Flattening out and shaking up

Throughout my portfolio, there is an intense focus on boredom and engagement in the classroom. It is in the policy paper where I have centered my passion. Amidst 100+ policy proposals addressing the minute details of testing, accountability, tuition, and all – some of the proposals that I believe most strongly in are often lost among readers. Even then, the policy proposals are often intentionally-broad in meaning with only limited specific examples of how the proposal could be applied. Two proposals that I believe the most in is a series of organizational structures that can finally allow schools to begin to offer education that is as individualized (and as a result, relevant) as possible.

Flattening out

Each schoolyear begins with an onslaught of pretests. It’s not uncommon for my peers and I to score upwards of 70% in a pre-test – provoking the question: how is 100% of a schoolyear spent learning 30% of the content? Meaningless pretests are coupled with the absence of flexibility in ascertaining a student’s qualifications – in most schools that do not operate on a semester-schedule, there is only one opportunity to take the final exam: the end of the year. My first proposal, the horizontal-block schedule (or flattened-out scheduled), is based loosely on the traditional vertical-block scheduling format. Unlike the vertical block-schedule, where classes rotate on an every other day basis, the horizontal block would be as follows: a student would have ten blocks per period per year – each block representing a series of weeks per course or roughly with 10% of the course’s content.

Under this format, a student may begin the year with daily courses in geometry, biology, English, and world history. Shortly before the schoolyear begins (or during the registration period), the student would take a series of pretests. In this example, the student scores an 80% in the geometry pretest. He – and students who scored similarly – would take geometry for two blocks, the equivalent of 20% of the schoolyear (or 36 days in a 180 day schedule) for that period. At the end of the course, he takes the examination – if he passes, he can then proceed to fill the next eight blocks for that period with as many courses as necessary. (In planning their schedule for the next year, the student would have a list of desired courses for each period and would take pretests in those courses as well.)

Each course would reset every one or two blocks for at least one class, depending on demand. Academically-successful students would have the opportunity to take and receive credit for multiple courses in one year. Indeed, it would be entirely possible (although not necessarily advised) for some students to graduate with the sufficient amount of credits in one year. At the other extreme, academically-vulnerable students would be able to flatten out their course demands throughout their high school career: imagine two-year, Algebra I courses (undeniably most effective under a year-round system). Organizational flexibility enhances individualized attention. No longer would students be compelled to endure endless busy work – or an onslaught of topics beyond their capacity to handle them. Similar organizational flexibility can begin to address the controversy that surrounds “ability-based” grouping.

Regular classroom reorganization

In this proposal, schools would be able to implement a system of regular classroom reorganization – at two to three times a year, schools would reorganize their master schedules for each student. Pupils who are demonstrating exceptional competency in one class may be bumped up to provide a further challenge; likewise, students who are performing poorly may have the level of their course downgraded. This will enable teachers to ensure that they can best address the needs of their students without wide disparities in student ability, effort, and potential that shift throughout the schoolyear.

This format can begin to address the issues that surround tracking, or enrolling students into distinct “ability-based” groups. Tracking, Jeannie S. Oakes, writes, has resulted in “racially disproportionate” enrollments, whose inconsistent and unduly subjective criteria causes “considerable harm” by “inferior opportunities to learn” – resulting in lower achievement.* Whereas Ms. Oakes would prefer the abandonment of “discriminatory” tracking to embrace heterogeneous learning environments, I argue that meritocratic schooling depends upon calibrating the intensity of classroom expectations to demonstrated, individual ability. I agree in full that containment in the name of tracking is scandalously inhibitive. Ms. Oakes’ passion for heterogeneous classes is far more skeptical. An effective education focuses on the individual, not the group. Dynamic tracks offer students an intensive study consistent with their needs – advanced mathematics and basic history should not be mutually exclusive. Even more critical are the necessity for ‘ramps’ that challenge students to extend beyond their ranks – if and when appropriate for the individual student.

* Limiting Students’ School Success and Life Chances: The Impact of Tracking. Jeannie S. Oakes. Contemporary Issues in Curriculum. Third Edition 2003. Page 21.