Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. This is my experience as well. If a kid is absent it's even worse because the kid can go six days without seeing his/her teacher/class. For example, if a kid is absent on a Thursday, he misses his Spanish/Geometry class. He will not go to Spanish/Geometry until the next Monday. The last time he was in class was the previous Tuesday. These are classes where practice and reinforcement are essential.
Are you seriously counting the weekend as days missed? In that case, move school to 7 days per week because if a kid is absent on Friday, it's a full 3 days before he's back in class. While you're at it, get rid of holidays and the winter break as well. Regardless of the number of days since his last class, the kid has only missed one day of class.
Three is half of six. And it's not just that. Having five days in a row of practice is more important in some subject areas. People who become master musicians or become good at anything are instructed to practice every day. There's a reason they don't tell them every other day.
Anonymous wrote:All the people saying that this will help the kid get organized, well, that's a nice thought. But if a kid has organizational issues (and the parents are not able to help the kid), you have just given him academic ones as well. Are you willing to let his academics go by the wayside as you wait for him to mature and become better at organizing? Just something to ponder.
I just don't understand this concern. Not sure how block scheduling worsens a disorganized child more academically than a traditional schedule. If my lack of organization causes me to be a poor student, it won't matter if I have a class every day or every other day.
You're right that you don't understand.
All the people saying that this will help the kid get organized, well, that's a nice thought. But if a kid has organizational issues (and the parents are not able to help the kid), you have just given him academic ones as well. Are you willing to let his academics go by the wayside as you wait for him to mature and become better at organizing? Just something to ponder.
I just don't understand this concern. Not sure how block scheduling worsens a disorganized child more academically than a traditional schedule. If my lack of organization causes me to be a poor student, it won't matter if I have a class every day or every other day.
Teacher here. This is my experience as well. If a kid is absent it's even worse because the kid can go six days without seeing his/her teacher/class. For example, if a kid is absent on a Thursday, he misses his Spanish/Geometry class. He will not go to Spanish/Geometry until the next Monday. The last time he was in class was the previous Tuesday. These are classes where practice and reinforcement are essential.
Are you seriously counting the weekend as days missed? In that case, move school to 7 days per week because if a kid is absent on Friday, it's a full 3 days before he's back in class. While you're at it, get rid of holidays and the winter break as well. Regardless of the number of days since his last class, the kid has only missed one day of class.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A colleague did his dissertation on block vs traditional schedules in VA. All kids take the same SOLs, so it was easy to compare schools across the entire state. He accounted for things like school size, location and percentage of free/reduced meals.
Traditional schedule had significantly higher achievement.
Do you have a link to the thesis?
It's pointless to debate the research. Very little of it exists for middle schools, and what does exist generally shows no benefit, and possibly some harm for block scheduling in MS. But what works for one school may or may not work for another. So, it's hard to extrapolate too much.
What is clear is if you're going to do this, you need complete buy-in from parents and teachers, who need to be taught how to teach it. Double lectures are a horrible use of block scheduling time...
In terms of subjects, block can be good for science, social studies, and English. It's bad for sequential disciplines like languages and math. Unfortunately in this area, languages and many math classes are taught for high school credit, so if you screw things up by moving kids to block, it has a real-world effect on their academic paths. (Spanish 1, French 1, etc. are taught in 7th grade in many middle schools here.). So, the stakes are kind of high. And generally language and math teachers oppose block scheduling.
Block kills music programs. And it will cut back on the number of minutes in IEPs, etc.
I don't think block scheduling kills music programs. We have one MS kid in orchestra and one HS kid in band. Both prefer block. They love not having to drag the instruments to school every day. And it is more efficient, since so much time in a 47 minute period is spent putting the instruments together, warming up/turning and then taking them apart/ putting them away (especially in band). The music teachers in our MS say they prefer it, and we have not noticed a drop in participation/ class size since the move to block for the MS a couple years ago. In fact, I wish MS DD's orchestra class was smaller. They have 60+ kids in the highest orchestra for her grade (and there are more than one per grade).
They absolutely kill music programs. I'm glad your MS teachers say they prefer it, but they're the exception, not the norm. It may depend on the length of the class period and the type of block schedule used. A block that is 1 hour is very different than one that is 90 minutes. The 90-minute blocks in an A/B block schedule with an anchor day are terrible for music programs because it doesn't allow for daily instruction/practice. This is actually one of the few well-established negative externalities acknowledged about block scheduling.
The MS and HS my sons went to, also both had block schedules, and their music teachers (band for one son, orchestra for another) and the music programs at all levels thrived. In both cases, when block schedules came on board, the music teachers and science teachers were the biggest proponents of block scheduling. I am not sure where you found info to back up your claim that it is actually "one of the few well established negative...acknowledged..." Truly, when it came on board in a few MS's and HS's at the same time, all the music teachers were ecstatic due to the issue of trying to get kids in the room, instruments out and tuned, and to actually play/practice in a 40 min-45 minute time-frame had been very difficult. Students can and should still practice daily, regardless of block scheduling/"traditional" scheduling. I am actually kind of blown away that music teachers in your scenario don't like it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A colleague did his dissertation on block vs traditional schedules in VA. All kids take the same SOLs, so it was easy to compare schools across the entire state. He accounted for things like school size, location and percentage of free/reduced meals.
