High School Schedule Update
Internal documents from a couple of high schools indicate the following may be happening for school year 2018-2019 for comprehensive high schools(sorry, I cannot post these docs in order to protect my sources):
- the district wants some kind of interim schedule for next year so that 9th and 10th graders can get the credits they need because of the new state graduation credit requirements.
- it is already being acknowledged that current 9th graders that don't earn three credits per semester will already not be on-track to graduate.
- the district is leaning towards more block scheduling
- the comprehensive high schools are likely to move to an 8-period A/B day for next year.
- some high school staffs are already discussing this but there isn't any vote to be taken yet
- the timeline for proposals seems to be sometime in mid-late January
- the longer schedule would be advantageous for athletes and coaches
- there was an odd notation that IEPs would have 230 minutes a week instead of 265 (I cannot account for why the minutes would be less.)
Naturally, this is in the process of being drafted and discussed so it's fluid.
- the district wants some kind of interim schedule for next year so that 9th and 10th graders can get the credits they need because of the new state graduation credit requirements.
- it is already being acknowledged that current 9th graders that don't earn three credits per semester will already not be on-track to graduate.
- the district is leaning towards more block scheduling
- the comprehensive high schools are likely to move to an 8-period A/B day for next year.
- some high school staffs are already discussing this but there isn't any vote to be taken yet
- the timeline for proposals seems to be sometime in mid-late January
- the longer schedule would be advantageous for athletes and coaches
- there was an odd notation that IEPs would have 230 minutes a week instead of 265 (I cannot account for why the minutes would be less.)
Naturally, this is in the process of being drafted and discussed so it's fluid.
Comments
-sleeper
It seems the most cost effective means of improving outcomes is providing zero period (or summer school?), then moving to a 7 period schedule, and LASTLY, moving to an 8 period schedule.
I assume an A/B schedule would operate with odd classes meeting one day and even classes meeting another, with all classes meeting on Wednesday, for 3x per week for each class.
SPS madness
I am hoping for a 7 period day.
Here is the bottom line on high school, credits and funding. If you want more credit earning opportunities at high school, you need to pay for MORE TEACHERS to teach MORE CLASSES. That fundamental truth is so basic, I honestly can't believe that I need to type it.
There is some mythological idea that somehow you can get "blood from a stone" and somehow squeeze out a few extra credits in the master schedule without adding additional time, energy or money. That is how the 3x5 schedule recommendation was made. "Look everyone. It's magic. With no extra money, students will have the opportunity for 15 credits instead of 12."
That recommendation eventually fell apart because it was ultimately non-sensical. Moving to an 8 period schedule will mean that you will need to pay for more teachers to teach more classes. Otherwise, you are expecting the current faculty to teach more (either number of students or number of minutes) without any change in pay.
I have been trying to get staff to daylight the massive enrollment increases in Running Start over the last few years. Because these enrollment increases are indicative just how crazy efficient the master schedule at high school already is.
We already have approximately 100 students at most high schools who are unable to get a 6th period. We already have large numbers of students going to Running Start, not because they want to, but because it is the ONLY way for them to get the classes they need. Why don't we solve that problem first?
confused
If they can't get 6 classes, that's the problem we need to solve - not "adding" classes by chopping the school day into 7 or 8 periods, rather than 6.
And then we should have summer school or other options for students who fail classes and need help getting credits.
Also I 100% agree with Kellie's comment that if you want more credit opportunities, then you need more teachers and more classes. It is totally crazy to take the existing teacher pool and have them teach more classes for shorter amounts of time.
Jane
Spedvocate
@Spedvocate: I do not fully understand why the state introduced the 24-credit requirement. As you say, it only really makes sense if the school day increases or classes become shorter, assuming that students are not necessarily able to do a full 6 credits per year as is. Perhaps the study skills class could be during 0th period?
Ingraham Mom
Actually, no. The proposed plans have involved getting equal credit for less instructional time. Big difference.
SPS madness
* Zero hour or 7th hour classes for credit recovery and assistance
* PE credit for out of school physical activity
I also think it should be possible to get credit for study skills classes, since there are schools that give credit for "making good life choices" classes.
