Actual advantages to block csheduling via research studies Essay

A Temple University study found that block scheduling had distinct advantages in academic achievement. Students who made the honor roll at the three schools studied rose from 22% to 31%. SAT scores rose by an average of 14 points. In addition, the number of detentions declined while student attendance increased (Evans, Tokarczyk and Rice, 2000). Most recently, a 2006 study indicated a variety of advantages to block scheduling. Five Connecticut high schools were studied to determine what, if any, positive outcomes would result. The researchers used test scores and surveys as a means of data collection from school guidance counselors, teachers, administrators and students. The study found that gains in math rose significantly over a two year period, achievement test score averages rose in a statistically significant manner over three years, and PSAT and SAT scores increased within the first three years but then leveled off. (Wilcox, 2006). This study is one of the few longitudinal studies available. This study also stressed the importance of time as a factor in determining the success of block scheduling. â€Å"Almost all of the results which indicated significant differences were shown after two or more years† (Wilcox, 2006). Clearly some time is necessary in order for students and teachers to become accustomed to the changes. Some of the school studies Wilcox (2006) examined had been operating on a block schedule for as long as ten years. Unfortunately, not all the schools had baseline data for years before the block schedule or had opened with a block schedule. The study further stresses the level of support by the staff can be a determining factor as to the success of any type of block scheduling, which seems to correlate, at least on surface examination of the results, with training procedures and teacher confidence. 2. 2. 4 Actual Disadvantages to Block Scheduling via Research Studies A University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study studied achievement in reading and mathematics of students in a high school which ran a tri-schedule. This schedule consisted of a traditional schedule, a 4 x 4 schedule and hybrid schedules which all operated in the same single school. The NC state mandated tests in reading, language and math were used to determine achievement. For reading and language test results, there was no statistically significant difference based on the types of schedules. There was, however, a statistically significant difference in math computation subtest. The traditional schedule saw slightly higher scores in understanding and retention of mathematical computation for tenth grade students. Thus, this study â€Å"supports the importance of daily instruction and contact time to student achievement in mathematics as distinct from other academic skills† (Veal and Shreiber, 1999). Another study tested students in the Wilmington area of North Carolina. It, too, found that students on traditional schedules scored higher on tests of algebra, English, biology and history than did students on a block schedule (Lawrence and McPherson, 2000). 2. 2. 5 Studies that were Inconclusive in Determining the Efficacy of Block Scheduling in Increasing Academic Achievement. A third North Carolina study, this one undertaken by the Department of Public Instruction, compared End-Of-Course (EOC) test scores in five areas (English I, Algebra I, Biology I, US History, and Economic, Legal and Political Systems (ELP)). It sample scores from schools that operated on block schedules and on traditional schedules for 1993 to 1996. It mentions at the outset that the first schools to adopt block schedules in NC were those that had lower achievement scores to begin with. These schools’ scores were adjusted for the purpose of this study. The overall results were inconclusive. Some blocked schools showed some improvement in some years but then lower scores in other years. â€Å"At present, there are essentially no significant differences between groups of blocked and corresponding non-blocked school groups in terms of student performance in state EOC Tests† (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 1997). Walker (2000) conducted a study of students in the Kansas public school system. He focused primarily in math scores with a purpose to see if students’ math scores would increase from year to year using block vs. traditional scheduling. He found that â€Å"while the block-scheduled schools did make better percentage gains than the traditional schools, such gain was found to be insignificant when using split-plot analysis of variance. Therefore, there is not a significant measurable difference in the impact of block-scheduling or traditional scheduling on this mathematics assessment† (Walker, 2000). A test conducted by the Georgia Department of Education found similar results. This study tested four types of scheduling systems (4 x 4, A/B, hybrid and traditional) among nearly 40,000 students in various GA schools. Students were tested in eight subject areas (9th Grade Literature, American Literature, Algebra, Geometry, Physical Science, Biology, US History and Economics). No significant differences were noted among the scheduling types, but one general comment was made that Algebra scores in all blocked schedules were slightly higher than in traditionally scheduled schools (Domaleski, 2004). This study relied primarily on test score results. In the Spring of 2004 the mean Algebra score for students on block scheduling was 601. 78 which the mean score for those on traditional scheduling was 599. 73. Over 73,000 students were tested and scores analyzed for each. In all the other subject areas, the scores were very nearly the same, and no statistically significant differences were reported (Domaleski, 2004). The reasons for the differences are not clear, but one might suggest that schools which adopted block-scheduling early were those with serious problems, behavioral and/or academic and done so as an attempt to create a positive change in those schools. Another reason might be that some schools operated on a hybrid block schedule, so even though a school is designated as a ‘block’ school, a student may not have taken that particular course in a block format. Another possible limitation to this study is the fact that the Spring 2004 scores were obtained before the decision to count the EOCT as 15% of the student’s grade. â€Å"Since the use of the EOCT as an accountability assessment likely differed among schools and systems for this administration, it should not be assumed that the motivation of all examinees in each conditions was consisten† (Domaleski, 2004) 2. 2. 5 Returns to a Traditional Schedule from Block Scheduling Some districts have returned to a traditional schedule from a block schedule. According to Canaday and Rettig (2003), this change may be premature. In a study of over 200 Virginia schools, some of the reasons for change were less the result of poor academic performance and more a result of the following issues: â€Å"The use of a flawed decision-making process to adopt a block schedule; poor preparation for teaching in the block, including insufficient staff development and/or inattention to course pacing; unclear goals, overpromising or not meeting promises made; and poor scheduling decisions in the adoption phase (Canada and Rettig, 2003). Perhaps planning prior to the implementation of block scheduling would make the transition run more smoothly.