Traditional schedule had significantly higher achievement.
Do you have a link to the thesis?
It's pointless to debate the research. Very little of it exists for middle schools, and what does exist generally shows no benefit, and possibly some harm for block scheduling in MS. But what works for one school may or may not work for another. So, it's hard to extrapolate too much.
What is clear is if you're going to do this, you need complete buy-in from parents and teachers, who need to be taught how to teach it. Double lectures are a horrible use of block scheduling time...
In terms of subjects, block can be good for science, social studies, and English. It's bad for sequential disciplines like languages and math. Unfortunately in this area, languages and many math classes are taught for high school credit, so if you screw things up by moving kids to block, it has a real-world effect on their academic paths. (Spanish 1, French 1, etc. are taught in 7th grade in many middle schools here.). So, the stakes are kind of high. And generally language and math teachers oppose block scheduling.
Block kills music programs. And it will cut back on the number of minutes in IEPs, etc.
I don't think block scheduling kills music programs. We have one MS kid in orchestra and one HS kid in band. Both prefer block. They love not having to drag the instruments to school every day. And it is more efficient, since so much time in a 47 minute period is spent putting the instruments together, warming up/turning and then taking them apart/ putting them away (especially in band). The music teachers in our MS say they prefer it, and we have not noticed a drop in participation/ class size since the move to block for the MS a couple years ago. In fact, I wish MS DD's orchestra class was smaller. They have 60+ kids in the highest orchestra for her grade (and there are more than one per grade).
They absolutely kill music programs. I'm glad your MS teachers say they prefer it, but they're the exception, not the norm. It may depend on the length of the class period and the type of block schedule used. A block that is 1 hour is very different than one that is 90 minutes. The 90-minute blocks in an A/B block schedule with an anchor day are terrible for music programs because it doesn't allow for daily instruction/practice. This is actually one of the few well-established negative externalities acknowledged about block scheduling.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A colleague did his dissertation on block vs traditional schedules in VA. All kids take the same SOLs, so it was easy to compare schools across the entire state. He accounted for things like school size, location and percentage of free/reduced meals.
Traditional schedule had significantly higher achievement.
Do you have a link to the thesis?
It's pointless to debate the research. Very little of it exists for middle schools, and what does exist generally shows no benefit, and possibly some harm for block scheduling in MS. But what works for one school may or may not work for another. So, it's hard to extrapolate too much.
What is clear is if you're going to do this, you need complete buy-in from parents and teachers, who need to be taught how to teach it. Double lectures are a horrible use of block scheduling time...
In terms of subjects, block can be good for science, social studies, and English. It's bad for sequential disciplines like languages and math. Unfortunately in this area, languages and many math classes are taught for high school credit, so if you screw things up by moving kids to block, it has a real-world effect on their academic paths. (Spanish 1, French 1, etc. are taught in 7th grade in many middle schools here.). So, the stakes are kind of high. And generally language and math teachers oppose block scheduling.
Block kills music programs. And it will cut back on the number of minutes in IEPs, etc.
I don't think block scheduling kills music programs. We have one MS kid in orchestra and one HS kid in band. Both prefer block. They love not having to drag the instruments to school every day. And it is more efficient, since so much time in a 47 minute period is spent putting the instruments together, warming up/turning and then taking them apart/ putting them away (especially in band). The music teachers in our MS say they prefer it, and we have not noticed a drop in participation/ class size since the move to block for the MS a couple years ago. In fact, I wish MS DD's orchestra class was smaller. They have 60+ kids in the highest orchestra for her grade (and there are more than one per grade).
And generally language and math teachers oppose block scheduling.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A colleague did his dissertation on block vs traditional schedules in VA. All kids take the same SOLs, so it was easy to compare schools across the entire state. He accounted for things like school size, location and percentage of free/reduced meals.
Traditional schedule had significantly higher achievement.
Do you have a link to the thesis?
It's pointless to debate the research. Very little of it exists for middle schools, and what does exist generally shows no benefit, and possibly some harm for block scheduling in MS. But what works for one school may or may not work for another. So, it's hard to extrapolate too much.
What is clear is if you're going to do this, you need complete buy-in from parents and teachers, who need to be taught how to teach it. Double lectures are a horrible use of block scheduling time...
In terms of subjects, block can be good for science, social studies, and English. It's bad for sequential disciplines like languages and math. Unfortunately in this area, languages and many math classes are taught for high school credit, so if you screw things up by moving kids to block, it has a real-world effect on their academic paths. (Spanish 1, French 1, etc. are taught in 7th grade in many middle schools here.). So, the stakes are kind of high. And generally language and math teachers oppose block scheduling.
Block kills music programs. And it will cut back on the number of minutes in IEPs, etc.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A colleague did his dissertation on block vs traditional schedules in VA. All kids take the same SOLs, so it was easy to compare schools across the entire state. He accounted for things like school size, location and percentage of free/reduced meals.
Traditional schedule had significantly higher achievement.
Do you have a link to the thesis?
Anonymous wrote:A colleague did his dissertation on block vs traditional schedules in VA. All kids take the same SOLs, so it was easy to compare schools across the entire state. He accounted for things like school size, location and percentage of free/reduced meals.
Traditional schedule had significantly higher achievement.