Reports Gains In Student Achievement example essay topic

... he Center for Innovative School Scheduling reported that discipline referrals were reduced from 25-35 percent in schools surveyed. In one Florida school, discipline referrals were reduced by fifty percent (TCISS, 1998). The March 1999 School Administrator reports that in the more than 100 case studies, discipline referrals were reduced by 25-50 percent (Rettig & Canady, 1999). Education World reports that in the schools surveyed, not only did attendance improve, but also fights and tar dies were significantly less on block scheduling, as opposed to traditional scheduling (Chaika, 2000). Finally, J. Allen Queen reported that positive perceptions related to student discipline were also reported in a study by Queen, Robert Algozzine, and Martin Eaddy. The majority of students believe that school discipline had improved by nearly 40 percent, while parents perceived an even higher rate of improvement (Queen, 2000).

Student Achievement Increases The results of block scheduling on student achievement are somewhat mixed. J. Allen Queen reports that prior to block scheduling, 38% of teachers thought the initiative would have positive effects on student achievement. After implementation, this percentage had risen to 81% (Queen, 2000). The 1996 North Carolina End of Course Test data shows that there are few significant differences on End of Course Tests between groups of block scheduled schools and corresponding groups of non-blocked schools. There are also no significant differences among school groups using block scheduling for different numbers of years (NCDPI, 1998). In another study by Noreen Gaubatz, the effects of block scheduling on student achievement are more positive. "Studies consistently show that students' grades and standardized test scores improve, honor roll totals increase and failure and drop-out rates decline when block scheduling data are compared to data for traditional scheduling" (Gaubatz, 2003).

The Center for Innovative School Scheduling also reports mixed results related to student achievement. There are GPA increases and the number of students on the A and B honor Roll increases when block scheduling is compared to traditional scheduling. The Dropout rate does not change significantly, regardless of the scheduling format. However, At Risk Students are more likely to remain in school and graduate. These changes appear more pronounced on a 4 X 4 schedule than on an A-B (or alternate type) of block scheduling (TCISS, 1998). The Center for Education Reform reports that there is some indication that grades and attendance increase.

There is also indication that students, who have not thrived on the traditional schedule, benefit from block scheduling (TCER, 1996). Education World also reports gains in student achievement. By comparing data for the two years prior to block scheduling with results after two years of block scheduling, students' grade point averages increased in almost all subjects. Students also earned higher state-proficiency exam scores, and higher ACT and SAT scores (Chaika, 2000). The Texas Education Agency could not find proof that block scheduling (the use of longer class periods) has affected student achievement (Bassett, 2002). The College of Education at Iowa State University reports that student achievement is not affected by block scheduling.

The block format was used in approximately thirty percent of all high schools in Iowa and Illinois in 2000. According to this longitudinal study of 568 schools, ACT test scores are not significantly affected by block scheduling (Hackman, 2002). Conclusion The research is positive when related to the impact of block scheduling on attitudes toward school, satisfaction with block scheduling, and student discipline. Student attitudes toward school were significantly improved. This improvement could be related to a decrease in homework, due to fewer classes. Students also reported increased feelings of acceptance and appreciation by teachers.

The number of discipline referrals decreased when compared to the number of referrals prior to block scheduling. This was probably due in part to less interaction during class changes. Although there were increases in student achievement, these increases were not consistent. While some studies suggested increases in GPA, and the number of students on the honor roll, these increases were closely associated with motivation of students. More highly motivated students showed the most gain in GPA. Other positive results were related to dropout rate and "at-risk" status.

Not only did the dropout rate decrease, but also At Risk Students tended to improve their school completion rate. This increase could be related to more nurturing of this group of students by their teachers. Block scheduling has produced many positive results, yet at the same time, more research must be done. Student achievement increases are present, but before this scheduling initiative can be totally accepted, achievement increases must be more consistent.

