June 22, 2006


Educational Reform Movements: Part 9 of a series
Three Perspectives on Block Scheduling

At the previous meeting of the Task Force on Scheduling, members listened to the administration’s presentation and recommendation to adopt one of two forms of block scheduling. This week, the Task Force members planned to divide into two groups to discuss the pros and cons of the two block scheduling options (4 x 4 and A/B).

However, the intensity of the discussions that concluded the last meeting had increased significantly since that time. The growing divisions within the Task Force had now polarized to the point that everyone decided it would be a good idea to divide into three study groups for the meeting. Each of the three groups – administrators, teachers and members of the community – were charged with making a recommendation about whether or not the district should adopt the 4 x 4 or A/B form of the block schedule.

Here’s an eye-opening summary of their differing perspectives.

The Administrative Team

Members of the administrative team spent much of their time and energy reorganizing the approach to their proposal and on emphasizing key research highlights. They decided it was most important to focus on the following points:

• Elimination of the scheduling bottleneck

• Increasing “time on task” would result in increasing test scores

• Increasing graduation rates (reducing attrition)

• Less classes to schedule per day would reduce the load of Guidance Counselors

• Reduction of discipline problems, because students would spend less time in the hallways between classes

They decided to maintain their position that adopting one of the block schedule formats would be best for the district.

The Teachers

Teacher representatives summarized their support of the recommendation to adopt one of the block scheduling formats by emphasizing the following factors.

• Teachers would have less students and classes per day, allowing them to devote more attention to individual student needs

• Teachers would have more students and classes per year, providing fiscal viability

• Teachers would have increased “prep” time, enabling them to spend more time developing their materials

Generally speaking, the teachers also decided to support block scheduling, even though some of them agreed with some points made by opponents to the block schedule at the last meeting.

The Community

The study group that included members of the community had quite a different approach. It seemed that most of the research and materials presented on block scheduling had addressed positive aspects of the effects “Block” would have on administrators and teachers. This perspective made the assumption that “what is good for teachers (or the institution) is good for students.”

The members of the community flipped their starting point to “what is good for students is good for the institution.” With every issue discussed, they asked, “What will the impact be on the student?”

[It should be noted here that several members of the community worked for corporations in which they were dealing with issues of human resources in their own occupations. Consequently, they had done much of their own research on the subject.]

Another Perspective on the Research

Community members first noted that the massive amounts of data distributed by the administration, and available via the Internet and other resources, had one primary common characteristic: in over 60 years of use, there was no scientific evidence or data that indicated positive short or long-term growth in overall student achievement or standardized test results. Though there was some evidence that graduation rates increased, and grades improved, information released by the College Board and the Advanced Placement (AP) Testing Service appeared 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 the greatest number of schools that had adopted 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." These sources further stated: "The majority of AP teachers, coordinators, readers, and test development committee members opposed block scheduling." And, finally, the Board suggested, "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.)

One of the members of the community even developed the following table to provide information that had either been disregarded or unavailable in previous meetings:

Comparison of Traditional and Block Schedules

	Traditional: 6 periods	Block: 4x4 or A/B
Length of School Day	355 minutes	355 minutes
Student Class Load	6 classes per day	4 classes per day
Length of Class Periods	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 (5x5)	15 minutes (3x5)
Teacher Class Load	5 classes per day	3 classes per day
Teaching Time Per Day	275 minutes	255 minutes
Total Semester Class Time in Minutes	9,900 (55 minutes x 180 sessions)	7,650 (85 minutes x 90 sessions)

Community members provided the following summary of some of the more significant administrative and teacher issues revealed in the comparison between traditional and block schedule concepts:

