WWW WWW.SUPPORTMUSIC.COM

Download the NEW SupportMusic Glossary

February 01, 2010
Advocacy for Arts Education Begins at Home
January 01, 2010
A Case for Middle School Arts
December 01, 2009
FOCUS ON ADVOCACY: When Is A Loss A Loss?
November 01, 2009
FOCUS ON ADVOCACY: Solid Advocacy Groundwork Saves Two School Music Programs in Nevada School District
October 01, 2009
FOCUS ON ADVOCACY: Three-Step Action Plan to Make ‘Music Education For All Students’ a Goal in Your School District
September 01, 2009
FOCUS ON COALITION-BUILDING: Back-to-School Inspiration: Elementary String Program Saved!
August 01, 2009
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: Award-winning Student Essays Highlight the Unifying Powers of Music
July 02, 2009
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: Music Education Advocacy for the Digital Generation
June 01, 2009
FOCUS ON ADVOCACY: Keeping Your Momentum, Even in Troubled Times
May 01, 2009
FOCUS ON ADVOCACY: Are YOU Ready to Write a Letter in Support of Music Education?
April 01, 2009
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: Research Study Links Music Making and Music Education with Improved Academic Performance
March 01, 2009
FOCUS ON ADVOCACY: Moving from Survival to Vision
February 02, 2009
FOCUS ON ADVOCACY: NOW MORE THAN EVER…
January 05, 2009
FOCUS ON ADVOCACY: Develop an Annual Report Featuring Your Music Education Program
December 01, 2008
ADVOCACY IN TIMES OF FISCAL CRISIS: Your Local Music Coalition
November 01, 2008
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: Research Study Indicates Teenagers’ Strong Commitment to Music & Music Making
October 01, 2008
FOCUS ON ADVOCACY: The Purpose of Arts Education
August 01, 2008
MUSIC ADVOCACY: Singing Through the Dark Times
July 01, 2008
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: Students Express Why Music is Important to Their Complete Education
June 01, 2008
Reflections on Advocacy as the SupportMusic Coalition Celebrates Five Years
May 01, 2008
FOCUS ON BUDGET: Reverse Economics – Developing a Fiscal Case for Your Music Program (Part 2 of 2)
April 02, 2008
FOCUS ON BUDGET: Reverse Economics - Developing a Fiscal Case for Your Music Program (Part 1 of 2)
March 01, 2008
Focus on Issues & Decision-making: Educational Reform Movements - Tax Vouchers and Their Impact on Music Education Programs
February 01, 2008
ARTS ADVOCACY LESSONS FROM THE 2008 IOWA PRESIDENTIAL CAUCUS: #1 Take-Away ñ Let the Candidates Hear From You!
January 03, 2008
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: NJ Arts Education Census Project Offers Model for Other States
December 01, 2007
FOCUS ON COALITION BUILDING: Advocate for Music Education
October 30, 2007
FOCUS ON ISSUES & DECISION MAKING: Music Education Research 101, Part II
September 17, 2007
FOCUS ON ISSUES & DECISION MAKING: Music Education Research 101, Part 1
August 07, 2007
FOCUS ON ISSUES AND DECISIONMAKING: Do Your Elected Officials View Music Education as a National Priority?
July 13, 2007
FOCUS ON COALITION BUILDING: American Symphony Orchestra League Launches Historic Statement of Common Cause to Support In-School Music Education
June 03, 2007
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: Music & Arts Education is Essential to Development of Creative Economy & 21st Century Skills
June 03, 2007
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: Music & Arts Education is Essential to Development of Creative Economy & 21st Century Skills
May 03, 2007
FOCUS ON COALITION BUILDING: Think Globally, Act Locally ñ and Why Reading This is NOT an Advocacy Action
March 21, 2007
FOFCUS ON BUDGET: FTE and the Staffing Ratio, Part 2 ñ The Music Teacher
February 21, 2007
FOCUS ON COALITION BUILDING: From Anytown, USA to Washington, DC . . . All Music Advocacy Is Local
January 17, 2007
FOCUS ON COALITION BUILDING: How to Create School Board Support for Music Programs
January 07, 2007
FOCUS ON COALITION BUILDING: How to Create School Board Support for Music Programs
December 15, 2006
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: Why Music Technology Enhances Student Success
November 16, 2006
FOCUS ON COALITION BUILDING: These Parents Made A Difference ñ You Can Too!
October 18, 2006
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: The Study Hall Game
September 27, 2006
FOCUS ON ISSUES & DECISION MAKING: The Music Administrator, Part 2 of 2
September 20, 2006
FOCUS ON ISSUES & DECISION MAKING: The Music Administrator, Part 1 of 2
September 08, 2006
Back-To-School Primer: The Local Music Coalition
August 30, 2006
Focus on Budget: FTE ñ A Case Study on Teacher Seniority & The Fallacy of Average
August 24, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making:Educational Reform Movements: Middle Schools, Part 3 of 3
