Block scheduling's effect on student academic achievement in American schools

Academic Achievement Through Block Scheduling

Education and Block Scheduling

Introduction- The educational climate in contemporary America is not the same as it was in the late 20th century. There is a long tradition surrounding the manner in which the American educational system should be structured, dating back to the Founding Fathers. When we review a brief history of the American educational system up through No Child Left Behind, in fact, we find a series of pendelum swings that tend to result in a rather haphazard approach to certain academic sides of educational leadership. It is not the purpose of this study to debate the efficacy of constructivism, neo-constructivsm, Vygotsky, et al., Rather, it is to understand how educational research is not only necessary, but critical as the paradigm shifts and schools become far more accountable for producing higher qualified students, higher standardized test scores, but on a lower budget per student than ever before.

Thomas Jefferson, for instance, believed that universal education would have to precede universal suffrage. The ignorant, he argued, were incapable of self-government. But he had profound faith in the reasonableness and ability of the masses and in their collective wisdom when educated. As one of the founding fathers, Jefferson in fact set the precedent for American education: reading, writing, mathematics, the Classics, and European and American History. That his beliefs were focused on all male citizens receiving a free education, and a sign of his times for, in 1789, the first law was passed in Massachusetts to reaffirm the colonial laws by which town were obligated to support a school. This law had varying degrees of success, and the American education process went through a series of trials during most of the 19th and early 20th centuries (Van DeMille, 2006).

In the United States, education is offered at all levels from pre-kindergarten to graduate school, typically K-12 funded by public monies. Elementary and secondary education involves twelve years of mandatory schooling, or GED, resulting in a High School Diploma. A distinct feature of the American educational system is its focus on decentralized organization (Mondale, 2002). Elementary and secondary education is financially supported by three levels of government - local, state, and federal. Furthermore, it is again divided into public and private institutions. The main disadvantage of the decentralization is the quality of education received by the students, clearly dependent upon the social and geographical area of habitation (Odden, 2003). Within this rather large and soporific paradigm, though, there are any number of interpretations on curriculum, regulations, and scheduling. Two of the most often touted challenges are debates surrounding class size and teacher ratio, and those of class scheduling or a combination of the two. Still, there are other mitigating factors we see when dealing with any curriculum issue -- it is quite difficult to isolate only one or two variables when approaching a problem of this magnitude.

Any policy, any research, and discussion about curriculum -- all must treat the current climate surrounding the No Child Left Law and legacy. The "No Child Left Behind Act" (Public Law 107-110, 115), is a Congressional Act signed into law by George W. Bush in January 2002. The Bill was a bi-partisan initiative, supported by Senator Edward Kennedy, and authorized a number of federal programs designed to improve standards for educational accountability across all States, districts, and increase the focus on reading. Much of the NCLB focus is based on the view that American students are falling behind in educational basis when scored are compared globally. The Act does not establish a national achievement standard; each State must confirm its own set of standards, but in order to receive funding, the States must meet basic criteria of performance (Abernathy, 2007).

In fact, a 1994 Study on learning in America noted that:

Learning in America is a prisoner of time. For the past 150 years, American public schools have held time constant and let learning vary. The rule, only rarely voices, is simple: learn what you can in the time we make available. It should surprise no one that some bright, hard-working students do reasonable well. Everyone else- from the typical student to the dropout -- runs into trouble. Time is learning's warden (Prisoners of Time, 1994).

In fact, the school clock is so ingrained in American culture it controls how families organize their lives, how administrators manage their schools, and how teachers develop and teach the assigned curriculum. More than anything, the attention to time and scheduling governs the amount and robustness of materials presented to students and the opportunities they have to master it. More times than not, this results in an approach that, towards the end of the year or near standardized testing times, there is a panic cramming of material with very little regard to long-term comprehension. Listed below are some considerations from a recent study on time use in the schools:

"With few exceptions, schools open and close their doors at fixed times in the morning and early afternoon -- a school in one district might open at 7:30 A.M. And close at 2:15 P.M.; in another, the school day might run from 8:00 in the morning until 3:00 in the afternoon.

With few exceptions, the school year lasts nine months, beginning in late summer and ending in late spring.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, schools typically offer a six-period day, with about 5.6 hours of classroom time a day.

