No Child Left Behind authorizations placed enormous force per unit area on schools throughout the state to win in assisting our pupils achieve. School leaders are passing clip and money to happen ways to better their schools. Many leaders have chosen to reconstitute their mundane programming format. Schools need to research if this is good or non. The intent of this survey is to find if block programming has an consequence on pupil accomplishment of high school pupils who are enrolled in block programming categories versus those enrolled in traditional categories.
The block format will dwell of four 90-minute categories. The traditional format will dwell of six 50 proceedingss categories. To analyze pupil accomplishment. the research worker will research three critical countries. They are academic accomplishment. pupil subject. and student attending. The sample population will dwell of pupils. instructors and decision makers. The pupils of this population will be pupils enrolled at a high school that uses the block format and pupils enrolled at a high school that uses the traditional format.
To analyze academic accomplishment. lone pupils who have completed their 11th grade twelvemonth and taken the societal surveies part of the Georgia High School Graduation Test will be used. To analyze subject and attending. the instructors. decision makers and some pupils will be indiscriminately selected. The instance survey will dwell of interview questionnaires and informations from the students’ records to find if there is a difference with block scheduling compared to traditional programming.
The research will explicate and research if block scheduling versus traditional programming is a wise determination for school leaders throughout the state. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Statement of Problem It is no secret that schools in the United States have come under much fire recently for their failure to run into the basic educational demands of pupils. Globally. pupils in the United States slowdown far behind those of other states. Education reform is a gimmick phrase on the lips of politicians and educational research workers likewise.
Dobbs studies that in a planetary math accomplishments trial. the United States ranked 24th out of 29 affluent. industrialised states. Approximately 5500 pupils in 262 high schools were studied ; their hapless public presentation suggests a widening spread between US pupils and their opposite numbers in Europe and Asia ( Dobbs. M. . 2004 ) . In add-on an International Math & A ; Science Study reported the high school seniors were out-performed by 90 % of other tried states in math and by 76 % in scientific discipline ( Hodges. 2003 ) .
In reading. pupils are every bit unprepared. The Alliance for Excellent Education studies that about 6 million center and high school pupils do non read at grade degree. In add-on. over half the pupils come ining college scored at unacceptable degrees on college entryway tests in reading. and these tendencies seem to traverse gender and racial lines ( Aratani. 2006 ) . The current argument about school reform came in response to the study. A State at Risk ( 2004 ) which made the above statistics and their deductions public to the state.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education remarked that if a foreign power had attempted to enforce our current instruction public presentation on any state. it would hold been deemed an act of war. In a nutshell. schools in America were characterized as failed systems ( Finn. 1997 ) . The No Child Left Behind Act ( NCBLA ) by the current Bush Administration is one of the most innovative educational reforms in old ages. Approved by Congress in December 2001 and signed into jurisprudence on January 8. 2002. this statute law expanded the federal government’s function in the operation of public schools and imposed new duties on all school territories.
The NCLBA’s basic reform rules feature stronger answerability of the schools. decision makers and instructors. increased flexibleness and local control of financess from the federal authorities. expanded options for parents in taking schools. and an increased accent on successful learning methods ( No Child Left Behind Act. 2001 ) . Policymakers are besides accountable non merely for the enhanced consumer satisfaction of the parents who have an active function in school pick. but besides for the overall betterment of chance and public presentation for pupils who have merely a limited function in school pick ( Leckrone & A ; Griffith. 2006 ) .
To battle these downward tendencies and to supply for the new duties and criterions in the NCLBA. public instruction reform has turned to a alteration of the construction of the school twenty-four hours. This included altering the agendas from a traditional six or seven period twenty-four hours which consisted of 45 to 55 minute categories that met daily for an full school twelvemonth to a block agenda. Block agendas take many signifiers. but fundamentally. the category times per period doubles to about 90 proceedingss each and the figure of categories taken is reduced from six or seven to four per semester. 1. 2 Statement of Purpose
Since the tendency toward block scheduling began several old ages ago. and studies have been mixed as to whether block programming has been good or hurtful in work outing some of the jobs of US high schools. Many factors are involved when it comes to student accomplishment. These include. among other things. school clime. instruction patterns. familial support. motive and resources. This survey seeks to find the effectives of block scheduling on the academic public presentation of high school pupils with respect to the subject. attending and trial tonss. 1. 3 Definitions
For the intents of this survey. the undermentioned definitions will be used: • 4 ten 4 Block Scheduling – Four categories. about 90 proceedingss in length. every twenty-four hours for the first semester. Four wholly different categories. once more 90 proceedingss in length. every twenty-four hours for the 2nd semester. Each category equals one recognition ( The Change Process and Alternative Scheduling. 1996 ) . • A/B Block Scheduling – Four categories. about 90 proceedingss in length. meeting every other twenty-four hours ( “A” yearss ) for an full school twelvemonth. Four wholly different categories. once more 90 proceedingss in length. meeting on surrogate yearss ( “B” yearss ) for an full twelvemonth.
