Educational Scheduling

One-way educational institutions attempt to focus on the relationship between time and student achievement is to reorganize the school day. Educational institutions, though more alike than not, have various needs and circumstances (Rettig& Canady, 2001). According to Canady and Rettig (as cited in Arnold, 2002) there are five basic scheduling models utilized in U.S. schools: traditional scheduling and four types of block scheduling. The following will critique three scheduling models: traditional, 4 X 4 block, A/B block, and aspects that pertain to each model.

Characteristics of models

The traditional school schedule has practically remained unchanged over the years (Queen, 2006). Traditional scheduling consists of single-period classes usually with seven classes daily, varying from 45-55 minutes each. Classes are either a semester or the entire school year (Arnold, 2002). In a 4 x 4 block schedule,the most common block schedule, four classes meet every day for 90 minutes for 90 days, then four new classes meet for 90 minutes for 90 days (Arnold, 2002). Teachers instruct for three of four classes, and have one period each day for planning (Imbimbo & Gilkes, 2001). In the Alternate Day, or A/B block schedule, four classes meet every other day for 85-100 minutes for the entire school year (Arnold, 2002). Teachers may not have a planning period every day, however, have an extended planning period one day and not the other (Imbimbo & Gilkes, 2001).

Reasons for creation of models

The creation of schedules within educational institutions assist to establish new ways of educating students by improving efficiency and effectiveness of instructional time (Arnold, 2002). The traditional scheduling method of today has been in place for quite some time, and since the U.S. is a nation rooted in tradition, individuals are reluctant to change (Queen, 2006). In 1983, the inquiry into traditional scheduling began to take place when "A Nation at Risk" conveyed that American students were behind academically to students in other nations. As a result, options for school improvement, including scheduling, began to be investigated (Queen, 2006).

In 1984, John Goodlad (as cited in Queen, 2006) alerted educators that traditional scheduling did not permit time for individualized instruction. He also noted that time during the school day was wasted moving from class to class, and suggested that block scheduling be utilized (Queen, 2006). In 1993, Tom Donahoe (as cited in Queen, 2006) noted that rearranging the schedule in schools would improve student learning. Then in 1994, Gordon Cawelti (as cited in Queen, 2006) contended that educators could create essential changes in subject matter, expectations, and learning experiences offered in the curriculum by restructuring schools.
Strengths and weakness of the models

Strengths

In some educational institutions, with a traditional schedule, faculties contend that the class length is excellent and advantageous for students since more time is spent in core instruction (Rettig & Canady, 2001). Classes in the traditional schedule are long enough to keep the short attention span of students; some individuals might consider this strength of this schedule method, especially when managing students with learning disabilities (Lindsay, 2005).

Strength of block scheduling is the larger blocks of time, which allow for a more accommodating and constructive classroom environment. This in turn permits opportunities for utilizing diverse and interactive instruction methods (Irmsher1996). According to Sturgis (as cited in Irmsher, 1996) other strengths include: more efficient use of school time, reduced class size, improved course offerings, a concentrated number of students with whom teachers have daily contact, and the ability of teachers to use more process -oriented strategies. Carroll (as cited in Irmsher, 1996) found that with block scheduling there was equal or improved mastery and retention of subject material, and a decrease in suspension and dropout rates. Also, teachers have a reduced number of students to maintain records and grades for each semester, and fewer textbooks are need. In the blocked scheduling model there is an overall satisfaction in the learning process for students as well as teachers (Irmsher1996). Another strength of the 4 X 4 block schedule is that students who fail a class can repeat the class the same school year and rejoin his or her classmates the following year. Also, the 4 X 4 block schedule presents more opportunities to incorporate advanced classes or other activities since the classes are one semester in length (Imbimbo & Gilkes, 2001).

Weaknesses

One of the main weaknesses of traditional scheduling is the short class time, which limits flexibility of instructional strategies. Also, this type of scheduling assumes that all students learn in the same manner and at the same rate (Rettig & Cannizzaro, 2005). In the traditional scheduling model, teachers attempt to manage the academic and emotional needs of approximately 100 to 180 students a day. And students must manage the academic standards, teaching styles, and homework of a several teachers a day. In addition, teachers do not have enough time to develop relationships with students due to the greater amount of students and short class time (Rettig & Cannizzaro, 2005).

Block scheduling is only effective in addition to a restructuring effort of teaching, curriculum, and assessment. If this type of method is implemented inadequately, or without reorganizing other elements of instruction, block scheduling can have no effect or even a negative effect on student performance. Block scheduling is not just changing the formation of the school day, this method fundamentally reorganizes the instructional process. Block scheduling allows fewer days for a subject, the teacher has to develop curriculum that focuses on the most important areas. Although teachers cover less subject material under block scheduling, they are capable of presenting material on a more developed level. As a result, teachers need to be concerned with modifying the curriculum to concentrate on the most important material while still supporting standards.

