Flexible Scheduling Project, Akiba Hebrew Academy

Transcription

Akiba Hebrew Academy
Center for Educational Initiatives
Flexible
Scheduling
Project
Funded by the
Dr. Robert Vogel, Project Director
November 1997
FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING PROJECT
Date of Publication:
November 1997
Edited by
Linda K. Schaffzin
Akiba Hebrew Academy
Dr. Robert M. Vogel
Project Director
La Salle University
Department of Education
1900 West Olney Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19141
(215) 951-1194
e-mail: vogel@lasalle.edu
Designed and produced by Schaffzin & Schaffzin PUBLICATIONS, INC.
Flexible Scheduling Project
Table of Contents
Introduction: Robert Vogel, Ed. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Forward: Dr. Saul P. Wachs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Project Akiba–Executive Summary: Leslie Pugach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Faculty Research Reports
Project Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Akiba: Philosophy and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Rivka Brandspiegel: Judaica/Special Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Marlene B. Gefter: Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Howard Kraiman: Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Grace Perlman Miller: Jewish Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Leslie Pugach: Core/History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Linda K. Schaffzin: Middle School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
Rita Schuman: English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
Sigal Strauss: Foreign Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
Additional Reports: Students & Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
a
Introduction
akiba h
1946
emy
ad
a
rew ac
eb
Robert Vogel, Ed. D
5705
Akiba
Hebrew
Academy
Center for
Educational
Initiatives
Project Director
ewish Day Schools have become an important part of Jewish life and learning in almost
every community in the United States. They are proliferating everywhere in a number of
different forms and for different audiences. Along with all the well-known educational
issues and dilemmas that face us at the millennium, Jewish Day Schools have begun to recognize fundamental issues that are endemic to Day School education. At Akiba Hebrew
Academy in Merion, Pennsylvania, as the school readied to celebrate its Jubilee Year as one
of the country’s oldest and finest Day Schools, a team of teachers, administration, parents
and students participated in a year-long study of flexible scheduling through a grant from
the Jim Joseph Foundation of Florida. This grant allowed Akiba to create a “Center for
Educational Initiatives” to study issues related to Jewish Day School education. The specific
focus of the grant enabled Akiba to research, evaluate, and design alternative models of
middle and high school structures known as Flexible or Intensive/Block Scheduling (IBS).
J
One of the major goals of the project was to re-conceptualize the use of “time” in a way that
would allow the school to create and sustain a more supportive and interactive environment
in order to improve teaching and learning. Experimental models of flexible scheduling have
been implemented in hundreds of schools all over the country and the Jim Joseph
Foundation sought to study the possible application and advisability for Jewish Day Schools.
The study which involved five other Jewish Day Schools (Charles E. Smith–Maryland,
Solomon Schechter–New Jersey, the Frisch School–New Jersey, Hillel Community School
and Gross Academy–both in Florida) verified a serious need to explore alternative models
of how we use time as an instructional medium. Much was learned from working with
groups of teachers and administrators at Akiba, and at several other Jewish Day Schools
from various parts of the country, about flexible scheduling and related concerns such as
long-range planning, staff development, powerful instructional strategies and discipline
specific methods.
A standard of Flexible or IBS is emerging, especially in public school systems, that involves
fewer subjects taught for longer class periods over a semester, trimester or even in an alternating ABAB schedule (classes meet on alternate days throughout the year). Flexible or IBS
has garnered both praise and concern from parents, educators and the press. The research
team also encountered other flexible scheduling models that include team teaching, integrated classes, problem based learning and blocking of core subjects only.
Eight Akiba teachers, each excused from one course over a semester, undertook, together
with two Akiba parents and four Upper School students, an extensive study of block scheduling. This study included visits to a variety of public and privates schools utilizing flexible
scheduling models, a study of the literature and interviews with teachers and administrators. Each faculty member wrote an extensive report of his/her visitations, research and
interviews, and met as a team to discuss the findings. What follows in this volume is a collection of the documents studied and written as a result of Akiba’s study, as well as
responses from other schools and individuals all related to a study of Flexible or IBS.
Though the Akiba team did not recommend a specific alternate schedule, it agreed to
reject the semester plan (4x4 block) adopted by many public schools in the area. In a sense,
5
the team thus rejected replacing one rigidity with another. Instead it agreed that Akiba
should take a careful look at some possible small starts in flexible scheduling, with an evaluation process before they would consider any system-wide changes.
Because good and appropriate instruction must be in place before the needs for alternative schedules are determined, the Jim Joseph Foundation has awarded Akiba a second
grant (Phase 2, 1997-99) that will focus on developing strategic staff development plans
that upgrade teachers’ pedagogical techniques, and that lead to the development of units
of instruction based on essential core concepts and powerful pedagogical strategies.
Then, coupled with flexible scheduling models, instruction will allow teachers to do more
project learning, promote critical thinking, and create an environment in which in-depth
investigations can occur on a more frequent basis. Representatives from Akiba and the five
other participating schools met in Philadelphia from June 23-25, 1997 at Gratz College for
an intensive workshop to design staff development models for each school. The staff
development models are currently being implemented.
Our hope is that through this volume you will have a sense of the breath of the work done
by the Akiba team and others. We invite your response to these documents so that we can
add new information on the issues and share it with the community of Day Schools.
Because of the professionalism demonstrated by the Akiba research team, we have learned
much from our study about the application to the Jewish Day School of powerful pedagogy and scheduling ideas that are emerging from research in the education community
as a whole. This discussion is vital to the future of Jewish Day Schools and therefore, to the
American Jewish future.
Sincerely,
Robert Vogel, Ed. D
Project Director
6
a
Foreward
akiba h
1946
emy
ad
a
rew ac
eb
5705
Akiba
Hebrew
Academy
Center for
Educational
Initiatives
Dr. Saul P. Wachs
Rosaline B. Feinstein Professor of Education
Gratz College
Schools are Conservative Institutions
One of the common characteristics of schools is that they tend to be conservative institutions, particularly with regard to structures and patterns of behavior. Some see in this
a reflection of the kinds of people who staff schools. Others hypothesize that schools, by
their nature are reflective of trends in society, followers, rather than leaders. Whatever
the cause or causes, it cannot be denied that regularity, stability and resistance to
change typify the way that schools operate in society.
Raising Fundamental Questions
Whatever the virtues of that conservatism, it is dysfunctional when fundamental change
may be needed. For, if schools are to be effective, there must always be a balance
between attention to maintenance and to renewal. This means that, at least at regular
intervals, it is necessary that fundamental questions be asked, and that everything that is
done in, by, and through the school be examined with no limiting assumptions.
One of the typical patterns in secondary schools is the blocking of the day into forty of
fifty minute periods. This pattern is also very common on the tertiary level, i.e. in colleges
and universities. It is also common that it is a "given," a pattern that is assumed to have
inherent validity. It is also an important element in school structure. It imposes certain
patterns of movement, severely limits the kind of academic activity that can take place
within a learning period, and can have the effect of practically eliminating the visual arts
as an integral part of academic society.
To repeat, for schools to reach their potential for excellence it is necessary that they periodically question everything they do including typical patterns of structure and organization.
For that reason alone, the following report and the study that produced it are to be
welcomed.
The Carnegie Unit and Akiba's Institutional Goals: Possible Dissonances
But, this report and the considerable effort that lies behind it have additional value for a
school like Akiba Hebrew Academy, a school that seeks to affect the pupil spiritually as
well as academically. One of the problems with the Carnegie unit is that it forces the
teacher to be focused on the need for efficiency in instruction. This often translates into
an overuse of lecture and teacher-directed instruction. There is a concomitant tendency
to stay on the surface of a subject, to avoid its emotional loadings, to focus energy on
coverage rather than depth. In a Jewish Day School, whose very raison d'etre is deeply
tied up with values, affective dimensions of learning, individualization of instruction and
the sharing of personal meaning, the tyranny of the clock may profoundly affect the
degree to which individual students can derive lasting meaning from their studies.
A Professional Response to the Challenge
Of course, there are reasons for the development of the current time structure and one
7
should not casually tamper with a traditional structure. Thus it is encouraging to see the
level at which serious and dedicated members of the faculty, working under professional
and highly knowledgeable academic facilitation, have struggled with the issue of
restructuring. The enclosed report bears witness to the commitment that was made by
the participants to take seriously the demands of the task they had assumed.
The participants reached out into the field through school visits and interviews and they
familiarized themselves with the research literature on Intensive Block Scheduling. Their
own sense of professionalism and intellectual curiosity drove them to reexamine initial
attitudes and biases as they began to weigh advantages and disadvantages of structural
change in the light of the new learning they evinced.
Institutional Mission: An Overriding Consideration
Above all, in thinking about the restructuring of instructional time, the faculty continually raised the question of the institutional mission of Akiba Hebrew Academy. They recognized (as does the research on effective schools) that clarity of institutional mission and
the extent to which structure, curriculum and instruction and the nature of personnel
are in harmony with that mission, determine in large measure the ability of a school to
reach its goals.
The issue of Akiba's institutional mission has remained remarkably ambiguous for many
years. This is a reflection of the school's history and its fight during its years to survive
and thrive in a community climate that was ambivalent, at best, about Jewish Day
School education. It is clear that with all the political and (possible) financial advantages
of mission-ambiguity in the past, the time has come to face the question of the goals of
Akiba and their implications for curriculum, instruction, personnel, and structure.
Institutional clarity of mission is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Lack of clarity as to institutional mission (particularly in the area of Jewish studies) makes it extremely difficult for
learners to learn in depth, while failing to answer the student's all important question of
"What is the purpose of what we learn in school?"
Meaningful and Lasting Change is Systematic
To summarize, the report, with all appropriate caution, encourages us to continue to
explore Intensive Block Scheduling as a possible option for Akiba.
The report is but a step, albeit a very important step, in the possible implementation of
structural change at Akiba. As Seymour Sarason and other scholars have taught us, the
process of change in schools is long, complicated and sometimes painful. What is clear is
that it cannot be piecemeal, on the order of institutional tinkering. Schools are systems
and change must be systematic. For that reason, it is important and praiseworthy that
within the individual reports, fundamental questions are raised that are integrally connected to the quality of education within the school as a total system:
What is the purpose or are the purposes of Jewish studies at Akiba?
How does its pluralistic model cohere with instruction in depth that goes beyond
teaching about Judaism?
To what extent is the experience of public schools relevant to private schools in general
and Jewish Day Schools like Akiba in particular? For example, if teaching certain subjects throughout the entire year is a reflection of ideological commitments, what
might be lost, attitudinally, if instruction is restricted to a portion of the year?
8
To what extent is Akiba able to meet the needs of different populations, including those
with special needs (including the intellectually and artistically gifted)?
To what extent is the supervision of instruction (self, peer, administrative) adequate to
enhance the quality of instruction?
To what extent do criteria of educational quality guide and drive administrative and
managerial decisions?
How do physical limitations impinge on the learning process?
To what extent are the library and technological resources of the school adequate to its
goals and program?
To what extent does teacher workload cohere with the program as it is and as it would
be, if proposed changes were to be implemented?
How can teachers be helped to utilize the special opportunities of longer blocks of
learning time?
Finally, given the tension between the need to establish the school on a firm financial basis,
and the structural changes that were made in pursuit of that goal, how does Akiba
reestablish an atmosphere of trust between all of the stakeholders in the school?
In the context of this report, how are possible changes in scheduling to be implemented
in such a way as to win the support of all those involved?
The Report as a Discussion of the Institutional Climate
The examination of the question of scheduling has stimulated and provided a forum for
the expression of concerns about the culture of Akiba at this time.
This expression is healthy and deserves thoughtful response. Trust and mutual understanding are absolutely necessary if a school is to thrive and even more, if people are to
be asked to risk change in familiar patterns of school life.
Support for Teachers Engaged in the Process of Fundamental Change
In that connection, it must be stressed that if Intensive Block Scheduling is introduced, it
is absolutely necessary that support be provided for the faculty to enable them to adjust
to the opportunities and challenges provided by the availability of larger blocks of time
in which to teach. In Jewish studies, for example, the opportunity to explore subject matter in greater depth brings with it the challenge of "opening up" personal issues that are
embedded in the study of Jewish texts. This can expose areas that require teachers to
confront their own personal issues as human beings and Jews. Given the proper support, teachers can master the techniques and strategies that allow for honest discussion
in depth that highlights the intellectual and emotional relevance of Jewish texts.
We live in the era of the "sound bite" and the television hourly sitcom. The pressures on
schools are severe and yet we know that without moments of serenity and the time to
cater to different learning styles and talents, at least a portion of the student body will
never reach its maximal potential for learning. If we can lower the pressure, create larger
blocks of time, and a less frenetic pace, perhaps there will be more time for people to
talk, for students to engage in art projects, for students and teachers to discover each
other at a greater level of depth, and for the creation of moments of spiritual significance. If this is possible without damaging the academic achievements that are rated so
high on the list of school priorities, Akiba will be able to fulfill its mission and to meet
9
the needs of all of its students.
