Current protests about and against public school boards bring two things to mind. Firstly, these are all public district schools which is of course the root of the problem. Public schools must by definition (and by law) be all things to all people, so including "a" will upset the supporters of "b" and excluding "c" will ignite the followers of "d". The second is the jenga-like nature of schools: it is rarely possible to change just one thing.
I was once principal at a school with an AM / PM structure. The sessions were identical : two 90-minute blocks each day, each comprising two 45-minute classes, separated by a 30-minute break to allow for snacks, bathroom-use and lots of running around. The structure was consciously boy-friendly. but also allowed for labs, PE classes, neighborhood field-trips and teacher R&R since the program was quite demanding.
With a one-hour lunch break (again to allow for eating, bathroom-use and lots of running around), the school had an 8-hour day, but with six hours of solid academic effort and two hours of running around. The school offered an extra-curricular program with half a dozen or so 90-minute activities every day (after a 30-minute break following the last class to allow for snacks, bathroom-use and lots of running around) and around 80% of the school's students stayed later every day.
This worked and had worked well for over ten years.
Then a new parent arrived. She loved the school because it did so well with and for boys, it had a great program, it had great academics it had great sport and music and other clubs, it had a wide range of family types and backgrounds etc etc.
She was a working parent who passed the school on her way to and from work. The AM opening was convenient, but the PM closing meant she had to wait 30 minutes for her son three times a week; twice a week he stayed for soccer and his father then picked him up. The other came to see me several times arguing the need to shorten the school day. I did not do so. However after I left, my successor did.
And the games began. He took 15 minutes from each recess. The first result was that the breaks were not long enough for both snacks and running around. Some students sacrificed snacks - parents were unhappy. Some students sacrificed activity - parents were unhappy and class misbehavior soared. Bathroom lines meant students were late to class which had not previously happened. Teachers were no longer able to sweep bathrooms and halls so student loitering, litter, faucets left running etc all took off and become problems for administrators and the new principal affecting their performance.
Teachers no longer had time for bathrooms and coffee and cellphones, so they were unhappy. A five-minute walk to the faculty lounge each way effectively took their entire break so many did not bother, contributing to stress and burnout. Teacher lateness which had not previously occurred became a problem and several teachers began taking coffee to class which led to other issues. For the first time in the school's history, more almost 50% of the school's teachers left at year-end including several who had been there for 10 years.
Parents who had hitherto relied on the clubs program to look after their children until the late pick-up time were now billed for extended care.
At the end of that year, the parent who had caused these problems removed her son, telling other parents that the school was not suitable for boys, there was not enough running around and the breaks were too short.
I do question the decision of my successor. Any predictive analysis of the change, or even a reflective analysis of the reasons behind the original policy, would have revealed its logical outcomes. He should have known, even if the parent did not, that every aspect of school is linked to multiple other aspects.
And this is why the public school board contretemps is not as simple an issue as its proponents would have you believe. I remember a colleague whose board cut middle school physics only to find five years later they had no high school physics. Another made French an elective against drama and cooking (possibly not cooking) and several years later found their students would not receive a High School Diploma as they did not have the foreign language requirement leading to an expensive, disruptive and hastily-applied band-aid solution.
Schools are complex organisms and require complex approaches. It is never as simple as just include "a" or exclude "c".
**Please leave your comments and questions below.**
No comments :
Post a Comment