Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a pretty important letter posted to the Arlington Education Matters group on Facebook about the block controversy at Williamsburg MS yesterday. It's a closed group, though, though there are about 1,300 members.

Letter basically said that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act point to a lack of "stakeholder buy-in" among parents and teachers. There's no way to link to it, unfortunately.

I don't know, that parent is definitely starting to sound a little fanatical about it. I get that he's upset and has invested a lot of time, but it all seems a little over-the-top, both the letter and his posts/comment responses on Facebook. As a parent who doesn't fully understand the pros and cons, it's hard to trust the position of someone who now seems totally personally invested in the issue and letting it color his perceptions of other people.

And I still don't understand how this differs from what is happening at the other middle schools in APS. Don't they all have some form of block scheduling? If it's such a bad idea for the kids of WMS, why isn't it a bad idea generally? What makes the students at WMS different? Why aren't all the schools employing the same schedules? They allegedly have the same curriculum, no?

Anonymous wrote:There was a pretty important letter posted to the Arlington Education Matters group on Facebook about the block controversy at Williamsburg MS yesterday. It's a closed group, though, though there are about 1,300 members.

Letter basically said that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act point to a lack of "stakeholder buy-in" among parents and teachers. There's no way to link to it, unfortunately.

I don't know, that parent is definitely starting to sound a little fanatical about it. I get that he's upset and has invested a lot of time, but it all seems a little over-the-top, both the letter and his posts/comment responses on Facebook. As a parent who doesn't fully understand the pros and cons, it's hard to trust the position of someone who now seems totally personally invested in the issue and letting it color his perceptions of other people.

Anonymous wrote:Block was implemented at the MS where I teach purely to eliminate passing periods. If there are half as many opportunities to be in the hallways, there are half as many opportunities for fights, thefts, vandalism, etc.

It was not done for academic reasons at all.

Now that we've had it for 6 or 7 years, science/english/social studies/PE want to keep it. Electives, math, and language can't stand it. It would be amazing if somehow we could pair up classes (math + language) to make a whole block, so kids came to me for the first half of the block, and then swapped to the Spanish teacher for the second half of the block (while I took her kids).

The reality is that in a 90 minute block with 25 fidgety 13 year olds, a good 20+ minutes are wasted on time filler "brain breaks" and distractions in an attempt to break up the lesson. I feel like I am a good teacher--never more than 10 minutes of lecture (teach/activity/teach/activity/teach/activity), but even still 90 minutes is too long.

The kids are 50/50 on whether they prefer our anchor day or the block days. Arguments in favor of block are avoiding classes they don't like every other day, being able to delay assignments, and carrying less stuff. Arguments in favor of anchor days are less overwhelmed by the amount of material, no time to get bored in classes, and missing a day due to being sick isn't a big deal, because it's less material covered. My algebra students complain that if you are sick on a math day, they feel like there is no chance to ever catch up because we do a new standard (or two or three!) every single block. It's hard :\

What school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd heard good things about the principal before this; it really bothers me that he is choosing to mow right over the very reasonable objections made by teachers and parents.

He used to teach high school. I wonder if he's not fully aware of the pronounced differences between 6th graders and 9th graders. Those three years really matter.

So, it seems it is a done deal now? Why did the thread get created, if it is a done deal? Is there some hope that the Facebook group members can change what appears to be at least a year of trying it?

I'm the OP and don't live in Arlington. I just wanted to have a thread where people discussed the pros and cons to use both in Arlington and other jurisdictions.

Anonymous wrote:I'd heard good things about the principal before this; it really bothers me that he is choosing to mow right over the very reasonable objections made by teachers and parents.

He used to teach high school. I wonder if he's not fully aware of the pronounced differences between 6th graders and 9th graders. Those three years really matter.

So, it seems it is a done deal now? Why did the thread get created, if it is a done deal? Is there some hope that the Facebook group members can change what appears to be at least a year of trying it?

I'd heard good things about the principal before this; it really bothers me that he is choosing to mow right over the very reasonable objections made by teachers and parents.

He used to teach high school. I wonder if he's not fully aware of the pronounced differences between 6th graders and 9th graders. Those three years really matter.

The following is a list of comments by Williamsburg Middle School teachers in a survey conducted early last year. I pulled it off the Facebook post I mentioned earlier.


* Not fit for middle school students - too long of a time period

* Students lose too much meeting every other day. Been there done that

* I abstain! I do not support, nor oppose block scheduling.. Go Chelsea!

* Some courses require daily meetings as they are more skill-based than other courses. And
skill-based content courses, particularly at the middle school level, need to be practiced daily

* Too long of classes for middle school students

* Of the choices this was the one to best express my hesistancy. I would suggest, like the
backpack initiative, that we actually hold to the bell schedule for one quarter and see what the
results are. We've never been on the same page(as teachers and admin) in enforcing the
current schedule. Many teachers following their own ideas and there is no visable admin.
support in the hallways during transition times(not that I've seen...). Let's please try to make the
current schedule work and then go from there. But it must be a very obvious school-wide
initiative with strong admin support. I suggest we try this for the remainder of the school year
with a commitee looking at the results. We are a very successful school, one of the highest rated
in the state...let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

* I've done an A/B schedule, and it doesn't work for this age group. They forget materials and can't
remember from one day to next. Also, holidays create extra long periods of time with no
exposure.

