Block Scheduling and Student Achievement

Block Scheduling and Student Achievement

A Tremendous amount of research has been done on scheduling and the relationship on student achievement. Although the results are somewhat mixed, there appears to be very little correlation between block scheduling and student achievement. Through research, the case can be made for block scheduling, if student achievement is not the only desired effect. Unlike conventional scheduling, block scheduling can affect student achievement, but just as importantly, "blocking" has positive effects on discipline referrals and the attitudes of both teachers and students.

Why choose Block Scheduling?

According to research by J. Allen Queen, traditional high schools schedules have remained the same for most of the twentieth century. "In 1959, J. Lloyd Trump proposed eliminating the traditional high school schedule and instituting classes of varying lengths in accordance with the instructional needs of students" (Queen, 2000). Many reasons have been given for the elimination of traditional scheduling. In an article by Michael Rettig and Robert Canady, several reasons were given. Graduation credits were increased to as many as twenty-four Carnegie units, which left many schools with little room for fine arts or vocational classes (Rettig & Canady, 1999). Shorter classes also caused problems in hands-on classes, such as science and physical education. Changing classes multiple times created an atmosphere of chaos, along with increasing discipline problems (Rettig & Canady). In 1990, Michael Fullan stated that the traditional high school schedule was adopted by schools, regardless of effectiveness (Queen, 2000). A report by the National Education Commission in 1994, indicated that traditional ways of organizing schools only added to problems of discipline and inadequate student achievement (Rettig & Canady). In fact this report referred to students as "prisoners of time" (United States Department of Education [USDE], 1994). The era of lock scheduling had begun. By 1994, a survey of high schools across the United States revealed that 40% of schools were using some type of block scheduling (Queen, 2000).

Reasons Why the Block Schedule is Favored

Many reasons were given as to why school personnel and students prefer the block. Among these reasons was the idea of fewer courses per semester. Fewer classes equates to fewer assignments to make-up if a student is absent. Some classes require more time. Increased time works well in laboratory classes and fine arts or vocational classes. Many research efforts support this claim. In one such study, J. Allen Queen, found that block schedules work better for laboratory classes. This research had been confirmed many years prior to this. "As early as 1984, John Goodlad had warned educators that the traditional school structure does not allow time for individualized instruction, for extended laboratory work, or for remediation and enrichment" (Queen, 2000). The Journal of Career and Technical Education states: "Intensive schedules [i.e. block scheduling] can be a powerful catalyst for change and for improved instruction in our secondary schools when implemented properly" (Edwards & Briers, 2002, 3). Don Hackman, Associate Professor at The College of Education at Iowa State University, notes that many high schools consider block scheduling because some research indicates that this type of scheduling may enhance school climate, improve interactions between teachers and students, reduce disciplinary referrals and suspensions and improve attendance (Hackman, 2002). According to The Center for Educational Reform, proponents list many reasons why block scheduling is better than traditional scheduling. Block scheduling gives students more time to learn, increased time for more in-depth learning, boosts student morale, and results in higher grades (The Center for Educational Reform [TCER], 1996). The website for North Carolina Public schools lists many reasons for the change to block scheduling. North Carolina principals' top reasons for block scheduling include: students have a greater variety of course offerings, fewer courses per semester, the opportunity to retake failed courses, and the ability to take sequential courses, such as foreign language courses, in the same year (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction [NCDPI], 1998). An article in The National Teaching and Learning Forum states that the case for block scheduling is strong. Approximately fifty percent of United States high schools are presently on the block. Academic performance has been investigated through an analysis of GPA, honor roll achievement, number of failures, dropout rates, and standardized test scores. "Studies consistently show that students' grades and standardizes test scores improve, honor roll totals increase and failure and drop-out rates decline when block scheduling data are compared to data for traditional scheduling" (Gaubatz, 2003).

Attitudes Toward Block Scheduling

A lot of research focuses on attitudes toward school. The majority of teachers, students and parents feel positive about block scheduling, even after the difficult period of change. In an article in The School administrator, Teachers report a period of stress until they learn how to teach on a block schedule, but eventually teachers and students report school becomes less stressful (Rettig & Canady, 1999). The Center of Innovative School Scheduling also reports that "Teachers and students feel favorable to block schedules after experiencing this type of schedule for two or more years" (The Center for Innovative School Scheduling [TCISS], 1998). "Other reports from block scheduled high schools report that the scheduling format has a positive impact on the instructional climate by improving teacher/student and student/teacher relationships" (Gaubatz, 2003). In fact the results of a pre- and post-test administered to students as their school changed from a traditional schedule to block scheduling indicated that students felt their teachers got to know them better on the block format (Gaubatz, 2003). In 1998, David Hottenstein surveyed twenty-four high schools in several states and found a positive correlation between block scheduling and the attitudes of administrators, teachers and students. All three groups reported their satisfaction with block scheduling, and also noted that this format had a positive impact on school climate (Queen, 2000). A report from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction was also positive in the satisfaction with block scheduling, but to