This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
May/June 2007

by Dan Bertrand

Dan Bertrand is superintendent at Marengo CHSD 154 in McHenry County, Illinois. This article is adapted from his May 2005 dissertation summary.

As a high school principal at a school that implemented a 4-block schedule in 1999, I became intrigued with knowing the effect that a switch to block scheduling would have on student achievement.

While many reports on the effectiveness of block scheduling in high schools have been conducted, most of them are unpublished documents compiled by investigative teams made up of teachers, administrators and staff. Much has been documented on parent, teacher and student attitudes and beliefs about the schedule change, but most reports and studies contained little interpretation of the data.

Research to date also has not disaggregated student achievement data by comparing the achievement in the various types of block models — 8-block (alternating day), 4-block (intensive schedule), the hybrid or modified block schedule, and other types such as trimesters.

In addition to trying to determine if there was a relationship between the type of scheduling model used and student achievement, I also wanted to know if there was a relationship between student achievement in block-scheduled schools and the length of time they have been on a block schedule and/or a relationship between student achievement and the reason a school adopted a block schedule.

As of fall 2000, 193 of the 637 public high schools in Illinois used some form of block scheduling, according to an unpublished doctoral dissertation by James Dunnan at Illinois State University. In order to determine whether block scheduling had an effect on student achievement, I looked at results of the Prairie State Achievement Exam (PSAE) in 2001 as compared to 2003 in high schools that responded to an e-mail survey initially sent to 392 high schools in Illinois.

The PSAE was chosen as a measure of student achievement because it is mandated by the state. Taken in the spring of each student's junior year, the PSAE is a combination of the existing American College Testing Service (ACT) test and a state-developed test known as Work Keys. The goal of the PSAE is to determine students' ability to demonstrate their knowledge of the Illinois Learning Standards.

The survey was sent to principals in high schools of all sizes, geographic locations and demographic makeup to determine their scheduling model, the length of time the school had been on a block schedule and the reason the school adopted a block schedule. According to responses, scheduling model distribution was: traditional, 151; 8-block, 58; 4-block, 20; and hybrid block, nine.

After analyzing the surveys, I found no statistically significant difference in any of the five subject areas tested on the PSAE (math, science, writing, reading and social studies) for each of the types of block scheduling models when compared to each other and to traditionally scheduled schools in this study.

These findings support previously conducted research that indicated block scheduling in general did not result in higher student achievement.

This study contradicts research that found higher student achievement in block-scheduled schools. But it also contradicts research that found block scheduling had a negative effect on student achievement.

Generally, all block-scheduled schools are reported as one group regardless of the type, and their achievement scores are compared to those of traditionally scheduled schools. In this study, regardless of the type of block scheduling model used, there was no relationship indicating that traditionally scheduled schools had any more significant difference in student achievement than the block-scheduled schools.

What I did find, while controlling for socioeconomic factors, was that the two most consistent predictors of student achievement on PSAE scores were the percentage of low-income students (as determined by the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunches) and the average per-pupil expenditure per school. These indicators were consistent with a 2002 study by Nelson Maylone of Eastern Michigan University on the effect of socioeconomic factors on student achievement.

Many other factors may have an effect on student achievement and should be examined, such as quality of teachers, school climate, parental support, parents' education level, single-parent households and amount of staff development.

Educating our young people is a complicated challenge, making it difficult at times to measure the "real" factors that affect our ability to be successful or to define what makes a school successful. We do know that in some "good" schools, regardless of how poor their students are or what neighborhood they come from, students can achieve and be successful. Much of the success has to do with who the teachers are and how well they are able to engage their students in the learning process.

Often schools start with the concept of changing to the block and then try to assess outcomes after the change. It would be preferable to ask first what change the school is seeking to make collectively and then to assess block scheduling as a means for accomplishing these goals. While there might be several different reasons schools adopt block scheduling, no research has been done to determine if schools that adopt block schedules to raise student achievement scores actually obtain their desired results.

An attempt was made to determine if there was a relationship between a change in student achievement in the various types of block scheduling models based on the length of time they had been on a block schedule. Due to the small number of schools in the sample on a block schedule for less than three years, I was unable to make a determination whether a relationship existed.

Most schools in this survey had been on a block schedule for more than three years and few schools had adopted a block scheduling model in the past three years. The data indicate that the number of schools currently adopting a block scheduling model is very low and that the trend is dramatically slowing.

