Delimitations and Definitions Theoretical Background

Delimitations and Definitions

Theoretical Background

Related Research

Data Gathering Methods

Sampling Procedures

f. Data Analysis Procedures

The re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2002, commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), increased the accountability of public schools throughout the United States, holding them individually responsible for the education levels attained by their students as measured by high stakes tests developed and administered at the state level. Administrators responded by developing programs targeted at increasing students' test scores. One program considered by administrators is the doubling of class time in math and English for students that are at risk of not succeeding. This paper studies the viability of such a program as adopted in an urban Northern New Jersey high school. In 2004-2005 the school increased math and English class time from 42 minutes to 88 minutes for low achieving students. This ex post facto study analyzes the impact of the school doubling class time based upon the results of the New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) required under NCLB for all first time 11th graders. Analysis of variance and effect size are used to determine the success of the program. The period of time covered in the analyses are school years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 in order to cover the transition year as well as the next three years during which time the program had become fully implemented for all students. Test scores for the non-low achievers that did not receive the treatment are also analyzed over the same time period to ensure consistency of the test.

Low Achievers Benefit from Double Class Times in Math and Language Arts: Fact or Fiction

Introduction

The re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2002, commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), raised the bar and increased accountability for public schools throughout the United States. According to Nichols (2005) NCLB has renewed the interest in methods that utilize class time more efficiently. Nichols further provides "Despite renewed interest in experimental and innovative scheduling structures, only limited empirical research explores the impact of block-scheduling structures on potential student academic achievement" (2005, p. 299).

Accountability is provided by means of high stakes standardized tests prescribed at various grade levels. Schools are held accountable for students in these prescribed grades to attain minimum established proficiency levels. Students are tested when they are in the prescribed grade, and the percentage of students required to achieve minimum proficiency each year is defined by NCLB as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The specific level of proficiency, as well as the test instrument that is prescribed, are established by each individual state respectively based upon the requirements of NCLB. Schools that do not make AYP generally struggle to find the magic formula that will improve student performance. Schools that are successful in meeting or exceeding AYP generally seek to develop strategies that ratchet up performance in anticipation of more stringent requirements.

According to Nichols (2005), the NCLB has renewed interest in methods that utilize class time more efficiently. One such method is the doubling-up of class time in critical subjects for students that are most at risk of not achieving proficient scores (low achievers). Mowen and Mowen (2004, p. 4), identify this "modified block" option as a potential strategy for specific subject areas in need of improvement. This is based upon the generally accepted wisdom that increased "time on task" will result in increased student comprehension and skills. For example, if students taking one period of math consisting of 42 minutes and one period of English consisting of 42 minutes did not score proficient in either or both of math and language arts and the school did not make AYP, perhaps increasing instructional time to 84 minutes or more would improve student performance. Nichols further provides "Despite renewed interest in experimental and innovative scheduling structures, only limited empirical research explores the impact of block-scheduling structures on potential student academic achievement" (2005, p. 299).

The literature review indicates conflicting results of research in this area. This study seeks to satisfy the need for more research on modified block scheduling. To this end, this paper studies the proficiency levels attained by first time 11th grade students who were administered the New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA). The HSPA is the standardized test adopted by the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) in response to the NCLB. It is administered to all first time 11th graders during the first full week of March in the school year, such that the 2004 HSPA was administered in March of the 2003-2004 school year, the base year for this study. It is stipulated that all New Jersey high school students are to score proficient or above as a graduation requirement, however, the State provides an alternative route to graduation for students that never pass the HSPA.

The students used in the study are the first time 11th graders of a diverse medium-size regional high school serving approximately 800 students from three communities that are in close proximity to the urban center of Paterson New Jersey. The school reflects the combined demographics of the communities such that it is approximately 45% Hispanic, 15% African-American, and 40% Caucasian at a lower-middle income level. Of the three communities, one is low income, one is working class, and one is a professional community. Fifty percent of the students receive free or reduced lunch, representing a significant low-income population.

Results of the HSPA for the years of 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 will be used for the study. It has been customary at this school that 11th graders, at some point in the last two years, had been enrolled in algebra I, geometry, ninth grade English, and 10th grade English. These subjects had been taught in single 42 minute periods, five days per week throughout the school year of 180 days until the 2004-2005 school year.

Seeking to improve test results, in school year 2004-2005, administration decided to provide an extra contiguous period of algebra I, geometry, and English for students that were identified as low achievers. The term "low achievers" is used herein to identify those students who entered high school without having passed the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment, which New Jersey required test for eighth grade students under NCLB. The additional 42 minutes of class time would be added to the original 42 minutes of class time and would consume the 4-minute passing period for a total new class time of 88 minutes devoted to the targeted math and English classes. (By school year 2006-2007, an additional one minute of class time would be added to every class, increasing double period classes from 88 minutes to 90 minutes.)

