How to Enhance Teaching and Learning at No Extra Cost
By Dr. Barrett Mosbacker
September 15, 2012
Change is hard, even dangerous. Attempts to change the behavior of others or an organization’s deeply entrenched practices will run headlong into active and passive resistance, if not outright hostility.
Acutely aware of the difficulty but confident in the rightness of the cause, we embarked on changing the school’s traditional schedule.
This was no small undertaking. The schedule had been in place since the school’s founding. Various school constituencies had a stake in the current schedule. The prevailing consensus was, “If it is not broke, do not fix it.” And arguably, it was not broken; classes were full, faculty and student retention rates routinely stood at 94–95%, the school maintained a 100% college admission rate, the senior class was routinely awarded millions of dollars in college scholarships, and ACT/SAT scores were high and rising across all tested disciplines. Complicating matters was a lurking skepticism about school “reform.” In the United States, too many educational fads had come and gone, creating a “this too shall pass” cynicism. This was particularly true concerning “block scheduling,” which carried largely deserved negative connotations.
So why alter a good thing? Because, as Jim Collins points out, “Good is the enemy of great.” We were good, but we were convinced we could do better. The choice before us was clear: we could rest competent and content, or press toward our goal of creating a Christ-honoring, world-class program that propelled teachers and students to higher levels of achievement. We chose the latter.
I am happy, and frankly relieved, to share that the new schedule has exceeded our expectations. It is an Extended Period (EP) schedule, not a block schedule — a distinction that matters.
What Is an Extended Period Schedule?
The Extended Period Schedule is a hybrid of a traditional schedule with features of block scheduling, but without the drawbacks. Teachers begin at 7:30 each day. The schedule has three components:
- Traditional seven-period days on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays
- Two days of Extended Period Instruction (EPI)
- A late start on Thursdays
Why the Change Was Made
We changed the schedule to provide students with more hands-on, active, engaging, and collaborative learning opportunities. Extended periods allow more time for practicing writing and editing skills — essential for college success — for interactive science labs, for collaborative project work, and for integrating technology into teaching and learning. Extended periods create space for greater variety, more creative instruction, and deeper practice, resulting in richer learning experiences. In short, extended periods enhance teaching and learning by giving teachers and students time to think, not merely to digest information. Students move about and work in teams.
The Extended Period Schedule also includes a late start on Thursday. That window provides time for teachers to work in teams, creating integrated, creative, and engaging lessons that incorporate technology appropriately. Teachers also engage in technology and pedagogical training Thursday mornings. The late start additionally gives students extra time to complete homework assignments, work on projects, and study for examinations.
How the Change Was Made
Change is hard but not impossible. To increase the likelihood of success and to ensure that the change was systemic and enduring rather than cosmetic, we implemented a four-pronged strategy: Education, Communication, Training, and Accountability.
Education
Our first task was to break through a comfortable mindset rooted in academic and geographic isolation. Too often administrators and teachers are isolated from developments in the broader world. This is particularly problematic for Christian schools, where staff and students can be culturally isolated, existing in a marginalized Christian bubble. We may catch a glimpse of world affairs through the news, but understanding the deeper implications for our students requires more information and deeper analysis — a constant exposure gleaned by “being in the world.”
We began several years ago to heighten faculty awareness of how the world has changed and the implications of those changes for our students. We demonstrated through international test scores and the testimony of leading industrialists, technologists, and economists that our students now compete against the best students in the best schools anywhere in the world. One representative example states:
With the ability to make anything anywhere in the world and sell it anywhere else in the world, business firms can “cherry pick” the skilled…wherever they exist in the world. Some third world countries are now making massive investment in basic education. American firms do not have to hire an American high school graduate if that graduate is not world-class. His or her educational defects are not their problem. Investing to give the necessary market skills to a well-educated Chinese high school graduate may well look like a much more attractive investment (less costly) than having to retrain…a poorly trained American high school graduate.1
This was not a one-time presentation. Multiple presentations in a variety of venues were made over several years. This “set the table” — established the mindset — for further discussion.
Communication
Communication was sustained, accurate, and careful. The communication that occurred over several years was intentional and followed a logical path. It did not begin with the end in mind — that is, with Extended Periods — but with a deepening understanding of the fundamentals of Christian education: the place of the Christian school in culture, what it means to think Christianly, the shifting context in which our school operates (a globalized, technological, always-connected world), an increasingly diverse and competitive educational marketplace, the rise of Asia, and the fall of the United States from the top tier of academic performance to the middle or lower tier relative to the industrialized world.
