Block Scheduling Effects on Student Academic Achievement

Introduction to Block Scheduling

The overall strategy of utilizing block scheduling is to organize the school day into fewer but longer class periods in order to allow greater flexibility for instructional activities. Block scheduling is used primarily at the middle school and high school levels. It is currently defined as a restructuring of the school day into classes longer than the traditional fifty-minute period (Adams & Salvaterra, 1997; Georgia Department of Education, 1998). Gordon Cawelti (1994) agrees with this concept and confirms the definition supplied by Adams and Salvaterra along with the Georgia Department of Education as one that works to meet the needs of all models. The expressed goal of block scheduling programs is to improve student academic performance. Additional benefits include increased student and teacher morale, encouragement for the use of innovative teaching methods that address multiple learning styles, and an improved campus atmosphere. In a national survey on high schools, Cawelti (1994) identifies block scheduling as one of the primary indicators of major restructuring within a school district.

There are several models for implementing a block schedule. One of the most common is the A/B, or alternate-day, schedule, in which students take eight yearlong courses but attend each class only on alternating days. Monday, for example, might be occupied by physical education, science, English, and history, while Tuesday features French, algebra, music, and a second mathematics class. Another popular block plan has students taking four courses at a time that meet daily but last only half a school year. Students might therefore take science in the fall and not take another science class until the following year. Such plans are often known as semester block plans, or "four-by-four plans."

Schools may adopt block scheduling for a wide variety of reasons. Administrators may wish to create more productive and personal relationships between teachers and students, design a more challenging curriculum that helps students learn concepts in depth, or develop a more intimate and student-centered learning atmosphere. However, as with all restructuring efforts, successful implementation requires careful planning, adequate time and resources, and coalition building within a school. The objective of this paper is to identify the benefits and effects of block scheduling on higher academic achievement among middle and high school students.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Block Scheduling

Much research has been conducted on block scheduling at the middle and high school levels and its impact on student learning. Interviews and surveys have been conducted with students, teachers, administrators, parents, and educators to collect data on individual perceptions while also uncovering the concrete facts—both positive and negative—about block scheduling. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the typical school day offers a six-period day with approximately 5.6 hours of classroom time. However, only a portion of this time is actually available for direct instruction, as time is lost in passing between classes, maintaining discipline, structuring classroom activities, record keeping, and general classroom management.

Most published research on block scheduling tends to rely on theoretical suggestions and suppositions rather than concrete, research-based findings and recommendations (Evans, Rice, & McCray, 2001). Bateson (1990) found that block scheduling leads to a drop in mathematics and science achievement, while Walker's (2000) study of 345 schools found that block scheduling improved mathematics assessment scores. A review of the block scheduling literature conducted by the Texas Education Agency Office of Policy, Planning, and Research (September 1999) concluded that the limited research on the effects of block scheduling has shown very mixed results in key areas of student performance, including attendance, dropout rates, and test scores.

Opponents of the block schedule have many concerns about the effectiveness of an approach that challenges traditional methods of lesson presentation, student achievement, and time management. Teachers in schools using a block schedule must plan accordingly for the longer class period. The block system will suffer if teachers do not adequately prepare and supply sufficient student learning activities. However, teachers who favor the block schedule find they become more engaged with the presented material, leading to better and more informative lesson presentations. These teachers reported feeling excitement and challenge at the opportunity to cover information more in-depth than on a traditional schedule.

Enrollment in electives, such as music, often declines when students are forced to choose between academic and enrichment classes (Woronowicz, 1996). Supporters of the block schedule, however, maintain that teachers have more time to complete lessons and re-evaluate student learning. More class time is available to teach and master key concepts while allowing greater creativity on the part of both teacher and students. The longer block period allows time for individual student research and projects, peer collaboration, and more individualized attention from the teacher.

Another concern about block schedules is that they might pose problems for transferring students. This concern is largely unfounded, however, because the implementation of a block schedule actually allows students to take more courses—up to eight classes per year instead of the six or seven in a traditional plan. While absences can be more difficult to make up in a block schedule, some schools have implemented one Saturday school day per month to give students the opportunity to do so. Since the traditional schedule has students changing classes several times a day, discipline problems may arise that are less likely to occur with a block schedule, as instructional time is not fragmented as frequently by class transitions.

Even given the current research showing the positive impact of block scheduling on student academic achievement, there remain many opponents who continue to speak out against changing from a traditional six- or seven-period school day. Viadero (2001) writes about Jeff Lindsey and his effort to locate research supporting his child's school district's endorsement of a block schedule. Lindsey maintains that while he has searched for research that supports the change and proves it to be effective, little is to be found. While researchers have long studied block scheduling, they have yet to conclusively identify it as conducive to improving student learning. The research on the subject suggests that block scheduling is not a sure thing. Hundreds of studies show that districts or schools raised test scores when high schools switched to a block schedule; however, the prevailing view among researchers in the United States seems to be that lengthening class periods is still not a proven means of raising scores on standardized tests of student achievement.

