Alternative High School Scheduling -
A View from the Student's Desk
This research brief reports teacher perceptions of the affect of alternative high school schedules on teacher and student classroom and work behavior and performance. The results have been extracted from studies produced by the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC).
The school schedule is a time management tool used to organize curriculum, and its delivery, and control student interactions. Depending on its flexibility, the schedule becomes a straight jacket which constrains innovation or a force which propels it. Traditionally, the school schedule has been structured around short blocks of time (45-55 minutes per class). Recently, there has been a trend towards structuring class periods into longer blocks of time (80-104 minutes per class). Along with the expanded class time, some schedules meet each class everyday and other schedules meet classes every other day. Other mutations are designed to meet some classes everyday and other classes every other day. The alternatives seem endless, but at the center of the schedule is the allocation of a certain number of minutes to an individual class period.
Schedules Studied
There are many block schedule structures that can be utilized, but most are mutations of two basic models: the alternating day block schedule, and the semester block schedule (commonly known as the 4X4 schedule). Table 1 displays four general ways of constructing the high school schedule which were used in this study.
Research Questions
The basic question that guided our research is does it make any difference if the length of the class period is short (45-55 minutes) or long (85-104 minutes)? Second, does it make any difference if long class periods are scheduled every day or every other day? Third, is does any schedule type produce consistently different results related to: (1) changes in teacher classroom and work behavior, (2) better working conditions for teachers, and (3) student behavior and performance? In this research brief, we looked for answers to these questions through the eyes of teachers.
Sample
We wanted to study the impact that the different schedules were having in different settings, but still be able to make overall comparisons. Therefore, we chose a purposeful sample of twelve (12) schools to represent a variety of scheduling approaches which had been in use for a three year period of time. Table 2, presents the demographic information regarding each school. One six period day school, two seven period day schools, three Alternating Block type 1 school, one Alternating Block type 2 schools, two Alternating type 3 schools, and three schools using semester block schedule were chosen for this study. Of the twelve schools which participated, two schools were classified as inner city schools, four schools were classified as suburban schools and three schools were classified as rural schools.
Data Collection and Analyses
As a bases of our research, we used data compiled through 2500 teacher surveys and 84 focus group interviews. The surveys were developed to determine teacher perceptions regarding the following questions: What effect does the schedule have on teacher classroom behavior? What effect does the schedule have on teacher work behavior? What effect does the schedule have on teacher working conditions? What effect does the schedule have on student working conditions? What effect does the schedule have on student behavior? What effect does the schedule have on student performance? How satisfied are teachers with their schedules? The surveys were pilot tested prior to administration to all teachers in the sample.
We compared teacher responses through a non-experimental, correlational approach using a pre and post component on some factors. However, since the study does not meet the randomization, manipulation of treatment, and use of a control group requirements of an experimental design it is inappropriate to suggest true cause and effect relationships between the schedule and the teachers perceptions. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to highlight any statistically significant differences in productivity among schedules. The standard of p=.05 and Eta=.05 was set to determine statistically significant findings. We ran multiple analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to determine if the effects were attributable to factors other the schedule. These tests indicated that Teacher characteristics (# years teaching, # years teaching at present school,) teacher working conditions (# of periods a teacher has per day and week, # of preparations, class size, and # of AP/Honors courses a teacher teaches), and student characteristics (gender, % minority, and % advanced diploma track) produced no significant findings in the way teachers answered the survey questions.
We also conducted focus group interviews with teachers who represented different subject areas such as English, social studies, mathematics, foreign language, science, special education, performing and practical arts. A interview protocol was used and responseswere transcribed. These comments were reviewed thematically and used to provide a richer understanding of the results.
Findings
The analysis of the results produced five major findings. Four of the findings remained significant when the data was aggregated into major schedule types (i.e.everyday short block, everyday semester long block, and alternative day long block schedules.
The major effects of alternative high school schedules are reported in Table 3.
- Teachers in everyday short block schedules use significantly more whole class instruction than teachers in everyday semester and alternating long block schedules.
- Teachers in alternating and everyday semester long block schedules practice significantly more in a team approach to teaching than teachers in an everyday short block schedules.
- Teachers in everyday semester long block schools are significantly more satisfied with student achievement as reflected in their grades than teachers in alternating long block and everyday short block schools.
- Teachers in everyday semester block schools report that attendance is significantly better than three years ago than teachers in alternating block and everyday short block schedules.
In addition to these four findings, a fifth major effect was found when individual schedule types were contrasted (i.e. six period, seven period, variations of alternative block, and semester block schedules).
- Teachers in everyday semester block schools and the alternating day schedule with a study block rated their schedules higher than other alternating block schedules. The least like schedule by teachers is the alternating block schedule which uses one day a week to meet all of the eight classes on one day. However, in a comparison of teacher responses as to the retention of the schedule, the everyday semester block schedule received the most favorable rating by its teachers.
Conclusions
After reviewing the findings and listening to teacher views in the focus groups, we believe that lengthening the class period provides opportunities for teachers to use a wider variety of instructional strategies, and practice in a more collegial manner than teachers in short block schedules.
Table 4, The Attributes of Alternative Schedules, displays our conclusions of the affect of alternative schedules on teacher classroom and work behavior, and their perceptions of student behavior and achievement. A complete summary of the major findings regarding whole class instruction, taking a team approach to teaching, student attendance, student achievement as reflected in grades, and satisfaction levels with the various schedules can be found our full report.
We believe that these attributes should be a beginning point for local decision-making. Therefore, we recommend that, prior to adopting an alternative schedule, decision makers should come to consensus on what they wish to accomplish with a schedule change and then select the scheduling model with features that will support their goals. The respective characteristics of each scheduling model as revealed by this study are displayed on the matrix on the following page. By first deciding the type of educational program one wishes to foster, the decision of which schedule to adopt becomes much easier. For instance, by comparing the goal of fostering more course opportunities for students with the features of the schedules on the matrix, the decision then is centered on the Alternating Block, Semester Block and Seven Period Day schedules. A similar comparative process can be used for each goal that decision makers adopt.
John Pisapia
The information found in this research brief has been synthesized from the following MERC publications. Copies can be purchased using the online order form on the publications page.
Westfall, A. & Pisapia, J. (1994). Scheduling secondary schools: Questions and answers.
Pisapia, J., & Westfall, A. (1996). Alternative High School Schedules: A View from the Teacher's Desk.