Research Paper-Block Scheduling
My Saturday consisted of one single activity...writing my research paper for Music Ed Forum. I choose a topic that I was already fairly well versed with...here is the product!
The Effects of Block Scheduling on the Secondary Music Programs
Arguably one of the most recent restructuring of the secondary curriculum to come since Modular Scheduling in the 1970’s and 1980’s has been the introduction of the 4 x 4 block schedule. In a typically 4x4 system or “Copernican Schedule” (there are many variants to this including the A/B or alternating day block and the trimester block), students enroll in 4 classes per term generally around 90 minutes in length. Proponents claim that block offers many benefits to the secondary curriculum including: shortening the length of year long classes into an 18 week period, increased instructional time with students, increased student achievement, a way to incorporate more variety into lesson planning and to increase teacher/student relationship. However, time is slowly telling the tale of block and its true affects on students learning and its effects on the secondary music program.
Block scheduling owes its roots to Dr. Joseph Carroll-who as the father of the “Copernican Plan” (synonymous with 4 x 4 block scheduling) and now head of the nations biggest proponent of block scheduling; Copernican Associates Ltd. Being a superintendent at the time he began the Renaissance program at Masconomet High School in Topsfield, Massachusetts. Carroll claims that “Nothing is wrong with the Carnegie-based schedule except that it prevents teachers from teaching well and students from learning well” (Prisoners of Time, 1994 p.104) and that “continuing with the present traditional Carnegie structure raises the serious question of professional malpractice” ("The Copernican Plan Evaluated: The Evolution of a Revolution," Phi Delta Kappan pg. 113).
The problem presented by Dr. Carroll’s work is in the way the research was conducted. A Harvard group was chosen to evaluate the success of the pilot program, headed by Dr. Whitla and an evaluation group handpicked by Carroll himself. It should be added that Dr. Whila is a partner now in Copernican Associates and both he and Dr. Carroll “rent-out” at a cost of $1,250 a day (www.JeffLindsay.com, accessed April 3, 2004).
Evaluation of this pilot program showed very little other than students did slightly worse on objective test (Iowa) in both math and English. However, essay writing seemed to have been improved-evaluated by just one Harvard graduate student in English. It is also said that during taped sessions of students involved in critical thinking problems that they where much improved because they worked together.
Dr. Carroll’s work lack many qualities to make this deem able research. Firstly, the evaluation team lacked diversity and it seems more than coincidental that Dr. Whitla suddenly joined the Copernican Associates team after the study. Furthermore, Dr. Carroll’s work has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (however, it has received wide coverage from educational magazines. Without clear evidence of the benefits of block scheduling one has to question why we are moving towards it?
In a nationwide survey in the mid 1990’s, 39% of high schools in the United States had either implemented some form of block scheduling or where intending to do so (Comparison of Secondary Teachers Perceptions of 4 x 4 Block scheduling vs. Traditional Scheduling, Dr. Judith H. Briant). Today, even more schools have switched to block scheduling. However, regardless of the effects it has on student learning in “academic” world what effects does it have on the secondary music education system?
Currently, very little research has been done on the topic of block scheduling and its effects of music education. A few studies have been done at this point in time yet none are longitudinal in nature. The then doctoral candidate Kevin Meidl of LaSalle University performed one of these studies where he used a Likert-type questionnaire (rating on a scale of 1 to 10) of a randomly selected group of high schools form the south and west that had moved to a form of block scheduling.
