Introduction
The Plano Independent school district ended block scheduling at the high school level (grades 9 – 10) beginning with the 2004-2005 academic year. The author of this research project had children of her own attend elementary and middle school in this district that followed a standard scheduling format. She became curious as to why the high schools would follow a block schedule in grades 9 and 10, and then when students entered the senior high school level (grades 11-12), they returned to a standard seven period schedule. In an effort to determine the possible reasons behind this decision, a literature review was conducted to discover the reasons why other schools elected to abandon block scheduling and return to a standard scheduling format.
Problem Statement
There are an increasing number of schools in the United States that are moving to a block schedule format. However, the transition to this type of format has created much discussion, not only at the district level, but within the schools and teachers, parents are students are expressing their opinions. Those who promote block scheduling believe that this format provides for greater depth and flexibility in education. Other proponents have indicated that academic performance improves through this scheduling design. Opponents argue that this arrangement is a fad and will pass with time. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to determine the reasons behind why one school district in Texas elected to abandon block scheduling and return to a traditional seven period school day.
The Essay on Schools And Scheduling Block Day Outcomes
I. Title Page: Running head: OUTCOMES USING THREE SCHEDULING METHODS Which Schedule? Learning and Behavior Outcomes of At-Risk, Ninth Grade, Math and Science Students Using Three Scheduling Methods: Parallel Block Alternate-Day Block and TraditionalNameUniversity Name Name of Class / Title of Project / Name of Professor and his / her title Abstract Page: (State the Purpose of the Study) Abstract ...
Research Questions
The research questions of this project involve the following:
1. Why did Plano Independent School District elect to go back to the traditional schedule format after implementing a block schedule for a period of time?
2. How were high stakes test scores impacted by the block schedule format?
Review of the Literature
More than a decade has passed since the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk, and several years have passed since the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. As a result, improving achievement levels of high school students remains at the top of state and national agendas. Many scholars believe that American students are not competitive internationally, and further admit that the lower half of American students perform poorly. As a consequence, schools receive constant pressure to improve. Additionally, schools are expected to help solve society’s problems of violence, poverty, and dysfunctional families which hinder student academic achievement. Even teachers at the most successful schools iterate that a high number of students may not be prepared to live and work effectively in today’s competitive global community.
Most secondary schools have been engaged in systemic efforts to improve for years. For many, the efforts center on implementing ideas such as site-based management at the school level, outcome-based education, a focus on standards-based education, integration of technology into the curriculum, or comprehensive professional development programs focused on effective instructional approaches. This paper focuses on one change effort, that of block scheduling, defined as having at least part of the daily school schedule organized into longer blocks of time than the typical 45 minute periods. According to the National Study of High School Restructuring report, block scheduling is being used in some fashion by one in ten high schools (Cawelti, 1994).
The Term Paper on School Shootings Students Violence Schools
Georgia, Colorado, Virginia, Oregon, Michigan, and Tennessee are the sites in which some of the most viscous school crimes have occurred. In this day and age it seems as if school isn't a safe haven for America's children anymore. School shootings are on the rise more than ever in today's society with kids as young as 9 years old committing these gruesome crimes against their classmates and ...
Michael D. Rettig and Robert L. Canady (1996), in their article entitled “All Around the Block: The Benefits and Challenges of a Non-Traditional School Schedule,” estimate that “more than 50 percent of high schools in the United States are either using or considering a form of block schedule” ( p. 1).
A block schedule consists of three or four daily longer periods. Widely used forms of block scheduling are the alternate-day schedule (A/B schedule), the 4/4 semester plan, and the trimester plan. The alternate-day schedule (A/B schedule) is typically 90 minutes long and students and teachers meet every-other-day rather than meeting every day for shorter periods of time. The Plano ISD elected to participate in the A/B alternate-day schedule format.
Sample A/ B Schedule
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
7:35-9:00 1 2 1 2 1
9:09-10:34 3 Enrichment 3 Enrichment 3
10:43-12:38 5 4 5 4 5
12:45-2:10 7 6 7 6 7
(week 2 is the opposite of week 1)
In the 4/4 semester plan students complete four “yearlong” courses that meet for about 90 minutes every day during a 90-day semester. Many charter schools follow this format. The table below represents a sample 4/4 block schedule
4/4 Semester Plan
PERIOD TIME MINUTES
1 7:30-8:55 85
PASS 8:55-9:05 10
2 9:05-10:30 85
PASS 10:30-10:40 10
3 LUNCH 10:40-12:35 115
PASS 12:35-12:45 10
4 12:45-2:10 85
(Maruyama, 1995, pp. 4-5)
In the trimester schedule plan, students take two or three courses every 60 days and earn six to nine credits per year.