Bibliography

Bassett, F.R. (2002, November 2002).
The Case Against Block Scheduling Retrieved October 16, 2004, from web scheduling research Nov.
htmChaika, G. (2000, May 5, 2000).
Around the Block: The Benefits and Challenges of Block Scheduling. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from web issues / issues /issues 057.
shtmlD. Hackman. (2002, July 1).
Block Scheduling in Schools May Affect Student Achievement / ACT Scores. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from web M.
C., & Briers, G.E. (2002).
Value of Scheduling-Related Inservice Education, Opportunity to Implement Effective Teaching Practices and Performance of Blockscheduled Learners in Agricultural Education: A Correlation Study. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 19 (1), pp. 67-80 (, 2002).
Gaubatz, N. (2003).
Course Scheduling Formats and Their Impact on Student Learning. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from web Carolina Department of Public Instruction (1998).
Block Scheduling in North Carolina: Implementation, Teaching, and Impact Issues 1997 Survey Results.
Retrieved October 16, 2004, from web scheduling/1997 survey sum.
Queen, J.A. (2000, November 2000).
Block Scheduling Revisited. Kappan, 82 (No. 3), pp. 214-222. Rettig, M.D., & Canady, R.L. (1999, March 1999).
The Effects of Block Scheduling. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from web 03/retting.
htmThe Center for Educational Reform (1996, November 1).
Scheduling: On the Block. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from web Center for Innovative School Scheduling (1998, May 3, 1998).
Block Scheduling: What We " ve Learned. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from web States Department of Education (1994, April 1994).
Prisoners of Time. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from web Scheduling and Student Achievement Tremendous amount of research has been done on scheduling and the relationship on student achievement.
Although the results are somewhat mixed, there appears to be very little correlation between block scheduling and student achievement. Through research, the case can be made for block scheduling, if student achievement is not the only desired effect. Unlike conventional scheduling, block scheduling can affect student achievement, but just as importantly, "blocking" has positive effects on discipline referrals and the attitudes of both teachers and students. Why choose Block Scheduling? According to research by J. Allen Queen, traditional high schools schedules have remained the same for most of the twentieth century. "In 1959, J.
Lloyd Trump proposed eliminating the traditional high school schedule and instituting classes of varying lengths in accordance with the instructional needs of students" (Queen, 2000).
Many reasons have been given for the elimination of traditional scheduling. In an article by Michael Rettig and Robert Canady, several reasons were given. Graduation credits were increased to as many as twenty-four Carnegie units, which left many schools with little room for fine arts or vocational classes (Rettig & Canady, 1999).
Shorter classes also caused problems in hands-on classes, such as science and physical education. Changing classes multiple times created an atmosphere of chaos, along with increasing discipline problems (Rettig & Canady). In 1990, Michael Full an stated that the traditional high school schedule was adopted by schools, regardless of effectiveness (Queen, 2000).
A report by the National Education Commission in 1994, indicated that traditional ways of organizing schools only added to problems of discipline and inadequate student achievement (Rettig & Canady).
In fact this report referred to students as "prisoners of time" (United States Department of Education [USE], 1994).
The era of lock scheduling had begun. By 1994, a survey of high schools across the United States revealed that 40% of schools were using some type of block scheduling (Queen, 2000).
Reasons Why the Block Schedule is Favored Many reasons were given as to why school personnel and students prefer the block. Among these reasons was the idea of fewer courses per semester. Fewer classes equates to fewer assignments to make-up if a student is absent. Some classes require more time. Increased time works well in laboratory classes and fine arts or vocational classes. Many research efforts support this claim. In one such study, J. Allen Queen, found that block schedules work better for laboratory classes. This research had been confirmed many years prior to this. "As early as 1984, John Good lad had warned educators that the traditional school structure does not allow time for individualized instruction, for extended laboratory work, or for remediation and enrichment" (Queen, 2000).
The Journal of Career and Technical Education states: "Intensive schedules [i.e. block scheduling] can be a powerful catalyst for change and for improved instruction in our secondary schools when implemented properly" (Edwards & Briers, 2002, 3).
Don Hackman, Associate Professor at The College of Education at Iowa State University, notes that many high schools consider block scheduling because some research indicates that this type of scheduling may enhance school climate, improve interactions between teachers and students, reduce disciplinary referrals and suspensions and improve attendance (Hackman, 2002).
According to The Center for Educational Reform, proponents list many reasons why block scheduling is better than traditional scheduling. Block scheduling gives students more time to learn, increased time for more in-depth learning, boosts student morale, and results in higher grades (The Center for Educational Reform [TCER], 1996).
The website for North Carolina Public schools lists many reasons for the change to block scheduling. North Carolina principals' top reasons for block scheduling include: students have a greater variety of course offerings, fewer courses per semester, the opportunity to retake failed courses, and the ability to take sequential courses, such as foreign language courses, in the same year (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction [NCDPI], 1998).
An article in The National Teaching and Learning Forum states that the case for block scheduling is strong. Approximately fifty percent of United States high schools are presently on the block. Academic performance has been investigated through an analysis of GPA, honor roll achievement, number of failures, dropout rates, and standardized test scores. "Studies consistently show that students' grades and standardizes test scores improve, honor roll totals increase and failure and drop-out rates decline when block scheduling data are compared to data for traditional scheduling" (Gaubatz, 2003).
Attitudes Toward Block Scheduling A lot of research focuses on attitudes toward school. The majority of teachers, students and parents feel positive about block scheduling, even after the difficult period of change. In an article in The School administrator, Teachers report a period of stress until they learn how to teach on a block schedule, but eventually teachers and students report school becomes less stressful (Rettig & Canady, 1999).
The Center of Innovative School Scheduling also reports that "Teachers and students feel favorable to block schedules after experiencing this type of schedule for two or more years" (The Center for Innovative School Scheduling [TCISS], 1998).
Other reports from block scheduled high schools report that the scheduling format has a positive impact on the instructional climate by improving teacher / student and student / teacher relationships" (Gaubatz, 2003).
In fact the results of a pre- and post-test administered to students as their school changed from a traditional schedule to block scheduling indicated that students felt their teachers got to know them better on the block format (Gaubatz, 2003).
In 1998, David Hotten stein surveyed twenty-four high schools in several states and found a positive correlation between block scheduling and the attitudes of administrators, teachers and students.
All three groups reported their satisfaction with block scheduling, and also noted that this format had a positive impact on school climate (Queen, 2000).
A report from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction was also positive in the satisfaction with block scheduling, but to a lesser degree. Principals were most positive, followed by teachers and then students. This suggests that although students seem satisfied with block scheduling, they are less satisfied that principals and teachers. Discipline and the Block Almost every article that I examined reported significant reductions in discipline referrals. With fewer class changes, there are fewer opportunities for student interactions, thus cutting down of undesirable behavior. The Center for Innovative School Scheduling reported that discipline referrals were reduced from 25-35 percent in schools surveyed. Hackman. (2002, July 1).
Prisoners of Time. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from web.