Traditional vs. Block Scheduling

1. Traditional vs. Block Scheduling by Ruth Farmakidis, Karen Gailey, Susan Hewett, Shannon Koontz and Stephanie Odum 11/2/09 MDSK 6256 Dr. Barbara Blackburn

2. History of Scheduling • Traditional scheduling did not always exist in its current state. Prior to 1892, the work of National Education Association’s Committee of Ten, high school predecessors, Latin Grammar Schools & Academies, allowed some flexibility in their school schedules. • After the development of the “Carnegie Unit” in the early 20th century, the every day period became standardized. • Flexible Modular Scheduling (FMS) was attempted in the 60s & 70’s with initial enthusiasm.

3. History of Scheduling continued…. • Studies by Goldman in 1983 reported that students and teachers preferred flexible schedules. • By 1980’s and early 1990’s, FMS had faded. • 1994- Cawelti introduced the restructuring movement of “block scheduling.”

4. History continued… • The National Education Commission on Time and Learning summarized their findings as follows: “Learning in America is a prisoner of time. For the past 150 years, American public schools have held time constant and let learning vary…learn what you can in the time that is available… Time is learning’s warden” Nichols, J. D. (2004, April). The impact of block scheduling on various indicators of school success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

5. Defining a traditional schedule • A schedule that allows for 6 to 9 class periods in a day that last for the entire year. • Each period last approximately 48 to 52 minutes. • Transition time between class is approximately 3 to 5 minutes. • Students change classes every 50 or so minutes, wasting critical time, that could be used for more instruction.

6. Quote about traditional scheduling “According to Joseph Carroll (1994), it produces a hectic, impersonal, inefficient instructional environment , providing inadequate time for probing ideas in depth, and tends to discourage using a variety of learning activities. Opportunities for individualization of instruction and meaningful interaction between students and teachers are hard to come by. Carroll, J.M. (1994). Organizing time to support learning. The School Administrator, 51(3), 26-33.

7. Defining a block schedule • Students attend 4 classes, in 90 or 120 minute blocks each day. • Possible variations: • AB Format: Class subject alternate from day to day • 2. 4 x 4 Format: Alternates from semester to semester Center for Educational Reform. (1996, November). Scheduling: On the block. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://www.edreform.com/Resources/Publications/?Scheduling_On_the_Block

8. Quote about block scheduling Gordon Cawelti (1994) defines it as follows: "At least part of the daily schedule is organized into larger blocks of time (more than sixty minutes) to allow flexibility for a diversity of instructional activities." Calweti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

9. Did you know….. Scheduling changes have historically been linked to decreased reliance on the standard lecture-discussion-seatwork pattern, and an increase in individualization and creative teaching strategies. They are often part of a major restructuring effort. Irmsher, K. (1996). Block scheduling. Eugene OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393156)

10. MathComparison of Typical Schedules

11. Language ArtsComparison of Typical Schedules

12. ScienceComparison of Typical Schedules

13. Social StudiesComparison of Schedules

14. Which bandwagon will you jump on?

15. HANDOUTS The slides numbered 17-33 contain the following handouts: • 4 Frame Model of Block/Traditional Scheduling • Pros and Cons of Block/Traditional Scheduling

16. 4 Frame Model of Traditional & Block Scheduling

17. Structural: Traditional Scheduling • No time for extra help • Classes last entire year • Every subject is equal • No enrichment activities • Less student confusion due to schedule • End of year tests are at end of course • Impact of interruptions • 45 – 60 minutes • Fast paced classes • Lots of transitions • Greater teacher workload • # of preps varies • Has always been this way • Less flexibility More rigid schedule

18. Structural: Traditional Scheduling (cont..) • Very routine and consistent • Teachers are trained to teach this way • Rely on lecture in many classes • Amount of teacher planning time • Students don’t miss much when absent • Lessons feel rushed • No “learning gap” between courses • Same number of instructional hours as block schedule • Superficial coverage of material • Teacher centered classroom • Boredom

19. Symbolic:Traditional Scheduling • Has always been this way • Impact of interruptions • Student retention • Teachers are used to this method • Teacher-centered not student centered

20. Human Resources: Traditional Scheduling • Less creativity for students • See students every day • Impact of interruptions • Amount of planning time • Less chance for student boredom • Fewer interpersonal relationships developed

21. Political: Traditional Scheduling • Number of teacher preps • No time for enrichment • Less flexibility • Has always been this way • How teachers are trained to teach • Equal teacher workload • Little active learning • Teacher centered

