erpopenhagenproport.weebly.comerpopenhagenproport.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/3/8/29383… · Web viewStudents who wished to participate all year in band and choir were earning an equivalent

Modified Block Schedules—A Perception amidst Initiatives for Change

__________________________

Critical Element Paper #3

Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership

and Postsecondary Education

University of Northern Iowa

___________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the

Advanced Studies Certificate

_____________________________

By

Ellen Popenhagen

Center Point - Urbana Community School District

Center Point, Iowa

December 2014

_____________________________

Dr. Nicholas Pace and Dr. Barry WilsonArea of Focus

2MODIFIED BLOCK SCHEDULE – A PERCEPTION AMIDST INITIATIVES FOR CHANGE

In 1998, Center Point - Urbana High School and Middle School switched from an eight-period

day to a block schedule. The decision was not made lightly, as a large group of teachers completed site

visits and attended conferences, and all teachers completed book studies before committing to the block.

Once the decision was made, the focus of professional learning turned to the efficiency and effective

strategies for teaching in a block schedule. The base 4x4 block schedule – four blocks with four quarters

of study every year – became the norm. At the middle school, students spend the entire year in their core

classes, 85 minutes a day (an entire block). Elective and special (art, music, PE) courses are seven-

weeks, 85 minutes a day. The high school offers four blocks (85 minutes) each day, no matter the course

of study.

According to the Center Point - Urbana High School 2014-2015 Registration Handbook, in order

to earn the appropriate Carnegie units, high school students must spend one quarter in a block class to

earn one credit. One day in class counts as two; a semester class is equal to a year of study in a

traditional period schedule. In 2007, Advanced Placement courses were added to the course schedule in

English and math. Teachers of these courses were expected to cram a year’s worth of learning into one

semester, and even that time was cut short, as the AP exams are offered in early May, and the final

quarter of the year does not end until late May. Students were missing out on nearly four weeks of

instruction to prepare for the exam.

Another issue, with the 4x4 schedule, creating the opposite effect of the AP courses, is with band

and choir classes. Students who wished to participate all year in band and choir were earning an

equivalent of two years of learning, as the course spans both fall and spring semesters. Also, students

who were enrolled in band and choir were then limited to only three blocks a day to take their core

courses and electives.


After much frustration and contemplation, skinny courses were added in the fall of 2011. Two

blocks a day would offer skinny, or period, courses to help alleviate the frustrations and credit issues

with a traditional 4x4 schedule. The Carnegie units are not affected, but if a student is enrolled in a

skinny course, two quarters are required to earn one credit. Most core classes are two credits, requiring

two quarters, or one semester of study; however, now, with skinny courses, those two credits would take

an entire year.

As the needs of the students and teachers changed, the schedule has needed to flex and change,

as well. Now, on the cusp of a major change in philosophy and practice as the district moves to

Competency Based Education (CBE), and more recently Standards-Based Grading (SBG), once again,

the schedule needs to be reviewed to determine whether the modified block schedule is most beneficial

for our students’ learnings and teachers’ practices.

Purpose of Study

Four years ago, former Center Point - Urbana superintendent, Dick Whitehead, approached the

Center Point - Urbana district to join the Eastern Iowa Compact: Educating for the Innovation Age,

Learning for Tomorrow in Eastern Iowa. In conjunction with Dr. Lisa Wilson, Grant Wood Area

Education Agency’s Program and Services Coordinator, Mr. Whitehead is promoting a collaboration to

personalize learning, as the industrial model (conveyor belt) of education is no longer viable for the

millennial generation and innovation age. With this change to personalized learning, the traditional

schedules and methods for teaching cannot sustain the movement; students will be able to progress at

their own rate of learning and in an environment that is not driven by grade levels, seat time or peer

group maturation. The goal of the compact is to

1) Build collaborative learning structures and opportunities.


2) Establish clear and rigorous learning targets.

3) Create personalized learning experiences that develop critical thinking, creativity, and the

ability to solve difficult problems.

4) Create highly flexible, customized, and innovative approaches for student learning.

(Commit and Act For Kids, 2013)

Since joining the Eastern Iowa Compact Center Point - Urbana has been building capacity for change.

Based on the goals of the Compact and current needs, the district goal was designed to develop better

teaching practices, using the Common Core’s standards for literacy in all content areas.

To address this goal, the district has taken several steps to better our student achievement in

literacy. As an indirect measure, last year, we applied for the coveted Teacher Leadership Grant offered

from the state to implement new leadership positions with the hope that Data Team Leaders,

Instructional Coaches, Mentors and Professional Partners would be able to help teachers instruct and

implement best practices for the betterment of literacy achievement. We were not qualified for the first

round of grants, and we have resubmitted for the second round, still with literacy as our focus for

improvement. More directly, our district has ventured into the initiative of CBE, which is the umbrella

for personalized learning and standards-based learning.

Since the primary building (grades PK-2) already use standards-referenced reporting, and the

intermediate building (grades 3-5) is using standards-referenced in grades 3 and 4, the rest of the grades

(5th – 12th) are switching to SBG, moving one step further than the standards-referenced grading that is

happening in the elementary grades. The switch to SBG is necessary for the support of competencies

that will be generated in an effort to personalize learning. However, to personalize learning, other

changes, besides the switch to SBG, need to happen.


In an effort to best implement these initiatives, the traditional way of running a school and

teaching need to be addressed. The first, most obvious need for change in the traditional system is the

schedule. If personalized learning is to be the focus, then the traditional period, block, or modified block

schedules will not be able to meet the needs of all learners. The expectation is not for students to

progress through the competencies at the same rate as everyone else. The schedule will need to change.

Because the high school’s first initiative is SBG, the need for the change in schedule is not that

evident. Block schedule is the norm for most teachers, and because not all teachers are in the thick of

implementing SBG, the need for change may be masked even further. Some teachers are piloting full

SBG in at least one of their courses, and so, the need for the change in the schedule to accommodate a

full cycle of instruction, including opportunities for extra practice and reassessments, is a little more

apparent. Teachers have commented that it’s not a matter of the amount of time offered for a class;

rather, the issue is more of contact days.

The high school principal has spoken of building in a seminar time during the day to help

facilitate the structures of SBG, such as reassessments and additional practice time to build capacity for

the standards. The idea of a Genius Hour, or as Google called it, 20% Time, has also been suggested for

students to show above proficiency with certain skills and competencies. The schedule currently offers a

23 minute homeroom period opposite a 22 minute lunch, but the homeroom period is not sufficient to

support the needs for reassessment or extra instruction, let alone time for a student to take ownership of

learning and show proficiency beyond the expectation of a standard or competency. In order for that

seminar time to be viable, the schedule will have to change. Hence, the purpose of this study is to gain

the staff’s and students’ perceptions of the current schedule and determine which avenues to pursue

based on that data.


Review of Literature

Much has been written in review of block scheduling, and much has been written about SBG;

however, very little research is available about the impact of SBG on a certain schedule or vice versa.

Because the study is to gain a perception of the current schedule, a modified or “hybrid” block, at Center

Point - Urbana High School, specific understanding of the history and progression of the block schedule

is needed. The topic of SBG is not as much of a factor for review since the initiative is in its infancy, and

the survey was not written with SBG as its focus. However, prudence suggests, in addition to an

understanding of block scheduling, a review of the concepts of time and learning is also necessary.

A few major studies commissioned by the government, as well as educational legislation have

brought time and learning to the forefront of discussions, however, the history and trend of block

scheduling has been a base layer of those studies. If it were not for the early work of James Bryant

Conant, Joseph M. Carroll and J. Lloyd Truman and the current work of Robert L. Canaday and Michael

D. Rettig with block scheduling, the recommendations and types of reform would not have materialized

in these studies. And, although most of the work for flexible modular and traditional block scheduling is

from the 20th Century, proponents for using active learning at the expense of time are quite prevalent in

the 21st Century, as well.

In April of 1994, the United States Government’s Department of Education commissioned a

study regarding time and learning, to which they metaphorically deemed that “[l]earning in America is a

prisoner of time” (National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994, “Prisoners of Time”

para. 1). Students are expected to learn what they can, and teachers are expected to teach what they can

in the amount of time that is afforded to them. The idea of time as the constant and learning as the

variable is archaic and grounded in an age and time of living in which the calendar dictated when


students could and could not attend schools due to plantings and harvests or an industrial model of

efficiency.

Ironically, the same arguments about time and learning were discovered in a similar government

study conducted 100 years prior to the April 1994 study, in which US Commissioner of Education

William T. Harris argued,

The constant tendency has been toward a reduction of time. . . The boy today must attend

11.1 years in order to receive as much instruction, quantitatively, as the boy fifty years ago

received in 8 years . . . it is scarcely necessary to look further than this for the explanation for the

greater amount of work accomplished . . . in the German and French (schools) than in American

schools . . . (as cited in National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994, “Time Not

a New Issue: para. 4)

To release students and teachers from this prison, Milton Goldberg and his committee offered

eight recommendations:

1) WE RECOMMEND a commitment to bring every child in the United States to world-class

standards in core academic areas.

