As schools refocus their programs to enhance student achievement, the climate of the school becomes important in school reform efforts. Among the factors that create a climate that can facilitate or detract from student learning are student and staff attitudes, the learning environment, building safety and security, expectations for achievement and behavior, and the mode of communication. Our experience as school administrators has shown us an additional key factor: When time is used well in schools, not only does the climate of the school improve, but the opportunity for learning increases.
As proponents of block scheduling, we have explored the use of time and its impact on student achievement. Two of the many issues related to the use of time are how block scheduling affects school climate and how improved climate affects student achievement. If we believe that the major purpose for implementing block scheduling is to increase opportunities to improve school achievement, we must ask the following question: Does changing to a school schedule that permits large blocks of time for learning activities—a change that encourages student engagement in learning and seeks to minimize external interruptions to learning—have an impact on student achievement?
What Is Block Scheduling?
Two high school scheduling configurations are most commonly identified as block scheduling. These schedules are usually called A-B, or alternating day, and 4 x 4, or semester block. Classes on the A-B schedule generally meet every other day for the entire school year for 90-minute blocks. Those on a 4 x 4 schedule generally meet every day for 90 minutes for one semester or for 90 days.
Perceptions of Climate Change
We began to document a relationship between block scheduling and positive school climate when we examined data collected from public high schools in Virginia that used a block schedule in 1997. From a survey conducted by the Virginia Department of Education, we reviewed information related to the classroom behaviors of students and teachers as well as data about administrators' perceptions of the impact of block scheduling on school climate and student achievement. Principals responding to the survey represented 77 percent of the 168 schools that were using a block schedule in Virginia at that time.
Respondents to the survey, who were using, had used, or were considering using block scheduling, indicated that block scheduling affects several indicators of positive school climate. Principals noted that the change created a more relaxed environment for teachers and students and that block scheduling cut down on unsupervised movement within the school. They noted a decline in discipline referrals to the administrative offices. Teachers indicated that they witnessed fewer fights. Administrators suggested that block scheduling improved teacher morale and had a positive impact on teacher attendance. Teachers and administrators agreed that block scheduling had a positive impact on at-risk students.
Of the 164 principals responding to a question concerning "administrators' expectations of block scheduling," 100 indicated they expected a "decrease in discipline problems." Of the 141 administrators responding to a question about "the extent to which administrators' expectations are being met," 88 indicated that expectations are being exceeded or met for the most part. Twenty-seven administrators indicated that it was too soon to tell, and 9 reported that expectations were met only slightly.
Seventy-one percent of the teachers responding to the survey indicated that they preferred block scheduling over traditional scheduling, with 13 percent reporting that they had no preference. Only 16 percent indicated a preference for the traditional 55-minute period.
The survey suggests that teachers and administrators are generally satisfied with the change to block scheduling, which seems to enhance indicators of positive school climate. However, we believe that reduced discipline problems, increased teacher morale, and a positive attitude toward change—all important in their own right—may not warrant the change to block scheduling. Teachers and administrators must also be able to use the opportunities created by the schedule to increase student achievement. The potential for a learning climate inside the block-scheduled classroom that allows educators to engage in practices resulting in student outcomes that exceed those found in the traditional classroom appears to be significant.
Experiences with Climate Change
On the basis of our experiences as a principal (who concurrently taught English) of a school that developed a block schedule and as an assistant superintendent for instruction of a district using the block schedule, we suggest that the following anecdotes present an argument for a more flexible learning environment.
Teachers told us that the longer block of time permitted them to conduct activities more efficiently. A chemistry teacher with a reputation for being tough and having high expectations for all students said after the first year in the block schedule that this has been the best year of my career. I have been able to lecture, set up an experiment, complete the experiment, clean up the lab, and allow time for students to write up lab reports all in one block. Why haven't we been using this schedule before now? Other teachers who were especially anxious about the block schedule found that their fears were ill founded. A mathematics teacher who was critical of block scheduling before her school implemented the A-B schedule taught one class on the traditional 55-minute daily period schedule and three classes on the block schedule. After a semester, she complained that the 55-minute period was too short to accomplish the same teaching objectives she was able to meet with her block-scheuled students. She confessed that the new teaching strategies she was using with the longer blocks of time had energized her and renewed her commitment to teaching. These strategies included using cooperative learning, math manipulatives, math field studies, graphing calculators, and computers; planning lessons on the basis of concepts rather than on a chapter in a textbook; increasing direct teacher instructional time, which led to increased individualized instruction; grouping students on the basis of students' needs; and increasing the opportunities for interdisciplinary teaching and learning.
