Year-Round Scheduling When many American students hear the phrase year-round school, they automatically brand that school calendar as lethally immoral practice—a legalized prison for innocent youth to be robbed of their childhood—and hope that the year round calendars are only a practice in Asia but just like several other myths about school, this whole accusation is false. Year-round is not a deadly way of schooling, it’s actually a more practical way of learning than what is instated in the schools today and the idea has reached more than just Asian countries—it has now reached America. There are a few schools within the nation that have reformed their calendar to the year-roundeither on the 45-15 single track, 45-15 multi-track, 60-20 plan, 60-15 plan, 90-30 plan, trimester plan, quarter plan, quinmester plan, concept 6 plan, and the five-track, five-term plan—all of which will be explained in a few. So without even going that deep, you already know that the year-round schooling has options and options are always a good thing.
First stop: Review of the calendar we have now…Elementary school and high school were such a drag—you only had three breaks, but it was all about the summer vacation. Remember being mad around the closing of the year, right before the beautiful three month break and your teacher seemed to stall your moments of freedom? The teacher kept talking and talking refusing to accept that it was nothing he/she could say nothing that would make you actually pay attention? These three months seemed like a gift from the powers that be--until it got boring! So why did we have those ridiculously long breaks that promoted us being the most lazy kids on the face of the earth and subconsciously forget just about everything we previously learn? “The September-June calendar followed in most of the nation’s schools is outmoded instructionally and difficult to defend academically. A fact often overlooked is that this calendar was never designed for instructional purposes in the first place. Rather it was created to support the agricultural economy of the early 1800s” (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987). How on earth can we expect a nineteenth-century calendar that was designed for farmers to properly educate and prepare us for our future that is increasingly becoming technology based?
What can save us? Next stop:Advantages of reforming the school calendar…Attending a year-round school is beneficial for both students and teachers—handling the teachers’ and students’ time with more efficiency and concern.“With more frequent breaks, teachers can relax, travel, study, and pursue a variety of other recreational activities, which may reduce the stress factors that lead to eventual burnout” (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987). Teachers with less stress translate into students getting a better medium for education; teachers who are reaching burnout, like several teachers today, students are slighted out of a quality education because the students’ main resource (the teacher) is desiccated. So not only are teachers allowed to get a more efficient relaxation time, teachers also have the opportunity to earn more money. Several of teachers today complain about their low pay and because of that the school system loses several potentially great teachers every year due to financial strain. With year-round schooling, during the three to four weeks one school has off, teachers may go to other schools are either substitute, earning up to at least four to nine extra hours, or the students could opt to teach one of the intersession classes, which are optional classes for students who wish to advance may take during the three to four week breaks. So clearly the year-round school has benefits for teachers that over run to their students but students have their own benefits.
Students receive the advantage of not having to deal with crowded classrooms, having an educationally more valuable time schedule, and with the school saving money; the students will begin to notice their resource availability will increase. “A multi-track, year-round schedule is one way of handling the problem of over enrollment in limited facilities. With this form of scheduling, students are divided into equal groups, with most students attending class while others are on vacation. When vacationing students return, another group takes vacation” (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987).Capacity limits will be able to increase without expanding a class size to a size that would be a major disadvantage to the students. With students constantly being swapped in and out, not only will the school district save approximately $1,000,000, students will be able to defeat/ eliminate summer lost which recants the students’ education, and will be able to graduate year-round, providing students with a less intense competition for the same jobs in June (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987). Now, I know it seems as though I’m just throwing information at you, so let me calm down, and actually tell you about the process…
The year-round calendar, no matter which track a school implements, what it’s boiled down to is the effective use vacation time—intercessions. Intercessions provide “immediate remediation as well as enrichment for students. Intersessions can be used for students needing remedial help in reading, math, spelling, study skills, and writing without waiting for traditional make-up courses typically offered in summer school” (Ballinger & Kneese, 2006). Vacations are still available but they come in shorter, less disruptive, and more frequently than what several students know now.
Names of different year-round schedules are simply how many days students are in class and separated by a dash, how long their break will be. For example, the 45-15 single track plan, which is considered to be the easiest to implement at the elementary and secondary level schools, “divides the year into four nine-week terms, separated by four three-week vacations or intersessions. Students and teachers attend school for 45 days, and then take a 15 day vacation. This sequence of sessions and vacations repeat four times each year, thus providing the usual 36 week or 180 days of school” (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987). “Using the same model as the 45-15 single-track concept, administrators can modify it to combine several groups (multi-track) of students in such a way that available space increases by 20% to 50% without building new facilities” (Ballinger & Kneese, 2006). This process proceeds as the example given before to explain the benefit of over enrollment; students are divided up into groups and have classes and vacations during different times, continually exchanging students in and out of school.
“Modified, balances calendars can effectively maintain student interest in learning. Periods of teacher/student interaction in the classroom, followed by scheduled vacations, is a balanced way of learning. Interest remains high throughout the learning period because students can, in more frequent moments, contemplate a vacation just a short time away. Refreshed by breaks, teachers and students return ready to work. Students thus learn to pursue work intensively, to rest and regenerate during short vacations, and then to work diligently again—a rhythm more like real life” (Ballinger & Kneese, 2006). So as you can see, year-round schooling, regardless of the myths, seems to be a pretty good deal. The only major disadvantages of this scheduling option is that students will probably not earn as much money working full time as several teens currently earn during the summer break, but with every good, you have to take the bad—I say that isn’t so bad. Trade working hours for breaks in every season, more efficient methods to keep us involved and learning, preparing us to excel in the real world outside of the white boards, and possibly giving us a true opportunity to compete with non-US schools in not only the work force but in academic competitions—count me in!!!