Language was also important. We made a decisive distinction between being “world-class” and being “worldly.” We differentiated between excellence and elitism. And we used terminology that was accurate yet benign. We realized early that many teachers and parents would confuse our new schedule with block scheduling. Although the EP schedule shared a few elements with a block schedule, it was neither a block schedule in the traditional sense nor merely a traditional schedule. What to call it was the question. Although not creative, we chose to call it an “Extended Period” Schedule because that is precisely what it is: it extends the period from approximately 50 minutes to nearly 90 minutes, thereby extending the time teachers have to engage students in deep learning and collaboration. Language must be accurate while avoiding negative connotations, and for that reason it must be planned and intentional.
Training and Accountability
Our greatest fear was that teachers would lecture to students for 90 minutes. We knew that if that happened, our students would be disengaged, our academic goals would be undercut, and our parents frustrated.
We also knew that habits die hard. To ensure that extended period teaching would be more than an elongated lecture, we provided practical training coupled with consistent supervision and accountability. We began the training process two years prior by approaching the matter indirectly. Anticipating the extended period schedule and desiring to improve student learning, we devoted two years of training to how the brain learns. The training included books — among them How the Brain Learns — and teacher-written responses to the assigned reading. We also hired outside experts to train teachers on the science of learning and on how to teach based on that science.
In addition to this foundational training, we hired four Christian professionals with extensive experience teaching in extended periods from two other Christian schools. They spent two days with our teachers demonstrating how to create lesson plans and how to teach effectively in extended periods. This practical, hands-on training was precisely what was needed. While the brain-research training laid the pedagogical foundation, this practical instruction is what finally produced the “mind shift” we sought. A discernible level of buy-in — and even enthusiasm — followed. Theory was married with practice, and a new perspective on teaching emerged. We moved from worldview and cognitive science to actionable lesson plans; from theory to practice, from presentation to application, from “this too shall pass” to “I can and want to do this.”
Training without accountability, however, is a bit like throwing jello against a wall and hoping it sticks. Notwithstanding initial enthusiasm, most of it slides to the floor. Putting teachers through a day or even a week of presentations is unfair to them and does not change practice. Practice changes practice. Teachers must apply what they are being taught at the time they are being taught it, and from that point forward. The application of training to the classroom is not an option; it is an expectation and a requirement.
This means teachers must be held accountable for incorporating training into their classroom practice. The only way to accomplish this is through direct observation, the requirement of artifacts demonstrating application, and evaluations that measure consistent classroom implementation. Anything short of these measures will result in minimal, spotty change, if any. Without this level of accountability, we foster the very “this too shall pass” attitude that plagues so many schools.
On the observation side, the junior and senior high principals and the Director of Curriculum and Instruction spend most of Wednesdays and Thursdays reviewing EP lesson plans and observing every classroom. They offer help and advice but also look for compliance. It has been said that “what gets measured gets done.” While we would prefer to think that everyone is intrinsically motivated to do what is asked, the truth is that all of us need accountability — administrators no less than teachers and students. If something is worth investing time and money in, it is worth monitoring and evaluating.
The Cost
Some change is expensive, but most change costs very little in money while requiring a great deal in thought, hard work, and even courage. Aside from the purchase of books and honorariums for our trainers, the cost of transitioning to extended periods has been minimal. The potential payoff in student engagement and learning, however, is substantial. Low cost combined with significant gains in the quality of teaching and learning creates a high Educational Return on Investment and increased marginal value for families. Everyone benefits.
The Results
Although it is too early to have data measuring results, all anecdotal feedback from students, parents, principals, and teachers has been positive — more positive, in fact, than we anticipated at this early stage. This is a tribute to professional, gracious, and hardworking teachers who deeply care about their students and about doing a superior job. It is also attributable to sustained Education, Communication, Training, and Accountability.
Change is hard and risky, but it is not impossible. With vision, planning, and hard work — undergirded by prayerfulness and a love for staff and students — we can create change that truly changes the lives of those entrusted to our care.
What have you changed lately?
- Neef, D. (1998). The knowledge economy. Butterworth-Heinemann. ↩︎