Lindsey admits that the research includes surveys that have, over the years, shown students to feel less stressed and to report higher grades when their classes are longer. Principals report that discipline also improves when students spend less time in the hallways moving from class to class. With more flexible scheduling, students can often take more courses over their high school careers and more quickly retake courses they fail.

Viadero states that "if the research on block scheduling doesn't spell out a clear success story, one reason may be that the definition of a block schedule itself is muddy." Despite all of its variations, the basic idea behind every block scheduling plan is to carve out larger blocks of time so that students can study subjects in depth, conduct more science labs, or undertake more of the action-oriented activities that cognitive psychologists say enhance learning. On a block schedule, classes might range from as short as sixty minutes to as long as two full hours, compared with the average of roughly forty-five to fifty minutes that students traditionally spend in each class. When the National Education Commission on Time and Learning called on educators to use time "in new, different, and better ways," the age-old concept of block scheduling was reinvigorated in 1994.

Comparative Analysis: Block vs. Traditional Scheduling and Academic Achievement

There are many factors in a school that affect student academic achievement. Administration, teachers, subject matter, and campus atmosphere are just a few of them. Scheduling, however, also plays an important role in a student's academic success. With a block schedule, students have the opportunity to spend more time in the classroom with their teachers, which allows for the development of stronger interpersonal relationships. Teachers come to know their students more personally, which enables them to adapt lessons to student interests. The Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (1995) has stated that "the extensive personal interaction between teacher and student is strengthened through block scheduling."

Research has found many problems with the traditional six- to seven-class-period day. Irmsher (1996) discovered that many feel "the pace is grueling." The average student pursues nine different activities each day within approximately six hours. The teacher must instruct approximately one hundred fifty students and then monitor and grade the assigned work. Time is too short for teachers to foster an efficient instructional environment and is inadequate to allow enough time for "probing ideas in depth." Individualization of instruction and interpersonal interaction between students and teachers is practically overlooked within a traditional school day schedule. This frantic pace is unlike any other schedule experienced after high school.

There are a number of significant benefits that support the change from a traditional to a block schedule. Students have different learning styles and learn at different rates in different subjects. Reallocating instructional time can help teachers accommodate these differences and, ultimately, can lead to higher student achievement. Supporters of block scheduling suggest that increased learning time leads to more in-depth learning and higher student and teacher morale. Block scheduling also encourages the use of innovative teaching methods and a greater variety of instructional strategies that address multiple learning styles.

Irmsher also cites other benefits of block scheduling, including: more effective use of school time; decreased class size; an increased number of subjects offered; a reduced number of students with whom teachers have daily contact; the ability of teachers to use higher-level thinking skills strategies in the classroom; and the opportunity to offer more classes. Not only can electives such as welding and SAT preparation be offered, but also remedial classes for graduation exit tests required in many states. Study skills and college preparation courses might also be placed on the elective schedule.

Block Scheduling Reforms Classroom Teaching Techniques

Canady and Rettig (1995) suggest that block schedules will "intensify students' learning experience," enabling them to complete more challenging courses within the junior high and high school years. The end result will be improvements in academic achievement. Other proponents of block scheduling—Jones (1997) and Pisapia and Westfall (1996)—have suggested that the increased amount of time offered within the block schedule will result in a higher percentage of students achieving honor roll status. With the extra time in the class period, teachers have the opportunity to include a variety of learning activities that adapt to more learning styles. The longer class time also allows students to explore concepts more thoroughly.

Larger blocks of time allow for a more flexible and productive classroom environment (Irmsher, 1996). With the recent influx of research on block scheduling, many educators have "implemented this increasingly popular reform movement for schools" (Veal & Flinders, 2001). Based on a two-year study funded by the Research Institute on Teacher Education, a comprehensive set of data was collected from a large Midwestern high school to determine the effects of implementing a block schedule format. At the completion of the study, several findings were significant regarding how block scheduling changed the work and professional lives of teachers. Changes were found in four areas: (1) teaching methods, (2) opportunities for reflection, (3) student-teacher communication, and (4) levels of stress.

The qualitative data collected supported the survey results. The researchers utilized chi-square and ANOVA analyses comparing block, hybrid, and traditional teachers and found differences in the four previously mentioned areas. Surveys were distributed and collected among teachers, parents, and students. Responses from all returned surveys and interviews showed that block and hybrid students agreed that their teachers had modified their teaching methods. The specific teaching methodologies used were more varied and differed from previous years, and the time available in class influenced the type of teaching method incorporated into the lesson. For example, instead of a long lecture, a teacher might begin using the guided discovery method for a more in-depth analysis of the material being taught.

Teachers felt that they also increased the pace of their teaching and became more excited about the subject matter they presented. By picking up the pace in the classroom, teachers noticed that while they initially experienced high levels of anxiety, once they adjusted to the block schedule, they realized they had more time to plan better lessons and evaluate material. Of all the parents surveyed, fifty-three percent agreed that their child seemed to have less anxiety as a result of his or her schedule. Block students still felt their level of anxiety was high but agreed that having less homework allowed more time for relaxation or extracurricular activities.

