Jennifer Fager
February 1997
By Request...
Published twice yearly for NWREL member institutions
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone (503) 275-9500
In today's climate of renewed emphasis on educational change, educators are continually looking for ways to improve school climate, increase teacher job satisfaction, make the most of school facilities, and enhance student learning. Many schools are finding that modifying, or even abandoning, traditional methods of scheduling can help them as they work to achieve these things and to make education the best it can be for all students.
Block scheduling, four-day school weeks, and year-round education are alternative scheduling methods that generate intense interest in schools in the Northwest and around the country. Educators want to know if these methods actually work. Though data that reinforces claims of actual achievement gains is relatively inconclusive for each at this point, it seems that more and more schools who choose to adopt an alternative schedule are finding numerous advantages associated with the change.
This booklet is an exploration of block scheduling, four-day school weeks, and year-round education. It is one of many resources available to schools and communities as they contemplate new options for school improvement. The definitions and ideas behind each option are examined, along with the potential benefits and possible concerns associated with them. Ideas for implementation and examples of different schools throughout the region currently using one of the three options are provided.
It is difficult to be involved in education today and not hear about block scheduling. It is an educational trend that has gained favor in countless schools and communities throughout this extremely diverse nation. Of the three scheduling options discussed in this booklet, block scheduling is the one most widely used in the Northwest. Schools adopt block schedules because they offer an opportunity to redefine the way teachers teach and the way in which students learn. In addition, block scheduling is an option that does not greatly affect the community, nor is it expensive to implement.
In its simplest definition, block scheduling is any schedule format with fewer but longer classes than traditional schedules permit (Jones, 1995). Because a school can build a block schedule that suits its unique needs, there are almost as many different ways to arrange a block schedule as there are schools. Some of the more popular methods that schools base their schedules on are:
There are numerous benefits associated with block scheduling. Because few schools structure their block schedules in the exact same way, the benefits each experiences will be a little different. Following is a list of frequently mentioned attributes of block systems for students, teachers, and the school overall.
Students:
Teachers:
The school in general:
The following list details a few recommendations for any school contemplating the switch to block scheduling.
The motivating force behind a school changing to a four-day week is quite different than that which causes a school to adopt a block schedule. Faced with dwindling financial resources and declining enrollments, many small school districts have adopted a four-day school schedule (Grau & Shaughnessy, 1987; Koki, 1992; School Fits, 1983; Richberg & Sjorgren, 1983; Blankenship, 1984). By extending the time spent in school for four days, (by approximately 25 percent or 75 minutes per day) they are able to close the school on the fifth. Instead of cutting art, music, or other activities that often fall prey to budgetary shortfalls, the four-day week gives schools the opportunity to preserve these classes and still save money. Generally schools that use a four-day week are small, rural schools. In the Northwest, Oregon is the only state with schools using a four-day schedule. More than a dozen districts there currently observe a four-day week. Other states, including Washington, Idaho, and Montana do not have legislation that permits four-day week schedules.
Most often, schools that switch to a four-day week take either Friday or Monday off. Those choosing to close on Friday say that it is best because such a large portion of the student population misses school due to athletic events and other activities on this day. Those choosing to close school on Monday do so because gymnasiums often have to be lit and heated for Friday athletic events and activities, whereas few such activities occur on Mondays (Blankenship, 1984). Regardless of which day schools close, the decision to switch to a four-day week should be "based on clearly defined purposes and a recognition of both costs and benefits" (Richberg & Sjorgren, 1983).
Though financially motivated, most schools that adopt a four-day week have serendipitously discovered numerous benefits they didn't quite expect. Following is a list of the advantages of the four-day week that many schools have encountered for students, teachers, and the school in general.
