Administration Reveals Pilot Schedule for Spring

By JOONYOUNG HEO, LUCY JUNG, ADELE PITTS, MARVIN SHIM, ANDREW YANG and FORREST ZENG

The Academy will test a new pilot schedule in the upcoming 2024 spring term, prompting mixed reactions from faculty and students alike.

The new schedule, which was decided without a faculty vote, features several changes: one-hour class blocks, except reserves, ten-minute transition periods, more homework per class, and one fewer class per two-week cycle. Non-reserve classes will have three one hour-long meetings per week and will require 80 to 90 minutes of homework per class. Reserve blocks will have three separate one hour-long meetings and one 50-minute meeting per week, and require 50 to 60 minutes of homework per class.

The one-term pilot is part of an ongoing process to find the best schedule for the Academy community. “The idea is to gain experience with the pilot schedule so that we might be in a better position to compare it to our current and pre-pandemic schedules and make a more informed decision about the optimal schedule for the long term,” Principal William Rawson said.

Director of Studies Jeanette Lovett outlined the expected benefits of the pilot schedule. “Most importantly, the schedule requires fewer daily transitions, both physical and cognitive,” she said. “We will continue to have an incremental, age-appropriate approach to homework. The schedule also cuts down on students needing to shift to and from athletics and ends academic classes significantly before 6 p.m.”

“Finally, the schedule makes it very unlikely for a student to have two five-class days in a row,” Lovett continued. “This addresses a longstanding problem with the amount of homework students are expected to do in a single night, particularly after a day without free periods. In any case, there is more flexibility for students to manage the load because they will have multiple nights to do certain assignments.

A great deal of planning made this new schedule possible. “The Assistant Principal, Dean of Faculty, and current and former Director of Studies have been working on different model schedules for some time now, consulting with faculty and presenting options for discussion in faculty meetings and other settings with faculty,” Rawson said. “Small-scale pilots run last year also have influenced the thinking about the design of the pilot for this spring, and a faculty committee continues to consider how best to run the pilot.

This initiative was largely driven by concerns over student wellbeing and class efficiency. “My understanding is that the schedule is based on results from the student surveys that were conducted last year,” Dean of Academic Affairs Laura Marshall said. “The scheduling committee is trying to find ways to make the pace of life at Exeter easier and alleviate student homework pressure.”

Many among the faculty have responded positively to the administration’s good intentions and the potential benefits of the pilot schedule.

“My general reaction is that education is experimental,” History Department Chair Kent McConnell said. “We should be constantly engaged in trying to improve. I do think it’s important that we take seriously the results of last year’s survey about student anxiety and try to reduce that anxiety by reconfiguring the amount of ‘face time’ with our students. We gain an opportunity for students to apply themselves to their studies with a bit more breathing room.”

“I’m really happy to see the school responding to student data,” Instructor in English Emily Quirk said. “The pace of the day can be really exhausting for students. I think the schedule is coming from a really good place, and I’m hoping that it’ll be something that will support student health and balance.”

Instructor in English Brooks Moriarty also saw the value of experimentation. “I’m willing to try anything that helps our students and promotes their wellbeing and learning,” he said.

Instructor in Science Susan Park was equally open to change. “My understanding is that the pilot schedule intends to improve the flow of the day and reduce stress for students,” she said. “I can’t say it’s a binary between a positive or a negative change. I would just welcome anything that would do those things.”

Others simply valued more in-person time with their students. “I generally prefer more face-to-face class time,” Instructor in English Todd Hearon said. “If that’s what the new schedule gives us, I’m for that.”

“I love hearing students talk about books, so of course I’m happy with an hour-long class,” Instructor in English Courtney Marshall said. “I’m also happy that students will have more passing time and a schedule that fits more closely with their sleep patterns, and it will help teachers as well. We are often going between buildings for meetings.”

More passing time between classes was another positive. “I like the idea of 10 minutes between classes as it might help with punctuality,” Chair of the Department of Modern Languages P. Fermin Perez-Andreu said. “Since we are going to try the new schedule, I am curious to see what works and what doesn’t and to what extent it is possible to adjust to it successfully.”

Others spoke of giving students enough time between classes for cognitive shifts. “I’m hoping students will arrive less exhausted cognitively,” Instructor in Modern Languages Diego Ardura said. “It takes a large toll to have math, German, and physics and have all of those classes with a five-minute passing block. So I’m hoping those 10 minutes not only allow students to actually be on time, but also come to class a bit decompressed, to get into Spanish mode, and not run up the stairs and catch their breath as class starts.”