2) WE RECOMMEND that state and local boards work with schools to redesign education so

that time becomes a factor supporting learning, not a boundary marking its limits.

3) WE RECOMMEND that schools provide additional academic time by reclaiming the school

day for academic instruction.

4) WE RECOMMEND that schools respond to the needs of today's students by remaining open

longer during the day and that some schools in every district remain open throughout the year.

5) WE RECOMMEND that schools provide additional academic time by reclaiming the school

day for academic instruction.


6) WE RECOMMEND that schools seize on the promise of new technologies to increase

productivity, enhance student achievement, and expand learning time.

7) WE RECOMMEND that every district convene local leaders to develop action plans that offer

different school options and encourage parents, students, and teachers to choose among them.

8) WE RECOMMEND that teachers be provided with the professional time and opportunities

they need to do their jobs.

(National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994, “Eight Recommendations”)

The recommendations from the commission’s study on learning and time came on the heels of

the publication of a report to the Secretary of Education, Terence Bell, entitled A Nation at Risk

(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) for which the current educational

restructuring was deemed necessary; however, ironically, the report also made a call for a return to more

traditional scheduling forms in the American public high school.

The traditional school day was originally thwarted in the late 1950s when the publication of

Conant’s book The American High School Today (1959) introduced flexible modular scheduling.

Conant’s book, a result of a study on secondary schools he completed with the Carnegie Corporation of

New York, has been revisited over the years. In 1982, Change magazine showcased articles about

Conant’s work. Neil Urich (1982) claims that Conant’s premises and recommendations for improvement

are as “pertinent now as they were then. In short, his ‘today’ has lasted” (p. 27). Terry Sanford (1982)

observed that “[t]he period from 1959 to 1967 was a good time for looking at education, for reassessing

goals and performance, and charting the future, and it was these things that Dr. Conant set out to do. . . .

All of his books sound a call for action” (p. 26). Again, in 2005, William A. Proefriedt, a professor

emeritus in the school of education at Queens College, revisited Conant’s purpose and reviewed his

follow-up work produced eight years later, also sponsored by Carnegie. Proefriedt (2005) quotes


Conant’s “dramatic confession” about the use of modular schedules to help integration, not just of race

but of learning ability, as well:

“I visited schools in states where at the most there has been only token integration since

the Supreme Court decision. And I said not a word to indicate that certain schools I visited were

comprehensive only insofar as white youth were concerned.” Conant made it clear that the

failure was not his alone, but a failure on the part of the whole American education

establishment. (p.30)

Although Conant was the catalyst for change to the traditional period schedule, he was a game-

changer for education in terms of time and learning. He recognized “from quite a different perspective”

(Proefreidt, 2005) and that the leveling of students was not beneficial and, and that with a change in the

schedule to allow for more time, more learning could happen.

With the advent and increase of computer technology, school administrators were able to break

away from the traditional high school schedule and develop modular flexible scheduling, block

scheduling, unstructured time, and independent study among others. J. Lloyd Trump (1959) is credited

with the first development of a true flexible modular schedule (FMS). The Trump Plan was designed to

eliminate the traditional schedule and use learning sessions of varying times, depending on the needs of

the subject and student and the instructional strategies (cited in Canaday & Rettig, 1995 November, p.

15).

Block scheduling favors the flexibility and “varied instructional strategies which will, in turn,

increase individualization of instruction . . . While research has not provided any clear evidence to

validate this claim, the literature on time and learning has produced a relatively clear picture of the

components needed to maximize student learning” (Fletcher, 1997, p. 14). Jeffrey Sturgis will

argueargued the benefits of a block schedule to “include: more effective use of school time, decreased


class size, increased number of course offerings, reduced numbers of students with whom teachers have

daily contact, and the ability of teachers to use more process-oriented strategies” (as cited in Irmsher,

1996, “What are the advantages of block scheduling?” para. 1).

Block scheduling was highly endorsed in Carroll’s paper entitled, “The Copernican Plan: A

Concept Paper for Restructuring High Schools” (1983):

The Copernican Plan proposes major restructuring of virtually all the basic systems

within a high school. But the fundamental change - the Copernican change - is the change in

schedule. Instead of having students change locations, subjects, and activities seven to nine times

each day, we ask them to concentrate on one or two subjects at a time, each taught in an

extended "macroclass." This change allows high school teachers to concentrate on the learning of

individual students, which is the key to better instruction and improved student performance.

An integral feature of the Copernican schedule is a seminar program in which students

grapple with the complex issues of today's world and pursue their special interests. Other

features . . . include a mastery based credit system (which substitutes for traditional grades),

differentiated diplomas, individualized learning plans, and the "dejuvenilization" of the high

school. (p. 358).

Carroll recognized the value of student-centralized instruction and the benefits on learning. The period

schedule is based on the agrarian calendar and the management of a school – completely institutionally-

centered.

In evaluations of schools using block scheduling, Carroll found more course credits

completed, equal or better mastery and retention of material, and an impressive reduction in

suspension and dropout rates. He posits improved relationships between students and teachers as


a major factor. Every school in Carroll's study benefited from the changes . . . (Irmsher, 1996,

“What are the advantages of block scheduling?” para. 2).

What Carroll discovered in his study is the crux for proponents of block scheduling: “. . . longer

blocks of time for teacher-student interaction increase both the quantity and quality of student learning”

(Fletcher, 1997). Canady and Rettig (1995, November) would concur and elaborate that “scheduling is a

valuable but untapped resource for school improvement . . . a well-crafted schedule can result in more

effective use of time, space and resources (human as well as material).” In a discussion of the

relationship of time and learning, Canaday and Rettig (1995), along with Cawelti (1994),

. . . believe that longer blocks of time for teacher-student interaction increase both the

quantity and quality of student learning. They claim that block scheduling will facilitate the

improvement of instruction through the use of varied instructional strategies which will fit the

student's learning styles better than the traditional lecture style prevalent in today’s classroom.

They also believe that reducing academic "clutter" will improve both teachers' and students'

ability to focus on the task at hand. ( as cited in Fletcher, 1997, p.6-7).

According to Mary Ellen Flannery (2008, para. 1), “Ten, fifteen years ago, block scheduling was

more popular than iPods on middle and high school campuses . . . But these days, you're more likely to

hear about schools and districts returning to a traditional six- or seven-period day or a hybrid of blocks

and shorter periods.” In her article, Flannery (2008) does cite that research has not been very favorable

to the block schedule and that its promised potential fell short. The failure to reach its potential is not

for a lack of trying but more so, the loss of block scheduling is because of the lack of planning.

With all of the flip-flopping from structured schedules to flexible scheduling, and then a call

amidst the restructuring of education reform for a return to the traditional schedule only to be debunked

a decade later by another government study, it is no wonder why educators across America have become


skeptics of reform and lack buy-in when it comes to new initiatives. The report of Prisoners of Time

(1994) and A Nation at Risk (1983) are the last of such reports on time and learning before No Child Left

Behind was written into law in 2001. Once NCLB was passed, the focus on education changed, and the

relevance of time and learning was pushed aside as standardized testing took precedence.

Even before the passing of NCLB, proponents of in-depth learning, including the National

Association of Secondary School Principals (|NASSP), raised concern

that standardized test data in secondary schools throughout the United States were showing an

increase in the academic failure of students, suggesting instructional exclusion of important

information. The NASSP (1996, p. 253) suggested that block scheduling could have important

nonacademic advantages as well, including “a calmer school atmosphere, better discipline, and

improved student attitudes. Intensive block schedules could be particularly helpful to at-risk

students, reducing both failure and dropout rates.” (as cited in Mamon, 2012, p. 16-17)

Despite the focus on NCLB and standardized testing, most school leaders have stayed consistent with

the recommendations that resulted from the Prisoners of Time (1994) study in that a return to an

academic day is necessary to realize academic progress that can compete on the world stage; however,

the connection of growth to standardized tests is still unsettling. Besides, as noted in Mamon’s (2012)

review of the benefits and disadvantages to block scheduling, “research is inconclusive” about block

scheduling’s effects on test score achievement, dropout rates, and attendance; even less research is

available about teacher’s perceptions of the block schedule.

In a recent blog posting, Diane Ravitch (2014) blasted NCLB and admonished Race to the Top

for being NCLB in disguise. She offers a paradigm shift for learning:

Can you imagine an accountability system whose purpose is to encourage and recognize

creativity, imagination, originality, and innovation? Isn’t this what we need more of?


