Hour Long Classes

Pursefan

Our principal has raised the idea of going to 1hr classes. We currently have 35 and 40 mins. I would love to hear about the experiences of other teachers? All we have heard is that neither kids or teachers like it and we don't really want to change as we think it's just about easy time table and getting everyone up to 22hrs.

newholland

Pursefan wrote: »

Our principal has raised the idea of going to 1hr classes. We currently have 35 and 40 mins. I would love to hear about the experiences of other teachers? All we have heard is that neither kids or teachers like it and we don't really want to change as we think it's just about easy time table and getting everyone up to 22hrs.

You will have to change to 40 mins in any event with new junior cycle.

Pursefan

The new arrangements state classes should be 40minutes min. There is the chance of longer. That is our fear?

newholland

Pursefan wrote: »

The new arrangements state classes should be 40minutes min. There is the chance of longer. That is our fear?

If they go longer you will have one hour per week reduced from timetable as opposed to 40 mins

evolving_doors

Just a way of cutting back on minor subjects/teachers.

Pursefan

Agreed. There is always a hidden agenda. We just want to hold it off. Any ideas?

mirrorwall14

It will be a logistical nightmare with the new Junior Cycle. Our principal seemed very pro it until the reduction in timetable for teachers came in. Principals can't reduce every junior cycle teacher by an hour a week instead of the 40 mins allowed, that would be too many hours lost to the school so the proposal he had heard was that you would have two floating hours every three weeks and the teacher would have to decide which group they weren't meeting that week. Disaster.

Also if you are a core subject you would go from seeing your students every day to seeing them three times a week. We have a parent whos child is in an hour long class school. She hates it, reckons it is impacting his learning with the irregularity. Also if a teacher is absent then for one day then the student miss a full class and a half rather than one class period.

40 minutes will be far easier to timetable. If you are changing thats what I would be saying.

newholland

Pursefan wrote: »

Agreed. There is always a hidden agenda. We just want to hold it off. Any ideas?

Do you really think that principals always have an agenda?

Pursefan

Exactly what we thought but our principal is not one for rational thought!! Thanks for the advice. All ideas really welcome!

Pursefan

Re the hidden agenda, it's just that we can see no logical benefit for us as teachers or for the kids. I have a 14 yr old who nearly collapsed when I asked her what she thought. Always open to the other side though. That's why I posted this. To get as much advice as possible.

The_Valeyard

S&S would be great fun..... An hour covering LCA with no work left for them.

highly1111

I did it in my last school. Classes were 8.45-9.30, then 9.30-10.30am then break till 11. Then 11-12, 12-1 then 2.45, 2.45-3pm. I loved the longer classes as they particularly suited my subject and the senior cycle. Just my tuppence.

RealJohn

I haven't any experience of it personally but my first thought was that in the case of practical subjects currently needing double classes, an hour would not be long enough to replace a double class but that a two hour double class would be too long, especially when timetabled opposite a non-practical subject with unfortunate history or geography teachers stuck trying to hold students' attention for two hours just because biology needs a double class.

PLL

I went to a school with hour long classes back 10 years ago. In my opinion teachers have the opportunity to give a better overview of a subject area and students have more time to understand it. I attended a few 40 min classes in another school for a few weeks and found teachers were trying to cram everything from their lesson plan in, compared to the more relaxed less pressure hour lessons I was used to.

derb12

I was talking to teachers from a school with 1 hour classes a few months ago and they were saying the 1 hour classes were brilliant. In their school the 1 hour classes had been introduced and they actually got rid of the bell!

I was at the maths counts conference last weekend and teachers were presenting their experiences of teaching problem-solving classes. Some were better than others but for every class they mentioned that they had got an extra 10 or 15 minutes added on to the normal class.

I certainly find my 35 and 40 minute classes too short a lot of the time. I'd imagine that 1 hour classes would be much less hectic. Personally I'd prefer 3 x1 hour classes to 5x40 minute classes, even though it's less class contact time, I think the time would be more productive.

Pursefan

Thanks everyone. Great to get all these points. Any feedback on kids finding it difficult especially at junior cycle?

TheSplendid

In France, classes are roughly 55 minutes long (we also started at 8.30 and finished sometimes around 5.30) at both Junior and Senior Cycle, and I remember being exhausted by the whole timetable. Personally, I think the 40 minutes classes are better, they suit my subject and the students' attention span. I wouldn't be against extending it to 45 minutes, but not a bit beyond that.

r93kaey5p2izun

I would like hour long classes for HL maths if we got 4x1hr and I think it would be ok for LC Biology. But I think an hour would be too short for JC science practicals (and surely it would be totally inadequate for Home Ec cooking). And the thoughts of FL maths or LCAs for an hour would send shivers down my spine! This would represent a significant portion of any timetable in my school so I hope we never consider this.

mirrorwall14

Pursefan wrote: »

Thanks everyone. Great to get all these points. Any feedback on kids finding it difficult especially at junior cycle?

Only anecdotally via that parent on my staff. Her kids hate it and she's not happy with it for the reasons above

Pursefan

We were thinking that it could mean you could face teaching non-stop some days as you would obviously have fewer free classes. And if you add in S and S and a 35 min lunch and possible Croke Park hours you would be wrecked some weeks!!!

The_Valeyard

From what I have heard so far, it works well for senior level, but can be chaotic for junior level.


Suppose it depends on the school & subject. Also an extra 20 minutes with those inspectors!

fall

Hour long here for years and would hate to go back to 40 minutes. I remember being so sceptical bringing it in but love it now. At a meeting recently we were asked our thoughts on it and every single teacher there loved it.
Six lessons a day. Allows really experiential learning and not just take down notes. Students were surveyed through student council and also loved it.

