Block Scheduling and Music

From WikEd

Block Scheduling and its Effect on High School Music Programs

Descriptions and Definitions

The Block Schedule refers to an alternate type of school scheduling that began in the late 1980's. The National Commission on Excellence in Education (N.C.E.E.) [1] believed that the mastery of curriculum was directly related to the amount of time students are in class. Therefore, as early as the 1980’s the N.C.E.E. had made the recommendation that “more effective use of the existing school day, a longer school day, or a lengthened school year should be examined."

While there are many different types of alternate schedules, there are three main types of block scheduling. The first, and most common of the three, is the 4x4 block. This schedule features four 90-minute class periods per day, with students completing one year’s worth of coursework in one semester of class. Students take four classes the first semester, followed by four the next.

The second form of block scheduling is called the A/B Alternating Block. In this schedule, the school day is still divided into four 90-minute periods. However, instead of taking four classes every day for one semester, students take eight classes—-each one either two or three times per week. For three days in any week, students will take any four of their classes; for the other two days in the week students will take their remaining four. The following week the classes switch. Therefore, it takes two weeks to complete a full cycle of classes.

The third form of block scheduling is called the modified block. While this schedule can vary from school to school, generally the modified block schedule is characterized by a combination of 90-minute periods and 45-minute periods. These three forms of block scheduling are the most common forms, although there have been numerous alterations and renovations to the schedules over the years.

Application in Classrooms

Numerous studies have been performed in an attempt to determine whether students’ academic performance has improved under the new block scheduling. While the block schedule has emerged as the significant educational scheduling reform of the past decade, there have been many positives and negatives to its implementation, and in fact no indisputable consesus has emerged as to the overall impact the block scheduling has on students' performance. Jenkins, Queen, and Algozzine discussed many of these advantages and disadvantages in their 2002 study. Among the posted advantages for block scheduling is the opportunity for teachers to engage students in active teaching strategies that require more time than the traditional schedule allows.

Some proponents for block scheduling as they relate to music classes are:

more class time to work on fundamentals
more opportunities for varied instruction (sectionals, theory, individual practice, etc.)
longer planning period for teachers

Critics of the block schedule point to some negative possible outcomes:

longer class periods, which coule lead to student being bored or losing focus
scheduling conflicts (if students have to use band as one of their 4 classes)
teacher's use of class time

Evidence of Effectiveness

The implementation of block scheduling has severely altered the way music classes are taught. Again, there is no conclusive evidence that block scheduling either works or does not work; it seems each school and each situation is different. There haven been hundreds of studies performed since the early 1990's that have attempted to determine the effect of block scheduling. Some of the outcomes of these studies are described in the next two sections.

King’s 1998 study on the opportunities and challenges of block scheduling presented solutions to problems caused by the creation of longer classes, and also identified numerous opportunities for advanced student learning under the new schedule. He wrote that “block scheduling can facilitate of [the National Standards] because it provides long teaching periods and the opportunity to incorporate more activities and materials to engage the learners” (1998). He also wrote that “because of extended teaching blocks, the teacher can also provide remedial help” for those students who need it.

Goodrich (2001) performed a study in which enrollment was found to actually increase with the implementation of block scheduling. In the study, which examined 4x4 blocks and also A/B blocks, enrollment figures indicated that 4x4 block school programs remained fairly consistent, traditional school programs had consistent growth, and A/B block school programs experiences large growth in enrollment for the first two years after switching to block and thereafter maintained steady growth.

Other studies produce still more positive results for the impact of block scheduling on band programs. Knost (2002) realized that there existed a negative view of block scheduling and its effect on music programs. He formulated six hypotheses centering around the negative view of the block schedule, and ended up rejecting all six hypotheses after completing the study.

Critics and their Rationale

Of course, not all conclusions regarding block scheduling and its effect on music classes are positive. Connors conducted a 1997 study with the purpose of understanding the impact of block scheduling on performing arts education. What he found was that a number of band directors indicated difficulty maintaining a balanced instrumentation as well as increased difficulty retaining upperclassmen in band as a result of the block schedule. These concerns were found to be greatest for band directors who teach within the full 4x4 block schedule.

Carpenter (2001) believed that the study of the perceived effect block scheduling has on enrollment and ensemble balance in the music programs could provide music educators with data to make credible arguments about music programs under any block scheduling design. Analysis of the data in his study reported higher enrollment means for performing arts classes in schools with the traditional schedule. This was attributed to the smaller amount of schedule conflicts. In addition, the reported means of enrollment in 4x4 block schools were significantly higher than the means of enrollment in modified block schools.