Now moving along to the next option that many of us know and hate!!! Block scheduling is another aspect of scheduling that can leave students and teachers scratching their heads wondering what “block-head” came up with the notion. At first glance, block scheduling can come across and confusing and cumbersome, but once an individual becomes more familiar with the notion, they may find that block scheduling is a wonderfully useful approach to the education of today’s youth. As with any other type of change or reform to the American school system, such as a new drug testing or discipline policy, change can and will be met with opposition and may have difficulty becoming the “norm”.The pros and cons of block scheduling will be explained as we take another dive in to the wonderful world of scheduling. Buckle up and enjoy!
Block scheduling: The good, the bad and the ugly. Let’s start with the pros of bock scheduling. Benefits of block scheduling are quite abundant (Queen, 2003). Teachers tend to benefit from block scheduling because they tend to have more time at hand to prepare lesson plans that are more detailed for each subject (Queen, 2003).Due to the fact that the instructor is responsible for fewer classes per semester than traditional scheduling, the instructor is able to devote more time to spicing up their lessons and thus is more likely to be able to keep the students motivated and awake long enough to speak their peace (Queen, 2003).The pros of block scheduling are plentiful for the student (Queen, 2003). Since the set up of block scheduling allows for the students to take fewer classes per semester for longer periods of time, a class that may have taken all year to complete may be completed during one semester.A student learning under block scheduling benefits from this because they are able to take more electives that they might not have been able to take in a traditional educational setting (Queen, 2003). It has also been found that students who learn under block scheduling can complete “advanced placement courses” that they may not have been able to take under traditional scheduling as well (Queen, 2003).Since students are only concentrating on fewer classes per day, they have more time to thoroughly prepare for the 4 classes they have that day in comparison to a traditional day which may consist of 7-8 classes per day (Queen, 2003). Another finding is that the attendance of students generally goes on the upward slope at schools that utilize block scheduling (Queen, 2003).This makes sense because students are more likely to attend an extended time block schedule course as they realize that they will be missing large amounts of information and sometimes labs if they decide to skip (Queen, 2003).Some general pros of block scheduling include the reduction of time spent in the hallway while switching classes throughout the day, which may lead to fewer distractions in the classroom if student aren’t worrying about seeing a buddy in the hallway in 50 minutes like in traditional scheduling (Queen, 2003). Tying into the last statement, the behavior of students tends to get better under block scheduling due to less distractions and more desire to pay attention in class (Queen, 2003). Along with the good comes the bad. Block scheduling has a few drawbacks that need to be understood before one jumps into the block.
Like Bob Dylan said, “The times, they are a changing”, scheduling is changing. And with change comes big fat question marks.Teachers have major issues with the “initial stages” of block scheduling (Queen, 2003).Most teachers being introduced to block scheduling find it hard to keep students awake and at the edge of their seat, avidly learning for 90 minutes straight (Queen, 2003). This may make sense as one looks back on their own high school experience with traditional scheduling and remembers the various students snoring, writing notes, or gabbing away during 50 minute classes. What does one expect, making students sit through 90 minutes of agonizing learning? Another road block is that some teachers may oppose altering their teaching style to fit the block (Queen, 2003).For block scheduling to be fully successful, change must be implemented and embraced! Another issue with block scheduling is ties into the instructor once again. Upon hearing that they must teach a year long course in one semester, some teachers tend to panic and fret about not having enough time to cover all of the content the course presents (Queen, 2003).Another red flag about block scheduling is that there are issues with knowledge retention amongst students (Queen, 2003). This is often caused by the large overuse of lecturing during block periods (Queen, 2003).
Block scheduling comes in a few different forms (Queen, 2003). The 4X4 Block Schedule Model and the A/B Block Schedule are typical versions (Queen, 2003). To break it down, the 4X4 Block Schedule is made up of four 90 minute classes per day (Queen, 2003). It is considered to be an “accelerated” schedule due to the fact that only 4 classes are taught per semester per student (Queen, 2003). To break it down, the A/B Block Schedule contains 8 classes per semester (Queen, 2003). The difference between the A/B schedule and traditional scheduling however is that 4 classes are taught on an A day and 4 different classes are taught on a B day alternating every other day (Queen, 2003). Which schedule is better? Good question. The 4X4 schedule makes the work load on students much easier to handle because the students only have 4 classes to worry about, unlike the A/B model (Queen, 2003). The 4X4 model has “raised questions” as to whether or not knowledge retention is up to par with students (Queen, 2003). The A/B model of Block Scheduling can be confusing because each week the A and B classes are on different days due to the fact that one week there are 3 A days and only 2 B days and so on (Queen, 2003). Block scheduling is really not that intimidating once you look at it from afar and understand that change is not a bad thing.
Feel overwhelmed yet??? Well no worries, I still have a few more to go through. But I promise I’ll keep it brief…First pit stop before the checkpoint, internet arranged scheduling!