Advantages to the Block Scheduling Format
Factors that are motivating schools to adopt the block schedule format as defined by Rettig and Candy (1996) include:
• Longer classroom periods enable the students to engage in active learning and enhance their critical thinking skills.
• Discipline and behavorial problems are reduced as students are not changing classrooms as often
• Teachers benefit from more quality instructional time
Other research has found that teachers with a block schedule format can actively engage students in experiments, writing and other forms of instructional activities (National Commission on Time and Learning, 1994, Section V).
The Essay on Should High School Students Have Part-Time Employment?
A part-time job is a form of employment which requires employees to work fewer hours than their full-time colleagues. These employees are generally assigned less than 30 hours per week. This type of employment is most suitable for students, parents, pensioners and other workers who may not have sufficient time or commitment for a full-time career. This essay will discuss the issue - ‘Should high ...
Sharon Skrobarcek and her colleagues (1997) reported that teachers were able to provide more individualized instruction to their students. They also found that 75% of the students who participated in a block schedule reported that the teachers provided more diverse activities in this format. Donald Hackmann and David Waters (1998) indicated that students were able to take a broader array of courses. Additionally, schools reported fewer discipline issues, improved class attendance, an increase of students who were enrolled in the Advanced Placement courses, and an advanced mastery of the subject content and overall grade improvement (Hackmann & Waters, page 85).
Similar conclusions were reached by Algozzine, Eaddy and Queen (1997) who reported that teachers using an in-depth student process were better able to actively engage their students. They also concluded the following:
• Teachers spent over 50% of classroom time engaging students is interactive instruction.
• Block Scheduling was both successful and worth continuing according to 70-80% of teachers, students and parents.
• A majority of teachers (84%) were able to provide a variety of instructional methods.
• Teachers believed that block scheduling increased school safety.
• Both students and parents believed that school discipline improved
In their 1998 book, The 4X4 Block Schedule, Kimberly Isenhour and J. Allen Queen placed the advantages of block scheduling in specific categories. These categories included:
1. Lengthened class time reduced instructional time spent on classroom administration.
2. Extension of lessons provided a better connection between subsequent courses with like subject matter.
3. The reduced number of class changes had a direct impact on discipline.
4. Students were able to focus on fewer courses at a time.
5. Additional planning time was beneficial to teachers.
6. Fewer make up sessions required due to absences.
7. Remedial assistance or repeating a course that was failed in the 1st semester which could be taken in the 2nd semester.
8. Advanced students were provided opportunities for accelerated and enriched courses and programs.
The Dissertation on Effects Of Block Scheduling
... benefit from less set up time and more student-teacher interaction made possible with block scheduling and longer classes. It certainly makes sense to ... block scheduling a student would be taking 4 subjects at a time and covering the material at twice the speed of classes ... them to be absent. In block scheduling, students will be missing two days of instruction everyday a teacher is absent (Guskey, T. ...
9. Schools were able to offer a wider variety of electives.
10. Students are able to engage in interactive learning due to additional class time. (
Additional research conducted by David Hottenstein (1988) yielded the following conclusions in support of block scheduling:
• Most teachers had 5 -6 preparations per semester prior to block scheduling. This was reduced to 2 -3 after the implementation of block scheduling.
• Teacher satisfaction was increased from 52 to 87% when block scheduling was implemented.
• Teachers believed that the block format provided greater flexible in scheduling
• Teachers reported that block scheduling had a positive affect on student achievement
• The block schedule helped students retain key concepts.
According to Edward Siefert and John Beck (1994), classes using one of the block scheduling formats offered teachers and students many instructional advantages With longer class periods, instructional time provided more high-quality instruction as teachers spent less time on administrative and management work. Canady and Rettig (1996) argued that block classes provided time for extended lessons which allowed for the broadening of lab investigations or classroom experiments. They also found that English teachers could assist students through an entire writing assignment in one period which provided time for peer reviews and editing sessions. Extra time was available for the enhancement of skills in the fine arts and vocational classes and field trips, in close proximity to the school, could be taken during a single period .
Teachers soon learned that traditional teaching methods of instruction provided limited effectiveness when used in the block schedule format. Variations of instructional teaching methods were needed. These methods included: group discussion, inquiry based learning, team teaching, problem solving, cooperative learning, role playing, portfolio development, and other techniques that would actively engage students in the learning process. Students indicated that they liked the extra time for studying, fewer quizzed, test and homework assignments. Record keeping and graded assignments were reduced and gave teachers more time for instructional planning. Absenteeism is expected in schools. Because block schedules require fewer classes, students have more time to complete their missed assignments. Students requiring remedial assistance are able to work with the teacher or peer students during class time. Students who fail a class in the fall semester can retake the class in the spring and remain with their peers.
should high school student work part-time?