No matter how complex or simple the school subject-literature, shop, physics, gym, or algebra -- the schedule assigns each an impartial national average of 51 minutes per class period, no matter how well or poorly students comprehend the material.

The norm for required school attendance, according to the Council of Chief State School Officers, is 180 days. Eleven states permit school terms of 175 days or less; only one state requires more than 180.

Secondary school graduation requirements are universally based on seat time-"Carnegie units," a standard of measurement representing one credit for completion of a one-year course meeting daily.

Staff salary increases are typically tied to time-to seniority and the number of hours of graduate work completed.

Despite the obsession with time, little attention is paid to how it is used: in 42 states examined by the Commission, only 41% of secondary school time must be spent on core academic subjects"(Prisoners of Time).

The theoretical foundation of this viewpoint assumes a number of things, at least on five distinct paradigms we now know to be false: 1) Students arrive at school ready to learn in the same manner, and in sync with each other, the curriculum, and the instructor; 2) Academic time may be used for non-academic purposes and has no effect on actual learning; 3) Previous curriculum calendar's and organization work in the past so therefore should continue to work, regardless of societal and cultural evolution; 4) Schools may be transformed simply by legislating without giving teachers the needed time and training to retool or reorganize; 5) it is reasonable that we get world-class performance out of our students by simply saying we will without changes in the way we teach (Fogarty, 1998).

The concept of globalization in economic and cultural development is a reality for the 21st century. The Internet and advances in telecommunication has made it easy to do business with any country in the world, to increase cultural and social contact, and to extend more timely communication between individuals. Similarly, the end of the Cold War signaled a different type of realignment of nations -- rather than East West philosophically dividing the world, global cultures are now looking to trade and economic growth to change the pattern of their own structures. The developing world, able to see and hear news and entertainment from the developed world, wants to change. Europe has evolved into a union of concerned states; even the United States, Canada, and Mexico are cooperating on a trade agreement to benefit the Americas. As with any period of growth, there is also strife and disagreement (Lanza, 2000).

Globalization has also had a profound effect on education in America and the way we look at scheduling. When America was primarily agrarian and when most Americans worked in farms or in factories, a time-bound educational system was adequate. Then, by the late Reconstruction Period and turn of the century, reform in the manner of looking at education, expectations, and even scheduling took place in the personage and ideas of John Dewey. John Dewey (1859-1952) was an American psychologist, author, philosopher, and educator. He focused much of his prose on education and social reform, and has been credited as one of the major theorists win the philosophy of pragmatism and the populist philosophy of pedagogy (Tozer, et.al., 2008). One of Dewey had a strong view in his advocacy of democracy, believing, in fact, that the cornerstone of the philosophy of democracy was the combination of adequate education and a civil society. For a society of intelligent voters to exist, there must be a robust and intelligent electorate. That responsibility is of the school -- to ensure that the adult citizens so needed by contemporary society are produced by the school system -- those individuals being responsible for their views and able to analyze and synergize information so they may "vote intelligently." For Dewey, the central tendency of individuals was to act appropriately to perpetuate the "good and just" society (Tozer, 2008).

This of course set the stage for continuous criticism and requestioning just what it was that the school systems can do. For the last few decades, pedagoglical theory has undergone a number of paradigm shifts. As the classroom changes, so does the theorietical structure behind it -- diversity, technology, globalism -- all contribute to the need to find a robust way to communicate learning activities, to help students move beyond rote understanding, and most especially a way to evaluate progress that is meaningful to not only their personal success, but to the needs of the contemporary school system in its continual justification for funding. It is interesting, but out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of theories, one basic system remains at the heart of modern pedagogical theory, at least in terms of evaluation and supervision -- constructivism.