With online schools you can work at your own pace; this means that you can spend more time on difficult assignments and breeze through easier ones. Another advantage to using an online school is flexibility. Say if the student had a job or has lots of family issues, the student can complete the homework or watch lecture videos at his/her own pace.Also, by not being in a high school setting, the student does not have to worry about the stresses of being a teenager. For instance, choosing what outfit to wear—the worries of bullying. Students who take classes online have the opportunity to simply take classes that are fueled completely toward a professional career or can take courses that intrigue the student and at that point, schooling becomes fun. As stated by Dr. Roblyer, “Many students enroll in online programs to take advanced courses or to accelerate the pace of their study” (Roblyer, 2006). With this schedule set up the student has the option to finish high school early, depending on time constraints and the motivation.
However, there are several disadvantages to going to an online high school. For instance, the student does not get to participate in school dances, have a graduation ceremony, go to sporting events or even play for the school team. Classes might also be harder to take online because there is no teacher to guide the learning process. The student might have to rely on their friends and family to help them with the tests and homework. Since there is no set time for classes, students may become lazy and slack off by not completing the assignments or watch the online materials. Another con is that the online school will cost the student more since the supplies, books, computer, and other materials will have to be purchased by the student.
The free schedule based school does have it benefits but the student does miss out on several aspects important to making a student prepared for college.
Flexible modular scheduling is a type of class schedulingwhere a day is broken into many 10-20 minute modules or "mods". Classes range from 2 – 9 mods (20-180 minutes) Students schedules change during the weekdays. Some students may have 3 mods one day and 4 the next day or they could not have any at all. In this scheduling system students also have 180 minutes of continuous “free time”. Free time could be used as a study hall, lunch, or even socializing. Most schools would “recommend” students to use the time for lunch and studying so the time does not go misused. Students may also use this free time to take to more elective classes if they wish to do so. Modular scheduling is closely related to block scheduling and has similar pros and cons. A negative that I can see is that the students might have trouble selecting classes because some classes might run into others that they want to take. Some classes have longer mods and therefore do not line up with others.
Arena scheduling is another scheduling technique that is not widely used. Students would be suggested classes by their counselors and then they would fill out a questionnaire to see what teacher would be best for the students’ needs and values. Then the students would go from table to table, usually in a gym or big classroom, signing up for the teachers they wanted. The main negative to using this system was that students would sign up for a class with only their groups of friends in it. The students were then only interested in being in class with their friends instead of promoting social diversity. This would be also a negative to the teachers because the students would be more prone to talk and share notes in class.
Now we’ve looked at the various ways of school scheduling, it’s up to you to decide which is better.
Works Cited
Ballinger, C. E., Kirschenbaum, N., & Poimbeauf, R. P. (1987). The Year-Round School: Where Learning Never Stops. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Ballinger, C., & Kneese, C. (2006). School Calendar Reform: Learning In All Seasons. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Gainey, D. G., & Bruncato, J. M. (1999). Questions and Answers About Block Scheduling . Gardiner: Eye on Education.
Queen, A. J. (2003). The Block Scheduling Handbook. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press Inc.
Roblyer, D. M. (2006). Online High School Programs that Work. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed , 55-63.
No Child Left Behind Cited Script 3/18/08 Max, Megan, Jessica Nearly every citizen of the United States has heard those four special words: No Child Left Behind. Many people have heard of this complicated law, but few understand what it means or how it works. This paper will take a look into how this bill came to be, how it works, how it has affected teachers and schools so far, and its tentative future.
History
What many people don’t realize about the No Child Left Behind Act is that when it was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8th, 2002 it was not a brand new law that the public had never seen (Anderson 3). It was actually a reauthorization and renaming of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that was originally enacted by Congress in 1965 (Anderson 3). The ESEA was divided into six sections that were labeled as Titles I-VI. The most scrutinized aspect of this law was Title I: “Financial Assistance to Local Educational Agencies for the Education of Children from Low Income Families” (Anderson 3). This section of ESEA, along with its organization into six titles set the precedent for the law that would come later, entitles the No Child Left Behind Act.
What is NCLB?
As stated earlier, the No Child Left Behind Act was a renaming and reauthorization of the earlier 1965 law entitled the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. NCLB retains many of the same themes as its earlier predecessor, such as the emphasis on improving the academic performance of disadvantaged/poor students (Anderson 3). Yet, it sets itself apart from the ESEA because it added “significant accountability requirements for all schools and school districts that require federal funds, not just those with high concentrations of poor children” (Anderson 3). These accountability requirements include having schools make yearly progress through scores on national standardized tests and having teachers be highly qualified in the subjects they teach.
Like the ESEA, NCLB is divided into titles, only this time, it goes all the way up to VIII. Also like the ESEA, the focus of NCLB is Title I, which is aimed at improving the academic achievement of impoverished schools by mandating states to define standards and create assessments in reading and math throughout grades 3-8 (Anderson 3). These assessments have taken the form of national high stakes testing that enable states to monitor yearly progress. Schools that do not make sufficient yearly progress based on their systems of measuring accountability are identified as being ‘in need of improvement’ (Anderson 4). School districts as well as states can then be flagged for improvement based on aggregate test scores (Anderson 4).
