Committee debates ending block schedule; staff recommends year‑long period model but seeks board direction

District scheduling staff told the committee on June 11 that the district should consider moving away from the current block schedule to a year-long period model to reduce gaps in core-subject exposure.

The presenter outlined three broad options: keep the current block (not recommended), adopt a six-period day with 60-minute year‑long courses, or adopt a nine‑period ~43‑minute day. Advocates for the year‑long option said it would ensure continuous exposure to ELA, math and science across the year and reduce ‘‘learning loss’’ that can occur when students wait a calendar year between courses in the same subject.

Committee members raised several concerns that staff said would need work before any implementation: ensemble and music schedules that currently rely on shorter, daily rehearsal time; which electives might become half-credit offerings under a reduced-period model; counselor workload to guide students through new pathways; and the effects on students balancing athletics and vocational programs with revised school hours. Staff emphasized that a thorough, two-year planning process would be required and requested direction from the board by August so counselors could advise students selecting courses for the 2027–28 year.

No final decision was made. The presenter said staff will prepare comparative analyses of instructional hours, the number of credits required for graduation under each model, and pro/cons for the full board and for an August EPR follow-up. Board members stressed the need to analyze credit totals, student course-taking patterns, the likely impact on study-hall usage and the potential need to retrain teachers for new pacing expectations.

Why it matters: A change to the high-school schedule would affect graduation-credit calculations, elective availability and day-to-day pacing for teachers and students. Staff recommended year-long courses to increase continuous exposure to core content but asked the board for guidance and more analysis before advancing a plan.