| Subject: Melody : Dumb :: Block Scheduling : Retarded |
Author:
MikeKnight
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:48:46 01/09/02 Wed
In reply to:
melody
's message, "only squares don't like 'the block!'" on 20:11:08 01/08/02 Tue
First, I would like to point out that Strawberry dropped 11 of my responses and tried to group them into “three basic arguments against block scheduling.” These still stand, unrefuted:
3 - The format for block is wrong it should be:
B/G/B/G/ALL
4 - It does not prepare you for college (not all classes are 1.5 hours, in fact, some classes are shorter than even the 55 minute block)
7 - Everyone thinks we like block
8 - Kills AP classes; you do less specific work
9 - You do less work in general
10 - More projects, less comprehensive tests and essays (Meaningful work)
11- "Sharing time" - to borrow an Adye phrase
13 - We still have pep assemblies ECA PM
14 - I can list 14 reasons why it sucks
I would like to start off by commenting on Melody’s “fuzzy math,” horrible logic, and extremely pitiful arguments.
Berry contends, “students complain about teachers no matter what the schedule is.” This is true, students will always complain about bad teachers. However, there are several “good teachers” that have gone bad on block. For example, Mr. Groben was an awesome AP Calculus teacher on regular scheduling. I have heard complaints this year that they are going slower, typical of all classes. The idea isn’t that Mr. Groben is a bad teacher, rather a good teacher who doesn’t know how to teach block. If you would like more examples, I will be glad to give them too you.
Next, Berry asserts, “flaws in their class planning are inevitable until they are used to the time length like they were with the previous time length.” This is a horrible argument; it is like saying “the government will eventually get around to health care reform.” In the realm of this debate, we can only debate the current time period, in other words, known values. By making this argument, Berry concedes that there are flaws in current class planning that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, Berry offers no evidence proving it will be fixed; we can only assume we will stick with the status quo, bad planning.
Berry tells us “the previous schedule wasted 42 minutes each day for passing period, for a total of 210 minutes for passing period in a week.” Good job adding. Lunch periods, last year only had 5 minutes passing on either side of the lunch, so that means 40 minutes, for a total of 200 minutes. This means block has 50 more minutes than regular schedule, but wait a second, Berry forgets something. In regular schedule there was not an enrichment period. Hmm, this complicates things. We spend an average of 3.75 hours a week in enrichment (see calculation below) meaning we use, oh look 225 minutes of those “50 minutes a week” are eaten by enrichment. So, this leaves –175 minutes a week. If we lose 175 minutes a week (dispersed evenly among classes) we lose 25 minutes every week.
Under Block
2 classes a week = 3 hours
3 classes a week = 4.5 hours
3.75 hour average spent in enrichment each week
Traditional schedule
5 classes a week = 250 minutes
4.16666666666666 hour GURANTEE spent in a class each week
So, 4.16666666666666 – 3.75 = .416666666666666 hours
.416666666666666 hours = 25 minutes (half a class period)
So we don’t lose a full class period every week, just half of one. And if we look at the bigger picture, we lose a great deal more time than you think:
(Too keep it simple all use the “grading terms”)
9 Week grading Periods * 4 Periods = 36 Weeks of School
36 weeks * 25 minutes = 900 minutes, or 15 hours
So, under block we lose 15 hours in each class (That’s enough time to read several books).
Next, “even more time is lost in the old schedule considering the time some classes take to actually get into the lesson.” I don’t know about anyone else, but last year “getting into classes” meant 3 minutes at the beginning of class, and if it were Adye, he would have already had attendance done. Also, she claims “carls class last year wasted 20 minutes everyday talking about sports. For two days this left a total of 50 minutes for the lesson. In the block, this would leave 70 minutes left for the lesson” Again “fuzzy math,”
20 minutes * 5 days = 100 minutes used
20 minutes * 2.5 days (average meeting of block) = 50 minutes used
250 minutes (each week) – 100 minutes used = 150 minutes
225 minutes (each week) – 50 minutes used = 175 minutes
25 minutes / 2.5 days = 10 minutes/day
In other words, ASSUMING Carl talked 20 minutes (a gross over-exaggeration, which was not timed or studied) you would gain a mere 10 minutes in class. Not the 20 that Melody claims. Additionally, not every teacher talks about sports for 20 minutes.
Her #4 argument really doesn’t say anything intelligent (90 minute classes good), so we’ll say just flow it out of the round.
Then, she claims “The concept of longer passing periods gives students a time for bathroom breaks, going to lockers.” First, the most anyone does at school anyway is pee (that doesn’t take 8 minutes). More notably, what can you do in 8 minutes that you can’t do in 6? Simple locker-sharing means you can manage when you go to your locker under traditional schedule. The last part I have a problem with “and giving you a short break to move around and not have to sit at a desk.” Ok, you are sitting at a desk for 90 minutes instead of 50. How is an extra 2 minutes going to “give you time to move around?”
“Why are you complaining about extra time that you don't have to be in a class after you just complained about having to be in the class for so long?” One word describes this: what? Make this statement coherent and I might respond to it.
“Studies show reading does improve test scores.” First of all, what studies? Additionally, people who are smarter take it on themselves to read. People who are dumb do not read. This is called causational and not a correlation (Education debaters will easily understand this). Reading doesn’t necessarily directly improve your schooling, it improves and refines tasks that smart people need. Reading, may improve your scores, but everyone who needs improvement of scores doesn’t read during drop and read. Additionally, drop and read does nothing for the illiterate (cruel, but true).
“Aware of the possibility of getting 'extra' homework because of the block, Reitz provides a built in study hall to try and minimize this. Good students use this to their advantage. Bad students use this time like every other time during the day.” Good students do their homework at home (hence the name HOMEwork). Also, many argue that block scheduling allows time for homework to be completed at the end of the 90 minute block. Let’s think about this for a minute: if you complete homework at the end of block, then what do you have to do in enrichment? Not everyone suffers (or benefits as Berry claims) from enrichment: Sig School and T & I are notable examples.
Additionally, a “built-in” study hall? I don’t want to take a study hall: I want to take a class. Why can’t I take a class during enrichment period? Anyone?
“For those that need it, enrichment actually does give students time to make up tests or homework assignments.” This problem was simply alleviated under the old system: come into school early. Don’t have time before school? Come in after school. Don’t have time after school? Come in during lunch. Don’t have time in lunch? Take the test in class the next day.
“Mike and Sara both go to the speech office and goof around or work during enrichment, so they can't complain about it.” I “goof off” because enrichment is pointless: my homework is already done. I work because block scheduling encourages laziness and procrastination on some last minute tweaking of assignments, or because I want to get to go home a little earlier after school by filing.
Reitz cannot let kids out 90 minutes (or more because of passing period) before all other area high schools, nor can they higher more teachers to add another class period, so enrichment is a logical solution.” Actually, Reitz doesn’t need to hire anymore teachers at all to teach more classes. (Just because one more class is offered doesn’t mean a new teacher will have to teach it). Teacher’s time is sucked up during enrichment too, and they find it pointless as well. Perhaps, enrichment periods should be made larger and the best teachers of Reitz could teach the best students in a few classes, or we could simply do away with enrichment all together (my solution). Additionally, student council can only meet during the homeroom portion of enrichment (which is the same amount of time as a normal homeroom, only its actually less time).
“How can someone not like only having 3 periods on blue days? You aren't in an actual class you would be graded on, its awesome!” Wow, what an un-academic statement. One less class = less challenge. I myself am not challenge by the curriculum offered at Reitz high school; the only challenge is doing as much at once as possible.
She answered 5 of my arguments with 14 numbers.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 