1. Although it is true there will be fewer courses to schedule, there will be increased potential for schedule conflict because of the reduction from six to only four periods per day.
2. Although it is true that teachers will have less students and classes per day, there will be an increase in the number of teachers on “prep” time during any given period (one out of four per period instead of one out of six). Therefore, the district will either need to increase class sizes by an average of 8% or hire additional teachers to keep classes at the current level of 30 students.
3. The district could make certain elective teaching positions half-time. For example, a language teacher providing three levels of instruction (e.g., Spanish I, II, III) could be required to schedule those courses only in the fall semester.
4. Although it is true the “time on task” per period increases from 55 to 85 minutes, the “semesterizing” of instruction would require teachers to cover two days of class materials per period. This is not likely to happen when the length of the class period is increased by only 30 minutes. In fact, many teachers have clearly stated they do not attempt to cover as much material in a course in the block schedule format. Further, many provide a short “mental” break in the middle of the lengthy period, or even treat the last part of the period as a “study hall.” (Little wonder the “research” indicates this is a popular format with students, or that graduation rates improve.)
5. When comparing data, the time a teacher spends in class per day is reduced by 20 minutes while, at the same time, teachers gain 30 minutes for the “prep” hour, gaining a total of 50 minutes “prep” time per day. (Little wonder that block is a popular format with many teachers. One teacher even stated, “Why should I complain? I have fewer classes and students, and make more money!”)

While most members of the committee were greatly disturbed by the data related to administrative and teacher issues, there was even greater distress over the following potential negative affects on students, summarized below:

1. There would be increases in class size.
2. There would be a potential for greater scheduling conflicts (particularly in the 4 x 4 format), because of the decrease in the number of periods per day.
3. . There would be occasional major gaps between classes (particularly in the A/B), because of holidays or other non-teaching days.
4. There could be major gaps between certain courses (again, particularly in the 4 x 4 format). For example, a student taking Spanish I in fall semester one year might not be able to take Spanish II until the next fall.
5. In any curricular area where there is only one instructor, the reduction of the teaching load from 5 courses to 3 courses would cause a 40% loss of curriculum, unless an additional instructor was hired to cover those courses. This would obviously add a significant cost factor to the district budget.
6. The major issue, however, was the loss of instructional time per student. With each course meeting for one semester, the number of classes per course is reduced from 180 to 90. Further, in the traditional six-period day, a 55-minute class meets 180 times for a total of 9,900 minutes. Under the block schedule format, an 85-minute class meets only 90 times, for a total of 7,650 minutes. This loss of 2,250 minutes of instructional time is equivalent to a loss of eight (8) weeks of instructional time per course for the student. In sequential courses such as algebra that cover two years on a traditional system, a total of 16 weeks of instructional time is lost. To achieve full mastery of subject competencies, some districts have added new course requirements for graduation to make up for lost time in those curricular areas (e.g., Algebra III). Therefore, the proposed advantage of offering more course options (electives) with block scheduling is minimized or eliminated.

The community study group took a verbal straw vote and nearly all members expressed a negative vote against the adoption of either form of block scheduling.

The Groups Report to Each Other

Having completed their efforts, the various study groups came back together to report their findings. After the administrative and teacher groups shared their information, the community group summarized its findings and distributed copies of the Comparison of Traditional and Block Schedules to show the weaknesses in the block schedule format. They then clearly expressed their position of non-support for either form.

After considerable discussion, it became evident that several of the teachers (particularly in the traditional “core” areas of mathematics, reading and the sciences) had the same reservations. By the end of the meeting there was no significant support or mandate for the administrative recommendation.

Where Do We Go From Here, Then?

Upon further discussion a sub-committee made up of members of each of the three sub-groups (administration, teachers, community) was appointed to develop a chart similar to the one above in which all the various scheduling formats were compared. This information would be distributed to the Task Force for study before the next meeting. This chart would provide the basis for moving ahead in attempting to fulfill the Task Force charge of facilitating scheduling reform in the district.

At the conclusion of the meeting, someone once again raised the question, “How many students does the 9th and 10th grade bottleneck really affect?” The administrative reported its findings that only about 10% of the students were affected by the scheduling conflict. It appeared, therefore, that adoption of the block schedule would place approximately 90% of the students in the position of taking a study hall, a position that was neither educationally or financially viable. (In fact, some districts that have adopted the block require that a student take at least one study hall as part of their eight courses per year.)

Someone else responded, “Isn’t there some kind of solution that could address the needs of that 10% of the students without forcing 100% of the students into a structure that was either ineffective or unworkable?” Someone else said, “Why not offer the choice of an optional 7th period for those students who are facing the scheduling bottleneck?”

Everyone decided that the next meeting of the Task Force would feature two agenda items:

• A summary of the comparison of key aspects of the various scheduling formats
• An administrative report on the feasibility of an optional seventh period for students facing the bottleneck.

Until next time,

John Benham