Nowadays, there are more and more students work part-time job in their free time. Actually, a part-time job can provide money and working experience to them. But it partly disturbs their study as well. So the high school students should not be encouraged to have a part-time job because of the following reasons. Firstly, most high school students are too young to work. Specifically, they still lack ...
Disadvantages to the block scheduling format
While block schedules have many advantages to the academic community, it is
not without disadvantages. One disadvantage found is that students retain lesson content as they move from one level of a subject to another. Further, extensive time required for students to engage in independent study outside of the classroom. More importantly, transfer students from a traditional schedule format have a difficult time adjusting to the block schedule. Teachers also tend to not make valuable use of the extended instructional time and thus continue to rely on the lecture format for delivery of content.
The first year on the block scheduling format, according to Donald Hackmann (1996), was the most challenging for teacher and principals Complaints from teachers included having to teach in longer blocks of time, redesigning their lesson plans, and required more detailed planning to ensure all education objectives are met. Lesson plans have to be restructured that actively engage students for the longer instructional time. The importance of course sequencing was reported by Shortt and Thayer(1999) in their article entitled, “Block Scheduling Can Enhance School Climate”. Concern that retention of information if a long delay exists between the 1st and 2nd courses, could cause problems or affect the achievement level of students. Thus, school administrators were encouraged to schedule sequenced courses in the same subject area during a single academic year. Detailed planning and monitoring of a student’s degree plan can assist with the scheduling process (Queen, Algozzine, & Eaddy, 1997).
Programs directly impacted by the block scheduling format are the athletic and fine arts programs (band, orchestra, choir, theatre), especially if the course is taken during the school day. The Plano Independent School System met this criterion. Therefore, students in athletics and fine arts programs attend these classes everyday. Thus, scheduling courses four these students is difficult. In the A/B schedule format, on a two week cycle, athletes meet for 600 minutes (10 days * 60 min/day), while all other classes meet for 450 minutes (10 days * 45 min/day) (Calamaio, 2003).
The Homework on Block Scheduling vs Periods
A small debate has always been discussed when talking about block scheduling and traditional class periods. Some people like the longer classes while others prefer the traditional six shorter class periods. Everyone has their own opinions about block scheduling. Block scheduling can be really helpful to high school students in many ways. Although, block scheduling is a longer time spent in one ...
Transfer students experienced scheduling problems if that transferred during the school year. The difficulty occurs in matching the transferable courses with the schools’ required degree plan and available schedule. What researchers and educators have found is that just a minority of students transfer during the school year (Shortt & Thayer, 1998-99).
More critics of block scheduling state that total instructional time is reduced per class. However, administrative tasks are reduced in half and teachers have indicated that course content has not been reduced (Calamaio, 2003).
Skrobareck et al. (1997) determined that instructional time was wasted if there was no variance in the teacher’s instructional theories, activities, and strategies.
School success is not guaranteed by adding additional time to the class. Teachers must implement new instructional activities, strategies and skills to effectively utilize the additional class time which has been determined to be essential for the success of block scheduling (Schroth & Dixon, 1996).
Walter Hart (2000) determined that schools on the traditional format of scheduling used more interactive instruction in their class periods than the teachers using the block schedule format with longer class periods.
Block Scheduling and Student Achievement
The effectiveness of instruction was not the original intent of block scheduling. What districts wanted to know was how block scheduling influenced the academic achievement of their students. Toby York (1997) compared tenth grade mathematics, reading, and writing scores in Texas high schools which used block scheduling with the scores of schools which used the traditional scheduling format. He found that there were no statistically significant differences in student scores. While block scheduling did not improve test scores, reduction in class time did not seem to have a significant negative effect on academic performance and student success.
Methods Section
Research Design
This research study will involve the use of descriptive research as the writer will attempt to determine if high stakes test scores went up during the period of time in which this school district implemented block scheduling. Existing records were obtained and examined to see if high stakes test scores went up during the period of time that block scheduling was implemented in the Plano Independent School District.
Data Sources
In educational research there are several sources of data that can be used. Existing sources such as student files, records and student work are often used. In the case of the current research study, existing high stakes test scores were accessed from the Texas Education Agency and were analyzed. Additionally, board minutes of the Plano Independent School District were obtained to determine why the district elected to do away with block scheduling.
Definitions
Block scheduling- any schedule format with fewer but longer classes than traditional schedules permit (Jones, 1995).
