There are only two reasons to do a thing. For good or for ill. Having many years in the Anchorage School District (ASD) I know enough of the people that work within this body to know that all those in favor of a Seven Period Day (7PD) have come to this decision through their desire to do good for the students of Anchorage. In that there is no dispute.
But even those with the best intentions can be in error or beguiled. And when that happens, men and women with the noblest of goals might do harm. So let us look at the issues and not the personalities of those seeking the 7PD.
There are only three positions from which one can argue for a 7PD, all of them justifiable if true. The first is that the 7PD will afford more options for students, a position being voiced currently by ASD administration in favor of the change. The second position is that there will be some sort of added efficiency from a 7PD which will result in a cost savings. Finally, the third position is that the 7PD will raise graduation rates, a goal which ASD has championed for some time. All of these are the root of the administration’s reasoning behind the 7PD and all of them are false. This can be seen easily through reason and anecdote, but it can be proven through data. Let’s examine each in turn.
STUDENTS WILL HAVE MORE ACCESS TO ELECTIVES
This argument has been made several times by ASD administrative staff over the past many weeks. At first blush, it appears to be a self-evident truth. If we add more classes to the school day, then more might be offered. But let us look at what is really happening, and I apologize in advance for the math and I’m doing a little rounding here for simplification, but the numbers are sound. Do them yourself if you are unsure.
We will look at a typical high school in Anchorage with 1800 students. A school of this size will have about 70 classroom teachers (not counting counselors, librarians, nurses, etc.) each teaching 5 periods out of 6. This means in any given period, about 60 teachers are teaching classes which are full of 30 students. There are 350 courses per day (70 teachers x 5 periods.)
Under the 7PD, those numbers change. We now have 420 courses a day (70 x 6 periods) which means there are 70 new classes kids can take. Since the 350 already existing classes cover all the core courses students need, the 70 new classes can all be Electives!! Voila!
However, the 7PD is not being advocated for only. Additionally, AND SEPARATE, from the 7PD are budget cuts. At a current 1800 student high school, the number of teachers to cut, in ADDITION to counselors, nurses, etc., is 7.2, or 10% of the teaching staff. What does this do to the 7PD?
Cutting 7 teachers means we are reducing the total classes per day by 35, (7 x 6 periods.) That is a 35 class reduction in CLASSES ALREADY BEING COVERED. Which means that those 35 classes will have to be made up for. These are classes students are already taking, and include core courses. So, of the 70 NEW classes offered by the 7PD, 35 of them, or 50%, will actually be classes that have to be covered due to the loss of teaching staff. So there are NOT 70 new electives. At best there are 35.
Still… that’s 35 right?
Not really. Here is why. While the number’s keep being modified, the fact is that the ASD has reported they will need to adjust spending by $49 million over the next two years. ($ amounts from many news articles including http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/less-class-time-asd-considering-adding-extra-periods-to-fill-budget-gap/23913958 ) In the first year they will reduce $25 Million by the eliminations being currently discussed. But next year, they will have to cut nearly another $25 Million!!! What this means is another rash of cuts leveled at students. $25 Million means another 7 teachers per high school, which means another 35 classes need to be covered. 70 “extra” classes have quickly become 0.
Bye bye electives.
There is a further impact here in regards to student/teacher ratios and extra homework, but I will cover that elsewhere. For now, let us move on to the second argument for the 7PD.
THE SEVEN PERIOD DAY SAVES MONEY
One of the many arguments for a 7PD is that it saves money over a 6 period day. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, according to http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shorelineschools.org%2Fnews%2Fdacpo%2Fdocuments%2F6_vs_7_period_Day.ppt&ei=VdABU-SvOMyFogTCyYKIAQ&usg=AFQjCNFuzlo7iee9RZIuDpw6-O1Cz4bY2A&bvm=bv.61535280,d.cGU&cad=rja it will increase over $700K in just two middle schools in the Shoreline district.