Our experiences with students are even more compelling. A 12th grade student planning a career in computer programming sought a schedule that would allow him to focus on an independent study project to develop computer software for the school's calculus class. By using the block schedule, we arranged for him to spend alternate days throughout the year working solely in the school's technology laboratory, developing his software and interacting with mentors. He required long blocks of time to work intensely at the computer. A flexible approach allowed this student to successfully meet his personal goal and his graduation requirements.
Perhaps the greatest asset of block scheduling is the flexibility to use time to meet the needs of at-risk students who are neither prepared nor willing to function successfully in the traditional school setting. The school administrator is challenged to provide an alternative path that will lead to school completion. We saw students who had difficulty interacting in the regular school environment find success under the flexibility offered by the block schedule. We also found that the flexible use of time affords opportunities for pregnant teens, working mothers, and students who financially support their family.
A senior who had just returned to school after the birth of her daughter decided that dropping out of school was her only option. Although she was an excellent student, she found that supporting her child financially and being a mother and a student enrolled in seven classes were just too much to deal with each day. Because our school was on an A-B block schedule, we could use the flexibility of the schedule to offer another solution. We arranged for her to take in the morning block of A days the only two classes she needed to graduate. On B days, she did not attend school at all. This schedule gave her more time for her daughter, more time to study, and more time to earn money. She is now continuing her formal education in a community college. The flexible use of time to accommodate students' needs is a major factor in allowing nontraditional students to stay in school and prepare for productive futures.
Another student who benefitted from a block schedule was Johnny, who was released from incarceration at the age of 20. A condition of his parole was that he attend school. After a lengthy conversation regarding our expectations for him as a student, he enrolled for his senior year. His block schedule reflected his needs, and he set out to complete the seven units of credit required for his high school diploma. For the first few weeks of school, Johnny was a model student. He never missed classes and worked after school as a machinist, a trade he learned while incarcerated. Somewhere near the end of the first six weeks of school, Johnny's behavior became problematic. He began using his large physical stature to intimidate female teachers and students. Because his behavior became difficult in the afternoon, we adjusted his schedule to allow him to leave school at noon each day. He earned two credits on A day and two on B day. In the afternoons, he worked as a co-op student, earning one credit. Johnny completed the final two credits by attending evening adult education classes. The flexible use of time afforded by block scheduling helped Johnny by giving him the opportunity to finish his schooling. In addition, removing Johnny from a traditional learning environment improved the school's climate for those students and staff who were uncomfortable with his behavior.
With the large blocks of time for teachers to teach and students to learn, we suggest that teachers have the opportunity to identify the learning styles of students and better meet their needs. The block schedule provides an opportunity to use technology, the time for conceptually driven learning, and the flexibility for alternative solutions to problems. The bottom line is that block scheduling affords opportunities for success by teachers and students and thus promotes a more positive climate for teaching and learning.
A Gain in Student Achievement
In this age of accountability, the ultimate test of any reform effort is a positive change in student achievement. Block scheduling as we have defined it is relatively new in the United States, and most schools have not had enough experience with it to measure the impact of changing the way time is used. Virginia may be a good early indicator of what to expect because it was one of the first states to have a large number of schools move to alternative scheduling. In addition, the state is diverse. Of the 286 high schools in Virginia, 17 percent can be classified as urban schools, 43 percent as suburban schools, and 40 percent as rural schools. At the end of the 1997–98 school year, 63 percent of public high schools used block scheduling.
