To achieve resource equity in school scheduling, scheduling teams—or we call them, the “Architects of Equity” —must recognize and understand the impacts that bell schedules have on scheduling. Regardless of the bell schedule that is selected, Architects of Equity must stay focused on what a bell schedule is supposed to do: allow for students and teachers to engage purposefully and intentionally around content.
Not all bell schedules are created equally, so Architects of Equity must support awareness and selection of a structure that allows for access that leads to equitable academic outcomes.
Equitable bell schedules are evidence-based. Too often bell schedule decisions are based on unsubstantiated claims about learning, such as (a) I must see the students every day or they won’t master competencies; (b) Some students just don’t come to high school prepared so they can’t be expected to achieve at the highest level; (c) Access to a wide variety of elective courses as a priority keeps students engaged in school; and (d) Students won’t get into college unless the site offers more advanced course work than other schools. When these ideas are presented as a justification for selecting bell schedules that prioritize multiple transitions for students and inequitable access to high expectations for historically marginalized students, Architects of Equity must require that decisions are evidence based.
To shift towards more equitable (and affordable) bell schedule selections, scheduling teams must consider and act on the following questions:
- Does this bell schedule protect our priorities? Site schedules are the roadmaps that strategically organize fiscal and human resources towards 10-month desired outcomes. Scheduling teams must not only understand district and site priorities prior to beginning a yearly scheduling process, but they must also understand how bell schedule decision-making can either be a lever or a barrier to protecting these priorities. For example, if a priority for the school/district is increasing the number of students who are enrolled in and pass college dual enrollment courses, the bell schedule cannot be organized in a way that creates a barrier for students to access these courses. In many community colleges, courses will be offered on M/W or T/Th. To maximize a student’s ability to take courses on both days, schedulers will need to make sure that the bell schedule prioritizes consistent student access to standard periods and/or flex periods M-Th. If a potential dual enrollment student is also an athlete, access to college coursework may not be able to happen at the end of the day. And this is just one example of many competing priorities that must be considered when selecting a bell schedule.
- Can we afford this bell schedule? Site schedulers must understand that there are always going to be great ideas about the schedule, but you must be able to afford your good ideas. Decision making at the site level cannot change the district’s projected allocations–allocations that many times are connected to enrollment projections and/or declining enrollment numbers. Many times, bell schedule decisions are made at the site level without a clear understanding of the impacts on the big financial picture. Schedulers must understand that adding an additional prep period for teachers and/or adding additional teaching periods have significant costs–even if these decisions remain within the standard seven-hour school day. The difference between running a six or seven period bell schedule can be a million-dollar decision that must be regulated by the central office. These decisions could inadvertently require10 or more teachers than the site initially needed. Shared decision making at the site level is important, but this should be the beginning of a multi-layered process, not the end of the process.
- Will this bell schedule support our local, state and federal mandates? Site schedulers must understand the impacts of local, state and federal mandates, including union contract agreements, prior to making bell schedule decisions. For example, some districts limit teacher loads to 100 students or limit the number of core classes teachers can teach to four. If this is the case, running a 7, 8 or 9 period straight schedule is going to require filler coursework in teacher lines which will in turn require that students take additional filler courses–typically courses without educational content. Prioritizing filler courses over opportunities for students to spend more time in the tier I core classes and/or building more opportunities for teachers to collaborate is a statement about site priorities. Additionally, site schedulers must understand how mandates around English Learner sections and/or the collection of average daily attendance can be affected by bell schedule decisions.
The good news is that bell schedule decisions are within our locus of control. For more information on how to support equitable bell scheduling decision-making, consider reading Equitable School Scheduling and/or reaching out to Cheryl Hibbeln at www.illuminated collective.org.