Other weaknesses in block scheduling that may be considered include: to be effective, block scheduling requires continuing professional development, more collaborative planning time for teachers, and requires teachers to alter their classroom procedures. Although some students can focus for a 50-minute lecture, a small number of students can do so for 90 minutes, and educational institutions will be required to amend assessment tools to coincide with the teaching methods and curriculum that will be utilized in block scheduling (Imbimbo & Gilkes, 2001).

Environment that model works best

The traditional scheduling method is optimal in an environment where lecturing is the most suitable means to deliver subject material. It is also beneficial when the students are proactive in their own learning (Queen, 2006).

Block Schedules allocate extended class time over fewer days, as a result, block classes necessitate innovative attitudes toward instruction, which makes them more probable to be implemented in educational institutions with," more progressive faculty and administrators" (Imbimbo & Gilkes, 2001, p. 6).
Factors that administrators need to consider upon implementation

According to Carroll (as cited in Irmsher, 1996) when implementing a schedule model, it is advantageous for administrators to have a shared vision, a useful plan, and the cooperation of all stakeholders. All individuals involved including, administrators, faculty, parents, and students should be given the opportunity to learn about the proposed schedule and the opportunity to discuss the implications.

Canady and Rettig (as cited in Irmsher, 1996) recommend that administrators present the advantages and disadvantages of the schedule model to be implemented to all individuals involved in the implementation of the schedule. Other factors that administrator might consider include: faculty discussion and vote, delivery of applicable research data and implementation procedures, presentations to the school board, staff development concentrating on the suitable design of curriculum, and use of extended blocks of time for instruction.

Reasons for changing scheduling models

One reason to change the scheduling model that is being utilized is to allow flexibility in instruction. The change should address a need that administrators see within the educational institution. The scheduling change should also correspond to the teacher's circumstances, be focused, and incorporate distinct strategies (Irmsher, 1996).

Scheduling changes within educational institutions are usually associated with a desire to reduce dependence on the standard lecture-discussion-seatwork model, and expand to a more individualized and innovative teaching strategy (Irmsher, 1996). Schools may change scheduling models to establish more productive and personal relationships between teachers and students, to propose thought-provoking curricula that promote learning concepts in depth, or to cultivate a student-centered learning environment (Imbimbo & Gilkes, 2001).

Conclusion

It is difficult to formulate inferences concerning the most effective scheduling method since educators disagree about the positive and negative effects of traditional, 4 X 4 block and A/B block scheduling. However, research studies suggest that 4X4 block scheduling may offer students an advantage over traditional and A/B schedules pertaining to reading and mathematic accomplishments (Lewis, Dugan, Winokur, & Cobb, 2005).

Scheduling will not alleviate all of the problems that exist within educational institutions. However, scheduling can be an effective instrument to improve school climate, to allow more time to learn for those who need it, and to promote the implementation of instructional strategies. The fundamental success or failure of any type of scheduling will be determined by the extent to which teachers utilize instructional strategies to motivate their students and encourage learning (Rettig& Canady, 2001).

References

A nation at risk: An imperative for educational reform (1983). Recommendations. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/recomm.html

Arnold, D.E. (2002). Block schedule and traditional schedule achievement: A comparison. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3696/is_200203/ai_n9052086

Imbimbo, J. & Gilkes, A. (2001). Center for School Success Promising Practices Series: Block Scheduling. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from http://www.newvisions.org/dls/BlockSched.pdf

Irmsher, K. (1996). Block Scheduling. ERIC Digest 104. Retrieved May 2, 2006 from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest104.html

Lindsay, J. (2005). The case against block scheduling. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from http://www.jefflindsay.com/Block.shtml

Lewis, C.W. Dugan, J.J., Winokur, M.A. & Cobb, R.B. (2005). The effects of block scheduling on high school academic achievement. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 89 (645). Retrieved May 5, 2006 from ProQuest database.

Queen, J.A. (2006). Block scheduling revisited. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kque0011.htm

Rettig, M.D. & Canady, R.L. (2001). Block scheduling: More benefits than challenges. Response to Thomas (2001). National Association of Secondary School Principals.NASSP Bulletin, 85 (628). Retrieved May 2, 2006 from ProQuest database.

Rettig, M. & Cannizzaro, J. (2005). Block scheduling: An introduction. Pearson Prentice Hall Retrieved May 2, 2006 from http://www.phschool.com/professional_development/block_scheduling/introduction.html