Statement of the Problem

What is the impact on the standardized test scores of low achieving students when they are provided double contiguous periods or twice the instructional time of mathematics and language arts?

The purpose of this paper is to determine if there is a significant impact on the learning of low achieving students as a result of having doubled instructional time in English and math as measured by their outcomes on the HSPA. Due to the high percentage of minority and low-income students in the population, this paper will also conduct a secondary analysis by demographic. The impact will be measured by the percent of students scoring proficient or better on the HSPA. The percentage of students scoring proficient or better is the dependent variable. The independent variable is the doubling of class time. Doubling instructional time in this case is also similar to adopting a modification of a student schedule design commonly known as Block Scheduling. This will be discussed further in the literary review portion of the paper.

Hypotheses

This paper seeks to test the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis 1 is that the means of the HSPA math proficiencies are equal from year to year.

Null hypothesis 2 is that the means of the HSPA language arts proficiencies are equal from year to year.

Delimitations and Definitions

This study will examine the doubling of math and English class times for low achieving students in an effort to improve performance on state mandated tests required under NCLB. Due to the fact that these tests are specifically designed to be taken at a specific point in one's education, the test is administered to a different cohort group passing through the same grade each year. Therefore, the analysis will incorporate a between-subjects design. In order to ensure minimal risk to the internal validity of a between-subjects design, this study uses a population limited to a specific public high school in New Jersey that adopted the modified block concept identified by Mowen and Mowen (2004) as a recommended approach to improving scores of low-achievers in academic areas. The utilization of a specific public high school that adopted this strategy ensures that the populations studied in a between-subjects design are highly similar populations that have also received instruction from the same or similar instructors in the same academic environment. Therefore, the most different variable in the study is the change in treatment, i.e. The doubling of class time.

The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding throughout this study. All definitions, not otherwise noted, have been developed by the researcher:

AYP -- Adequate Yearly Progress refers to the state-stipulated percentage of students by subject (math/English) by demographic (race/socio-economic strata) that must pass the HSPA. Schools that do not meet or surpass AYP are subject to sanctions. These may differ by state.

Class time -- The prescribed time during which a single class is conducted, i.e. one period. In this case, one period prior to the doubling of class time is initially equal to 42 minutes and subsequently equal to 43 minutes.

Doubling of class time -- Increasing class time from 42 minutes to 84 minutes plus the consumed passing time of 4 minutes for a total of 88 minutes, subsequently increased to 90 minutes due to minor schedule changes.

GEPA -- The Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment required by the New Jersey Department of Education in fulfillment of the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

HSPA -- The High School Proficiency Assessment is the New Jersey state mandated test which is required to be administered to all first-year 11th graders in fulfillment of the requirements established by NCLB.

Low-Achievers -- Students assigned to lower level math and English classes as a result of entering high school without having passed the GEPA.

NCLB -- The No Child Left Behind Act which is the common name for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2002 resulting in widespread changes in accountability for schools and districts throughout the United States.

Non-low-achievers -- Students assigned to higher level math and English classes as a result of entering high school having successfully passed the GEPA.

Public Regional High School -- A school consisting of grades nine through 12 serving students hailing from a formal consortium of communities that support and fund the school through their tax dollars.

2. Review of the Literature

Theoretical Background

Like all resources, the time teachers have available to deliver high quality educational services to their students is, by definition, scarce and must be used to its maximum advantage. Before the turn of the 20th century, high schools in the United States were characterized by a significant amount of flexibility in terms of their class scheduling (Hackmann, 2004). Prior to 1900, a variety of formats were used to teach various subjects, with different courses using different number of days per week in which instruction was delivered; however, by 1909, in an attempt to standardize educational delivery among American high schools, the College Entrance Examination Board implemented the Carnegie unit, an approach that mandated that a total of 120 hours of classroom instruction was to provided in 40- to 60-minute classes throughout an academic year that was comprised of 36 to 40 weeks (McNeil, 1996). This trend to standardize the educational format was due in large part to significant influences from the business world where scientific management as characterized by Taylorism-like approaches that placed a high value of efficiency, mass production, and uniformity in the workplace (Hackmann). It was during this period in American history that the daily- period schedule was created as an organizational response to the problem of educating increasingly large numbers of students efficiently (Hackmann, 2004).