Well, you can make up your own metrics, but you get the idea. Setting expectations in the

arts, in literature, in science, in history, and in civics can change the nature of schooling. It would

require far more work and self-discipline than test prep for a test that is soon forgotten.

Entering into the 21st Century of learning was scary enough, but to add stipulations of not leaving any

child behind and propagating standardized tests as the measurement for growth and learning was

asinine, according to Ravitch (2014); however, her proposal, like block scheduling itself, although not

supported with research, is more closely aligned with the original views of Carroll’s (1983) Copernican

Model, The Trump Model, and even the Eastern Iowa Compact.

Ravitch’s request for a paradigm shift is not far off from what many educators are calling for

with time and learning. A trend now is the promotion of Genius Hour or Passion-Based Learning (PBL),

sometimes also called 20% time, fashioned after Google’s practice of allowing employees to focus on

bigger ideas and generation of new ideas and products for twenty percent of their week, which is one

full day. In terms of an educational setting, “Genius Hour provides students an opportunity to explore

the things they are as an idea gives autonomous personalized learning time out of every week to students

to question, think, learn, and explore the things they loved and were curious aboutcurious about or that

they already love” (Krebs, Zvi, McDonald, & Kirr, 2014). The premise involves a flexible schedule,

much like Trump encouraged, but the method of instruction is not consistent with that of a traditional

block (introduce topic, practice through active learning, assess). Genius Hour connects to the discussion

of time and learning, in that it asks for an available time to allow students to do the learning. Hugh

McDonald (20134) explained it like this:

I feel the importance of personalizing learning for students should be at the forefront of any

discussion relating to education, and Genius Hour does that. We want to find ways to engage

students as learners and creators of inquiry-driven content. Students want to feel connected to


the learning that is happening in their classroom and the standardization of learning across North

America does not do that. Students in many classrooms around North America are motivated by

letter grades and percentages and NOT LEARNING! (as cited in Krebs, et. al, 2014, para. 1)

Whether the seminar hour, Genius Hour, 20% time, or modular learning is the choice format for the

schedule or within the schedule, the constant is learning and the variable is time, just as the study

Prisoners of Time (1994), the Copernican Model and FMS professed it should. Learning is the focus, not

the time.

Unfortunately, despite the history and record of innovation for time and learning through block

scheduling, Mamon (2012) is correct when he offers that not much exists in the study of block

scheduling, its impact or the perceptions. Theories and plans have been produced, and even that which

has been put into practice has not been followed and studied for effectiveness. As educators, we see the

benefits of active learning, a time for students to take charge of their own learning from inquiry to

product, but NCLB pushed forward to center stage and did not dance the way the government thought it

would. It’s time for the gong on NCLB, and learning retakes the spotlight.

Description/Timeline of Study

The timeline of what has been completed to gain the insights of the perception of students and

staff about the current schedule at Center Point - Urbana High School is relatively short. A survey was

distributed using a Google Form (see Appendix A for the staff questions & Appendix B for the student

questions) and open to responses for one week. Staff members were informed of the survey and its

purpose during a morning staff meeting and email or through personal conversations (if not in

attendance of the meeting) and email. Staff members were at liberty to complete the survey on their own


time. The summary of results for the staff survey, which also included open-ended questions are

available for review in Appendices C & D.

Initially, the target group for the study was going to be just high school teachers to survey their

“perception” of the schedule. Before changes can be made to the schedule, a starting point must be

determined, and the knowledge and what staff notices about the schedule are imperative to that starting

point. Already, the principal has made it known to the staff that he is contemplating a change in the

schedule, so a survey of staff’s perception was not alien to them. However, during PBIS meetings, the

counselor has been making both teacher and support staff aware of how the current schedule is affecting

and may affect our students’ behaviors, so the target groups was expanded to teachers, support staff and

students.

The high school secretary also forwarded an email and a link to all high school students, grades

9-12. Juniors and seniors were afforded the opportunity to take the survey on a Friday during their

homeroom time. Many of our seniors do not attend homeroom because they are attending Kirkwood

courses at the Linn Regional Center, so the daily announcement about the survey informed them that

students could take the survey on their own time, as well. Sophomores and freshmen students were

afforded time during homeroom on a Monday, during the week that the survey was open.

The students were informed through the daily announcements and email. Students were

designated a day and time during their homeroom meetings to complete the survey. The summary of

results for the student survey, which also included open-ended questions are available for review in

Appendices E & F.

In determining the focus for the survey, the researcher and the high school research librarian

discussed options and narrowed the focus to a gathering of perception, as it is a starting point. After

perusing sample surveys and results on the Internet from other high schools and studies, the researcher


generated a list of viable questions. In comparison with the list, the perception survey questions from

Fletcher’s (1997) study on block scheduling sufficed the same needs, with adjustments for demographic

questions and adaptations to Center Point - Urbana High School’s specific needs and culture.

For the responses to the survey questions, a four point Likert-type scale was used: Strongly

Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. A “Neutral” option was not offered to dissuade responders

from resorting to or relegating their response because they felt they did not know for sure or did not

want to answer the question. The purpose of the survey is to gain the respondent’s perception, and a

neutral perception does not offer much information.

Before the survey was distributed, a few teachers who are familiar with the work of the action

research read the questions and response options; otherwise, neither a pilot survey nor any other

methods for testing the survey were employed.

Data Analysis

The surveys for staff and students were available for a week, allowing staff to take the survey at

their leisure, and students were offered scheduled times during their homeroom. The survey was sent to

53 staff members, including secretaries and associates; 31 staff members responded. The data in terms

of percentages is skewed because an unintentional blank survey was recorded during the review before

the actual survey was distributed. The blank response was counted in the data, but because the actual

responses are missing, the data is not figured into the percentages, so each pie chart, although whole, is

missing 3 percent. For students, the current population of 9th-12th grade students is 415 students; 219

students responded.

The goal of the surveys is to collect a perception from staff and a perception from students about

the current schedule. Staff members were asked to focus on the current schedule they teach when


answering the questions. For students, the survey questioned their preference of block over the skinny

courses.

Each survey consisted of demographic questions, Likert-type questions, and open-ended

prompts. The collected data for the survey questions using the Likert-type scale is summarized into pie

charts and percentages, and the qualitative responses were categorized and tabulated. In analyzing the

questions, specific themes emerge, and it is on those themes that a comparison of data is made.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

The first three questions of each survey ask for demographic data as identifiers in the survey.

Although this demographic information is not yet utilized to its fullest in analysis, the data is interesting

in and of itself.

First, Table 1 offers a look at the teacher demographics for the 31 respondents:

QUESTION Response Variable #1

Response Variable #2



What is your current role at the high school?

Core Curriculum (Math, Science, English, Social Studies)

11 people 34%

Elective curriculum teacher (FCS, Business, PLTW, Music, Art, etc.)

13 people 41%

Support Staff

4 people 13%

Other

3 people 9%How many years have you worked in the CPU district?

0-3 years

3 people 9%

4-7 years

6 people 19%

8-15 years

12 people 38%

16+ years

10 people 31%How many “skinny courses” do you teach a school year (a skinny = half a block for a semester)?

None

14 people 44%

1-2

14 people 44%

3-4

2 people 6%

5 or more

1 person 3%

The first question offers a strong variety of respondents for staff members. The “other” category

and “support staff” are a little under-represented by comparison, but the high school does not employ an


equal number or greater than that of the staff. To have four associates and three secretaries respond is

interesting in and of itself, and a breakdown of data by role for further analysis would be beneficial;

however, for now, the data will be analyzed in summary.

The question in the second row brings great interest because of the number of staff who have so

much experience in the district. Twenty-two people who responded to the survey have been in the

district for eight years or more; almost half of those 22 with so much experience have been in the district

for sixteen years or more. According to U.S. Department of Education the “Fast Facts” for the National

Center for Education Statistics from 2007-8, 84.5 percent of the teachers are “stayers” in a district

(Keigher, 2010). Of the staff who responded in the survey, only 9 percent are new to the district or have

not been there for more than three years, so the high school is consistent with the national average.

Question three looks to pose an outlier, as only one staff member teaches “5 or more” skinny

courses in a school year. However, in comparison with the staff teaching schedule for the high school,

only one teacher does have five skinny courses throughout the year. Two people have four, just as the

data claims.

Table 2 shows the high school students’ demographic data that also has potential for further

analysis:

QUESTION Response Variable #1




What is your current year in high school?

Freshmen67 students 31%

Sophomore41 students 19%

Junior64 students 29%

Senior47 students 21%

How many years (total) have you attended school in the CPU district?

0-2 years

15 students 7%

3-5 years

11 students 5%

6-9 years

46 students 21%

10-12 years

147 students 67%How many “skinny courses” are you currently enrolled (a skinny = half a block for a semester)?