An Encomium
For now, credit is due to the participants in the project discussed in this report. Their
efforts have enriched our knowledge of Akiba as a learning community and sharpened
our awareness of the challenges and opportunities that may be afforded by Intensive
Block Scheduling.
Congratulations are due to Professor Robert Vogel who initiated and directed the entire
project, to Rabbi Philip Field for unstinting support, to Leslie Pugach for her leadership
role in writing the executive summary and to Rivka Brandspiegel, Linda K. Schaffzin,
Grace Perlman Miller, Sigal Strauss, Marlene B. Gefter, Rita Schuman, Howard Kraiman
and all of the participants in the Research for their contributions. Personal concern and
professional discipline are reflected in their efforts.
They all rendered a signal service to Akiba and its constituents.
Yishar Kohakhem!
Dr. Saul Wachs
10
a
akiba h
1946
emy
ad
a
rew ac
eb
5705
Intensive Block Scheduling for Jewish Day Schools
Executive Summary by Leslie Pugach (April, 1997)
Introduction
In 1907, Henry Pritchard of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching developed the ubiquitous “Carnegie units” as a way to standardize American secondary school programs. To accommodate the Carnegie system and to allow high school students to accumulate Carnegie units for graduation, the vast majority of American secondary schools, both
public and private, began to use a seven to nine period day, with each period consisting of
forty to fifty minutes of teacher-led instruction. This regimented use of time stressed “coverage” and “presentation” of whatever academic material was deemed important for the high
school student to master. As this system became entrenched in American education, textbooks and other teaching/learning materials were developed that conformed to this uniform
usage of time in schools. The single constant in American secondary education for over ninety years, this rigid method of scheduling and teaching/learning has made secondary school
the most commonly shared experience in American life. Although it is obvious that the lives
of American students, as well as the lives that they will lead once they leave formal education
in a secondary school, have changed dramatically, there have been very few attempts either
to modify this inflexible arrangement or to develop a new one.
The most glaring disadvantage of adherence to this uniform system is the difficulty it imposes upon educators who attempt to apply new ideas and research from education, adolescent
psychology, educational technology and cognitive studies. When there have been attempts to
apply theory to practice (Bruner’s inquiry method;“new” math; the Harvard Physics program),
no one also addressed the related issue of how time was utilized in schools. In cases where
there has been some tinkering with the use of time in schools (Dewey’s progressivism of the
1930s; modular scheduling in the 1960s and early 1970s), there has been no consistent application of what is known about the best practices for teaching and learning. However, recent
efforts to address this persistent gap between research and reality have recognized the synergistic dependence of time and methodology. Most notably Theodore Sizer’s Essential Schools
Movement and Joseph M. Carroll’s Copernican Plan have emphasized that the way time is
used in schools must be altered before one can put to use any of the current knowledge
about best practices for teaching and learning.
The Goals of the Akiba Project
The Akiba Project concerns this issue of how time is utilized, with a specific examination of
Intensive Block Scheduling, and the concomitant pedagogical implications for Jewish Day
Schools. Like most independent school faculties, day school teachers have greater say than
their public school colleagues about what goes on in their classrooms and how the curriculum
is constructed. In addition, class size tends to be smaller than in public schools (15-22 students
per class), use of textbooks is more peripheral to teaching rather than constituting the entire
course, student/teacher relationships are potentially more personal, and curricula are more
flexible. However, in smaller independent schools, due to the size of the student body and faculty, teachers are assigned more preparations, grade levels and/or academic disciplines.
11
Teachers and students in Jewish Day Schools have an additional burden that is not shared by
those in other independent schools: the dual curriculum. This not only entails the addition of
Judaica courses to the secondary school program (typically Hebrew language, the study of
Biblical texts, the study of Rabbinic texts and Jewish practice), it also requires time be set
aside to incorporate an informal curriculum dealing with Jewish religious observances,
whether daily (e.g., t’fillah) or calendar-based (holidays and festivals).
When the eight teachers from Akiba Hebrew Academy became involved in investigating
Intensive Block Scheduling as a part of the Akiba Project, their hope was that some type of
innovative scheduling would address some important issues for both teachers and students,
including: stress, a frenetic pace and the discontinuity between better pedagogy and what
was really going on in classrooms. They all agreed that “Nothing is in shorter supply in schools
than time to think...Schools need to find ways of providing larger chunks of time for better
teaching and learning....” (National Association of Independent Schools, Scheduling in
Schools.)
Representing both Middle and Upper Schools, these eight teachers have academic expertise
in English, History, Foreign Languages, the sciences, mathematics, Bible and Jewish Studies—
academic disciplines commonly taught in a Jewish Day School. Their investigations took the
form of school visitations (public, private and Jewish Day Schools); interviews with parents,
administrators, teachers and students; internet searches; searches in educational literature
and research studies.
Summary of findings
The findings from these investigations that are most applicable to a private Jewish Day
School fall into six major categories:
• alternatives in scheduling
• advantages in flexible scheduling
• disadvantages in flexible scheduling
• teacher training and support
• constraints related to change
• issues specific to Jewish Day Schools
Alternatives in scheduling
There was no consistent form of Intensive Block Scheduling (IBS) employed in the schools
that were visited or investigated. The most common form was the 4 x 4 plan in which four
courses were given in each of two semesters. The next most common form of IBS was the
alternate day plan (ABAB) in which four courses were presented on Day A and then another
four were given on Day B. Most prevalent, particularly in the Middle Schools (public and private) and Jewish Day Schools, was a mixed form of scheduling that relied on flexibility, some
form of subject matter integration, team teaching or some combination of these.
The only common denominator in scheduling in those schools that used some form of IBS
was that there was a commitment to longer periods of time for each subject, although not
necessarily on a daily basis. These longer periods varied from sixty to ninety minutes.
Implied in each school that made the change to some form of IBS was:
• A commitment to flexibility in scheduling in:
the length of each class period; the frequency that each class meets; the use of quarters, semesters or trimesters; team teaching and subject integration.
12
• A desire to provide greater opportunities for teachers to use a wider variety of
teaching/learning methods.
• The intention to foster closer teacher/student relationships by reducing the amount of
students that each teacher dealt with as well as the number of teachers and the work
load that each student faced over a given period of time.
Advantages in Flexible Scheduling
Decades of educational research have demonstrated that there is no strong relationship
between the time a student is in class and the amount that he/she learns. What is critical is
the amount of time that a student spends on task. Depending upon the academic discipline,
the abilities or learning styles of the student, the methodologies used by the teacher and the
concept or skill to be mastered, there is enormous variation in the time on task that is necessary. Obviously, in education,“one size does not fit all.”
In addition, research has shown that when teachers know their students better, time in the
classroom is used more efficiently and time on task is increased.
Flexible or Intensive Block Scheduling (IBS) in the public and private schools investigated has:
• Reduced student/teacher ratios.
• Increased potential for expanded student/teacher interaction.
• Provided opportunities for teachers to use a wider variety of methodologies, particularly
those that rely on recent research related to learning styles.
• Generally reduced stress on both students and teachers, primarily by reducing the frenetic pace and fragmentation on a given day.
• Presented the possibility for increased depth of study in many academic disciplines.
Disadvantages in flexible scheduling
The largest dilemma facing those schools that have tried and/or are using some form of IBS is
“coverage.” Many teachers are quite concerned about sacrificing breadth for depth in their
particular academic discipline. This is particularly true in those courses where a student’s
achievement is measured by nationally standardized examinations such as Advanced
Placement exams or the SAT II tests.
Other disadvantages include:
• Lack of flexibility if the entire school or department is locked into any particular
form of IBS.
• Increased paperwork for teachers in some academic areas.
• Loss of retention of material in some academic areas.
• Lack of substitute teachers trained in using IBS.
• Difficulty for absent students to make up work missed.
• Inequities in homework assignments from class to class.
• Overuse of any one teaching methodology and/or reliance on teaching methodologies
inappropriate for longer class periods.
• Inadequate opportunities for reflection and practice before learning additional concepts
or skills, especially in subjects that require development of skills (language, math).
Teacher training and support
An important variable in assessing the success or failure of any form of IBS is teacher training
and support. As stated in the introduction, most texts and other teaching/learning materials
have been developed for the traditional class that operates in a traditional time schedule.
13
Therefore, most teachers, particularly those who are reluctant to forgo the traditional lecture/discussion—to become “the guide on the side, rather than the sage on the stage”—need
considerable time and support to master new teaching methodologies. In addition, on-going
support and supervision must be provided for several years to ensure the success of any
retraining. Also critical to such change is the necessity of rethinking and rewriting curricula
with the focus on the essential concepts of an academic discipline, rather than a particular
body of knowledge.
It is important to note that although teacher training and curricular revision did not guarantee the success of a school’s change to any form of IBS, it was clear that the lack of staff and
curriculum development does contribute to its failure.
Constraints related to change
The most common constraints in moving to the acceptance and then application of any form
of IBS are:
• Type of school (size, community, public or private, parochial)
or the school’s climate.
• Parents’, students’ and teachers’ normal resistance to change.
All human beings are naturally suspicious of change, especially when it will occur in
something that is such a commonly shared experience such as school.
• Deficiencies in the physical facilities.
Most of the best practices for teaching and learning, particularly those that are most
appropriate for IBS, require spacious classrooms and/or the availability of some forms of
educational technology.
• Teacher contract issues. Items in an existing teachers’ contract such as class size, the number of contact hours per teaching day/week and the number of preparations per teacher,
may preclude the full implementation of IBS. The re-negotiation of these areas may be
quite difficult and rancorous.
• Administration/faculty/student/parent/community
relationships.
• Lack of consensus.
To deal effectively with any type of change in an institution, there needs to be an atmosphere
of mutual trust as well as agreement on the central and defining philosophy and mission of
that institution. If change is attempted without such a covenant, then each segment of the
institution may resist or frustrate any such attempts.
Issues Specific to Jewish Day Schools
Embedded in the mission of every Jewish Day School is the study of sacred texts, the use of
Hebrew language and the practice of Jewish life. Any form of IBS must include these three
elements in some form. This requirement places an obvious constraint on the application of
any form of IBS in Jewish Day Schools. One way to approach this problem would be the generation of commonly held goals, objectives and expectations for the entire Jewish Studies
component of the school. Then, with some creative planning and reorganization, some integration would be devised to address the Jewish Studies requirements appropriately.
14
Recommendations
As a result of their investigations, each member of the Akiba Project team wrote a detailed
report and then met to compare findings. The following are culled from those reports and
from the notes of that meeting.
• No form of IBS should be considered without a long-term commitment to curriculum
revision and subsequent purchase of necessary teaching/learning materials.
• Any form of IBS requires the administration and teachers commit to several years of ongoing in-service training, supervision and time for departmental and inter-departmental
planning. This will probably require an additional commitment of funds in order to
release teachers from classes and/or to hire non-professionals to assume the responsibility for non-teaching duties.
• The decision to move towards some form of IBS should involve all segments of the school
population: students, teachers, parents, administration and Board of Directors.
• If the school has decided to try some type of IBS, there should be a long-term evaluation
procedure in place. Such an evaluation should not only measure students’ achievement
(as determined by test scores, grades and absenteeism), but also parental satisfaction,
administrative concerns, and faculty issues. All segments of the school need to be
reminded that the ultimate goal of any form of IBS is to improve learning and teaching.
• Rather than attempting to implement some form of IBS throughout the entire school, it
might be worthwhile to try it in one or two academic areas— for example, geometry, 9th
grade history and English, physics, foreign languages—and, after evaluation, move
towards more comprehensive implementation.
• Certain basic skills, particularly writing, need to be addressed across the curriculum. A
Writing Center, in-service for all teachers of writing or some other on-going method may
prove useful.
• Of particular concern to Jewish Day Schools is the impact of IBS on the curriculum, both
formal and informal. It is critical that all segments of the Jewish Day School (Board, parents, faculty, administration) reach consensus about the philosophy of the school, the
objectives and expectations of the Jewish Studies program, and the standards that graduates should meet. In addition, the types and availability of library and curricular materials, the options for incorporating the arts into the program, the possibilities for course
integration, the opportunities for Chesed activities and the ways to incorporate informal
Jewish programming into the academic schedule all need to be addressed.
In subsequent meetings, the team decided that the most popular form of IBS, the 4x4 (see
above) schedule was not appropriate for Akiba. The group felt that many of the positive
results achieved and problems solved by larger schools implementing the 4x4 plan did not
apply to the generally smaller Jewish Day Schools, e.g., absenteeism, band scheduling, student misbehavior in the halls due to frequent passing of large numbers.
