Parents, teachers and students urge Stamford board to pause proposed 4x4 high‑school schedule

Dozens of parents, teachers and students told the Stamford Board of Education on April 29 that a proposed switch to a 4x4 flexible high‑school schedule should be paused until the district shares up‑to‑date research and demonstrates genuine collaboration with school staff.

At the start of public comment, Jocelyn Galancey, who identified herself as a Stamford resident and vice president of the Connecticut Education Association, said the proposal “shortchanges our students” and urged the board to reconsider. John Corbin, president of the Stamford Education Association, said teachers on the high‑school schedule committee were treated as questioners rather than decision makers and called for the process to be halted until meaningful participation occurs.

Several speakers cited the book Equitable School Scheduling and said the district had not provided recent, peer‑reviewed research to support the change. Michelle Casor, an AITE social‑studies teacher, read passages from the book and told the board, “Negotiations is not collaboration,” arguing that inclusion of scheduling language in contract talks did not substitute for stakeholder involvement.

Students and parents said surveys at one high school showed overwhelming preference for returning to an AV rotating block schedule rather than adopting the 4x4 model. A student speaker said about 80% of respondents at AITE preferred the AV block and only 5% preferred the flexible schedule.

Speakers raised several practical concerns: potential harms to extracurricular activities and athletics, scheduling conflicts that could produce staggered graduation events, and the burden on educators to provide additional supports if semesterized classes accelerate or compress learning. Joseph Miranda, a parent, warned of “unintended consequences” for student athletes and arts programs and asked whether the district had budgeted for additional tutoring or support staff.

Multiple commenters also criticized the district for canceled or postponed meetings and for principals’ perspectives not being shared with the board. Parents said they had asked the district for research and principal input months earlier and had received little or no substantive response from central office.

Dr. Lucero, the superintendent, had earlier listed upcoming district dates and encouraged board attendance at ceremonies but did not present new research supporting the schedule during the public comment period.

The meeting record shows sustained opposition during the allotted public‑comment period; the board said commenters may also submit written remarks by email to the board clerk to be appended to the record. The board did not vote on the schedule at the meeting.