August 15, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making:Educational Reform Movements: Middle Schools, Part 2 of 3
August 08, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Middle Schools, Part 1 of 3
August 08, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Middle Schools, Part 1 of 3
August 01, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Trimester System and Year-Round Schools
July 18, 2006
NEWS FLASH!! CA Advocates Secure Historic Funding for Arts Education
June 30, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Part 10 of a series Decision Time!
June 22, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Part 9 of a series Three Perspectives on Block Scheduling
June 18, 2006
NEWS FLASH!! CA Advocates Secure Historic Funding for Arts Education
June 13, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Part 8 of a series Two Options for Four-Period Block Scheduling
June 06, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Part 7 of a series Block Scheduling and the Music Student
May 30, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Part 6 of a series Rotating Schedules
May 18, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Part 5 of a series Two Options for 7-Period Scheduling
May 08, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Part 4 of a series Scheduling Myths & the Grades 9-10 "Bottleneck"
April 27, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform movement: Part 3 of a series Scheduling & The Traditional Six-Day Period
April 19, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform: Part 2 of a series Scheduling
April 12, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Educational Reform Movements: Part 1 of a series An Overview & Some Advice
April 04, 2006
FOCUS ON BUDGET: Actual FTE Value & Individual Student Load
March 27, 2006
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS: A Slippery Slope
March 15, 2006
Music Advocacy 101: Do YOU Have "The Right Stuff"?
March 01, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Who Really Calls The Shots?
February 16, 2006
Focus on Budget: FTE and The Danger of Using Averages
February 07, 2006
Focus on Budget: Identifying Potential & "Hidden" Music Budget Cuts
January 24, 2006
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Music - Curricular, Co-curricular or Extra-curricular?
January 10, 2006
Focus on Budget: FTE and the Staffing Ratio
January 04, 2006
Focus on Students: Advocacy and the Music Student
December 27, 2005
Focus on Budget: How to Develop & Use Impact Statements
December 20, 2005
FOCUS ON ISSUES & DECISION-MAKING: Central and Site-based Management
December 05, 2005
Focus on Budget: How "Average" FTE Value Creates Budget Problems
November 28, 2005
Focus on Coalition Building: The Public School Music Participation Survey
November 21, 2005
Focus on Coalition Building: 8 Strategic Errors in Music Advocacy & How to Correct Them
November 14, 2005
Focus on Issues & Decision Making: Is My Music Program Vulnerable to Cuts?
November 07, 2005
Focus on Budget: FTE & Staffing
October 31, 2005
FOCUS ON STUDENTS: Putting Students First
October 10, 2005
Decision Making: The Politics of Process
October 04, 2005
SCHOOL BUDGET PRIMER: UNDERSTANDING "FTE"
September 09, 2005
Back-To-School Primer: Creating a Local Music Coalition
August 12, 2005
The Public School Music Participation Survey
August 01, 2005
The Right Stuff?
July 19, 2005
Advocacy and the Music Student
June 29, 2005
The Danger of Public Opinion Surveys
June 22, 2005
Music: Curricular, Co-curricular, or Extra-curricular? (Part II)
June 16, 2005
Music: Curricular, Co-curricular, or Extra-curricular? (Part I)
June 09, 2005
Developing Impact Statements
May 25, 2005
News Flash: The Crisis in Minnesota
May 12, 2005
Identifying Potential Music Cuts-Part II: "Hidden" Cuts
May 12, 2005
Identifying Potential Music Cuts-Part II: "Hidden" Cuts
April 25, 2005
March 23, 2005
March 23, 2005
Decisions: Adult or Student-centered?
March 23, 2005
Decisions: Adult or Student-centered?
February 23, 2005
Case Study: "Block Schedule ? The Perils"
February 16, 2005
Educational Reform
February 09, 2005
The Public Survey Trap
February 02, 2005
Strategic Errors in Music Advocacy
January 27, 2005
Uncovering the Mystery of the School Budget: Glossary
January 19, 2005
A Glossary of Terms for the Music Advocate: The Art of "Educese."
December 28, 2004
Decision Making: The Politics of Process
December 22, 2004
Decision Makers: Who's really calling the shots?
December 15, 2004
Is My Music Program Vulnerable to Cuts?
December 08, 2004
What is the Single Most Important Isssue in Music Advocacy? YOU!
December 01, 2004
MUSIC ADVOCACY: Caring Enough to Put the Student First