If a school does not improve, then its district is mandated to take a series of corrective measures such as allowing students to transfer from one school that is not improving within the district to another (Anderson 4). Schools that continue to struggle will face increasing consequences such as “supplemental services (e.g., subsidized tutors) for students in identified schools and, later, reorganizing the school (or local educational agency) that remains in need of improvement,” (Anderson 4). The rest of the titles are defined as such:
Title II - “Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals,”
This section of NCLB details teacher training and recruitment programs as well as specialized curriculum programs (Anderson 4).
Title III - Discusses how to approach teaching immigrant children and children with limited proficiency in English (Anderson 4).
Title IV – “Reauthorizes several school-level programs such as ‘safe and drug-free schools and communities,’ and ‘21st century community learning centers’” (Anderson 4).
Title V – Promotes informed parental choice through the use of charter schools, magnet schools, and voluntary public choice of school programs (Anderson 4).
Title VI – Establishes new degrees of flexibility and transferability of the federal funds available to schools (Anderson 4).
Title VII – Organizes programs for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaskan Native education (Anderson 4).
Title VII – Covers “funds for school systems impacted by the presence of non-taxpaying federal installations” which are known as impact aid (Anderson 4).
Anderson, L. W. (April 4, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act and the Legacy of Federal Aid to Education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(24), 2-18.
Impact on Education
It’s been over five years since the NCLB was passed. At this point today, the federal government is threatening to withhold funds to any state or district that does not comply; it seems as though the NCLB has become a monster (Houghton 1). Mike Petrilli, a former high-level Bush administration education official, states “I've gradually and reluctantly come to the conclusion that NCLB as enacted is fundamentally flawed and probably beyond repair, it’s a race to the bottom”. Mike isn’t the only one who seems to have this opinion about NCLB.
There are numerous reasons as to why the No Child Left Behind Act is failing. States must increase the number of students who pass their tests each year, eventually requiring all students to achieve “proficiency” by 2014 (Ladner 1). NCLB, in essence, will require all students to pass all tests, or else the federal government will sanction those schools. It seems as though the act is working against the schools rather than with them. To avoid those sanctions, states have already begun to lower their standards when it comes to testing students (Houghton 1). Most states have simply lowered their expectations for testing. They do this by reducing the number of questions students have to get right in order to pass.
For example, the Georgia Department of Education released data showing that 16 of 40 questions on the third grade reading test were fairly easy, and about 75 percent or more of the students got them right. Though, students only had to answer 17 of 40 questions correctly to pass and advance to the fourth grade. In Texas, students need to correctly answer only 29 of 60 questions in order to pass the math section of the accountability exam (Ladner 1). With statistics like this, how accountable will this act be in another five years down the line? If school standards continue to drop, what other standards in society will be affected as well?
This act has already had a major impact on school personal. Each area of teaching and grade level teachers must meet the criteria in their classrooms. Some examples include all K-3 teachers must teach all children how to read. If the student isn’t learning, the teacher must find a new way of teaching the student. The teachers also must use research based methods of teaching, but many states do not require this, so only under the NCLB act is this required. Teachers teaching elementary grades must teach math, reading and science at higher levels of learning. Middle school and high school teachers must meet the new “highly qualified” ways of teaching (Heath 1). These are just a few examples of how the NCLB act is affecting teachers. Some feel it will help the teacher’s be more qualified for their job, while others disagree. Many people are against this act, and as of right now there is no plan for the bill to be renewed in the future.
Future of the Bill
Five and half years after the NCLB was enacted, it is going through Congress to try and get it renewed. The changes that have been made in the bill according to George Miller Hon chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor U.S. House of Representatives include: “a new direction by six key things: Provide much-needed fairness and flexibility, encourage a rich and challenging learning environment and promote best practices and innovation taking place in schools throughout the country, support teachers and principles, continue to hold schools accountable for student’s progress, join the effort to improve America’s high schools and lastly invest in our schools”( Hon 4).
“As of right now the bill has not been passed, but government officials believe, that President Bush will try and get it renewed before upcoming the fall election” remarks David J Hoff of Education Week (Hoff 2). When and if the bill does get passed it will affect all future teachers. There will be more requirements and stricter policies involved in hiring new teachers along with the increased competition to get teacher positions (Hoff 2). Also according to the Civil Rights Groups and Teachers Fight NCLB Renewal website, “Pay raises and bonuses would be directly related to improved test scores”. All of the changes are going to have a great affect on our jobs as future teachers.
Bibliography
Anderson, L. W. (April 4, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act and the Legacy of Federal Aid to Education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(24), 2-18.
“Civil Rights Groups and Teachers Fight NCLB Renewal” .11 Sep 2007. http://educationportal.com/articles/Civil_Rights_Groups_and_Teachers_Fight_N CLB_Renewal.html
Hon, George Miller. “Chairman miller remarks in the future of the no child left behind education law”. Committee on education and labor U.S house of representatives. 30 July 2007. http://edworkforce.house.gov/micro/nclb.html
Janell's Teaching Philosophy
Types of School Scheduling
Shaunte', Janell, Nick
Year-Round Scheduling
When many American students hear the phrase year-round school, they automatically brand that school calendar as lethally immoral practice—a legalized prison for innocent youth to be robbed of their childhood—and hope that the year round calendars are only a practice in Asia but just like several other myths about school, this whole accusation is false. Year-round is not a deadly way of schooling, it’s actually a more practical way of learning than what is instated in the schools today and the idea has reached more than just Asian countries—it has now reached America. There are a few schools within the nation that have reformed their calendar to the year-round either on the 45-15 single track, 45-15 multi-track, 60-20 plan, 60-15 plan, 90-30 plan, trimester plan, quarter plan, quinmester plan, concept 6 plan, and the five-track, five-term plan—all of which will be explained in a few. So without even going that deep, you already know that the year-round schooling has options and options are always a good thing.
