High Schedule Public Hearing Video

Purpose and Decision Process

Assistant Superintendent Hutch Hill opened a public hearing on possible high school schedule changes. The meeting was intended to explain the task force’s work and gather community feedback before it made a recommendation.

The task force was charged with evaluating schedules against four goals:

• Maximize learning time
• Ensure equitable access to programs and courses
• Support staff well-being
• Reduce district spending

The task force brainstormed schedule attributes, finalized 12 of them on September 15, and heard presentations on four proposed models from high school principals on September 22. Voting members—principals, teachers, students, and parents—selected two models for further consideration by October 20.

Hill emphasized that the task force is advisory. It will make a recommendation to the executive cabinet, and district administration will make the final decision.

The district’s savings target was described as roughly $3–5 million. The presentation estimated that the schedule changes would save about $1.7 million across the four high schools, leaving a substantial gap to address through other measures.

The Two Leading Schedule Models

Model 1: Traditional Eight-Period Day

• Students attend eight classes each day and see each teacher daily.
• Teachers teach seven of eight periods and receive one conference period each day.
• Task force members saw daily teacher contact and a daily conference as strengths.
• A major concern was that campus transitions could make 55-minute periods impractical; actual periods might be closer to 50 minutes. That would also reduce teachers’ planning time compared with the current schedule.

Model 4: A/B Block Schedule

• Students continue with the existing alternating-day block experience.
• Teachers teach seven of eight periods, with a 90-minute conference period every other day.
• The task force rated this model highly for preserving student access to instruction and programs while reducing costs.
• Its main drawback, particularly compared with Model 1, is that teachers would have a conference period every other day rather than every day.
• Model 4 was identified as the most favored option in the task force’s scoring, though it ranked lower than Model 1 on staff well-being.

Main Points Raised During Public Comment

Students and Families Who Favored Keeping the A/B Block Schedule

Students and families argued that longer classes support deeper learning and allow time for labs, tests, practice, and hands-on programs. They raised concerns that shorter, more frequent classes would:

• Reduce time for band rehearsals, athletics, labs, and other activities that require setup or sustained practice.
• Make it harder to accommodate AP, OnRamps, early-college, and other advanced courses.
• Disrupt CTE, medical, EMT, and practicum programs that depend on extended class periods, travel, or off-campus experiences.
• Increase student workload and stress, particularly for students taking many advanced courses or participating in extracurricular activities.
• Make learning harder for some students who benefit from longer periods to focus and retain information.

One student argued that alternating-day classes support spaced review and long-term memory, while an eight-period day would add transitions and require students to switch subjects more often.

Teachers and Other Staff

Teachers and other staff voiced concerns about both proposed models, especially the reduction in planning time. They described conference periods as work time used for lesson preparation, grading, student support, parent communication, department work, accommodations, and required meetings—not as uncommitted time.

Speakers warned that:

• Larger student loads and more course preparations could reduce feedback, tutorials, and individualized support.
• Reducing planning time could make it difficult to complete required work and attend meetings during the school day.
• Experienced teachers might leave for nearby districts, making vacancies, substitute coverage, and turnover costly.
• Reduced staffing could weaken instruction, staff morale, and the district’s ability to retain strong programs.

Several speakers cited a state requirement of 450 minutes of planning time per two weeks and questioned how the district would handle duties and meetings if teachers had only the minimum. A teacher also cautioned that additional coverage or substitute costs could offset projected savings.

Program and District-Wide Concerns

Concerns included the possibility that cuts to double-block courses could harm fine arts, athletics, CTE, and other programs that families said help attract students to the district. Speakers also worried that reduced programs or staffing could affect enrollment and, in turn, district funding. Some questioned whether the schedule changes were worthwhile if the projected savings still fell short of the district’s overall budget need.

A number of commenters supported Model 4 over Model 1 while still expressing concern about the loss of teacher planning time. Others asked the district to reject both options and explore less disruptive savings measures, including reductions or alternatives outside classroom programs.

Public-Comment Procedures and Next Steps

The meeting had 24 registered speakers, so each was allotted two minutes. The stated rules were:

• 20 or fewer speakers: three minutes each.
• 21–30 speakers: two minutes each.
• More than 30 speakers: one minute each.
• Speakers had to sign up before the meeting began.
• A speaker could yield their time to another registered individual.
• When called, speakers were asked to give their full name and watch the displayed timer.

At the close, Hill thanked attendees and said the task force would consider the comments before making a recommendation. He also encouraged attendees to share the district survey with others who had not attended.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Hutch Hill — Assistant superintendent of school leadership; presented the process, schedule models, and financial estimate.
• Dr. Olivaris — Public-comment facilitator.
• Mr. Garcia — Mentioned briefly during the opening microphone setup.
• Avery Monroy — Student, identified as a freshman at Pflugerville High School.
• Charles Atinson — Student, identified as a junior at Hendrickson High School.
• Jennifer Trong — Student, identified as a junior; introduced herself before comments attributed to Eleanor Brown.
• Eleanor Brown — Student, identified as a junior at Pflugerville High School.
• Jack Tran — Student, identified as a freshman at Pflugerville High School.
• Olive Castleberry — Student, identified as a junior at Pflugerville High School.
• Aaron Demer — Student and Early College High School program ambassador.
• Ruth Shrefler — Student in the Early College High School cohort and band.
• Rebecca Collins — Identified in the speaker introduction; the following speaker described herself as an English department chair at Pflugerville High School.
• Catherine Crane — Science teacher at Hendrickson High School and member of the district academic advisory committee.
• Hillary Smith — Parent, Hendrickson Hawk Band booster president, and educator.
• Colobby Miny — English 2 and photojournalism teacher at Pflugerville High School; spelling is unclear in the subtitles.
• Ryan Ford — Teacher and head soccer coach at Connally High School; teaches AP World History.
• Nathan Zamora — Band director at Hendrickson and teacher at Kelly Lane and Park Crest.
• Carmen Tidings — Teacher at Hendrickson High School.
• August Balk — Pflugerville High School teacher and vice president of the Pflugerville Educators Association; surname is unclear in the subtitles.
• Christine Hammond — Former English teacher at Weiss High School and community member.
• Angela Pi — Parent of three students in the district; surname is unclear in the subtitles.
• Eric Moore — Parent of a Weiss High School student and varsity football player.
• Rachel Atkinson — Parent of four district students.
• Ally Stevenson — Math department chair at Pflugerville High School.
• Michelle Richmond — Parent of two students, including one at Hendrickson High School.
• Sierra Henderson — Former district student and special education teacher.
• Michael Nave — Educator at Pflugerville High School; introduced himself as a 39-year educator.
• Daniel Thompson — Computer science teacher at Weiss High School.

No specific external research publication was named; speakers referred generally to cognitive psychology and educational research.