csorensen@niu.edu

gcountry@niu.edu

Schools around the country are involved in efforts to improve student achievement. These efforts include the restructuring of the use of time in the school. Block scheduling is one form of restructuring that is increasingly being used by schools as they attempt to improve education. Promoters of block scheduling claim that its use can help schools recapture lost time, for example time lost during passing periods, and that it also allows for more concentrated instructional time (Canady & Rettig, 1993).

The purpose of this presentation is to review the findings of a two-year evaluation of implementation of a block schedule in a small midwestern high school. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from teachers, students, parents, community members, and school board members at three points in time, the first week of implementation, the end of the first year of implementation, and the end of the second year of implementation.

Following a brief review of the literature, the school will be described, the evaluation framework will be presented, and instruments and subjects will be defined. Results will be presented based on the evaluation framework.

School districts are paying attention to national calls for restructuring time in high schools (Geismar & Pullease, 1996). The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development has taken a position that alternative use of time must be used to support student achievement and other goals of schools since traditional use of time has proven ineffective and inconsistent with the needs and expectations for student learning today (ASCD, 1996). Erion (1996) indicates that using time more effectively can result in an improved learning climate and improved instructional practices, and can serve as a catalyst for school improvement.

Across the country, high schools have moved to block scheduling citing a number of benefits: more time for in-depth learning, opportunities for more variety in instructional strategies, fewer preparations for teachers, more planning time for teachers, student ability to focus on a smaller number of topics, more opportunity for student-teacher interaction, accelerated class completion, fewer class changes resulting in fewer discipline problems, and less stress in the school (Cawelti, 1994; Canady & Rettig, 1995; Davis-Wiley, George, & Cozart, 1995; Erion, 1996; Kemis & Sorensen, 1996; Murphy, 1996). Czaja and McGee (1995) reviewed the literature on block scheduling and concluded that “...only drill and practice type courses may be negatively affected by the block schedule. Popular and gifted students may do better with it. It’s practical and may be more efficient. It will require some teacher retraining and course modifications”(p.39).

Much of the literature related to the effects of changing the use of time in schools is anecdotal. Evaluation studies provide the opportunity to systematically review the evidence related to the impact of block scheduling. Davis-Wiley, George, and Cozart (1995) studied the implementation of block scheduling in two high schools using survey data and qualitative interviews with teachers and administrators. They concluded that although a greater amount of time was required by staff for preparation, teachers expanded their repertoire of instructional methods and did not wish to return to a traditional schedule.

Geismar and Pullease (1995) looked at block scheduling at a high school and indicated that block scheduling demanded alternative teaching strategies and that those teachers who continued to rely on the traditional lecture/worksheet methods of instruction were not successful. They also reported improvements in student and teacher attendance, declining discipline problems, reduced tardies, and increased enrollments in higher level courses, although they found no significant differences in student academic achievement (using the ACT, SAT and AP scores as measures) when comparing performance under the traditional and block schedules. Survey data collected from teachers, students, parents, and community members indicated that all groups felt that students were learning better and expressed a preference for the block schedule.

Teachers who have moved to a block schedule have reported some difficulties during the transition. Schoenstein (1995) discusses the nervousness of teachers about long blocks of instructional time and their need to change their instructional strategies. While workshops were recommended, teachers really wanted to talk to other teachers who had already implemented block scheduling, both for verbal support and to gain a better understanding of what to expect. Schoenstein points to computer glitches, large class enrollments, inappropriate pacing of instruction, and teacher exhaustion as some of the initial challenges faced by the school he describes. After five years of implementation, he reports increased interdisciplinary teaching, improved attendance, increased percent of students on the honor roll, and lower failure rates, although standardized test scores have shown no change or slight declines. More importantly, the author points to positive changes in the school culture.

Irmsher (1996) agrees that block scheduling has a positive effect on school climate and culture. In her report, conducted for the Oregon School Study Council, she notes the advantages of block scheduling reported in the literature (opportunities for varied teaching strategies and in-depth learning; improvement in school climate, student conduct and dropout rates; increased instructional time; more opportunities for acceleration, remediation, and individualization; and positive impacts on teacher work conditions) as well as the major challenges to changing to the block schedule (general resistance to change; finding time to plan and prepare for change; issues related to specific content areas such as mathematics and music; and the need for teacher development). Irmsher also notes that available evidence indicates “students in block schedules do at least as well on measures of academic achievement as students in traditional schedules” (p.12).

Evaluation studies conducted in Georgia (Payne & Jordan, 1996) and Pennsylvania (Hendricks-Smith, Rinne & Bickel, 1996) reiterate much of the previous discussion and provide moderate support for the change to block scheduling. In the Pennsylvania study, lack of consensus among stakeholder groups (students, parents, teachers) was evident with teachers giving the block schedule more positive reviews than students and parents, although teachers indicated that the block schedule might be more suitable for some subjects than for others. This study also found a decline in disciplinary referrals, improved climate, and fewer course failures. Payne and Jordan (1996) found that some of the advantages in the literature were evident, but also conclude that changing instructional methods is the key to success in block scheduling.

Much of the literature related to the evaluation of block scheduling is very recent, generally published in the last two or three years as more and more schools implement various block scheduling plans. The current study reports on a two-year evaluation of block scheduling implementation at a rural midwestern high school.