Instead the team sought to apply four more applicable goals in its search for possible alternatives to the standard roster. These goals were: a less fragmented and subject-filled day for students; opportunities for different teaching methods; a more effective use of time; more flexibility in the schedule.
Conclusions
While the adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” may be true, it certainly does not apply to education, particularly in the Jewish Day Schools. The ninety-year-old system of scheduling the
school day and the resulting emphasis on “coverage” and “one size fits all” is not fostering the
necessary changes that need to be made to prepare Jewish students for the world in which
15
they will live and work, a world that values teamwork, flexibility, and adaptability, as well as
the knowledge they will need to “develop a view and practice of Judaism...that can sustain
them with pride and spiritual enrichment throughout their mature years.” (Akiba Hebrew
Academy, Statement of Philosophy) Some form of flexible scheduling does hold promise for
creating a learning environment that would enable teachers and students to
• optimize time on task
• foster stronger student/teacher relationships
• apply new research-based teaching and learning strategies
• increase subject matter integration
• improve and coordinate teacher training, support and
supervision
• reduce stress and the frenetic pace
• individualize student learning
The participants in the first phase of the Akiba Project recognize that change is difficult and
often painful. However,“While it is possible to change without improving, it is impossible to
improve without changing.” (Carroll, 1989, p. 3)
16
Project Participants
Project Director
Dr. Robert Vogel
La Salle University, Department of Education
215-951-1194 (O)
215-951-5092 (FAX)
e-mail vogel@lasalle.edu
215-782-1411 (H)
Akiba Administration
Rabbi Philip Field, Headmaster
Helena Lehrer, Upper School Principal
Ruth Bricklin, Middle School Principal
Tamar Adini, Judaica Department Head
Research Associates
Akiba Faculty
Rivka Brandspiegel, Judaica/Special Needs
Marlene B. Gefter, Mathematics
Howard Kraiman, Science
Grace Perlman Miller, Jewish Studies
Leslie Pugach, Core/History
Linda K. Schaffzin, Core/English/Report Editor
Rita Schuman, English
Sigal Strauss, Foreign Languages
Additional Akiba Faculty
Carol Sweeney, Computer Department
Michael Yondorf, Jewish Studies
Elaine Touchton, Mathematics
Dr. Saundra Sterling Epstein, Jewish Studies
Parents:
Debbie Malissa
Dr. Emilie Passow
Students:
Bill Cohen
Tamar Field
Marc Romanoff
Eli Segal
Dan Vogel
Educational Consultants:
Dr. Preston Feden,
Associate Professor - La Salle University
Dr. Steven Brown,
Director- Melton Research Center
The Jewish Theological Seminary of America
17
18
Akiba: Philosophy
Akiba Hebrew Academy, the oldest community secondary Jewish Day School in the United
States, was founded in 1946 by a group of public-minded Jewish citizens, lay and professional,
who were deeply concerned about preparing students to assume responsibility in their community as leaders and active citizens. Uppermost in their minds was the need to create a
dynamic community of educated Jews who would help insure the survival of the Jewish people and Judaism after the Holocaust. Thus, they set out to establish an intensive program of
Jewish studies integrated with a comprehensive college preparatory program. It was the view
of the founders that all Jewish children who academically qualify - affiliated and non-affiliated
- should come together under one roof to study their common Jewish heritage, while simultaneously learning to respect all positions and the devotion and sincerity with which they are
held. This objective was not intended to blur differences. Rather, it was intended to strengthen the Jewish identification of every student without compelling acceptance of one particular interpretation of what is “the” Jewish way of life.
The Jewish studies program and those activities which flow from it are the raison d'etre of the
school. Our specific goal is to develop knowledgeable Jews who will understand and be sensitive to their fellow human beings - people who are assets to any community in which they
find themselves. We are convinced that the significance of the Jewish culture is most effectively grasped through the study of our classical texts, ideally in the original Hebrew language. We are committed to the centrality of Israel and Zionism to Jewish life. Because Akiba
is a pluralistic institution, we preach no dogma. Rather, we expose students to the varieties of
Jewish ideologies so they can make intelligent, informed choices in their own lives. We insist
only on those observances which enable all of our students to participate in school life with
comfort.
The fact that our school starts with the 6th grade and goes through 12th is not an accident.
Because it is in these years that students raise questions and issues, our founders sought to
have our young people interact with adults who can help them articulate their questions and
seek intelligent answers.
From the school's inception, its educational policy has been responsive to new and significant
developments in education and has tried to maintain a flexible approach to curriculum.
Because we feel that freedom of expression enables individuals to thrive and excel, we strive
for it in all aspects of the school. In every subject we encourage an openness in discussion,
and expect the teacher to listen as well as to instruct. We assume the responsibility of
enabling our students to make educated appraisals of current conditions, and to respond
with the insight gained from a historical perspective. While mastering the content of each discipline, students are challenged and urged to develop an inquiring attitude and to voice
informed opinions freely in the classroom. Similarly, our teachers are encouraged to develop a
personal style of educating. There is, therefore, no single Akiba teaching method or form.
Nevertheless, we require all teachers and students to interact with each other in a respectful,
just and caring manner. Committed to the individuality of every student, we believe that the
curriculum, the activities and the staff of the school must be responsive to the emotional,
social, physical, religious and intellectual differences among students. Akiba is concerned not
only with the academic, but also the spiritual and physical growth of each student.
We believe that students learn through experiential as well as intellectual activities. Therefore,
wherever feasible, students plan programs with teachers, work in small groups, work individually, plan numerous educational and social experiences for themselves, and generally contribute to the education in which they are involved. We attempt to create a learning environ-
19
ment with clearly defined standards of human relationships and behavior, and specific expectations of the students and faculty. We are committed to dealing with students in a just and
open manner, trying to involve them, wherever possible, in the democratic process of making
decisions which affect them and their school community. We seek to implement this commitment within the classroom and without; for example, the Student Association is an active and
vital part of the school community. Moreover, our responsibility to the students extends
beyond the school walls. We strongly advocate social action; our students are concerned with
the needs of those less fortunate and are mindful of taking care of the planet we inhabit.
We willingly live with controversy and diversity. In fact we welcome them. We believe a comparison of opinions and practices will lead to a refinement of ideas and attitudes. This
approach, in turn, will enable students to develop a view and practice of Judaism and a philosophy of life that can sustain them with pride and spiritual enrichment throughout their
mature years. We hope our students will translate their Akiba experience into understanding,
their understanding into commitment, and their commitment into creative and constructive
action within the Jewish community and the world at large. In so doing, they will have fulfilled the aims of our founders.
Approved by the Board of Directors for the Middle States Evaluation, 1993/5753.
Akiba: History
On September 11, 1946, 20 boys and girls, the principal, Mr. Oscar Divinsky, and 5 teachers
assembled in a room at the YMHA at Broad and Pine Streets, where a floor had been rented to
house the school. Within just two years, the space and equipment had become inadequate
and the school moved to larger quarters at B’nai Jeshurun Synagogue in Strawberry Mansion.
When the first class of 13 students was graduated from Akiba in 1951, the student body had
grown to 100. In 1954, when still larger facilities were needed, a third home was found for the
school at Har Zion Temple in Wynnefield. In 1956, Akiba moved to its present permanent site
in Merion.
Finally, in 1974, in response to a growing student body and the need for additional facilities,
an additional classroom building and a new auditorium/ gymnasium were constructed. This
expansion of the physical plant provided the increased opportunity for both an innovative
educational program and an expanded sports program.
The original idea for Akiba was the brainchild of the late Dr. Joseph Levitsky. Joining him in
planning the establishment of the school were such leaders of the Philadelphia Jewish community as the late Dr. Simon Greenberg, the late Rabbi Elias Charry, and the late Dr. Leo L.
Honor. From the time of its inception, Akiba has been supported and strengthened by the
vision of its lay leadership, including the late Martin J. Feld, the school’s first president; the late
Joseph Kohn, president of Akiba for 14 years; the late Abe Birenbaum, who succeeded Mr.
Kohn; Isadore A. Shrager, Sonia B. Woldow, Adena Potok, Hershel J. Richman ’59, Bart Axelrod,
Rochelle Z. Hirsh, Daniel Segal and the current president, Dr. Joseph Carver,‘64. Its academic
direction has been guided by the talented educational leaders who served as principal of the
school since 1946, Mr. Oscar Divinsky, Dr. Irving Agus, Mr. Louis Newman, Dr. Diana Reisman, Dr.
Laurence Silberstein, Dr. Steven Lorch, Rabbi Marc J. Rosenstein, and now Rabbi Philip D. Field.
There are now over 2000 graduates of Akiba who have gone forth to play leading roles in the
Jewish and general communities. Akiba is represented by its graduates in all phases of Jewish
communal life in the United States and in the rabbinic bodies of each of the denominations.
20
Intensive Block Scheduling for
Hebrew, Bible and Special Needs
Rivka Brandspiegel
Judaica/Special Needs
21
Table of Contents
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
a. A Personal Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
b. The Hebrew Program at Akiba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
II. Summary of Literature on Intensive Block Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
a. Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
b. Weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
III. Summary of Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
a. Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
1. Advantages
2. Disadvantages
b. Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
1. Advantages
2. Disadvantages
3. Telephone Interview
IV. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
V. Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
VI. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
VII. Addendum:
,cfrun vtruv -
Description and Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
VIII. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
22
Introduction
A Personal Note
I have always considered myself a reasonably effective teacher, able to transmit knowledge,
skills, and a positive attitude about Hebrew and Jewish Studies to most students, in an interesting and appealing manner. I also strive to develop positive, long-term relationships with
many students based on mutual respect and caring. In recent years however, I began to feel
as though my teaching skills were less suited, or less successful, than they had been only a
few years before. I felt that I was reaching fewer students, both academically and personally,
and, while my classroom was still as orderly and well-organized as it had always been, many
students in my classes made slower progress and seemed less satisfied with their learning.
That was the main reason I joined the Block Scheduling Research Committee. I wanted to
investigate alternatives to optimize learning at Akiba.
Therefore, the main goal I set for my research was to learn whether or not Intensive Block
Scheduling (IBS) is suitable for Akiba. My Objectives were: to develop an understanding of IBS;
to determine its appropriateness for Hebrew and Bible courses in Middle and Upper school;
and to learn about existing programs for Hebrew and Bible that could be adapted.
I began to research the literature on IBS and I visited Cardinal Dougherty High School,
Hatboro-Horsham Senior High School, and Beth Tfiloh Jewish Day School in Baltimore,
schools that implemented IBS. On those visits, I interviewed faculty and students. What I
learned was confirmed by the literature we had received as an introduction to IBS from our
Project Director, Dr. Robert Vogel, and reports I acquired on the Internet and from other
sources.
To further investigate IBS I interviewed the Foreign Language Coordinator at Haverford High
School, who is now writing a book on Block Scheduling and Foreign Languages, the Hebrew
Language Coordinator at the Milkin Community High School in California, and Dr. Steve
Lorch, former principal of Akiba Hebrew Academy.
In addition, I was able to draw on the “Practicum” I did at the Frankel School, and at the
Hartman School when I was in Israel on the Senior Educators Program in 1993-94. At these
schools the teachers used one of the cooperative learning methods called ,cfrun vtruv.
I actually saw this teaching method as a continuation of the traditional Jewish understanding
of the process of teaching and learning and of the dynamic which exists between teacher
and student, student and fellow student (e.g., t,urcj), etc. This method was used for Hebrew
language and literature, as well as for math, language skills, geography, science, music and
movement. It is now, after all my reading and research about IBS, that I better understand
what I saw at those schools.
My courses on alternative teaching methods at the Hebrew University, my research
reading on IBS, observations, interviews, and my practicum, made me think that perhaps by
introducing alternative schedules and innovative methods of instruction in schools, and sensitizing educators to the necessity of improvement of teaching and learning in their schools,
we might be able to improve our students’ interest in Hebrew and Judaic subjects.
Middle school and high school youth are at an age that is characterized by rapid growth,
physiological changes, and an unusually high energy level. Learning must parallel student
23
needs for mobility and activity. Hence, experiential learning or “learning by doing and experimenting” is essential. In researching IBS, I became interested in this approach to engage and
motivate students for longer blocks of time in the learning process, deepen their understanding of subject matter, explore and apply concepts in depth, and give them opportunities for
proficiency activities.
The Hebrew Program at Akiba Hebrew Academy
The Hebrew program at Akiba is designed to accommodate every student, whether in the
Middle or High School, regardless of his/her Hebrew background or ability. Students who
come from Jewish Day Schools naturally studied Hebrew well before coming to Akiba.
Students from other schools might have minimal Hebrew background (in Jewish supplementary schools) or none at all.
To further understand the Hebrew program and its mission, it is instructive to review a section from the “Philosophy and Goals of Akiba Hebrew Academy,” that refers to the Jewish
Studies program in general, of which Hebrew is one component (Adini, 1994).