Students and Teachers:
The School in General:
Weighing both the advantages and the possible disadvantages of any new scheduling format is critical to making an informed decision. Some of the concerns associated with the four-day week that are important to note include:
When contemplating the decision to move to a four-day week, keep in mind that it is a multistep process. Some suggested steps for implementation are:
Communities are often motivated to select year-round calendars due to booming student enrollment and a lack of funding to construct new school buildings. Even though year-round education may seem like an educational innovation, it has actually been around for quite some time. At the beginning of this century, population centers such as New York and Baltimore were sites of year-round education programs. A shift in societal needs, coupled with a largely agrarian society, altered the school calendar and made it what it is today (White, 1995; Dlugosh, 1994; Bradford, 1993). Because we are no longer bound to agrarian calendars, many educators now feel that rearranging or even extending the school year can increase opportunities and better achievement for all students (White, 1995). There are about a dozen districts divided among the Northwest states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington that have at least one school currently using a year-round/modified calendar, but it is not a widespread trend at this time.
To fully appreciate year-round education, it helps to understand some of the different formats it can accommodate. Generally, on a year-round calendar, students attend school for a prescribed length of time (this can be 45, 60, or 90 days), and then have a vacation, often referred to as an intercession. This break commonly lasts 15 days, but can be as long as 20, 30, or even 40 days. Some of the more common configurations are: 45 days on—15 days off, 60-15 (with most of July off), 60-20, and 90-30 (Serifs, 1990). Student tracks are another important aspect of year-round systems. Tracks are the groups students are divided into which share the same schedule rotation. A school can have up to four or possibly even more tracks, and as few as one, though it is the staggered rotation of multiple tracks that enable schools to combat overcrowding.
Today, year-round scheduling is used largely to combat severe overcrowding as an alternative to expensive building plans that can cost taxpayers millions of dollars, though this is not always the case (Schnieder & Townley, 1992; Levine & Ornstein, 1993). Some districts choose year-round calendars because of the benefits it has for students. As with other schedule changes, educators have found that there are numerous advantages associated with year-round calendars. The following list details the common benefits of year-round programs to students, teachers, and the community.
Students:
Teachers:
The School and Community:
Of the three scheduling alternatives discussed in this booklet, year-round schedules are probably the most challenging to implement. Saving money by maximizing school building utilization should not be the sole motivation behind adopting a year-round schedule (Glines, 1987). Implementing a year-round calendar is a complicated process that requires the commitment not only from school staff and students, but from parents and the community as well. The whole community surrounding a year-round school or district will be affected. In order for educators to convince parents and the community that a year-round model should be implemented, they will need to counter many old arguments about time in school and present logical, compelling reasons about the benefits of modifying the traditional school calendar (Dlugosh, 1994). Just as important as knowing the benefits, however, is knowing about possible difficulties. Educators must be fully aware of the complications often associated with year-round scheduling in order to communicate effectively with the community and to create a successful program. Some of these are outlined in the following list:
Because of the complexity of implementing a year-round schedule, it is important to be aware of several suggested steps. They are as follows:
Several schools' alternative methods of scheduling are described on the following pages. They are located in the Northwest states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. These programs are just a few of the many excellent ones found in the region and throughout the country. The programs vary widely in scope. Some have been in existence for several years, while others are fledgling efforts. Included for each site is location and contact information, observed outcomes as a result of the scheduling, a description of the program, and tips directly from these educators for others looking to implement similar changes in their schools.
During the 1991-92 school year, teachers at La Grande High School began investigating scheduling alternatives for their 900-student school. With the support of the administration and district, they began a process that would eventually result in one of Oregon's first block-scheduled schools. La Grande teachers reviewed current research, and received a 21st Century Schools Grant that enabled them to visit other block-schedule schools around the country. With this information, the staff built a unique block schedule, capable of meeting the needs of students, teachers, and the community.
The schedule consists of four 88-minute block periods, and a 58-minute lunch period. Teachers instruct three classes per day and use the remaining 88-minute block for preparation work. Students complete classes in one semester what in previous years would have taken them an entire year. Generally, schedules for each student are balanced to provide them with both electives and more academically rigorous classes.
At La Grande, music classes are alternated with other select classes. For example, a student might spend 88 minutes in band on Monday, and then 88 minutes in the yearbook class or personal finance on Tuesday. Alternating the classes in this way allows students to make the most of band, choir, and orchestra throughout the year, while maintaining the structure of the block. La Grande's block schedule also provides time for teacher access days and faculty forums. Two Wednesdays out of each month, from 7:30 to 8:45 a.m., are set aside as teacher access days. During this time teachers are available for one-on-one tutorials with students. School data shows that teacher access days have a 30-50 percent student participation rate.