Scheduling regimens continued along these lines for the first half of the 20th century, but following the end of World War II, modular scheduling became increasingly popular and by the late 1950s was the scheduling model of choice for some of the nation's secondary schools (Hackmann). According to Hackmann, "Instructional responsiveness was the hallmark of this model, since class sessions could be structured according to the number of modules (10, 15, or 20 minutes in length) needed to teach a concept" (p. 697). The modular approach also provided a variety of course formats that had classes meeting on a daily basis or staggered throughout the week with different class lengths (Trump & Baynham, 1961). The popularity of modular scheduling reached its zenith by the early 1970s, but this alternative schedule approach was still only represented in about 15% of the nation's high schools; differences in the length of class sessions, though, also involved some unexpected problems including the fact that a number of students who were between classes remained unsupervised during different parts of school day, resulting in increased disciplinary problems (Hackmann). As a result, while flexible modular scheduling is still used in a few secondary schools in the U.S., by the late 1970s, the approach fell into disfavor and the majority of the nation's schools reverted to a daily-period scheduling approach (Hackmann).

The impetus for change gained steam during the 1980s, though, and by the late 1980s, advocates of alternative scheduling models cited the fundamental problems associated with the daily-period models, maintaining that these models simply supported teachers relying on the use of lectures as a primary educational tool; other drawbacks of the daily-period model include an excessive fragmentation of the school day, inhibition of in-depth exploration, and unnecessary constraints to the meaningful integration of curricular offerings (Hackmann).

The 1984 report, A Nation At Risk, (National Commission on Excellence in Education) concluded, among other things, that school administrators and teachers should allocate classroom time more efficiently. In its 1994 report Prisoners of Time the National Education Commission on Time and Learning further reinforced the element of "time" as a potential avenue for increasing learning: "No community in the United States is so small or impoverished that it cannot benefit from an examination of how it uses time-if not in extending the day or year, at least in re-configuring how it uses the time now available ("Develop local action plans to transform schools," 1994). According to Weller and Mcleskey (2000), "In response to concerns regarding the traditional six-period high school schedule, several alternative scheduling patterns have emerged under the general rubric of 'block scheduling.' Whether called the 'intensive block,' '4x4 block,' 'A/B plan,' or 'modified block,' all the plans for block scheduling reduce the number of classes offered during the school day, thus increasing the length of time (as long as 90 minutes or more) that is available for instruction in a given subject area" (p. 209). According to Queen, Algozzine and Eaddy (1996), the 4x4 block scheduling model assumes its name from the fact that students can enroll in four classes each semester, rather than the traditional six, with more intensive periods of study required for each of the four courses. "The concept was pleasing to parents and students because students could take four courses each semester," Queen and his associates note, "thus the name 4 x 4, for a possible total of thirty-two credits over four years. That would allow students to take more elective courses and perhaps more advanced courses in such areas as science and foreign languages" (p. 249). Likewise, Hackmann (2004) reports that during the past 2 decades or so, several different block formats have been used in the nation's secondary schools, including combination approaches that use both block and daily-period features. According to Hackmann, "Two approaches have emerged as the most common: the 4x4 semester plan, in which students complete four classes each semester for a total of eight courses per year, and the eight-block alternating-day model, in which students receive instruction in one- half of their courses on alternate days and continue in these courses throughout the year" (p. 697).

Today, block scheduling represents one of the most popular alternatives to traditional scheduling models (Danielson, 2002). While the term "block scheduling" is typically used to describe any alternative arrangement of time within the daily school schedule, there are some differences between the models used in many middle schools and high schools in the United States (Wraga, Hlebowitsh & Tanner, 2000). A number of middle schools, for example, emphasize flexibility in scheduling by providing a large block of time wherein teams of teachers are able to provide instruction to a fixed group of students for academic core subjects as well as their elective and exploratory courses (Wraga et al.).

By contrast, the 4x4 block schedule model used at the high school level in North America is more intensive in design as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Representative 4x4 Block Schedule

Period

Semester 1

Semester 2

1

Course A

Course E

2

Course B

Course F

3

Course C

Course G

4

Course D

Course H

Source: Wraga et al., p. 337

The 4 x 4 block scheduling model has attracted a number of proponents who point to its numerous benefits over traditional class scheduling regimens. In this regard, Queen, Algozzine and Eaddy (1996) emphasize that, "The 4x4 block is an excellent alternative scheduling model for the modern secondary school, especially for social studies classes. At a time when high-school teachers are in a constant struggle to increase academic achievement and improve test scores, many high-school administrators seem to have found an answer in the form of flexible scheduling" (p. 249). Based on the guidance provided by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) contained in its report, Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution, introduced at the organization's annual conference in San Francisco, Lammel (1996) cited the growing need for improved scheduling models, a finding that is supported in the report. Based on the increasingly widespread view that more flexible scheduling arrangements provide teachers with larger blocks of time that can be devoted to actual teaching in order to improve academic outcomes, Lammel also emphasized that student achievement is "the primary goal of a flexible schedule" (p. 1). In this regard, two well-known proponents of the block scheduling model emphasize that, "A school schedule can have an enormous impact on a school's instructional climate" (p. Canady & Rettig, 2000, p. 29)

