Rigid Flexibility

A few years ago, our middle school schedule was turned upside-down and changed in many ways. The primary reason given for these changes was “flexibility.” Previously, our 7:25am-2;25pm day was split into 7 class periods (44 min each), lunch (22 min), and 2 advisory/enrichment periods. The new schedule kept the morning advisory, extended lunch to 30 minutes (to include a “recess”), and introduced 4 block periods (1 block is 88 minutes, but one block can also be split into two “skinnies” that are 44 min each). The enrichment was eliminated from our schedule, passing times were reduced to 3 minutes except between skinnies where students were expected to teleport instantly to the class. In order to allow for all required courses, this schedule was also split into “A” days and “B” days where students’ classes may or may not alternate. For instance, students have 88 minutes of English every day, but only have 88 minutes of science, math, and geography every other day.  Electives and remedials (literacy and extended math, Foundations with caseload managers, etc) are also every other day and some are skinnies. A few red flags emerged immediately or quite quickly after starting this new schedule. First, 88 minutes in a classroom? When I (and many other teachers) plan 88 minute classes, students’ attention spans and need for movement are carefully considered; whereas other teachers do not seem to understand the needs of these middle school students. Every other day math? As an English teacher and someone who never seemed to have aptitude in math, I cannot imagine how difficult it is to remember mathematic concepts when in some weeks I would only have math 2 times. Not to mention, if I’m absent from school one day, I may not have math again for 6 days (this could also apply to science or geography, but math seems the most foundational and the most questionable to have every other day). The third problem to present itself didn’t appear until many weeks into using the new schedule- the need for the Enrichment time that had been eliminated from the new schedule.

In three years, we have tried 5 different ways to provide Enrichment time.  This Enrichment time would exist for students who need re-teaching, re-testing, remediation, organization (especially when required by IEP), meetings with caseload mangers (Resource or SPED teachers), catching up on missing work due to absences, clarification of assignments or tests with specific teachers.  There’s a definite need for this time – especially since Advisories were made into multi-grade Advisories. Creating time for an Enrichment period seemed to be the first of many challenges. It was suggested we try one day a week to put Enrichment in place of Advisory so teachers would meet with 30 assigned students of their grade (where possible). The problem with that was that after daily announcements were made, Pledge of Alliegence was said and required morning routine was fulfilled (all of these things happening at the start of our days), it only allowed students 12-15 minutes of Enrichment time. The solution for this was to add time to that beginning period and one day a week, extend it to 35 minutes and shift all other classes 10 minutes later. This solution proved to open a logistical can of worms. Our programmed bells for dismissing and transitioning classes could not be changed to accommodate the new times, three lunches was too difficult to work around with the time shift, and the schedule felt modified enough that it changed the energy for the entire day (not for the best – behaviors increased, management became more difficult, along with teachers missing dismissal times and other coordination mishaps). Another proposal to reintroduce Enrichment time into our day was to allow for a 44 min time period at the end of the day once per week. This created more consistency with the bell system and alleviated the negative energy that was associated with a day that was completely shifted. Unfortunately, more drawbacks surfaced than positives. First, we have staff split between buildings who are not there in the afternoons, but had been assigned an Enrichment group. Another issue was trying to keep it on a consistent day; because of the “A-B” schedule, it affected the instructional time for more teachers than expected. Aside from trying to find and provide time for Enrichment, another difficulty was creating the actual rosters.  Teachers thought it best to have their rosters made up of students that they had in one of their classes so they could be familiar with them as a learner.  Teachers thought it best to equally divide behavior issues so as to not burden one teacher with all of that management.  Teachers thought it best to evenly distribute specially supported students as well. Problems with Roster creation included not being familiar with the students at the beginning of the school year – clearly not knowing ability, behaviors, special support requirements, personalities, etc.  And of course, the most daunting question was What about those students who have no need for re-teaching, re-testing, remediation, organization (especially when required by IEP), meetings with caseload mangers (Resource or SPED teachers), catching up on missing work due to absences, clarification of assignments or tests with specific teachers.

A great scenario would be a way to track who needs specific supports (and keep them accountable) and get them to a space that can provide for their needs. While students who have no apparent needs that week would report to a teacher who would be providing Enrichment, extension, and supplement that is either connected to current curriculum, supports current development (addresses an overall need), or builds on student interests.  As for time and timing, this should be no less than 30 minutes, should happen at a regular time of day that doesn’t disturb the rest of the day, and should be offered consistently throughout the week (whether it’s once, twice or every day). Consideration should also be made for any required planning on the teachers’ parts (can this be done fairly if some teachers are expected to instruct and other teachers are proctoring retests or providing remediation?).

As a member of my building’s leadership council, here is yet another wrinkle to remove – hopefully without causing too many more creases.  Will follow up once addressed.