Picture this: High school routines in San Diego are on the brink of a major shake-up, with schedules poised to transform the way students tackle their days. This isn't just about shuffling classes—it's a debate that's dividing families, educators, and experts alike. Could switching to longer periods mean deeper learning or fewer opportunities for kids? Stick around to dive into the details, because the outcome might just redefine education in the region.
Exciting yet contentious changes to class timetables at San Diego Unified high schools, which have drawn significant resistance from parents and instructors, are finally slated for a vote this week. The district is pushing to adopt a 4×4 block schedule—think four classes per day instead of the traditional six that span the entire academic year—at more of its institutions.
Several high schools in the district, including prestigious magnet programs, have already embraced variations of the 4×4 model. Now, three additional schools—Mira Mesa High, Madison High, and Canyon Hills High—are on the cusp of making the leap if the proposal passes. These institutions are exploring a 4×4 hybrid approach, where certain subjects, like an Advanced Placement course, could still run for the full year.
'These particular schools have invested considerable effort in consultations, engaging not only their faculty but also students and their families about the 4×4 framework,' explained Nicole DeWitt, the district's deputy superintendent. But here's where it gets controversial... Not everyone is on board. Some parents fear that this shift would reduce overall instructional time in each subject, potentially disadvantaging learners. And while solid evidence is scarce, one local academic sees advantages in extended sessions that foster more profound comprehension.
Initially, a broader rollout plan—encompassing multiple schools—was unveiled at a board meeting late last month, sparking vocal opposition from teachers and parents, particularly those connected to Point Loma High School. Amid trustee confusion and public feedback, the decision was postponed. The revised plan, focusing solely on the three schools, is now up for consideration at Tuesday's school board gathering.
Why pursue this overhaul? High schoolers face a mountain of graduation prerequisites. Many are chasing California's A-G requirements, a set of college-preparatory courses (ranging from English and math to history and the arts) essential for admission to any public university in the state. San Diego Unified has added ethnic studies as a mandatory graduation hurdle, and soon, the state will mandate economic literacy classes too. Board trustees report hearing from families who feel students struggle to squeeze in desired electives. Board President Cody Petterson recounted his own family's challenges—even his middle school daughter, years from high school, frets about fitting in four Latin courses.
'Pressure has mounted from my experiences over the past three years; we simply need more course options,' he noted. Extra slots could also give students chances to recover from setbacks, like retaking failed classes without derailing their progress.
DeWitt emphasized that the district will advocate for these goals on Tuesday, focusing on student achievements such as dual enrollment completion, earning C grades or higher in A-G subjects, and succeeding in college, career, or technical pathways. 'Our aim is to strategize schedules that empower students to hit multiple readiness markers, equipping them for whatever paths await,' she said. Under the current six-period setup, flexibility often arrives only in junior or senior years, and it's even scarcer for those needing extra support, like English language learners or students with special education needs.
What insights do studies offer? Findings on scheduling shifts are mostly from decades past, and they show no clear winner—most indicate that no single format holds a decisive edge over others. 'Beyond the limited data, outcomes remain ambiguous,' stated Hannah Cooke, a fresh PhD from the University of Connecticut's Neag School of Education, who specializes in block timetables. The primary drawback of semester-long classes, she pointed out, is their potential misalignment with spring standardized tests, creating lengthy breaks after fall instruction.
'It boils down to how much weight we assign to standardized assessments in shaping school calendars,' Cooke remarked. On the flip side, block schedules enable more courses, a boon in states with rigorous graduation demands like Connecticut. 'Educators often tell me it's tough to fulfill all mandates while letting kids explore electives; if a student commits to band, other interests might get sidelined,' she added.
Sarah Fine, a UC San Diego education professor, observes a nationwide trend toward 4×4 models, not just in California. Drivers include the rise of dual-enrollment programs with local colleges—where block formats mirror higher education—and the push to meet A-G standards. Fine concedes that intricate topics might thrive in year-round classes, allowing more absorption time.
Yet, her qualitative studies champion block scheduling for teens. Frequent transitions between short sessions, with teachers handling over 100 students daily, create a disjointed environment, she argued. 'It's fragmented, hindering in-depth exploration, inquiry, and meaningful interactions,' Fine said. Regardless of class length—be it 60 or 90 minutes—educators should prioritize active learning, structuring time for engagement through activities like group problem-solving or hands-on experiments.
'The core of effective teaching involves students actively processing material—engaging in investigations, collaborating, tackling challenges, or conducting labs,' she elaborated. And this is the part most people miss... True transformation requires more than just tweaking the schedule; it demands investment in teacher training to adapt lesson plans.
What are the sentiments from families and educators? At the recent board session, public feedback leaned heavily negative, with many speakers—parents and teachers tied to the high-performing Point Loma High—arguing that 4×4 wouldn't suit their context. Karoly Tippets-Russell, a Point Loma educator and parent of two students there, claimed the shift would slash total classroom hours per subject, downplaying the value of easier class retakes.
'This might matter elsewhere, but Point Loma's failure rate is just 5% in our latest assessment, so it's not our priority. What matters is maximizing instructional time,' she asserted. Contrasting this, Point Loma parent Lori Williams, an instructional coordinator elsewhere, endorsed the move. Her son's experience in honors chemistry highlighted the benefits: at his prior school, labs were monthly, but under 4×4, they ramped up to four weekly, enriching hands-on learning.
From the teaching ranks, union representatives last month criticized the board's top-down imposition as contrary to labor agreements. 'This centralized push to enforce block schedules clashes with our democratic ideals in education,' said Kyle Weinberg, head of the San Diego Educators Association. 'We deserve better collaboration.' He noted ongoing negotiations on safeguards. DeWitt confirmed active talks.
Fine warned that districts must support educators through the transition, not just recycle old plans. 'Administrators risk failure if they underestimate the need for parallel investments in professional development,' she cautioned.
What's on the horizon? Approval on Tuesday would usher Mira Mesa High, Madison High, and Canyon Hills High into a 4×4 hybrid next year—blending semester and full-year courses—with durations varying by school design. They'll receive training and resources for lesson planning and community involvement this year to prepare. The district plans to track data on outcomes and readiness metrics pre- and post-change, aiming to inform broader decisions.
Is this the right path for San Diego's schools, or could it widen inequalities? Do longer blocks truly boost depth, or do they sacrifice breadth? Might a top-down approach stifle innovation, or is it necessary for system-wide equity? Share your perspectives in the comments—what do you think about balancing flexibility with structure in education?