A/B plan-an alternating plan (also known as the A/B plan) of block scheduling. : Using this format, students attend eight blocks of classes over two days (Jones, 1995; Rettig & Canady, 1996; Canady & Rettig, 1995).
High stakes test- tests that are used to make major decisions about a student, such as high school graduation or grade promotion. To be high stakes, a test must be very important in the decision process or be able to override other information. (There’s a whole lot of testing, n.d.)
.Ethical considerations
The IRB of Argosy exempted this research study due to the fact that existing data was used and no identifying student information was included.
Data collection
The study will be conducted by the researcher. Test scores were accessed at the TEA website, and board minutes were obtained. These documents are a matter of public record.
Materials required
Internet and email access are necessary for this study.
Reliability considerations
The use of multiple measures, allows the researcher to triangulate the results of the study, making them more believable because they are supported by a variety of assessment measures. Thus, the data sources for this study include high stakes test scores accessed from the Texas Education Agency website, and interviews conducted of participants. However, the results will not be generalizable to populations other than the school district and schools in the study.
Access to data
Only the researcher will have access to data during and after the research. Confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained by assigning numbers to participants. Data will be stored on thumb drives by the researcher after the study is completed.
Limitations
This study is being conducted in one school district in north Texas. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to other districts.
Results
Test scores for Jasper High School in the Plano Independent School District were analyzed for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 academic years when the block schedule format was used and the 2004-2005, 2005-2006 academic years when the district returned to a traditional schedule format. It was determined that there was no measurable difference in Texas high stakes test scores in ninth or tenth grade math or in English/Language Arts. There was less than a 2 point differential in test scores during the period that block schedules were implemented and when the district returned to the traditional format.
PISD rationale for ending block scheduling
The Plano ISD school board was faced with budget issues beginning with the 2004-2005 academic year. During the September 2003 board meeting, a committee was established to determine how to review current programs and devise a plan whereby that would eliminate the block schedule format in the high schools (grades 9-10) and would change the senior high school schedule to include 7 periods rather than 6. The committee defined four areas that they would concentrate on during the implementation phase: curriculum/instruction, extra-curricular activities, staffing and facilities/financial impact. It was also recommended that teachers be added to the action teams (Members, 2003, page 1).
The following press release indicates the confirmation of this decision:
Students in Plano ISD’s high schools and senior high schools will begin next school year on a uniform seven-period schedule, moving away from A/B block scheduling at the 9-10 high school level and moving to a seven-period, rather than six-period, day at the 11-12 senior high school level.
The plan was reported to school trustees at their September 21 work session, where Jeff Bailey, east cluster area assistant superintendent, presented the research of a 21-member district steering committee and four action teams which studied the schedule change as it relates to curriculum and instruction, extracurricular programs, staffing and facilities/financial impact.
Mr. Bailey noted that compelling reasons for the schedule change are a lack of adequate funding for schools at the state level, the fact that PISD has reached the $1.50 cap on capacity to tax, soaring health care costs, maintaining a competitive salary schedule and the need for common scheduling in the secondary schools.
The schedule change is among budget reduction proposals approved by school trustees last fall resulting from the school district’s worsening financial crisis caused by the state’s “Robin Hood” system of school finance. The system was found unconstitutional last week by Judge John Dietz in Austin, during a landmark court case in which Plano ISD served among the plaintiffs. Judge Dietz gave the state one year to address the inadequate funding system.
“Due to the district’s financial situation, we’ve been forced to make some very difficult decisions that impact our students and staff,” noted Dr. Doug Otto, superintendent of schools. “If we had the financial resources, we would not be forced to make these decisions.” He added that, the administration will determine this fall if there is a need for the board to declare a limited reduction in force, due to the schedule change.
Mr. Bailey reported that the change to a seven-period day is expected to assist the district in closing the achievement gap by providing the opportunity to redeploy resources to serve at-risk student populations and by providing seniors with three different scheduling options. The schedule offers seniors an additional incentive to pass all or most all courses by senior year so that they may take college classes each semester.
A District Course Review Committee, which is studying the sequence of course offerings, will present its recommendations to the school board in October (Members, 2003, page 1).
Conclusion
The Plano ISD determined that test scores showed little or no change for the two years that Jasper High School was on the block scheduling format and the two years after they returned to a traditional schedule. The decision to move back to the traditional format was based on several reasons: a lack of adequate funding for schools at the state level, PISD had reached the $1.50 cap on capacity to tax, increases in health care costs, competitive salary requirements, and the need for a common scheduling format in the secondary schools (Members, 2003).
Knowing that the test scores showed no significant difference based on the type of scheduling format indicates that the curriculum and instructional methods being used by the teachers were meeting the overall goals and learning objectives.