Additionally there are hidden costs in moving to a 7 period day. More course offerings mean more supplies for those courses. Books for example. Numerous district forms will have to be designed and reprinted to reflect the new schedule. This may seem like chump change, but it all adds up. And in a year we want to SAVE money, why would we do anything to spend more?
Why else will a 7 period day INCREASE Costs? It’s simple… more classes means more teachers. That is, unless you just require the teachers to teach more classes and cut the number of teachers.
Let me say that again…
A 7 Period day will NOT decrease the budget. Only decreasing teachers will. But do not believe me, listen to Mr. Mike Graham who wrote the following in an Email on January 10th to Principals.
“Does having teachers teach six of seven periods save money, and if so, is that the reason we are looking at it?
Having teachers teach six of seven periods rather than five of six is technically 2.3% more efficient, but this is not the reason for making the change. Schools will be staffed the same regardless of the schedule. What the change does is utilize the staffing a school has to provide far more opportunities for students, including academic support classes, AP courses, and elective offerings.”
(Bold emphasis added by me)
Mr. Graham says a 6 of 7 schedule is 2.3% more efficient. Not sure what “efficient” means in that way, but his math comes from this: 5/6 = 83.33% 6/7=85.7% 85.7-83.3 = 2.4%. This is simply a comparison of ratios, I’m not sure it means any savings in efficiencies, but let us grant the man his mathematical analysis. But there is one thing that is sure.. that “efficiency” is only gained if you are teaching the same number of classes and decrease the numbers of teachers. There is no budgetary gain unless you reduce costs. Simply shifting the schedule does not create a savings. You have to actually SAVE something: Ie. Cutting teachers.
In the same breath he says budget cuts are “not the reason for making the change.” If that is true, what is the reason?
And finally he says that staffing will remain “the same.” This is a blatant incongruity with facts in front of us right now.
So the reality is that moving to a different schedule does not save any money. Cutting teachers does. And cutting teachers will be done REGARDLESS of the schedule. So switching to a 7-period day simply adds insult to injury. We will lose teaching staff. On top of that, we will have less teacher/student contact time.
GRADUATION RATES WILL INCREASE
If graduation rates will increase with a 7-period day, by all means we should do it. But do they?
According to the data from the Mat Su, the shift to a 7-period day has been a statistically neutral event. Let’s look at the numbers.
According to the Mat Su school districts 2012 Annual Report, their 4 year cohort graduation figures are as follows:
2008 69%
2009 69%
2010 70.5%
2011 70%
2012 71.5%
Over five years, their graduation rate has increase a whopping 2.5%. In 2011, the year in which the 7-period day was implemented the rate actually decreased .5%. Not a ringing endorsement. And in 2010, a year with a 6 period day, the rate increased the same amount as 2012, a year with a 7 period day. There has been NO GROWTH in graduation rates due to the 7 period day. (In fact the stats are further confused by the fact that the school day started 15 minutes later in 2011. So what might any changes be attributed to?)
But wait just a minute!! It makes SENSE that having extra class periods would allow failing students to fix mistakes and use that opportunity to graduate on time! Right?
Only if you believe that students fail to graduate because of mistakes they want to fix. But students fail to graduate for many reasons:
. Serious developmental disabilities
. Economic or Cultural pressures
. Lack of language proficiency
. Substance abuse
. Lack of desire
Students who make a few mistakes and WANT to graduate already use existing programs and systems to achieve their goal. Sometimes this takes a fifth year. A 7-period day MIGHT help this small group. But those that fall into the groups mentioned above will not be positively affected by a change in school schedule.
And this is EXACTLY what is borne out by the data from Mat Su.
CONCLUSION
So we look again at the Districts reasons for implementing a 7PD and we find….
7PD saves money? FALSE
More Electives? Only true for one year, then FALSE
Raises Grad Rate? No evidence to support this. FALSE
So then why implement it?
(2048)