April 1990 Blast from the Past
NEIRAD enilno edition
The old saying of “history repeats itself” shines through as DHS undergoes a new schedule change for this year. This rotation reconfiguration is not a new occurrence as the high school schedule has been evolving for decades. In this month’s “Blast from the Past” then Neirad reporter Amy Saalwachter looks back at another big switch that took place in April 1990, highlighting the significant of teacher disapproval that was present. The DHS population 20 years ago opposed the change, which raises the question- will the reaction of the changes in the school’s schedule this year follow suit of those in the past?
“Faculty Gives New Schedule a Thumbs Down”
April 1990
By Amy Saalwachter
A recent evaluation by DHS teachers of the new 1889-1990 schedule reported that 75.4 percent of the teachers felt that the new schedule was worse than the previous one, while only 10.8 percent felt that it was better than the old. Most of the respondents stated that the biggest problem was the lack of continuity in the new schedule. As one teacher stated, “The worst impact of the schedule is the loss of continuity.” Another commented, “The consequence is fragmentation and loss of continuity that is more serious, in my opinion, than any benefit that the schedule was designed to create.”
The evaluation was compiled by 65 out of 74 DHS staff members who answered questions about the new schedule versus the old one and questions concerning common time. Participants in the survey were then given a chance to make their own comments on the schedule. The entire evaluation was anonymous. The results were then discussed in the March 17 faculty meeting with Superintendent of Schools James Loughran and members of the Board of Education.
In the document one teacher expressed concerns, “I have heard rumors about the possibility of continuing this schedule for one more year, even if the results of this survey are negative. If this is true, my question is why? Many students will then have spent HALF of their high school years under a schedule which causes significant educational difficulties.”
According to the poll teachers as well as students have been affected, 33.8 percent of those polled have seen an increase in the amount of homework that they assign at one time as opposed to the 7.7 percent that have seen a decrease, and 21.5 percent have seen an increase in the length of reading assignments. Several teachers commented that they now assign more homework on a day that precedes a drop to try to compensate for the class time lost from the double drop system. As one teacher said, “I have increased homework over stretches of time when class does not meet.”
According to the results 58.5 percent of those polled have seen a decrease in the amount of material covered while only 3.1 percent have seen an increase. As one teacher stated, “I have had to reduce the amount of material covered in order to meet the inadequacies of the new schedule.” Other teachers commented that they have had to cut back on material covered by leaving some units out or having to combine them with others. Another teacher, from the History Department, added that there is less time to discuss the material due to the double drop system. As one foreign language teacher said, “In general, progress is well below that of other years.”
Faculty who responded to the survey made comments on the ways that they have had to adapt their teaching methods to the new schedule. Many voiced concerns about the extra six minutes not compensating for the dropped class. As one foreign language teacher stated, “An additional six minutes added to each class is not a significant amount of time to warrant a new strategies.” An English teacher said, “I am about three weeks behind in all my classes because the extra class time is not sufficient to make up for the class periods dropped.” One teacher added, “I teach less material and see fewer students. As an English teacher, not only do I have to adopt to this absurd schedule, but I also have more sections to teach. Both conditions have an impact. I am definitely a less effective teacher.”
Many of the respondents saw the extra six minutes as a hindrance to the curriculum. As one business education teacher pointed out, “Studies show that the attention span of the students is far less than 52 minutes.” An English teacher is indicated that he must provide as many as three different activities to keep the attention in longer periods,” added a foreign language teacher. Several teachers simply said that they waste the extra time repeating what they taught the day before the drop. One of the teachers from the History Department added, “I don’t notice the extra length in the period- I do notice the missed class.”
Teachers also voiced concern over the double drop system of classes in the new schedule. One teacher stated that she does not see students often enough and when the do meet it is hard to pick up where they left off when the double drop occurs. As one teacher said,
“Mini-reviews are necessary after the drop, especially when it includes a weekend or holiday.” Another teacher commented that he has had to set aside more time for re-capturing ideas left hanging due to increased dropping of classes. One foreign language teacher said. “Students consider the lapse in class time as a mini-vacation. When class drops twice in one week, it takes a long time to pull them back on task the following week.”
While the members of the History, English, and Foreign Language Departments had mostly negative views on the schedule, members of the Science and Math departments had more positive feelings towards the schedule according to the report. One science teacher said, “We have more group work, more in-depth discussion, better follow-up of labs and activities.” Another teacher commented that he had expanded use of cooperative learning techniques. A Math Department teacher stated, “We have more variety in presentations, more than one activity per period, and cooperative learning activities are increased.
As for common time the reaction was more evenly divided between the positive and negative reactions. One teacher felt that is should be called “commotion time” because it used by students to get food or hang out. Others commented that it would be great if it were used as it should be, to seek extra help, but students use it to eat or smoke.
Yet another teacher liked the idea. As one teacher stated, “It provides time to meet with students who carry a very heavy schedule.” Others comment that it is great for co curricular meetings. Another teacher stated that common time is a great concept, but that it doesn’t work because by this time students stop to socialize and get to their meeting places, there is no time to accomplish anything. She suggested that we return to the old schedule and then allow for a ten to fifteen minute break.
One of the surveyed teachers wrote a long letter for his comments which said, “In the 20 years that I have been teaching, I have never worked under a schedule that had such a detrimental impact on learning… This schedule is like a stalling car. It is difficult to drive and difficult to get where one is going.”