Recommendations
This researcher has learned during the course of this project that the implementation of block scheduling in the Plano Independent School district had no significant effects on the improvement of test scores. Therefore, one might say that the cause of returning to a traditional schedule was due to budget shortfalls in the district. When a district makes the decision to block schedule or team, the school basically loses one teacher per team or block due to the fact that the teachers have two periods off. The district obviously decided to go back to the 6-1 schedule to gain teaching units back at no extra cost. In other words, in a traditional bell schedule teachers now teach 6 periods and have 1 period off. This also makes class sizes smaller which probably lends to better discipline and grades. In a block schedule the classes are bigger due to teachers having off two periods
Districts must take several situations into consideration as they work to make the decision as to whether a block schedule format will be in the best interest of students and teachers. Some possible questions to consider might be:
• Is student achievement successful within the traditional schedule format?
• Are teachers prepared to deliver instruction effectively in a period of time that is double what they are used to?
• Are teachers prepared to deal with larger class sizes?
• What effect will the larger class sizes have on student discipline?
• Will the benefit of having an extra period off to plan outweigh the larger class sizes?
• What format of block scheduling is best for our students?
The above questions are just few of the many considerations that a district should consider when implementing block scheduling.
.
Resources
Calamaio, J. (2003, March).
Senior Research. Retrieved December 5th, 2007, from Education CSM: http://educatiom.csm.edu/students/spring2003/jcalamaio/research/research.htm
Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1996).
All Around the Block: The Benefits and Challenges of a Non-Traditional School Schedule. School Administrator .
Canady, R. (1990).
Parallel block scheduling: A better way to organize a school. Principal, 69(3), 34-36.
Canady, R. & Rettig, M. (1995).
Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education, Inc.
Cawelty, G. (1994) High School Restructuring: A National Study. Arlington, VA. Educational Research Service.
Cromwell, S. (2006).
School Administrator’s Article. Retrieved 12 5, 2007, from Education World: www.educationworld.com
Hackmann, D. G. (1996).
Ten Guidelines for Implementing Block Scheduling. Educational Leadership , 24-27.
Hackmann, D. G., & Waters, D. L. (1998).
Breaking away from tradition: The Farmington High School Restructuring Experience. NASSP Bulletin , 83-92.
Hart, W. H. (2000).
A Comparison of the Use of Instructional Time in Block Scheduled and Traditionally Scheduled High School Classrooms. Doctoral Dissertation . Charlotte, North Carolina: University of North Carolina.
Hottenstein, D. S. (1998).
Intensive Scheduling: Restructuring America’s Secondary Schools Through Time Management. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Jones, R. (1995).
Wake up! The Executive Educator, 17(8), 15-18.
Members, S. B. (2003, September 21).
Press Release – Elimination of the block schedule format. PISD Board Minutes . Plamo, Texas.
National Commission on Time and Learning. (1994).
Prisoners of Time. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Queen, J. A., Algozzine, R. F., & Eaddy, M. A. (1997).
The Road we Traveled: Scheduling in the 4X4 Road. NASSP , 86.
Schroth, G., & Dixon, J. (1996).
The Effects of Block Scheduling on Student Performance. International Journal of Education Reform , 472-476.
Seifert, E. H., & Beck, J. J. (1994).
Relationships Between Task Time and Learning Gains in Secondary Schools. Journal of Educationa Research , 5-10.
Shortt, T. L., & Thayer, Y. V. (1998-99).
Block Scheduling Can Enhance School Climate. Educational Leadership , 76-81.
Skrobarcek, S. A., & et.al. (1997).
Colloboration for Instructional Improvement: Analyzing the Academic Impact of a Block Scheduling Plan. NASSP Bulletin , 81, 104-111.
There’s a whole lot of testing going on retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.utea.org/index.htm.
Wasson, J. (18 September 2007).
Methods of educational research – An internet based course: Ed 603 home page. Retrieved November 15, 2007 from
http://www.mnstate.edu/wasson/ed603/index.htm.
York, T. (1997).
A Comparative Analysis of Student Achievement in Block and Traditionally Scheduled High Schools. Doctoral Dissertation . Houston, Texas: University of Houston.
Appendix A
Jasper High School Test score data
PDF format
Appendix B
Plano ISD Board Meeting Minutes
SCHOOL BOARD WORK SESSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
The Plano Board of Trustees met Tuesday, September 21, 2004, with the following members present: Duncan Webb, presiding; Melody Timinsky; Lloyd Jenkins; Allan Bird; and Superintendent Doug Otto. Trustees Mary Beth King, John Muns, and Ralph Stow were absent.