Some educators, though, have experienced some problems with the use of the 4 x 4 block scheduling model. For example, Queen and his colleagues report that, "Teachers found that they had to redesign their courses for a 90-day period, rather than the traditional 180 days. They soon found that even though the time period was extended on a daily basis, the actual class time for the course would drop by 10% or more" (p. 249). Likewise, other constraints to the use of the 4x4 block scheduling model have been advanced by high school principals who cited the major adjustments required of many teachers that would be required in order to make such an alternative approach viable; this constraint was found to be particularly true of history teachers who were either unwilling or unable to adapt and who continued to use a lecture format throughout their expanded class times (Queen et al.).

As noted above, other block scheduling approaches include modifications or variations of the above 4x4 approach in what has been termed the "A/B" approach. This block scheduling model is described in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Representative A/B Block Scheduling Model

Period

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

1

Course A

Course E

Course A

Course E

2

Course B

Course F

Course B

Course F

3

Course C

Course G

Course C

Course G

4

Course D

Course H

Course D

Course H

Source: Wraga et al., p. 339

Some school districts have elected to use the alternate day block scheduling model for different reasons, including the following:

1. A desire to meet with students throughout the year in a particular course;

2. To address the special problems unique to the music department and for upper level courses, particularly advanced placement courses that are tested in May;

3. To eliminate the lengthy time gaps that can occur between sequential courses;

4. To avoid conflicts with existing teacher contracts; and,

5. To gain many of the benefits inherent in the longer instructional period (Wraga et al., p. 340).

A number of the benefits that accrue to the use of the 4 x 4 block scheduling model are diminished with the alternate day schedule, or A/B model, including the following:

1. Students failing a course are unable to make it up during the next semester and must attend summer school;

2. Students are still scheduled for six or more courses daily throughout the year;

3. Few opportunities exist for accelerating a student's program, especially for those gifted in one or more areas;

4. Teachers must continue to maintain grades and records for over 100 students;

5. Teachers must prepare for five or six classes each day and attempt to provide the instructional needs for well over 100 students daily; and,

6. Students have six or more subjects to make up following an absence (Wraga et al., p. 340).

Finally, yet another block scheduling model designed by Joseph M. Carroll, a former teacher and school administrator, is comparable to the trimester model used by many institutions of higher education and is known as the "Copernican plan" (Wraga et al.). The Copernican block scheduling model is far more intensive in nature that the 4x4 or A/B models, and is comprised of two discrete patterns to deliver educational services: (a) up-to-a-4-hour class each school day for a term of 30 days or (b) two 2-hour classes each day for a total of 60 days (Wraga et al.). A representative Copernican model schedule is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Representative Copernican Block Scheduling Model

Period Length*

Option A (60-Day

Period)

Period Length*

Option B (30-Day

Period)

8:00-10:00 A.M.

Class I

8:00 a.m. - 12 noon

Class I

10:00 a.m. - 12 noon

Class II

12 noon - 12:30 P.M.

Lunch

12 noon - 12:45 P.M.

Interdisciplinary

12:30-1:15 P.M.

Interdisciplinary

Seminar or Elective or Seminar or P.E./Health

PE./Health

or Elective

12:45-1:15 P.M.

Lunch

1:15-2:15 P.M.

Elective or RE./Health

or Study or Tutorial

1: 15 -2:15 P.M.

Elective or RE./

Health or Study or Tutorial

2:15-5:00 P.M.

Activities/Sports

2:15-5:00 P.M.

Activities/Sports

* Schools determine passing time allotments based on building characteristics and local needs

Source: Wraga et al., p. 340

Notwithstanding the more intensive nature of the Copernican model, its author points out that it allows high schools to reduce their class sizes by as much as 20%; moreover, this block scheduling approach reduces the teacher's average student load by between 60-80% and increases the number of sections offered by high schools in the master schedule by a full 20% (Wraga et al.).

