As one of the high school teachers impacted by the “positive changes” outlined by Cozette Buckney in “Positive changes for high schoolers” (Voice, Jan. 14), I feel compelled to refute some of her arguments.
First, she points out that the change from 50- to 45-minute classes will allow the programming of double-period science and vocational classes. Obviously this is a laudable improvement, but she neglects to note that this change comes on the back of all other academic areas. Every class teacher will be required to give up 25 minutes of instructional time weekly to accommodate this revised timetable. This means that each student will sacrifice 150 minutes of academic instruction weekly. Obviously the message being sent is that the science and vocational curricula are more important than English, math, social studies and foreign language.
Second, she touts the advisory class as the means for ensuring that high school students will resist the temptation to disconnect and drop out of their impersonal high schools–again, a worthwhile objective. What she fails to note is that in the language of the recently ratified union contract, the advisory class will be only one 45-minute period a week. As Ms. Buckney correctly states, most high school teachers meet with 150 students weekly. Adding 30 additional students to this load hardly assures that these students will be any more connected than those we see for academic instruction only. She notes that this time will be used to instruct students how to better organize their time, how to develop study skills and, more importantly, how to make useful decisions regarding character development, problem solving and goal setting. Again worthwhile objectives, but these are implied to be more important than academic instruction in the core curriculum areas. One question I would also ask is where is the responsibility of parents in providing some of this character development?
My certification, like that of the majority of my colleagues, is in specific content areas only. Those members of the faculty who have certification as guidance counselors do not teach academic subjects in most cases. She is suggesting that I and all teachers assigned this class must now practice “without a license.” Given the litigious nature of our society today, I find that thought rather chilling.
Finally, I would suggest that the funds used to implement this advisory class would be better spent reducing class size in the high schools so that we would be able to mentor, guide, advise and coach a reasonable number of students instead of the unconscionable number we are currently expected to instruct.
