While partnering with hundreds of schools across the country, we often hear three common myths about improving schedules:
- We just need more time in the school day!
- We just need more staff!
- We just need to find the “perfect” schedule model to address greater student needs!
The reality, however, is that creating a smarter, more strategic schedule does not require more time, more staff, or an entirely new schedule model. (Thank goodness.) In our book It’s Time for Strategic Scheduling: How to Design Smarter K-12 Schedules That Are Great for Students, Staff, and the Budget, we address these myths head on and share how designing schedules that are better for students and teachers is about using existing time and staff differently— and, in most cases, can be accomplished within any existing schedule model.
Myth Bust #1
It isn’t more time that drives learning, but more high-quality time on academic instruction.
The research is clear: longer classes or longer school days do not in and of themselves make a difference; what really matters is how the time is used. Take this example from two middle schools we worked with, in different districts, but serving nearly identical student populations. At the first middle school, all 6th grade students took:
- A double dose of math for a total of 90 minutes of math a day
- A 30-minute “flex” block in the afternoon during which they could potentially receive additional academic support or enrichment
The school took an “all hands on deck” approach to the flex block, so a student struggling in math, for instance, did not always have access to a content-strong math teacher for math support. Sometimes it would be the science teacher or even an ELA or art teacher delivering the math support (which was really just homework help in most cases). At the second middle school:
- All 6th grade students had daily 45-minute math lessons
- Students struggling in math were also enrolled in an additional 45-minute math intervention course taught by content-strong math teachers and using the same curriculum and materials as the core math class
Even though 6th grade students at the first middle school had access to up to 120 minutes of math—30 more minutes than the 6th grade students at the second middle school—that more didn’t necessarily mean better.
Many students at the first school did not actually benefit from or need a double block of math and grew bored or frustrated. Few teachers were well-trained and coached on how to use the long block period well. On top of that, few students actually received targeted, high-quality math intervention during the flex block, even though they had the need. As a result, students at the first middle school significantly underperformed in math when compared to their peers in the second middle school.
The first step to improving any schedule is to ensure there is ample time for high-quality academic instruction—especially in core subjects like math, ELA, science, and social studies—plus time for intervention from content-strong teachers. But only for those who need it.
Myth Bust #2
Scheduling more precisely to enrollment can free up the “extra” staffing you need.
Staffing shortages are a challenge in many schools. The good news is that staffing and scheduling more precisely to course enrollment can help schools offer their students more without having to hire additional staff or overload existing teachers.
At its core, staffing precision is a strategy in service of student learning, opportunity, and choice: It is about maximizing the reach and impact of every teacher by freeing up slightly under-utilized staff to teach more sections of electives, intervention, or other courses. Here are two specific ways you can schedule more precisely at the high school level:
- Set clear class size targets and minimum enrollment—and hold yourself to them. Staffing precisely starts with knowing how big or small classes should be. With targets clearly established, you can better adjust course section counts to align to any changes in student enrollment and potentially free up teachers to run more or new intervention or elective options.
- Alternate low-enrollment course offerings by quarter, semester, or year. Not every course needs to run all the time. Run select elective courses every other semester or year, effectively doubling enrollment in the course. Doing so still gives students access to a variety of opportunities while freeing up staff to offer more options.
Myth Bust #3
No one schedule model is best—let your priorities guide you.
Six-period schedule? Seven-period schedule? A/B block schedule? Which schedule is “the best”? We reviewed hundreds of research studies on the topic while writing our book and we have advised thousands of schools on scheduling. Here is what we have found: there is no best or perfect schedule.
Research has not conclusively identified a correlation between scheduling models and student achievement, but research is clear that the cost on teacher morale and effectiveness of switching schedule models can be significant. So instead of looking for the perfect “off the shelf” schedule model, school and district leaders should instead focus on establishing a clear vision for teaching and learning and a clear set of goals and priorities, then make them come to life within the existing schedule model. For example, let’s say a high school has a traditional seven-period schedule and the scheduling team at the school has identified the following priorities:
- Allow for a high number of external partnerships (internships, jobs, etc.)
- Improve outcomes for students in math by ensuring access to targeted intervention
- Incorporate time for structured relationship building without compromising too much academic learning time
To enact these priorities, the team took the following steps:
- Partnerships: The team had been considering adding a rotation to their schedule to vary when students took classes to respond to some student and teacher interest in doing so. However, based on their identified priorities, they ultimately decided not to add this feature because student access to opportunities in the community and at local colleges and employers was more important (and would have been near impossible at scale with a schedule rotation). So in this case, no change was necessary to the schedule to meet the first priority.
- Math: The school added four new sections of math intervention courses to meet identified student needs. Staffing for these new sections was achieved by slightly increasing average class sizes in the math department (but still staying within contractual targets).
- Relationships: The school piloted a weekly 30-minute advisory period with the 9th grade team. This increment of time was enough for authentic relationship building to happen, but not so much that planning overwhelmed teachers. The school also decided on a pilot with just one grade to build strong systems and work out any kinks before it expanded the practice to other grades the following year.
In this instance, the school accomplished its priorities within its current schedule model. Could the school have explored or used other models, such as a block? Of course, but doing so would have resulted in an overwhelming amount of unnecessary time, energy, and angst.
Similarly, if this school had been on an A/B block schedule, they could have tweaked the block schedule and met these same three priorities. Most priorities can be met within most schedule models.
As you plan your next schedule, think about how the practices above can make it more strategic and help you be a “mythbuster” to create better opportunities and outcomes for your students.
