May 30, 2008
by Zach Schonfeld
There has been no shortage of criticism concerning the imminent Greeley schedule change, which looms on the horizon like some loose storm of dreaded proportions.
Throughout the past year, the collective student body has made it clear – be it through walk-outs, rebellious Facebook groups, or intensely skeptical questions posed to Mr. Selesnick at informational assemblies – that it is decidedly not a fan.
Many students have reviewed the models of the 2008-09 schedule available at the Greeley website. The change calls for a complete upheaval of a way of life at Greeley beloved for over 30 years, a day divided into 15-minute modules or “mods,” as they are affectionately called, as well as the delicate, familiar habits formed around them. Typically three mods are strung together for 45 minutes classes in a six-day cycle. Next year, classes will meet less often, but for longer periods of time: 60-80 minute blocks within an 8-day cycle.
Private criticism from faculty to students
But this is, of course, old news. More recently, even members of the Greeley faculty have begun criticizing the change, both privately and on the record. “Right now, Greeley’s music program is like a rich forest,” quipped veteran Greeley music teacher of 28 years, Raymond “Doc” Lucia, in a rather infamous interview with NewCastleNOW.org. “[And] they’re going to bulldoze it with the new schedule to make a lawn out of it.” Lucia remains one of the few staff members to complain about the change in such a public forum, yet quite a number of my teachers have expressed their disapproval in class. As the dissent continues to pour in from students and faculty members alike, I’ve begun to wonder what we’re protesting: the new schedule, or the process used to arrive at the new schedule, which pointedly excluded student input and alienated the students.
What are we protesting?
I think it’s the latter. After weighing the realities of the schedule change, I have come to a shocking conclusion: perhaps I don’t mind this change so much after all, metaphoric “bulldozing” aside. Indeed, it’s not the change itself that is so inherently offensive to much of Greeley’s student body, but rather the brazenly absolutist approach by which the decision process has taken place. There’s insight to be gained from this mess by examining the likely positive aspects of the change, and setting aside for the moment the faulty process that continues to undermine the schedule itself.
On the students’ end, to ignore the perks of next year’s schedule is to do the administration a disservice. The administration constantly defends the change by asserting that the block schedule system better prepares students for college than the mod system, which merely encourages a sort of short academic attention span. “An overall benefit is that students learn to manage their free time productively, which will be critical in college and beyond,” insisted Selesnick on the Greeley website.
I’ve come to suspect that this argument is far more valid than the average student might care to admit. After all, at a school where 97-98 percent of each graduating class goes on to higher education, it seems reasonable that a schedule in which classes meet for longer periods, but only a few times a week (in other words, mimicking most college schedules) would be beneficial to high school students.
Then there’s the homework issue. It is somewhat self-evident that, with fewer classes per school day, students will bring home less work per night. Currently, most Greeley students attend 6-7 classes a day, which results in an often overwhelming workload. Next year, students will average 4-5 classes a day. Furthermore, that all-too familiar scenario of multiple tests in one day will be all but eliminated, yet angry students confronted with this fact seem too wrapped up in defiance to recognize such universal advantages.
Why students continue to protest the schedule change
What caused this? Students aren’t protesting just for the sake of protest. Indeed, if the specifics of the schedule change do not necessarily warrant objection, there is no question that the decision process itself certainly does. At school wide assemblies, Mr. Selesnick regularly speaks of Greeley’s markedly democratic reliance on student council and student government to aid administrative decisions, yet fails to acknowledge the gross contradiction of that arrangement when the student representatives have no voice in a change as significant as a schedule overhaul.
This student involvement should be a reality at Greeley, not an illusion. At assemblies and smaller discussions, Selesnick has been nothing but cordial in welcoming students and faculty to debate the pros and cons of the change, as if there is some wildly profound merit in such a discussion after the decision has clearly been made without student input. These actions have been tantamount to encouraging American voters to research and compare presidential candidates’ positions after the election has already been rigged.
In the future, the Greeley administration would do well to recognize the intrinsic difference between encouraging students to discuss a decision and actually involving the students in the decision; anything less is an insult to the intelligence of the student body.
Zach Schonfeld is a junior at Horace Greeley High School.
Copyright 2008 NewCastleNOW.org