I am puzzled as to why PISD is going to spend $3,000 to take eight principals and district administrators on a "field trip" to Minnesota to study the use of block scheduling when our district currently has five high schools using that schedule right here in Plano. Could it be that many of the teachers in those schools have serious doubts about the benefits of this schedule?

      The stated purpose of the trip is to "investigate the feasibility of block scheduling." However, Sherman Millender, executive director of secondary administration, says, "We've got to convince teachers this is the best way we can go." Why can't the senior high teachers be convinced by their own peers in their own district? As a high school teacher under block scheduling last year, I can tell you that it is because many of those teachers want to return to a traditional class schedule.

      There are high school teachers in this district from many different curriculum areas who are extremely concerned about teaching the same amount of material with thirty fewer hours of class time per subject. Teachers discussed this issue last year during lunch periods, during hall duty, in departmental meetings, and in the copy room. We shared our frustrations over having to choose which parts of the curriculum to omit or which parts of the curriculum to cover at a much more shallow depth. Many of us were told that block scheduling was "here to stay" and continuing to raise questions would only result in our being labeled as "non-team players." Additionally, some of us were informed that, if we did not cover the same amount of curriculum under the block schedule, we would "have to answer" to the parents of this district. Even the survey some of us completed last spring did not contain a choice for returning to the traditional schedule.

      There are, admittedly, some positive aspects to block scheduling. Teachers have fewer lesson plans to prepare and more time to grade assignments. Students have two nights to do homework and fewer classes each day. However, these points have nothing to do with HOW MUCH LEARNING IS TAKING PLACE. The bottom line is that teachers cannot teach nor can students learn the same amount of curriculum at the same level of comprehension with thirty fewer hours of class time. Even allowing 5-7 minutes for administrative tasks like taking roll and making homework assignments, teachers and students are still losing approximately 22 hours of class instruction time per subject. That is almost five weeks of class under the traditional schedule - about an entire grading period!

      I would ask everyone involved in block scheduling last year to think back to the last six weeks of school. The following are some of the situations I observed. Teachers, did you have to omit sections of curriculum or "skim over" others? Did you "teach to the test?" Parents, were your children bombarded with inordinate amounts of material at the end of the year? Did you have to pay for outside tutoring to get them "caught up" before finals? Students, how many of these statements did you hear in your classes? "We will not have time to cover the last two chapters, so read each one and answer the questions at the back for a test grade." "I know we are covering this chapter quickly, but just try to do the best you can." "If there are questions on the final over material we have not had time to cover, I will throw those questions out."

      What are the implications of force-fitting classes at the senior high into this schedule? For example, which parts of the AP curriculum should teachers omit or skim over? Or, which sections of material for at-risk students or learning-disabled students should be reduced? How can we openly and honestly discuss the feasibility of this schedule if we don't discuss the resulting reduction in curriculum?

      Block scheduling supporters like to talk about "time on task." They emphasize that class periods are increased by 35 minutes each. What they do not emphasize is that the classes only meet half the number of times. This schedule simply trades more subjects for less curriculum per subject. Colleges and employers alike are currently complaining that high school graduates lack basic knowledge in language, math, history, and science. Block scheduling will only exacerbate the problem by reducing the amount of instruction time in those core areas.

      Supporters also make reference to claims in a document circulated within the district that in a traditional 55-minute class period, teachers only use 27 minutes in effective teaching! Teachers, are you aware that your administrators and school board members believe that you waste more than 50% of your class time? This claim is why they tell you that block scheduling actually increases the total amount of instruction time.

      Parents and students currently under block scheduling can not evaluate the importance of curriculum that is not being taught. They do not know what students COULD have learned but did not have sufficient time to learn. The only people who are aware of that deficiency are the teachers - and they are being ignored.