None

76 students 35%

1-2

119 students 54%

3-4

24 students 11%


The student data also has its issues with interpretation. If a student has not participated in a

skinny course (or a period schedule at another district), the survey terminated with a response of zero to

that question. To note, 35 percent of the 219 student respondents had not participated in a skinny course,

and so, that percentage of students is accounted for in the data but not the pie charts – they show 100

percent of the remaining 65 percent of the respondents (135 students).

The sophomore and senior respondent count is almost equal. On the scheduled day for

sophomores, one homeroom was in ALICE training and another forgot to go to the library to take the

survey, so only half of the sophomore population is represented. The low number for seniors is not

surprising since most seniors do not have a homeroom time, and the class is the smallest of the four.

The majority of the students have been in the district for their entire elementary and secondary

educations. Center Point - Urbana is known to be a “good school,” so the numbers new to the district of

five years or less is not surprising. Further delineation of how many of those students who are new to the

district that have had a skinny and completed the survey would be an interesting aspect of analysis, as

well.

Since question three carries a terminal answer, a cross-reference of how many from each class

that answered “None” and ended their survey would be nice to know; however, that information is for an

in-depth analysis, and the findings for now are only summative. Regardless, the majority of the students

have experience with the block and skinny courses, and that is all that is needed for comparison in the

rest of the survey.

QUESTION THEMES

For the staff, the perception survey begins with three demographic questions about classification,

course type and years in the district. The remaining questions fostered the themes of impact of schedule


on collected data, teacher workload, class dynamics, student opportunities for achievement and success,

instructional practices, the individualization of learning, flexibility, and preference.

Table 3 offers a listing of the themes, a subset of items that may fall under that theme, and then

the number of the questions (see Appendix A for actual staff questions) from the survey that address the

theme. Some of the questions have multiple themes, and so, a number may appear with more than one theme.

THEME SUBSET QUESTION #sImpact of schedule on collected data

Dropouts, attendance, interruptions (assemblies), discipline, transfer students

8, 9, 10, 11, 22 & 23

Teacher workload Preps, grading, set-up of labs/activities

14 & 31

Class dynamics Size, relationships, ratio 15, 19, 29 & 30Student opportunities for achievement/success

Learning, retention, engagement 12, 20, 21, 24, 25 & 27

Instructional practices Variation, review of data to inform, professional learning, cycles

4, 7, 26 & 33

Individualization of learning Time, feedback, review performance

5, 6, 31 & 33

Flexibility Scheduling, make-up from absences, homework

13, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23 & 32

Preference Block over traditional (period) 28

Likewise, the student survey first begins with demographic information and then the questions

(see Appendix B for actual questions) are relevant to similar themes to those in the staff survey.


Table 4 offers the same themes as present in Table 3 and follows the same format.

THEME SUBSET QUESTION #sImpact of schedule on collected data

Dropouts, attendance, interruptions (assemblies), discipline, transfer students

13, 14

Student workload Homework, time to study/practice

11, 20

Class dynamics Size, relationships, ratio 8, 26 & 27Student opportunities for achievement/success

Learning, retention, engagement 9, 12, 16, 21, 24, 25

Instructional practices Variation, cycles 4, 7, 17Individualization of learning Time, feedback, review

performance5 & 28

Flexibility Scheduling, make-up from absences

6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24

Preference Block over skinny 18

The demographic data represented in Table 3 and Table 4 is also summarized with the questions

that used the Likert-type responses into pie charts in Appendix C for staff and Appendix D for students.

QUANTITATIVE DATA THEME ANALYSIS & COMPARISON

Impact of Schedule on Collected Data

The staff’s and students’ perceptions on collected data, such as dropout rates, attendance, and

discipline is split nearly evenly, 50/50. Students agreed at 44 percent with the ease of transfer students

adjusting to the schedule; however, this could also be attributed to the flexibility of the schedule and will

also be analyzed in that theme, as well.

Questions about collected data brought the most suspect from respondents, mostly staff and some

students, as they expressed their lack of knowledge of this data; however, when reminded of the

objective to gain a perception of what they “think” the data are, an understanding was garnered. Because


few respondents chose the extreme (two people per question chose the extremes of “strongly”), the

assumption can be made that their questioning of their own perception resulted in a fairly even split.

Teacher/Student Workload

Both groups of respondents disagreed that their daily workload in preparation and homework is

lessened because of our modified block schedule. Staff disagreed that it has reduced daily prep (53%),

and one person strongly disagreed, which can be attributed to the five skinny courses the teacher has as

opposed to those who teach fewer skinny courses or just three blocks.

Students disagreed (35%) and strongly disagreed (10%) about their reduced homework load.

Again, half the respondents are taking one or two skinny courses, which for most, adds an extra class to

the schedule instead of just the average four that block-only students are taking. Also, if the students are

taking skinny courses, the time available for homework in class is less compared to students in a block.

Teachers did (strongly) agree with a total of 75 percent that the modified schedule did allow for a

manageable workload during class time and teaching. Likewise, the students found it favorable (54%) to

be able to finish a class in half a school year rather than a full year in a traditional period or skinny

schedule.

Class Dynamics

In terms of class size and student-to-teacher ratios, the staff respondents strongly disagree.

Consistency among class sizes for the same course but different sections varies greatly, especially if the

class is offered in a skinny and a block format. A combined disagree and strongly disagree created a

definitive judgment of 69 percent and 75 percent to show the staff’s discontent with class sizes and

student-to-teacher ratios.

Relationships, however, did not suffer such scrutiny. The staff strongly agreed with 79 percent

that the current schedule has helped teachers and para-educators to foster better relationships with


students. Likewise, 69 percent of the staff (strongly) agreed that they like to see their students on a daily

basis.

Ironically, more than half the student respondents disagreed that they felt teachers know them

better in block classes compared to a skinny course. The preference to see a teacher every day, all year

was met with great resistance as a combined 53 percent of the students strongly disagree. Yet, an even

split occurred with the perception of improved relationships because of the block schedule.

Although the data shows a discrepancy in terms of class dynamics, the students’ aversion to

having a teacher all year can also be attributed to a lack of flexibility in the schedule rather than to the

building of relationships. Teachers, likewise, may have skewed the response by misinterpreting the

question to mean on a daily basis rather than for the entire school year.

Student Opportunities for Achievement/Success

The staff’s perception of the student opportunities for achievement and success vary greatly from

the students’ perceptions, especially in terms of engagement. Students do not find block classes more

interesting and strongly agree (46 percent) that boredom often finds them in a block class, despite the

opportunities to be involved in discussions (36%).

In terms of success and achievement of learning, students are mixed there, as well. Forty percent

of the students disagreed that their grades are better in block classes, whereas the staff’s perception, 62

percent agree that it has. The longer periods of time in class do not necessarily equal success in terms of

grades. However, students and staff do agree that the block schedule does impact retention and

performance. Students see an improvement in understanding (41% (strongly) agree) and in retention

(43%). Staff concurs with the students’ perception but with slightly higher percentages of agreement.


Instructional Practices

When students were asked if the teacher uses more activities in the block, 48 percent of the

students agreed; teachers agreed also, but with a higher percentage of 78. Teachers and students also

agreed on the amount of instruction offered in block classes, but 48 percent of the students noted that

teachers still lecture quite often in their courses. And 65 percent of the staff has the perception that their

instructional methods and techniques have improved because of block. The discrepancy between the

students and teachers may easily be accounted for with the student’s lack of differentiation of a teacher’s

explanation of directions and lecture.

Individualization of Learning

Staff members believe that they are able to give more feedback and handle the workload in a

class quite well, despite the fact that 75 percent think they have too little time to collaborate and review

data to direct individualized instruction for students. Regardless, 57 percent of the staff thinks the

current schedule has allowed them to personalize instruction, and 72 percent believe that schedule

provides enough time for students to learn.

Students’ perceptions of individualized learning and instruction are split fairly evenly. In terms

of feedback and personalized instruction, 31 percent of the students disagreed and 5 percent strongly

disagreed. Yet, they were comfortable with teachers understanding their individual needs.

Flexibility

The discussion of scheduling raises some ire for both staff and students. Their disgruntled

disposition has many roots and is often in opposition. For example, while 78 percent of the staff

recognizes the increased opportunity for dual-enrollment, only half favor the flexibility. The students

show great preference, with a mere 8 percent disagreeing to the opportunity for dual-enrollment courses.


Both staff (50%) and students (39%) have the impression that the schedule easily accommodates

transfer students. They also agree that there is little impact on the sequencing of courses and from

absences. If students fail a course or an assessment, both staff and students are split fairly evenly in

terms of the flexibility to make-up the course or to reassess.