First stop: Review of the calendar we have now…Elementary school and high school were such a drag—you only had three breaks, but it was all about the summer vacation. Remember being mad around the closing of the year, right before the beautiful three month break and your teacher seemed to stall your moments of freedom? The teacher kept talking and talking refusing to accept that it was nothing he/she could say nothing that would make you actually pay attention? These three months seemed like a gift from the powers that be--until it got boring!
So why did we have those ridiculously long breaks that promoted us being the most lazy kids on the face of the earth and subconsciously forget just about everything we previously learn? “The September-June calendar followed in most of the nation’s schools is outmoded instructionally and difficult to defend academically. A fact often overlooked is that this calendar was never designed for instructional purposes in the first place. Rather it was created to support the agricultural economy of the early 1800s” (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987). How on earth can we expect a nineteenth-century calendar that was designed for farmers to properly educate and prepare us for our future that is increasingly becoming technology based?
What can save us? Next stop: Advantages of reforming the school calendar…Attending a year-round school is beneficial for both students and teachers—handling the teachers’ and students’ time with more efficiency and concern. “With more frequent breaks, teachers can relax, travel, study, and pursue a variety of other recreational activities, which may reduce the stress factors that lead to eventual burnout” (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987). Teachers with less stress translate into students getting a better medium for education; teachers who are reaching burnout, like several teachers today, students are slighted out of a quality education because the students’ main resource (the teacher) is desiccated. So not only are teachers allowed to get a more efficient relaxation time, teachers also have the opportunity to earn more money. Several of teachers today complain about their low pay and because of that the school system loses several potentially great teachers every year due to financial strain. With year-round schooling, during the three to four weeks one school has off, teachers may go to other schools are either substitute, earning up to at least four to nine extra hours, or the students could opt to teach one of the intersession classes, which are optional classes for students who wish to advance may take during the three to four week breaks. So clearly the year-round school has benefits for teachers that over run to their students but students have their own benefits.
Students receive the advantage of not having to deal with crowded classrooms, having an educationally more valuable time schedule, and with the school saving money; the students will begin to notice their resource availability will increase. “A multi-track, year-round schedule is one way of handling the problem of over enrollment in limited facilities. With this form of scheduling, students are divided into equal groups, with most students attending class while others are on vacation. When vacationing students return, another group takes vacation” (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987). Capacity limits will be able to increase without expanding a class size to a size that would be a major disadvantage to the students. With students constantly being swapped in and out, not only will the school district save approximately $1,000,000, students will be able to defeat/ eliminate summer lost which recants the students’ education, and will be able to graduate year-round, providing students with a less intense competition for the same jobs in June (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987).
Now, I know it seems as though I’m just throwing information at you, so let me calm down, and actually tell you about the process…
The year-round calendar, no matter which track a school implements, what it’s boiled down to is the effective use vacation time—intercessions. Intercessions provide “immediate remediation as well as enrichment for students. Intersessions can be used for students needing remedial help in reading, math, spelling, study skills, and writing without waiting for traditional make-up courses typically offered in summer school” (Ballinger & Kneese, 2006). Vacations are still available but they come in shorter, less disruptive, and more frequently than what several students know now.
Names of different year-round schedules are simply how many days students are in class and separated by a dash, how long their break will be. For example, the 45-15 single track plan, which is considered to be the easiest to implement at the elementary and secondary level schools, “divides the year into four nine-week terms, separated by four three-week vacations or intersessions. Students and teachers attend school for 45 days, and then take a 15 day vacation. This sequence of sessions and vacations repeat four times each year, thus providing the usual 36 week or 180 days of school” (Ballinger, Kirschenbaum, & Poimbeauf, 1987). “Using the same model as the 45-15 single-track concept, administrators can modify it to combine several groups (multi-track) of students in such a way that available space increases by 20% to 50% without building new facilities” (Ballinger & Kneese, 2006). This process proceeds as the example given before to explain the benefit of over enrollment; students are divided up into groups and have classes and vacations during different times, continually exchanging students in and out of school.
“Modified, balances calendars can effectively maintain student interest in learning. Periods of teacher/student interaction in the classroom, followed by scheduled vacations, is a balanced way of learning. Interest remains high throughout the learning period because students can, in more frequent moments, contemplate a vacation just a short time away. Refreshed by breaks, teachers and students return ready to work. Students thus learn to pursue work intensively, to rest and regenerate during short vacations, and then to work diligently again—a rhythm more like real life” (Ballinger & Kneese, 2006). So as you can see, year-round schooling, regardless of the myths, seems to be a pretty good deal. The only major disadvantages of this scheduling option is that students will probably not earn as much money working full time as several teens currently earn during the summer break, but with every good, you have to take the bad—I say that isn’t so bad. Trade working hours for breaks in every season, more efficient methods to keep us involved and learning, preparing us to excel in the real world outside of the white boards, and possibly giving us a true opportunity to compete with non-US schools in not only the work force but in academic competitions—count me in!!!