On the survey of block scheduling conducted by the Virginia Department of Education, only 1 percent of the responding teachers and 5 percent of the responding administrators indicated that block scheduling had a negative impact on standardized test scores. Although the data we collected indicated that teachers, students, and administrators were positive toward block scheduling, we thought it would be important to determine whether test data were beginning to reveal any differences in achievement among schools implementing block schedules.
The data presented were aggregated from the reports of norm-referenced tests given to 11th grade students as part of the Virginia State Assessment Program. During 1995–96, the Virginia Department of Education used the Iowa Test of Basic Skills-TAP as the norm-referenced assessment for grade 11. In 1996–97, the state adopted the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th edition. A correlation conducted by the Division of Assessment and Reporting at the Virginia Department of Education helped schools measure their progress between the two years. Reading and mathematics were the only content areas that related well enough for a correlation to be made. Although we recognize the limitations of using a correlation, we believe that it is helpful to compare the performances of schools on a block schedule during this time with those of schools on a traditional schedule.
We analyzed the percentile scores for mathematics and reading comprehension that were reported by individual schools in spring 1996 and spring 1997 and developed an average percentile gain for reading and mathematics. The population for the study included all schools that participated in both years of testing, with the exception of two Governor's Schools for gifted students. We excluded these schools from the mean gains study because their scores are high and they are too homogeneous to compare their gains from year to year with those of schools with a wider range of performance levels.
We organized data by the type of scheduling configuration each school was using—alternating-day block (A-B), semester block (4 x 4), or traditional single period. Data were disaggregated on the basis of matches with rural, suburban, and urban schools classifications. We classified schools by using the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) from the Office of Management and Budget, defined for federal statistical activities.
First, we looked at the gains of all schools in Virginia, classified by the type of schedule they were on during 1995–96, the first year of testing. The 1995–96 academic year was the first year for which we had a statewide database of standardized test scores. Because we were looking at data that might suggest how the length of time a school has used block scheduling affects student achievement, it was important to have the earliest data possible. The purpose of comparing early data was to identify differences, if any, in student achievement at various stages of block scheduling implementation. For example, were student scores in similar schools that had been on block scheduling for one year equal to student scores in schools that had been on block scheduling for two years, three years, and so on?
Our intent in reporting the following data is not to calculate significance with gain. We chose not to use raw scores because that method would allow comparison. We have presented data that allow readers to draw their own conclusions. The results, presented in Figure 1, show that both types of block schedules (A-B and 4 x 4) outperformed the single-period schools. Reading gains and mathematics gains were higher for both block schedules.
Figure 1. Percentile Gaines on 11th Grade Norm-Referenced Test, 1996 to 1997, by Type of Schedule
Special Topic / Block Scheduling Can Enhance School Climate- table1
Type of Schedule | Number of Schools | Reading Gain | Mathematics Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-B | 62 | 3.14 | 3.6 |
| 4 x 4 | 56 | 2.61 | 3.02 |
| Single Period | 161 | 2.3 | 2.34 |
Schools that serve similar population regions sometimes ask to be compared. We wanted to see whether urban, suburban, and rural schools on the block schedule showed differences in student achievement. We compared gains in schools on both block schedules with those of the single-period schools. (See figs. 2, 3, and 4.) Block-scheduled schools outperformed single-period schools in all but one instance: Suburban single-period schools had higher reading gains than block-scheduled schools when data from the A-B and 4 x 4 schedules were combined. When data were disaggregated by schedule to show the differences between the two, this was not the case.
