From time to time, Education World reposts a previously published article that we think might be of interest to administrators. Before reposting, we update all links and add new resources to the articles. We hope you find this archived article to be of value…
The merits of block scheduling are a subject of great debate. Is it a flexible scheduling alternative that benefits students -- or is it a fad that's sure to pass?
Schools throughout the United States are adopting block scheduling in
dramatically increasing numbers.
The move to block scheduling, however, has sparked controversy.
Hailed by proponents as a vehicle for greater depth and flexibility
in education, block scheduling has turned off some educators and parents,
who criticize it as a faddish approach that fails to enhance academic
performance.
WHAT IS BLOCK SCHEDULING?
In an article titled "All Around the Block: The Benefits and Challenges
of a Non-Traditional School Schedule," Michael D. Rettig and Robert Lynn
Canady estimate that "more than 50 percent of high schools in the United
States are either using or considering a form of block scheduling."
In contrast with the traditional daily, six-, seven-, or eight-period
schedule, a block schedule consists of three or four daily longer periods.
Widely used forms of block scheduling are the alternate-day schedule,
the 4/4 semester plan, and the trimester plan.
In the alternate-day schedule students and teachers meet every-other-day
for extended time periods rather than meeting every day for shorter periods.
In the 4/4 semester plan students complete four "yearlong" courses
that meet for about 90 minutes every day during a 90-day semester.
Students take two or three courses every 60 days in a trimester
plan to earn six to nine credits per year.
Many schools work with schedules that are variations or combinations
of these plans. For example, a school in Broward County, Florida, has
adapted the trimester plan by adding three year-long classes to six trimester
courses in order to accommodate musical performing groups and Advance
Placement subjects, which need or prefer to go year round. Other school
districts combine long terms and short terms to provide time for remediation
and enrichment for students, as needed.
THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE TREND
Rettig and Canady maintain that a handful of factors are motivating
middle and high schools across the United States to adopt block scheduling:
When students attend as many as eight relatively short classes in
different subjects every day, instruction can become fragmented; longer
class periods give students more time to think and engage in active
learning.
A schedule with one relatively short period after another can create
a hectic, assembly-line environment;
A schedule that releases hundreds or thousands of adolescents into
hallways six, seven, or eight times each school day for four or five
minutes of noise and chaotic movement can exacerbate discipline problems.
Teachers benefit from more useable instructional time each day because
less time is lost with beginning and ending classes.
A 1995 study by Carl Glickman, a University of Georgia professor, of
820 high schools and 11,000 students reported that schools in which active
learning methods were predominant had significantly higher achievement
as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Teachers
at schools with block scheduling may use longer instructional periods
to engage students in experiments, writing, and other forms of active
learning, as opposed to merely lecturing students.
In addition, the alternate-day schedule reduces the time teachers spend
in record keeping because records need be kept only every other day instead
of every day.
In the 4/4 format, in any one semester teachers prepare for fewer courses
and work with fewer students. Grades and records need be kept for fewer
students per semester. In addition, some students graduate in three years
or earn a year of college credit while still in high school because eight
credits can be earned each school year.
THE COPERNICAN PLAN
Like block scheduling, the Copernican Plan, developed by Joseph M. Carroll,
also challenges the traditional organization of secondary schools. According
to Carroll, a former superintendent who is now an education consultant
and author, nothing is wrong with the traditional schedule "except that
it prevents teachers from teaching well and students from learning well."
Carroll also says that under a traditional secondary schedule, "teachers
cannot deal meaningfully with every student every day..."
"Four hundred years ago, the renaissance scholar Copernicus
demonstrated the unsystematic movements of the planets could be systematically
explained if one begins with the assumption that the sun, not the earth,
is the center of the universe (as was then thought)," Carroll explains.
"Similarly, our Copernican Plan [challenges] tradition, the traditional
organization of our secondary schools and particularly our high schools.
Like Copernicus, the plan deals with facts and research that has been
known for a long time, but which never seemed to make sense in the real
world of schools."
"The Copernican Plan is not about 'block scheduling.' It is about the
relationship between time and learning," Carroll adds. It involves change
based on research and change that is systemic. It has a built-in method
of continuing evaluation.
