It was November, 1993. The local paper reported that our school system was considering a restructuring of our schools to shift from six periods that last all year to four periods each semester which would cover coursework for the entire year. Supposedly, our new Republican governor had given the schools such demanding requirements that it would take a child eight courses a year to fulfill those requirements. Another sales pitch was that the four period day would take less time in the halls where violence often occurred . (The schools have always taken care that the public was pretty much in the dark about violence in the schools because of effective PR. The former "education reporter" for our paper is now the PR person for the city schools, merely a change of location. The PR did not eliminate the flight from public schools however, the enrollment has fallen from over 10,000 students to 9300 regardless of our (reputed) growth in city population.)

The DOTHAN EAGLE reported that our Director of Secondary Instruction, Susan Lockwood, had gone to Frederick, Maryland, to observe a high school which was using the four period day. The principals of the high schools had flown with her. That Frederick principal was coming to Dothan to address the parents about the four period day. I had just fought a statewide battle against Goals 2000. Our former governor, Jim Folsom, had promoted the Alabama First Plan, which was the Kentucky Education Reform Act, restyled by David Hornbeck, the author of the Kentucky reform, for Alabama. (Hornbeck is a member of Carnegie Foundation boards with Marc Tucker and Hillary Clinton. The Carnegie Foundation is pushing the New American Schools Development Corporation which has endorsed models for new schools--all Outcomes Based. Marc Tucker, author of Oregon's Education Reform, has an organization which produces the tests for Performance Based Education (OBE/Mastery Learning). Kentucky spent $1 million developing a criterion referenced test directed at what teachers were teaching, not necessarily those skills parents thought they were sending children to learn.) The extended period seemed to me to fit into the requirements for longer time in a classroom for the teach-test, re-teach-retest cycle needed incorporating the Peer Tutoring and Group Learning necessary for the attitude and behavioral goals of Goals 2000.

My husband, an attorney, humored me and called Daniel Cunningham, principal of Frederick High School, the school in Maryland we were to emulate. He asked where the "mother of all four period days" was. Cunningham admitted they were in their first year of using the method. They'd gotten it from a school across town. Dr. Thomas Guskey had advised their system. (A computer search at our education library revealed that Guskey is an expert on Mastery Learning/ Outcomes Based Education.) Apparently he had not read the research he cited to my husband when pressed for empirical data. We called Dr. David Bateson, author of the study, who was then on vacation on an island off the coast of British Columbia. He sent us his study. His conclusions? "The four period day is detrimental to academic achievement."  My husband called Cunningham back and told him what Bateson's study said. Cunningham had said he had notes of a conversation a colleague had with Bateson where Bateson had repudiated his study. My husband's brother does studies like that himself and knowing him we knew a professor would rather repudiate his first born son. We called Bateson back. Bateson faxed us a repudiation..of Cunningham's ridiculous claim!!!! His study had been over 28,000 students. He is a winner of a prestigious award for the scientific methodology used in his studies. All of this was taken to the administration, board, and principals. However, at the meeting, with their manipulation (the Delphi Technique), those facts were not presented, the parents took the PR packet as the gospel when it claimed that "research shows no change in student performance on standardized tests." The four period day was implemented.

About six weeks after we implemented the four period day, a video was made which promotes block scheduling. Glossy brochures were sent around the area with offers to do workshops and bring experts in block scheduling to share their methodology. The video was sold for $40. One wonders how much more current methodology has been sold with this type of "research" to support it.