* Students need math every day. I have taught using a block schedule before (for 5+ years) and
for mathematics it is very difficult for students to learn multi-step problem solving when they only
practice it twice a week or 3 times a week. Students need a little bit of math every day to master
the calculations and the methods for solving. The block schedule is also very difficult for 12 year
olds as far as organization is concerned.

* Attention span of our students is short enough in a class period of 43 minutes; I believe it would
be difficult to keep their attention during longer blocks. Additionally, I believe the students do
better when they meet every day for a class. I would like more information about how a
proposed block schedule would be implemented: what woulod be the advantages, what are the
additional impacts, how long would the blocks be ... can there be a trial period...

* Seeing students of this age every other day (or every fourth or fifth day with weather) is not
helpful for student retention. I have many years of teaching experience in a block schedule - my
conclusion is that it is certainly not better overall, and at times can be worse than a traditional
schedule; it just seems to be another way to do the same thing (more "gimmicky" than anything
else). What would be gained by switching? How many students would benefit? How will these
gains be measured? These questions, to my knowledge, have never been answered in the APS
discussions of block over the last several years.

* not good for middle school students

* I think we should preserve the traditional 45 minute period. The current class time is an
appropriate amount of time for a student of this age to focus on a particular subject for one dayanything
more than this time span will result in attention and retention loss. I think that it is APS’s
responsibility to either add more space or more teachers to address the problem. Don’t put it on
the kids. We would be pushing them in a trailer and sticking them on the block, because it is
what works best for the school/county. One of the reasons this went down in a ‘ball of flames’
before was because it was not data driven and the parents saw through it. The best data for BS
is at the college or upper high school level. New data is clear that when BS is applied to younger
students is detrimental to their education.

* I am familiar with block schedule, having worked with it in schools in Arlington. For classes that
require consistent participation, practice, and concentration like theatre, band and some other
electives, block schedule is not as effective as daily repetition.
1. Students have trouble sitting still for extended periods (please see this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/12/03/a-therapist-goes-to-middleschool-
and-tries-to-sit-still-and-focus-she-cant-neither-can-the-kids/) 2. ESOL students need
focused English language training everyday, and I worry that block scheduling will not provide
that. 2. Kids need to move. The lack of physical activity at recess every day is already hampered
by the iPads in the cafeteria. 3. One absence puts a student at a major disadvantage upon their
return. 4. Some (most) SPED and HILT students do not have the endurance to sustain
engagement for a full 90 minute class. I only have anecdotal evidence based on personal
observation, but I feel these particular students would suffer as a result of block scheduling.

Block was implemented at the MS where I teach purely to eliminate passing periods. If there are half as many opportunities to be in the hallways, there are half as many opportunities for fights, thefts, vandalism, etc.

It was not done for academic reasons at all.

Now that we've had it for 6 or 7 years, science/english/social studies/PE want to keep it. Electives, math, and language can't stand it. It would be amazing if somehow we could pair up classes (math + language) to make a whole block, so kids came to me for the first half of the block, and then swapped to the Spanish teacher for the second half of the block (while I took her kids).

The reality is that in a 90 minute block with 25 fidgety 13 year olds, a good 20+ minutes are wasted on time filler "brain breaks" and distractions in an attempt to break up the lesson. I feel like I am a good teacher--never more than 10 minutes of lecture (teach/activity/teach/activity/teach/activity), but even still 90 minutes is too long.

The kids are 50/50 on whether they prefer our anchor day or the block days. Arguments in favor of block are avoiding classes they don't like every other day, being able to delay assignments, and carrying less stuff. Arguments in favor of anchor days are less overwhelmed by the amount of material, no time to get bored in classes, and missing a day due to being sick isn't a big deal, because it's less material covered. My algebra students complain that if you are sick on a math day, they feel like there is no chance to ever catch up because we do a new standard (or two or three!) every single block. It's hard :\

Why, after many, many years, is there so little research on this topic?

There was a pretty important letter posted to the Arlington Education Matters group on Facebook about the block controversy at Williamsburg MS yesterday. It's a closed group, though, though there are about 1,300 members.

Letter basically said that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act point to a lack of "stakeholder buy-in" among parents and teachers. There's no way to link to it, unfortunately.

well, that all fine and good, but the point is, it works better for the administration to schedule/pay teachers... so THAT's the important thing. Public school isn't really about "what's good for the kids", is it?

+1 I think the same poster has been defending the block scheduling on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you list the issues they have again?

There are always exceptions and it depends ENTIRELY on the type of block but music teachers are almost universally opposed to block scheduling.

http://save-music.org/files/4314/1790/4132/1996_08_Instrumentalist-Block_Schedule.pdf

Even advocates of block scheduling acknowledge it hurts music programs.

