Remembrance of History Past: The Four-Period Day

Remembrance of History Past: The Four-Period Day

After Frankie Hunter had spent her first year at Chumash as principal, garnered enough support from the teaching staff (as she had been "one of us"), and planted the seeds of change in enough influential minds, she proposed the first major reform of the Hunter tenure: restructuring the school day.

Her rationale was simple: Fifty-four minutes (as was the length of the current class period) was simply not long enough nor flexible enough for innovative teaching to prosper. And it was her contention that if an administrator fostered an atmosphere that would engender and support innovative instruction, then innovative instruction would occur. Her plan was also simple in its vision: instead of six periods during the day (and thus twelve semester classes throughout the year), her school would be structured around a four-period day (of ninety-minute lengths); the semesters would be shortened to nine- or ten-week terms, with students taking three (or in some rare cases) four classes per term, so that a student would have the opportunity to take (at bare minimum) the twelve courses throughout the academic year that the old schedule allowed, while being forced to concentrate on only three courses at any given time.

This new schedule would allow for greater flexibility. Students could arrange their day with more freedom, possibly taking courses at the local junior college or taking on a job (especially important in our socio-economically depressed area). Teachers would be allowed greater time in the classroom to mix and match activities; "old school" teachers, used to the drill and kill, would have to change their ways (or transfer out). This greater time also would allow for better individualized attention. And it also meant that teacher would now have a ninety-minute prep period rather than a fifty-four minute one. Of course, teachers would be teaching two more courses a year (twelve over the ten taught in the old six-period day), but with the additional prep time, the pain of this blow was lessened.

If Frankie’s rationale was simple, the latest in educational theory backed her up, as did reform movements nation- and world-wide. And when she proposed this idea to the staff, she allowed them to take over the idea, let them play with time and concepts. And the staff came back with a fine-tuned program. They voted for the change to the new format by a whopping 92-to-8 percent margin.

Frankie had her mandate and the support of the staff. And she pushed the change through the district. No bones were made about it, however, and the district never voiced whole-hearted approval or support for the schedule. Sister schools scoffed at the idea. And Chumash never garnered the positive press that PeeVee received when it attempted its OLA program, their school-within-a-school reform.

If Frankie the idealist had any failing, it was that she was never a pragmatist. She wasn’t the best at gathering hard numbers to support the positive changes that the staff could feel that followed the shift in schedule. That lack of statistical analysis would be the death of the schedule reform a year and a half after Frankie’s death.