Preference

In each survey, one question is point-blank in asking for the respondent’s preference for

schedule. The staff’s prompt read: I prefer the current schedule to other traditional, period schedules. A

surprising 25 percent disagreed. Granted, the current schedule is favored by 31 percent of the staff and

another 22 percent strongly favored. This was the only question that respondents were allowed to

decline if the question was not applicable because he or she had not taught in anything but the block

structure. Sixteen percent of the respondents, declined.

The student’s prompt read: I prefer block classes to skinny classes. Remember that 35 percent of

the respondents are already dismissed from this question for not yet having taken a skinny course. The

students spread their responses out fairly evenly: 10 percent strongly disagreed and 27 percent disagreed

for a combined total of 37 percent; whereas 23 percent agreed and 6 percent strongly agreed for a

combined percentage of 29 percent.

From the data, the students favor a more flexible schedule, asking for more skinny courses over

the 4x4 block structure, but teachers seem to want to stay closer to the traditional block style. Since

Center Point - Urbana carries a modified block schedule, it would seem that the students and teachers

are getting the best of both their preferences.


QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS & COMPARISON

As noted, the qualitative questions at the end of each survey asked for the best and the worst of

the current schedule. For analysis, the questions will be reviewed as they were written; however, they do

carry themes that will be used later for comparison. In general, the tabled responses (found in Appendix

E for staff and Appendix F for students) brought some great insight to the perception that would not

have surfaced without the open-ended qualitative questions.

The BEST thing about taking/teaching a BLOCK instead of a skinny course is . . .

Both sets of respondents, especially the students, noted the difference in time between a block

and a skinny, however, the staff respondents qualified that the block offers more work time and

production. The students also noted the increase in production but added to that the assistance they

receive from teachers while in the block.

The next most frequent comment from the staff was the limited number of preps that the block

schedule provides. One respondent noted this lack of preps and also commented on the ease of running a

lab in class.

The students offered 17 comments that expressed higher retention and learning in the block than

in the skinny courses. In conjunction with the preponderance of responses noting “More time,” the

philosophy of the block would agree that learning would also increase.

The BEST thing about taking/teaching a SKINNY instead of a block course is . . .

Again, the difference in time was most notable from the students, but then the comments spread

fairly evenly over the ideas of more production, the flexibility of the schedule, and less boredom for

students. The previous question that asked what is best in block also offered productivity, but a student

comment clarifies it by saying, “It is a short class, so there is not much down time. You are always

doing something or moving onto [sic] something new.”


The staff respondents focused on the amount of contact time with students. Because the course is

a skinny, it must meet daily for a full semester, rather than daily in a quarter if the class were a block.

One teacher commented, “I prefer to teach the ‘quarter’ classes as a skinny so I am able to see the

students for a longer period of time. Relationships are built better which tends to lead to higher student

achievement.” Nine other respondents concurred with the sentiments in that comment, so the contact

time is of importance to the teacher.

The WORST thing about our current schedule is . . .

Both students and teachers noted the lack of flexibility in the current schedule. Teachers had 12

respondents refer to the lack of flexibility, and the students had 26.

A close second in number of responses for the students was the acknowledgment that block

classes are “too long,” but that is a fleeting number compared to the 60 respondents who favored the

longer classes when they offered the “BEST thing about taking a BLOCK . . . course.” By numbers, the

teachers agreed with the students in terms of the amount of time students “sit” in a block.

Another issue the students cited was the lack of passing time (3 minutes between blocks) and the

lack of down time for lunch and homeroom. One student commented that passing time is difficult “to get

to class on time when one of your blocks is upstairs and the other is down.” Lunch is cited as “short,

especially when we have to wait in a long line.” Currently, the Center Point - Urbana High School runs

two lunch shifts: Seniors and juniors eat first; sophomores and freshmen eat second. The two largest

classes are the sophomores and freshmen, yet they are lumped together in a 22 minute lunch period.

Two other notes of interest from the staff responses were unbalanced class sizes and the lack of

supervision for students who have a course “off.” Students who take concurrent enrollment through the

ICN at 7 AM or an alternating-day course at the Kirkwood Regional Center are not enrolled in a course


within the high school for various blocks of time. The result is students loitering in the commons or

violating school policies, such as cell phone use, because no one is directly supervising them.

The BEST thing about our current schedule is . . .

When reviewing the “best” thing about the current schedule, again, the comments about the flexibility

and productivity are most common. Productivity is still a favorite among the staff responders, and the

students remained true with their preference for flexibility. Although the students did not use the word

“productive” or allude to getting more done in the current schedule, they did comment frequently about

learning more.

The students were evenly split concerning comments about preferring a skinny and liking the

fact that they can finish a course in half a year. Although the question is an open response, students did

not further clarify if the course they were finishing in half a year was a skinny or a block, as both can be

finished in half a year’s time.

Additional comments or concerns about our current schedule not addressed in this survey:

Comments were not as consistent for classification and tabulation for this question; yet, the same

themes prevailed. Ironically, the most prevalent comments concerned the flexibility of the schedule: six

staff respondents commented about the “lack of options in the schedule;” twenty-four students expressed

appreciation that the “schedule is flexible.”

QUANTITATIVE & QUALITATIVE DATA COMPARISON

The data from both types of questions carry similar themes in their responses, but they also offer

some contradictions. Flexibility, productivity and learning, and preference are quite common in both sets

of questions.


When looking at the sequencing of courses in a block or modified block schedule, a sense of

rigidity comes into play. Some students noted in their free response that the core courses seem to

dominate their schedule, but yet, in the quantitative data, they did not see a major impact from the

sequencing of courses. The staff not only contradicted themselves in the free response data, but also with

the quantitative answers, as well. Just as the students perceived, the sequencing of courses does not seem

to impede students’ progression.

Productivity and learning seem to carry a lot of weight with both students and teachers, both in

terms of time and in retention. In the open-ended responses, students made 34 separate comments about

the benefits of retention with the current schedule. The staff, although fewer in number of total

respondents, almost equaled the students’ sentiments with 24 separate mentions of the productivity and

retention in the current schedule.

Of course, in the open-ended question for additional comments, students posted pleas of

preference, complete with an emoticon: “Turn blocks in all skinnys [sic], please.” Staff also shared

their preference, but in more elaborate descriptions, with one reaching out to be a voice of reason: “All

schedules have problems with class size and flexibility depending on the hiring practices of schools.”

The significance of the students’ and staff’s preference was that it matched qualitatively and

quantitatively.

Implications for Future Actions

The data in its summarized form offers some keen insight into the perception of the schedule,

both from staff and students; however, a summary is not sufficient. Further parceling of the data needs

to happen before reporting the perception to staff and or students. The common themes that emerged are


of interest, but further analysis will hopefully help identify where the majority of influence of the

perception stems and how that influence determines the next steps for consideration with the schedule.

Eventually, the question of how the initiative of SBG is impacting the schedule will have to be

addressed; as Center Point - Urbana proceeds amidst these initiatives, the staff and administration will

need to be wary of the initiatives’ impacts on various entities. If personalized learning is the goal, or

even to offer the seminar or Genius Hour, the change in schedule is inevitable and perception will

unfortunately become irrelevant.

The staff survey results show that the majority of the respondents favor the block schedule, and

for those who have issues or inexperience with teaching the block, the modified blocks into skinny

courses offer a place of refuge. As Flannery (2008) notes that for those teachers feeling unsecure and

showing resistance to stay in the block or to move to the block may find more success in the “hybrid

schedule that is gaining popularity.” That popularity of a hybrid schedule is evident with the students

and offers a happy medium for those that are not 100 percent committed to learning in a block.

The literature review not only spans the history of the block schedule and the issues

of time and learning, but it also offers a look at what is coming in the near future. Ravitch (2014) has

offered a paradigm shift that many schools are looking into quite favorably. According to Tammy

Hefleelbower (2014, 02 December) from the Marzano Research Institute, even the look of standardized

tests is changing as a result of the push towards CBE, SBG and more personalized learning. Skills such

as creativity in problem-solving and originality and innovation are being piloted in some states

(Hefleelbower (2014, 02 December). In order for students to harness those skills and use them on the

standardized tests, learning and time will need to change.

Center Point - Urbana High School is already preparing for this change, and the perception

survey results from students and staff offered that the current schedule, a modified block, is sufficient to


their liking and to their learning. However, with the disadvantages noted and the questioning of best

practice for individualized instruction in the block, school leaders need to take a strong look at what

future professional learning will offer. From the demographic information from staff survey, 28 percent

of those staff members who responded are fresh to the district and may not have any training in how to

teach a block class. With the possible change in the leadership system with the TLC grant, new teachers

will be hired and also may not have the experience with teaching in a block. Put the new initiative of

SBG into the mix, and the ideals of teaching in a block can be vastly different. Professional Learning for

best practices in block courses is necessary to maintain the movement towards higher student

achievement, especially in the goal area of literacy, and towards personalized learning.