Each category equals one recognition ( The Change Process and Alternative Scheduling. 1996 ) . • Combination Block Schedule – A combination of 4 ten 4 and A/B block agendas ( The Change Process and Alternative Scheduling. 1996 ) . • Flexible Schedule – A combination of 4 ten 4 and A/B block agendas. but category length varies from twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours. One illustration: On three out of every five yearss throughout the school twelvemonth. each category could be 90 proceedingss in length. On the other two yearss. designated as Advisement/Resource Days. each category is 75 proceedingss in length. An Advisement/Resource Hour is 60 proceedingss in length ( The Change Process and Alternative Scheduling. 1996 ) .
• Traditional Format – six ( or more ) 50-minutes categories per twenty-four hours • FMS – the Flexible Modular System designed by J. Lloyd Trump which introduced alternate programming options and provided for differing times for categories depending on the demands of the pupil and the content of the peculiar class. • GHSGT – The Georgia High School Graduation Test which must be passed by all seniors in public high schools in Georgia. • Carnegie Unit – 120 hours of category or contact clip with an teacher over the class of a twelvemonth at the secondary school degree
• No Child Left Behind Act – NCLBA. 2001 statute law which tightened federal control over the criterions and procedures of American public schools. 1. 4 Premises of the Study This survey assumes that all schools and pupils and instructors polled are enrolled or learning in schools that follow the typical formats discussed supra. that they have no antecedently diagnosed mental disablements or larning jobs and that the school is non take parting in any extra enrichment plans which may falsify the consequences of the survey. 1. 5 Significance of the Study
This survey is of import for anyone interested in bettering instruction in American high schools. This survey is important in that it provides to the organic structure of research that determine a ) if the block scheduling construct is perceived by instructors and pupils as efficient and advantageous and B ) if the block scheduling construct is really responsible for improved academic accomplishment based upon variable factors of attending. disciplinary records. and achievement trial tonss. 1. 6 Restrictions of the Study This survey is limited by the being of several variables which can non be tested by these research workers or that can non be wholly controlled.
First. the research obtained is limited to those participants who volitionally elect to finish the studies and questionnaires in their entireness. All personal informations to be collected is limited by the veracity of the respondents. Because of the little range of the research. it is hard to statistically proportion the figure of respondents from necessary classs such as gender. race. income degree. and college programs. It can besides non take into history bing jobs in the schools unrelated to scheduling such as instructor turnover. force. etc. 1. 7 Drumhead
The jobs faced by high schools in the United States are wide-ranging and diverse. No 1 alteration will supply an instant remedy for all that ails the instruction system. The NCLBA authorizations and the general death of educational accomplishment has prompted several new methods of learning. administering and funding instruction in America. The issue of scheduling may keep promise as to bettering some facets of academic public presentation. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW of the LITERATURE 2. 1 Historical Background of Block Scheduling Students of the twentieth century spent about all of their high school clip in 45 to 55 minute category periods. six or seven categories a twenty-four hours.
During the sixtiess. some experimental thoughts emerged. noteworthy the theoretical account of J. Lloyd Trump. who proposed making categories of changing lengths depending upon the class. Science classs with lab demands could run into for 100 proceedingss while talks could be scheduled for 40 proceedingss and tutorials for 20 proceedingss. This system was called the Flexible Modular System ( FMS ) . Later. a similar type of programming was dubbed the Copernican Plan which resulted in a reported benefit of improved graduation rates ( Carroll. 1995 ) . The program gives pupils an excess opportunity each twelvemonth to go through a semester category that they may hold failed.
In 1984. John Goodlad warned instruction leaders that the traditional school construction spends manner excessively much clip on six or seven category alterations and does non let “for individualised direction. for drawn-out research lab work. or for redress and enrichment” ( Queen. 2000 ) . Finally. the utmost flexibleness of clip produced discipline issues. scheduling concerns and instructor planning jobs. and FMS’s popularity began to decline ( Dobbs. W. . 1998 ) However. the importance of this system has non been overlooked. and it is by and large regarded as the precursor to the modern block programming system.
Tradition has ever played a function in high school programming. The Carnegie Unit became a criterion for finding a pupils required annually class burden. Most critics of the traditional system likened the Carnegie Unit to merely amassed place clip ( Canady and Rettig. 1995 ) . This point was reiterated in the National Education Commission on Time and Learning’s publication of A Prisoner of Time. It states that Learning in America is a captive of clip. For the past 150 old ages. American public schools have held clip changeless and allow larning vary.
