We want to base the choice on faculty feedback since they are the ones who will be working in this new timetable. Please make any comments to this blog. To make a comment click on the comment link next to posted by Paul Fomalont on the bottom of this post. If you make a comment you have to select a profile. You can use your log in for your gmail account or if you don't have one use anonymous but sign your name on the actual comment so everyone knows who it is from (unless you really want to be anonymous.) We are using the blog so you can view other people's comments and questions so the forum is more open.
There is also a place to vote if you feel inclined. Since this blog is an open forum there is no restriction on the number of times anyone can vote. Therefore please just vote once. Along with each schedule is a list of pros and cons. Whatever schedule that we choose there will likely still have to be small changes but overall they should look like the ones proposed below.
Option 1
The first schedule is a pure block model. This means each class meets for 95 minutes 3 times one week and 2 times the next. In this model there is a 2.5 minute loss of instructional time per class per week.
- Pros: Schedule gives nice blocks of time to meet and collaborate, consistent schedule, students and teachers only have to prepare for three or four classes a day
- Cons: Less curriculum since in a double block you cannot cover as much content as a two singles, classes meet less frequently
Option 2
This proposal keeps the same framework we have now but takes 5 minutes off each long block to give us some extra time to meet.
- Pros: Schedule basically remains the same allowing year to year consistency for teachers and students, both short classes and long blocks in a week, classes always meet 4 times a week.
- Cons: Some tight transitions (15 min travel) to meetings in the afternoons, hard for traveling teachers between campuses
How will the block prevent traveling at lunch? Why are the ATLAS meeting times different for each campus? If that is adopted, I would advocate rotating so time isn't lost in reading the bulletin for the same periods each day. It seems that the obvious con would be curricular loss, as already indicated.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that teachers would still have to travel during lunch. When we changed the block in the department meeting to keep it morning ABCD and EFG afternoon it changed that.
ReplyDeletePaul
I changed the pros to reflect that teachers still need to travel. Also the ATLAS meeting times would be made consistent for both campuses, just an oversight.
ReplyDeleteWhile Option 1 is perhaps better for teachers it is not realistically as effective for teaching high-school students. It will be more challenging to cover the curricula, and the students will have difficulty following classes that they attend only twice weekly. This is an appropriate college-level schedule but not appropriate for high-school students.
ReplyDeleteTravel for teachers between campuses is proving to be a persistent issue, but one that can be addressed with sufficient staffing and coordination with Natale's people. As it is now, the folks who take the bus down from BE to faculty meeting on Wednesdays generally arrive with plenty of time, so reducing travel by 5 minutes shouldn't have too much of an impact.
ReplyDeleteI vote for Option 2, as I don't believe that an all block schedule works well for language classes where students need daily reinforcement.
I would vote for the second schedule because I agree with Jen and Kim that block schedules are not appropriate for high school students or especially language classes. Students have a difficult time sitting through longer classes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a problem I see with option 2 is that our meeting starts at 3:15. I don't think that this is reasonable with activities starting at 4:00, there isn't enough time.
Kristin
I prefer Option 2,because it seems the easiest to transition into for the next year. Option 1 offers students less class time in a week, which doesn't seem productive since this is a educational center. Also on a personal note, block periods are difficult for both students and teachers. In some block classes, after 50 minutes the teacher has ran out of tasks for the students to do. As the class drags in the students become less engaged because it has been proven that students in a school must try to do something every 18 minutes to keep there attentiveness going.
ReplyDeleteI vote for Option 2 as the students I teach (ESL) find 90 minute lessons challenging in terms of concentration. They are much more engaged for the entire time in 50 minute lessons.
ReplyDeleteI also note on a personal level as a part time teacher (of two sections) and mum that Option 1 would involve a teacher of two sections working five days instead of four. This would considerably increase my childcare costs to the point where it would be less economically viable for me to work.
I will be moving between campuses at lunch times next year. This year, two days a week, I teach immediately before and immediately after lunch. If I have a similar schedule next year and with the time difference between the BEC and Savoy, the uncertainty of reliable transportation, long lunch lines I and others will be hard pressed to get a lunch if Option 2 is adopted.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Patrick that for traveling teachers it is a big issue getting from one campus to another. Not that I prefer one option over another but the block schedule would make it easier. Potentially you could give a travelling teacher one day ABEF and the other CDG so they would only be at one campus per day. I would need to work with Jon to see if that is possible.
ReplyDeleteI prefer option TWO! It is hard to concentrate with block schedule not only for ESL, but for other students as well.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that the numbers have changed (gone down)??
ReplyDeleteSomething strange happened to the blog where all of the comments have disappeared and the numbers doubled and then went back down to the original amount. I believe that currently they reflect the correct percentages.
ReplyDelete