Compared to the current schedule, the predictable nature of the pilot schedule was also attractive for faculty. “I like the predictability of the pilot schedule,” C. Marshall said. “It’s hard for me to remember the order of the formats, so I always have the paper calendar with me.”

In terms of learning the course material, instructors spoke of older or more experienced students being able to take advantage of longer periods. “The important part of history is connecting interpretation to actual historical contexts,” McConnell said. “It’s about trying to tease out examples that illustrate the complexity of human experiences in the past, that may inform the present. Often it feels like my classes with uppers and seniors end prematurely, and extra time per class for upperclassmen would be helpful given the assigned materials.”

Instructor in History Betty Luther-Hillman agreed that more class time would allow for more curriculum diversity. “It would be helpful to use the longer amount of class time to do smaller in-class writing assignments more frequently along with Harkness discussions.”

Similarly, other instructors felt limited by the shorter class periods in the current schedule. “When I first started teaching, I did 60-minute classes, so 50 minutes felt short and 40 minutes really short,” Quirk said. “I include a ‘community circle’ at the start of every class, so the new schedule allows for a full 45 minutes of work. It also gives some flexibility to have a Harkness discussion and work on some writing.”

Others were more indecisive, but they did appreciate certain potential benefits. “Essays, workshops, METIC, library research project — all of it adds up,” Instructor in History Nolan Lincoln said. “You’re losing classes and you’re not just going to cover all the content you want to, and this pilot doesn’t help. But you can also assign more homework and have longer classes, so there are pros and cons on both sides of the argument. I’m not sure where I’d fall on that yet.”

Despite these positive changes, however, many instructors have given some negative feedback. Critical response has varied widely between departments and even individual courses. In particular, concern for students newer to the subject matter has been echoed across departments in the humanities.

“For preps and lowers, I can also see where, given the trajectory of a course, an hour may feel like a long time in the classroom,” McConnell said. “It’s nothing against students this age, but rather trying to do Harkness for an hour and maximizing their acquisition of historical materials. If my working assumption is true, we’ll have to adjust our approach in the classroom. Perhaps something like discuss assigned readings for 40 minutes, then hand out a primary source and have students analyze it for the next 20 minutes.”

The trend continued in the Modern Languages Department. “I’m open to try the pilot schedule this upcoming spring term.” Instructor in Modern Languages Ning Zhou said. “My main worry is for lower level classes. Because the lower levels are where we build important foundations. Instructionally speaking, I would like to see lower level students more frequently. As the pilot is reducing the four to five class meetings to four times each week, we may need to adjust the pacing and how much content we can cover. We want to make sure the students can not only finish the material, but also retain the materials by not rushing through the content.”

Notably, Zhou felt more confident in teaching his higher-level courses. “For my older students, extended homework time comes in exchange with the reduced class meeting times,” Zhou said. “I know that the workload has always been a heated topic among students — how much time they spend on work, social life, and sleep — so I do have some concerns regarding how students will react. However, because they have stronger foundations than the lower level students, I think the students in higher level classes will adjust much more easily.”

As for Perez-Andreu, who was the only one in the Modern Languages Department to try the new schedule last winter and had a somewhat positive experience, he still shares the same concerns and remains uncertain. “I reiterate that more frequency is better for learning a language,” Perez-Andreu said. “But my experience with a pilot class wasn’t negative. I was able to cover all I had to cover, and I managed to use class time more effectively than I expected.”

“I wasn’t sure about the impact of ten more minutes per meeting time on the students’ focus,” he continued. “But it went well for me. In any case, the experiment was with just one class, and different factors could have played a role. After this coming spring, I will have more of an opinion.”

In the Classical Languages Department, too, the number of class meetings per week itself is important in helping less experienced students. “I can speak for the whole department because we’ve discussed the schedule,” Chair of the Department of Classical Languages Matthew Hartnett said. “Our position has pretty much remained the same throughout: more frequent meetings are more pedagogically useful to students learning languages than less frequent meetings. So to the extent that the pilot involves decreasing the frequency of meetings, we think that’s going to be damaging to the students’ ability to learn as effectively as possible.”

