by Moriah Schranz

On December 12, 2024, Norfolk Public School’s School Board hosted a meeting to discuss the possible implementation of the 4×4 schedule. This meeting was run by Amber Brown, the chief officer of NPS.  She spoke for close to an hour, first presenting a slideshow revealing the different models and their pros and cons, and later opening up the floor for questions.

Currently, Norfolk Public Schools functions on a year long, AB schedule but is considering transitioning into a hybrid 4×4 scheduling block model.

There are four commonly implemented high school models. 

The AB schedule means that students take the same classes the entire school year, but alternate every other day which classes they take. 

A traditional 6/7 bell schedule is where students have the same classes every day for the entire year. This makes classes roughly 45 minutes as opposed to the 90 minute classes in the current AB schedule. 

The third type of schedule is the 4×4 semester block schedule where students take 4 courses per semester with longer daily periods completing a year’s worth of content in a single semester. This allows for more focused study and the potential to take more courses over the year.

The last model is a mixed model, which may include elements of all three of the previous models.

Brown claims that “the main differences between the traditional schedule, year long AB schedule and 4×4 are the differences in the number of courses students can take per year, the approximate duration of each class, and the maximum credit opportunity available annually.” 

However, there are similarities between the current model and 4×4, including the ability to take eight courses per year, the average class length, and the opportunity to earn 32 credits during high school. 

NPS conducted a SWOT analysis to determine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with implementing the new model. The strengths of a 4×4 schedule include aligning with other schools in the 757 area and allowing students to more easily recover credits. The analysis also claims that this schedule will enhance relationships as students focus on fewer courses therefore reducing stress. It can also limit teacher workload and allow students to take more college level coursework, potentially increasing students’ GPA.

The weaknesses of the 4×4 schedule include scheduling conflicts. AP classes would need to be adjusted to align with its May exams, and back-to-back semesters annually on the same subject may face issues. For example, if a student took Spanish in the first semester of sophomore year, they may not be able to take the next level of Spanish until second semester of junior year, a year and a half later. This may risk students forgetting relevant content since it has been so long since they have taken the past course. 

For sport requirements, 3 out of 4 classes would need to be passed each semester.

Another limitation to this schedule is that if students consecutively are absent, they will fall further behind in classwork. Also, semesters are not the same length so one semester would have more time than the other.

Brown gives examples of potential strains with this schedule such as “pacing adjustments” for teachers and the need for extensive professional development.

Because of these weaknesses, NPS might use an alternative hybrid schedule. This model would have the 4×4 schedule for all classes except AP classes, dual enrollment, IB courses, and performing arts programs. 

This hybrid model aligns with NPS’s goal of supporting diverse student needs.