Vice President Duncan Webb called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Dallas Room at the Sockwell Center, 6301 Chapel Hill Boulevard, Plano, and stated that the meeting has been duly called and notices posted in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Mr. Webb announced that the Board will convene in a work session consisting of several topics.
Deputy Superintendent Danny Modisette reviewed with the Board and audience the steps proposed during budget preparation last fall to meet the financial exigency that the district was facing. In addition to strategies such as the reduction in force, early exit incentive, reductions in outsourcing contracts, and reduction in teaching assistants and special education reductions, one major piece of the budget decreases was the increase in student/teacher ratios at the secondary level. The first phase was the change in the middle school schedule which has been implemented this year. With the planned elimination of block scheduling for grades 9-10 and change in the 11-12 schedule, a committee was formed to make recommendations for implementation. Jeff Bailey, area assistant superintendent for the east cluster, introduced committee members who presented a report on the planning process involved to date. The committee members identified the action teams which were formed to look at the four components of this implementation: curriculum/instruction, extra-curricular, staffing, and facilities/financial impact. Committee members also stated that it would be important to add teachers to these action teams as the district moves forward with implementation. Mr. Modisette indicated next steps would be to use the committee structure to plan implementation and submit changes to any affected policies for board approval.
Board members expressed their concerns and questioned the possibility of other options that could give the same savings but stated they understood the need to move forward.
James Ashby, director of assessment and accountability, presented an overview of the Adequate Yearly Progress [AYP] component of the No Child Left Behind legislation. He also stated the district’s accountability rating should be released soon.
A brief report was presented with updates from each of the Summit Response Teams formed following the Community Summit on Closing the Achievement Gap.
Dr. Otto indicated that staff will continue to use the same two general goals and develop initiatives for each using the format of the benchmarks established by the Western States Benchmarking Consortium. Proposed goals will be brought to the Board for approval in October.
With no further discussion, the work session was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Duncan Webb, Vice-President
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 4, 2003
The Plano Board of Trustees met Tuesday evening, November 4, 2003, with the following members present: Mary Beth King, presiding; Scott Carpenter; Duncan Webb; Melody Timinsky; Ralph Stow; and Lloyd Jenkins. Trustee Allan Bird arrived at 5:10 p.m.
President Mary Beth King called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room, first floor of the Administration Building, 2700 West 15th Street, Plano, and stated that the meeting has been duly called and notices posted in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Mrs. King announced that the Board will convene in a Work Session on the district’s assessment program.
Marilyn Brooks, associate superintendent for curriculum, provided an overview of the components involved in the district’s assessment program: curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Jayne Cantwell and Dr. Jim Wussow discussed elementary and secondary assessments, respectively. Dr. Priscilla Kimery demonstrated examples of how the data is used and the accountability process.
The work session was adjourned into closed session at 6:05 p.m. to consider 1) the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee; 2) Personnel: Resignations, employment, evaluation, appointment, assignment, termination, non-renewal, additions and extension and/or renewal of contracts of individual teachers, individual administrators, superintendent, and individual support staff; 3) Private consultation with attorney regarding contemplated litigation; or on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551; 4) To discuss purchase, exchange, lease, sale, or value of real property; and 5) School children; School district employees; disciplinary matter or complaint. The closed session was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
The regular meeting reconvened at 7:10 p.m. in the Board Room on the first floor, administration building, Plano, Texas, with all Board members present. President King introduced Board members and informed the audience regarding School Board procedure and operation. Mrs. King reminded the public that a video of the meeting is shown on cable television on Wednesdays and Saturdays at 8 p.m. and on Saturdays at noon on Channel A-31 on the Richardson and Plano Cable Channels. Mrs. King told the public that should members of the audience wish to speak concerning any item on the agenda, cards should be completed and turned in immediately. Once discussion has begun on an agenda item, no additional speaker cards will be accepted. She asked that all speakers come to the microphone so that all comments can be heard. Mrs. King expressed appreciation to the Instructional Technology Department for serving as greeters.
President King announced that the Plano Senior High School speech team had earned second place in Sweepstakes at the recent Texas Forensic Association Qualifying Tournament at Garland High School.
Board Secretary Ralph Stow read the attached resolution commemorating American Education Week. Allan Bird made the motion to adopt the resolution. Lloyd Jenkins seconded the motion which carried. Mary DePeri made a presentation to the Board on behalf of the Plano Education Association. Dr. Otto accepted the resolution on behalf of the district and indicated that American Education Week is a welcome reminder throughout our district and the country that caring teachers are making a difference in the lives of children each day.
Trustee Allan Bird requested that item j, “New courses and sunset courses for 2004-2005”, be removed from the consent agenda.