The other two Wednesdays of each month are devoted to faculty forums from 7:30 to 9:30 a.m. Faculty forums provide opportunities for teachers to discuss school issues, to continually evaluate the block-scheduling process, and to share strategies and tips for success. Many curriculum issues are also discussed and worked on at this time.
An extensive study of the schedule changes at La Grande was conducted during the 1995-96 school year by the Eastern Oregon State College Regional Services Institute. The study, which included surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions, showed that the majority of students, former students, teachers, and parents support the block schedule and the other schedule-related changes the school has implemented. Student grade point averages have gone up, while disciplinary referrals have gone down. Teachers who once relied on basic lecture techniques to deliver lessons have become innovative facilitators of learning— continually challenging themselves and their students.
Observed Outcomes
Keys to Success
Five years ago, staff at Frenchtown High School, in a near-unanimous vote, decided to make the switch from traditional scheduling to an alternate-day block schedule. They felt that the traditional eight-period schedule was limiting. Many also felt that they had grown stagnant in their profession over the years, and that this would be just the challenge to put the spark back into their careers.
The flexibility of the block has provided students and staff at Frenchtown with many benefits including more opportunities for interdisciplinary learning and more time for teachers and students to get to know one another. Frenchtown has also used the schedule to structure a GED/work release program that could not have existed otherwise. In this program, students who are not successful in the regular school setting can work toward their GEDs and work at jobs on alternating days of the week. Overall, the school has found that the block schedule provides better opportunities for both college-prep and non-college-bound students. Principal Steve Chiavaro notes the following cautions:
In the years since its implementation, the block has served the students and staff of Frenchtown well. A survey conducted two years ago indicated that 95 percent of students wanted to continue with the block schedule, and all but one teacher desired to do so. Teachers also report that the block has revived their excitement about teaching and that students seem to be more successful with it.
Observed Outcomes
Keys to Success
With the realization that a seven-period day was spreading both teachers and students a little too thin, teachers at Skykomish High School in Skykomish, Washington, began investigating scheduling alternatives. The alternative they found best suited for their needs was block scheduling. The block schedule allows teachers and students to focus on fewer subjects. Now, instead of seven classes, they have only four. Teachers instruct three and use the fourth as a prep period. There is also a ten-minute homeroom after lunch each day. Overall, students and teachers are in school 15 minutes more each day so there is more instruction time. Students can earn eight credits per year instead of six. In earlier years, many classes were only offered every other year in this small, rural school. Now with the block, each class is offered every year.
Most exciting are the changes the block has brought to teaching methods and the way students learn. Teachers feel that they have more time to reinforce instruction. Now students can learn through hands-on, dynamic activities that give them more interaction with teachers and each other, instead of through traditional lecture/memorizing techniques. There have been very few complaints about the block schedule since its implementation at the beginning of this year.
The switch to block scheduling has been a positive experience for students and teachers at Skykomish. Though they are still in the initial stages of implementation, they are confident that it has been a change that has improved the day-to-day operations of the school and the education of students.
Observed Outcomes
Four years ago, Mountain View Elementary School received a grant from the Alaska Department of Education to implement a parallel block schedule. The motivation behind parallel block scheduling is simple: Decrease the number of students each teacher sees, and thus increase the amount of one-on-one attention each child receives. Each grade (Mountain View serves students in grades 3-5) is allotted an hour of "block" per day. During this hour, students spend part of their time in either math or language arts, and part of the time in either P.E., music, or library. Students from each class are split into two groups, with one group attending the math/language arts portion and the other attending the P.E./music/library portion. After about 30 minutes the two groups switch.
This arrangement has worked well at Mountain View because students have increased opportunities to receive personalized instruction. Because most schools do not have the means to reduce class size as they would like, parallel block scheduling is a feasible alternative that is not difficult to implement. Though teachers at Mountain View were skeptical of the arrangement at first, they, along with the community, are firmly in support of it now.
Observed Outcomes
Keys to Success
Thirteen years ago, Cove School District in rural Northeast Oregon shifted to a four-day week in response to reduced funding and low student enrollment. The schedule has worked very well for students, teachers, and the community.
