A minority opinion: Recent rolling block decision sets a bad precedent

The rolling block schedule had become Saratoga High’s very own dead horse. Every few years, the administration would revive the subject for debate, and then put it to bed weeks or months later: Some teachers (notably some in the world language department) would argue that they wouldn’t be able to see their students often enough, and others said it might not be worth the effort to change.

This year, the dead horse was revived when principal Paul Robinson suddenly announced that the school would be adopting a Los Gatos-esque rolling block schedule for the 2016-2017 school year.

While many students applaud the decision as a step in reducing student stress and improving the quality of each class period, the positive effects of the rolling block are still questionable. And because Robinson announced this change without much discussion with Saratoga’s nearly 1,400 students and 70-teacher staff, previous concerns about the efficacy of rolling block have not been addressed.

For instance, a strong argument against the rolling block schedule is that teachers can make contact with students only two times a week every other week. This may result in greater inequality between students who are taking the same class in different periods; if a teacher holds a test on a Friday, students in another period will take the test the following Monday, giving them the extra weekend to study. There will be an effort to put all classes on one day, but how successful that will be is still unclear.

Other classes, like those in the foreign language department, rely on regular contact in order to build fluency. The full block schedule lessens this contact in terms of daily frequency. Another concern is that students may be pressured to take more classes under the new eight-period schedule.

At first glance, the initiative was lauded for its ability to reduce the number of absences athletes are forced to take; students can take six periods and have free seventh and eighth periods.

In reality, even though the school promises to prohibit taking eight classes, an eight-period schedule will drive students to take more AP and Honors courses with a total of seven courses, since many feel like only taking six periods is wasteful, which invariably causes more homework and stress for students.

The truth is there are good reasons that staff have voted against the rolling block schedule in past years. In the 2011-2012 school year, two-thirds of the teachers voted against the rolling block. In 2012-2013, the two-thirds majority decreased to a 55 percent majority. Now, the schedule is being implemented with only the approval of the department chairs and with no input from any other source.

Although the most students may like the idea of the rolling block, they do not teach the content-heavy classes that teachers do. Students complain that the current schedule is stressful because all weekend homework is due on Monday. What they fail to realize, however, is that the extra time will probably push teachers to assign even more homework, as well as open up the possibility for more Monday tests.

Still, the most serious problem with the addition of the rolling block schedule is not its negative impact on students and teachers. The real issue is the administration’s failure to communicate with students and teachers and use their input to make decisions about a school that they have to attend and work at.

Robinson did email SHS families to open the rolling block schedule change to discussion. However, this belated invitation was sent on March 9, almost a month after the rolling block schedule was announced on Feb. 10. While the gesture was well intended, it should have been sent earlier.

Robinson’s decision to implement the rolling block without almost no consultation sets a bad precedent for future major decisions that affect the whole school community.