It was a mission that was doomed from the very beginning.

The Four-Period Day Steering Committee was formulated in such a way that there was no hope of any real compromise. "The process was dysfunctional...we were doomed from the beginning, although parents did come to the table with open minds ready to work and tried very hard," said Nancy Swenson, a parent committee member.

It was parents who wanted to dump four periods, versus staff, teachers and a few parents who wanted the status quo. A district staff member, not an unbiased "third party" who could steer negotiations toward a realistic consensus decision, led the committee. As noted in the Page One story by Rebekah Schilperoort, the committee was comprised of just five parents and 12 school district staff.

The committee met just twice a month for an hour and one-half, hardly time for all of the people to get on the same page and then consider alternatives.

Since we wrote that parents should make the decision for their offspring and that it appeared to us that the four-period day was not the best way to educate students, we have been deluged with letters to the editor on both sides. Our editorial opened a more public dialogue on an important issue.

However, letters in favor of keeping the four-period model were edging toward stridency, maintaining that "a small group of parents" were the ones advocating a return to the standard six-period model used in all the other high schools in the Seattle district. One letter went so far as to suggest that if the parents didn't like the current system, they could take their children elsewhere.

Parents advocating a change made points that suggested the longer class times were not really helping their kids pass the Washington Assessment of Student Learning tests, that scores at West Seattle High School were below those of other high schools. They noted that a year or more often separated math classes, so that students forgot the earlier math they learned. They also said the longer classes limited the number of electives, courses often demanded by college admission requirements.

The committee was not a discussion ground, but an adversarial process in which neither side wanted to give ground.

We had hoped that there could be a consensus whereby some classes could be in the long class time format while others would be in the shorter format. Nothing happened.

It seems obvious to us that the district simply tossed the dispute into a ring and walked away. It did not propose a variety of models. It just handed a contentious issue to a committee biased for and against the four-period process and went back to their offices in Sodo.

We did learn that the district's chief academic officer will make the decision. OK. When? We are told "sometime this summer."

Not a lot of urgency here. Maybe the district hopes the whole thing will never die, but will just fade away. It won't but the long time lag until a final resolution is made only adds to the frustration of those on both sides.

We sincerely urge Carla Santorno, the chief academic officer, to speed up her decision so as to clear the air. We hope the decision is that the four-period day is scrapped and that a version of the more traditional six-period schedule be adopted.

Then, if staff at West Seattle High does not like that decision, they can have time to take their own advice and go find a school district that does it their way.

- Jack Mayne