Bell Times (Part Two)
Here is a document dated May 6th with bell/bus arrival times.
It's interesting. It looks like Day is one of the earliest elementaries at 9:05 with Hay, Whittier and others the latest at 9:25. The earliest end time is 3:10 and the latest is 3:30.
Middle school is 8:05 to 8:20 with the K-8s starting at 8:20. Most everyone ends at 2:35 but Aki ends at 3:35 (I'm thinking this may be a typo).
Hale still has 8:30 start and 3:00 end which is much later than the other high schools opening from 7:55-8:05 and ending at 2:30-2:35.
Is this valid? Firm?
It's interesting. It looks like Day is one of the earliest elementaries at 9:05 with Hay, Whittier and others the latest at 9:25. The earliest end time is 3:10 and the latest is 3:30.
Middle school is 8:05 to 8:20 with the K-8s starting at 8:20. Most everyone ends at 2:35 but Aki ends at 3:35 (I'm thinking this may be a typo).
Hale still has 8:30 start and 3:00 end which is much later than the other high schools opening from 7:55-8:05 and ending at 2:30-2:35.
Is this valid? Firm?
Comments
I think this may be correct, I remember reading/hearing something about their extended day. But could be wrong.
Anyway, as long as middle schools stay off that dreaded 7:40 start time, I am going to be a happy camper, no matter how much $$$ the district saves, or does not save.
These changes just don't seem to be that huge, EXCEPT for the K-8s that go to the earlier start time. Are all of the savings coming from those eight schools? If so, couldn't they have just asked for volunteers. I bet there are eight K-5s that would have preferred an early start.
That struck me, too. In a perfect world, I'd suppose that there was some underlying order (for example, the info bandied about Hale, that they do not have school bus service, even for special needs students, justifying their later start time). But, although I do believe that the SPS is trying to do the best it can, I'm not quite ready to assume that it has intelligently designed this system.
Also, I agree with the other comment that, if this is being done for safety reasons, when aren't the elementary kids in the K-8 programs being kept safe too?
stu
For high schools (and middle schools) SEA contract lists a 6-1/2 hour day bell-to-bell for the students. Any variance has to be approved by the SEA members. The proposed schedule for the above high schools is five minutes longer (specifically for start/end times) than the contract allows. Does anyone know what plans these schools have for their new schedules, why the extra 5 minutes is needed in the schedule and what process did each school go through to allow this?
I ask this because I know that Garfield has had the extra 5 minutes this year & before, in order to allow for the longer 55 minute classes and also squeeze in a 10 minute morning break. What type of bell schedule are these other schools going to use? This is the time of the year that bell schedules are forming, and we can learn from other schools what works & what changes are going to be made for next year.
Thanks!
Teachers have professional development during the site-based late starts, so it's not a SEA issue (they still work the same hours).
The students, on the other hand, are the ones who get short- changed and have much less classroom instruction time than other schools in Seattle.
The Seattle Times did an article last October, "Class time at Seattle high schools differ" which reported that only Garfield and Roosevelt students were meeting the state requirement of 150 hours or more instruction per credit (Garfield has 157 hours). Hale students are at the lowest, with only 134 hours!
Now, with the new Board proposals for giving high school credit to some middle classes (but specifying only to classes with 150 hours of instruction), bell schedules for middle school students in K-8's with shorter time in class should be a concern also to consider.
For a struggling student, time-on-task in the classroom does matter, and parents don't buy the "less is more" mantra. With the new assignment plan on the horizon, equitable classroom schedules do matter!
Anyway, it's something to ask about at each school so you know in advance what schedules are like.
It's not just the passing time, think about all the days some middle schools (and also high schools) have for late arrivals with site-based professional development.
Some middle schools have two late arrival days per month, and high schools as much as one per week- that's a whole lot of time our students aren't even in the classroom when the school calendar shows that they should be. These schools can't possibly deliver the required 150 hours to count for a high school credit, much less give the kids enough time to cover & practice the material (in for example a math1 class that builds the foundation for Math2 in high school).
It's very interesting to hear the district say (at the 4/29 H.S. Grading Policy meeting) that the new thinking is to "move away from instructional time" and yet we see that the struggling schools in the south end inititive appear to be extending the school day by 1 hr. for next year, because it might actually make a difference- just like Obama's education reform is talking about.
"Extended Learning Time" (ELT) is a big focus across the U.S. in improving schools, rather than cutting back on classroom time like so many of our Seattle schools seem to be doing with their site-based management. Quality instructional time does count and ALL of our Seattle schools need to deliver this in an equitable manner to all of our students (and not just to Garfield and Roosevelt students).
I'm speaking of the high schools here...
Lost instruction time is not a big district priority. There are many educators who will argue quality teachers and curriculum are the key features of an education, not time.
Philisophical differences exist between education providers and their customers. Most parents would like both quality and more instruction time. It is hard to improve curriculum (as the math adoption shows) or remove a low quality teacher. Young good teachers are likely to get pinched in the next year or two. Professional development may be intended to improve quality but, in my experience, there is almost no accountability and very mixed reviews amongst staff.
I'm for giving kids more instruction time, being more open with professional development impacts and giving parents more input at bell schedule creation.
BTW... PD is not a district absolute. Some schools have no local PD and others are impacted weekly. Mostly the staff drives it.