“The Jewish studies program and those activities which flow from it are the raison d’etre of
the school. Our specific goal is to develop knowledgeable Jews who will understand and be
sensitive to their fellow human beings - people who are assets to any community in which
they find themselves. We are convinced that the significance of the Jewish culture is most
effectively grasped through the study of our classical texts, ideally in the original Hebrew language...” (Akiba Hebrew Academy Philosophy and Goals Statement, 1993).
The statement of goals of the Hebrew program emphasizes that the Hebrew program at
Akiba is a comprehensive one, running from sixth grade to twelfth grade. The overarching
goals of the program are reading, comprehension and analysis of Hebrew literature and
Jewish classical text. These goals assume the mastery of grammatical patterns and language
structure, and the acquisition of writing and conversational skills.
To accomplish this mission, all Hebrew classes are homogeneously grouped. For the sake of
Hebrew instruction, the school is divided into three major divisions: grades 6-8, grades 9-10,
and grades 11-12. In each of the three divisions students are homogeneously grouped
according to their Hebrew level, and each group meets at the same time to enable flexibility
in moving students to their appropriate level.
The criteria to measure the success of the Hebrew program are: a) High achievements in the
SAT II Hebrew test by students who take it, and b) Placements in colleges - many students are
placed in high Hebrew levels or completely exempt from language classes in colleges like: the
Jewish Theological Seminary, Yeshiva University, Brandeis, Princeton and the University of
Pennsylvania (Adini, 1994).
Problems Encountered in the Hebrew Program
Since our Hebrew classes are homogeneously grouped, the special needs youngsters naturally concentrate in the beginners’ levels. In those classes there is a certain percent of the students, often those of high or above-average academic ability, but with little or no prior
Hebrew background, who can proceed with the material on a fast pace and high level, while
those with special learning needs require specific methods of instruction and can proceed
with the material at a much slower pace. In these classes the number of special needs students is as high as 1/2 to 2/3 of students. This year the school has several classes that are
24
made up of 80%-100% students of special needs. These students demand special attention
from teachers, as well as special methods and strategies to learn Hebrew as a second language, in order to succeed in the dual curriculum of Akiba (Adini, 1994).
Akiba has been fortunate, and is indebted to the Jewish Federation for their financial and
spiritual support of the special needs program, specifically for the funds they provided to hire
a full-time special needs consultant who coordinates a secular subjects resource room at
Akiba, and teaches 6th through 11th graders remedial and developmental education. (Akiba
Hebrew Academy, 1994).
In the Judaic subjects where these special groups and services do not exist, it is especially difficult to teach mainstreamed classes. Most of the teachers are not trained in special education
or students’ different learning styles and many of the teachers have begun to feel frustrated
with their inability to reach all their students. Akiba needs Hebrew teachers who have college
degrees in Special Education in order to open an official track for special needs students. The
Judaica Department could also benefit from the establishment of a Judaica Resource Room,
staffed by a full time Resource Teacher who would meet special needs students having difficulty in Hebrew language classes.
In addition, Judaic Studies teachers do not have their own classrooms; they and their students
float from room to room. The students’ attitude towards Judaic Studies is less positive when
the environment in the classrooms is not conducive to learning. The rooms assigned to Judaic
Studies are also small in comparison to the Core classrooms, which does not allow for any
accommodations to the youngsters’ learning styles. Judaic Studies teachers need classrooms
with locked storage places, display areas, flexible furniture, access to computers, classroom
libraries and small group/individual study spaces, if they are to meet the needs of all students
(Akiba Hebrew Academy, 1992b).
Because most of the beginner’s curriculum books are geared for first grade students (age 6)
texts appropriate to the intellectual level of the high school age student are desperately
needed. The content of texts used in Israel for new immigrants are not relevant to American
teenagers. (Adini, 1994).
There is also a lack of appropriate curricular materials and teaching objectives for the special
population of the school. If the school’s expectations in teaching Bible, for example, are that a
teacher will provide three to five alternative explanations to the text, and some of the students with special needs have difficulty considering two simultaneously, then the school also
has to evaluate the Bible curriculum.
There is no climate of support to bring teachers around to understand that inclusive education is humane and exclusionary education is inhumane. To accomplish this a full time
resource person should be available to other teachers. Hebrew and Judaic Studies teachers
who work with large numbers of special-needs students need more time for planning, developing teaching/learning materials, and more time to receive in-service training and staff
development.
Akiba has opened its doors to special-needs students in larger numbers, but has only begun
to adapt its program to enable them to succeed. Greater progress has been made towards
this goal in secular studies classes and in the Middle School; further strides need to be made
in Judaic Studies and in Upper School classes.
25
Review of Literature
Summary of Literature
Strengths
• Intensive Block Scheduling cuts down on fragmentation. The block schedule reduces
fragmented instruction, and the daily number of class changes; kids have more time for
in-depth study.
• IBS reduces staff and student stress caused by dashing from class to class. School days
are less hectic and tiring.
• IBS reduces the daily number of class changes, thereby reducing discipline problems.
• Teachers teach fewer classes and students during the semester, thus making it possible
to be more attentive to student needs and to develop close relationships. Students
have to deal with three or four teachers a day, which helps them focus better and
become more familiar with each teacher.
• The overall school climate improves as students and teachers spend more
concentrated time with one another.
• Teachers improve their teaching methods and vary classroom activities to motivate
students. Teachers begin to assess students in non-traditional ways, involving them in
the educational process.
• The longer classes encourage teachers to become more innovative, using
cooperative learning/teaching methods, group work, a variety of activities, and
multiple techniques to help students become active learners. The teachers’ role
shifted from director of learning in lectures to facilitator of learning.
• Teachers present new material in a variety of ways to accommodate all learning styles,
allow time for individual and group practice, and then give application and evaluation
activities for homework. There is a closure to the concept.
• Teachers adjust their curriculum to address application of knowledge, and to take into
account student interest, in order to engage them in the learning process.
• IBS provides students with varying learning time, since some students need more time
to learn than others.
• IBS allows for learning and enrichment time on an individual student basis.
• The longer blocks of time allow teachers to use diverse and stimulating instructional
strategies. Students have a longer time in each class to explore and apply concepts in
depth. There are more opportunities for proficiency activities.
• IBS reduced the number of classes, assignments, tests and
projects that students have to deal with during any one day or term.
• Although less content material is covered than before, students leave with more since
they are involved learners.
26
• Results are positive and have been documented in honor roll
percentages, failure rates, attendance, teacher load, class size. Students in IBS are not
scoring any lower, and are doing just as well or better on achievement tests.
• Teachers in the four block periods are quoted saying that the schedule allowed them
to do their jobs better — they are more effective in working with kids; students had
more positive attitudes toward school, appeared to show more interest in the material,
and had higher levels of engagement.
• Teachers who experience IBS can’t conceive of returning to the inflexible treadmill of
the traditional class period.
• Teachers have more time to collaborate with colleagues in their own department.
• Students cannot fail or slack off during the first or third quarter, and still pass the
semester by working hard the second or fourth quarter. The semester course offers
much less leeway for slacking off, resulting in students becoming more diligent and
determined to succeed.
• IBS gives teachers more time daily to teach, the only controllable variable for educators, enabling them to do more things with students to deepen understanding, not
simply impart information.
• For the language classroom, in some schedules, students can finish two years of language instruction in one year. They can potentially complete higher levels of study in a
few years and/or study another language.
Weaknesses
• Inclement weather school closings, and teacher and student absence could be a serious problem for IBS. For every class missed under traditional scheduling, two were lost
under IBS.
• Teachers who taught three consecutive 90 minute periods, during the first semester,
felt stressed and fatigued, but in the second semester schedule, when they had a
lighter teaching load and many non teaching duties,they felt dissatisfied and lost selfesteem.
• Planning for daily instruction is more challenging. More materials are needed for different activities. In a language class, keeping track of the overhead projector, tape player,
VCR, workbook, games, etc., requires juggling and planning.
• The change to IBS is hard work. Eighty or ninety minutes is not just two 40-45 minute
classes combined into one. Teachers need to rethink the presentation of a chapter, look
at the chapter holistically, and combine review and new material. (A thematic approach
works well here.) The literature agrees that when making a change of this magnitude, it
is critical to give teachers an opportunity to plan for and adjust to the new routine.
• In many cases administration provided no staff development, and faculty found it difficult to develop creative ways to present lessons in 90 minute class periods. Lack of
training for teachers can spell disaster. Teachers need on-going in-service training and
curriculum development.
27
• Some teachers have difficulty adapting to changes and view change as a personal
imposition. They experience greater frustration than those who adapt to change and
collaborate with colleagues to help them through the process.
• IBS created a very heavy workload for faculty during the first year of its implementation.
• Making substitute plans for a teacher who will be absent from a 90 minute class is difficult primarily because it is difficult to get trained substitutes. It can be challenging to
find enough activities that a substitute can handle and that will keep students interested.
• Absenteeism can be a significant problem with the longer period class. Diligent students are more cautious about being absent. Less committed students are not as concerned. Make-up work is difficult because more material is covered in a 90 minute class.
• ”The major problem with most efforts to change schools is the failure to plan an evaluation as an integral part of the program and to evaluate in terms of student outcomes.”
• Accommodating transfer students is difficult.
Summary of Interviews
Students
Advantages
Students I interviewed about IBS do not want to go back to traditional scheduling. They felt
they had more opportunities to choose electives; it was easier for them to concentrate on 3
or 4 major subjects a semester rather than 6 or 7; they were able to keep up with the work
(because of peer teaching/tutoring, and more attention from teachers); their retention of the
subject’s material was better since they were able to study it more in depth; they were able to
develop a closer relationship and more interaction with their teachers; their grades improved;
classes were more interesting because of the varied methods and media teachers used during the block period-teachers came up with all kinds of creative activities; they had more time
to do work in class and go over it; they could do a better job on their assignments every day,
since they only had to prepare for 3 or 4 classes; students felt that they accomplish more, and
understood the material better, which helped their grades; they feel that they had more
chances to do well because there were more ways to show their knowledge.
Disadvantages
Some classes are too long and boring, because teachers stand and lecture the entire 80-90
minute block; when you are absent from school, you miss more in each class, and it is hard to
make up; you have to be responsible for your own learning; in some courses, teachers try to
cover the same amount of material as they did during the entire year, which results in too
many assignments.
28
Faculty
Advantages:
Most faculty I interviewed seemed very enthusiastic about IBS. With the exception of the
teachers at Beth Tfiloh who did not investigate IBS, and had no training, even teachers who
were at first vehemently opposed to IBS, did not want to return to the traditional schedule.
Positives included: they felt that they had more time to interact with their students; they
could work with students one on one more often; they were able to reach more students
because they could match their teaching style to students’ learning styles; they had more
time to work with other members of the faculty in their department to create materials ; they
had a chance to share with their colleagues; they had time to go and observe each other’s
teaching, and learn new things from one another; they had less stress, because they had to
deal with fewer students, and fewer classes each semester; even though they covered less
material, they felt that they did a better job teaching it in greater depth; they were able to
plan more interdisciplinary courses/ classes/ topics/ activities; there was less stress, because
they did not run from class to class; they had fewer preps per semester;“if you have a class or
student you do not like, you only have them for one semester”; there were fewer discipline
problems; they have more time to do projects; they are able to group students for cooperative learning; teachers use the library more since they have time to take their classes there to
do research, students can prepare projects and oral presentations; they were able to increase
students’ choices for classes and electives; language teachers found that the benefits of
improved language proficiency skills possible in intensive instruction outweighed the slight
increase in review time that they sometimes needed.
Disadvantages:
Teachers said that they were very stressed and anxious at first when they had to plan for long
blocks of time; they had to be very organized or it would not work;“you cannot come to class
unprepared, you have to plan at least 3-4 activities for every period/block”; eighty-ninety
minute classes are very long; they cover less material, and had to adjust their curriculum; they
felt that teachers need training to implement creative and innovative classes - some teachers
did not have any training at all; some teachers found it difficult to stop lecturing, and develop
student-centered activities; teachers had difficulty evaluating creative projects and assigning
grades for group work.
Mrs. Orna Kaplan, Hebrew Department Coordinator,
Milkin Community High School, California
Connected with the Stephen Wise Temple
Interview By Phone-11/5/96
Mrs. Kaplan explained that the Milkin Community High School implemented Intensive Block
Scheduling this year in order to be competitive with other private schools
in their area that were using IBS. As an experiment, they blocked two classes for 90 minutes
every other day last year, and found that it worked out well. The Milkin faculty rejected
the 4x4 version of IBS and instead opted to block
80 minutes classes; teachers see their classes every other day in a ten day cycle (A-day to Jday), with Thursdays (when they have Tefilot=prayers) and Fridays (that are shorter days) the
same every week. Teachers teach 6 classes, and classes are held in
trailers, since a building is being built for them at present.