The school district is in a rural area in the midwest with a district population of about 5,000 and a district school enrollment of just under 1,000. The high school enrolls approximately 300 students with between 65 and 80 students in each of the four grades (9-12). The community would be classified as mostly middle class and predominantly white, although there has been a growing Hispanic population in recent years. Nearly 80% of high school graduates pursue some education beyond high school.

In 1994, the school district adopted a new mission statement and educational goals and objectives. The goals focused on promoting high standards of student performance in basic academics (reading, mathematics, science, social science, and modern technology), communication, problem solving, citizenship, personal and family wellness, the arts, and the world of work. District discussions were held to determine the best way to help students reach these district goals. The issue of “time” in the school, particularly time to implement more hands-on instruction and interdisciplinary concepts, led to a consideration of block scheduling as a delivery method that might be conducive to reaching these goals. Teachers, administrators, students, parents, and community members were involved in discussions about the changes considered. A committee was organized to investigate possible options. Eventually, teachers in the school voted to adopt the block schedule. Open hearings were held and the idea of the block schedule was publicized in the local media. In the Spring of 1995, the local school board voted to implement block scheduling in the high school beginning in Fall, 1995.

The a-e-I-o-u evaluation approach developed by Drs. Jan Sweeney, Chris Sorensen, and Jimmy Fortune (Sorensen & Sweeney, 1997) allows for the gathering of formative information concerning the implementation of a program as well as summative information about the value of the program and its activities. The approach allows for the use of both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques and provides a framework for identifying key questions for evaluation.

Accountability (A) questions are targeted at determining if program objectives and/or activities were completed. Effectiveness (E) questions are directed at placing value on the program’s activities and generally focus on participant attitudes and knowledge. Impact (I) questions focus on identifying changes that resulted from the program’s activities and are generally tied to the stated outcomes of the program. Impact questions are the central questions. The other elements help evaluators to interpret the impact of the change. Organizational context (O) questions are focused on identifying the contextual or environmental factors, policies, or events that contributed to or detracted from the program’s ability to complete activities. The purpose of the last component, unanticipated outcomes (U), is to identify unexpected changes of either a positive or negative nature that occurred as a result of the program. Like the impact questions, questions for this component are directed at identifying changes in the behavior of individuals, organizations, or systems through examination of ex post facto data collected through records, interviews, focus groups, observations, and surveys.

An evaluation plan using the a-e-I-o-u approach was developed to guide data collection activities for the school. School administrators and teachers were involved in the identification of the questions asked in each component of the a-e-I-o-u framework. The evaluation was coordinated and conducted by a research unit in the College of Education at a state university. A plan was outlined to study the school district over a five-year period.

A longitudinal design was used with repeated measures using both qualitative and quantitative data. Data were collected in August 1995 and in May 1996 and May, 1997 for baseline information and follow-up after one and two years of implementation. Using the a-e-I-o-u framework, the following research questions were identified to look at the effects of block scheduling at the high school.

What changes were implemented at the high school?

What are the attitudes of teachers, students, and parents toward the block schedule?

How much knowledge do teachers, students, and parents have about the block schedule?

What do teachers, students, and parents perceive as the outcomes (both positive and negative) of the block schedule?

Were support structures, training and preparation perceived as adequate during the change to block scheduling?

Have school climate and quality changed with implementation of the block schedule?

Have parent, student, and teacher attitudes about the block schedule changed?

What impact has the change to a block schedule had on the teaching and learning process?

Has student achievement as measured by standardized test scores, honor roll rates, etc. changed?

Have student behaviors as measured by dropout, attendance, and discipline changed?

Are the seven district goal areas being addressed in the block schedule?

What factors created difficulties during implementation of the block schedule and what factors contributed to success?

Did relationships between the groups change in unexpected ways?

What changes occurred in the school that were unexpected?

Data were collected for this study through the use of two sets of surveys, focus groups, and school record data. Data were collected at three points in time: the first week of school during the 1995-96 school year (baseline data), April and May of 1996 at the conclusion of the first year of implementation (year 1 data), and April and May of 1997 at the conclusion of the second year of implementation (year 2 data). Baseline and year 2 data included all three data sources (surveys, focus groups, record data). Year 1 data included only focus groups and record data. The survey instruments and groups involved in the study are described below.

The first set of surveys was used to assess perceptions of school climate and quality and is from the validated Partners in Education series. Norm information is available for the parent, teacher, and middle/high school student surveys. Constructs in the parent Partners survey include perceived quality of school (1) climate, (2) communication, (3) accessibility, (4) responsiveness, (5) parent involvement, (6) monitoring and assessment, (7) student equity, (8) physical environment, (9) program, (10) curriculum, (11) support services, (12) student activities and athletics, (13) teacher behavior, (14) leadership, and (15) overall quality. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the constructs range from .76 to .97.

The teacher Partners survey measures teacher perceptions of quality related to (1) parent/community involvement, (2) leadership, (3) instructional staff, (4) assessment, (5) curriculum, (6) staff development, and (7) student discipline. Reliability coefficients range from .83 to .95.

The student Partners surveys were developed using a theoretical framework of student engagement in learning and measure student perceptions of (1) engagement, (2) membership - including subscales for fairness, personal support, and caring, (3) authentic work - including subscales for extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards, and connection to the real world, (4) peer support and esprit, and (5) efficacy. Reliability coefficients for the various scales on the student surveys range from .71 to .92.