The results where as follows…
1) 69% of the schools involved saw decreased enrollment in music classes, generally associated to scheduling conflicts
2) 65% of the schools surveyed felt that the quality of their performance ensembles decreased after a switch to 4 x 4 block scheduling
3) 41% of the teachers surveyed were new to the positions (indicating that a large number of music teachers left the school after a block schedule was initiated)
. (From Music Educators Journal v. 84 July 1997 p.11)
Other findings that Dr. Meidl found were that a number of teachers surveyed had difficulty finding enough time to prepare lessons. Those surveyed also said that they were spending increased amounts of time in the classroom and much more time at the school teaching lessons and/or sectionals to make up for the actual lost time from the block (MEJ, p.11)
There are some also inherit problems associated with block that proponents rarely address. Many claim work under the philosophy of “less is more”. Under a typical block schedule students receive 90 minutes a day instructional time for half of the school year (18 week period) while under the traditional system students have an extra 10 minutes of class time over the course of the year. This translates out into the following…
1) Students under block schedule receive 135 hours worth of instructional time
2) Students under traditional scheduling receive 180 hours of instructional time
What does this data imply? Under block schedule students actually LOSE 45 hours of instructional time per block. This translates out into nearly an entire quarter of missing time (Briant, pg.111)! How can a proponent of block scheduling even make a statement that “less is more”?
As music teachers we are in a difficult predicament. Depending on the form of block we are under has different ramifications. For example, under 4 x 4 block if music is offered everyday year round that seems to put us at an advantage. Wrong, sure we may be getting students for the full year but think of what that will do to their credit earnings. Per year, students will be taking 2 credits for involvement in just one music class. Consider now if a student were to be involved full time in music all 4-years of high school and only involved in that one music class, he/she would have 8 credit hours in the music alone. Under a block schedule students can earn a maximum of 32 credit hours in high school. Is it even possible for a student to stay actively involved in one music class all four years of school and still meat the minimum graduation requirements? Yes, but that student will not ever be allowed to take any other music class in their time at school. For the student who seeks AP courses in college preparation, they will have to drop music. For those wishing to enroll in choir, theater, or any other elective course in their high school career, the only thing that can possibly go is band.
Consider under the modified block schedule (or A/B schedule) where some or all classes are taken on an alternating day basis (Monday, Wednesday, Friday-then the following week-Tuesday Thursday-meeting like this for the entire school year). As music educators we know a lot about the importance of practice, and that practice needs to be everyday, the same can also be said of rehearsal. Seeing students for less time during the year already has its negative effects, compound that by not meeting everyday!
Let us also consider the teacher of math, english, science, and history. Block has an inherit retention problem with it, either do to the fact that students are trying to absorb to much information or that they are not being exposed to it on an everyday basis-this can also be applied directly to music. In addition, with 45 hours less of instructional time-what are the teachers doing to squeeze the same amount of information into a smaller block of instructional time. Proponents (and Dr. Carroll himself) claim that grades improve under a block schedule-with teacher having to “water-down” the curriculum it is no wonder. In musical terms, think of how much rehearsal time is actually lost under a block schedule.
Proponents claim that change is always subject to resistance. The Harvey and Brown CHANGE MODEL (1996) states that whenever major changes that will have a major impact on culture that there will be resistance. Causes include multiple factors including uncertainty, fear of the unknown, disruption of routine, loss of benefits, and threats to position and security. Proponents pushing for a block schedule often bring up the Change Model as a reason why teachers, parents, and students fight when a block schedule attempting to be implemented.
However, we as educators have to remember why we are here. Our role as teacher is to help and foster the growth of the students under our care. When a new approach theory in education comes along we should question it. Dr. Carroll remarks that “continuing with the present traditional Carnegie structure raises the serious question of professional malpractice”; I think it rather he who fails to investigate the effects of change on our students is the one who raises the question of professional malpractice. For those who claim there is no harm in trying something new, take a moment to think; if a student were caught using a controlled substance; would it be ok-because it was “something new”? We, the teaching profession in general, need to take a much more active role as new theory and doctrines regarding education come available and not to simply hope on the “bandwagon”.
In conclusion, the effects of block scheduling on the secondary music program can not be over emphasized. Loss of time in class, reduced quality of performance ensembles, and decreased enrollment in our programs are just some of the problems present. With greater retention issues those under block schedule face an uphill battle of trying to keep there program and the arts in general alive. Let us as educators not forget our mission, to provide the best education possible to all those we teach-and when a disruption to that education occurs, we address it.