The regulation. merely seldom voiced. is simple: larn what you can in the clip we make available. It should surprise no 1 that some bright. hardworking pupils do moderately good. Everyone else—from the typical pupil to the dropout—runs into problem. Time is learning’s warden. ( National Education Commission on Time and Learning. 1994. p. 7 ) “The gait is grueling” ( Irmsher. 1996 ) . A pupil will pass about seven hours a twenty-four hours in seven to nine locations prosecuting seven to nine different lessons and activities which produces an impersonal and inefficient attack to direction.
“The gait is grueling” ( Irmsher. 1996 ) . Unfortunately. many decision makers. instructors and parents resisted any type of alteration to the system that they had experienced themselves. This opposition was challenged with the study A State At Rise was published in 1983 which revealed the American educational system was non up to par with international systems. Therefore. reconstituting schools became a focal point in bettering educational accomplishment ( Queen. 2000 ) . 2. 2 Summary of Current Knowledge and Theory Relevant to Block Scheduling 2. 2. 1 Overview of Perceived Advantages to Block Scheduling Several research workers ( Dobbs. W.
. 1998 ; Hurley. 1997 ; Zepeda. 1999 ; Staunton. 1997 ; Staunton and Adams. 1997 ; Pisapia. and Westfall. 1997 ; and Eineder and Bishop. 1997 ) reported the following sensed strengths and advantages by both pupils and instructors to barricade programming: • Increased teacher readying clip ( in both squads and as persons ) . • Double the category clip for certain nucleus topics such as linguistic communication humanistic disciplines and math. • Half as many pupils for instructors per semester • Additional elected category pick for 9th grade pupils ; more picks for upperclassmen. including options of Advanced Placement and other higher degree coursework
• More clip for completion of labs. integrating engineering. category trips. and other assorted applications of learned stuff • Improved school clime and decreased disciplinary referrals • More clip to make prep and for guided pattern under the way of the instructor • Improved academic accomplishment by pupils • Ability of pupils to roll up adequate credits to graduate early. • More one-on-one clip between instructors and pupils In general. surveyed pupils liked the block scheduling. They claimed to be acquiring better classs. to hold clip for more in-depth survey. and got more attending from the instructors.
They said their lives were less stressed and they liked holding a fresh start each semester. About all pupils asked said they would non desire to return to the traditional agenda. One of the greatest effects of the 4 ten 4 agenda is that pupils report holding less prep. Of the 37 pupils interviewed. 20 said they had less prep. 7 said they had more. and 6 said they had about the same. If you don’t like the instructor. you don’t have to cover with him all twelvemonth. or if you don’t like the topic. When the semester ends. it’s like a new school twelvemonth. You’re non bogged down.
Clearly. these pupils reaped academic benefits from the alteration to the 4 ten 4 agenda. Both college preparatory and general pupils reported they were larning more and having more single attending ( Hurley. 1997 ) . Surveyed instructors indicated that they enjoyed talking less and passing more clip one-on-one with pupils. Teachers learning in block programming used more of a squad attack and allowed them to experiment more in the schoolroom ( Staunton. 1997 ; Staunton and Adams. 1997 ) . Teachers besides reported that their instruction methods and patterns changed as block programming was implemented.
They used a broad array of schemes and activities. In one Florida survey of over 40 high schools on block programming. “forty per centum of the instructors reported less emphasis at school. one-third reported increased common planning clip. and 80 per centum noted that they preferred the block agenda to their old schedule” ( Deuel. 1999 ) . There seem to be several perceived advantages associated with block programming. 2. 2. 2 Overview of Perceived Disadvantages to Block Scheduling Several research workers ( Dobbs. W.
. 1998 ; Hurley. 1997 ; Zepeda. 1999 ; Staunton. 1997 ; Staunton and Adams. 1997 ; Pisapia. and Westfall. 1997 ; and Eineder and Bishop. 1997 ) reported the following sensed failings and disadvantages by both pupils and instructors to barricade programming: • Additional costs in engaging instructors. • Extra costs in adding infinite for instructors or the demand for instructors to ‘travel’ which means he has no lasting schoolroom • Difficulty in doing up work from absences because losing one twenty-four hours tantamount to losing two categories • Some categories clearly benefit from run intoing every twenty-four hours ( i. e. executing humanistic disciplines categories )
• Need for instructors to perpetrate to utilizing new learning methods • Ninety proceedingss is a long clip to keep the attending of pupils • Uneven agendas in which the harder classes all end up lumped into one semester doing it excessively hard and the following semester excessively easy. • The possibility that there will be a long spread in between consecutive classs if they are non taken in consecutive semesters. The primary disadvantage given by surveyed pupils is that the categories are excessively long. Students peculiarly gave this as a failing when their instructors lectured for about all of the clip period.
