http://www.andover.edu/Academics/Pages/DailyClassSchedule.aspx

That schedule goes from 8 to 6:05 and doesn’t include a lunch period. So, you might wonder, pardon me but… WTF?, right?

First, you see that big blue area labeled “Athletics and Community Service”? You can cut that out. That ain’t “gym class”, which occur during regular class periods. That’s just something you put there for a residential private school. The Andover, trimester-based, 5×3 would fit in 8AM to 4:05, if adapted to a public school context. That system has students very strongly encouraged to take 5 courses per trimester, each class either 4, 5, or 6 hours per week. That leaves breaks in each student’s schedule and it is assured that over a staggered couple of hours, every student can take lunch every day during a suitably timed blank class period. You can’t always have lunch with your bestest friends but you always get lunch — and the cafeteria isn’t over-crowded.

The homework load at Andover is supposed to be about 9hrs/wk, btw. So, “student time” – not counting lunch, transportation to and fro, and extracurricular athletics and community service works out to about 34 hours per week. High-achieving students are presumed to have the gumption and interest to also learn on their own.

Hopefully in later comments I can offer some notions about how to eliminate “small schools” per se while preserving academic concentrations and simultaneously implementing potentially very effective “advisory” stuff. Much as I disagree on so much with Ms. Burke, boy oh boy does the “small school” system as currently realized sure look broken in my eyes, too. The more I look at it, the less I like.

Furthermore, the school day has always been defined by the bell schedule.

The larger question is, why the sudden concern over classes taking place during 0/7 periods when there was never such a concern expressed before? This latest excuse to grab money from the larger school to fund small school projects is transparent, and it’s about the only transparent thing going on at Berkeley High. I suppose the earlier reason that only privileged students took science lab classes was too ridiculous even for Berkeley standards.

My son has a job and plays sports–last year in biology he was able to take 7th period labs on different days, depending on his job and sport schedule. This is the practice of many kids at Berkeley High and it has never been a problem for those who want to work or play sports, or both.

You write: “Your observation of “0″ and 7th (not 8th) periods doesn’t jibe with the school’s own bell system that was apparently instituted some time ago.”

I’m not sure what you mean. I’m looking at the bell schedule on the BHS web site. Period 0 starts at 7:23, period 7 ends at 4:34 (which would have most kids with period 7 classes getting home around 5):

http://www.bhs.berkeley.net/index.php?page=bell-schedule

As on example of an extracurricular activity whose schedule conflicts with that, the mountain bike team meets at 4:15. Extended periods are also difficult for some students who work.

You write: “Your logic fails to account for those kids already taking the labs in the 0 and 7 periods, and who may not be able to take the classes during the other periods.”

No, I actually think that those students are one of the more important issues on the table. What I’m not seeing, though, is any really compelling evidence that they “can’t” get a full and rich curriculum without these extra-period labs. Mr. Knoble described the case of a kid who would have trouble squeezing in both the science labs and satisfying the requirements of the supplementary diploma offered by the International School (BIHS). So there is one example of a cause for concern but at the same time I find myself wondering how appropriate a priority the supplementary degree is for BHS (and whether it is really quite certain that we are looking at an either/or proposition).

You write: “unless you are telling me there is a racial disparity b/w kids’ ability to show up at certain times for classes?” My anecdotal understanding from hearing the educators speak is that there is, especially concentrated in the extra periods, and often for systemically structural reasons. It is less of a problem in the regular periods and thus more desirable to offer those labs during the regular periods.

Your message got a little bit garbled after that – some kind of cut and paste SNAFU, I would guess. Making of it what I can I tell you this:

As I’ve look deeper and deeper into these issues – and I’m sure I still have a long way to go – I try to keep an open but skeptical mind about both sides. It keeps getting more and more difficult, though, because somewhat consistently the proponents of the plan come forward with facts and additional details, while opponents come forward with more that ranges from simple vitriol to just bald-faced assertions that BHS should “give up” on the underachieving students to preserve resources for the others.

I wouldn’t conclude that opponents of the plan are certainly wrong – but they sure aren’t making their case.

Your observation of “0″ and 7th (not 8th) periods doesn’t jibe with the school’s own bell system that was apparently instituted some time ago. Suggesting that this is occurring “outside” “normal school hours is just plain misleading. There are tons of activities occurring in these hours BTW, not just labs. As I understand it the last bell is at 4:15, not 5 as you suggest, which is not unlike the hours I expended in high school (7:30 to 3:30) with lunch in between. There is hardly anything unusual about that.

You write:

Your logic fails to account for those kids already taking the labs in the 0 and 7 periods, and who may not be able to take the classes during the other periods. How many of those people are being excluded now? Moreover the addition of science “labs” to other courses can be done within the existing framework, unless you are telling me there is a racial disparity b/w kids’ ability to show up at certain times for classes?

with good reason since her rationale is transparent and IMO blatantly biased

JNG

Hemphill= politician, capable of manipulating empty words

Peggy Scott= Awesome, well- informed, well intentioned committed parent concerned about integrity, all kids needs, fairness, and capable of speaking truth to power in a climate of retribution.

Who missed the careful approach the science teacher took, in contrast to the small schools activist Halpern prepared to list the same four points organized in the Supt latest attempt at covering up the true nature of this ongoing (7 -8 years) controversy.

This conflict is not about educational equity, discrimination or how to address institutional racism. Nor is the conflict due to criticism of or opposition to quality integrated social services tied to the classroom (however myopic UIA vision is). The conflict is a reaction to a classic power grab orchestrated by a political network supported by Mayor Bates.

Considering the outrageous insubordination yet again by Jim Slemp, (recent SGC meeting) what does it take to hire a principal with integrity.

One of the interesting facts that came out during the discussion on KQED today is that in overwhelming numbers, the underachieving students are tracked to a science curriculum that includes *0* lab hours, and that this change will enable that to change. That is to say, the redirection of these funds are expected to *increase* the number of BHS students taking lab courses.

You write: “It just annoys me that suddenly everyone is very concerned about “state mandated” school day hours under the guise of trying to help, when in fact their intent is just the opposite.”

Ms. Hemphill made an interesting comment on the radio today. She hears comments like yours pretty frequently, you won’t be surprised to learn. I gather she is in the habit of biting her tongue in those discussions but she mentioned that what she often wants to say is (I’m paraphrasing her) “So, you are saying that I have lower standards and goals for my kids than you do?”

It seems like a slippery slope down into unproductive discussion if we casually start accusing people of having the intent to do the opposite of helping.

I hope you’ll seek out and listen with an open mind to some of the teachers and staff who are trying to bring about the proposed changes.

“…by offering a full science program during the regular day”

As I understand the schedule as you publish it, these periods ARE part of the school day. For you to suggest that the current schedule is some kind of onerous requirement on students is disingenuous, particularly since the people subject to the burden are not in favor of you taking it away.