Solving Non-Existent Problems or Creating New Ones with a “New School Day”, Part 1
LFHS parents and other stakeholders have been alerted to three “community engagement meetings December 7, 8 and 9, 2015 to “share [] process and information” about the new school day framework.” Published reports indicate a radical reformation of the LFHS school day and Lake Forest Schools Watch has obtained a draft “school day” schedule, published herewith.
Before we attempt to understand what LFHS administration has proposed, it helps to return to the beginning:
Was there ever an articulated reason, substantiated by evidence of any kind, that changing the school day from its present form to something else, would have a positive impact on student outcomes (however defined)? The answer is “no.” Once again, our students are guinea pigs for an ill-defined experiment based on anecdote and having nothing to do with world-class education.
Like many of you, I attended one of the meetings at which the “hopes and dreams” of parents were solicited regarding the new school schedule. When I, perhaps like you, attempted to inquire whether any analysis had been done necessitating a change from the current schedule and how or whether the institution of a “block schedule” or any variation thereof was outweighed (even a little) by the implementation challenges (including loss of instructional time), I was told that the meeting I attended was an inquiry, not a discussion. In short, the question wasn’t answered.
Instead, various unidentified people threw out their “hopes and dreams” for a new school day and these were duly written on a white board. Anecdotes were shared about how difficult it was to rouse sleeping teens in the morning. Other comments were made about field trips. No fact-based rationale for a change in the school day schedule (not anecdotes) and how that change would have a net positive impact on (any) student outcomes was ever presented.
Nevertheless, according to interviews conducted by the Daily North Shore, a “proposed” “hybrid” schedule effective in the 2016-17 school year will make significant changes to the traditional school day.
According to the Daily North Shore, “The plan was devised by a schedule committee made up of 20 teachers and 10 administrators who have held 20 meetings with students, parents, teachers and staff, according to a presentation [Principal Chala] Holland made at [a recent] board meeting. She said the schedule is not yet set in stone.”
Twenty meetings, and not one of them presented hard evidence substantiating a problem with the present schedule, necessitating a change.
Continuing, the Daily North Shore reports: “Though the plan is not final yet, Holland and [Lori] Wilcox said the final schedule will not need approval from either the board or the Lake Forest Education Association teachers’ union.” Lori Wilcox, currently Assistant Superintendent for “growth, talent and human relations” is leaving LFHS for another position in July 2015 and will thus be unavailable to defend the decision to experiment on our children by implementing the “hybrid” schedule.
“The scheduling committee approved this structure for next year’s daily schedule but many details are still evolving,” Holland said.
According to the proposed schedule, instead of classes beginning at 7:50 am every day, classes will begin at 8:15 a.m. Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays while commencing at 8:50 a.m. Wednesdays and Thursdays. Working parents may find this problematic: they must now trust that their teens will make it to school without their early morning guidance and supervision. And remember, there has been no evidence presented to suggest that a 25 minute delay in the start of the school day (three days a week) and an hour’s delay (two days a week) will make any positive, material difference for student outcomes. Nor has any analysis been presented about whether changing school start times and reshuffling the school day schedule twice a week is developmentally appropriate for teens who are already juggling a multitude of social, emotional and educational challenges. To make matters worse, Principal Holland told the Daily North Shore: “School will let out later but the precise time is uncertain.” Let’s hope our LFHS athletes understand the word “forfeit” is not a reflection on their athletic abilities. Or will those students on sports teams enjoy an earlier dismissal than non-athletes on Wednesdays and Thursdays?
Sadly, the proposed schedule eradicates student lunch periods as they currently exist. Based on the draft proposal it appears there will be three lunch “periods” labeled A, B & C. Each will be 25 minutes in length. Lunch A is between 3rd and 4th period. Lunch B is between 4th and 5th. Lunch C is between 5th and 6th. Because of this, not all “4th Period” classes will begin at the same time and not all “5th period” classes will begin at the same time, either. On the two block days, the lunch period (still 25 minutes) will most likely be determined by the teacher of that class.
Tell your rising Seniors and others with off-campus lunch passes to kiss off- campus lunch good-bye. Tell your different learner that he can’t use his lunch period as a study hall to prepare for a test or do the homework he forgot. Tell your student he can’t use his lunch to visit a resource center, his counselor, his social worker, his favorite teacher or simply “hang out” with her friends (whom she never sees in any of her classes). Forget scheduling any ortho or other local appointments during your kid’s busy day at her lunch hour, too.