Others noted that “bad categories are truly bad when they are held for 90 minutes” ( Hurley. 1997 ) . Surveyed instructors voiced concerns about breaks of consecutive stuff from one semester to the following and consistence issues with pupils. However. teacher sentiment seemed to be assorted about this issue. Some foreign linguistic communication instructors feared a consecutive interruption between degrees ( Scheduling Foreign Languages on the Block. 1998 ) . Other research workers found that some schools really showed an addition in foreign linguistic communication trial tonss because pupils could take degree I and level II classs in back-to-back semesters ( Schoenstein. 1996 ) .
Some instructors felt more comfy with the talk attack and had small comfort with experimentation of learning methods ( Staunton. 1997 ; Staunton and Adams. 1997 ) . 2. 2. 3 Actual Advantages to Block Scheduling via Research Studies. A Temple University survey found that block programming had distinguishable advantages in academic accomplishment. Students who made the award axial rotation at the three schools studied rose from 22 % to 31 % . SAT tonss rose by an norm of 14 points. In add-on. the figure of detainments declined while student attending increased ( Evans. Tokarczyk and Rice. 2000 ) .
Most late. a 2006 survey indicated a assortment of advantages to barricade programming. Five Connecticut high schools were studied to find what. if any. positive results would ensue. The research workers used trial tonss and studies as a agency of informations aggregation from school counsel counsellors. instructors. decision makers and pupils. The survey found that additions in math rose significantly over a two twelvemonth period. achievement trial mark norms rose in a statistically important mode over three old ages. and PSAT and SAT tonss increased within the first three old ages but so leveled off.
( Wilcox. 2006 ) . This survey is one of the few longitudinal surveies available. This survey besides stressed the importance of clip as a factor in finding the success of block programming. “Almost all of the consequences which indicated important differences were shown after two or more years” ( Wilcox. 2006 ) . Clearly some clip is necessary in order for pupils and instructors to go accustomed to the alterations. Some of the school surveies Wilcox ( 2006 ) examined had been runing on a block agenda for every bit long as 10 old ages.
Unfortunately. non all the schools had baseline informations for old ages before the block agenda or had opened with a block agenda. The survey farther stresses the degree of support by the staff can be a finding factor as to the success of any type of block programming. which seems to correlate. at least on surface scrutiny of the consequences. with preparation processs and teacher assurance. 2. 2. 4 Actual Disadvantages to Block Scheduling via Research Studies
A University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill analyze studied accomplishment in reading and mathematics of pupils in a high school which ran a tri-schedule. This agenda consisted of a traditional agenda. a 4 ten 4 agenda and loanblend agendas which all operated in the same individual school. The NC province mandated trials in reading. linguistic communication and math were used to find accomplishment. For reading and linguistic communication trial consequences. there was no statistically important difference based on the types of agendas. There was. nevertheless. a statistically important difference in math calculation subtest.
The traditional agenda saw somewhat higher tonss in apprehension and keeping of mathematical calculation for 10th grade pupils. Therefore. this survey “supports the importance of day-to-day direction and contact clip to student accomplishment in mathematics as distinct from other academic skills” ( Veal and Shreiber. 1999 ) . Another survey tested pupils in the Wilmington country of North Carolina. It. excessively. found that pupils on traditional agendas scored higher on trials of algebra. English. biological science and history than did pupils on a block agenda ( Lawrence and McPherson. 2000 ) .
2. 2. 5 Surveies that were Inconclusive in Determining the Efficacy of Block Scheduling in Increasing Academic Achievement. A 3rd North Carolina survey. this one undertaken by the Department of Public Instruction. compared End-Of-Course ( EOC ) trial tonss in five countries ( English I. Algebra I. Biology I. US History. and Economic. Legal and Political Systems ( ELP ) ) . It sample tonss from schools that operated on block agendas and on traditional agendas for 1993 to 1996.
It mentions at the beginning that the first schools to follow block agendas in NC were those that had lower accomplishment tonss to get down with. These schools’ tonss were adjusted for the intent of this survey. The overall consequences were inconclusive. Some out of use schools showed some betterment in some old ages but so lower tonss in other old ages. “At present. there are basically no important differences between groups of out of use and corresponding non-blocked school groups in footings of pupil public presentation in province EOC Tests” ( North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. 1997 ) .