The Effects of Block Scheduling on the Secondary Music Programs
Arguably one of the most recent restructuring of the secondary curriculum to come since Modular Scheduling in the 1970’s and 1980’s has been the introduction of the 4 x 4 block schedule. In a typically 4x4 system or “Copernican Schedule” (there are many variants to this including the A/B or alternating day block and the trimester block), students enroll in 4 classes per term generally around 90 minutes in length. Proponents claim that block offers many benefits to the secondary curriculum including: shortening the length of year long classes into an 18 week period, increased instructional time with students, increased student achievement, a way to incorporate more variety into lesson planning and to increase teacher/student relationship. However, time is slowly telling the tale of block and its true affects on students learning and its effects on the secondary music program.
Block scheduling owes its roots to Dr. Joseph Carroll-who as the father of the “Copernican Plan” (synonymous with 4 x 4 block scheduling) and now head of the nations biggest proponent of block scheduling; Copernican Associates Ltd. Being a superintendent at the time he began the Renaissance program at Masconomet High School in Topsfield, Massachusetts. Carroll claims that “Nothing is wrong with the Carnegie-based schedule except that it prevents teachers from teaching well and students from learning well” (Prisoners of Time, 1994 p.104) and that “continuing with the present traditional Carnegie structure raises the serious question of professional malpractice” ("The Copernican Plan Evaluated: The Evolution of a Revolution," Phi Delta Kappan pg. 113).
The problem presented by Dr. Carroll’s work is in the way the research was conducted. A Harvard group was chosen to evaluate the success of the pilot program, headed by Dr. Whitla and an evaluation group handpicked by Carroll himself. It should be added that Dr. Whila is a partner now in Copernican Associates and both he and Dr. Carroll “rent-out” at a cost of $1,250 a day (www.JeffLindsay.com, accessed April 3, 2004).
Evaluation of this pilot program showed very little other than students did slightly worse on objective test (Iowa) in both math and English. However, essay writing seemed to have been improved-evaluated by just one Harvard graduate student in English. It is also said that during taped sessions of students involved in critical thinking problems that they where much improved because they worked together.
Dr. Carroll’s work lack many qualities to make this deem able research. Firstly, the evaluation team lacked diversity and it seems more than coincidental that Dr. Whitla suddenly joined the Copernican Associates team after the study. Furthermore, Dr. Carroll’s work has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (however, it has received wide coverage from educational magazines. Without clear evidence of the benefits of block scheduling one has to question why we are moving towards it?
In a nationwide survey in the mid 1990’s, 39% of high schools in the United States had either implemented some form of block scheduling or where intending to do so (Comparison of Secondary Teachers Perceptions of 4 x 4 Block scheduling vs. Traditional Scheduling, Dr. Judith H. Briant). Today, even more schools have switched to block scheduling. However, regardless of the effects it has on student learning in “academic” world what effects does it have on the secondary music education system?
Currently, very little research has been done on the topic of block scheduling and its effects of music education. A few studies have been done at this point in time yet none are longitudinal in nature. The then doctoral candidate Kevin Meidl of LaSalle University performed one of these studies where he used a Likert-type questionnaire (rating on a scale of 1 to 10) of a randomly selected group of high schools form the south and west that had moved to a form of block scheduling.
