Block or traditional schedule, a renewed focus on technical careers will better serve local students

Suddenly, the

experimentation of the 1980s and ‘90s may be coming to local high schools.

School officials are considering moving to a system known as “block scheduling.”

However, the idea of having longer class periods and not the same subjects every day is really nothing new. Reportedly, this class scheduling concept began with “The Trump Plan” (not the former president) as far back as 1959.

For more than a half century, public schools have been criticized for not producing the results most people expect. One of the complaints has been too much time wasted with traditional scheduling over a six- or seven-period day. Just the movement between classes can waste as much as 40 minutes daily. That can add up to many hours of instruction missed during a normal school year.

During the 1980s and ‘90s, a number of school districts throughout the country experimented with the block scheduling idea, which created mixed results. A few still use this methodology today.

No one can blame officials for trying to improve the present situation. Everyone would like to see student achievement scores improve. But there are a number of reasons for poor results. Many are beyond the power of local school boards.

Take uncontrolled immigration, for example. A large percentage of students who can’t speak English or had little formal education in their native countries is certainly going to affect academic progress.

But those who support block scheduling believe it can make a difference in overall performance. They argue that longer class periods can help students become better engaged in specific subject matter – especially in courses that require hands-on lab instruction.

The same people claim fewer classes with longer periods per week allow teachers to get to know their students better. A variety of activities during this longer time span can help kids master subjects using different learning modes.

They say discipline is better because with less class changing, there are less opportunities for students to get into conflicts and personal struggles with others.

Studies by Forman, Arnold, Queen and Allen, et al. suggest some teachers believe student achievement with block scheduling has been positively affected and point to higher grade averages in more challenging subjects, such as math and science. They even go as far as to claim that the block program has proven superior to traditional models.

But all is not rosy. After 40 years of experimentation, one would think this type of scheduling would have become the norm and not the exception if the success is what some claim.

For one thing, the previously mentioned studies tend to be subjective and measured by people’s perceptions. Grade averages are also subject to variations not considered in these data as well. When looking at the hard facts, the results can be interpreted quite differently.

Cases in point: Arnold (2002) points out that there is no significant difference in standardized test scores between students on block programming versus those who remain on traditional schedules. Lawrence and McPherson (2000) draw the same conclusion. As a matter of fact, they point out traditionally scheduled students actually score slightly higher in all areas.

There are other problems as well. Foreign language students do better with repetitive daily drills as opposed to breaks in their schedules. Informational retention is better. Math and music programs tend to have the same problem (Rettig and Canady, 2001). They also claim that students did better with block scheduling during the first two years of implementation, but after three years, traditional schools actually performed better.

So, will block scheduling make a measurable difference in student performance that some hope at Lodi High? Well, that remains to be seen. But if the history of this methodology tells us anything, the results will be questionable. There are many variables that will remain at issue no matter what type of scheduling is used.

If the goal is still to get more kids into four-year college programs, this most likely will fail. Educators have been trying to achieve this objective for specific groups during the last three-quarters of a century and for the most part, have not succeeded. They continually try new ideas, as well as recycled old ones. In the end, there seems to be no substitute for consistent parental support, student hard work and individual motivation.

Perhaps it’s time to rethink the premise of a college degree for most and adjust to a world where academic aspirations, as opposed to technical vocational ones, no longer are guaranteed paths to success — especially with today’s economic needs and outrageous costs.

Steve Hansen is a former K-12 teacher, counselor and university assistant professor, inter alia. Contact him at news@lodinews.com.