References

Canady, R. L. & Rettig, M.D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools.

Princeton, New Jersey: Eye on Education.

Canady, R. L. & Rettig, M.D. (1995 November). Productive use of time and space: The innovative

schedule. Educational Leadership, ASCD. 53(3), 4-10. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/

Carroll, J M. (1990, January). The Copernican plan: Restructuring the American high school. The Phi

Delta Kappan, Vol. 71, No. 5 (Jan., 1990), pp. 358-365. Retrieved from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404155

Carroll, Joseph. M. (1994, March). Organizing time to support learning." The School Administrator

51(3), 26-28, 30-33. DOI: EJ 481 309.

Cawelti, Gordon. (1994). High School Restructuring: A National Study. Arlington, Virginia: Educational

Research Service, DOI: ED 366 070.

Commit and Act for Kids. (2013, August 15). “Innovation collaboration for personalized learning:

Innovation and collaboration brochure.” Grant Wood AEA. Retrieved from:

http://www.commitandact4kids.org/pdfs/Innovation_Collaborative_brochure.pdf

Dianeravitch. (2014, 12 November). My new paradigm for accountability. Diane Ravitch’s Blog. [Web

log post]. Retrieved from: http://dianeravitch.net/2014/11/12/my-new-paradigm-for-

accountability/

Eurich, N. (1982). Remembering Conant’s The American high school today. Change, 14(1), 27-29.

Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40177469

Flannery, M.E. (2008, November). Building blocks: Making the most of your many many minutes. NEA

Magazine, 2008 Archives. Retrieved from: http://www.nea.org/home/15307.htm

Fletcher, W.P. (1997, November). The development of a block schedule evaluation model. (Doctoral

http://www.commitandact4kids.org/pdfs/Innovation_Collaborative_brochure.pdf


Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Retrieved from:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-11797-134311/unrestricted/fletcher.pdf

Hefleelbower, Tammy. (2014, December 2). Competency bBased eEducation. In Leadership for

Continuous

Improvement Series. Grant Wood Area Education Agency: Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Irmsher, K. (1996). Block scheduling. ERIC Clearinghouse. ERIC Digest, Number 104. ERIC

Identifier: ED393156. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1996-4/block.htm

Keigher, A. (2010). Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2008-09 Teacher Follow-Up

Survey. First Look. NCES 2010-353. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved, 08

December, 2014, from http://nces.ed.gov/

Krebs, D., Zvi, G., McDonald, H., & Kirr, J. (2013, March 19).“Genius hour manifesto.” Education is

my life. [Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://educationismylife.com/

Mamon, V. (2012). An analysis of secondary school teachers' perceptions of block scheduling.

Retrieved from Electronic Theses & Dissertations. Paper 795.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994 September). Prisoners of Time.

Report of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning. Washington, DC: U. S.

Government Printing Office. ED 378 685.

Profriedt, W. A. (2005, May 17). Revisiting James Bryant Conant: Realism then and now. Education

Week, 24 (37), 30, 32. Retrieved from:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/05/18/37proefriedt.h24.html

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/05/18/37proefriedt.h24.html

http://educationismylife.com/


Sanford, T. (1982). Remembering James B. Conant. Change, 14(1), 26, 52-53). Retrieved from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40177468


Appendix A

Staff Perception of Schedule Survey Questions

1. What is your current role at the high school?

2. How many years have you worked in the CPU District?

3. How many "skinny courses" do you teach a school year (a skinny course = half a block for a semester)?

4. The schedule has allowed me to increase my use of varied instructional practices.

5. The current schedule provides enough time for each individual student to learn.

6. The current schedule has allowed me to increase individualization of instruction.

7. The current schedule allows me to complete a pretest, formative assessments, and summative assessments in a timely manner.

8. The current schedule reduces time lost to interruptions.

9. The current schedule has improved student attendance.

10. The current schedule has decreased the dropout rate.

11. The current schedule reduces discipline incidents.

12. The current schedule has improved student grades.

13. The current schedule has increased dual enrollment.

14. The current schedule has reduced my daily preparations.

15. The current schedule offers a consistent number of students in classes.

16. The current schedule reduces student homework loads.

17. The current schedule increases the opportunity for students to reassess when proficiency is not met.

18. The current schedule increases the opportunity for students to re-take failed courses.

19. The current schedule has decreased student/teacher ratios.

20. The current schedule has had a negative impact on student learning in sequential classes such as foreign language and math.


21. The current schedule has a negative impact on performance classes (music, art, drama).

22. The current schedule increases the problems associated with transfer students.

23. The current schedule makes it difficult for students to complete make-up work.

24. The current schedule reduces rates of student retention of information.

25. The current schedule has led to an increase in student boredom.

26. My instruction has improved as a result of the current schedule.

27. The current schedule has improved student learning.

28. I prefer the current schedule to other traditional, period schedules.

29. The current schedule has improved the quality of student/teacher relationships.

30. It is important to me that I teach my students every day, during the academic year.

31. In the current schedule, teachers have a manageable workload to more effectively personalize

instruction and provide more extensive feedback on student work.

32. The current schedule allows students to enroll in a number of elective or dual-enrollment courses

that meet their needs and interests to broaden their education.

33. The schedule encourages teachers to collaborate to review student performance data, adjust instruction and curriculum, and participate in professional development activities both within a school and across the district.

34. The BEST thing about teaching a BLOCK instead of a skinny course is . . .

35. The BEST thing about teaching a SKINNY instead of a block course is . . .

36. The BEST thing about our current schedule is . . .

37. The WORST thing about our current schedule is . . .

38. Additional comments or concerns about our current schedule not addressed in this survey:


Appendix B

Student Perception of Schedule Questions

1. What is your current year in high school?

2. How many years (total) have you attended school in the CPU District?

3. How many "skinny courses" are you currently enrolled (a skinny course = half a block for a semester)?

As you answer, please consider each prompt as a comparison of block courses to skinny courses.

4. Teachers use more activities in block classes.

5. In a block class, teachers do a better job of understanding my own individual needs.

6. It is more difficult to schedule classes like Spanish I and Spanish II back-to-back, in the same year.

7. More class time is devoted to instruction in block classes.

8. Block teachers know me better.

9. My grades are better in block classes.

10. Block courses make it more difficult to make-up work after an absence.

11. Block courses reduce my homework load.

12. With block courses, I find that I have more opportunity to get involved in class discussions.

13. Block courses have few discipline problems.

14. Block scheduling is difficult for transfer students.

15. Dual enrollment for college classes are easy to schedule at my school.

16. Block courses are more interesting.

17. My teachers have reduced the amount of lecture they use in block classes.

18. I prefer block classes to the skinny classes.

19. Block courses make it easier to schedule and retake failed courses.


20. One of the best things about block scheduling is the chance to finish a class in half a year.

21. Block scheduling has improved my understanding of the concepts taught.

ERROR IN FORM – Questions 22 & 23 were left from previous form but did not show in survey

21. Block scheduling has improved my

understanding of the concepts taught.

22. The current schedule increases the

problems associated with transfer students.

23. The current schedule makes it

difficult for students to complete make-up

work.

24. Block scheduling makes it more difficult to retain and use the

information I need for the next class in the sequence (English 9 to

English 10).1 11 13 11 32 3

Image is a copy of cells from “Results of Form” file to show the error in line of questioning in the form.

24. Block scheduling makes it more difficult to retain and use the information I need for the next class in the sequence (English 9 to English 10).