Milkin department heads observed Cooperative Learning at other schools since they believed
that Cooperative Learning would benefit their faculty to learn to plan their time better, and to
29
learn to engage and interest their students. The teachers at the Milkin Community High
School did not have training in IBS. Mrs. Kaplan visited two schools, and observed Spanish
teachers teaching longer blocks of time. She was impressed with what she saw, caught on to
the main idea, and brought it back to the teachers in her department.
Like Akiba, Milkin groups two grade levels (7&8, 9&10, 11&12) homogeneously for Hebrew. In
each grouping there are approximately six levels and each level uses a different textbook.For
the first two beginners’ levels they use the series “Darconim”, which they feel is much better than
the “Shalav” series used at Akiba (“Shalav I, II, & III” is used in Hebrew levels I, II, & III and in the
Upper School Ulpan classes). She agreed to send us a list of the books used in her department.
Before Intensive Block Scheduling was implemented the students at the Milkin School had a
nine period day, from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The students and the faculty were very hassled,
running from class to class every 45 minutes.
Mrs. Kaplan “loves” IBS and believes that the climate and attitude towards Hebrew Language
studies improved since its implementation. She believes that in a longer Hebrew Language
class: it is possible to do many activities; teachers are able to complete a topic; in Honors
Hebrew, they have time to discuss poetry; teachers are able to go over the work in class,
because they feel that students don’t learn anything when work is collected and returned
graded; teachers become more creative and use multisensory teaching approaches (role playing, dramatizations, simulations, writing scripts, memorizing and performing skits and short
plays); teachers and students learned to organize their work to suit longer blocks of time;
multi-media is used more often. With IBS, they were able to create an Ulpan class in which
there is a combination of grades.
Only 7th grade teachers found it more difficult to teach in longer blocks of time because the
students became restless. They found that they needed at least three activities per block since
many students of that age have no patience.
Mrs. Kaplan believes that part of the problems some teachers are having with IBS is that they
try to lecture for the entire 80 minutes, and that does not work. In her opinion a teacher has
to learn to be creative and very organized, but the more you teach in a longer block of time,
the better you become at it, and the more you learn.
Mrs. Kaplan meets with her teachers at least once a cycle, and conducts department meetings
and enrichment. They do not have regularly scheduled time to meet and work on materials
together, but share a large collection of material from past years. All a teacher needs to do is
pull out what s/he needs. The teachers meet and see each other regularly and work cooperatively.
It was most interesting to speak with Mrs. Kaplan after the visit to Beth Tfiloh in Baltimore,
where I observed a poorly implemented IBS program. The teachers at the Milkin School in
California learned about Cooperative Learning, but both schools’ educators were teaching in
longer blocks of time without previous in-service
in IBS. Although it was enlightening to learn about both of these attempts at Intensive Block
Scheduling, we believe that there is a need to assess the implementation of this approach
after working with it for several years, because after such a short period of time, it is difficult
to state that these new ideas were implemented effectively.
30
Conclusions
In Hebrew Language studies the issue of retention after a break of a summer and one or two
semesters is paramount in importance.
A majority of teachers concurred that a lengthy time interval did not create difficulty for students, and that students were not reluctant to take a sequential course after a layoff. The studies found that “there were no significant differences in the average marks reported by students in full credit semestered and traditional schools.”“Students indicated that the retention
of information and skills over a semester and a summer or even two semesters and a summer
did not
present a serious problem.” (Traverso, Henry P., Practitioner . National Association of
Secondary School Principals.)
In addition, language teachers in schools that have been using IBS for several years have
observed that no appreciable increase in review time was required. Students appeared to forget the largest amount of what they have learned upon immediately leaving the course, (i.e.,
during the summer vacation). After that the quantity of information lost from the memory
seemed to dissipate. The “curb of forgetfulness” is highest at its initial point. Material learned
in an intensive manner also tends to be “better learned”. What helps is moving away from a
lecture format, and involving students in the learning process. Foreign language teachers I
interviewed believe that students do not forget anymore than they do when they are away
for a summer. However, they make sure that they build in a review session into the new
material they teach.
Concerns
• One of our major concerns is the Akiba facility itself. Even after renovation, we are not
sure that the room size in certain parts of our building will be conducive to work in
groups, have enough physical space for various work stations, or for resources needed
for varying instruction. All the schools we visited had large, bright, airy, air conditioned
classroom. Most of these schools had computer rooms and language labs available. We
are not sure that this will happen in the Akiba facility.
• How is the concept of IBS compatible with the mission and
philosophy of Akiba Hebrew Academy, i.e., having Hebrew for one semester a year?
• Will Akiba be able to schedule Hebrew levels, that are grouped by grade, to meet at
the same time to enable flexibility in moving students from one level to another?
• Language teachers need to have their own classrooms, with resources for varying
instruction (TV & VCR, overhead projector, cassette tape recorders with ear phones,
computers with software for reinforcement and enrichment, dictionaries, maps, leisure
reading materials, games, etc.)?
• Foreign language teachers are concerned about the gap of time between language
levels (especially when there could be as much as a year between the completion of
one level of a language and the continuation into the next).
• Most foreign language textbooks (French & Spanish) have programs developed that
would be suitable for longer blocks of time. These programs have beautifully
illustrated textbooks and workbooks, cassettes, videos, etc., and built in varied activities
suitable for cooperative learning groups, pairs, etc. There are no such programs for
Hebrew teachers.
• What can we do to provide for students with learning disabilities who are excused
from a second foreign language ( Spanish, French or Latin), and who spend those free
periods roaming in the building or library? We do not have a Resource Room with com31
puters and specialists in all subjects where these students could get additional reinforcement and or help during these free periods.
• Balancing teacher workload - at present teachers at Akiba are teaching 5 courses in a
6 day cycle. This was a major change from previous years when they taught 4 courses,
which allowed them more time to meet with students, work with other members in
their department, observe one another, write lesson plans together, etc. We now have
data as to how the addition of one course for the teachers has changed the working
conditions and learning at Akiba. In order to implement IBS at this time, there is a concern that teachers’ load would have to be further increased. This would exacerbate the
situation further, especially since teachers will need time to establish and develop curriculum for modifications in instructional patterns, establish patterns, provide for incremental learning, maintain student motivation, meet all course objectives, etc.
• Staff development is a very big concern. Akiba teachers need assurance that staff
development would be offered before they vote to adopt IBS. That means more than
just the three day workshop we have been offered. We need ongoing in-service all year
long; more extensive courses on Cooperative Learning and the 4MAT System; extensive
work on curriculum development in all levels of Hebrew; we need computers and computer programs, and a great deal of support.
• There is a need to set higher standards for passing from one level of Hebrew to the
other (at least a grade of 75). Otherwise a student begins with a very weak foundation,
and may not be able to keep up with the intensive pace.
• Students absence from class because of the sports’ program is a great concern. These
extra curricular activities could impact on the teacher as well as the student with IBS.
• The trips that are scheduled cause havoc in Hebrew classes, where students from two
grade are in the same level. When one grade is out, or some students are out for a language trip, the teacher cannot go on because of all the material the absent students
will miss. With IBS, this problem would intensify, unless we declare a moratorium on all
trips for the first couple of years, and we appoint someone to oversee the entire years’
trip schedule.
• Are Middle School students developmentally mature enough to handle a course for
one semester only? It takes the 7th graders a long time to make the transition from
Schechter to Akiba. We are not sure that having a student for one semester will allow
students time to adjust, know their
teachers, and allow the teachers to get to know them, before the semester is over. Will
a semester course allow for healthy student-teacher relationships, and accurate assessment of the student’s performance?
• How can we continue the celebrations and observances of Jewish and secular holidays,
and the spontaneous assemblies we call, when we implement IBS?
• We saw that IBS can work, and our first reaction was positive. However, we have also
seen that if it is done poorly, it can be a disaster. I believe
that there must be a total commitment by the Akiba Board and administration to this
project. A good relationship needs to be developed between the Board, administration
and faculty so that the atmosphere of trust at the school is improved, and we can move
forward. Teacher training, curriculum development, proper facilities, resources, support,
must be the top priorities for the Board and administration before such a major
change can be pursued.
32
Recommendations
In order to adopt IBS, teachers at Akiba need to have their workload reduced, i.e., go back to
teaching only four courses. All non-teaching duties should be
covered by paraprofessionals. Teachers should be totally free to do work on lesson plans
and teaching. They need regularly scheduled opportunities to share concerns and successes,
and have forums for discussion.
In Hebrew, we need to change our curriculum from an achievement based program to a
proficiency based program — where students have to think more, and learn more tangible
skills — real life skills. We need to develop proficiency based activities for Hebrew, which will
have to be written by the teachers themselves. Appropriate textbooks with a variety of activities will have to be chosen carefully, and many approaches to the text will have to be created.
Foreign languages seems to be a subject matter that can adapt well to a longer period of
time — oral conversation, video, listening, group work, and other activities could be
implemented. We need to change the way Hebrew is taught in order to engage the students.
Oral communication, comprehension and writing skills must be improved. We must develop
more student centered activities. This is a major change, and we need to do this very carefully,
and really think through what kind of a class we want to create. All foreign language and
Hebrew teachers will need their own rooms, with resources for varied instruction (TV and
VCR, computers and software for reinforcement and enrichment, tape recorders, etc.).
We might consider going back to old textbooks we used several years ago (these texts are
out of print, but we could duplicate them), until other more suitable materials are written or
found. In those days our lower Hebrew levels had eight to ten hours of Hebrew weekly. We
could ask Dr. Barbara Wachs from CAJE, who used this textbook series to come in and give
our lower level Hebrew teachers in-service workshops, and have them observe her teach this
series as she had done very successfully in the past. Until we can develop or find new
programs, this text could lend itself to IBS for teaching Hebrew.
The Hebrew and Jewish Studies Department should look into and learn about the materials
published for ,cfrun vtruv by Bar-Ilan University. This program, in my opinion, would work
well if IBS is implemented and is suitable for some of our Hebrew, Bible and Jewish Studies
classes. A complete explanation of this program is in my Addendum.
For upper Hebrew literature classes, an interdisciplinary integrated approach could be used.
Multiple academic disciplines, such as Hebrew literature, Bible, and Oral Law could be studied
around a single theme or project to show inter- relationships among topics. Cooperative
learning groups could work well to create ,ufurg, exhibits. With the teacher defining in
advance (with step s/he provide) what topic†or unit is to be researched. The teacher leads the
process, and the students define what they’ll do and how. Each unit should be turned into an
exhibit = vfurg,. Occasional vfurg, (exhibits) should be directed toward ensuring that
students covered exactly what the teachers want them to cover. This will ensure that the gaps
are filled in = ,uthec ,ufurg,. We can receive materials and examples of this method from
the Hartman High School in Israel.
* * * * *
The Akiba student population is highly able, upwardly mobile, Jewishly committed and religiously diverse. The school program is structured with their needs and aspirations in mind:
academically rigorous and demanding, socially and politically aware, with subtle intellectual,
religious, behavioral, and interpersonal expectations. Parents and other community supporters seek the best possible education for Akiba students and have an interest in expanding the
33
school program to appeal to an even more diverse population, including students of aboveaverage academic ability with special learning needs.
It is our opinion that IBS could be implemented in Akiba for Hebrew and Bible classes provided the concerns and recommendations we expressed previously are addressed seriously. I
would like to see us take another year to explore and investigate all the possibilities further.
Initially, we might consider implementing IBS in some classes that would lend themselves
easily to a longer block, and evaluate our success before we undertake such a major change
in all subjects. This would allow other departments and subjects to investigate and develop
materials that might help bring IBS to a smoother and more successful implementation. In
order to deal with the problem of studying Hebrew, Bible or Talmud on a daily basis at Akiba
and fulfill our
philosophy statement, we might consider an alternating day (AB,AB-day) schedule. That way
we could have Hebrew on alternating days, and Bible or Talmud on the others. We believe
that there needs to be a change, so that we can engage and motivate our students and meet
their needs.
34
,cfrun vtruv
Cooperative Learning Focusing on Discovery Learning Tasks
(Finding Out/Descubrimiento)
Research has shown that the traditional teaching methods are often not appropriate in a heterogeneous class. Many methods cannot accommodate the differences between groups of
students, differences in the level of achievement, students’ inclinations, needs, talents, etc. In
such a class, the teacher cannot direct and accommodate the level of teaching and the content in a way that it will be compatible with such a wide repertoire of achievements in the
class (Rich and Ben-Ari, 1994).
In order to cope with such heterogeneous groups, teachers in the United States and Israel
have turned to one of the cooperative learning educational approaches called ,cfrun
vtruv This educational approach, originally called Finding Out/Descubrimiento (FO/D), was
first designed by Edward DeAvila as an instructional approach using activities from science
and math. The materials were specifically designed for developing thinking skills in
Spanish/English dual language settings. The methods of classroom management, teacher
training, and a complete model of organizational support were developed later by the
Program for Complex Instruction at Stanford University under the direction of Elizabeth G.