And while you’re at it, tell your student to make sure he’s first in line at the cafeteria for his lunch period because once the students who used to go off campus for lunch can’t anymore and once his dedicated lunch period is squeezed into 25 minutes (if that), then those lunch periods may get ugly. Has anyone given a thought about feeding 400 hungry teens (roughly 1/3 of the students eating lunch per the three periods) in a mere 25 minutes?
Teachers, by the way, will still be assigned a regular lunch period (4, 5 or 6) for 45 minutes.
Jennifer Neubauer
Parent Coordinator
Lake Forest Schools Watch
www.lakeforestschoolswatch.com
Editor’s note: Letters to the Editor represent the writers’ opinions and not necessarily those of Daily North Shore
As a retired educator and school psychologist, I have observed that high school kids rarely get enough sleep. Sleep is important for top school performance, so how could this be a bad thing? I would strongly encourage a later start date on behalf of the students. Sure it is nice to get out early and I’m sure the sports departments will not like a later ending day, but there is NO substitute for a good night’s sleep!
Just because Ms Newbauer is apparently unfamiliar with sleep science doesn’t mean that this move by the high school is experimental. This is hardly an experiment; it is a response to ample, well- documented scientific research findings. A move to later start times for both high school and middle school students has been recommended by sleep specialists for at least the last 15 years. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Center for Disease Control have also both recommended shifting high school start times back. The links Greg posted provide a wealth of information on teens and sleep needs.
The University of Minnesota Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement has found that later start times correlate with improved academic performance. From their findings: “Researchers analyzed data from more than 9,000 students at eight high schools in Minnesota, Colorado, and Wyoming and found that shifting the school day later in the morning resulted in a boost in attendance, test scores, and grades in math, English, science, and social studies. Schools also saw a decrease in tardiness, substance abuse, and symptoms of depression. Some even had a dramatic drop in teen car crashes.”
Shifting the start time to later in the morning is hardly experimental; a later start time should more accurately be referred to as a “best practice.” I applaud Dr. Holland and the administration for making this improvement to our high school.
Ms. Cordeniz may not be aware that there are other studies suggesting 16 year olds score best on tests with merely 7 hours of sleep a night and that sleepiness in class may not be so much a function of how much sleep the student had as it is of when the student awoke.
See, e.g. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/eej/journal/v38/n4/full/eej201133a.html
Not sure if a change is needed but I think you are incorrect to say there is no evidence for making this type of change – just a quick search came up with hundreds of articles and studies… here are just a couple
http://www.startschoollater.net/wake-up-calls-fast-facts.htm
https://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-news/backgrounder-later-school-start-times
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/sleepy-teens-high-school-should-start-later-in-the-morning/
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/08/why-school-should-start-later/401489/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/teens-need-later-start-to-school-day-doctors-group-says-1408939263
Assume for the sake of argument those articles are correct:
1. Does the data suggest that teens who know they have “late start” days (“late” meaning 25 minutes or one hour later, depending on the day per the new schedule) will prudently take advantage of the late start to catch up on sleep OR will they stay up even later, rationalizing that they have a “late start.”
2. If the only issue were sleep cycles for teens, why the block schedule? Where is the data (not anecdotes) that rearranging class time and decreasing instructional time in this fashion materially contributes to positive student outcomes?
Folks always want to compare LFHS to New Trier. Click on their “Daily Schedule” at this website:
http://www.newtrier.k12.il.us/Calendars/School_Year_Calendars_and_Schedules/
Query: did anyone look at New Trier’s (0r other schools’ ) success with student outcomes and find any correlation with their Daily Schedule?
There is no evidence to suggest, nor has any been presented to parents, that a “new” hybrid schedule will materially enhance positive student outcomes. There has been a lot of anecdotal sharing about how boring longer classes will be, or how “cool” it would be to have longer science labs, or how difficult it will be to schedule field trips, etc.
And the reported “twenty” meetings to discover parents/teachers/students “hopes and dreams” for a “new school day” were only that–inquiries (whether undertaken in good faith or not, given the tight December deadline to come up with a “new” schedule the teachers’ union/Administration will accept).
There has never been a presentation on whether any part of this change will actually help any LFHS students. Conclusion: another experiment on our children with no articulated, substantiated and expected benefit to them. Is that what you want for your children?