The second survey set was developed by the Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE) at Iowa State University for use by parents, teachers, and students to collect perception information from these groups about the specific changes made in the school. A number of common constructs and items are included to assess differences in perceptions across groups. The surveys assess perceptions concerning the impact of the changes made in the district on (1) student preparation for the future, (2) classroom instruction, (3) scheduling options and flexibility, (4) student behavior and attitude, (5) curriculum, (6) teaching and learning methods, and (7) teacher support structures. Reliability coefficients for the constructs by each group are as follows: students from .77 to .88; parents from .74 to .96; and teachers from .77 to .92. Four of the seven constructs had reliability coefficients above .80 for all groups.

All teachers at the high school were asked to complete both surveys in 1995 and again in 1997. Surveys in 1995 were distributed and collected at a teacher inservice day. Surveys in 1997 were placed in teacher mailboxes.

Approximately two-thirds of the high school students (two homerooms at each grade level 9-11) were asked to complete both surveys in 1995 and 1997. Parent permission for student participation was requested and parents were notified of their right to withdraw their child from the study at any point. Surveys were administered during school hours.

Parent surveys in 1995 were distributed during school registration. Parent surveys in 1997 were mailed. Five hundred parent names were systematically drawn (every nth name) from a list of parents in the district and these were mailed both parent surveys. There are between 700 and 800 parents in the district. Surveys included postage paid return envelopes.

In addition to the surveys, a series of focus groups were held with parents, teachers, students, school board members, and community members with questions related to three broad areas: (1) the change process, (2) the impact of the change, and (3) school climate and quality. Focus groups were held in the fall of 1995, the spring of 1996 and the spring of 1997. Teams of interviewers were trained to conduct the focus groups. Each team consisted of a facilitator (who asked the questions) and a recorder (who operated the audio recorder and also took written notes). To ensure comparability, interview protocols were established and teams were instructed to consistently follow them. All focus groups were audio taped and transcripts analyzed.

All teachers in the high school were asked to participate in focus groups as part of teacher inservice days. Six students from each grade (9-11) were randomly selected to participate in focus groups. Letters were sent home requesting parent permission. These focus groups were held during school hours. In addition, 12 parents from each grade level (9-11) were randomly selected and asked to participate in focus groups. Letters with follow-up phone calls were used to solicit participation. These focus groups were held during an evening. The local school board and community leaders who were members of the local economic development group also were asked to participate in focus groups. The school board was interviewed following a regular meeting. Community focus groups were held at local restaurants with food provided.

Finally, record data were collected and compared for the 1994-95, 1995-96, and 1996-97 academic years. Key variables included: total student absences, unexcused student absences, tardies, unexcused tardies, behavior referrals, repeat behavior referrals, ITED scores, high school GPA, honor roll rates, graduation rate, drop-out rate, ACT scores, teacher absences, teacher course load, and percent of graduating students entering two-year colleges, four-year colleges, and the workforce. These data were collected from building principals and reported as totals as well as disaggregated by gender and grade level.

Survey response rates for teachers and students were high, generally above 75%. Parent survey response rates were low, generally around 20%. Focus group attendance for teachers and students was 80-90% of those invited. Parent attendance at focus groups averaged 30- 40% during the second and third data collection periods, although attendance was lower the first time. Community focus group attendance was around 20%. Four of the five school board members participated in the focus groups.

A number of changes were implemented at the high school during the two years of the study. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the high school operated on a seven period day. During the 1995-96 school year, the district implemented a number of educational changes at the high school including a modified 4X4 block schedule and both an academic core curriculum and a personal development core curriculum. The 4X4 block schedule was delivered in three week rotations. Students had four classes a day for three weeks and then shifted to a different four classes a day for the next three weeks. Study halls were eliminated. Also implemented was a senior LIFE project required of all seniors to graduate. The LIFE project requires students to design and develop a project and then give a formal presentation to a committee of teachers, peers, and a community member to demonstrate competency.

Based on feedback from students, teachers, and parents, the school district implemented additional changes in the 1996-97 school year. The modified 4X4 block schedule was changed to an A-B block schedule where eight class periods meet over two days in four 90-minute periods per day. Academic instructional time was increased and greater efforts were made to incorporate team teaching concepts. Practical life skills that were part of the personal development core curriculum continued to be taught, but with less time devoted to this area.

Focus group information provided insights into the attitudes of various stakeholders toward the school improvement efforts. There was a great deal of apprehensiveness about the changes at the beginning of the Fall 1995 semester. Parents, community members, and school board members believed the changes were being implemented in order to provide students with more electives and to better prepare them for college and life beyond high school. Teachers and students felt the changes would help teachers reach students and allow teachers to try different instructional approaches. Teachers felt that a small group had pushed the changes through and some groups felt that their opinions were not valued during the decision process. A number of initial implementation difficulties were perceived. Teachers attributed many of the problems to administrators and to parent demands while parents attributed difficulties to administrators and teachers. Students felt like “test subjects” and did not feel teachers were prepared to teach in the new system. All groups felt that perhaps too many changes were made at once.