Cohen and her colleagues. This approach was adopted and adapted in 1986 by Bar-Ilan
University to be used in schools in Israel (Kagan, 1993).
,cfrun vtruv is an educational approach whose goal is to develop thinking skills, raise the
educational achievement of all students, and improve social relationships in heterogeneous
classes. This educational approach sees the interaction between the students as a necessary
factor for conceptual learning.
In this approach the heterogeneity of the class is determined by the students’ characteristics.
One set of characteristics defines the student’s behavior in his development and change.
These characteristics include: level of thinking, values, knowledge, motor skills, social skills,
and others; in other words, all the variables that the teaching process is interested in
influencing in the framework of the school. The second set of characteristics include characteristics that are set, or characteristics that are very slow to change, such as: thinking style,
learning style and other personal variables. A third set of characteristics that express the
personality of the student as an individual are his inclinations, talent, aptitude, ability, will to
choose, and his personal interests in various subjects (Rich and Ben-Ari, 1994).
A class, that might be homogeneously grouped according to level of knowledge or ability to
learn, could be heterogeneous according to the students’ learning styles, pace of learning,
thinking styles, etc. Or, a class that was classified as homogeneous in learning style could be
heterogeneous in other variables, such as ability to learn, social adeptness and personal inclinations.
Every child can achieve differently in various subjects or under different learning conditions,
and the gap in his achievements in the various subjects could be very wide. The learning
environment also adds to the heterogeneity of the class. In addition to the physical environment, time, human resources, experience of the teacher, teaching materials, etc. can influence,
directly or indirectly, the possibilities and ability to learn of the different students (Rich and
Ben-Ari, 1994).
35
It is clear that teaching a heterogeneous class — where learning-disabled students and gifted
students are also mainstreamed — may cause frustration and behavior problems amongst
the students, and unease amongst teachers. When the differences between the students in
the class are so dominant and
complex, the teachers are faced with many obstacles — educational, behavioral, and social.
The main challenge is to ascertain the most effective way to teach each one of the students
in the class, in order that s/he will succeed in his/her studies under these conditions.
Educators invest much time and thought into answering the question: What is the
correct/proper way to teach such heterogeneous classes? The fact that the class is heterogeneous may impede/hamper the advancement of all the students, and especially those who
are weak. It is clear that the complexity of the student population obligates the development
of suitable ways to manage the class, the educational materials, and the teaching methods.
,cfrun vtruv provides situations that arouse the natural curiosity, intelligence, and
expressiveness of students in order to emerge, develop, and guide learning. The emphasis
of this approach is on bringing out and nourishing the natural intelligent, creative, and
expressive tendencies among students in a context that has universal significance.
,cfrun vtruv is based on the assumption that following one’s curiosity, having new
experiences that modify one’s conception of oneself and the world, and sharing these
experiences — especially with peers — are inherently satisfying, and no reward is needed to
convince students to engage in these activities, which are the most important forms of learning (Rich and Ben-Ari, 1994).
,cfrun vtruv is structured to maximize the opportunity for small groups of students to
work together to further their own understanding and development, and then to share this
experience with the whole class so that the other class members also may profit.
,cfrun vtruv achieves its goals through changes in three areas of learning situations
in a heterogeneous class: 1) changes in the nature of the learning tasks, 2) changes in the
organization and management of the class, and 3) changes in the function and role of the
teacher (Rich and Ben-Ari, 1994).
The curriculum materials for Hebrew literature classes, for example, consist of stories and
poetry, workbooks or worksheets, activity and task cards. The activity cards contain instructions for students to engage in intrinsically interesting and manipulative activities. For each
activity there are questions on the worksheets which requires the student to describe what
happened or to form inferences about how or why things happened the way they did.
Stanford University’s program for Complex Instruction, and Bar-Ilan University in Israel have
developed a method of teacher training and organizational support that enables teachers to
use this general approach of Finding Out or for other curricula employing multiple groups
with activities requiring higher order thinking skills. These methods are being disseminated in
collaboration with the California State University system for subjects such as math, English,
and science. Bar-Ilan University developed materials for Hebrew and Judaic subjects. At the
school and district levels both in the United States and in Israel, this program offers a model
of organizational support that takes into account how schools need to alter the isolation of
teachers if more sophisticated instruction is to survive over time. Methods of collegial
problem-solving and evaluation are integrated in the training. A year-long process of followup takes place after an initial two weeks of training (Kagan, 1993, and Rich and Ben-Ari, 1994).
36
The uniqueness of ,cfrun vtruv is in its attempt to minimize the gap between the status
of the learners and the learning situations. This approach is based on a multi-dimensional
perception of the learning process and of the group of learners as individuals. This approach
is based on the growing research over the last few years in the area of psychological research
of human intelligence. It recommends a multi-dimensional approach in relation to intelligence. In contrast to the traditional approach that saw intelligence as single-dimensional.
Today there exists an inclination to identify different types of intelligence: musical, mathematical, spatial, inter-personal, visual, mechanical, logical, etc.
(Rich and Ben-Ari, 1994).
According to this learning approach there are individual differences in relationship to each
one of these intelligences and there isn’t necessarily a meaningful/significant adapter
between them. A learner may be strong in one type of intelligence and weak in another. This
research shows that the more the learning situation is multi-dimensional and represents a
rich variety of competence and intelligence, the more meaningful the situation to more students, and many more students will be able to express their competence.
Instead of focusing on the basic traditional learning tasks (reading, writing, arithmetic), the
developers of the ,cfrun vtruv claim that one has to take into account the rich multidimensional baggage of intellectual talents and strategies for problem solving that the students of the heterogeneous class bring with them. According to this new approach, one cannot see the student as single-dimensional, in other words,
an “achiever” or “non-achiever” from an academic point of view. A teacher who rates his/her
students according to their academic achievements alone, ignores the students’ other talents
and skills that are no less important for success in work, in inter-personal relationships, and in
the life of the maturing individual (Rich and Ben-Ari, 1994).
In addition, they believe that the class assignments/tasks must be closer to daily life and
problem-solving tasks, in order to encourage critical thinking. Their claim is that the tasks of
the traditional class restrict the students to a narrow arc of activities and intellectual conformity. In these classes the teacher is the active figure and the students are mainly the passive
receivers of knowledge. The interaction between the teacher and student is relatively limited,
and so too the interaction between the students themselves. Cooperation and mutual help
are very rare and usually even forbidden. The competitive structure of the traditional teaching
approach emphasizes the performance and solution more than the struggle, confrontation,
and learning on a high level. In a class of this type, the student utilizes usually only a limited
amount of his/her intellectual talents (Slavin, 1983a).
In ,cfrun vtruv tasks are planned to expand the learning possibilities, to develop new and
varied approaches to acquire knowledge and comprehension, and to turn as many intellectual talents as possible into ones that are relevant to the student. They develop educational
materials that demand additional intellectual talents: sharp spatial/visual senses, logical thinking, expression of talents, and interpersonal and social skills.
Students are assigned to heterogeneous small groups at learning centers (a desk with four
chairs at which the group can sit together and work). Each learning center has activity cards
and workbooks or worksheet. Each student must complete his/her own worksheet at each
learning center. Students are trained to take responsibility for each other, each playing a different role. At a given learning center, one team-member may be a facilitator, whose job it is
to see that everyone in the group gets the help that s/he needs. Other roles are Assistant,
Equipment and Clean Up Coordinator, and Reporter; roles are rotated. The classroom management system requires a blend of individual accountability and collective responsibility (Rich
and Ben-Ari, 1994).
37
Students are trained to use each other as resources, ask questions, explain, offer assistance,
and help others without doing things for them. In this way, students are enabled to
understand the activity cards and to gain access to the learning tasks. Because of the peer
interaction, they understand the nature of tasks at their learning centers; they receive
assistance in filling out their worksheets.
Because these tasks are so varied and challenging, students who do not have the basic skills
find that they can make intellectual contributions while accepting help from classmates with
better academic skills. As a result of engaging tasks in which the basic skills of grammar,
reading and writing Hebrew are integrated with higher order thinking skills, students make
broad gains in achievement and in language proficiency.
Students work in their assigned four member teams to assess mastery of vocabulary and
content presented in each story or poem. Materials are prepared to accompany specific
stories or poems. The study of reading and writing is integrated. When students are writing
dialogues, for example, a peer editing approach is used to facilitate writing for revision and
evaluation of writing (Rich and Ben-Ari, 1994).
Teams are heterogeneously grouped to maximize the potential for cross-ability tutoring,
positive student relations, improved cross-sex relations, and efficient classroom management.
A number of researchers and theorists have taken heterogeneity of teams as a defining
characteristic of cooperative learning. Heterogeneous teams are usually formed by having
high, middle and low achieving students on each team, and attempting to make sure the
team is composed of males and females - having a high achiever on each team can be like
having one teacher aide for every three students.
As students work in teams, the teacher circulates, monitoring their progress. The teacher’s role
is one of consultant and observer, not evaluator or director. Responsibility for the task and the
learning remains with the students. Occasionally, if the students are having a difficulty with a
task with no possibility of discovering and correcting their error on their own, the teacher
may intervene, but the intervention is usually to make them aware of a contradiction or of
some additional resources. The responsibility for correcting or enhancing the work remains
with the student. The teacher can be seen as friendly and approachable rather than distant
(Rich and Ben-Ari, 1994).
Much has been written about equality and excellence, and many doubt that both of these
goals can be realized at the same time, and especially in a heterogeneous class. The developers of ,cfrun vtruv believe that, with proper educational management, both goals can be
achieved. I believe that ,cfrun vtruv could be used for Hebrew and Judaic Studies and
would be most appropriate in IBS.
38
Bibliography
Adini, Tamar.“Presentation to the Education Committee of Akiba Hebrew Academy,” January
18, 1994 (unpublished)
Akiba Hebrew Academy.“Education Committee Meeting Minutes on Special Education”
February, 1994. (unpublished)
Akiba Hebrew Academy.“Philosophy and Goals.” 1993. (unpublished)
Akiba Hebrew Academy.“School Curriculum.” 1993-94 (unpublished).
Akiba Hebrew Academy.“Self-study presented to Middle States Association of Colleges and
Schools. Other Programs Section of National Study of School Evaluation” (Narrative Edition),
1992 (b) (unpublished).
Kagan, Spencer. Cooperative Learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
1993.
King, A.J.C, Clements, J.L., Enns., J.G., Lockerbie, J.W., and Warren, W.K. Semestering the
Secondary School. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 1975.
Kramer, Steven.“What We Know About Block Scheduling: A Literature Review With
Supplemental Data.” NASSP Bulletin. 1996.
Slavin, Robert E. Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman, 1983 (a).
,bcr,vu lubhjv sran /ck-rc vh,cu vhks wzugn /v,hfc ouahh :vshnk ,ububdx
1992 wlubhjv ,frgn ruphak iufnv-zfrnv zujn
/ohfrug whrt-ic kjru ktrah w.hr /,hbduryv v,hfk vtruv ,uyha
1994 wo"gc ohhfubhj ohyehhurp rutk vtmuv
39
40
Intensive Block Scheduling for Mathematics
Marlene B. Gefter
Mathematics
41
Table of Contents
Goals and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
The Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Interviews and School Visitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
42
Goals and Methods
My goal for the two months that I investigated Intensive Block Scheduling (IBS) as it applies
specifically to the teaching of mathematics, was to gather information on the pros and cons
of IBS from the teaching standpoint, from the students’ standpoint, from the literature, and
from achievement results of standardized testing where available. I then planned to share
that information with the Akiba math department to determine whether block scheduling
would meet the academic needs of the math program at Akiba.
To implement these goals, I visited math classrooms, spoke to many math teachers, some in
person, others by phone or e-mail. I spent time working on the internet locating material and
making contacts with teachers and students. In the end I visited four schools, and spoke with
more than 30 teachers, students and parents currently involved with block scheduling. I
reviewed the literature on block scheduling as it applies to mathematics. I contacted the
major publishers of mathematics text books, some by phone and others at the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics Meeting in Baltimore, MD, to see whether there are any
books adapted for IBS. I attended a session at the NCTM on the implementation of the block
in the math classroom. And finally I met with the math department at Akiba during department meetings to convey the information I retrieved and discussed the application of block
scheduling to Akiba’s program.
The Literature
The literature on block scheduling separates the academic and non-academic benefits of IBS.
The focus of this report is to delineate the academic strengths and weaknesses of block
scheduling as it applies to the teaching of mathematics. However, two potentially relevant
non-academic benefits are the facts that school atmosphere is calmer and students have a
better attitude towards school. Both of these, for which there is overwhelming evidence,
occur in schools using block scheduling.