25. I often find myself bored in block classes.

26. The block schedule has improved the quality of student/teacher relationships.

27. I prefer to have the same teacher every day, all year.

28. In a block class, teachers personalize instruction for me and provide more extensive feedback on my work.

29. The BEST thing about taking a BLOCK instead of a skinny course is . . .

30. The BEST thing about taking a SKINNY instead of a block course is . . .


32. The BEST thing about our current schedule is . . .



Appendix C

Staff Demographic and Quantitative Data Results

Staff Survey -- 31 responses

Summary

1. What is your current role at the high school?

Core curriculum teacher (Math, Science, English, Social Studies) 11 34%

Elective curriculum teacher (FCS, Business, PLTW, Music, Art, etc.) 13 41%

Support staff 4 13%

Other 3 9%

2. How many years have you worked in the CPU District?

3. How many "skinny courses" do you teach a school year (skinny course = half a block for a semester)?

0-3 years 3 9%

4-7 years 6 19%

8-15 years 12 38%

16+ years 10 31%

None 14 44%

1-2 14 44%

3-4 2 6%

5 or more 1 3%


4. The schedule has allowed me to increase my use of varied instructional practices.

5. The current schedule provides enough time for each individual student to learn.

6. The current schedule has allowed me to increase individualization of instruction.

7. The current schedule allows me to complete a pretest, formative assessments, and summative assessments in a timely manner.

strongly disagree 1 3%

disagree 5 16%

agree 19 59%

strongly agree 6 19%


disagree 7 22%

agree 19 59%



disagree 10 31%

agree 13 41%



disagree 10 31%

agree 12 38%



8. The current schedule reduces time lost to interruptions.

9. The current schedule has improved student attendance.

10. The current schedule has decreased the dropout rate.

11. The current schedule reduces discipline incidents.


disagree 10 31%

agree 11 34%



disagree 16 50%

agree 13 41%

strongly agree 1 3%


disagree 14 44%

agree 16 50%

strongly agree 1 3%


disagree 15 47%

agree 14 44%

strongly agree 1 3%


12. The current schedule has improved student grades.

13. The current schedule has increased dual enrollment.

14. The current schedule has reduced my daily preparations.

15. The current schedule offers a consistent number of students in classes.


disagree 11 34%

agree 19 59%

strongly agree 1 3%


disagree 6 19%

agree 19 59%



disagree 17 53%

agree 8 25%



disagree 13 41%

agree 8 25%

strongly agree 1 3%


16. The current schedule reduces student homework loads.

17. The current schedule increases the opportunity for students to reassess when proficiency is not met.

18. The current schedule increases the opportunity for students to re-take failed courses.

19. The current schedule has decreased student/teacher ratios.


disagree 7 22%

agree 21 66%

strongly agree 3 9%


disagree 11 34%

agree 15 47%

strongly agree 2 6%


disagree 15 47%

agree 13 41%

strongly agree 0 0%


disagree 18 56%

agree 7 22%

strongly agree 0 0%


20. The current schedule has had a negative impact on student learning in sequential classes such as foreign language and math.

21. The current schedule has a negative impact on performance classes (music, art, drama).

22. The current schedule increases the problems associated with transfer students.

23. The current schedule makes it difficult for students to complete make-up work.


disagree 13 41%

agree 15 47%

strongly agree 2 6%


disagree 19 59%

agree 6 19%

strongly agree 2 6%


disagree 14 44%

agree 14 44%

strongly agree 2 6%


disagree 13 41%

agree 12 38%

strongly agree 1 3%


24. The current schedule reduces rates of student retention of information.

25. The current schedule has led to an increase in student boredom.

26. My instruction has improved as a result of the current schedule.

27. The current schedule has improved student learning.


disagree 15 47%

agree 12 38%

strongly agree 2 6%


disagree 12 38%

agree 13 41%

strongly agree 2 6%


disagree 10 31%

agree 19 59%

strongly agree 2 6%


disagree 11 34%

agree 18 56%

strongly agree 1 3%


28. I prefer the current schedule to other traditional, period schedules.


disagree 8 25%

agree 10 31%


Not Applicable (if you have only learned/taught in Block) 5 16%

29. The current schedule has improved the quality of student/teacher relationships.

30. It is important to me that I teach my students every day, during the academic year.


disagree 6 19%

agree 20 63%



disagree 10 31%

agree 12 38%



31. In the current schedule, teachers have a manageable workload to more effectively personalize instruction and provide more extensive feedback on student work.

32. The current schedule allows students to enroll in a number of elective or dual-enrollment courses that meet their needs and interests to broaden their education.

33. The schedule encourages teachers to collaborate to review student performance data, adjust instruction and curriculum, and participate in professional development activities both within a school and across the district.


disagree 7 22%

agree 19 59%



disagree 12 38%

agree 15 47%

strongly agree 1 3%


disagree 13 41%

agree 12 38%

strongly agree 0 0%


Appendix D

Staff Qualitative Data Results

34. The BEST thing about teaching a BLOCK instead of a skinny course is . . .

Comment Types and Number Specific ExamplesLess time in Skinny 2Less assistance given in a Skinny 1More assistance given in Block 3More work time/production 14Continuity 2Fewer preps 5Fewer students 2More engagement 1Block lacks flexibility 1

It allows for time for students to work on assignments during class, when the teacher is available to answer questions.

More time to facilitate deep discussions. Plenty of time for students to engage in activities. There is ample time to do an exploratory activity and then talk about the relationships seen and make connections to material.

You have enough time to start a lesson and finish it----and perhaps some homework time built in, as well.

Don't have to have lab materials ready for 7 different classes. Don't have to stop teaching after 45 minutes to clean up lab. Can do a lab AND process it in discussion in one day.... Don't have to run to the copy machine between 7 classes, only between 3...I am serious...many years ago, if I needed an extra copy, I would sprint to the copy machine and back. More classes, more trouble. Fewer preps is a BIG ADVANTAGE.

During class we can work out more then just fundamental work.

35. The BEST thing about teaching a SKINNY instead of a block course is . . .

Comment Types and Number Specific ExamplesFlexibility of schedule 1More contact time 10More productive (increased depth) 3 Higher retention 3Less boredom for students 3Difficult for students to make up work 1

Students don't get bored/sleepy I prefer to teach the "quarter" classes as a skinny

so I am able to see the students for a longer period of time. Relationships are built better which tends to lead to higher student achievement.

More time for information to be absorbed. Not so much information thrown at them at one time Less down time when you think the students have reached their saturation point.

If a kid misses a class they have less work to makeup.

You get a longer time to complete a novel (10 nights for students to read it vs. 5 if you are moving through material faster in a block)

This year my classes have had relatively fewer students, so I feel like I have a good pulse on their strengths and weaknesses. This has equipped me to vary my instruction based on what they need. Also, students don't get so fidgety because time in their seats in shorter.


36. The BEST thing about our current schedule is . . .Comment Types and Number Specific Examples

Flexibility of schedule 6Positive effect on culture 1More productive (increased depth) 7 Higher retention 3Better for staff 3Amount of prep time 6Build quality relationships 1Like the Block 1

There are more opportunities for students to schedule more classes, especially electives.

Having a smaller number of classes that meet every day allows students to focus on those few classes.

quality time with students for the term (vs year) I get a block of time for prep. With my busy

schedule, this is invaluable to me to grade, plan, and consult with others as needed.

The ability to teach some classes on block and others as skinnies. I feel there are some classes that benefit from each style. The skinnies also allow students to fit more classes in that maybe they wouldn't normally take.

The prep period is long enough to get things done. As a teacher of a class that has labs - I appreciate

only having 2/3 preps. Lab preparation and tear-down is very time consuming & to switch labs/activities between classes is chaotic & time consuming as well.

37. The WORST thing about our current schedule is . . .Comment Types and Number Specific Examples

Lacks flexibility in schedule 12Core classes dominate scheduling 1Block is too long for students to focus 4Less contact time 2 Kirkwood courses 2Class size is unbalanced 4Difficult for students to make up work 1Lack supervision of students with an “off Block” / “free period” 3Lack of collaboration 1Less time in a Skinny 1

That students often have to chose between fine arts or college prep. I'm sure it is that way with other electives as well.

The schedule is not 100% to blame, but the number of students taking classes elsewhere that could be taken at CPU is troubling.

Long classes - inability to be flexible Class sizes are so unbalanced, and the core

classes eat up most of the blocks that the CTEs and electives get pushed into skinny coureses

Don't know if it's a fault of the schedule or because of hiring practices . . . but some classes are really too big

Kids in study hall vs. band/choir or other skinnies. Kids who are absent miss two days of curriculum

That there is no room for students to take classes they want to take. Numbers in classes they need or want are higher due to limited time spaces to take them.


38. Additional comments or concerns about our current schedule not addressed in this survey:Comment Types and Number Specific Examples

More preps with Skinny courses 2Continuity with longer class time 2Change to a 6 period (60 minute class) schedule to create a happy medium 1Preference for Block 1Question of whether teachers use best practices in the Block 2Need more training to teach in Block 1Lack of options in schedule 6Kirkwood courses replacing HS courses 3Passing time 2Class sizes 1Lack of collaboration 1Lack of supervision 1

Teaching in this combined schedule can be very difficult. I often have a class that I teach in a skinny and full block at the same time. Trying to remember which class is where is difficult. The combined system also gives me 5 separate preps as I teach 2 classes as a skinny and 2 full blocks with no repeat sessions. I constantly feel like I am struggling to keep up.

I would love a 6 period day---classes are all an hour. I'ts a happy medium between the two schedules.

I do not feel a majority of teachers are using best practice for this schedule. At no time should students be sitting in a desk for the entire 80 minutes. It would be nice to have more training on how to teach on this schedule. I also do not feel that having the same class taught as both a skinny and block is benefiting anyone. It seems that this is only done in order to make the schedule work, not because it meets any educational purpose.