By Spring 1996, several groups were questioning the appropriateness of the modified 4X4 block schedule. Community members questioned the effectiveness of some of the teachers while teachers questioned the involvement of the community in school decisions. Some students and parents wanted to go back to the former schedule while some wanted to continue with the changes, believing that one year of implementation had not given the changes a “fair chance” to work. Overall, most agreed that the first year was difficult, although some gave credit to the staff for their efforts. Many believed that too many changes were attempted at once. Adjustments were made in the schedule for the following year.

“Things are better than last year” seemed to be the predominant theme in the Spring 1997 focus groups. Overwhelmingly, focus group participants felt that positive strides had been made in adapting to the new schedule and most seemed to have accepted the block schedule. Some parents and community members felt that difficulties during the first year were exacerbated by early negative publicity and divisiveness among teachers and that given time, the original change to a modified 4X4 schedule might have worked. There were still some teachers who felt that the change to block scheduling might be a fad. Some tensions remained related to the role of parents and the community in change decisions.

Comments from teachers, students, and parents indicated that some teachers were still struggling to adapt to the new schedule and to curriculum changes and most felt that further changes in scheduling should not be implemented until there was a greater level of comfort with the current schedule. Even though some frustrations remained, one teacher noted that the new schedule was being held to a higher level of scrutiny than the traditional schedule had ever been and that perhaps all should remember that the old schedule prior to 1995 was also imperfect.

Knowledge About Block Scheduling

In 1995, 82% of teachers reported knowing a lot or quite a bit about changes being implemented at the high school while 18% reported knowing some. Most parents (81%) reported quite a bit or a lot of knowledge while 14% reported some and 5% knew little. Among students, 27% said they knew quite a bit or a lot about the changes that were being implemented while 47% knew some and 26% said they knew very little or had no knowledge about the changes. Most high school parents (82%) in 1995 said they needed more information about the changes. Over a third (36%) of teachers said they wanted to know more and nearly three-fourths (71%) of students said they did not know as much as they wanted to know about the changes. Focus group information revealed that parents knew information was available, but sometimes misinformation was spread.

In 1997, 78% of teachers reported having quite a bit or a lot of knowledge about the changes at the high school. The remaining teachers reported having some knowledge. Most parents (79%) reported quite a bit to a lot of knowledge, 17% reported some knowledge, and 4% reported knowing very little about the changes at the high school.

Survey results were used to assess the perceptions of the stakeholders about the outcomes expected from the change to block schedule. Data collected in 1995 indicated that teachers felt classroom instruction, student behavior and attitudes, student preparation for the future, curriculum options, and teacher support structures would be better as a result of the change to block scheduling (means from 3.50 to 3.85 on a 5 point scale: 1=much worse, 2=worse, 3=no difference, 4=better, and 5=much better). Parents indicated that there would probably be no changes in these areas (means from 2.90 to 3.32). Both groups indicated that they did not think there would be a difference in curriculum articulation (3.41 for teachers and 2.80 for parents). Students believed there would be no difference in classroom instruction, student behavior and attitude, student preparation for the future, curriculum options, or teaching and learning methods (ratings from 3.14 to 3.33).

In addition, focus groups provided feedback about the perceptions of outcomes related to the change to block scheduling. During Fall 1995 focus groups, parents, students, teachers and community members felt that the three-week rotations were too short and that nine week rotations would be better. There were concerns about student retention of material, curriculum coverage, pacing, class size, course sequencing, participation in extracurricular activities, and over-reliance on lectures. However, groups also felt that the block schedule would allow more time for group activities and hands-on instruction and that students would be better able to focus on subjects.

At the time of the Spring 1996 focus groups, reactions to the block schedule were mixed. Some felt that students missed out on some curricular content due to the block schedule and many felt that the block schedule was more appropriate for some classes (science, art, and vocational areas) than others (mathematics, PE, and foreign language). Students reported that they were getting more assistance from teachers than with the traditional schedule and that they were more involved in learning. Teachers commented that they were covering topics in more depth and trying new teaching strategies. There were some concerns about the pace of instruction, homework loads, and making up missed work. Some thought student achievement had improved while others said there was no change and still others felt it had declined. All groups noted a decline in school morale at the end of the first year of implementation.

1997 focus group data were organized in terms of impact on curriculum, pedagogy, student achievement and behavior, and administrative issues. Groups agreed that some classes seemed more adaptable to the block schedule than others with concerns particularly focused on the mathematics program. However, several groups, notably parents, community, and school board members, indicated that problems in the mathematics area existed prior to implementation of the block schedule. Teachers and some students and parents felt the block schedule had expanded course options, but others disagreed. Teachers felt that difficulties with course options stemmed from the fact that most, if not all, of the additional courses offered were targeted to advanced students and did not meet the needs of other students. Concerns about coverage of content remained evident, although some students and teachers pointed out that coverage did not equate to learning and felt that depth was replacing breadth in the curriculum. Most admitted that the goal of integrating curriculum had not been attained.

In terms of pedagogy, teachers clearly indicated that change was occurring and students agreed that more activity-based learning was occurring in the classroom. Teachers said that the block schedule allowed them to explore various teaching techniques that were prohibited in the shorter class time. Students continued to complain about classes that relied heavily on lectures and expressed frustration over inconsistencies between teachers in how the class time was used, for example, whether or not time was allowed for homework and one-on-one work with the teacher.