22. Structural: Block Scheduling • 70 – 90 minutes • Altered schedule is a choice • 3 different sections within lesson • Not every subject gets equal time • flexibility in schedule arrangement (A/B day, • 4x4) • Administration designs schedule • Students/teachers need to know which day it is • Loss of elective class due to year long classes • Longer classes mean more to make up when absent • Lunch schedule • Schedule for early dismissal days? • Mini lessons • Students don’t retain information, less continuity between lessons (A/B Day) • No pullouts for ESL, EC, etc • Reduces transitions in the hall • Less discipline issues in the halls • Length of homework assignments • Time for enrichment

23. Structural: Block Scheduling (cont..) • Allows students to take more classes in one year (6 classes vs. 8 classes) • How to partition lessons within the block • Redesign pacing guides to meet needs of blocks • # of teacher preps • Teach only 1 prep outside of certified areas • Planning time can vary • Impact of interruptions is easily absorbed • More in depth coverage of lesson topics • More time for enrichment • State curriculum standards must still be met • Textbook coverage due to more time in a class period • How to allocate funds for hiring staff (may need more elective teachers or core teachers) •  Same number of instructional hours per class at the end of the year as in a traditional schedule

24. Political: Block Scheduling • Classes don’t always get equal time • Non-tested classes aren’t valued • Teachers have too much freedom in the classroom • Administration gives power to teachers • Teacher workload is different for tested and non-tested subjects • Administration is in control of schedule • Grade levels receive preferential scheduling • # of preps teachers are responsible for • Encore vs. core classes • Same number of required hours per class at the end of the year as in a traditional schedule • Teachers must give choices and active learning.

25. Political: Block Scheduling (cont..) • No pullouts for ESL, EC, etc.. • Teachers have more options/flexibility in how to execute/follow-up lessons • Time for enrichment • How to use available funds for teaching material and workshops • State standards can be met and exceeded • Alternating schedule (A/B day) means a struggle for power among classes (every day vs. alternating days)

26. Human Resources: Block Scheduling • Cooperative learning activities • Time for tutoring/remediation • One-to-one interactions between teachers & students • Mini lessons • Ineffective if teachers do not break down lessons into different parts • Less discipline problems leads to more class time used for instruction • Students gain more from projects • Students have more positive attitudes towards learning • Group activities have meaning

27. Human Resources: Block Scheduling (cont..) • Creates a more personal atmosphere for students • More flexibility to meet student needs • Time for enrichment activities • Offers more chances for boredom • More chances for students to be creative • Planning time • Greater student choice in electives in some schools • Student retention may not be as great because the class is too long • Textbook vs. new creative methods • Students have greater success

28. Symbolic: Block Scheduling • Is becoming the “traditional” schedule • Gets students prepared for length of college classes • Represents a more home-like personal setting for students • Announcements take class time • Students have a positive attitude towards learning • Projects create meaning for students • Honor roll students increase because here is a high success rate • Homeroom

29. Symbolic: Block Scheduling (cont..) • Teachers have difficulty giving up traditional instructional methods • Group work and active learning goes against what teachers traditionally see as their job • Giving students choices can feel like a loss of control to teachers used to shorter classes • Teachers become a support system because there is increased time with students • Textbook coverage changes from how it has always been done

30. Pros/Cons of Traditional Scheduling • A typical student moves between 6 to 8 locations spanning over a six-and-a-half-hour school day. • Disciplinary problems occur during scheduled transitions. More transitions = more problems. • An average teacher teaches 4 to 5 classes of students teaching multiple lessons. • Classes only last between 50-60 minutes long. • If a student misses a day, it is easy to make up. • Individualized instruction or tutoring limited. • Student and teachers shift their mindset frequently. • Students have more information to retain due to so many classes. • Content is not covered in depth. Watered down! • Limited creativity for teacher and student. • Completing homework in class is minimal. • Harder for teacher to establish personal relationship with students.

31. Pros of Block Scheduling • An average teacher instructs 3 blocks of classes. • Less transition = less discipline problems. • Transition time is minimized to 3 to 4 times a day. • More time for individualized instruction and tutoring. • Student and teachers do not have to shift their mindset as much. • Student retention of information is easier due to less classes. • Content is presented in-depth by using differentiation and creativity. • Have time to complete homework and get one-on-one help.