Instructor in Classical Languages Lina Wang, who teaches many newcomers to the field, agreed. “While I’m willing to be proven wrong, a lower frequency of classes does not seem ideal to me for language learning, especially at the introductory level,” she said. “I know that my department will have to get creative in restructuring our curriculum at the 100 level.”

At the end of the day, then, instructors in the humanities anticipate some positive changes — longer passing periods and more productive periods for upperclassmen — but worry about the decrease in class meetings for newer students.

In the Science Department, some of the faculty do not expect many challenges ahead. “I would have to adapt to the schedule where there’s a reduction, but there should be minimal difference to students in terms of what they’re learning now,” Park said. “It’ll feel different, but in theory we should be able to cover the same material.”

On the other hand, others in the department who teach a specific curriculum are more broadly concerned about fewer class meetings for all of their students, not just the underclassmen.

“Both physics and chemistry ask students to make meaning of concepts that are new to them,” Instructor in Science Mark Hiza said. “This takes time and the more opportunities there are for students to engage in applications of the concept, the more fully they will gain an understanding of it. Fewer classes mean fewer opportunities. Longer homework assignments remove me, the teacher, from my role as a guide for my students.”

Park’s speculation that “this will be an added challenge to maintaining a course aligned with the AP curriculum” is a reality for instructors like Hiza, who teaches the Chemistry 400 sequence, among others.

“The accelerated chemistry course is already under a strain to work through the AP curriculum by the beginning of May,” Hiza said. “The pilot schedule will add to that strain and negatively impact the five sections of students taking the course.”

Similarly, instructors in the Department of Mathematics will be forced to assign more problems for each class, which would, as many believe, negatively decenter the classroom and rely too much on student independent work.

“The new schedule is antithetical to what Harkness and our school are supposed to be about,” Instructor in Mathematics Eric Bergofsky said. “The point is to have student-centered classes and discussions. The more you have students do for homework, the less they’re engaging with each other and the faculty, and that’s a detriment to their education.”

“If I had my way, I’d meet every class five times a week and shrink the homework load,” Bergofsky continued. “I know we can get a lot done in class and everyone is accountable for the work. I’m in class, the kids are in class, we work efficiently. We say Harkness is what distinguishes us from every other school. Why wouldn’t we do it as often as possible?

Low-quality homework was also a serious concern for Instructor in Mathematics Dale Braile. “One of the things we’ve discovered in the math department is that giving more homework does not necessarily mean the class gets through more problems the next day. It really depends on how well students do that homework,” she said. “Lower-level students coming are particularly unprepared for Harkness and Exeter math, so we need more time to help them adjust. So shorter assignments but more class meetings would help them think about things on their own, but also get the benefit of hearing from their classmates and the teacher.”

Even beyond all of their critical feedback, some faculty in both the humanities and STEM departments shared concern about the way the administration decided to implement the schedule. While there were indeed discussions with faculty last year, the absence of a final faculty vote to implement the pilot schedule was a subject of controversy.

“I came to Exeter in 1987,” Braile said. “At that time, any proposed changes in the daily schedule were initiated by the faculty. Any proposed schedule would be discussed at length during faculty meetings and then the faculty would vote on it. If the proposal did not get a majority of the votes, we continued with the schedule we already had. This, of course, had to change during Covid. But now that we are back to having faculty meetings in person, I don’t know why we haven’t returned to letting the faculty decide what daily schedule works best.”

Other instructors felt just as strongly. “Before the pandemic, the faculty made decisions about the curriculum and daily schedule,” Hiza said. “During the pandemic, for reasons that most people could agree with, the administration took over this role. Now it seems that the administration is reluctant to revert back to our longstanding model of governance. I think we should all be worried when a small group of people tries to tell the larger community what’s best for them. A decision like this should have been made in a deliberative way that involved the full faculty (and students) and that process should have involved a vote.”

“My colleagues and I believe the way we approached the pilot was problematic,” Bergofsky said. “It’s a big deal to pull a schedule together and run it for an entire term. The faculty should have had some say about whether they wanted to put that time and energy into adapting to a new system.”

Lack of preparation was another concern. “It would be nice to know in advance how we’re going to be given time to plan for this change; if not, that could be a challenge,” Luther-Hillman said. “If teachers don’t know what to do and end up dismissing their classes ten minutes early every day, that would not be as meaningful to what we’re trying to experiment with.”