Perceptions varied when discussing the impact of block scheduling on student learning and achievement. Some felt students were not learning as much, others felt they were learning more, and still others believed there was no difference. Little difference was seen in extracurricular participation. Behavior problems formerly occurring in the hallways and during study halls had been alleviated, and while reports of behavior issues at the high school continued, several noted that these problems existed prior to the change to block scheduling and would probably continue no matter what the schedule.

Teachers saw the block schedule and the elimination of study halls as contributing to larger classes. Students and parents were also concerned about large class size. Scheduling conflicts, the need to enforce prerequisites, and the need for more individualized attention to course scheduling were also discussed. Many respondents repeated stories of the “scheduling nightmare” that occurred with the switch to the block schedule and several groups noted the importance of the role of guidance counselors during the scheduling process. Teachers, parents, and school board members believed that the optimal use of the block schedule would require additional staff.

Adequacy of Support Structures , Training and Preparation

The majority of teachers (56%) in 1995 reported that they felt prepared or well prepared to implement the changes. An additional 28% felt somewhat prepared. Sixteen percent of the teachers said they felt unprepared or very unprepared to implement the changes. During focus groups in 1996, teachers, students, and parents all felt that the instructional staff would have benefited from additional training prior to implementation of the block schedule. Teachers specifically called for additional time to work in small groups or with teachers in their content areas from other schools who had successfully implemented block scheduling. District administrators heeded these requests and provided additional time prior to the end of the 1995-96 academic year. 1997 focus groups reiterated the need for additional preparation time and training. Students, parents, and community members in 1997 were not at all sure that teachers had been prepared adequately for the changes and noted that there has been difficulty adapting. Parents in particular called for identification of and assistance for teachers who were having difficulty adapting to the changes.

More than half the teachers indicated that the change to block scheduling had provided more opportunities for teachers to explore new teaching methods. However, a large percentage believed that the changes made no difference in providing a supportive atmosphere for teachers, providing opportunities for team teaching, and collegiality. More than 20% reported a negative impact on opportunity for common planning time, supportive atmosphere, teacher satisfaction, amount of preparation time, and teacher-student ratios.

Teachers in 1995 reported expectations for more positive impact in this area than they actually perceived in 1997. The decline in overall teacher perceptions related to the teacher support structure was statistically significant, dropping from 3.71 in 1995 to 2.93 in 1997. Parent surveys showed a slight decline (not statistically significant) in teacher support structure (3.32 in 1995 compared to 3.03 in 1997). Parents agreed that the impact has been somewhat negative on teacher-student ratio, but felt that opportunities for teachers to work together had improved. Parent perceptions were consistent from 1995 to 1997.

Teachers in 1997 overwhelmingly expressed a need for more time to work on curriculum adaptation. Even during their second year of planning for 90-minute classes, many noted that additional time was needed, both time for daily planning and time for adapting curriculum. In addition, it was emphasized that struggling teachers needed to be identified and assisted.

In general, teacher perceptions of school quality and climate declined from 1995 to 1997 based on survey responses. District level survey results showed declines in every area, although not all were statistically significant. Declines were noted in parent/community involvement, leadership, instructional staff, assessment, curriculum, staff development, and student discipline. Only the declines in curriculum and staff development areas were statistically significant (p<.05). Ratings generally declined from a range of 3.74 to 4.40 in 1995 to a range of 3.64 to 4.30 in 1997. In 1997, high school teachers gave good ratings (score between 3.51 and 4.50) in the areas of quality of parent/community involvement (3.76), quality of instructional staff (3.84), quality of curriculum (3.72), and quality of staff development (3.59) while they gave mediocre ratings (scores between 2.51 and 3.50) to quality of leadership (3.35), quality of assessment (3.38) and quality of student discipline (2.99). The survey used a five point scale (1=very poor, 2=poor, 3=mediocre, 4=good, 5=very good, 6=excellent). There was only one area where more than half of the high school teachers gave a rating of excellent or very good quality in 1997 - - the school provides parents with opportunities to meet with school personnel. The areas where 20% or more teachers gave ratings of poor or very poor were predominantly related to school administration, assessment, and behavior and discipline problems.

Parent perceptions of quality and climate (using the same six-point scale as the teacher surveys) showed slight improvement in most areas from 1995 to 1997, although in both years, the mean scores remained at the level of good quality in all areas. Areas in which mean scores went up from 1995 to 1997 included school climate, communication, accessibility, responsiveness, parent involvement, school program, curriculum, support services, student activities, and leadership. Areas that showed slight declines in mean scores included monitoring and assessment, student equity, physical environment, teacher behavior, and school quality. The only statistically significant difference was in the ratings for student equity.

High school student ratings of quality were lower than parent and teacher ratings and showed statistically significant declines from 1995 to 1997 in authentic work, esprit, and sense of ownership. Other areas that showed declines, although not statistically significant, were extracurricular activities, future orientation, peer relationships, school membership, sense of ownership, and student engagement. Student efficacy showed a slight rise from 1995 to 1997 (from 4.44 to 4.51). Student peer relationships and sense of ownership were the lowest rated areas with mean scores of 3.12 and 2.75 respectively. The highest rated areas in 1997 were student engagement (4.24) and student efficacy (4.51). Students rated items on a six-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=somewhat disagree, 4=somewhat agree, 5=agree, 6=strongly agree).