Constructivism is a theory of knowledge arguing that humans generate knowledge and meaning by way of experience. In science, for instance, this implies epistemology and experimentation, not simply lecture and instructor-generated knowledge (Kim, 2005). In general, social constructivism views each student as having unique needs and backgrounds -- and is quite complex and multidimensional. Social constructivism not only allows for this uniqueness, but actual encourages, utilizes, and even wards it as part of the learning process. It encourages the student to arrive at their own version of the truth, of course influenced by their own worldview as well as the nature of instruction. The responsibility of the actual learning, then, resides with the student, and emphasizes the importance of the student remaining actively involved in the process. The motivation for learning is based, in many ways, on Vygotsky's "Zone of proximal development" -- a theory that posits that learners are challenged in proximity to their current level of development, yet slightly above. By experiencing a successful completion of challenging activities, learners gain self-confidence and motivation, guiding them to even more complex challenges (LaRochelle, 2009).

While this rather broad concept of social constructivism is the most commonly used rubric for the theory, there are other theoretical aspects that are useful templates in science pedagogy:

Trivial constructivism -- the most basic form of the theory, principally an outgrowth of the work of Piaget -- "Knowledge is actively constructed by the learner, not passively received from the environment." Prior knowledge is essential, and interaction with the environment part of the learning process (Gordon, 2008).

Radical constructivism -- Radical constructivism adds a second principle to trivial constructivism and does the manner in which know a process is all about viable interpretations of experience. The student, however, does not necessarily construct knowledge of a "real world." This is in response to the idea that each person expresses a different reality, and needs to find shared meanings between people. A simple explanation shows that the color red is interpretive, yet we can find a view of red that is agreeable so we can discuss that color, and use social and cultural conventions to identify with, and learn about, color (Hardy, 1997).

Cultural constructivism -- A wider view of the universe takes learning into a situation in which the "ecology" of the individual (e.g. customs, religion, biology, tools, and language) is part of the learning experience. The tools we use affect the way we think -- for example, using a label on a folder saves long explanations, telephones change the nature of conversation, the Internet changes the way we communicate globally. This moves into higher mental functions and is a bit like the ever expanding learning universe of Bronfenbrenner. Cultures change, however, and so cultural constructivism would be evolving and fluid and focus on systems (Phillips, 1995).

Critical constructivism -- this theory looks at constructivism within a social and cultural environment, but adds a more critical dimension in order to reform these environments and come up with a more robust epistemology. This theory identifies the learner as being suspended between a mix of cultural, environmental, social, and political influences. It also refutes cold reason (knowledge as external truth) and hard control (instructor" role as a controller locking students into their version of culture). These myths make a classroom a journey into pre-constructed knowledge, rather than knowledge that is available and not predefined (Oxford, 1997).

Constructivism is both a pedagogical theory and a theory of communication for educational leaders -- in other words, a theory of supervision. When an instructor sends a message and has no knowledge of the student, there is ambiguity and uncertainty. Instead, using principles like this establishes messages of communication between teacher and students. However, in the modern classroom, it is necessary to combine constructivism with a more realistic ecology for the learner. This is a synthesis of models, beginning with existing framework and gradually evolving forward. This is known as a conceptual change model which is a way to aggressively move forward with a concept that is plausible and reaches a learning conclusion that is satisfying and robust (Suping, 2003). One might literally view this as "value added learning," most particularly in the sense that it requires active effort on the part of all participants to move further forward in knowledge acquisition.

Further, there is a clear connection between constructivism and block scheduling. Many high school faculties implement extended instructional blocks without completely considering the desirability to incorporate student-focused learning strategies. In fact, throughout most of the 20th century, classroom instruction followed behaviorist theory which advocates approaching the curriculum in very small doses, followed immediately by student practice. A more effective approach is to incorporate the principles of constructivism by allowing student centered approaches to learning with enough time involved (e.g. block scheduling) to adequately master certain concepts. Lacking in theory, many blocked schools may fall victim to the same problem that has besieged schools using the traditional model: the schedule's rigid format does not provide the flexibility to promote varied teaching/learning activities. Uniform blocks force all disciplines into larger time frames, even though some subjects actually may benefit from shorter instructional times (Wronkovick, 1998)For some disciplines, several spaced and evenly distributed practices may be far more effective in facilitating student learning than a few massed practice sessions. Time allocations are arbitrary, regardless of whether they are 50- or 100-minute intervals. When the schedule is chosen without a pedagogical foundation, teachers may continue to focus on the act of teaching - simply "filling up" the blocks - instead of concentrating on the process of learning, as promoted by constructivist principles (Anderson, 1993).

