The prospect of block scheduling this fall at Sobrato High
School set off the first sign of discord between the new Morgan
Hill School Board Trustees. It came during their April 25 meeting
and was brought on by an assumption by Sobrato Principal Rich Knapp
and his staff that they would be instituting block scheduling at
the school in the fall.
The prospect of block scheduling this fall at Sobrato High School set off the first sign of discord between the new Morgan Hill School Board Trustees. It came during their April 25 meeting and was brought on by an assumption by Sobrato Principal Rich Knapp and his staff that they would be instituting block scheduling at the school in the fall.
Trustees Don Moody and Kathy Sullivan, both with connections to the school, were vocal in their disapproval of the direction recommended by the other five trustees: wait, do more research, ensure parent/student “buy-in,” and bring on board the new superintendent.
Good advice, we think. The board – or at least trustees Shellé Thomas, Mike Hickey, Amina Khemici, Peter Mandel and Julia Hover-Smoot – are not saying “no” to block scheduling, but they are asking Knapp and staff to look more carefully.
Moody and Sullivan said they were aware the school was researching block scheduling, intending to put it in place next year, and they thought the rest of the board knew, too, citing the Jan. 10 meeting when the staff presented information they had prepared for an accreditation committee. During the presentation, block scheduling was briefly mentioned.
We applaud the teaching staff and administrators Knapp and Assistant Principal Thomasine Stewart for their intensive research efforts, but the idea should have been taken to the board and thoroughly discussed, certainly more so than the mention at the January meeting as part of Sobrato’s goals.
As Hickey told the staff, during the April 25 meeting, he felt he owed an apology to the prior board, as he had frequently wondered how they could claim they didn’t know about an issue, and now Hickey understood how.
“I’m completely floored by the process,” he said. “I owe the board I came on with an apology. There were times when I sat out there (in the audience) and said, ‘Come on, you must know about this, you’re the board.’ But now I’m in their shoes. I heard about this (block scheduling at Sobrato next year) about a week and a half ago.”
More parental involvement
Probably the most troubling aspect is that the project got this far without the involvement of all Sobrato parents and Sobrato-to-be parents (parents of seventh and eighth graders at Britton and Martin Murphy Middles). The teachers and principal are part of the equation; parents and students also are part of the equation.
Parents were included at the end of the process, as the school’s site council was briefed, as well as the Home and School Club, and a parent forum was planned to explain the concept and answer questions. But the idea was to present block scheduling as “a done deal,” not as something to consider.
However, the parent forum, which came after the board’s direction to explore further, was an excellent opportunity for the parents who attended to learn, to bring forward concerns, to suggest weak spots the planners need to firm up before block scheduling returns to the board.
The staff gave an excellent presentation – and maybe that’s why they wanted to wait to bring in the parents. Knapp and staff should appreciate the board’s decision: now that the groundwork has been laid, the rest of the school community can be brought in to build on it.
There has to be a independent survey of parents with carefully crafted questions to measure their support. If there is not overwhelming support from parents and by extension students, then the plan is doomed from the beginning.
Concerns about concept
And, we have some concerns about the concept.
Block scheduling is not a panacea to solving today’s education problems. It is not, as the Sobrato staff also pointed out, a “radical concept.” While it has been around for a long time, it hasn’t always been successful at high schools.
Knapp and staff quoted extensive statistics in support of block scheduling; let’s take the time to plan carefully, to fit the concept to Sobrato’s particular needs, so Sobrato is one of the positive statistics and not an example for some other school of how block scheduling can fail.
Many parents at the forum were concerned about the Sobrato staff’s plan to include a daily study period; the idea is that students who need help will attend teacher “office hours” during that time for assistance with homework or concepts they don’t understand. Office hours work for colleges, and certainly parents would like for students to have the opportunity one-on-one or small group support time.
But parents wondered what students not needing assistance would do, and if all those needing assistance would take the initiative to seek it out.
It was also unclear if attendance at study sessions was mandatory. In other words, if a student has a first-period study session, and they are making an “A” in the class and need no assistance, do they have to come to school for that session?
Knapp’s answer during the forum was “no.”
Other students would be scheduled for a last-period session – can they leave early? Will they leave early, even if they need assistance? The study session is one of the areas that need firming up by staff and administrators before trustees can begin to consider block scheduling.
Opt-out, opt-in necessary
Another concern we have is there has been no mention of an opt-out possibility for parents who do not want their child in 90-minute classes. Will all transfers be granted? What about Live Oak parents who want their children in such a setting, as opposed to Live Oak’s traditional schedule; will those students be accepted automatically? These questions are going to have to be considered, and a method for handling this is going to have to be built into the system.
Otherwise, the continuing exodus to private schools will only grow.
One critic of the move to block scheduling has called it an attempt by teachers to have less classroom time. That certainly is not the recipe for success. The answer by the staff is that up to 15 minutes of each current period is wasted by unpacking and packing up, by transition into and out of each class, and that the longer time periods and fewer classes each day will greatly reduce that and increase actual instruction time. That could be, but when you do the math, you still come up with less instructional time.
And speaking of fewer-but-longer classes each day, the idea concerns many parents, particularly special ed parents.
Teachers were willing to take classes and workshops on how to design lesson plans around 90-minute periods. We appreciate their dedication and enthusiasm, but entire lessons plans for every class will have to be rewritten, a massive task. We’re not education experts but 90 minutes compared to the existing 55 seems like a long time to be in one class on one subject.
Another caution: Sobrato this year had only 9th and 10th grade students, and therefore, a smaller staff. There will be juniors at Sobrato this fall, as well as 16 new staff members. The next year, more students, more staff. How will the incoming teachers feel about block scheduling? Will those applying from outside the district be aware the school isn’t on a traditional schedule? Why not wait to implement block scheduling until Sobrato has a track record with several years as a 9-12 school?
Also, we have a new superintendent coming aboard, one who has a broad range of experience at high schools where he’s been.
Let’s see what Alan Nishino thinks, whether he has cautions or whole-heartedly supports it. The board was correct in deciding that now is not the time to make such a major change.