In 1995, Susan Lockwood, the administrator who convinced us to use the program and who tallied the votes on whether or not to implement the program, used Dothan AP Geometry and Algebra and students for her doctoral dissertation from the University of Alabama, a fact I only just discovered on THE PROBLEM WITH BLOCK SCHEDULING web site. I found it interesting that the research that went unrecognized in the PR presentations delivered to the parents (research which my husband and I provided to the administrators) was mentioned the summary of her dissertation published in the NASSP journal in December of 1995. (In the same publication another administrator was tooting his own horn over our school- to- work initiatives).  Using the 1994 scores on a standardized test and comparing them to the scores after block scheduling, Lockwood saw scores drop six points for minority students from 42 to 36, white student's scores dropped 2 points. Although Lockwood drew the conclusion that this was not statistically significant thereby enabling her to recommend block scheduling, apparently it was significant enough to indicate that for AP students more, rather than less, was better. In Dothan, AP classes operate for two semesters giving that one course two credits. Lockwood's study of about 400 students was apparently more scientific than the award winning study of over 28,000 students done by Dr. Bateson. She challenges his conclusions with her ringing endorsement of block scheduling. Compare the claims in this packet with the research on the PROBLEM WITH BLOCK SCHEDULING Web site.  One parent sent me a copy of the packet they were given at her school, only the credit for the research was under their own director of instruction's name. Again, the question "where is the mother of all four period days"? Who has pre-packaged this program?

One must consider that AP students are the most motivated and capable. What are the results on students who are not as motivated and capable? Perhaps the recent graduation results will give an indication. In 1994 at Dothan High School 232 students graduated. There were 361 students who entered Dothan High School as ninth graders. That is an attrition rate of 35%. The four period day went into effect in the fall of 1995. By 1997 there were 210 students who graduated out of the 404 who entered as ninth graders. That is a 48% attrition rate. 35% to 48% attrition ought to make those thinking of adopting the four period day stop and think. At Northview the attrition rate went from 28% in 1994 (425 entered as 9th graders and 302 graduated) to 36% (411 entered as 9th graders and 263 graduated)  in 1997. The dog and pony show is still on the road. I wonder if these statistics are a part of the presentation.

It is interesting to me that those determined to defend public education at all costs continue to protest that these high numbers reflect students who have moved or gone to private school. Didn't students move before block scheduling? Is the the increase in the number of students not graduating on time because of difficulty in acquiring the required number of credits because of the four period day? (Remember band, football, and cheerleading take up one fourth of a student's academic year with block scheduling.)

Many questions should be asked. With Career Quest/Tech Prep being required, and Band, Football, and Cheerleading lasting both semesters, how does a student fit in the required courses? Could the lower graduation rate have something to do with students having to make up courses over the summer? Why has the Alternative School been seeing more students if this was to address discipline problems? With students doing their homework in class has content been so diminished that students are having trouble in follow up classes? With interference and lack of reinforcement has retention been affected? Some claim the increased attrition has to do with transfers. Why are they transferring? Didn't transferring happen in 1994? Does no one move into Dothan any more? If more are dropping out and getting GEDs shouldn't we ask why? Who taught the classes when teachers were on the road promoting the four period day? Could having substitute teachers account for the increase in attrition?

In addition to these questions regarding the effectiveness of this curriculum, society has a bigger question to ask. When a school system hires an administrator should that administrator use their position to influence the adoption of an experimental, highly controversial methodology, use PR packets to promote its adoption with information that is erroneous, count the votes, and then use the personal records of those students as statistics for a doctoral dissertation? Aren't our administrators responsible for researching for themselves the validity of a program and providing those who pay their salaries with the best KNOWN METHODS FOR ENHANCING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT?Don't they at least owe parents who care enough to do the legwork and research for them some respect? The FDA regulates human drug experiments.  Who regulates educators who mess with our children's minds?

Why was implementing block scheduling so critical?                                   

SEE ALSO BATESON'S NEW RESEARCH and the INTENSIVE BLOCK SCHEDULING SITE at Drexel University

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
    Genealogists:  Use of the genealogy on this site is at the user's risk.  No guarantee is made or implied that the information contained herein is without error.    I do not claim original authorship of this genealogical material.  These are personal files I use for my own research into these lines that I have uploaded to this website so that others might have access to these resources and together we might add to our historical understanding of our family.  The information contained on this site is for the user's convenience and reference only; anyone requiring accurate information should verify such information by seeking professional assistance and/or by conducting further research on their own.  Unfortunately, in transferring the files back and forth from one program to another, the Notes sections sometimes become garbled.  I include them for my own purposes (to read directly) and for your benefit.  This is a not for profit website personally administered by myself for my family and our "cousins."  Please visit the genealogy websites such as Ancestry.com, Genforum.com, Rootsweb.com and consider the sources.  We are all in the quest for the truth of our lineage. 

   Email