Whatever block scheduling model approach is selected for a school's individual needs, specific implementation techniques tend to vary from region to region (Hackmann, 2004). The implementation of an intensive or block scheduling approach at the high school levels generally results in the following changes being made to the traditional operation of the high school:

1. Students are enrolled in four periods per day, instead of six or seven.

2. Teachers teach three periods daily, with one preparation period.

3. There are no study halls for students because they are fully scheduled.

4. Students take eight courses yearly, for a possible total of 32 by graduation.

5. Additional faculty members may be needed for proper implementation (Wraga et al.).

Suggesting that reforms such as block-type scheduling are part of the solution, the National Commission on Excellence in Education went on to advise: "New uses of times should ensure that schools rely much less on the 51-minute period, after which teachers and students drop everything to rush off to the next class ("Fix the design flaw: Use time in new and better ways," 1994). One pioneer of block scheduling, the aforementioned Joseph M. Carroll, developer of the Copernican approach, hypothesized that increasing class time from 45 minutes to 90 minutes per day for fewer days per year per subject would result in a more efficient model (1994).

The alternative scheduling model would be more efficient because there would be less teacher burnout due to teaching a fewer number of students per day; an improved student/teacher relationship due to the increase in daily quality time; and improved workloads for students and teachers. Other administrators feel that a 50-minute class period encourages a lecture-only environment, whereas a block schedule provides for more flexibility in teaching techniques and enables more in-depth study and detail each day (Coeyman, 2002; Hughes, 2002; Metzger, 2003; Wood, 2002). One high school English teacher who yearns for more time said: "Our schedule does a disservice to good teachers and their students. It never fails -- as soon as my students become deeply engrossed in a story or poem, the bell rings, and they're off to their next class" (Black, 2002, p. 58). As a result of NCLB, there is renewed interest in methods that utilize class time more efficiently. "Despite renewed interest in experimental and innovative scheduling structures, only limited empirical research explores the impact of block-scheduling structures on potential student academic achievement" (Nichols, 2005, p. 299).

However, the organization of time and how it accommodates the learning process is a subject that is controversial, and perhaps, not well addressed from an empirical perspective. For example, Lawrence and McPherson suggest that there is a "lack of scientific support regarding the effect of block scheduling on academic achievement" (2000, p. 171). Other authorities likewise cite the dearth of timely and relevant studies and emphasize that much of what is known is based on anecdotal reports (Huffman et al., 2005). Time in its various forms; increased time, maximized time, time needed, actual instructional time, and actual time-on-task; all tend to impact academic achievement.

There exists a multiplicity of other factors that impact on learning, though, that must also be taken into account when measuring the effectiveness of one scheduling approach over another. In any single environment, one must be aware of the potential impact of socio-economic status (SES), ethnicity, and even the security of the environment. For example, students tend to develop perceptions of what they are and frame themselves within those perceptions. This has been largely observed in minority students who often struggle between establishing homogeneity with the general society or embracing their cultural diversity. Nasir and Saxe (2003) posit that minority students often negotiate with themselves and with others some degree of maintaining cultural identity and level of academic achievement. While the focus of this paper is the impact of time on learning as measured by the New Jersey HSPA, it cannot escape the potential impact of ethnicity in a diverse population. Nasir and Saxe site findings that indicate that some students will try to appear "raceless" in their effort to succeed academically (p. 14).

These findings were the results of empirical studies in which ethnic students were interviewed with respect to ethnic identification and the results were correlated to measures of academic achievement. They suggest a three-stranded approach for the analysis of emerging tensions between ethnic and academic practices. The three-stranded approach suggests observation or analysis of the following: (a) positioning in local interactions (face-to-face interactions); (b) positioning over developmental time (how individuals change in their ethnic identity and practices over time); and (c) positioning and social history (identifying emerging and shifts in cultural capital associated with the social history of communities) (pp. 15 & 16).

The analysis of how students manage the resultant tensions of ethnic identity and perceptions in the academic environment might impact the educational system. The authors suggest that understanding these tensions might move schooling to mitigate these tensions in the classroom, and thus make education more accessible to students regardless of ethnic perceptions. Students should not feel as if they have to give up or mask cultural practices in order to be successful in school.

Urban areas tend to have high levels of ethnic diversity. The experience of this writer is that schools in urban areas also experience low levels of parental involvement. Urban areas also have greater concentrations of economically challenged students, single parent families, and the frustrations that emanate from such conditions. These conditions tend to foster an environment that includes negative behaviors such as bullying, harassment, and fighting; which are a problem for schools and disrupt the educational process (Gladden, 2002). According to Gladden, schools generally respond to this kind of violence with prevention strategies that have not been effective, including surveillance, security, and punishment. He cites the lack of effectiveness due to lack of involvement by teaching staff, both in developing discipline policy and execution. Consequently, schools in urban areas lack sufficient parental involvement and sufficient teacher involvement.