Students in grades kindergarten-12 attend school Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., with the last 30 minutes reserved for meetings, clubs, and other activities. Primary students are released at 3 p.m. By reducing lunchtime and the time spent between classes, Cove students spend as much time in school as when they attended five days a week.
Along with the financial savings, there are numerous other benefits associated with the four-day schedule. Because Fridays can be used for athletic events and other school-related activities, there are fewer interruptions in learning Monday through Thursday. Teachers also can use Fridays as an extra work day. Many teachers can be found at school on Friday planning lessons, conducting meetings, or working on other classroom projects.
In the years since its inception in Cove, the four-day school week has been widely accepted by all local education stakeholders. Instead of making student services and activities the target of education cutbacks, the schedule has enabled this small community to continue to provide students with a quality education, full of opportunity and challenge.
Observed Outcomes
Keys to Success
On August 3, 1992, the Meridian School District, in Meridian, Idaho, opened its first year-round school at Pioneer Elementary. Prior to its opening, many staff and parents were interested in the concept of a modified school calendar. In addition, it seemed that overcrowding would soon become an issue in their rapidly growing community. Research and investigation into the subject led the district to approve the year-round modified schedule. Instead of choosing one of its already existent schools to be the home of the modified calendar, the district selected its new elementary school as the site, thus avoiding the conflict that might have arisen had they tried to change the schedule of an existing school.
Because the district was not sure what the response to the modified calendar would be, enrollment at the school was initially optional and opened to everyone in the district. Little did they know that response to the new school would be overwhelming. The district ended up having to limit the student transportation it provided in order to reduce the number of students who enrolled.
Today, Pioneer runs on a five-track, 60-15 schedule. Every three weeks one track of students and teachers goes on vacation. The 60-15 plan allows a schoolwide break during the month of July. This promotes a fresh start feeling in August, and also works well with families' summer vacation schedules. Building maintenance, that would otherwise be difficult to accomplish in an occupied building, can be done in July.
Overall, students, teachers, and parents have adjusted well to the year-round modified calendar. The school has been so successful in fact, that three of the district's four new schools, opening in the fall of 1997, will be year-round schools.
Observed Outcomes
Keys to Success
Fifteen years ago, due to an extreme overcrowding problem, Oakwood Elementary School in Preston, Idaho, shifted to a year-round calendar. In the 1997-98 school year, Oakwood will return to a traditional calendar. To fully understand why the school implemented the year-round concept, and why it will abandon it, it is important to examine the process from the beginning.
The early 1980s brought a time of economic uncertainty for many in the growing Preston community. Though the schools were bursting at the seams, the community would not approve a bond levy to increase funding for new school construction. With no money to build a new school to ease the crowding, the district was forced to examine other alternatives, including year-round education. Preston community members selected the year-round calendar. Oakwood began its year-round format with a 45-15, four-track schedule. It soon became clear, however, that this was not the most suitable format for the school. Teachers were finding that they only had four or five days off between the end of one school year and the start of another. Taking this into consideration, the school opted for a 60-15, five-track schedule. This enabled everyone to have almost the entire month of July off, thus giving teachers and students the feeling of a fresh start in August. It also provided a common vacation time for families who had kids with different school schedules.
Some of the many benefits experienced by teachers and students at Oakwood included a greatly reduced need for review, intercession periods that could be used for student remediation programs, and the option for added employment if teachers wanted to instruct during the intercession.
A new school building will open in Preston in the coming fall. The opening of its doors ends concerns about overcrowding in the district. Without overcrowding as a problem, local education stakeholders once again were faced with a decision to choose what calendar Oakwood would follow. Though the year-round calendar worked well at Oakwood for over a decade, the community opted for a traditional-school calendar instead. The primary reason for the change is to get the school back on the same schedule as the other schools in the district.
Observed Outcomes
Keys to Success
The schedule a school follows is a very important component of student learning, and with so many scheduling options available it is easy to become lost in a maze of research and recommendations without arriving at any real conclusion. Unfortunately, there is no easy way of knowing what is best. What works well in one school may not work at all in another. However, careful study of options, coupled with shared decisionmaking on the part of all education stakeholders will help schools to make the best decision for students.
