Block Schedulling Essay Example

transitions, making more transitions result in more issues. In our district, the principal acknowledges passing times as the number one discipline problem. The frequent starting and ending of classes throughout the day also leads to a significant loss of time. Gary Watts and Shari Castle (1993) argue that traditional and inflexible scheduling is based on administrative and institutional needs, while there is a better alignment between flexible scheduling patterns and the educational needs of students and the professional needs of teachers.The text below, including the and their contents, has beenand unified:

The next question that needs to be answered is, “What is the definition of block scheduling?” According to Gordon Cawelti (1994), block scheduling refers to organizing at least a portion of the daily schedule into longer blocks of time, usually more than sixty minutes. This allows for flexibility in accommodating various instructional activities. The possibilities for block scheduling are numerous and can involve adjusting the duration of periods and semesters as well as the daily schedule. Some examples mentioned by Canady and Rettig are as follows:

- Four ninety-minute blocks per day, with the school year divided into two semesters, allowing year-long courses to be completed in one semester.

- An alternate day block schedule, where students have six or eight courses spread out over two days, and teachers meet with half of their students each day.

- Two large blocks and three standard-sized blocks per day, with the year divided into sixty-day trimesters. Different subjects are taught in the large blocks each trimester.

- Some classes, such as band, typing, and foreign language, are taught daily, while others are taught in

longer blocks on alternate days.

- Six courses that meet in three single periods and one double period per week.

- Seven courses where teachers meet with students three days out of four, twice in single periods and once in a double period.

There are many more variations available, and any of these can be modified to meet the specific needs of a school.Scheduling changes are often associated with increasing retention, reducing instructor lecturing, and allowing for more creative teaching strategies. These changes are typically implemented as part of a larger restructuring effort. Despite both advantages and disadvantages, block scheduling offers numerous benefits. One advantage is that longer blocks of time provide a flexible and productive classroom environment, enabling the use of diverse and interactive teaching methods. Other advantages, as stated by Jeffrey Sturgis (1995), include more efficient use of school time, smaller class sizes, increased course offerings, a decrease in daily student-teacher interaction, and the ability for teachers to utilize process-oriented strategies. Assessments of schools that have implemented block scheduling have shown an increase in completed course credits, equal or improved mastery and retention of material, and a notable decrease in suspension and dropout rates. Carroll suggests that improved student-teacher relationships are a significant contributing factor to these positive outcomes. While every school in Carroll's study benefited from the changes, the extent and ways in which they benefited varied. Canady and Rettig assert that the positive outcomes are further amplified when four "year-long" courses are condensed into longer time blocks, each compressed into one semester. This approach allows students to enroll in a greater variety of elective courses and offers more opportunities for acceleration.Implementing

block scheduling in schools offers various benefits. Firstly, it allows students who fail a course to retake it earlier, helping them catch up with their peers' graduation pace. Additionally, teachers have fewer students to manage records and grades for each semester, leading to increased efficiency. Moreover, this scheduling system reduces the need for schools to acquire numerous textbooks. It is worth mentioning that the learning process becomes more satisfying for both students and teachers. However, the success of a school cannot solely rely on block scheduling implementation; dedication from students, faculty, and staff is also crucial. On the other hand, it is important to note that any change comes with disadvantages. Gerald Strock and David Hottenstein argue that change can be painful and controversial. The transition process itself presents the biggest challenge: gaining support for altering a long-established tradition and finding or creating sufficient planning time. The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory emphasizes that imposing a scheduling model does not guarantee success. They recommend allocating at least two years for planning before implementing a new schedule to ensure it caters to everyone's needs. Canady and Rettig stress the importance of providing adequate staff development time, especially for teachers who are accustomed to teaching in short time blocks and require assistance in adjusting to longer periods.
Successful teachers in block scheduling often divide their lessons into three sections: explanation, application, and synthesis. The majority of teachers have more experience with the first phase and may require additional training in the latter two stages. This can include cooperative learning, class building, and team formation. In our district, we provide professional development opportunities through a reimbursement program, giving teachers

even more chances to acquire effective strategies for utilizing this type of schedule.

According to Carroll, experts recommend having a common vision, a good plan, and strong support from all stakeholders before making major schedule changes. The superintendent, school board, principals, teachers, students, and parents should all have opportunities to learn about and discuss the proposed innovations. Canady and Rettig suggest various strategies such as presentations, visits to schools with block schedules, panel presentations by teachers, faculty discussions, student assemblies, distribution of research data, school board presentations and approval, and staff development. They note that attempting smaller changes minimizes risks but may not result in striking results or generate enthusiasm and commitment. For successful change, it is important to address a need, fit the teachers' situation, be focused, and include concrete strategies.
Canady, Robert Lynn, and Michael D. Rettig. "Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools." Princeton, New Jersey: Eye on Education, 1995. 266 pages.

Carroll, Joseph.M. "Organizing Time to Support Learning." "The School Administrator" 51, 3 (March 1994): 26-28, 30-33. EJ 481 309.

Cawelti, Gordon. "High School Restructuring: A National Study." Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service, 1994. 75 pages. ED 366 070.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning. "Prisoners of Time: Research." "What We Know and What We Need To Know. Report of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. September 1994. 60 pages. ED 378 685.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Rural Education Program. "Literature Search on the Question: What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Scheduling Options for Small Secondary Schools (High Schools and Middle Schools)?" Portland, Oregon: Author. January 1990. 24 pages.

ED 329 385.

Sturgis, Jeffrey D. "Flexibility Enhances Student Achievement." "NASSP AP Special: The Newsletter for Assistant Principals" 10,4 (Summer 1995):1-2.

Bibliography: