Re: [Phys-l] trimester course set-up

[Arlyn DeBruyckere <arlynd@hutch.k12.mn.us>]

I can only speak for my situation and answer your questions below:

Edmiston, Mike wrote:
> Larry Smith mentioned that the original question centered on the high
> school change from semesters to trimesters.
>
> I agree.  But I was trying to explain that such a change does not
> necessitate a change in year-long courses.  Yet it appears there is some
> evidence some schools are indeed trying to force a change, for example
> it appears that in some instances what was a full-year course is going
> to become a 2-trimester course.
>
> Could someone explain to the list what is happening here, and why some
> schools are moving in this direction?  More specifically...
>
> (1) Does the proposed HS trimester plan primarily divide the normal
> nine-month school year into three sessions rather than two?

For us the answer is yes, Trimesters in three sessions of a "9 month" 
school year.

> (2) Is it generally assumed that full year courses under the semester
> plan are going to be switched to two trimesters under the new plan?  If
> so, what's the motivation behind this?  Is there at least the option
> that current full-year (9-month) courses can continue as 9-month
> courses, or does the administration's plans preclude this?

Again yes, courses that were full year are now 2 trimesters. Courses 
that were half year are now 1 trimester. There are now five 68 minute 
periods in a day instead seven 50 minute periods that results in about a 
12% reduction in contact time for each class.
> (3) If full-year courses are indeed switched from 9 months to 6 months,
> are periods lengthened so the same number of instruction hours result,
> or are the courses truly being shortened.  Again, what's the motivation
> for such a change?

The stated motivations:
1) increased number of courses that a student takes. This is to allow 
for the same number of "electives" while complying with the increased 
required credit numbers by the state.

2) to eliminate study halls because students didn't generally use them 
to study anyway.

3) to provide more flexibility in scheduling. Students now have 15 
"slots" to schedule a course instead of 14 on the old schedule.

Hinted motivations (never published but mentioned at faculty meetins):
1) teachers can now provide study time in class where they can help 
their own students instead of having study time in study hall.

2) students and teachers have 2/3 as many contact days so tensions that 
build up over time in some student-teacher relationships have less time 
to develop.

3) students have fewer classes to prepare for each night so homework 
will be done better - stress will be reduced and grades will improve.

4) teachers will see fewer students in a day so they will get to know 
the students better (this doesn't work for me but I understand it does 
for some teachers).

5) teachers will have only 4 periods (one prep period) of papers to 
grade at a time instead of 5.

6) student's grades improve because they don't have to study for as many 
classes.

Not stated motivations:
1) teachers have two more sections of classes each year - increased 
teacher efficiency.

2) teachers teach for 272 minutes each day instead of 250 and we don't 
have teachers supervising study halls.

I have resisted many opportunities to introduce my own bias here. I hope 
I have painted an acurate picture.



Arlyn DeBruyckere
Science Teacher
School Photographer
Hutchinson High School
1200 Roberts Road SW
Hutchinson MN 55350

HHS Weather at http://www.hutch.k12.mn.us/weather

http://www.hutchk12.org
mailto:arlynd@hutch.k12.mn.us

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/hea/
http://www.educationminnesota.org
If it is to be it is up to me!