The administration presented four schedule proposals aimed to close the instructional minute gap for next year to the faculty at the March 11 professional development meeting.

Drafted by the instructional minutes taskforce, the proposals included four possibilities: the standard, the modified modular, the modified block and the block schedule. The taskforce is comprised of one administrator, six teachers, three students, two counseling department representatives, two parents and two alumni, although sometimes two stakeholders’ voices were represented by one person; for example, as a member may be both a teacher and an alumni.

The faculty was asked to refrain from questions or comments during the presentation. “The administration team decided that it was not an appropriate venue for questions,” chair of the committee and orchestra teacher Michele Winter said. After the presentation, however, the faculty split up into their respective departments to further discuss the proposals.

After that discussion, each department returned a feedback form, which had sections for comments, questions and concerns. According to Winter, the forms should not be interpreted as ballots but simply a venue for input.

Faculty members had varying reactions to the proposals. “Apparently the school has no choice but to increase instructional minutes,” English department head Svein Arber said. “However, each proposed new schedule raises concerns.”

According to Arber, the standard and modified block schedules do not allow sufficient time for one-on-one conferences between students and teachers. “If students have issues with their writing, the best way to resolve these issues is through conferences,” Arber said.

Some also had concerns about class length. “Shorter classes may take away the opportunity to do a long lab without interruption,” physics teacher Scott Dickerman said. “The science department’s general consensus seemed to be that we could tolerate having 55- minute classes every day or 75-minute classes on Wednesday and Thursday (as in the modified block schedule),” Dickerman said.

Others had concerns about the frequency of classes. According to math teacher Laura Neri, for some math classes, it is difficult to meet fewer than five times a week because of the amount of material that must be covered. Furthermore, lengthier classes may demand too much of some students in one period. A world language teacher echoed that viewpoint. “It’s good to meet every day so that students can practice their language,” Italian teacher Amelia Nevis said. “That’s why the standard and modified mod schedule work better for the foreign language classes. With the other two schedules, we are concerned about longer class periods with days in-between when students would not be in an environment to speak in the second language.”

According to senior Michael Inouye, a student member of the taskforce, choosing a schedule is extremely difficult because every department wants something different. Inouye is advocating the modified modular schedule. “The modular schedule has been part of Lowell tradition for years,” Inouye said. “By choosing the standard schedule, we’re conforming to a common high school model and losing our freedom and individuality — something I value as a student here.”

The main concern of United Educators of San Francisco is whether schedules comply with the teacher contract. “The contract states that you cannot assign extra time to teachers,” union building co-representative Kathy Melvin said. “We need to make sure that the new schedule we adopt gives teachers no more duties than they already have and doesn’t lengthen their day.” According to Melvin, the block schedule violates this contract because it includes a tutorial period, or guaranteed free mod for students during which teachers must be in classrooms waiting to answer questions or tutor students.

Some are frustrated that Lowell has to change at all. “So many schools in California are failing and we’re not,” English teacher Wendy Beck said. “They should be asking us how we do it instead of telling us to have more instructional minutes with less funding.”

According to Winter, the next step in the process of picking a schedule is to review the department feedback forms. “There is some time pressure to form next year’s master schedule,” Winter said. “If it looks like the block schedule is in the lead, the time crunch is intensified.” The standard, modified modular and modified block schedules do not affect the master schedule, which outlines all class, teacher, and room assignments. However, while teachers currently work either Mods 1-17 or Mods 4-20, the block schedule would alter teachers’ shifts and necessitate a different master schedule.

Winter hopes students are also involved in the response process. Peer Resource coordinator Adee Horn volunteered to help coordinate student input, although a specific venue for input is yet to be decided. “A new schedule affects students, so they should have a voice,” Horn said. “For example, we could have a town hall meeting for the students to receive the same presentation that the faculty heard. The students could also offer feedback at the town hall meeting.” According to Horn, another possibility is for registry representatives to attend a town hall meeting and report back to their registries. Each registry would fill out a feedback form similar to the one the faculty was given.