therents
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Posts: 67
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: Recent BS Chat |
 |
|
At the last SB meeting during the discussion of BS, Rob Collins asked why all the data presented was from the 1990 and nothing more recent. Chuck and Rick tried to spin why they did not look at more recent data.
So think about it, company A develops a new med which will cure obesity. There are lots of studies on it back 10 years ago. Your Dr wants you to take it. Don't you want current studies on it? Wouldn't you like to know if it still works? Would you want to know how people are doing 10 years after taking the meds, make sure no long term side effects are now discovered. Perhaps there is something better now.
In that sense found this chat:
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.2219015/k.EDB8/Archived_chat_Time_instruction_and_student_learning.htm
| Quote: |
On November 1, 2006, the Center for Public Education hosted a live online chat featuring guest expert Eileen O'Brien, education researcher and author of the Center's research packet on time and scheduling called Making Time: What Research Says About Reorganizing School Schedules . Following is the transcript of the discussion.
A superintendent from 82937 asks:
Is there evidence based on sound research that students learn more or less when they are enrolled in a school using a block schedule?
Eileen O'Brien writes:
There are so many types of block schedules out there and not enough research available to assess them all. The two large-scale studies mentioned in the research brief compared scores on the ACT or AP tests from those on a traditional schedule with students on either a 4X4 block schedule or an 8-block plan (also known as the A/B plan). Though the findings are not definitive, both studies found students in the traditional format did best followed by those on the 8-block schedule and then the 4X4 schedule. Although current research indicates that student achievement depends on how time is used, more research is needed to fully answer this question . |
| Quote: |
A parent from Fairfax, VA asks:
Our son's high school has block scheduling. This gives him longer class periods in major subjects, which seems like a good idea. But, his year is also split into semesters and he won't have major subjects all year long—for instance, he'll have math in the fall, then not again until the next school year. We're concerned he won't retain what he learned over such a long gap in time. Should we be?
Eileen O'Brien writes:
There are many types of block schedules and it sounds as though your son's school has what is called a 4X4 schedule, where the school day is divided into four blocks with classes between 85–100 minutes, and students complete in one semester what would have taken them a full year in traditional schedules. For example, one study found that the mean ACT score in all subjects increased for those on a traditional 8-period schedule. The mean ACT scores for students in 8-block or A/B schedule schools varied from year to year; yet in 4X4 schools students actually had higher scores in the years prior to implementation but bounced back after the third year or implementation. |
| Quote: |
A public information officer from Madison, Wisconsin asks:
UW-Madison education professor Brian Bottge and colleagues John Gugerty, Ron Serlin, and Kyoung-Suk Moon recently compared the effects of traditional and 4x4 block schedules on the academic achievement of students with and without disabilities from a random selection of high schools. They found that partitioning the school day into shorter 60-minute periods or longer 90-minute periods did not seem to result in different academic achievement by the two group of students. http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/news/coverStories/block_scheduling.php
Does this agree with your assessment?
Paul Baker, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison pbaker@wisc.edu
Eileen O'Brien
The research on block scheduling has been mixed, so this study adds to the knowledge base, especially since there are few studies dealing with students with disabilities. We probably need more research that focuses on the engagement of students, within these types of schedules, to show whether learning is taking place or whether we're just extending seat time. Perhaps UW-Madison can look into this? |
| Quote: |
A school board member from Whittier, Alaska asks:
What are the pros and cons of year around school class for at risk students?
Eileen O'Brien writes:
Year-round schooling or modified calendars are seen as effective approaches to address the summer learning loss that many at-risk students experience. While many year-round schools have also implemented intersessions—two-or three-week periods while the school is on break—the few research studies on the impact of these programs have had weak designs, so we know less about them.
A parent from Topeka, Kansas asks:
We keep talking about student achievement and the at-risk and students who are not succeeding in their classes. What about the other end of the spectrum—those that need a challenge? How do we not forget about them while working to help those that need it?
Eileen O'Brien writes:
Extending the school day or year can definitely provide opportunities for enrichment for those students at the other end of the spectrum. One of the high schools here in D.C. that has extended its day offers various dance and music classes as part of its extended day program. Again, the key is getting professional development for teachers so that they can provide differentiated instruction during the day for all students.
A school district administrator from Phoenix, Arizona asks:
I have always felt that the number of minutes of instruction takes a second to the quality of instruction provided to students. Student engagement must be maximized.
Eileen O'Brien writes:
We absolutely agree—the key is adding quality time, not just time. |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
