”
Styke began her research leaning toward the six period day, but said she has a mixed view now. A combination of both short and long periods may be the solution, she said.
Those who have the most to gain or lose in the re-evaluation of the four-period day — the students — are not eager for change. Jenny Barrow, a senior at the high school said, she rarely hears criticism of the four-period day from other students.
“Most of the students I talk to are worried that because of the study that is going on now, the four-period day will be eliminated,” she said. “Most students like the four-period day because they are able to take more classes and delve into subjects of interest.”
As they did in a forum last year regarding the four-period day, students like Barrow, along with parents and teachers, will be able to talk it all out on Feb. 11.
