Education

If they want to see a successful program for student and teachers - and the community!! (think year round out-of-school programs, childcare, vacations, etc... instead of trying to cram all those kids at once into one short period of time. Good for the local economy. Great even. And the parents paying for it - spread out over the year instead of all at once. Being able to take vacations "off-peak".)

The kids learn more. Forget less. Both teacher and student are more refreshed and less bored and ready for school to be OVER. The lessons move more quickly. Win Win Win Win Win.

Block scheduling is horrendous imo - the pitfalls outweigh any advantages. You can reap those advantages with different a different system without the pitfall. We had a "rotating or floating" schedule in my highschool (long ago and far far away). Six classes, but only 5 periods in a day. Therefore, longer classes. Works like this:

Let's say Periods 1-5 and Class 1-5 + "Float Class".

Monday you have Float Class 1st period instead of Class 1.
Tuesday you have Float Class 2nd period instead of Class 2.
Wednesday - Float Class 3rd period instead of Class 3.
Thursday you don't have Float Class. Fourth Period was lunch so difficult to change. It was also "three segments long" so only one third of the school had lunch at any one time. Lunch, Class, Class - or Class, Class, Lunch - or the most favored if you could get it - Class, Lunch, Class! :woo-hoo:

Fridays - Float class was fifth period. That did sometimes present a problem, because 4th & 5th had classes like band and chorus, etc... If you had a fanatical teacher, or a performance coming up - well, after school it was. Then again, for those guys - it was frequently "plus after school on any give day" anyway for extra rehearsal so that wasn't a big deal.

The other great thing - classes were "leveled" - which I know some people don't like - but the academic classes were either College Level (4), High school+ level (3), Highschool regular (2), or slower paced - okay sometimes called easy or remedial for those who needed it or who had absolutely NO intention - or ability - to go to college (1). They were still classes with expectations and learning did take place lest anyone thing it was a "holding tank". Not an option in my highschool. It might be "easier", but you were still expected to do the work. Some were say Level 3-4, level 2-3, or 1-2 and differentiated. (small classes, btw. Small highschool for that matter.)

You took the classes you wanted or were suited for - maybe you needed College level Math, but a slower English Class - or vice versa. Maybe Advanced Social Studies, but "regular Science". The class moved along at the rate and intensity it should for the students in it.
We had excellent vocational program and a sister program with the tech college for students who wanted to learn a trade (a lot of whom went on to make way more money than those who went to college. . . can you say plumber?)

Anyway - my highschool was excellent and advanced for it's time period. "Team teaching" so teachers who were better in one aspect of a subject taught that module. 1/2 day classes for those who wanted or could take classes at the local college, votech (do they even do that anymore?!?) High standards of excellence. A's were 96-100, B's were 91-95, etc... C's were broader at something like 80-89, D's 70-79, anything less than 70% was considered "you obviously didn't learn the subject well enough to advance". With leveled classes, it was fair system.

Not a fan of classroom mainstreaming as you might imagine. Advanced students need advanced pace and material. Dumbing down/slowing down the curriculum serves no one.