What I really like about this is that you are adding 2-4 credits possible for things most students were already doing. It gives a little breathing room without giving too much space for screwups. I don't like the 8-credit year that gives permission to fail 8 classes before you don't graduate in addition to what everyone above has already said. It would probably be a little tricky to get the credit-reporting work in place for PE credits, but it could certainly piggyback on the PE waiver.
SPS madness
Ingraham mom
We're saying the same thing about credit and instructional time. My point was that overall, the length of the school day isn't changing, but students are receiving more credit for that same school day (4 credits per semester, rather than 3). You were saying that on a per class basis, students are receiving the same credit (0.5 per semester) for a class with less instructional time. They're both true.
As a teacher at a school that already has block periods, I can say that I prefer them for most classes. We have 90 minute classes, and these allow the time to get into much deeper learning activities than I was ever able to accomplish in 50 minute blocks. They also feel more efficient, as there's less time devoted to passing periods and less time that my classes are in setup or cleanup mode.
Blocks are good for a very limited type of class, labs, and anything similar to labs like art and music with significant setup and collaboration time mandates. Maybe there’s some scheduling magic that could provide blocks where they made sense, but not where they didn’t.
IA
Is there a compromise? What about a 7 period schedule with only 2 block days - say all classes meet M, Thu, and F, but periods 1,3,5 and 7 meet on Tues and periods 2,4, and 6 meet on Wed? There is one longer class each week for labs and extended projects, but each class still meets 4x/week. You still have the issues of losing class time (moving from meeting 5x/week to 4x/week, and reducing total hours per course) and needing additional teachers.
Mr. Theo Moriarty
-Clueless
IA
Given the goals of adding classes without adding time, I’d prefer a seven period day with a couple of block days each week. Maybe four blocks on Tuesdays and three on Wednesdays would work? Whatever the solution, at least we can be sure that students at Garfield will no longer be spending almost three hours a week in advisory.
Fairmount Parent
Civil discourse: if we can't do it, how can our kids?
asdf
IA, if you know so much, get your teaching certificate. It's expensive, time consuming and cumbersome.
You certainly have a valuable perspective, but that's about as far as it goes.
"The buck stops" with the teacher.
About Time
There is nothing cryptic about this: You are deleting my posts and pretending that your blog is open.
When Chris Korsmo deleted posts, you took the high road. Of course, Charlie was part of the scene then. He talked out of both sides of his mouth, but he had enough going on in the neural cells to know when the tide was changing.
Then he did his own version of the JetBlue flight attendant. He quit writing on this blog when he deemed that HCC demographics were inequitable. He made his statement here and took the metaphoric beer and slide down the escape shaft. It took a move to the south and lack of personal/children investment to figure out that HCC is inequitable. His come-to-Jesus moment about Spectrum occurred about six months prior to that. I expect you to delete this comment, as you delete anything that threatens your narrative. You have revealed yourself as power-hungry control freak who can't tolerate a different point of view. You have to "know-it-all", even with teachers like me who have been teaching on the far side of 25 years now.
In the meantime, several readers will have read what I wrote, told their friends, and let them know that you deleted it. Not only that, readers will see all of the deletes and realize you were somehow threatened again.
I am a veteran teacher who has a point of view based on long experience in SPS (which pre-dates you, Kellie and the other "institutional memory" braggers). I do not, however, predate Carol Simmons (but know her and know her cohorts well).
Cheers!
About Time/FWIW
Btw: I'm copying and pasting this to the HCC/APP blog to demonstrate what you're doing. I refuse to partake in Facebook, which limits my ability to show the public how you are operating with posters. Fortunately, Benjamin takes an open approach to opinion.
My student had Theo Moriarty. He is not an armchair expert. He is an expert. You might even notice that he speaks to his own experience and asks other people to only speak to theirs and not assume that their experience is generally applicable.
It makes perfect sense to me that Michael Rice and Theo Moriarty (both excellent teachers that my child has been lucky to have) would have opposed views to the scheduling propositions. Their subjects, math versus LASS, are, respectively, better suited to the two different scheduling propositions.
Won't the block schedules tend to wreak havoc with the IB program? That program also has strict guidelines regarding the number of class-hours per subject. I have a feeling that the SPS is going to do whatever it wants under the context of it being an "emergency" despite the fact that there has been time to make reasonable plans.
