This year has included a number of controversies, but perhaps none have influenced the everyday lives of Manhattan High students the way block scheduling has.  

Introduced at the beginning of the school year, the block scheduling is a popular topic amongst students. One can hardly walk down the halls on a Wednesday or Thursday without hearing people discussing if it’s really worth it. Overall, The Mentor editorial board has decided that block scheduling was a good concept, but poorly executed. If changes were made, it could impact the student body in a much more positive way.

Perhaps the hardest part to adjust to in the new schedule has been the advisory period. Lessons dominate the first half of the class, while students are allowed to pass between other classrooms in the second half.  

While this program was well-intended, it is rather ineffective. Throughout the lesson and activity, we have consistently witnessed our classmates opt instead to browse through their social media feeds.  Of those who do participate, some still rush through the activity to get to other work.  

Due to the timing of advisory, students have only been to one class that day, and often don’t have work to complete or teachers to see. This leaves them to play games on their phones or talk, leaving those who do have work to do distracted.

One solution to this is to make advisory more personal. Under the current program, advisory is rather impersonal, focusing on preset lessons rather than tailoring them to the students. If advisory lessons are to be effective, changes must be made.  Students are grouped together randomly, and oftentimes are left with few people they know and even fewer that share any of their interests.  

As freshman, students are given career interest surveys to complete, but these aren’t incorporated into advisory in any way. If students were to be given their advisories based on interests, the program may work much smoother. Students could work together to figure out how to achieve their goals. The current system doesn’t help students gain these connections that allow them to move forward together.

Block scheduling has its flaws, but it does benefit some classes. In most science classes, the extended time period allows teachers to create labs that are more in-depth without worrying about time constraints. The only issue is that, as said above, block scheduling benefits some classes. For many students participated in performing arts classes, the 90-minute period can be draining both physically and mentally. Similarly, hour and a half lectures in history or English classes become tedious quickly.

Overall, the modified block scheduling was a good idea with poor execution. If changes were made to the program, it could affect the student body in a much stronger way. This is not a result of any specific person’s planning, it is simply the fault of the program. If we are to keep the block scheduling, something must be done if students are to embrace it.