The administration is proposing to add a weekly community building period into next year’s schedule. If approved, each period could be shortened by five minutes on a selected day to accommodate an extra half hour period at the beginning, middle or end of the day, according to Principal Noreen Likins.

Teachers would facilitate “social and emotional curriculum” during this time, according to Likins. “The period would be structured as a time for students to meet with a teacher in a group of 25 to 30 students, not necessarily for delivering instruction or covering any kind of curriculum to prepare them for a four-year college, but to check in on their lives and to build relationships outside of the normal academic relationship students and teachers share,” she said. Likins added that teachers could also conduct surveys, make announcements and ask students to fill out course request forms during this period.

The administration is looking at curriculum from Project Happiness and Project Cornerstone that would require minimal, if any, prep work, according to Assistant Principal of Guidance Kimberley Cowell. “Right now, we’re exploring Project Cornerstone’s structured conversation method,” she said. “It’s structured in a way to base discussions on topics generated from students. It will also help students develop social emotional skills, problem solving skills and some leadership skills and teach them ways to relate to peers that really work and allow them to be truly supportive of each other.”

Likins first proposed the idea to the Instructional Supervisors on Nov. 18 after students and parents expressed a need to build a sense of community in the Western Association of Schools and Colleges surveys conducted last spring. She stressed that the period should be referred to as a “community building time” instead of an advisory or homeroom period in order to avoid comparisons with Palo Alto High School’s advisory system or other schools that have a homeroom.

Photo teacher Mark Gleason taught at a school in Wilton, Connecticut six years ago that tried the “exact same thing,” according to Gleason. “My personal opinion is that it didn’t work,” he said. “It was very well-meaning, but after a month, it sort of just became a time to do homework.”

The Student Executive Council (SEC) has formed an Advisory Focus Group to survey students, teachers and administrators about when the period should be and how it should be structured. SEC will continue discussion once they conduct and analyze the survey in January, according to Student Body Vice President senior Scott Baer. “A lot of the student body has different opinions on this,” Baer said. “There’s the question of whether people with G preps would have to come back to school, but a good number of people in SEC are supportive of the idea if it is geared in the right direction.”

Social Studies Instructional Supervisor John Hebert suggested scheduling the period before lunch. “I would vote for the middle of the day before lunch, because that’s when most students are at their peak,” he said. “I think people would resent having it after their prep period or interfere with their after school activities.”

The Instructional Supervisors brought the idea back to their departments to mixed reactions.

The Physical Education (P.E.) Department unanimously suggested a semester-long trial period followed by a review process including teachers and students before continuing the period for another semester, according to P.E. Instructional Supervisor Donald Briggs.

The Social Studies Department had more mixed opinions. “Some people like the specifics of the idea, like that there would be a fixed time once a week to meet with the same group of students,” Hebert said. “Most are sympathetic with the effort to increase nonacademic contact with students, but many are skeptical that this is the right way to do it.”

According to the World Language department, teachers said they support reaching out to students through their own language content areas, clubs, trips and international events, but feel uncomfortable in the role of an assigned advisor to students not enrolled in their language. They said they feel that this type of commitment should be voluntary and would like the administration to wait for ideas from the professional development groups that will begin meeting in February.

The Special Education Department’s reaction was more favorable. “The college process is overwhelming for a lot of students, so teachers could figure out who needs additional help and refer them to the guidance counselor,” Special Education Instructional Supervisor Judy Buttrill said. “I don’t see them supplanting the guidance counselors, just as an adjunct.”

Many departments declined to comment on the subject due to the sensitivity of the issue. According to Science Instructional Supervisor Eric Ledgerwood, some teachers in his department are reserving judgment due to a lack of information.

Likins noted that some teachers have managed to build a sense of community in their classroom environment without the community building period, but she thinks “the key to students successfully navigating their way through high school is having a close relationship with an adult on campus.”

Hebert emphasizes that teachers are not against reaching out to students. “Even the staff who are resistant to this plan acknowledge that we want to help students,” he said. Likins agreed. “It’s an idea we’re talking about, but it will only work if the teachers and staff agree to it, and we’re a long way from there,” she said.