Editorial: Block Scheduling

By Emily Shinault, '14

 

As a senior here at Sterling, I’ve spent way too much of the past four years of my life complaining about block scheduling. It’s a common topic of conversation here, and I think we can all agree that it has its pros and cons. Block scheduling, as opposed to traditional middle and high school scheduling, consists of fewer classes per day, which are longer than normal in length. At Sterling, we have four 80-minute blocks with two 30-minute lunch/access periods in the middle of the day. Core classes usually last for one semester, and most electives last for one quarter.

Pros:

Looking back on the 40-minute periods we had in middle school, I remember feeling as if we had barely gotten anything done by the time the bell rang. I remember days in 8th grade math class during which we’d only accomplish solving and discussing a “Do Now” problem, and at times it would take up to three days to take a test. Needless to say, a lot more can be accomplished in an 80-minute block. In addition, this schedule better resembles what students will experience in college. College classes are longer in duration and generally run for a semester rather than a full year. If anything, our 80-minute blocks are preparing us for having to focus on (and stay awake for) a single topic in a classroom for a longer period of time. We also waste less of our school day changing classes. Think about it: there are four minutes between each block during which we can visit our lockers and travel to our next class. Five four-minute breaks amounts to 20 minutes each day (I mean not to insult your intelligence, dear reader. I’m confident that you were able to do the mental math.) Referencing the schedule of another local high school with a schedule with a ten-minute homeroom and eight 44-minute periods, this amounts to 32 minutes each day of school time that is more or less useless. The difference may not seem like much, but over the course of a 180-day school year, this school “wastes” a whopping 96 hours, while Sterling only “wastes” 60.

Cons:

The most prominent gripe with block scheduling is that we only have our core classes for one-half of the year. This is a big problem, particularly for math and world language classes, where knowledge from the prerequisite course is essential. For example, one can have Italian I the first semester of her freshman year and not have Italian II until the second semester of her sophomore year. With as much as an entire year between these classes, she will remember almost nothing, and a lot of time must be spent reviewing information that was already covered. For this reason, block scheduling can tend to disrupt the continuity of our education, which can be difficult to recover from. Another common issue is that missing a day of school can be catastrophic. Maybe that’s a bit of a strong word, but a lot can be taught in 80-minutes, and it isn’t always easy to make up the class work or learn what was taught in the lesson. Finally, teachers must teach a high school course designed to be taught over a full year in only one semester. This means more homework, projects assigned with closer deadlines, and a pace that can be overwhelming at times. I suppose, however, that though you may have to dedicate more time to each individual subject, with fewer subjects to worry about, it evens out.

Overall, I remain conflicted as to whether or not I like block scheduling. One thing that I’m sure about is that if you ask any student or teacher in the school about this topic, you’ll get a legitimate, well-thought-out response. This admittedly hackneyed argument is on all of our minds, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the answer is not black or white, but rather lies in a grey area. Like I said, it has its pros and cons. The fact is, we all go to Sterling, and the schedule doesn't seem to be changing any time soon, so we might as well look at the positive and make the most of it.