-RamParent
That's what I would have thought, too, with the additional caveat that more classrooms are going to be needed, too.
But the A/B idea is genius, in that it puts all that additional cost on the backs of teachers. Regular classroom teachers would have an additional 30 students on their rosters, above what they have now. Now:150 students 2019:180 students. No additional new classrooms required.
"Oh, but you wouldn't have all those students every day." I'm pretty sure teachers don't get to turn away a student for help after school, or not go to an IEP meeting, because that's an "A" day student, and this is a "B" day.
The plan is to spread teachers even thinner than they are now. In keeping with that "spread it even thinner" plan, a casual imagining of this schedule suggests that many more high school teachers are likely to teach 3 different (we call these "different preps") classes. Now, I'm a teacher with 33 years experience, and have taught 7 period day with each class as a different prep. That's awful, and completely unsustainable. The average in SPS high schools is 2 preps, which is reasonable. But every prep added to a teacher's schedule increases the workload enormously, and inevitably degrades the quality of teaching. Especially in a district without a classroom supply budget or textbook and curriculum purchasing, where teachers have to spend their own money and develop their own ideas.
Based on your apparent animosity toward HC kids, services, and parents, I get the sense you are not a similar expert when it comes to serving gifted students. Good for you that you've been teaching for a long time. I hope it has been ok for your students, too.
toxic much?
Which means, as in "it happens so often, it's almost like standard procedure", I guess we move right to the fighting and outmaneuvering.
Teachers have no idea, as far as I know, what SEA leadership's position is on this. It represents a significant departure (called a waiver) from the current Collective Bargaining Agreement. A powerpoint presented to RHS staff yesterday described that waiver also as "non-negotiable". Which is a strange way to describe a waiver that has to be negotiated.
-HS Parent
- Whatever schedule SPS decides, ALL high schools must follow.
- Teaching more than 3 unique courses or having a student load over 150 departs from the current negotiated contract (when does the current contract get renegotiated?).
- Removing the minimum hours per credit/class, as recently approved by the board, could jeopardize IB (not that SPS seems to care...they hardly support it as is...but it's part of SPS's "continuum of services" for HC).
- Longer class times associated with block schedules do make it difficult for pacing and coverage of HS level math courses (having tutored in MS and HS math classes, I'd side with IA, though understand how block schedules would benefit LA/SS and lab based courses).
wary
>>> IA, if you know so much, get your teaching certificate. It's expensive, time consuming and cumbersome.
Your classist notion of job grade is shining brightly. I have absolutely no desire to ever become a teacher, and frankly, I can’t imagine why any intelligent person would. Most teachers value IAs, but evidently you think any educated and knowledgeable person would never choose to be an IA. I can assure you that I am well educated and knowledgeable. That attitude can also be used against you. I could just as easily say:
“FWIW, if you know so much, get your administrator’s certificate. It's expensive, time consuming and cumbersome. You could lead whole groups of teachers and set the directions for equitable education, instead of pot stirring on blogs.”
But you’re right about “civil discourse”. What a laugh! Such tiny, prudish egos. It’s the internet, not a classroom.
IA
"He quit writing on this blog when he deemed that HCC demographics were inequitable. He made his statement here and took the metaphoric beer and slide down the escape shaft."
Charlie did not stop writing on the blog because of HCC and that's a fact.
I'm not a know-it-all and I have frequently pointed out my errors. I constantly thank readers like Kellie and Eric B and Eric M and Michael Rice and others who bring a kind of thinking that I don't possess to this blog.
I don't care where you go and tell people I'm "power-hungry control freak." My record doesn't show that. "I'm going to tell on you." Really? That's pretty 4th grade stuff there.
I do care about snide remarks and especially your tiresome repeating of the same statements over and over. So yes, from here on out, I'm going to delete your remarks. You bring nothing to this discussion and it has little to do with your stance. It's your tone; I have to wonder if you reserve this for adults or bring it into your classroom as well. You seem to have some kind of grudge/vendetta against me and that's not good for any discussion.
Again, you are welcome to go elsewhere or start your own blog.
Readers, I would ask that you do not engage with About Time/FWIW. Ignoring someone is the best route to getting them to leave.
