Welcome to 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 Ã± 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 Ã± and Why Reading This is NOT an Advocacy Action
March 21, 2007: FOFCUS ON BUDGET: FTE and the Staffing Ratio, Part 2 Ã± 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 Ã± 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 Ã± 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.

"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 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