The Effects of Block Scheduling on Teaching Strategies
Advocates of IBS see the block as a way to improve teaching styles. They believe that the
longer class period will encourage teachers to go from being “the sage on the stage to a
guide on the side”; that is, teachers will use more student-centered activities, more cooperative learning and will rely less on lecturing. For teachers trying to implement the standards of
the National Council of the Teachers of Mathematics, the longer class period gives them the
opportunity to use more problem-based instruction, alternative assessment and cooperative
learning. Researchers recommend using cooperative learning and other student participatory
activities to replace lecturing in the block. This recommendation by researchers, however,
although supported by interviews of teachers and administrators, is not yet supported by
hard data on student performance (Kramer, 1996).
In the longer class period lecturing becomes a less effective teaching strategy. Students have
difficulty sitting through two lectures in a row by teachers who are trying to stack two lessons
into one block. Yet it has been found that math teachers may be less likely to change their
teaching styles than teachers from other departments. This was documented in schools in
British Colombia (Reid, 1995) and in a study of two high schools in Minnesota (Muruyama,
Freeman, Hole, Frederickson and Springis-Doss, 1995). Another disadvantage of the block is
that:“After switching to a block schedule, the required changes are sufficiently dramatic that
having more experienced teachers, which traditionally correlates with better student performance, may no longer be an advantage.”(Raphael, 1986). Kramer concludes in his review of
the block scheduling literature that math teachers need more support to change their teach-
43
ing styles than teachers of other disciplines. And in fact,“without support in the form of staff
development, adequate planning time, and time allocated to making necessary curricular
changes, it is unlikely that they [teachers] will be able to do so [change]. Without such support, switching to a block schedule can actually decrease student achievement.” (1995)
The Effects of Block Scheduling on the Mathematics Curriculum
Most math teachers are concerned that the curriculum cannot be covered, nor would it fit
into the double length time block. Much of the literature suggests that in general, the block
allows the curriculum to be covered in more depth, although in less breadth. The evidence
that less material is covered in the block in math is very strong. King’s study (1978) documented this to be so for the semestered block, and Usiskin (1995) found the same results
from math teachers using the University of Chicago series in the alternating block schedule.
One exception to this is Stumpf’s (1995) report that in his school in Colorado, in their 5x70
trimester schedule in which most year courses are completed in two trimesters, math teachers are covering more material in one trimester than they did previously in one semester.
Although it is generally agreed that less material is covered in the block, there is a question as
to whether material is actually covered in more depth in the math classroom. Surveys of
teachers in 21 North Carolina schools conclude that teachers perceive they are teaching more
in depth, there is more problem-solving and higher-order thinking, as well as greater retention of subject matter. (Averett, 1994). Other surveys had similar findings, yet in an observational study, King (1978) suggested that the in-depth coverage that did occur in most subjects did not occur in the math classroom. Furthermore, most of the studies done since King
have been surveys of teachers and not observations (Kramer, 1995).
Another issue involving the mathematics curriculum under the block is that it oftentimes has
to be modified. Kramer (1995) interviewed eight teachers who were successful with block
scheduling. Seven of the eight had changed their math curriculum. The eighth was from a
school in British Columbia where the state mandated the curriculum and change was not
possible. Of the seven who made changes, every change involved adding an additional math
course into the curriculum. One example is to adapt the Algebra I, II sequence into an Algebra
I, II, III sequence in order to make up for the less breadth in coverage under block scheduling.
Another reason for modifying the curriculum is to reduce the overlap of material covered
among courses. If less material and thus fewer topics are covered, there may not be a need to
reteach topics.
AP Calculus, it is oftentimes found, cannot be adequately covered in one semester under
block. Many schools in the 4x4 block have adjusted their schedule so that AP courses are
taught in the fall semester and an AP seminar is offered in the spring to prepare students for
the AP test, given at present only in May. Another option is to have the AP course stay as a
skinny and run through the entire year. Not all schools however have made accommodations
for AP courses.
The Effects of Block Scheduling on Homework, Retention and Absenteeism
In the semestered block schedule, there are half as many opportunities to assign homework.
Studies to measure how much homework is actually done have shown inconsistent results.
King (1975) concluded that the amount of homework corresponds to the type of teaching
methods being implemented in the classroom, with more homework assigned when group
work and group projects are part of the curriculum. Usiskin (1995) studied the alternating
block schedule and found that teachers had difficulty getting students to complete the
amount of homework that corresponded to the longer class time.
44
Mathematics teachers are universally concerned about the effects on retention when there is
a gap of a semester and a summer or longer between sequential courses. They wonder if they
will have to spend a large amount of class time reviewing material for some students.
Although teachers surveyed usually believe there will be gaps in retention, the literature
doesn’t support this. In Kramer’s (1995) review of the literature, he concluded that students
who had been away from the mathematics for the longer gap initially had more difficulty
remembering concepts they had learned, but they recovered quickly and the short lapse had
little impact on their success in the current math class.
Student absences, on the other hand, can have a very disruptive effect on the classroom in
the block schedule. In fact, many studies report this to be a major weak point. The negative
effects are reported for the semestered block (Averett, 1994) as well as for the alternating
block (Usiskin, 1995).
Achievement Results Under the Block Schedule
The College Board in Princeton, N.J. recently reported that students in schools that use block
scheduling who take Advanced Placement tests “tend to do poorly in most subjects when
compared to students from high schools that don’t use block scheduling.”The difference is
“more than half a standard deviation.”The exception was in English tests where there was no
difference. The College Board warns, however, that this result applies only to AP tests and it is
too early to say if it could be generalized to non-AP courses (NCTM web page on internet).
Other studies have shown adverse effects: Reg Wild in the British Colombia Ministry of
Education (1996) did a study of 20,000 students and found a substantial drop in scores on
standardized exams in physics, math and English. Canadian schools have been using block
scheduling since the 1970’s and many achievement studies have come from them. Bateson
(1995) did a study on science achievement which showed that full-year students did significantly better than block schedule students.
Specifically in math classes, a 1994 study in North Carolina showed that Algebra II and
Geometry scores were significantly lower in block scheduling schools. Additionally, in some
surveys of the same schools, North Carolina students said that “block scheduling was least
useful and interesting in mathematics” (NCTM News Bulletin Feature).
In an article entitled, ”The Effects of Block Scheduling on Seventh Grade Math Students,”
Schrothe and Dixon reported that the test scores of seventh grade lower achieving students
who attended math class every day for a 90-minute block were not significantly different
than the same level of student who was in the traditional 50-min. class. The study also found
that there was no significant difference in achievement between higher achieving students in
a 90-minute, alternative-days schedule and comparable students in a traditional schedule.
This study suggests that a longer, uninterrupted class does not guarantee higher achievement. But the study warns that other factors enter into the results of a study, namely, the
length of time on block scheduling, teacher experience, test and testing conditions, and
instructional style (Schrothe, 1995).
Non-Academic Benefits of Block Scheduling
There is overwhelming evidence to support the contention that the school atmosphere is
calmer and students have a better attitude toward school with block scheduling. Both of
these benefits occur in schools that use the 4x4 or the alternating block. Additionally, an often
cited reason for the adoption of block scheduling is that schools will have fewer dropouts
and discipline problems.
45
Interviews and School Visitations
The following is a compilation of interviews I had with teachers, administrators, students and
parents involved in the block schedule. I visited Hatboro-Horsham High School, Cardinal
Dougherty High School, The Dalton School in New York City, and Strathaven High School.
Additionally, I spoke with teachers or students at area schools: Upper Moreland High School,
Haverford High School, Harriton High School, Radnor High School, and to teachers via e-mail
from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado and California. Lastly, I attended a block
scheduling lecture at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Regional Meeting in
Baltimore, MD where I spoke to teachers who were either already teaching under block
scheduling, preparing for it or investigating it.
The Effects of Block Scheduling on Teaching Strategies
In each of the schools I visited, the teachers liked the block and most said they would not
want to go back to the traditional schedule. They reported that in the beginning they felt like
first year teachers all over again, with an enormous amount of work, yet they still preferred
the calmer school atmosphere with blocking to the hectic day of the traditional schedule.
Indeed, I observed a less rushed pace in many of the classrooms I visited. Teachers also preferred having a lower number of students at a given time. Block scheduling gave teachers an
easier schedule as they have fewer classes at one time, no duties, more preparation time and
they cover less content. But when asked how block scheduling was for teaching mathematics, one math teacher said to me,“In math, less is less.”
According to the literature, one of the strengths of the block is that there is more opportunity
to use problem-based instruction, alternative assessment and cooperative learning in the
longer class period. Are these teachers making the changes? My observation has been that at
Hatboro-Horsham and Cardinal Dougherty they were not. And my interviews of many math
teachers and students confirm this as well. Teachers have restructured their class periods into
smaller units; they change activities several times during the block. They have students go up
to the board more than before and they have students work in groups (not necessarily cooperative learning however). They do rely less on lecture, but for the most part, the teaching
techniques seemed very similar to those seen in a traditional 50-minute class.
At the Dalton School, a block schedule was instituted for the middle school only and this
block was an hour of math every day all year. Two of the seventh grade teachers had changed
the curriculum and their methods by teaching a computer-based class with the geometry
sketchpad. The instruction was problem-based and student-centered; there was cooperative
learning and the teacher utilized alternative assessments. One of the teachers at the school
had written the curriculum for this class and was in the process of publishing it. The other
Dalton teachers worked with a traditional curriculum. At Strathaven High School only the
ninth grade is blocked. The teachers decided to use the Integrated Mathematics Program
(IMP) because it is problem-based and utilizes cooperative learning. Two of the teachers are
implementing it. These classrooms, I must note however, seemed very rushed as the teachers
were trying to adapt IMP, which is written for a 50 minute class, to the block.
Of the teachers I corresponded with, most try to lecture less and bring more technology into
the classroom. But they have not incorporated many new teaching styles. A typical example
of a class as described to me by a block scheduling teacher includes some small group work
followed by a large group discussion. The teacher could then teach a new topic and still have
time for the students to practice many problems before they get their assignment. Another
teacher writes,“Teachers have to change a lot and many don’t want to or can’t.”
46
The Effects of Block Scheduling on the Mathematics Curriculum
Most of the teachers that I spoke with found that they needed to change the curriculum to
accommodate the block schedule. Teachers were not able to put two lessons into one block.
As one teacher explained,“I used to cover 3 ideas in 2 days and review in the third day. Now I
can present 3 ideas in 1.5 days and have review and closure on the second.”This teachers’
evaluation of work covered in the block corresponds to what math teachers in general are
admitting; that is, they cover about 35% less material in the block than in the traditional class.
(See table 1, which compares the curriculum at two schools, one in the block schedule and
the other, traditional.) But are they going into more depth? One teacher reports that there is
certainly more opportunity to go into depth, but knowing that there is so much to cover, he
keeps moving on. Some answer the question of depth by saying that students have much
more time in class to practice new concepts. These teachers feel that though the students are
learning fewer new concepts, they have a better understanding of what they have learned.
All the schools that have instituted the semestered block schedule in all grades are finding one
important benefit to their math program: more students are taking math classes. HatboroHorsham, for example, had to add several calculus classes because students will take two math
classes in a year to get ahead and be able to take calculus now. At Haverford High students elect
more math courses as well and class size has increased. Most of the schools find they need to
restructure the curriculum to fit the block by adding an additional math requirement. At Upper
Moreland, for example, teachers are considering adding an Algebra III course into the requirements.This accommodation to the curriculum is consistent with the findings in the literature.
Schools that have not added an additional course find that honors and advanced placement
courses have to be watered down to fit the new schedule. (See table 1).
All schools mention AP classes as a problem. Some schools schedule the AP class in the fall
semester and have a seminar class in the spring. In general, AP calculus teachers lecture for
the entire block. Since they are teaching to an outside test, they must cover a certain amount
of material and they feel that this can only be accomplished by lecture. Students, as one
might imagine, find this extremely boring.
Table 1.
Intensive Scheduling vs. Traditional Scheduling
A comparison of content covered in one semester at Hatboro-Horsham H.S. and what Camp Hill presently covers.
The same textbook in Algebra I and II is used in both districts.
Algebra I
Geometry
Hatboro Horsham (Intensive)
They cover up to slope of a line. (Chapter 8)
They cover up to circles and tangents. (Chapter 10)
Algebra II
They cover up to conic sections. (Chapter 9)
Precalculus
They cover up to conic sections.They do not do the line
and rotation of the axes.
They cover up to but not including exponential and logarithmic functions. (6 chapters)
A.P. Calculus
Camp Hill (Trad.)
They cover up to quadratic equations. (Chapter 12)
They cover up to coordinate geometry and 2 chapters
further in honors. (Ch. 15; Ch. 17 in honors.)