Melissa, HS parent comment is the precise framing of the 24 credit high school dilemma: if the kids are suppose to get MORE, the district can only accomplish that BY GIVING THEM MORE. And that takes MORE class time, which means a longer day and MORE teacher time/instructional hours for them. If the district isn’t going to do that, then just leave things as is and rescale the credits per course. That at least would be less damaging. Why pretend? Why not just meet the letter of the 24 credit law by doing nothing but changing the credit count on the existing structure rather than PRETENDING to meet the “spirit” of the 24 credit requirement by NOT actually giving the kids MORE, but rather just giving them the same but scrambling it all up and messing everything up as a result (actually short changing the kids and DIMINISHING their actual education)? Honestly, less chaos is the best possible outcome when faced with the 24 credit law, since we all know the district is NOT actually going to give the kids MORE.
Kellie use to say the only thing that solves a capacity problem is MORE capacity. The only thing that solves a more credit problem is MORE credit. If you can’t deliver that, then, just be honest and solve the problem disingenuously by doling our more credit for what is already delivered, but whatever you do, do NOT mess up the master schedule by chopping it up into unworkable pieces.
Yes, and actual solutions - give credit for speaking second language via a proficiency test, give PE credit for outside athletic participation, give performing art credit for outside activity, etc, and offer a zero period with a universally useful makeup class like math or LA.
-beyond exhausted
11/30/17, 8:38 AM
Students are not getting increased instruction under any plan that doesn't increase the length of the school day. They are just getting more credits for the same time investment. Smoke & mirrors. Might as well just keep the current schedule & change the number of credits awarded for each class. It would be less disruptive.
-HS Parent
I wonder if they have considered this impact.
asdf
There are windows where thoughtful people give thoughtful input and help to make thoughtful decisions. Then there are windows where the only way to describe it, is that a collective madness washes through the system.
I regularly comment on the closures because that time period is recent enough to be directly relevant and distant enough that the vast majority of current advocates and current SPS staff were not deeply involved in that issue. The closures started as a fiscal reality measure in the wake of the Olschefski financial scandal in 2002. By the time these closures were truly enacted in 2007 and 2009, Seattle had been the fastest growing city in the United States for multiple years.
Over the 5-7 years from idea to implementation, a lot had changed but ... it became an us-vs-them issue. Downtown was going to close schools for the simple reason, that there was a closure process. In the end, it really was that simple. There was no amount of parent or community generated input that was going to stop the process.
We all paid a huge price for that. The BEX IV price tag was almost exclusively the price of re-opening and renovating all the schools that were closed.
It seems that we are in the same place once again with regard to high school. There is this collective madness about the 24 credits. We are long past the thoughtful conversation piece and now the district feels tremendous pressure to "do-something" because for 5 years now, there has been a plan to "do-something." The "plan" to re-distribute HCC to 5 high schools is another part of that madness. It will do nothing to improve high school. But it looks good on paper.
This current proposal is essentially a proposal to have current high school staff increase their work load from 150 students to 180 students, with no change in pay. That is a huge change in work description and frankly if the union were to agree to that, then it would still most likely be in the best interest of everyone to simply keep with 6 periods and just have class sizes of up to 40 students. That would be more truthful, minimize disruption and support student learning.
Here is the some institutional memory. A very similar proposal was floated as a capacity management measure in 2010-11 as part of that contract re-negotiation. At that time, the district proposed lifting ALL classroom size caps at all grade levels for capacity management.
The union actually considered it, because downtown said the capacity problem was serious enough to warrant it. The union then asked a brilliant question. "For how long do we need to lift the class size limits?" The answer was "Indefinitely." The union wisely refused.
The "problem" as far as I can tell, is that there are multiple categories of students who are "unable" to obtain 24 credits. These are students who fall into a few categories.
* students who simply are not assigned 6 classes.
* students who need access to credit retrieval.
* sped students who take non-credit earning classes.
A massive change in schedule to either this 3x5, or this 4x4, will impact every single student in the district. These proposed schedule changes will ensure that every single student in the district receives LESS INSTRUCTION per credit hour. That cost is clear.
The benefit is less clear. Where is the information that shows that these schedules solve the problem. This proposal asked students and teachers to pay a substantial and defined cost, without any guarantee that the credit earning problem is solved.
