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.

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.