SlinkyL

I teach one hour classes for JC science. 2 x 1 hr per year. This is 40 minutes short every week on 4 x 40 min as it was where I used to teach.
I find it extremely difficult to get practicals done in an hour, I know the home ec teacher feels the same. I also need to have my room fully tidied up for incoming classes as I share the room, which is very, very difficult in an hour. It makes doing the practicals a nightmare tbh. Always feel rushed and harried between being short on timetabled hours overall and not having enough time to do practicals so it doesn't work for me especially with sharing lab.
I think for other subjects it could be fine but practicals need longer than an hour. In my previous school they would slot double science around break/lunch to facilitate practicals.

happywithlife

Home Ec teacher here and would hate 1 hour classes. Have only heard negatives from colleagues in other schools tbh - impossible to get students in, roll call, set up, prepare, cook, serve up & evaluate, wash up and them properly tidy up to leave room ready for next class. Maybe it could be done if you had proper access to kitchen assistants like they have in other countries. Would also hate to have reduced contact with students as you could very easily end up in a situation whereby you're often missing the same class / students due to extra curricular. Its not lije other countries where extra curricular occurs in s structured way after the school teaching day. Again we seem to be following international practices but without international supports imo

Pursefan

Thanks a million everyone. It seems a mixed bag from what I read here. I am still concerned about the junior classes and think it's too long for them. But can see some merit at senior. I still suspect it's about easy time tabling and getting all teachers up to 22hrs. I also suspect it would work better in a strongly academic school but could prove quite a challenge in others. Still a lot to consider.

joebloggs32

Pursefan wrote: »

Thanks a million everyone. It seems a mixed bag from what I read here. I am still concerned about the junior classes and think it's too long for them. But can see some merit at senior. I still suspect it's about easy time tabling and getting all teachers up to 22hrs. I also suspect it would work better in a strongly academic school but could prove quite a challenge in others. Still a lot to consider.

The motivation can't be about getting everyone up to 22 hours as we are all due to be on 21h 20 from September 2017.
I like the idea of preparing only 21/22 classes per week. I have academic subjects and would certainly welcome it. I also like the fact that I would get 1 hour s&s done at a time, meaning probably being called upon once every three weeks instead of every second week which tends to happen now.

evolving_doors

joebloggs32 wrote: »

The motivation can't be about getting everyone up to 22 hours as we are all due to be on 21h 20 from September 2017.

I like the idea of preparing only 21/22 classes per week. I have academic subjects and would certainly welcome it. I also like the fact that I would get 1 hour s&s done at a time, meaning probably being called upon once every three weeks instead of every second week which tends to happen now.

What's that about?

deiseindublin

Only those with new JC students will be down 40 mins.

man_no_plan

Pursefan wrote: »

Thanks a million everyone. It seems a mixed bag from what I read here. I am still concerned about the junior classes and think it's too long for them. But can see some merit at senior. I still suspect it's about easy time tabling and getting all teachers up to 22hrs. I also suspect it would work better in a strongly academic school but could prove quite a challenge in others. Still a lot to consider.

First years have plenty of double classes in most schools and are well able for an hour 20 so i can't see how that would be an issue personally.

As for the 22hours, if youre being paid for 22 thats what you should be doing to be fair. 33 x 40 is 22hrs anyway so that couldn't be a good reason to move.

A change like this needs to be plotted out fir theee or four years to get a balance of time. Maybe 2,3,3 for science and rotate it with other subjects. Its far from simple.

The main drawback i hear is with home ec. I worked in a school with all 35 min classes and i know the practical teachers found even the double short.

I wouldn't be in any rush until the new jc is clearly laid out. Plenty of time.

Overall though, personally, i would be in favour of it when the time is right. Easier on everyone, less homework for kids each night.

mtoutlemonde

man_no_plan wrote: »

First years have plenty of double classes in most schools and are well able for an hour 20 so i can't see how that would be an issue personally.

Yes this happens but I can only speak for my own subject - this would be once a week. I don't think they would be able for all hour long classes. Yes hour long classes would suit (or maybe not from what I'm hearing) practical teachers but would not be good for language teachers like myself who would lose contact with the students as I have them four times a week and we all know there are disruptions i.e. matches etc. which would mean students would only get one hour per week. Hour long classes could be good for senior classes but then the students aren't immersed to the language everyday. Hour long classes would be ideal for department inspections as you would be able to incorporate all the aspects of learning a language which is not always possible in a 35/40 min class.

Crazy Ivan

Worked in a school with 1hr classes for the past year. Absolutely brilliant! I would struggle to move back to 35/40 min lessons. It leaves loads of time for active learning, group work etc.

We had no bell between classes either. The only bells happened at the beginning of the day, to indicate the end of break and to indicate the end of lunch. It took about 3 - 4 weeks for everyone to get used to the ideas but it worked out great.

All students - first years included - could handle the 1-hour lessons with no hassle. Just keep them active or they'll get bored. It was rare to see kids counting down the time or anything like that.

Disadvantages were that you could miss a lot of contact with students. I taught Science and instead of 2 X 40 mins and a double lesson for first years, they reduced to 2 x 1hr and one of the lessons was on a Monday. Any bank holiday meant I only met them once that week. If you added another activity or sports event, I might only see particular students once in a 2-week period and they would fall behind. Oh and I rarely ran into difficulties with getting practicals done.

Also, there was a tendency to spend a 1-hour lesson covering what you might previously cover in 40 mins, meaning you could fall behind. It's something to be aware of if 1-hour lessons are introduced!

I think the 1-hour lessons suited some teaching styles better than others.