Focus group data provided more insight into changes in school climate and quality during the two years of the study. In 1995 all groups expressed pride in their school, although all groups raised discipline issues and there were suggestions that communications needed to be improved. In 1996 focus group interviews it was apparent that morale at the school had declined during the first year of implementing block scheduling. There was a high level of frustration among teachers.

By 1997, focus group comments showed a more positive response, although the change process over the past two years appeared to have taken a toll on school climate. Groups described the change process as stressful, although there were indications that the tensions were easing. While student discipline remained a problem, all groups noted progress in this area.

Changes in Attitudes about Block Scheduling

In 1995, nearly one-third of the teachers (32%) reported being apprehensive about the change to block scheduling. However, three-fourths (75%) of the teachers stated that they liked block scheduling or thought it had potential. One-fourth (25%0 of the teachers had some concerns or did not like it; no teachers were neutral on the issue. Parents in 1995 were split in their opinions about block scheduling with 59% having concerns and 41% having a positive attitude. Again, no parents reported neutral attitudes. Students were the most negative group in 1995 with over two-thirds (64%) concerned and only 17% expressing a positive attitude. Nineteen percent of the students were neutral on the issue.

In 1997, most teachers (79%) reported that they either liked the block schedule or thought it had potential and 14% had some concerns or did not like it (the remainder were neutral). Parent opinions were split with 47% reported liking it or thinking it had potential while 47% had concerns or did not like it. Among students, 28% reported they liked it or it had potential, 29% were neutral, and 43% had some concerns or did not like it.

High school teachers’ opinions of block scheduling remained consistent over the two year study with 75% in 1995 and 79% in 1997 indicating that they liked it or thought it had potential. Parent attitudes were also similar over the years with 41% in 1995 and 47% in 1997 indicating a positive attitude. Student attitude showed significant improvement with 17% in 1995 and 28% in 1997 indicating that they liked it or thought it had potential.

Impact of Block Scheduling on the Teaching and Learning Process

1997 survey data provided information related to the perceived impact of the change to block scheduling in a number of areas, including classroom instruction, student behavior and attitude, student preparation for the future, curriculum options and articulation. Although teachers reported a decline in their perceptions of the impact of the block schedule from somewhat better to no difference, there was only one area of statistically significant decline, the impact on student behavior and attitude. Parents overall perceptions were mixed, with some areas showing slight declines (classroom instruction and student behavior and attitude) and some showing a slight rise (student preparation for the future, curriculum options, and curriculum articulation), although none were statistically significant. Both in 1995 and 1997, parents perceived that the new schedule would make little difference in these areas. Student perceptions showed statistically significant declines in every area except student preparation for the future. In all cases, however, the means for these areas (classroom instruction, student behavior and attitude, curriculum options, and teaching/leaning methods) remained in the no difference response range (2.81 to 3.33) on the five-point scale (1=much worse, 2=worse, 3=no difference, 4=better, 5=much better).

In the survey data, teachers generally reported that the change to block scheduling had a positive impact on classroom instruction with half or more of the teachers indicating that the change had a positive impact on student learning, quality of instruction, teacher ability to assist students with learning difficulties, teacher ability to provide students with individualized attention, teacher ability to identify student problems, and teacher ability to offer in-class assistance to students. About 20% of the teachers reported the quality of instruction to be worse or much worse. All teachers (100%) reported that they were adapting or changing their teaching methods wile 72% reported more use of alternative assessments and 67% reported integrating other subjects into their classes. About 20% of the teachers reported that they were team teaching. The teachers were divided in their opinions about the amount of material that can be covered in a block schedule compared to the traditional schedule with about one-third each reporting more, about the same, and less. Most teachers (79%) reported that curriculum for their subject areas had been modified some to quite a bit as a result of the change to block scheduling while 22% reported little or no curriculum modification. Only three teachers were dissatisfied with the modifications.

Parents reported that the change to block scheduling either made no difference or had a positive impact on classroom instruction. Student perceptions were similar to those of parents. About half of the students felt that teacher ability to offer in-class assistance was better wile 20% felt that student homework load, student learning student grades, quality of instruction, and teacher ability to provide individualized assistance were worse. Teacher and parent perceptions of the impact on classroom instruction did not change between 1995 and 1997 while students in 1995 believed that the changes would have a greater positive impact than they reported in 1997.

Students were asked to respond to survey items related to alternative ways of teaching and learning. They felt the change to block scheduling was positive in terms of increasing opportunities for students to participate in projects and in group learning. About 20% said opportunities for field trips were worse or much worse. Student expectations for positive impacts in this area in 1995 were higher than the actual impact they reported in 1997.

Focus group data painted a picture of the changes that were occuring, or in some cases not occuring, in classroom instruction. Changes in pedagogy were occuring and some teachers were exploring new teaching techniques. However, others still relied on the lecture and there were some concerns about the productive use of class time. Inconsistency in classroom implementation was a consistent theme.

According to the survey data, a majority of high school teachers reported little change in student behavior and attitude. About 20% felt that student behavior, student interest in class, student responsibility, and student attitudes toward school had gotten worse. Parent opinions were similar with about 20% thinking things had improved while 20% thought things were worse. About 30% of students said behavior and attitudes had improved while 20% said it was worse. Parents’ perceptions remained consistent from 1995 to 1997 while teachers and students reported less positive impacts in 1997 than they anticipated in 1995. Focus group data in 1997 suggested that some perceived improvements in student behavior and attitudes, while others perceived no changes, and others thought it was worse or simply believed the problems remained but were less obvious.