One of the main areas of improvement with a block schedule is the ability for teachers and students to develop better relationships. Survey results showed that teachers supported positive ideas about the block schedule. It allowed them to spend more time in the classroom working with students on lesson material and getting to know their interests on a more personal level. Teachers could incorporate student interests into their lessons to make the information more applicable to students' lives and lifestyles.

Block scheduling also lends itself to smaller class sizes, which contributes to the development of teacher-student relationships while also allowing students to better understand the information being presented and to have more interaction with their teacher. In the first teacher survey, dissatisfaction related to lack of time for reflection on the day's lessons and on student achievement was overcome by the longer planning period afforded by a block schedule. Time was mentioned in only fifteen percent of traditional teachers' written comments, compared with fifty-six percent of block teachers' comments and seventy-eight percent of hybrid teachers' comments. While all three groups cited common reasons for lack of time—such as grading for large numbers of students—block and hybrid teachers were much more likely to connect the demands on their time with the two themes of variety of teaching methods and pace of instruction (Veal & Flinders, 2001).

Conclusion

The Center for Innovative School Scheduling compiled the following information to state what educators can "almost" guarantee from A/B, four-by-four, or Trimester Block Schedule models. The number of students on the A and B honor roll will increase while student failures decline. This increases the number of high school graduates while also decreasing the overall dropout rate. As a result of these outcomes, the overall grade point average for the school also increases.

Students tend to complete a larger number of Advanced Placement classes, with an increase in scores that relates to how Advanced Placement classes are scheduled in relation to testing dates and which students take the tests. Students coming from a six- or seven-period schedule will complete more classes overall. For a selected group of students, this appears to lead to completion of additional mathematics classes and higher levels of other courses. Students also have opportunities for additional classes in vocational areas and in the performing arts. In North Carolina, end-of-course test scores were at least equal to those under the traditional schedule when selected demographic factors were considered. ACT and SAT scores are also expected to improve overall—a factor that may be attributed to the fact that many students complete a larger number of courses before taking these tests.

Other factors, such as student behavior, are also positively influenced. Schools gain greater flexibility in helping students who need acceleration as well as those who need extended learning time. The number of discipline referrals to the office is reduced. Tardiness to school and class is reduced because students spend less time in hallways moving from class to class. The school day becomes less stressful for both students and teachers.

Over time and with quality staff development, teachers change their teaching behaviors; there tends to be less lecture and more active student engagement during classes. After at least two years of implementation, sixty-five to eighty percent of teachers, students, and parents state they prefer the block schedule. In many schools with A/B and four-by-four schedules, support for the program exceeds ninety percent. With the increased morale of teachers and students, attendance also improves when a block schedule is used properly.

The use of a block schedule allows for project-oriented lessons, which leads to increased use of library and media center materials for research. When students work on research projects, the use of technology-related resources also increases—for example, in the creation of PowerPoint presentations and other multimedia projects. One must ask whether block scheduling is the answer to the problems in education. The answer is no. However, by identifying and addressing the needs of the school, a block schedule might begin a new reform effort that eliminates many potential problems while boosting academic achievement within our middle schools and high schools.

References

Adams, D., & Salvaterra, M. (1997). Structural and teacher changes: Necessities for successful block scheduling. High School Journal, 81, 98–106.

Bateson, D. (1990). Science achievement in semester and all-year courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 230–240.

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Gardiner, NY: Eye on Education.

Carroll, J. (1994, March). Organizing time to support learning. The School Administrator, 26–28. EJ481309.

Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. ERS Report, ED366070.

Center for Innovative School Scheduling. University of Virginia. Retrieved March 6, 2003, from http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/centers/ciss/

Evans, W., Rice, D., & McCray, A. (2001). [Block scheduling study: Three New Jersey districts.] Unpublished data.

Freeman, C., & Maruyama, G. (1995). Report study of the four-period schedule for Anoka-Hennepin District No. 11. Retrieved March 6, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/carei/Blockscheduling/Resources/Anoka-Hennepin.html

Georgia Department of Education. (1998). Brief summary of block scheduling findings. Retrieved March 6, 2003, from http://www.ga.doe.k12.ga.us/sla/ret/block.pdf

Irmsher, K. (1996). Block scheduling. ED393156.

Lab at Brown University. (1998). Block scheduling: Innovations with time. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), Department of Education, RJ96006401.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1998). Block scheduling in North Carolina: Critical issues. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.

Pisapia, J., & Westfall, A. (1996). Alternative high school scheduling: Student achievement and behavior. Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.

Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 125–129.

Texas Education Agency Office of Policy, Planning, and Research. (1999, September). Block scheduling: Research and resources. Retrieved March 6, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/carei/Blockscheduling/Resources/Type1.html

Viadero, D. (2001, October). Changing times. Education Week. Retrieved March 6, 2003, from

Veal, W., & Flinders, D. (2001). How block scheduling reform affects classroom practice. High School Journal, 84, 21.

Walker, G. (2000). The effect of block scheduling on mathematics achievement in high and low SES secondary schools. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.

Woronowicz, S. (1996). Block scheduling in the high school. Researchers Digest. Princeton, NJ: Educational Research Service.