Eastchester high school leaders propose —bridge— schedule: split extra‑help, monthly programming days and small daily changes

School leaders and a scheduling committee told the Eastchester Union Free School District Board of Education at a Feb. 4 work session that they intend to pilot a set of limited changes for the 2025–26 school year as a bridge toward a larger schedule redesign in 2026–27.

The committee—s stated goals are to increase teacher collaboration time, preserve the district—s robust elective program, improve student support and wellness, and align more instructional time with problem‑based and technology‑infused learning. Members presented survey results and a set of adaptive changes they say address priorities while the district continues planning for a transformational schedule.

The committee includes Chris Welch (presented as the high school principal), Madeline Labou (middle school principal), Brian Johnson (English department chair and ETA vice president), Director of Counseling Heather Riley, other department chairs and two students who participated in the process. Chris Welch said the team met three times (Nov. 4, Dec. 16, Jan. 27) and that the change process was expected to span two years: "we view making the transformational change ... as a 2 year process."

Key elements of the bridge schedule presented for next year include:

- Split extra help: optional morning and afternoon extra‑help windows so students arriving on early buses can access help and afternoon help ends at 2:40 p.m. to allow clubs to start at 2:40 and athletics at 3:00.

- Homeroom: a proposed reduction from 13 minutes to 3 minutes for morning homeroom/announcements.

- Passing time: increasing passing time between classes from 3 minutes to 4 minutes to accommodate longer walks across the expanded building footprint.

- Special programming days: 6–8 days per year with a 90‑minute mid‑day block for assemblies, social‑emotional learning, college/career sessions or pilot bell schedules (committee suggested using those days to test 50‑ or 60‑minute period variants).

Committee members presented survey data: about 35 teachers responded to a November teacher survey (roughly a <50% response rate of about 80 teachers), and students in grades 9–11 returned approximately 432 responses. The student presenters summarized results: "75 percent of students say that the current schedule supports their academic success well or very well," and many students said the short passing time is a problem and that clubs and sports scheduling often conflict.

Students also expressed mixed views about switching to longer block periods: some worried that longer 70–90 minute periods would strain attention spans and increase homework load, while others said longer blocks could allow more in‑depth work. One student noted the existing extra‑help window after school conflicts with buses and sports, saying that moving part of extra help to the morning would help bus riders access help without waiting for a late bus.

District staff warned the board that Commissioner—s regulations set a minimum number of instructional minutes for secondary schools (330 minutes) and that the bridge proposal, as presented, would need adjustments to meet that threshold. Committee members said they were exploring small reallocations of minutes (for example, increasing period length by one minute or other minor changes) so the plan meets regulatory minimums before final adoption.

No formal action was taken; board members asked for additional detail and asked the committee to return in the spring with narrowed schedule options and further analysis, including more targeted surveys comparing a small set of concrete schedule alternatives. Several board members voiced support for piloting special programming days more frequently, and the committee said it will continue planning and report back on implementation steps.

The presentation emphasized the committee—s iterative approach and said a transformational schedule change, if adopted, would aim to take effect in the 2026–27 school year. Committee leaders said interim bridge changes are intended to be minimally disruptive while addressing key concerns raised by students, teachers and parents.