Teachers indicated through their surveys that there was no change or some positive impact on student preparation for the future. Over half the teachers noted an increase in the level of academic challenge or preparation of students to enter a two-year college or the workforce. About half the parents reported no difference in student preparation, while one-third said preparation to enter either a two-year or four-year college was better. High school students reported a more positive impact on preparation for the future than either parents or teachers with one-third of them reporting it was better. Students noted improved opportunities for participation in extracurricular activities and better preparation to enter college or the workforce. Students also reported an increased graduation rate and an increased level of academic challenge. Few students indicated that preparation for the future was worse. Perceptions of all three groups remained constant from 1995 to 1997.

Focus group data in 1997 indicated that opportunities to take additional classes was a positive result of the change, although there was some concern that the additional classes were predominantly targeted to high achieving students. Some felt the personal development core was helping to better prepare students for the future. The senior LIFE project was also seen by some to be improving student preparation for life beyond high school.

Teacher perceptions of the impact on curriculum options (as reported in their surveys) were positive with over half reporting that students had more opportunities for electives and could learn more credits than under the traditional schedule. In addition, they felt that there were more course choices available for students. About 20% of teachers reported that the opportunity for students to repeat courses and flexibility in class scheduling were worse. Parents were split in their opinions in this area with half reporting more opportunities for students to take electives and earn more credits and 20% indicating there were fewer course choices available, less flexibility in scheduling, and fewer opportunities to take electives, repeat courses, and for students to take all the courses they want. Students were also split in their opinions with the majority indicating no impact, 20% reporting it was worse and 20% reporting things were better. Teachers reported little change in curriculum articulation while 40% of parents reported it was better and another 40% said it was the same. Perceptions of the three groups remained essentially the same over the three years of the study except that students perceived there would be more curriculum options in 1995 than they reported in 1997.

1997 focus group data indicated a number of changes perceived in curriculum, curriculum options and articulation. There was agreement that some classes were more adaptable to block scheduling, with a more traditional schedule preferred in mathematics, foreign languages, and physical education. Most felt the change to block scheduling had increased curriculum options. Teachers also indicated they were covering material in more depth, although they had not covered as much material.

Changes in Student Achievement

School record data provided information to judge changes in student achievement. Baseline data from 1994-95 were used for comparison with data collected in 1995-96 (year 1 of implementation) and in 1996-97 (Year 2 of implementation). During the last three years, most measures of student achievement showed no change. The percent of students on the honor roll remained steady (49.1% Baseline, 49% in Year 1, and 49.6% in Year 2). The number of students who dropped out was two in Baseline and 1 each in the following two years. The graduation rate remained constant (99.9% in Baseline, 97% in Year 1, and 100% in Year 2). Average ACT scores have remained consistent (21.9 in Baseline and Year 1 and 21.7 in Year 2). The average ITED scores have risen (from 48 in Baseline to 55.9 in Year 2). Average GPA for 12^th graders improved (3.08 in Baseline, 3.19 in Year 1, and 3.20 in Year 2) while average GPA for 9^th, 10^th and 11^th graders declined slightly (from 2.64 to 2.51 for 9^th graders; 2.96 to 2.57 for 10^th graders, and 3.02 to 2.91 for 11^th graders). The percent of students entering the workforce directly after high school (12% in Baseline and 10% in Year 2) and the percent entering two-year schools (46% in Baseline and 38% in Year 2) declined while the percent of students entering four-year schools increased (from 42% to 52%)

Perceptions of impact on student achievement as evidenced through focus group data in 1997 varied. Some thought student performance had improved, others though it was worse, and others thought there was no difference.

School record data showed some improvement in student behavior at school during the last three years. The number of student absences declined slightly (3,534 in the Baseline year and 3,304 in Year 2) while the percent of unexcused absences decreased from 6% to 2%. The number of student tardies was cut almost in half (from 2,176 to 1,118). The percent of students referred for behavior problems remained unchanged (from 3% to 2.8%), but the number of repeat referrals decreased from 29 to 10. Teacher absences, however, increased from 204 to 343.

Focus group data in 1997 seemed to focus on perceived changes in teacher behavior. The need for additional teacher assistance was evident. Evaluation of teachers was called for as was providing adequate support structures for teachers to improve.

Addressing the Seven Goal Areas

Seven skill areas were adopted as part of the school’s mission, goals and objectives statement. These skill areas included basic academics, communication, problem solving, citizenship, personal skills, participation in the arts, and ability to pursue a career or higher education. Teachers in 1995 reported that they believed the change to block scheduling would result in improvement in all areas (mean score from 3.55 to 4.18 on a 5-point scale: 1=much worse, 2=worse, 3=no difference, 4=better, 5=much better) except in the arts were they expected no difference (mean of 3.32). Their perception of the actual impact in 1997 was that there was no difference (mean ratings of 3.00 to 3.50). Their ratings were statistically lower in three areas: problem solving skills, citizenship, and personal skills.