Melody Timinsky made the motion that the Board approve the items remaining on the consent agenda as follows:
a) Personnel recommendations, including extension and/or renewal of contracts of individual teachers, principals, directors, and support staff, as recommended by Deputy Superintendent Danny Modisette and as attached;
b) Minutes of October 21 and October 27, 2003;
c) Change orders as recommended by Associate Superintendent for Business Services Richard Matkin and as follows:
1) Williams High School additions, #4, for an additional $14,162.00;
2) Williams High School additions, #5 and project close out, for an additional $324,349.00, including release of retainage and acceptance of the work;
3) Elementary Special Programs Center renovation, #1, for an additional $78,721.00;
4) Elementary Special Programs Center renovation, #2 and project close out, for an additional $667,490.00, including release of retainage and acceptance of the work;
5) Dooley Elementary School parking lot, #1 and project close out, for an additional $46,911.00;
d) Bid #3429, bleacher maintenance, awarded to John F. Clark Company and Specialty Supply for an estimated value of $50,000.00 as filed in the Superintendent’s Office with the November 4, 2003, agenda packet marked “record copy”;
e) Property tax refunds in the amount of $4,353.92, as recommended by the Collin County Tax Office and Mr. Matkin;
f) Disposal of surplus property as recommended by Mr. Matkin and as filed in the Superintendent’s Office with the November 4, 2003, agenda packet marked “record copy”;
g) Budget amendments for November, as recommended by Mr. Matkin and as attached;
h) Joint use and development agreement with City of Richardson for parking needs at Miller Elementary School site, as recommended by Mr. Matkin;
i) Joint use and development agreement with City of Richardson for parking needs at Stinson Elementary School site, as recommended by Mr. Matkin;
Lloyd Jenkins seconded the motion which carried.
Carole Greisdorf, special assistant to the superintendent for communication and grants, introduced Stuart Rosenfield who presented the annual report from the Multi-ethnic Advisory Committee. Mr. Rosenfield mentioned the topics studied during the past year, highlighted some of the accomplishments of the district and the committee, and advised of committee recommendations.
Dr. Otto stated that candidates for the positions of the Board of Directors for the Central Appraisal District of Collin County are elected every two years. Ralph Stow made the motion that Plano ISD cast its 2,156 votes on the official ballot for the election of members to the Board of Directors of Central Appraisal District of Collin County as follows:
Ronald Carlisle 240 votes
Dr. Leo Fitzgerald 806 votes
Roy Wilshire 270 votes
Wayne Mayo 600 votes
Gary Rodenbaugh 240 votes
Duncan Webb seconded the motion which carried.
Dr. Otto stated that Plano ISD has been extensively involved in the litigation against the State of Texas regarding the school finance system. He indicated that the original lawsuit was filed in spring, 2001 and culminated with a Supreme court decision in May, 2003. As a result of that decision, a new lawsuit will be filed in Travis County in the near future. School districts in support of the original lawsuit in addition to other districts are now asked to pass a resolution in support of the impending lawsuit. The resolution mirrors the previous resolution passed two years ago by PISD but does include the additional law firm of Bracewell & Patterson as attorney David Thompson has joined the legal team. Board Secretary Ralph Stow read the resolution. Allan Bird made the motion that the Board approve the attached resolution. Duncan Webb seconded the motion which carried.
Dr. Otto then opened the discussion on the need for a facilities and technology study task force in preparation for a future bond election. He indicated that this task force would study construction needs of new facilities to accommodate growth; repair and renovation of schools; repair and/or replacement of major building systems and equipment; additions to existing facilities to accommodate increased enrollment or programmatic needs; and technology needs to address current programs, replacement schedules and future programmatic issues. He proposed that the committee be comprised of eighteen members as follows:
• Eight members appointed one each by the Board of Trustees and Superintendent. The Superintendent would select the chair of the task force.
• Ten members representing: 2 Plano Chamber of Commerce representatives, 2 PTA representatives, 2 Plano Principals Association representatives, 2 Plano teachers (one elementary, one secondary) and 2 citizens with technology backgrounds.
Anticipated timeframe would include meetings after the first of the year with board action on the task force recommendations and date for bond election in May. Melody Timinsky made the motion that the Board establish a Task Force on Facilities and Technology and authorize the administration to develop a list of task force members which would be presented for approval at the November 18 board meeting with the change that the chairperson of the task force be selected by the “Team of 8” (Board and Superintendent).
Allan Bird seconded the motion which carried, six for [Bird, Carpenter, Jenkins, King, Stow, Timinsky] and one abstention [Webb].
