
 |
Download the NEW SupportMusic Glossary
- 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
- 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 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"
- 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" 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. - "What are the adult and student issues (benefits and shortcomings) in any proposal under consideration?"
- "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. - Students will have greater flexibility in scheduling; and, therefore, will be able to take more electives.
- 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.
- 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
| |