Figure 2. Urban Schools' Percentile Gaines on 11th Grade Norm-Referenced Test, 1996 to 1997, by Type of Schedule
Special Topic / Block Scheduling Can Enhance School Climate - table2
Urban | Number of Schools | Reading Gain | Mathematics Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Block | 17 | 2.29 | 0.82 |
| Single | 28 | 2.11 | 0.53 |
Figure 3. Suburban Schools' Percentile Gaines on 11th Grade Norm-Referenced Test, 1996 to 1997, by Type of Schedule
Special Topic / Block Scheduling Can Enhance School Climate - table3
Suburban | Number of Schools | Reading Gain | Mathematics Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Block | 50 | 3 | 4.7 |
| Single | 70 | 3.54 | 3.83 |
Figure 4. Rural Schools' Percentile Gaines on 11th Grade Norm-Referenced Test, 1996 to 1997, by Type of Schedule
Special Topic / Block Scheduling Can Enhance School Climate - table4
Rural | Number of Schools | Reading Gain | Mathematics Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Block | 51 | 3 | 2.8 |
| Single | 63 | 1.01 | 1.49 |
We disaggregated the data to look at the performance of schools on each block schedule and on the single-period schedule. (See figs. 5, 6, and 7.) Although we found that when disaggregated, urban schools' gains were higher on A-B schedules, the significant finding is that urban schools are the only schools to record negative scores. It is important to note that the urban school 4 x 4 sampling is small.
Figure 5. Urban Schools' Percentile Gaines on 11th Grade Norm-Referenced Test, 1996 to 1997, by Type of Block Schedule
Special Topic / Block Scheduling Can Enhance School Climate - table5
Urban | Number of Schools | Reading Gain | Mathematics Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-B | 14 | 2.78 | 1.86 |
| 4 x 4 | 3 | -0.33 | -4.00 |
| Single | 28 | 2.11 | 0.53 |
Figure 6. Suburban Schools' Percentile Gaines on 11th Grade Norm-Referenced Test, 1996 to 1997, by Type of Block Schedule
Special Topic / Block Scheduling Can Enhance School Climate - table6
Rural | Number of Schools | Reading Gain | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-B | 30 | 3.4 | 5.07 |
| 4X4 | 20 | 2.4 | 4.15 |
| Single | 70 | 3.54 | 3.83 |
Figure 7. Rural Schools' Percentile Gaines on 11th Grade Norm-Referenced Test, 1996 to 1997, by Type of Block Schedule
Special Topic / Block Scheduling Can Enhance School Climate - table7
Rural | Number of Schools | Reading Gain | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-B | 18 | 3 | 2.5 |
| 4X4 | 33 | 3 | 2.97 |
| Single | 63 | 1.01 | 1.49 |
Assessing the Impact
These data are not a definitive measure of the effectiveness of using a block schedule to improve the learning climate in a school. Student achievement should be measured over a period of time by various indicators, such as teacher-made assessment instruments, student and teacher attendance, scores from International Baccalaureate and advanced placement tests, the level of difficulty of the classes that students are taking, and grade point averages (with caution). The small number of schools in some of the categories call into question any generalization that can be made about these gains. However, the impact of actions taken to improve the learning climate in a school is frequently not measured, and we believe it is useful to consider these data as one early indicator of the possible effect of block scheduling. This first look at achievement gains from block-scheduled schools encourages us to continue to measure student achievement in many ways.
How time is used in the classroom and what the relationship may be between classroom instructional time and learning are two variables that need additional study to determine the correlation between time and student achievement as they relate to block scheduling. Additional data are needed to enable us to assess the impact, if any, of staff development on changing teachers' instructional strategies in the longer time block.
To support further the case for block scheduling, we offer the following observations. In block-scheduled schools, we have evidence of a greater emphasis on staff development at the school level, increased attention to instructional programs, and more differentiated instruction based on students' needs. In addition, we have collected data that support the perceptions of teachers and administrators that block scheduling has had positive impacts on the behavior of students with low academic ability, on achievement in math classes, on AP scores, on foreign language classes, and on the achievement of at-risk students. Less positive effects were perceived for transfer students (especially in 4 x 4 schools). For achievement in the performing arts, perceptions were split, with students seeing positive benefits for block scheduling but teachers seeing a negative impact.
The study conducted in Virginia, the experiences of teachers and students, and the review of Virginia's assessment program results suggest that block scheduling may be useful in improving school climate. As we continue to gather additional data on block scheduling, we challenge teachers and administrators to reflect critically on the actions taken in schools to improve the school climate. Any action that ultimately may affect student achievement should be monitored and its impact measured. We must be as zealous in assessing the effect of climate on student achievement as we are in evaluating the textbooks we use and the staff development we deliver.