The results where as follows…
1) 69% of the schools involved saw decreased enrollment in music classes, generally associated to scheduling conflicts
2) 65% of the schools surveyed felt that the quality of their performance ensembles decreased after a switch to 4 x 4 block scheduling
3) 41% of the teachers surveyed were new to the positions (indicating that a large number of music teachers left the school after a block schedule was initiated)
. (From Music Educators Journal v. 84 July 1997 p.11)
Other findings that Dr. Meidl found were that a number of teachers surveyed had difficulty finding enough time to prepare lessons. Those surveyed also said that they were spending increased amounts of time in the classroom and much more time at the school teaching lessons and/or sectionals to make up for the actual lost time from the block (MEJ, p.11)
There are some also inherit problems associated with block that proponents rarely address. Many claim work under the philosophy of “less is more”. Under a typical block schedule students receive 90 minutes a day instructional time for half of the school year (18 week period) while under the traditional system students have an extra 10 minutes of class time over the course of the year. This translates out into the following…
1) Students under block schedule receive 135 hours worth of instructional time
2) Students under traditional scheduling receive 180 hours of instructional time
What does this data imply? Under block schedule students actually LOSE 45 hours of instructional time per block. This translates out into nearly an entire quarter of missing time (Briant, pg.111)! How can a proponent of block scheduling even make a statement that “less is more”?
As music teachers we are in a difficult predicament. Depending on the form of block we are under has different ramifications. For example, under 4 x 4 block if music is offered everyday year round that seems to put us at an advantage. Wrong, sure we may be getting students for the full year but think of what that will do to their credit earnings. Per year, students will be taking 2 credits for involvement in just one music class. Consider now if a student were to be involved full time in music all 4-years of high school and only involved in that one music class, he/she would have 8 credit hours in the music alone. Under a block schedule students can earn a maximum of 32 credit hours in high school. Is it even possible for a student to stay actively involved in one music class all four years of school and still meat the minimum graduation requirements? Yes, but that student will not ever be allowed to take any other music class in their time at school. For the student who seeks AP courses in college preparation, they will have to drop music. For those wishing to enroll in choir, theater, or any other elective course in their high school career, the only thing that can possibly go is band.
Consider under the modified block schedule (or A/B schedule) where some or all classes are taken on an alternating day basis (Monday, Wednesday, Friday-then the following week-Tuesday Thursday-meeting like this for the entire school year). As music educators we know a lot about the importance of practice, and that practice needs to be everyday, the same can also be said of rehearsal. Seeing students for less time during the year already has its negative effects, compound that by not meeting everyday!
Let us also consider the teacher of math, english, science, and history. Block has an inherit retention problem with it, either do to the fact that students are trying to absorb to much information or that they are not being exposed to it on an everyday basis-this can also be applied directly to music. In addition, with 45 hours less of instructional time-what are the teachers doing to squeeze the same amount of information into a smaller block of instructional time. Proponents (and Dr. Carroll himself) claim that grades improve under a block schedule-with teacher having to “water-down” the curriculum it is no wonder. In musical terms, think of how much rehearsal time is actually lost under a block schedule.
Proponents claim that change is always subject to resistance. The Harvey and Brown CHANGE MODEL (1996) states that whenever major changes that will have a major impact on culture that there will be resistance. Causes include multiple factors including uncertainty, fear of the unknown, disruption of routine, loss of benefits, and threats to position and security. Proponents pushing for a block schedule often bring up the Change Model as a reason why teachers, parents, and students fight when a block schedule attempting to be implemented.
However, we as educators have to remember why we are here. Our role as teacher is to help and foster the growth of the students under our care. When a new approach theory in education comes along we should question it. Dr. Carroll remarks that “continuing with the present traditional Carnegie structure raises the serious question of professional malpractice”; I think it rather he who fails to investigate the effects of change on our students is the one who raises the question of professional malpractice. For those who claim there is no harm in trying something new, take a moment to think; if a student were caught using a controlled substance; would it be ok-because it was “something new”? We, the teaching profession in general, need to take a much more active role as new theory and doctrines regarding education come available and not to simply hope on the “bandwagon”.
In conclusion, the effects of block scheduling on the secondary music program can not be over emphasized. Loss of time in class, reduced quality of performance ensembles, and decreased enrollment in our programs are just some of the problems present. With greater retention issues those under block schedule face an uphill battle of trying to keep there program and the arts in general alive. Let us as educators not forget our mission, to provide the best education possible to all those we teach-and when a disruption to that education occurs, we address it.