We can solve this problem for some students by awarding credit for proof of mastery, most likely by passing the final exam for a class. Some students who just have a rough semester at some point can catch up by taking Running Start classes where they can earn 4.5 credits in a single quarter. We can invest whatever funds are available for this change into summer school and zero period classes for students who’ve fallen behind.
There are many students who fail classes in high school because they’re academically unprepared when they enter the 9th grade. Isn’t the most ethical response to this to provide them with another semester or two to complete their graduation requirements?
As for the 8 period block schedule, that will make part time running start enrollment pretty much impossible. How are schools going to respond to that?
Fairmount Parent
HP
Looked at this way, SPS is about to offer kids a benefit. However, there are a couple of drawbacks to using a block period schedule specifically in public schools, some of which readers have already noted:
The schedule doesn't align well with Running Start. Not so much a concern for parochial and private...big concern for overcrowded SPS.
The schedule doesn't always work optimally for kids needing intensive academic support.
The schedule doesn't work well with cohorts who have in-class discipline challenges. A double-length class period with out of control classrooms is excruciating.
The schedule doesn't work well for kids who have ADHD diagnoses. Again, for these students, a block period can be an eternity.
As many will note: the previous 3 items are not ones private and parochial schools have to take on, unless they choose to do so.
My take, as always, is that public schools do yeoman's work and our first priority should be getting more teachers into our classrooms, not figuring out "on paper" ways to game the system. (And SPS has had a couple of years to work on this issue, so why we are at yet another "emergency" solution point does not reflect well on management.) Does this mean hard choices about where to cut elsewhere? I guess so. But teachers can only be stretched so far, and it seems that once again our staff is close to the breaking point, which in turn impacts every one of our students.
EdVoter
Going to a 4-block schedule would only work if the early-dismissal Wed went away and all days were the same length, and this would definitely be a burden on teachers vs. a 3-blcok schedule. Another possibility would be to have 3 longer block classes, plus one shorter class at the end of the day (make the advisory period that schools have longer and use it as an actual class).
Finally, if Sped students can't get enough credits because the district requires them to take a non-credit class, then that is easily corrected by the district changing this requirement, which seems totally unreasonable in the first place. Kids either get credit for the class, or they don't take it. Frankly, I find the idea that you automatically have to take a particular no-credit class because you have an IEP - regardless of what the IEP addresses - to be utterly bizarre (and probably illegal). They have probably been able to get away with this up until now as students could still get enough credits to graduate, but if it now prevents students from meeting graduation requirements, then it will have to change. Hopefully voluntarily on the district's part & not only when they get sued.
Mom of 4
Reader
The 3x5 schedule was the official proposal of the 24 credit task force, because it looked good on paper. Once the “unintended consequences” of that plan came to light, the proposal quietly died. I don’t think anyone has examined the crystal clear consequences of this proposal.
Since this proposal does not come with additional funding, that means that the vast majority of students will still be receiving six credits in a schedule that calls for 8 time slots to be filled. Priority for additional courses will be given to students who need that course for graduation. Other students will have access to additional classes on a space available basis and well .. there isn’t much wiggle room in the current schedule and this not going to create more flex space.
The current situation is that students who do not receive a 6th full credit course, are typically enrolled as a TA in another class. The most probable outcome of this schedule is that thousands of high schools students will suddenly become TAs in 1-2 classes, every week.
There is no official reports on the number of current TA slots at high school. Based on unofficial research, there seems to be about 100-200 TA slots current at the high schools. This new schedule would mean that every single student will be looking for a TA slot.
Does anyone have any information about “the plan” for students who ONLY have six credits and these two empty slots?
Spedvocate
HF
Say we increase the credit count by 50 percent. That means a student would meet their 3 yrs of social studies requirement after only 2yrs of class. The school could then say they're done and de-prioritize them for future spots (hello, TA-ship!). Colleges, however, still want to see three actual years' worth (if not more).
Kellie is right there are lots of hidden consequences, and I'd bet a fair sum the district had not bothered to fully consider how this will impact different students. We saw it with the 3x5 recommendation, which faded away after we drew their attention to all the problems. You'd think SPS admin would learn that we parents can add value to discussions like this early on, but apparently not. They'd rather put forth their unvetted ideas and watch the frenzy ensue.