1.1 Problem Issue

What, then, are the effects of block scheduling on academic achievement in the High School (secondary) classroom? Are there mitigating factors that influence these effects and therefore may not be separated as a theoretic basis for any rubric analysis?

1.2 Definitions

Academic Term -- Length of time school districts schedule formal classes, vacations, breaks, and work curriculum into a designated chronological timeframe.

Assessments- Educational assessments are the process of documenting in measurable terms the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and materials that students of any age or nature have assumed.

Block Scheduling -- scheduling mode in which students have fewer classes of longer duration per day or week.

Cooperative Learning -- An approach to organizing classroom activities into academic and social learning experiences by working in groups to complete tasks collectively.

Constructivism- A Theory of knowledge, based on the work of Jean Piaget and then articulated and advanced by others, that argues that humans generate knowledge and meaning between experience and ideas. It is this experience that translates into knowledge.

Flexible/Modular Scheduling -- Type of academic schedule in which a day is broken into many 10-20 minute modules.

NCLB -- "No Child Left Behind" Public Law 1077-110; Congressional Act of 2202 authorizing a number of Federal Programs to improve standards for accountability within schools.

Standardized tests -- An assessment or test that is administered and scored in a consistent or standard manner over time and geography.

1.3 Limitations

Because of the complex nature of this issue, specifically in that the true efficacy of the problem cannot be just limited to block or no block, we will examine the various permutations in constructivism, standardized testing, school culture, etc. But will focus primarily on two case study schools to determine whether block scheduling is or is not more effective. Owensville High School in Gasconade County, Missouri and Sullivan High School in Sullivan, MO.

1.4 Summation

Block-scheduling discussions are currently on the periphery of constructivist dialogue, but the two movements should become more closely aligned. The rationale is simple: when educators' pedagogical beliefs are too far removed from the primary theoretical source, the result is often the adoption of distorted tertiary-source practices that are not an adequate match for school purposes (Sergiovanni, 1996). Such is the case with block scheduling. Secondary educators who lack a comprehensive theoretical foundation may mistakenly assume that the catch phrases and slogans, created as metaphors to illustrate the theory, are the actual theory. Consequently, teachers may implement a host of relatively minor and disconnected instructional strategies simply to fill time, without considering their appropriateness as learning tools or fully comprehending how they connect in the "big picture" to promote student learning. Constructivism has been described as "a culture - a set of beliefs, norms, and practices that constitute the fabric of school life" (Windschitl, June 1999) Once the connection between block scheduling and constructivism becomes firmly rooted in the consciousness of teachers and part of ongoing professional dialogue, block scheduling can be considered as part of a comprehensive model that is intended to help transform the classroom. The emphasis will shift from the event of implementing a block schedule to the process of creating a constructivist school culture (Hackman, 2004).

1.3 Summation

Within the modern secondary school, there are often two competing ends of the organizational change paradigm. On one end we find the school that wants to be modern, fluid, and accept transformational challenges. On the opposite end are schools that remain constant in structure and process and prefer scheduling approaches that are nostalgic and immovable. The fluid school recognizes the need to challenge customs (9-month calendar, school 8-3 daily, seat time, and semesters. The traditional school accepts all the above as fact and the way to manage the learning environment (Murphy, 2001)

The importance of curriculum development and structure cannot be overestimated when dealing with contemporary schools, especially in view of their diversity. Rarely does one find a classroom in today's schools that is not multicultural, and it is important to address the English Language needs of reading and literacy within the rubric of these new Americans. European schools are far more advanced than U.S. schools in dealing with the development of coherent linguistic skills, and have realized since the 1950s the importance of language acquisition as one of the primary determiners of acculturalization and socialization within the school system. This view also transcends the school since, in many cases, the parents remain far behind in learning and communicating in English. This paradigm of reaching these children is especially addressed in not only inner city schools, but those that have a larger portion of multicultural students who could benefit by block scheduling (Mitchell and Salusbury, 2000).