32. Prosof Block Scheduling (continued) • Less time for student socialization • Time to finish without feeling rushed • Able to further emphasize higher order thinking • Able to use more cooperative learning and variety of instructional techniques • Time for teachers to establish a personal relationship with students. • Students and teachers have time to be creative! • More time to implement technology. • More power given to teachers within classroom. • Student-centered vs. Teacher-centered.

33. Cons of Block Scheduling • Classes on average are 90 minutes long. • Attention problems for some students. • Difficulty of getting make-up work done after absence. • Teacher may be used to lecture style. Not condusive for this scheduling. • More time in class for discipline problems. • Less continuity between lessons. • Classwork may become homework.

34. References Calweti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Carroll, J.M. (1994). Organizing time to support learning. The School Administrator, 51(3), 26-33. *Center for Educational Reform. (1996, November). Scheduling: On the block. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://www.edreform.com/Resources/Publications/?Scheduling_On_the_Block Dexter, K. M., Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M. (2006, April/May). Traditional and block scheduling for college science preparation: A comparison of college science success of students who report different high school scheduling plans. The High School Journal, 89(4), 22-33. *Fisher, D., Frey, N. (2007, November). A tale of two middle schools: The differences in structure and instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(3), 204-211. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://www.reading.org/Publish.aspx?page=/publications/journals/jaal/v51/i3/abstracts/jaal-51-3_fisher.html&mode=redirect *Gilkey, S.N., & Hunt, C.H. (1998). Teaching mathematics in the block. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Irmsher, K. (1996). Block scheduling. Eugene OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393156) Maltese, A. V., Dexter, K. M., Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M. (2007, Spring). Breaking from tradition: Unfilled promises of block scheduling in science. Science Educator,16(1), 1-7.

35. References (cont) Mattox, K., Hancock, D. R., Queen, J. A. (2005). The effect of block scheduling on middle school student's mathematics achievement. NASSP Bulletin 89(3). DOI: 10.1177/019263650508964202 *Myers, N. J. (2008, Nov/Dec). Block scheduling that gets results. Principal, 88(2), 20-23. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2008/N-Dp20.pdf Nichols, J. D. (2004, April). The impact of block scheduling on various indicators of school success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Nichols, J. D. (2005, May/June). Block scheduled high schools: Impact on achievement in English and Language Arts. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 209-309. Peterson, D. W., Schmidt, C., Flottmeyer, E., Weincke, S. (2000, November). Block Scheduling: Successful strategies for middle schools. Paper presented at the 27th annual National Middle School Association Conference, St. Louis, MO. Randler, C., Kranich, K., Eisele, M. (2008). Block scheduled verses traditional biology teaching - An educational experiment using the water lily. Instructional Science, 36, 17-25. DOI: 10.1007/s11252-007-9020-y Veal, W. R., Schreiber, J. (1999, September). Block scheduling effects on a state mandated test of basic skills. Educational Policy Analysis Archives , 7(29), 1-11. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n29.html * refers to sources that are non-research based. See appendix for comments regarding existing biases within these sources.

36. Appendix The following slides address bias in some of the sources

37. Center for Educational Reform. (1996, November). Scheduling: On the block. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://www.edreform.com/Resources/Publications/?Scheduling_On_the_Block • This is an action paper by an organization that promotes more choices in education. • Since the organization is in favor of more choices in schools, it stands to reason that they are in favor of the block schedule. • However, the action paper is balanced in presentation of both the pros and cons of block scheduling.

38. *Fisher, D., Frey, N. (2007, November). A tale of two middle schools: The differences in structure and instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(3), 204-211. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://www.reading.org/Publish.aspx?page=/publications/journals/jaal/v51/i3/abstracts/jaal-51-3_fisher.html&mode=redirect • This article addresses the differences in instruction seen at 2 different middle schools. One school has a block schedule, and the other is a traditional schedule. • The observational data was collected through the eyes of 2 students as they went through their regular school day. • The data was interpreted by adults who have an obvious preference for a block schedule and flexibility in schools.

39. Gilkey, S.N., & Hunt, C.H. (1998). Teaching mathematics in the block. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. • This book is specifically designed for math teachers who are new to block scheduling. • The first part of the book presents a definition of block scheduling and how to adjust teaching strategies. • It presents activities that have been adapted from a traditional schedule.

40. Myers, N. J. (2008, Nov/Dec). Block scheduling that gets results. Principal, 88(2), 20-23. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2008/N-Dp20.pdf • This article is a practitioner article written by a principal who implements a 90 minute literacy block within a traditional schedule in his school. • Because the article is written from the principal’s point of view, this implies that there is bias towards the practice that the school currently uses.