Your "study" is from 1996, and no, advocates for block scheduling don't acknowledge that it hurts music programs. I have worked in a MS with a block schedule, and chorus, band and orchestra were all in favor of it, and would not want to go back to a traditional schedule. In addition my sons' experience in their band and orchestra classes in their MS and HS on a block schedule was excellent; award winning bands at all levels (the article mentioned band directors losing class offerings...not true, symphonic, wind ensemble, jazz band (and of course marching) were offered, and there were 3 levels of orchestra as well.

Again, this completely depends on the kind of block schedule used.

If you want to play the academic research game, you'll lose. See e.g.

Heffner, C.J. (2007). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum, funding, instructional
time, and student participation in music programs. (Doctoral Dissertation).

Haugland, S.L. (2007). Crowd control: Classroom management and effective teaching for
chorus, band, and orchestra. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

The reality is this is an unproven bell schedule. There isn't much research on it, especially at the middle school, but what little research there was does show it's harmful to achievement -- and music programs.

well, that all fine and good, but the point is, it works better for the administration to schedule/pay teachers... so THAT's the important thing. Public school isn't really about "what's good for the kids", is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people criticize music education and block scheduling, and have data to back it up, they are generally looking at a 4x4 schedule. 4 classes per semester times 2 semesters a year, and not an A day/ B day schedule. So, kids either need to sign up for a double block-- one each semester, or only play one semester a year. That is a problem. But not a problem with the A/B or A/B/ Anxhor day scheduling in FCPS.

Of course, if your kid wants to make significant progress in their instrument, they do have to practice outside of class. And nothing about a block schedule keeps my kids from practicing a half hour a night, 5-6 days a week. And they would certainly have to practice a lot more if they were serious musicians. Like almost anything, a big piece of succeeding at something is putting in the practice time of class and formal lessons.

This isn't just about kids practicing their instruments. It's about bands/orchestras/choirs practicing together.

Which they have more time to do each week, plus the ability to play through an entire program, under a block schedule.

Problem with your line of argument is music teachers generally abhor block scheduling.

Not true; in the FCPS schools that went to block scheduling (MS and HS) a number of years ago, music teachers (and science) were the strongest advocates of implementing block scheduling.

At our school, the band/orchestra/chorus teachers were big advocates until they got the block schedule. Now they really don't like it at all. Someone in a prior post said that there is 'more time' and that isn't true: the actual amount of time in class work out to be very close to a the time allotment in a traditional schedule over a two week period. Anyway, our music teachers really don't like the block schedule now that they have it for many of the reasons listed by other posters.

Which school are you in? Now they don't like it for many of the reasons, listed by previous posters? The reason most music teachers like the block schedule before and after they see the schedule, is it allows for longer playing time per class. Trying to play pieces in a 45 minute class, when you lose at least 5 at the start and end (10 minutes total) is quite frustrating. I honestly question your post; I think there is a small but vocal group opposed to block scheduling. Until now I have honestly never heard music teachers being opposed to block scheduling. The only subject objecting to it, from many schools, were math teachers, and even they got on board once they got used to the class length.

Most teachers do NOT like block scheduling.

As for 45-minutes, that's optimal music time for middle school. They don't have the attention spans to concentrate on music as a band/orchestra or whatever for 80 minutes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you list the issues they have again?

There are always exceptions and it depends ENTIRELY on the type of block but music teachers are almost universally opposed to block scheduling.

http://save-music.org/files/4314/1790/4132/1996_08_Instrumentalist-Block_Schedule.pdf

Even advocates of block scheduling acknowledge it hurts music programs.

Your "study" is from 1996, and no, advocates for block scheduling don't acknowledge that it hurts music programs. I have worked in a MS with a block schedule, and chorus, band and orchestra were all in favor of it, and would not want to go back to a traditional schedule. In addition my sons' experience in their band and orchestra classes in their MS and HS on a block schedule was excellent; award winning bands at all levels (the article mentioned band directors losing class offerings...not true, symphonic, wind ensemble, jazz band (and of course marching) were offered, and there were 3 levels of orchestra as well.

Again, this completely depends on the kind of block schedule used.

If you want to play the academic research game, you'll lose. See e.g.

Heffner, C.J. (2007). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum, funding, instructional
time, and student participation in music programs. (Doctoral Dissertation).

Haugland, S.L. (2007). Crowd control: Classroom management and effective teaching for
chorus, band, and orchestra. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

The reality is this is an unproven bell schedule. There isn't much research on it, especially at the middle school, but what little research there was does show it's harmful to achievement -- and music programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you list the issues they have again?

There are always exceptions and it depends ENTIRELY on the type of block but music teachers are almost universally opposed to block scheduling.

http://save-music.org/files/4314/1790/4132/1996_08_Instrumentalist-Block_Schedule.pdf

Even advocates of block scheduling acknowledge it hurts music programs.

Your "study" is from 1996, and no, advocates for block scheduling don't acknowledge that it hurts music programs. I have worked in a MS with a block schedule, and chorus, band and orchestra were all in favor of it, and would not want to go back to a traditional schedule. In addition my sons' experience in their band and orchestra classes in their MS and HS on a block schedule was excellent; award winning bands at all levels (the article mentioned band directors losing class offerings...not true, symphonic, wind ensemble, jazz band (and of course marching) were offered, and there were 3 levels of orchestra as well.