Testimonies, Life Experiences

When I was a student in high school, we switched from a traditional schedule to the 4x4 block in my junior year. I hated the transition; I hated the longer classes, the scheduling conflicts, and the lack of opportunities to choose different classes. Enrollment in our band program went down drastically, and only now-- 7 years later-- is the program beginning to rebound. I am now a high school band director at a school which began on the 4x4 block, and I love it. The longer class periods gives me a chance to vary my instruction and to offer more and different lessons each day. We are fortunate to have administrators who work extremely hard to eliminate scheduling conflicts, so these are kept to a minimum. That, really, has made all the difference. Without a supportive administration and a compassionate scheduler, block scheduling can be disastrous for band programs. However, with the right tools in place and a curriculum that supports varied instruction and multi-faceted lessons, the block can be extremely beneficial for music classes. --David Roth, Kennesaw, GA 2006

I have taught high school band in a 4X4 block schedule for the past four years and I have mixed feelings about it. I had band rehearsal every other day (band would alternate between P.E. or choir in order to keep band in the students’ schedule year round). I found this alternating schedule to be less than ideal, as I would prefer to rehearse with my band every day. As a first year teacher, it was difficult for me to plan for a 90-minute rehearsal, although once I learned how to plan effectively that wasn’t so much of an issue. The schedule was a benefit during marching season because it allowed for time to rehearse indoors before going outside for a marching rehearsal. I also liked to be able to spend considerable time warming up the band with various exercises and found that time investment in the beginning of the period to payoff later in the rehearsal. Most of the teachers I worked with resented the block schedule, but I suspect their feelings had more to do with the administrators than with the effectiveness of block scheduling. I think block scheduling can be effective if teachers are open to taking advantage of the opportunities it allows. Teaching “the same old way” just doesn’t cut it-which might just be the point raised by alternative scheduling anyhow. –J. Blanken-Webb

This fall, I will be starting to teach at a performing arts high school that has an alternative block schedule: All the arts classes run year long but alternate daily, in 90 minute periods, and the rest of the classes run daily for one semester, in 90 minute blocks. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all schools could accommodate the arts and phys ed in this way?-G. Vigneron

I did not personally attend a school with the block schedule but I had a friend who did in high school. She would often share with me the fact that despite the fact that the class periods were so long, she really liked how she could complete a year long course in only one semester. In addition, she said it felt as if there were less serious disruptive behaviors, such as fights, etc. For me, I could not fathom the thought. I felt the 50 minute classes were entirely too long, so I could not imagine staying in the same class for 90 minutes. Although students may be able to appreciate the reduced course load each semester, I suspect that as a teacher of subjects such as English or Social Studies, it would be a nightmare. It would seem difficult to create a continuously productive plan for a 90 minute period each day. ~S. Ward

My first teaching job introduced me to the world of block scheduling. We were on an A and B block schedule, so we saw students every other day. Classed would meet for 90 minutes and there were 4 classes per day. In the area of band, 90 minutes of rehearsal time seems like an advantage, but I found it not to be. Students became restless in rehearsals even though I did try to do more then just 90 minutes of straight playing. I am now at a school that is on a traditional schedule of 8 periods that are 50 minutes in length. Even though I do wish I had more time sometimes, I do like seeing my students every day. The reinforcement schedule is consistent and I feel student retention of the material is better. -J. T. D.

I currently teach at a high school that uses the 4x4 block schedule for most of the courses offered however, in order to accommodate the music programs, they accompanied by P.E. are on an A/B day schedule. This allows for the music students to be a part of the band/choir for the entire year. The down side to this, according to music teachers, is that even though they are give 90 minutes of rehearsal time with their students, it is only two-three times per week and sometimes, on weeks with half days, testing, and holidays, they might only have class once. This puts a lot of expectations on the students to rehearse on their own and makes it difficult to get consistent group work done. This is second hand information since I am not a music teacher, but I felt it was pertinent to add to this page. -D.W.

References and other Links of Interest

References

Carpenter, D.K. (2001). Block scheduling implementation in secondary school music programs in Louisiana. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (5), 1645A. (UMI No. 3013756)

Connors, T.N. (1997). A survey of block scheduling implementation in the Florida public secondary schools and its effect on band programs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (10), 3868A. (UMI No. 9813686)

Goodrich, K.J. (2001). An investigation of block scheduling in high school string ensembles: Student performance, attentiveness, and attrition. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (6), 2063A. (UMI No. 3016855)

Jenkins, E., Queen, A., & Algozzine, B. (2002). To block or not to block: that’s not the question. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 196-202.

King, C.D. (1998). On the opportunities and challenges of block scheduling. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 7, 22-25.

Knost, E.D. (2002). A comparison of high school music teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their secondary music programs in block and traditional schedules. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (9), 3230A. (UMI No. 3104699)

Links

http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Block_Schedule

http://education.umn.edu/carei/blockscheduling/QandA/default.html

http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest104.html

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/music_ed/53531

http://712educators.about.com/cs/blockschedule/l/aa010600.htm

http://www.illinoisloop.org/blocksched.html