Ironically, this debate is not new -- in 1894, U.S. Commission of education William T. Harris argued in his annual report that scheduling was a problem:

[T]he constant tendency [has been] toward a reduction of time. were introduced; provisions were made for a single session on stormy days, and for closing the schools to allow teachers...to attend teachers' institutes...

The boy of today must attend school 11.1 years in order to receive as much instruction, quantitatively, as the boy of fifty years ago received in 8 years... It is scarcely necessary to look further than this for the explanation for the greater amount of work accomplished...in the German and French than in the American schools... (Cross & Goldberg, 2003)

There is a difference between knowledge, intelligence, and education. As culture and society change so does the nature of education. Education and intelligence are not the same, however. Intelligence, in modern parlance is really an all-encompassing term that describes the way the mind is capable for understanding, communicating, reasoning, learning, planning, problem solving and abstract thought. Intelligence is based on adaptation and the ability to survive and prosper within an environment. It is biologically what allowed proto-humans to evolve, learn from the past, and pass on genetic material to the future. This is the idea of multiple intelligence -- moving beyond mere rote knowledge, and into the ability to reason (Wake, Gardner and Kornhaber, 1996). This is also the key reason that teachers have a responsibility to continue to learn and grow -- find new techniques, ways of approaching subject matter, and -- for that matter, simply keeping current. Now we add another template to the mix -- that of differences in learning style and cognition. These are rather broad generalities about the stylized cognitive processes, but all fit into the paradigm of "learning style." What is critical is to note the difference in the way the newer cognitive models establish baseline hierarchies in the process:

Old Version of Cognition

New Version of Cognition

Note that while there are similarities in style, the new focus on cognition involves less factual knowledge, and more steps to evaluating that knowledge, and instead of the entire purpose being the evaluation of the data, the new model realizes that, for humans, it is only a top step. Once the evaluation is complete, it is time to synthesize that data and create something new, novel, or at least a newer approach to a process. Instead of knowledge (rote memorization and accumulation of facts), intelligence is taking what we know (experience), applying it to the task or issue at hand, but the creating and evaluating that information for new paths and judgments. Intelligence in the modern world is less what you know and more how you apply what you know to a new problem (Bloom, 2006). Modern classrooms hopefully focus more on moving up the hierarchy of learning, moving beyond the rote, and asking students the major questions: What, Why and So What? This is the training that will result in an educated populus, the ability to quickly assimilate large amounts of information, take that information and critically analyze it, and then synthesize a set of new results from that information.

Thus, it is less important that one be able to dash off facts and excel at the game Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit, and more important that one be able to know where to find information, but more appropriately, how to critique that information, use it to buttress one's knowledge, and sythesize the data into something new, and hopefully relevant. The pedagogues of the past may have been wrong in insisting on Latin, Greek, and Literature -- but perhaps not. Perhaps it was their method that was at fault; a great deal of rote without an understanding of the nature of the matieral. However, through this, students were exposed to enough analysis and synthesis, as well as the ability to find information, that they were, in effect, educated people. That being said, who would you rather have with you if your plane crash landed in an inhospitable environment: a PhD in Computer Networking or a High School Graduate who had been in the Navy Seals and was currently a wilderness guide?

Block scheduling is typically used to put far more focus on instruction and learning, allowing students to get into more detail and develop higher learning skills. Time alone, though does not have enough single effect upon the learning outcomes to simply change scheduling without changing curriculum methodology and teacher attitude. In fact, combining block scheduling with creative master schedules that allow teachers to plan and work together, to adapt various subjects to more experimentation and longer time spans, and to implement flexible scheduling that does not force students to "fit" into a regiments school day, but rather to view education as an innovating experience designed to contribute to student success and academic achievement (Principals, 2007).

A study was done, for example, that examined whether changing to block scheduling had a positive effect upon SAT (Scholastic Aptitude) and AP (Advanced Placement) scores. Ten years of data were used to evaluate the research question. The authors found that by using block scheduling, there was a significant upward trend in both tests as well as far higher performance trends on state required standardized testing (Reams, 2009). While this trend is not universally attributed to block scheduling, it does suggest that more school systems should consider the impact of block scheduling, of course combined with other variables, to improve student scores.

Part 3 -- Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Review of the Schools

3.2 Problem Issue

3.3 Methodology

3.4 Summation