Now moving along to the next option that many of us know and hate!!!
Block scheduling is another aspect of scheduling that can leave students and teachers scratching their heads wondering what “block-head” came up with the notion. At first glance, block scheduling can come across and confusing and cumbersome, but once an individual becomes more familiar with the notion, they may find that block scheduling is a wonderfully useful approach to the education of today’s youth. As with any other type of change or reform to the American school system, such as a new drug testing or discipline policy, change can and will be met with opposition and may have difficulty becoming the “norm”. The pros and cons of block scheduling will be explained as we take another dive in to the wonderful world of scheduling. Buckle up and enjoy!
Block scheduling: The good, the bad and the ugly.
Let’s start with the pros of bock scheduling. Benefits of block scheduling are quite abundant (Queen, 2003). Teachers tend to benefit from block scheduling because they tend to have more time at hand to prepare lesson plans that are more detailed for each subject (Queen, 2003). Due to the fact that the instructor is responsible for fewer classes per semester than traditional scheduling, the instructor is able to devote more time to spicing up their lessons and thus is more likely to be able to keep the students motivated and awake long enough to speak their peace (Queen, 2003). The pros of block scheduling are plentiful for the student (Queen, 2003). Since the set up of block scheduling allows for the students to take fewer classes per semester for longer periods of time, a class that may have taken all year to complete may be completed during one semester. A student learning under block scheduling benefits from this because they are able to take more electives that they might not have been able to take in a traditional educational setting (Queen, 2003). It has also been found that students who learn under block scheduling can complete “advanced placement courses” that they may not have been able to take under traditional scheduling as well (Queen, 2003). Since students are only concentrating on fewer classes per day, they have more time to thoroughly prepare for the 4 classes they have that day in comparison to a traditional day which may consist of 7-8 classes per day (Queen, 2003). Another finding is that the attendance of students generally goes on the upward slope at schools that utilize block scheduling (Queen, 2003). This makes sense because students are more likely to attend an extended time block schedule course as they realize that they will be missing large amounts of information and sometimes labs if they decide to skip (Queen, 2003). Some general pros of block scheduling include the reduction of time spent in the hallway while switching classes throughout the day, which may lead to fewer distractions in the classroom if student aren’t worrying about seeing a buddy in the hallway in 50 minutes like in traditional scheduling (Queen, 2003). Tying into the last statement, the behavior of students tends to get better under block scheduling due to less distractions and more desire to pay attention in class (Queen, 2003).
Along with the good comes the bad. Block scheduling has a few drawbacks that need to be understood before one jumps into the block.
Like Bob Dylan said, “The times, they are a changing”, scheduling is changing. And with change comes big fat question marks. Teachers have major issues with the “initial stages” of block scheduling (Queen, 2003). Most teachers being introduced to block scheduling find it hard to keep students awake and at the edge of their seat, avidly learning for 90 minutes straight (Queen, 2003). This may make sense as one looks back on their own high school experience with traditional scheduling and remembers the various students snoring, writing notes, or gabbing away during 50 minute classes. What does one expect, making students sit through 90 minutes of agonizing learning? Another road block is that some teachers may oppose altering their teaching style to fit the block (Queen, 2003). For block scheduling to be fully successful, change must be implemented and embraced! Another issue with block scheduling is ties into the instructor once again. Upon hearing that they must teach a year long course in one semester, some teachers tend to panic and fret about not having enough time to cover all of the content the course presents (Queen, 2003). Another red flag about block scheduling is that there are issues with knowledge retention amongst students (Queen, 2003). This is often caused by the large overuse of lecturing during block periods (Queen, 2003).
Block scheduling comes in a few different forms (Queen, 2003). The 4X4 Block Schedule Model and the A/B Block Schedule are typical versions (Queen, 2003).
To break it down, the 4X4 Block Schedule is made up of four 90 minute classes per day (Queen, 2003). It is considered to be an “accelerated” schedule due to the fact that only 4 classes are taught per semester per student (Queen, 2003).
To break it down, the A/B Block Schedule contains 8 classes per semester (Queen, 2003). The difference between the A/B schedule and traditional scheduling however is that 4 classes are taught on an A day and 4 different classes are taught on a B day alternating every other day (Queen, 2003).
Which schedule is better? Good question.
The 4X4 schedule makes the work load on students much easier to handle because the students only have 4 classes to worry about, unlike the A/B model (Queen, 2003). The 4X4 model has “raised questions” as to whether or not knowledge retention is up to par with students (Queen, 2003).
The A/B model of Block Scheduling can be confusing because each week the A and B classes are on different days due to the fact that one week there are 3 A days and only 2 B days and so on (Queen, 2003).
Block scheduling is really not that intimidating once you look at it from afar and understand that change is not a bad thing.
Feel overwhelmed yet??? Well no worries, I still have a few more to go through. But I promise I’ll keep it brief…First pit stop before the checkpoint, internet arranged scheduling!