Block Scheduling
Buckman, D., King, B., & Ryan, S. (1995). Block scheduling: A means to improve school climate. NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 9-18.
Canady, R. (1990). Parallel block scheduling: A better way to organize a school. Principal, 69(3), 34-36.
Canady, R. & Rettig, M. (1995). Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education, Inc.
Huff, L. (1995). Flexible block scheduling: It works for us! NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 19-21.
Jones, R. (1995). Wake up! The Executive Educator, 17(8), 15-18.
Reid, W. (1996). The administrative challenges of block scheduling. The School Administrator, 53(8), 26-30.
Rettig, M. & Canady, R. (1996). All around the block: The benefits and challenges of a non-traditional school schedule. The School Administrator, 53(8), 8-14.
Schoenstein, R. (1995). The new school on the block. The Executive Educator, 17(8), 18-20.
Shortt, T. & Thayer, Y. (1995). What can we expect to see in the next generation of block scheduling? NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 53-62.
Wyatt, L. (1996). More time, more training: What staff development do teachers need for effective instruction in block scheduling? The School Administrator, 53(8), 16-18.
Four-Day School Week
Blankenship, T. (1984). Update: These school systems swear by the four-day school week because students work harder and face fewer distractions. The American School Board Journal, 171(8), 32-33.
Culbertson, J. (1982). Four Day School Week for Small Rural Schools. Las Cruces, NM: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
Daly, J. & Richburg, R. (1984). Student Achievement in the Four-Day School Week. Fort Collins, CO: Office for Rural Education, Department of Education, Colorado State University.
Featherstone, H. (1991). The rewards of a four-day school week. Principal, 71(1), 28-30.
Grau, E. & Shaughnessy, M. (1987). The Four Day School Week: An Investigation and Analysis. Portales, NM: Eastern New Mexico University.
Koki, S. (1992). Modified School Schedules: A Look at the Research and the Pacific. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Regional Educational Laboratory.
Litke, C.D. (1994). Implementing the modified four-day school week. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40(3), 271-81.
Nelson, S. (1983). An Evaluation of the Sheridan County School District Alternative School Schedule. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Richberg, R. & Sjogren, D. (1983). The four-day week: What are the advantages for schools? NASSP Bulletin, 67(459), 60-63.
Sagness, R. & Salzman, S. (1993). Evaluation of the Four-Day School Week in Idaho Suburban Schools. Jackson, WY: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association.
School Fits Three R's into Four Days. (1983). Las Cruces, NM: Sun News.
Year Round Education
Bradford, J. (1993). Making Year-Round Education (YRE) Work in Your District: A Nationally Recognized Single Track High School Model. Anaheim, CA: Prepared for the National School Boards Association National Convention.
Dlugosh, L. (1994). Quality Schools and the Myth of the Nine-Month School Year. Oklahoma City, OK: Paper presented at the annual University of Oklahoma National Conference on Creating the Quality School.
Glines, D. (1987). Year round education: A philosophy. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 16(7), 14-17.
Goldman, J. (1990). Life's a non-stop carousel for year-round principals. The School Administrator, 47(4), 25-28.
Levine, D. & Ornstein, A. (1993). School effectiveness and national reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 335-345.
Moore, S. (1992). Personnel: Policies for year-round schools. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 21(6), 32-34.
Morse, S. (1992). The value of remembering. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 21(6), 35-37.
O'Neil, I. & Adamson, D. (1993). When less is more. The American School Board Journal, 180(4), 39-41.San Diego County Office of Education. (1986). Year-Round Education Resource Guidebook: Planning for Effective Facility Utilization and Learning Enhancement. San Diego, CA: Author.
Schnieder, J. & Townley, A. (1992). Making a smooth transition. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 21(6), 26-27, 30-31.
Serifs, D. (1990). Year Round Education: A Closer Look. New York, NY: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329008).
White, W. (1995). Initiating and Administering A Year-Round Program in Your Secondary School. Los Angeles, CA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Year Round Education.
|
This document's URL is: © 2003 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
Date of Last Update: 08/13/2004 
|