As has been mentioned in previous board meetings, Dr. Otto once again reiterated that Plano ISD is faced with the following factors as it prepares for the 2004-05 budget:
1) The district is at the maximum $1.50 maintenance and operation tax rate;
2) Property valuations have stabilized with minimal growth;
3) Additional funding from the State for the 2003-04 budget year was minimal – approximately $1 million;
4) The district continues to face increases in its recapture obligation.
All of these factors point to a $11-12 million deficit budget as the district takes a preliminary look at expenses and revenues for the next fiscal year.
Dr. Otto stressed the financial exigency of the situation and reviewed and explained the rationale for each of the reduction proposals. These proposals include the following along with projected savings:
(1) Reduction in Force (RIF) – Central Departments $3.1 – $3.3 million
(2) Early Exit (Retirement) Incentive $1.5 – $2.25 million
(3) Increase student/teacher ratios at secondary $3.78 million
level
(4) Reduction of outsourcing provider contracts $2 million
(5) Review of teaching assistant assignments $500,000
(6) Implement review of special education service $1.5 million
and staffing efficiency/effectiveness
(7) Assign all secondary coaches teaching
assignments on campus where they coach (future years)
Total budget reductions $12.38 – $13.33 million
Dr. Otto advised that, in order to meet certain timelines, the Board will be asked to approve the early retirement proposal and declare a financial exigency in implementing the reduction in force policy at the next board meeting.
Following one speaker, Ralph Stow made the motion that the Board approve Policy DFF(Local) Termination of Contract: Reduction in Force under 2nd reading and as attached. Duncan Webb seconded the motion which carried.
Duncan Webb made the motion that the Board repeal the existing policy and approve Policy CDA(Local) Other Revenues: Investments under 1st reading. Ralph Stow seconded the motion which carried.
Following speakers and comments by board members, Lloyd Jenkins made the motion that the Board table Policy EIC (Local) Academic Achievement: Class Ranking. Scott Carpenter seconded the motion which carried.
In items removed from the consent agenda, following questions regarding the 9th Grade Transition Course, Allan Bird made the motion that the Board approve the new courses and sunset courses for 2004-05 as follows except for the 9th Grade Transition Course: New Courses – Veterinary Medicine Assistantship, Level II; Criminal Investigations; and Chinese I-II; Sunset Courses – Business Computer Programming; Manufacturing Graphics; Architectural Graphics; Agricultural Electronics; and Exploring Computer Information Technology . Melody Timinsky seconded the motion which carried.
In her President’s Comments, Mrs. King reminded all of the November 18 public hearing on the 2004-05 calendar which will be held at 7 p.m. in the Board Room.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Mary Beth King, President Ralph Stow, Secretary
Appendix C
Plano ISD Press Release Notes
Grades 9-12 to Begin 2005-06
Year with Uniform 7-Period Day
September 24, 2004
Students in Plano ISD’s high schools and senior high schools will begin next school year on a uniform seven-period schedule, moving away from A/B block scheduling at the 9-10 high school level and moving to a seven-period, rather than six-period, day at the 11-12 senior high school level.
The plan was reported to school trustees at their September 21 work session, where Jeff Bailey, east cluster area assistant superintendent, presented the research of a 21-member district steering committee and four action teams which studied the schedule change as it relates to curriculum and instruction, extracurricular programs, staffing and facilities/financial impact.
Mr. Bailey noted that compelling reasons for the schedule change are a lack of adequate funding for schools at the state level, the fact that PISD has reached the $1.50 cap on capacity to tax, soaring health care costs, maintaining a competitive salary schedule and the need for common scheduling in the secondary schools.
The schedule change is among budget reduction proposals approved by school trustees last fall resulting from the school district’s worsening financial crisis caused by the state’s “Robin Hood” system of school finance. The system was found unconstitutional last week by Judge John Dietz in Austin, during a landmark court case in which Plano ISD served among the plaintiffs. Judge Dietz gave the state one year to address the inadequate funding system.
“Due to the district’s financial situation, we’ve been forced to make some very difficult decisions that impact our students and staff,” noted Dr. Doug Otto, superintendent of schools. “If we had the financial resources, we would not be forced to make these decisions.” He added that, the administration will determine this fall if there is a need for the board to declare a limited reduction in force, due to the schedule change.
Mr. Bailey reported that the change to a seven-period day is expected to assist the district in closing the achievement gap by providing the opportunity to redeploy resources to serve at-risk student populations and by providing seniors with three different scheduling options. The schedule offers seniors an additional incentive to pass all or most all courses by senior year so that they may take college classes each semester.
A District Course Review Committee, which is studying the sequence of course offerings, will present its recommendations to the school board in October.