Core24
High school starts here at 7am ends a 2 and they have heavy STEM emphasis as well as Academies that are voc tech supposedly in emphasis.
We also currently have not one, not two, not three Title IX suits but 5. Only one is about a Teacher with a student however and she is currently being extradited from another State to face charges, so there is more than ample time to get things done!
We are also 45 out of 50 states with graduation rates and 30% going to college but hey its free if you go to community college for the first two years!
We got it all.. the question is what
-Former SPS'er
FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) is the district's standard operating procedure (SOP), and the current maelstrom makes perfect sense - this is Tolley's Big Job Application! After 30 June his reference, Larry, ain't picking up the phone at JSCEE anymore. This is Tolley's time to show the reformie world how he reigned in alll those lowly unaccountable lazy teachers, and the other union dead weights watching t.v. all day. With this cred boost in reformie district world, he'll be in a good position at job interviews this spring and summer!
While our student's learning environment isn't helped by over worked, exhausted teachers, the top paid "leaders" of SEA / WEA are laser focused on having big shots on their speed dial. They can be counted on if you need "leaders" who are distracted by empty promises, toothless agreements, and stirring politically pathetic protest.
SameAgain
MONDAY & FRIDAY
1st Period 8:45-9:40 BLOCK I 8:45-10:10
2nd Period 9:45-10:40
3rd Period 10:45-11:40 BLOCK II 10:15-11:40
4th Period 11:45-12:40
Lunch 12:45-1:15
5th Period 1:20-2:15
6th Period 2:20-3:15
Reading 3:15-3:35
TUESDAY
1st Period 8:45-9:35 BLOCK I 8:45-10:05
2nd Period 9:40-10:30
3rd Period 10:35-11:25 BLOCK II 10:10-11:25
Support 11:30-12:00
4th Period 12:05-12:55
Lunch 1:00-1:30
5th Period 1:35-2:25
6th Period 2:30-3:20
Reading 3:20-3:35
WEDNESDAY - 75-minute Early Release
1st Period 8:45-10:10 BLOCK I 8:45-10:10
Mentorship 10:15-10:45
3rd Period 10:50-12:15 BLOCK II 10:50-12:15
Lunch 12:20-12:50
5th Period 12:55-2:20
THURSDAY
2nd Period 8:45-10:15 BLOCK I 8:45-9:35/BLOCK II 9:40-10:15
Mentorship 10:20-10:50
Support 10:50-11:20
4th Period 11:25-12:55
Lunch 1:00-1:30
6th Period 1:35-3:05
Reading 3:05-3:35
I don't have time to do the math to figure out instructional time at this moment.
HP
wundrin
HF
Spedvocate - thanks for explaining that. I have 2 kids with IEPs, but neither is in high school yet. But the district still needs to look at this - kids with IEPs should be taking the same classes as anyone else, unless there is a specific reason, per their personal IEP requirements, for them not to do so.
Mom of 4
Sophomores through Senior don't have those larger size blocks.
10th to 12th grade have all 6 classes Monday, Tuesday, Friday.
Periods 1, 3, 5 on Wednesday
and
Periods 2, 4, 6 on Thursday
I just noticed that lunch is all over the place. I think the schedule became a little more wonky with the switch from late start Tuesday to early release Wednesday.
HP
doesn't compute
I was surprised to see that the blocked classes are quarter-long only. I suppose you may be able to go deeper during the longer periods, but it's still hard to believe that they manage to cover as much when they're only at if for 9 weeks instead of 18. It would be interesting to see how the Hale LA 9th grade curriculum compares to what other north-end 9th grade LA classes cover.
HF
Spedvocate
Seen It
HP
The big issues are still very unresolved: how to ensure all students earn enough credits to graduate with the new requirements; what are the "personalized pathway" requirements, specifically; how do we incorporate the science scope and sequence shift; will the union stand up against 180 students as a maximum with the 8 period day(since elementary school teachers will be voting for a contract, too- I fear what will be held hostage in elementary if the secondary lid on case-loads isn't increased), and so much more.
-Exhausted Just Thinking About It