Some instructors advocated for more student and faculty input. “I absolutely feel that the faculty should have been given a vote,” Hearon said. “We are — or it used to be said we were — a ‘faculty-run school.’ Maybe the students should have been able to weigh in as well. They bear the burden of administrative changes.”

Still, even here there were mixed reactions, with some instructors deeming a faculty vote unnecessary. “I certainly understand why people would want a vote, but I’m okay with the administration doing this because it’s a pilot,” Lincoln said. “There have also been a lot of conversations about the schedule. It’s not like this is something people didn’t have a chance to voice their feelings about. I appreciate the democratic process, but at the same time, it can be somewhat a hindrance — it’s a pilot schedule, not a full shift.”

Ardura shared a similar opinion. “At some point, someone has to make a decision,” he said. “We’ve had a lot of faculty meetings about it, but at the same time, I want someone who says, ‘Hey, let’s just give it a try.’ I’m not the one with all the data on student time management or from the survey, so the administration has to decide for us. So I think it’s crucial that the faculty voice is heard, but I don’t think there needs to be a faculty vote.”

As for the student body, general reactions have been positive, negative, and everywhere in between. Like the faculty, many students saw the new schedule’s simplicity and consistency as major strengths.

“Our schedule shifts around a lot and different classes start at different times,” prep Grace Yang said. “I was pretty confused with the schedule at first, and with this new pilot schedule, you basically know how to plan your time.”

“Having the pilot program is an improvement to the current schedule that’s confusing to navigate for new students,” senior Andrew Yuan said. “I also think having an hour of concentrated time in class, similar to how a lot of public schools are doing it, will be very helpful. Overall, I’m in support.”

Increased class efficiency was another positive change for many. “I’ve realized that homework plays a huge part in Harkness learning at Exeter,” prep Alex Lim said. “So I believe that allocating more time for students to focus on their homework will allow classes to be more fulfilling for the students. In addition, many teachers choose not to use the 70-minute long block, so changing every block to 60 minutes will make for better use of time.”

The 10-minute passing period was attractive for others. “Overall those 10 minutes will reduce stress,” senior Jack Farah, who headed a Core Values Project (CVP) on scheduling reform last year, said. “Students don’t have to have the unnecessary pressure of walking to and from class. I know I have a class on the fifth floor of Phillips Hall. I have to go straight to the third floor of the science center, which in five minutes is a ridiculous turnaround.”

Beyond these changes, there was also substantial criticism from students. One common point of concern was homework load. “Probably the biggest shift will be seeing how homework will factor in,” upper King-Diorr Willsun said. “If a class doesn’t meet on one day and doesn’t assign homework, then the teacher might assign a huge load for the next class.”

Likewise, students shared the faculty’s concerns about the decreased number of class meetings, especially in certain departments. “I think the one-hour system will definitely benefit classes like math where you can go over more problems regularly,” upper Grant Leopold, who collaborated with Farah in the scheduling CVP, said. “But for classes like Spanish or Chinese where you need that repetitive nature and those regular meetings to practice the language at the early stages. That’s pretty harmful for students.”

Setting expectations aside, others will wait until they see the pilot schedule in action before coming to their own opinion. “The survey they ran last year showed students were spending upward of four hours on homework per night, and the pilot schedule is trying to fix that,” upper Caspar Bailey said. “I’d say the administration has good intentions, but we’ll see whether the schedule will fix things or not.”

The administration has certainly expected to hear feedback from the community, and it will continue to listen and make changes as necessary. “This is a learning experience, so we do expect questions to arise about how teaching and learning will be affected in different departments and at different levels of study,” Rawson said. “Some departments might find it harder to adjust than others. This is one way to learn and assess options.”

One thing is certain — no plans are yet in place to switch to the pilot schedule in the long run, much less permanently. “Looking ahead, the faculty will have dedicated time leading up to the spring term for individual and departmental work on modifying existing syllabi and course plans,” Lovett said. “The spring pilot schedule is not intended to be a permanent adoption, but rather a test of its essential design. We will take more time for faculty input and deliberation before adopting any longer-term change. According to the Academy’s governance structures, a permanent change to our schedule would need to be voted on and approved by the full faculty.”

“We anticipate collecting feedback from as many faculty and students as possible to understand how they feel about the pilot schedule, the schedule we have now, and any other possible schedules,” Rawson concluded. “Our next steps will depend on that feedback and faculty assessment of all the pros and cons of each option going forward.”