The study also found that schools that adopt block scheduling to raise student achievement generally do not realize their goal. Because other variables have an effect on student achievement, schools with poor student achievement scores cannot automatically assume that if they change to block scheduling they will have higher student achievement.

With federal and state No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation requiring schools to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), the conclusions of this study are important because it was found that the type of schedule a high school uses has no significant effect on student achievement. Therefore, schools should not look to adopt or drop a block scheduling model to raise student achievement.

In our athletic conference, nearly half of the 18 conference schools use a block scheduling. Since NCLB, some schools are considering dropping their block schedule in order to explain poor student achievement and in a desperate attempt to help them comply with AYP requirements.

In this highly accountable era of education, schools that are not performing to the level required of the legislation should not look for a quick, easy fix by dropping the block schedule and using it as their reason to explain low student achievement when the findings of this study do not support taking such action. It is critical that schools search for the real reasons their school is failing and search for data to substantiate their conclusions.

Two recommendations, however, do emerge from this study:

1. Illinois high schools using a traditional schedule should not adopt a block schedule with the primary purpose of raising student achievement. The data in this study does not support the belief that block scheduling in and of itself results in higher test scores.

2. The district's curriculum must be aligned to the Illinois Learning Standards because the PSAE test measures what students know and are able to do in regard to the standards. The PSAE must be viewed as an exit test that demonstrates the success the district has had in preparing its students for the future.

Akins, J. G. (2000). High school block scheduling and selected student outcomes: A longitudinal approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Arnold, D. (2002). Block schedule and traditional schedule achievement: A comparison. NASSP Bulletin, 86(630), 42-51.

Canady, R. (1995). The power of innovative scheduling. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 1-10.

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1993). Unlocking the lockstep high school schedule. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 310-314.

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1998). Block scheduling: What we've learned. Unpublished manuscript.

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1999). The effects of block scheduling. School Administrator, 56(3), 14-20.

Deuel, L. (1999). Block scheduling in large, urban high schools: Effects on academic achievement, student behavior, and staff perceptions. High School Journal, 83(1), 14-26.

Drummond, P. A. (2001). A comparative analysis of student's academic achievement under block and traditional scheduling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, South Carolina State University, Orangeburg.

Dunnan, J. (2000). Comparison of block scheduling and traditional scheduling effects on ACT and IGAP scores in Illinois high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, Normal.

Epley, S. D. (2000). The effects of block scheduling on ACT scores of secondary public school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg.

Garza, I., & Galvin M. (2001). A comparison between alternate block and traditional scheduling on student achievement and selected variables at middle school campuses in selected education service centers in Texas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station.

Illinois High School Association [IHSA]. (2003) 2003-2004 enrollment and classifications announcement. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from www.ihsa.org/announce/030528.htm

Illinois State Board of Education [ISBE]. (2002b). Teacher PSAE handbook. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.isbe.net/assessment/PDF/PSAEappendices.pdf

Lare, D., Jablonski, A. M., & Salvaterra, M. (2002). Block scheduling: Is it cost-effective? NASSP Bulletin, 86, 54-71.

Lawrence, W. W., & McPherson, D. D. (2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(3), 178-182.

Lockwood, S. L. (1995). Semestering the high school Schedule: The impact on student achievement in algebra and geometry in Dothan City schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Birmingham.

Marshall, M., Taylor, D., & Bateson, S. (1995). The British Columbia assessment of mathematics and science: Preliminary report. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Education.

Maylone, N. J. (2002). The relationship of socioeconomic factors and district scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program Tests: An analysis. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http//www.pdkintl.org/edres/ddwind5.htm

Pederson, J. L. (2001). The effects of scheduling modes on high school student achievement in Iowa. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.

Schroth, G., & Dixon, J. (1996). The effects on block scheduling on student performance. International Journal of Education Reform, 5, 472-476.

Skrobarcek, S., Chang, M., Thompson, C., Johnson, J., Atteberry, R., Westbrook, R., & Manus, A. (1997). Collaborating for instructional improvement: Analyzing the academic impact of a block schedule plan. NASSP Bulletin, 81(589), 104-111.

Smith, R., & Camara, W. J. (1998). Block schedules and student performance on AP examinations (RN No. 03). New York: The College Board.

Veal, W. R., & Schreiber, J. (1999). Block scheduling effects on state-mandated test of basic skills. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(29), 1-7.

Wronkovich, M. (1998). Block scheduling: Real reform or another flawed educational fad? American Secondary Education, 26(4), 1-6.