With online schools you can work at your own pace; this means that you can spend more time on difficult assignments and breeze through easier ones. Another advantage to using an online school is flexibility. Say if the student had a job or has lots of family issues, the student can complete the homework or watch lecture videos at his/her own pace. Also, by not being in a high school setting, the student does not have to worry about the stresses of being a teenager. For instance, choosing what outfit to wear—the worries of bullying. Students who take classes online have the opportunity to simply take classes that are fueled completely toward a professional career or can take courses that intrigue the student and at that point, schooling becomes fun. As stated by Dr. Roblyer, “Many students enroll in online programs to take advanced courses or to accelerate the pace of their study” (Roblyer, 2006). With this schedule set up the student has the option to finish high school early, depending on time constraints and the motivation.
However, there are several disadvantages to going to an online high school. For instance, the student does not get to participate in school dances, have a graduation ceremony, go to sporting events or even play for the school team. Classes might also be harder to take online because there is no teacher to guide the learning process. The student might have to rely on their friends and family to help them with the tests and homework. Since there is no set time for classes, students may become lazy and slack off by not completing the assignments or watch the online materials. Another con is that the online school will cost the student more since the supplies, books, computer, and other materials will have to be purchased by the student.
The free schedule based school does have it benefits but the student does miss out on several aspects important to making a student prepared for college.
Flexible modular scheduling is a type of class scheduling where a day is broken into many 10-20 minute modules or "mods". Classes range from 2 – 9 mods (20-180 minutes) Students schedules change during the weekdays. Some students may have 3 mods one day and 4 the next day or they could not have any at all. In this scheduling system students also have 180 minutes of continuous “free time”. Free time could be used as a study hall, lunch, or even socializing. Most schools would “recommend” students to use the time for lunch and studying so the time does not go misused. Students may also use this free time to take to more elective classes if they wish to do so.
Modular scheduling is closely related to block scheduling and has similar pros and cons. A negative that I can see is that the students might have trouble selecting classes because some classes might run into others that they want to take. Some classes have longer mods and therefore do not line up with others.
Arena scheduling is another scheduling technique that is not widely used. Students would be suggested classes by their counselors and then they would fill out a questionnaire to see what teacher would be best for the students’ needs and values. Then the students would go from table to table, usually in a gym or big classroom, signing up for the teachers they wanted. The main negative to using this system was that students would sign up for a class with only their groups of friends in it. The students were then only interested in being in class with their friends instead of promoting social diversity. This would be also a negative to the teachers because the students would be more prone to talk and share notes in class.
Now we’ve looked at the various ways of school scheduling, it’s up to you to decide which is better.
Works Cited
Ballinger, C. E., Kirschenbaum, N., & Poimbeauf, R. P. (1987). The Year-Round School: Where Learning Never Stops. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.Ballinger, C., & Kneese, C. (2006). School Calendar Reform: Learning In All Seasons. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Gainey, D. G., & Bruncato, J. M. (1999). Questions and Answers About Block Scheduling . Gardiner: Eye on Education.
Queen, A. J. (2003). The Block Scheduling Handbook. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press Inc.
Roblyer, D. M. (2006). Online High School Programs that Work. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed , 55-63.
No Child Left Behind
Cited Script
3/18/08
Max, Megan, Jessica
Nearly every citizen of the United States has heard those four special words: No Child Left Behind. Many people have heard of this complicated law, but few understand what it means or how it works. This paper will take a look into how this bill came to be, how it works, how it has affected teachers and schools so far, and its tentative future.
History
What many people don’t realize about the No Child Left Behind Act is that when it was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8th, 2002 it was not a brand new law that the public had never seen (Anderson 3). It was actually a reauthorization and renaming of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that was originally enacted by Congress in 1965 (Anderson 3). The ESEA was divided into six sections that were labeled as Titles I-VI. The most scrutinized aspect of this law was Title I: “Financial Assistance to Local Educational Agencies for the Education of Children from Low Income Families” (Anderson 3). This section of ESEA, along with its organization into six titles set the precedent for the law that would come later, entitles the No Child Left Behind Act.
What is NCLB?
As stated earlier, the No Child Left Behind Act was a renaming and reauthorization of the earlier 1965 law entitled the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. NCLB retains many of the same themes as its earlier predecessor, such as the emphasis on improving the academic performance of disadvantaged/poor students (Anderson 3). Yet, it sets itself apart from the ESEA because it added “significant accountability requirements for all schools and school districts that require federal funds, not just those with high concentrations of poor children” (Anderson 3). These accountability requirements include having schools make yearly progress through scores on national standardized tests and having teachers be highly qualified in the subjects they teach.
Like the ESEA, NCLB is divided into titles, only this time, it goes all the way up to VIII. Also like the ESEA, the focus of NCLB is Title I, which is aimed at improving the academic achievement of impoverished schools by mandating states to define standards and create assessments in reading and math throughout grades 3-8 (Anderson 3). These assessments have taken the form of national high stakes testing that enable states to monitor yearly progress. Schools that do not make sufficient yearly progress based on their systems of measuring accountability are identified as being ‘in need of improvement’ (Anderson 4). School districts as well as states can then be flagged for improvement based on aggregate test scores (Anderson 4).
If a school does not improve, then its district is mandated to take a series of corrective measures such as allowing students to transfer from one school that is not improving within the district to another (Anderson 4). Schools that continue to struggle will face increasing consequences such as “supplemental services (e.g., subsidized tutors) for students in identified schools and, later, reorganizing the school (or local educational agency) that remains in need of improvement,” (Anderson 4). The rest of the titles are defined as such:
Title II - “Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals,”
This section of NCLB details teacher training and recruitment programs as well as specialized curriculum programs (Anderson 4).