February 23, 2005


Case Study: "Block Schedule – The Perils"

As a consultant, I am often asked to assist a music program in assessing the potential effects of educational reform being proposed by their districts. These may relate to issues of reform, staffing, funding, or other some other aspect of the educational institution. Atypical example is a proposal for the adoption of block scheduling. I always begin the process by asking two questions.
  1. "What are the adult and student issues (benefits and shortcomings) in any proposal under consideration?"
  2. "Do the primary short and long-term benefit(s) accrue to the student?"
Historical approaches to educational reform have included alternative forms of scheduling. One of the major approaches has been the block schedule. Although there is a significant lack of evidence of positive academic improvement, for over 60 years block scheduling has come and gone as school administrators have attempted to meet the demands of increasing student achievement. Over-emphasis on assessment of student achievement as measured by standardized test scores has been a primary catalyst.

Block scheduling comes in a variety of forms, most often the unmodified four-period school day commonly referred to as the 4 x 4 system. Students take four courses per semester, or up to eight courses per year. Each course is considered equivalent to a (former) full-year course. In the most common alternative, often referred to as the A/B system, the students take up to eight courses per year with classes meeting on alternate days for the entire year.

As school districts consider the adoption of block scheduling, they often establsih three basic assumptions.
  1. Students will have greater flexibility in scheduling; and, therefore, will be able to take more electives.
  2. Increases in the length of daily class session are better than shorter class periods extended of time. This is perceived of as an increase in student "contact time" that will result in increased student achievement.
  3. The length (number of minutes) of the school day will not change. This is normally a financial issue, because instructional costs would increase proportionately with the number of minutes added beyond those specified in the teacher contract.
A comparison the traditional and block schedule are illustrated in the table below. From the example you can determine the benefits and shortcomings of block scheduling to adult and student constituents in your school district. (Substitute appropriate data from your district to make comparative results.)

Comparison of Traditional and Block Schedules


Tradition (6-period Day)

Block (4x4 or A/B)

Length of School Day

355 minutes

355 minutes

Student Load

6 classes per day

4 classes per day

Class Length

55 minutes
85 minutes
Sessions per Course
180
90
Average Class Size
30
32.5
Daily Student Class Time
330 minutes
340 minutes
Between-class Time
25 minutes (5 x 5)
15 minutes (3 x 5)
Teacher Load
5 classes per day
3 classes per day
Daily Teacher Class Time
275 minutes
255 minutes
Daily Teacher Class Time

55 minutes

85 minutes


By using the comparative data of the two forms of scheduling, you can determine the adult and student issues, the benefits and shortcomings of a proposed change to block scheduling, and who wins or loses. The partial list included below assumes the adoption of a block schedule as in the comparison data. (Student issues are in bold).

  • There are less courses to schedule (4 instead of 6), reducing the workload of counselors. However, the probability of schedule conflict for the student is increased from 1:6 to 1:4. There will be increased difficultly in scheduling courses that are sequential; and, in some cases, an entire semester may go by before scheduling the next course. In the case of music performance, a student may not be able to schedule music for an entire year.
  • The number of teachers on "preparatory" (non-teaching) time increases from 1:6 to 1:4. The district must hire additional teaching staff (8%) to compensate for the extra teachers on "prep" time, or increase student class sizes by 8%. There may also be a need to find additional classrooms.
  • Teacher workloads are reduced from five classes per day to three. Curricular options in any subject area in which there is only one teacher (e.g., music, world languages, art) will be reduced by 40%.
  • With students changing classes only three times per day, there tend to be less discipline problems. The 10 minutes gained from less time changing classes is added to instructional time (2.5 minutes per class).
  • However, in practice many teachers are giving a 10-minute "mental" break during the 85-minute class. Others are using the "extra" class time as a guided "study hall" in which students can complete their homework.
  • With each course meeting for one semester the number of classes is reduced from 180 to 90. In order to complete the equivalent number of assignments, a teacher on block schedule must cover the material of traditional class periods in on class. Further, in the traditional six-period day a (55-minute) class meets 180 times for a total of 9,900 minutes. Under the block scheduling format an (85-minute) class meets only 90 times, or a total of 7,650 minutes. This loss of 2,250 minutes of instructional time is the equivalent to a reduction of eight (8) weeks of instructional time per course for the student. In sequential courses that cover two semesters (two years on a traditional system), a total of 16 weeks of instructional time is lost. To achieve full mastery of subject competences, some districts have additional course requirements for graduation to make up for lost time in those curricular areas.
It should come as little surprise that even after decades of use there is no scientific evidence of increased student achievement under the block schedule format. Information released by the College Board and the AP (Advanced Placement) Testing Service appears to substantiate the evidence of the negative impact of block scheduling on student performance. In responding to poor student performance in states or districts with block scheduling they stated, "Students who completed year-long AP courses offered only in the fall or spring have tended to perform poorly on the examinations;" and, further stated that "the majority of AP teachers, coordinators, readers, and test development committee members opposed block scheduling." The board suggests "there is a need for controlled, longitudinal studies of the impact of block scheduling upon learning." (Office of Regional Affairs, College Board. July 14, 1998.)

Perhaps that is why so many districts that have implemented block scheduling have subsequently dropped it as ineffective.

In spite of the many negatives, many districts have adopted the block schedule. In the next issue we will look at some strategies that may be implemented to ensure the continuance of a strong music curriculum when a district mandates a change to the block schedule.

[Note: Significant information related to block scheduling has been contributed by Dr. Stephen J. Benham. He is currently Assistant Professor of Music at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Portions of this entry are extracted from an article we co-authored as published in the Instrumentalist, August, 1996.]

Until next time,

John Benham



Organizations:

Artists:

Scott Brady

Nathan East

The Goo Goo Dolls

Lorin Hollander

Bob James

Carolyn Dawn Johnson

Harvey Mason

Bob McGrath

Chris Pierce

Nate Sallie

Take 6

Will Turpin of Collective Soul


Contact Us