Carroll emphasizes that the Copernican Plan is not an end; it is a means
to an end.
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
Even though more and more schools are switching to block scheduling,
the approach has drawn fire from some educators and parents. Critics of
block scheduling assert that the new scheduling format creates or exacerbates
certain educational problems.
What will students do for 90-minute periods? critics ask. Proponents
of block scheduling cite active learning as the key to keeping students
engaged and learning during longer periods. But, even with a block-scheduling
format, critics say, many teachers continue simply to lecture students
rather than engaging them in active learning. Block scheduling in itself
is no guarantee of active learning. And if active learning doesn't take
place during, for example, a 90-minute class period, students may have
trouble paying attention for the entire class.
Opponents of block scheduling, like the group Parents for Academic Excellence
based in Lansdale, Pennsylvania, point out that student absences create
problems under block scheduling. Making up missed work is always difficult.
But when a student misses one day of classes under block scheduling, the
student misses the equivalent of two days of instruction under the traditional
system. A weeklong absence means the student misses two weeks of material.
Such an absence may cause a student to fall behind to the extent that
making up the work is difficult.
Teacher absences may lead to other problems, according to doubters.
Under block scheduling, will a substitute teacher be qualified to teach
90-minute periods of, for example, physics?
Courses like languages or mathematics are sequential. Some critics of
block scheduling point out that a student may take French I in the fall,
not take French at all in the spring, go through the summer, and then
take French II the following fall. At issue is how much French the student
will recall after a break of several months. Advocates of block scheduling
say most forgetting happens in the first few weeks after a course is taken.
Yet critics point to studies that indicate greater memory loss over longer
periods of time.
A practical hurdle also stands in the way of block scheduling in some
school districts. A state arbitration panel in Connecticut recently ruled
that Region 13, covering the towns of Durham and Middlefield, would have
to pay teachers more under a proposed block schedule plan because teachers
would be required to teach six different courses a year instead of five
courses. The panel ruled that teachers should be compensated for added
preparation time involved in an extra course, even if the teachers would
teach for the same length of time. The school district still adopted block
schedule after the ruling, but it reconfigured its scheduling to ensure
that each teacher is responsible for only five courses.
WHAT ABOUT COMPROMISE?
Once advocates and opponents of block scheduling become entrenched,
compromise between the groups can be difficult. In districts that have
experienced a smooth transition to block scheduling, the administration
has generally dealt with internal opposition that might exist among the
staff and brought teachers on board before.
Here are Joseph M. Carroll's recommendations for handling the change
process:
"Process is not product." Don't let the process of change itself dominate
for too long.
"Successful change must be research-based and systemic." Center the
process of change on developing a system based on sound instructional
research and research-based evaluations of programs that led to improved
student performance.
"Leadership is critical." Leaders must be crystal clear about what
they want.
"Change the whole school at once." School-within-a-school or pilot
programs threaten people without establishing a program.
"Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate." Make evaluation an integral part of
the program.
"A caveat: Beware of the gifted opposition." Teachers and parents
connected with honors courses are succeeding under the current system;
often they view change as a threat to their position.
"Determine how much change a school community can absorb." Limit the
number of changes and sequence them carefully.
REFERENCES
Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools, by Robert
L. Canady and Michael D. Rettig, Eye On Education, Princeton, N.J.
The Copernican Plan Evaluated: The Evolution of a Revolution and
The Copernican Plan: Restructuring the American High School, by Joseph
M. Carroll, Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast
and Islands, 300 Brickstone Square, Suite 900, Andover, Mass. 01983.
Think About Block Scheduling, by Robin J. Fogarty, IRI Skylight
Training and Publishing, Palatine, Ill.
Retooling the Instructional Day, by Gerald E. Kosanovic, National
Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA, (703) 860-7227
"Debunking the Semesterizing Myth," by Dennis Raphael, M.W. Walstrom,
and L.D. McLean, Canadian Journal of Education, Winter 1986
"Science Achievement in Semester and All-Year Courses," by David J.
Bateson, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, March 1990