Title III - Discusses how to approach teaching immigrant children and children with limited proficiency in English (Anderson 4).
Title IV – “Reauthorizes several school-level programs such as ‘safe and drug-free schools and communities,’ and ‘21st century community learning centers’” (Anderson 4).
Title V – Promotes informed parental choice through the use of charter schools, magnet schools, and voluntary public choice of school programs (Anderson 4).
Title VI – Establishes new degrees of flexibility and transferability of the federal funds available to schools (Anderson 4).
Title VII – Organizes programs for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaskan Native education (Anderson 4).
Title VII – Covers “funds for school systems impacted by the presence of non-taxpaying federal installations” which are known as impact aid (Anderson 4).
Anderson, L. W. (April 4, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act and the Legacy of Federal Aid to Education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(24), 2-18.
Impact on Education
It’s been over five years since the NCLB was passed. At this point today, the federal government is threatening to withhold funds to any state or district that does not comply; it seems as though the NCLB has become a monster (Houghton 1). Mike Petrilli, a former high-level Bush administration education official, states “I've gradually and reluctantly come to the conclusion that NCLB as enacted is fundamentally flawed and probably beyond repair, it’s a race to the bottom”. Mike isn’t the only one who seems to have this opinion about NCLB.
There are numerous reasons as to why the No Child Left Behind Act is failing. States must increase the number of students who pass their tests each year, eventually requiring all students to achieve “proficiency” by 2014 (Ladner 1). NCLB, in essence, will require all students to pass all tests, or else the federal government will sanction those schools. It seems as though the act is working against the schools rather than with them. To avoid those sanctions, states have already begun to lower their standards when it comes to testing students (Houghton 1). Most states have simply lowered their expectations for testing. They do this by reducing the number of questions students have to get right in order to pass.
For example, the Georgia Department of Education released data showing that 16 of 40 questions on the third grade reading test were fairly easy, and about 75 percent or more of the students got them right. Though, students only had to answer 17 of 40 questions correctly to pass and advance to the fourth grade. In Texas, students need to correctly answer only 29 of 60 questions in order to pass the math section of the accountability exam (Ladner 1). With statistics like this, how accountable will this act be in another five years down the line? If school standards continue to drop, what other standards in society will be affected as well?
This act has already had a major impact on school personal. Each area of teaching and grade level teachers must meet the criteria in their classrooms. Some examples include all K-3 teachers must teach all children how to read. If the student isn’t learning, the teacher must find a new way of teaching the student. The teachers also must use research based methods of teaching, but many states do not require this, so only under the NCLB act is this required. Teachers teaching elementary grades must teach math, reading and science at higher levels of learning. Middle school and high school teachers must meet the new “highly qualified” ways of teaching (Heath 1). These are just a few examples of how the NCLB act is affecting teachers. Some feel it will help the teacher’s be more qualified for their job, while others disagree. Many people are against this act, and as of right now there is no plan for the bill to be renewed in the future.
Future of the Bill
Five and half years after the NCLB was enacted, it is going through Congress to try and get it renewed. The changes that have been made in the bill according to George Miller Hon chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor U.S. House of Representatives include: “a new direction by six key things: Provide much-needed fairness and flexibility, encourage a rich and challenging learning environment and promote best practices and innovation taking place in schools throughout the country, support teachers and principles, continue to hold schools accountable for student’s progress, join the effort to improve America’s high schools and lastly invest in our schools”( Hon 4).
“As of right now the bill has not been passed, but government officials believe, that President Bush will try and get it renewed before upcoming the fall election” remarks David J Hoff of Education Week (Hoff 2). When and if the bill does get passed it will affect all future teachers. There will be more requirements and stricter policies involved in hiring new teachers along with the increased competition to get teacher positions (Hoff 2). Also according to the Civil Rights Groups and Teachers Fight NCLB Renewal website, “Pay raises and bonuses would be directly related to improved test scores”. All of the changes are going to have a great affect on our jobs as future teachers.
Bibliography
Anderson, L. W. (April 4, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act and the Legacy of Federal Aid to Education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(24), 2-18.
“Civil Rights Groups and Teachers Fight NCLB Renewal” .11 Sep 2007.
http://educationportal.com/articles/Civil_Rights_Groups_and_Teachers_Fight_N CLB_Renewal.html
Heath, Suzanne. “No Child Left Behind Act: What Teachers, Principles and SchoolAdministrators Need to Know.” 2008.
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/nclb.teachers.admins.htm
Hoff J, David. “2007 NCLB Prospects are Fading”. Campaign for the Civic Mission Schools, Educating for Democracy. 6 Nov. 2007. http://civicmissionofschools.org/site/news/civiclearningnews/11.6.07.edweek.htm
Hon, George Miller. “Chairman miller remarks in the future of the no child left behind education law”. Committee on education and labor U.S house of representatives. 30 July 2007. http://edworkforce.house.gov/micro/nclb.html
Houghton, Kristen. “NCLB Five Years Later”. 2008.
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art36261.asp
Ladner, Matthew. “No Child Left Behind: Reform in need of Reform”. 28 Jan. 2007.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,247322,00.html