That because of the limited number of elective classes being offered and the inflexibility of the schedule we have started outsourcing our classes. I find it hard to believe that the vast number of students taking classes at Kirkwood or on-line are being served better than we can here; we bus them to "college". The block schedule has aided this and when we switch back, are we going to shut off the flow to Kirkwood? We have created an expectation and will parents understand that it is still best for little Jimmy to take Intro to _______ here and not somewhere else?

All schedules have problems with class size and flexibility depending on the hiring practices of schools.


Appendix E

Student Demographic and Quantitative Data Results

Student Survey – 219 responses

Summary

1. What is your current year in high school?

2. How many years (total) have you attended school in the CPU District?

3. How many "skinny courses" are you currently enrolled (a skinny course = half a block for a semester)?

Freshman 67 31%

Sophomore 41 19%

Junior 64 29%

Senior 47 21%

0-2 years 15 7%

3-5 years 11 5%

6-9 years 46 21%

10-12 years 147 67%

None 76 35%

1-2 119 54%

3-4 24 11%


As you answer, please consider each prompt as a comparison of block courses to skinny courses.

4. Teachers use more activities in block classes.

5. In a block class, teachers do a better job of understanding my own individual needs.

6. It is more difficult to schedule classes like Spanish I and Spanish II back-to-back, in the same year.


disagree 38 17%

agree 88 40%



disagree 61 28%

agree 63 29%



disagree 64 29%

agree 64 29%



7. More class time is devoted to instruction in block classes.

8. Block teachers know me better.

9. My grades are better in block classes.

10. Block courses makes it more difficult to make-up work after an absence.


disagree 36 16%

agree 86 39%



disagree 67 31%

agree 44 20%



disagree 68 31%

agree 50 23%

strongly agree 7 3%


disagree 76 35%

agree 49 22%



11. Block courses reduce my homework load.

12. With block courses, I find that I have more opportunity to get involved in class discussions.

13. Block courses have few discipline problems.

14. Block scheduling is difficult for transfer students.


disagree 76 35%

agree 41 19%

strongly agree 7 3%


disagree 52 24%

agree 73 33%

strongly agree 7 3%


disagree 59 27%

agree 67 31%

strongly agree 5 2%


disagree 91 42%

agree 45 21%

strongly agree 4 2%


15. Dual enrollment for college classes are easy to schedule at my school.

16. Block courses are more interesting.

17. My teachers have reduced the amount of lecture they use in block classes.

18. I prefer block classes to the skinny classes.

19. Block courses make it easier to schedule and retake failed courses.


disagree 13 6%

agree 48 22%


Not applicable 65 30%


disagree 75 34%

agree 47 21%

strongly agree 5 2%


disagree 90 41%

agree 34 16%

strongly agree 5 2%


disagree 59 27%

agree 50 23%



20. One of the best things about block scheduling is the chance to finish a class in half a year.

21. Block scheduling has improved my understanding of the concepts taught.

24. Block scheduling makes it more difficult to retain and use the information I need for the next class in the sequence (English 9 to English 10).

25. I often find myself bored in block classes.


disagree 60 27%

agree 71 32%

strongly agree 8 4%


disagree 20 9%

agree 82 37%



disagree 49 22%

agree 82 37%

strongly agree 9 4%


disagree 87 40%

agree 45 21%

strongly agree 6 3%


26. The block schedule has improved the quality of student/teacher relationships.

27. I prefer to have the same teacher every day, all year.

28. In a block class, teachers personalize instruction for me and provide more extensive feedback on my work.


disagree 40 18%

agree 52 24%



disagree 58 26%

agree 65 30%



disagree 69 32%

agree 25 11%

strongly agree 6 3%


disagree 67 31%

agree 58 26%

strongly agree 8 4%


Appendix F

Student Qualitative Data Results

29. The BEST thing about taking a BLOCK instead of a skinny course is . . .Comment Types and Number Specific Examples

Declined comment 7More time 60Class is only half the year 20More productive (increased depth) 28More teacher assistance 9Higher retention/more learning 17Flexibility of schedule (fewer classes) 6 Less homework 3Smaller class size 1Less boredom for students 1Nothing . . . Equal to a Skinny 5PE in a Block 2

You have more class time to work. you have more time to complete an activity. You get more time to take in the information the

teacher is giving you. I don't have to find out where a new room is

and get used to a new class Nothing mostly the same You learn the course in a longer period of time You get more classtime to work less time throuout the year That we have more time to work. Nothing More time to ask questions get it done earlier There is plenty of time for the teacher to lecture

and then allow class time for work and answering questions.

30. The BEST thing about taking a SKINNY instead of a block course is . . .Comment Types and Number Specific Examples

Declined comment 6Shorter time 63More productive (increased depth) 12More teacher assistance 1Higher retention/more learning 5Flexibility of schedule (fewer classes) 14 Less homework 6Less boredom for students 18Nothing . . . Equal to a Block 4PE no time for weight room 1

Nothing, they're equal ITS SHORTER I'm not as bored Get more stuff done. You are in class for less time. The class seems alot faster I can have more variety of classes in my

schedule. It is a shorter class, so there is not much down

time. You are always doing something or moving onto something new. Also you have more variety of classes during your day.

you get more classes in You don't get as bored and if the thing they are

teaching is not interesting to you, you only have to hear it for 43 minutes

Nothing mostly the same i get along with teachers better and you dont

get bored so you listen the whole time Nothing



Comment Types and Number Specific ExamplesMornings 3Study Hall 4Lunch is too short 9Core classes dominate schedule 4Block classes are too long 19 Difficult for students to make up work 1Schedule lacks flexibility 26Passing time is too short (3mins.) 10Trouble finalizing schedule 7More quizzes and tests 2Classes are boring 6Students lose focus 2Classes lack activities 1Assemblies disrupt 1Same teacher (too long) 4Nothing 23

the mornings I have no study hall lunch is short, especially when we have to wait

in a long line. I have a lot of main classes all at once the long class Nothing Not enough skinny opportunities. getting to the classes on time when one of your

blocks is upstairs and the other is down Some classes are blocks and some are skinny. theirs more blocks then skinnys It's not consistent. It changes almost every

year. I know schools that have all blocks split into skinnies, which I think is a great idea. It would stay the same all the time and you could take more classes and maybe more class options could be available.

32. The BEST thing about our current schedule is . . .Comment Types and Number Specific Examples

Study Hall 5Core classes are consistent 1Skinny courses 14Class is only half the year 13More time 8Difficult for students to make up work 1Schedule is flexible 24Schedule is organized 4Passing time 1Trouble finalizing schedule 7More quizzes and tests 2Classes are NOT boring 1Students learn more 11Classes lack activities 1Kirkwood courses 1Same teacher 6Lunch & Homeroom 4Everything 2Nothing 14I don’t know 10

I mean I like block scheduling, so. That both blocks and skinnies are available to

our students. I think it would be great if there were skinnies available during each block.

The skinnys go by faster Not so many required classes that its

overwhelming. Taking a class half a year The students can expect their workload to be in

line with their classes and can schedule them accordingly to reduce the pressure and stress of excessive homework.

Blocks I could double up on what I like to do more time schedulers look with you to find what credits

you need to graduate. It's well organized. i dont know It is set up very well to make sure you always

have something you can do. Nothing



Comment Types and Number Specific ExamplesStudy Hall 2Core classes are consistent 1Skinny courses are better 4Class is only half the year 13More time 8Difficult for students to make up work 1Difficult for students to make up a failed course 1Schedule is flexible 24Schedule is organized 4Passing time 1Trouble finalizing schedule 4Kirkwood courses 1More time for homework 3Less movement/activities in class 1Students retain more 1Pacing of classes 1Teachers 2Lunch & Homeroom 4I like it 7Nothing 41

I wish that when we go to schedule our classes for the coming year in the spring, we were able to do it ourselves. I don't like having to meet with someone multiple times to fix my schedule. If I could do it how I wanted it the first time, I wouldn't have to worry about fixing it because it's wrong. I feel that there would be less problems if it was done that way.

WE NEED BETTER LUNCHES I think blocks should be shorter and passing

time between classes needs to be a little bit longer.

The only thing that is kind of annoying is that when you have a skinny for the first half of the block and then nothing for the second half you have 45 minutes where you have to find something to do. It is especially annoying when you have Kirkwood.

Turn blocks into all skinnys, please :) should be all skinnys Teachers should realize what is really going on

what there students Classes move at different paces that can throw

you off We should be allowed more class time to work

on homework in class. Nothing

Documents

erpopenhagenproport.weebly.comerpopenhagenproport.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/3/8/29383… · Web viewStudents who wished to participate all year in band and choir were earning an equivalent