Parents in 1995 believed there would be no difference in impact in any of the seven goal areas (mean scores of 2.68 to 3.24), but in 1997 they reported things were better in two areas: communication skills (mean = 3.53) and personal skills (mean = 3.60). Means in all areas were higher in 1997 (mean ratings from 3.17 to 3.60) than in 1995. Ratings were statistically higher in participation in the arts (rising from 2.68 to 3.17). Students in 1995 believed there would be improvements in communication skills (mean=3.52) and their ability to pursue a career or higher education (mean=3.65) while they believed there would be no difference in the other areas (means from 3.17 to 3.45). In 1997, however, students reported no differences in any area (means from 3.08 to 3.21). Their overall ratings declined in every area, and the decline was statistically significant in the areas of basic academic skills, communication skills, problem solving skills, and ability to pursue a career or higher education.

The initial move to block scheduling was driven in part by a need to address the district’s seven goal areas. Focus group data in 1997 indicated that there were conscientious efforts underway by teachers to address these areas. Teachers were incorporating activities focusing on communication and writing, problem solving, citizenship, and application of real-world skills.

Perceptions of Long-term Impact

Overall, the stakeholders seem to think that the change to block scheduling has had an impact, both positive and negative on the school, although at the conclusion of the second year of implementation the effect seems to be viewed more positively. However, it is important to note some ideas expressed by school board members. First, while some problems have been attributed to block scheduling, some would have existed with or without the change to the block schedule. Second, the true impact of block scheduling on students may not be known for some time. Some indicated that until there are graduates who have been through their entire high school experience under the block schedule, it is difficult to compare and know what the real impact has been.

A number of factors may have affected implementation. At the high school there was some sense in 1995 that the changes were instigated by a small group of people and pushed through by the administration and the school board. There was not a sense of shared decision-making, even though the faculty had conducted a number of discussions and had voted to adopt the block schedule. Communication issues seemed to affect the implementation of the new schedule at the high school. Parents and students felt their opinions were not listened to or valued, resulting in negative reactions. Some teachers felt left out of the process and were negative about the changes, sometimes expressing their dissatisfaction to parents and students.

A second factor that may have affected implementation was school board elections that were held the year of initial implementation. The change to block scheduling became a focal point with one candidate running on a platform opposed to block scheduling. This factor may have resulted in more publicity of the issue and more polarization of opinion than might have occurred otherwise. Third, there appeared to be issues related to building-level leadership at the high school. Discussion in focus groups revealed that these issues existed prior to the decision to move to a block schedule. Teachers felt a need for stronger leadership during the change process and were frustrated by perceived weak leadership.

Fourth, the evaluation itself may have affected implementation. While there were calls for accountability and for “someone” to document the impact of the change, there was some hostility concerning the money spent for evaluation by an external agency and some feelings that findings were not being shared. In addition, the surveying and focus groups, particularly of parents and community members, might have focused more attention on the changes at the school than might have occurred otherwise, perhaps increasing awareness of the changes. Fifth, the school’s decision to change to a different form of block scheduling in the second year of implementation may have affected the evaluation results. Rather than being a second year of implementation of block scheduling, it may have resulted in another “first year” in terms of reactions and impact measures.

Finally, the fact that a number of changes were instituted simultaneously (the personal and academic core curricula, the senior LIFE project) may have affected the ease with which the transition to block scheduling was made. Teachers reported that multiple changes had been made in the first year and even in the second year there were several new initiatives in place (for example, school-to-work) which took teachers’ time and attention and may have contributed to higher stress levels than might have been apparent with the implementation of only one change (the block schedule). Respondents often had difficulty sorting out the impact of the block schedule from the impact of other curricular changes.

While some problems have been attributed to the block schedule at the high school, it is important to note that some of these may have existed regardless of the scheduling option. The true impact of block scheduling on students may not be known for some time. Survey indicators show a statistically significant decline from the 1995 to 1997 in measures of school quality and climate. Impact indicators show differentiated effects on learning and curriculum. However, given the two major changes in scheduling, it may be that the second year of implementation should instead be viewed as another “first year” of implementation of a block schedule.

At the end of the second year of block scheduling, most teachers reported positive views about the block schedule while parents were split in their opinions and students tended to be neutral or negative overall. Despite this finding, there seemed to be acceptance of the new schedule. Teachers reported improvements in the classroom, particularly in the quality of instruction, more individualized time for students, and greater depth in learning. Most agreed that some classes were better suited to block scheduling than others. While teachers reported they were adapting their teaching methods, comments from other groups indicated that some teachers were struggling and needed additional professional development. Groups noted an increase in the level of academic challenge and some improvement in opportunities to take electives, although additional course options seemed to be targeted to the advanced students. Quantitative indicators reflected no changes in overall student achievement measures (ACT, ITED, GPA), although there was some improvement in student behavior (tardies, unexcused absences, and repeat behavior referrals).

The process of change documented in this case study parallels the organizational change literature. Conrad (1990) asserts that change inevitably includes some conflict and that leadership exercises a brokerage role between the competing interest groups in addition to operating as either a facilitator or a resistor of change. Channels of communication are essential during the change process. By studying this case of change in a school district in depth over a longer period of time, insights can be gained about both the implementation of curricular change and about the effects of changing the use of time in schools. Given the national focus on changing the use of time in the schools, and the fact that there are few longitudinal studies of the effects of these changes on schools, this research could contribute to the knowledge base relating to organizational change and provide guidance for policy decisions at the building and district levels. The evaluation framework used could also be adopted for use in other studies of school reform.