They cover up to prob. & statistics and sometimes matrices. (Chapters 15-16, Chapter 17 in honors.)
They cover conic sections, including the line and rotation
of the axes.They go seven units beyond this.
They cover up through and including topics in analytical
geometry. (11 or 12 chapters)
Projected Content Loss
If Camp Hill would cover the same content as Hatboro-Horsham in a one semester course they project the following:
Regular track
Honors track
(starting 9th grade)
(starting 8th grade)
Algebra I - through a 31% loss of content.This is 12 chapters out of
a 37% loss of content.This is 15 chapters out of
Algebra II
39 chapters.
41 chapters.
Algebra I- through a 35% loss of content.This is 19 chapters out of
Precalculus
54 chapters.
59 chapters.
Algebra I- through
A.P. Calculus
67 chapters.
The above material covered at Camp Hill may vary by as much as one chapter per course, depending on the individual class.They agree,
there may be some fat that can be cut from all courses. For the past four years, to meet the NCTM Standards, they have already been
cutting some of the so-called fat. However, it is apparent that the above shows a substantial loss of content from their present offerings.
This information explains why the mathematics department cannot support the intensive scheduling as proposed.
47
The Effects of Block Scheduling on Homework, Retention and Absenteeism
Homework
Teachers concur with the literature the decreased opportunity for homework in the block
poses some problems. In the semestered block there may not be enough time for students to
digest all the material in so short a time. Students need time for reflection and practice
between lessons. Also, although long term projects seem to work well in the longer class
period, there may not be enough homework days to have these long range projects. Teachers
who are trying to cover a certain amount of curriculum may assign double the amount of
homework assigned in the traditional class. When teachers do that they find that students
generally won’t do it all. Even the motivated AP calculus student at Radnor, which is on an
alternating block schedule, reports that the teacher assigns problems from two sections each
evening. Although the student has two nights to complete the assignment, she usually does
the work in one night and only completes one assignment. She is doing half the homework
she would have done in the traditional setting. She is also having trouble processing the
amount of material presented in a class period.
Most students seem to like the block schedule and report that they have much less homework than before. Certainly if they have half the number of classes and if each teacher does
not give twice the amount of work, they will have less. Many students say the homework is
easier now because they had so much time in class to practice; some say their teachers use
the block to allow students to start their homework.
Retention
I asked many teachers about the effects of retention when students have a long span
between successive math classes. None of the teachers seemed to find this a problem. In fact,
some said they were reviewing less under the block than they had previously. Some teachers
said that if they find there is a problem with retention, they simply change the schedule so
that there is not as much span between certain courses. They recommend the schedule be
adapted to best suit needs. Whenever the topic of retention was discussed, teachers usually
added that one reason retention is not as problematic as one may think is because many students take more math courses as electives under the block schedule. This means that many
students have math classes for the entire year, thus, for these students retention would not be
a problem. The profile of a student who elects to take extra math classes ranges from the very
talented math student who wants AP Calculus and AP Statistics, to the more average student
who can now get to calculus in the senior year by doubling up, to the very poor math student
who can retake a math class as an elective to make up for a poor grade.
Absenteeism
Every teacher I spoke with has mentioned the problem of student absenteeism. Even in the
alternating block schedule absences are very disruptive. One teacher explained that when a
student is absent for even one day on the alternating block, the teacher may not see that student for another three days, and all that time is lost in trying to get the student caught up.
Another teacher said that he has to spend an inordinate amount of time giving very good
notes in class and making sure his students are good note takers so that students who are
absent can go to a classmate for the work missed. Another reason for the detailed note taking
is that he finds himself skipping all over the book to make mathematical connections and
supplementing the book with outside materials that will fill the 86 minute class, thus the students can no longer rely on the book for their work when they are absent.
Additional Teacher Reactions
48
One teacher reports that it is hardest to teach the lowest ability groups, because they can’t
concentrate for that long and there is much wasted time. Also,“teachers have to change a lot
and many don’t want to or can’t.”
Many teachers believe that 80-90 minutes is too long for students to learn mathematics effectively. They have to add activities into the class which some refer to as “fluff.”
On the other hand, a teacher from an area school reports that he loves block scheduling. It fits
his teaching style and he would never want to teach in the traditional setting. But he admits
that he is the only math teacher in his school who likes it.
Two dynamic teachers from Virginia who presented at the NCTM meeting were able to provide us with many innovative ideas and math labs to be used in the longer class time. Each of
these teachers has been able to become a specialist in one or two areas of mathematics as
they teach the same two subjects (and only those two subjects) every year.
A teacher from San Francisco who has had many years experience with block scheduling says
that his goals are for students not to have to process large amounts of material. Most classes
cover less. The pros for math are that there is time for group work and whole-class discussion
in one period and there is more time for technology. The difficulties are with the lowest ability
classes and the AP Calculus class, as well as fewer homework opportunities, and with the disruptiveness of absenteeism.
One teacher says that the “best schedule” is a flexible one where math, science, history and
English share 4 hours. Math could be 4 hours one day and none the next for example, which
is basically the middle school schedule at Dalton.
A teacher from Phoenix says that students can’t process twice the material in the double period and it takes a few years before teachers can adjust to this.
Another teacher says his school tried a modified block schedule the first year, with block one
week and traditional the next. Everyone liked it. So the next year, they went to all block schedule and it was a disaster. They abandoned it that year because there was so much demand for
change.
Student and Parent Reactions to Block Scheduling
Many of the students I spoke with preferred block scheduling to the traditional schedule. At
Cardinal Dougherty I interviewed an entire class. Of the 31 seniors in a trigonometry class,
only 3 would prefer to return to the old schedule. Students report that there is much less work
under the block schedule, there is much less homework, and they like having to worry about a
fewer number of subjects at one time. Students said that most teachers have changed their
teaching styles; they have more group work and students like to learn from other students as
well as from the teacher. They are happy that they are getting better grades, though they did
admit that if a teacher continued to lecture, the class could be very boring.
At Strathaven High School, where block scheduling was being instituted in its first year for the
ninth grade only and the IMP program was being used, I spoke to a number of students from
several classes. The general consensus was that they liked block scheduling, but more so for
classes such as theater, art, history and English. I was surprised to hear that they thought it
was very boring in math—even in a class with a very dynamic teacher, that is geared towards
student activities and cooperative learning.
Some students from Radnor High School said they preferred block scheduling to the traditional, but least so for math class.
49
In some cases the school has made poor scheduling choices. A parent of a tenth grader at
Harriton High School, for example, is very frustrated with the block schedule. Her daughter is
taking Chemistry and Spanish in the fall term and math, English, and history in the spring. She
reports that her daughter likes the schedule but has very little homework. The mother is concerned because the student is having some trouble with the math involved in Chemistry and
the teacher said that it is a problem that the student is not taking math concurrently with
Chemistry. Also the mother fears that the spring schedule is going to be difficult since the
two intensive reading courses, history and English, are at the same time.
A student at Haverford High School reports that she and most of her friends agree that block
scheduling has made school more interesting by allowing them to take many more electives,
but it is a problem for them in languages and math. They all feel that they are going to have
problems retaining the information. Some are worried about taking SAT’s in a semester when
they don’t have math.
Conclusions:
There are several reasons that Akiba may want to consider adopting the block schedule or a
modified block schedule. Reducing our students’ work load in a semester and producing a
less hectic school environment would be great advantages.
However, with regard to the teaching of mathematics, there are serious drawbacks which
must be recognized:
1. Although the achievement results are not yet conclusive, the objective results show a
trend of lower achievement scores in math.
2. There is a substantial loss of curriculum in mathematics in block scheduling. If we want
to continue to offer a competitive and challenging math program, we will need to add
an additional required math course into the curriculum so that students will be prepared to take calculus in either 12th grade or in college. However, this may not even be
possible with our schedule. The fact that the curriculum would most likely have to
change is indeed supported both in the literature and in the experience of other math
departments.
3. Student absenteeism is a major drawback of the block schedule. This has serious implications at Akiba where parents oftentimes take students out for family trips.
4. After contacting the major publishers of math text books, I found that there are no
books yet written for the longer class period. All of the schools and teachers I spoke to
are using texts written for the traditional 45 minute class (with the exception of the
Dalton School). Most teachers are stacking 1.5 to 2 lessons into the longer block. When
this method is used, the rule of thumb is that 35% less material is covered.
5. The block periods are too long for math class. Students can only learn so many new
concepts at a time. Teachers cannot supplement the text with discovery lessons every
day. Students get bored, especially lower-level students. Many teachers give breaks during class and class time can be wasted. Math is best learned in smaller doses with practice time in between.
6. There are not enough opportunities for homework in IBS. Students need more time for
reflection and practice before learning additional concepts.
7. Retention could be a problem if the schedule is not flexible enough for us to adapt the
schedule to fit our needs. That is, if we find there is a retention problem because of a
long gap between consecutive math courses, and we can’t change the schedule
50
because of the many restrictions in being a small school, then retention issues will be a
major drawback.
8. Our facility is a major drawback right now. Most rooms do not have enough board
space or space in the room for students to work in cooperative learning groups or to
come up to the board. In the longer class period, we would have time to use more
technology, but our classes are not equipped with computers, nor is there space for
them in many rooms. There would be a great demand placed upon our one computer
lab. The fact that teachers do not have their own rooms is also a problem. In the longer
period a teacher needs to have a wealth of material available, in order to vary the activities as necessary. With the emphasis on hands-on math, more supplies are needed. It is
not only cumbersome, but virtually impossible to carry supplies all around the building
from one class to the next.
9. To teach effectively in the block, math teachers would have to change their teaching
methods, as direct teaching and lecturing are no longer as effective. The literature and
my observations support the fact that math teachers are less likely to change. This is
due, I believe, to several reasons. There is a lack of text books and other teaching materials available to support a change in methods and teachers find that when they add
hands-on activities, many either add fluff and weaken the curriculum or duplicate the
science curriculum. Unless an entirely new curriculum has been instituted before the
block (and rarely does that occur), teachers must try to cover the same material they
had in the traditional setting in order to prepare students sufficiently for the next
sequential math course. We have seen that they actually cover 35% less. There is more
time for practicing problems at their seats and at the board, but there is less time to
learn new concepts.
10. Changing to a block schedule could very well weaken our math department and our
students’ achievement. The literature indicates that when experienced math teachers
have to change their teaching styles so dramatically to accommodate the block, their
experience, which has always been linked to student achievement, is no longer as
effective. The math department at Akiba has experienced teachers who have already
made many changes in the past few years to meet the needs of our students. We have
increased our use of technology in the classroom with daily use of the graphing calculator in most upper school classes and with the use of the geometry sketchpad in
geometry classes. Our students participate in the Geometry Forum’s “Problem of the
Week” over the internet. We are consistently looking at the standards put forth by the
NCTM and looking at our curriculum to see how we can implement them. We have
brought writing into the math curriculum. Block scheduling threatens to weaken a
successful program.
11. AP Calculus is a concern at Akiba, as it is at all other schools. How could IBS accommodate all of our seniors considering their community service experience in the fourth
quarter?
51
Recommendations
1. I do not recommend that math classes be blocked in the 4x4 or the alternating block
schedule. I believe that the current program is preferable for the teaching of mathematics and for the success of our students.
2. We may gain more by a mosaic of scheduling. Zalman Usiskin of the University of
Chicago School Mathematics Project suggested that although math departments may
not want to switch to a block schedule, a compromise schedule may have value. There
could be some double periods to allow for problem-based instruction and cooperative
learning experience and the rest of the days would follow the traditional schedule.
(NCTM News Bulletin Feature). This type of schedule would allow teachers the opportunity to change, without demanding too much change, and may be more successful.
3. Although I believe that math should not be blocked, I do think IBS should be considered for other subjects for which the committee and the school community find
appropriate. I recommend having a flexible schedule which would allow some subjects
to have intensified scheduling, while others continue to have single periods or a combination of single periods and blocks. The literature suggests, and students agree, that
the block schedule is better suited for some classes, but mathematics is not one of
them.
4. I would also recommend the intensified schedule, if adopted, be phased in gradually
over a period of years. Harriton High School, for example, first started by blocking
English and history; then they blocked the tenth grade (with the exception of the honors math track), and they will be expanding the program next year. Strathaven, as well,
has started this year by blocking the ninth grade and will expand gradually.
5. If block scheduling were to be instituted at Akiba across the board despite this recommendation, I would opt for the alternating block for most math courses, so that students would be taking math all year. Since our students wouldn’t have the luxury of
taking math electives in the same way that students can in all of the schools I visited,
they should at least have the opportunity to have math class all year so that they can
practice their skills and have enough time to digest the material. If all of math were to
be semestered, parents would be alarmed that their children may not be taking math
when they are preparing for the SAT’s and the achievement tests. This worry has been
expressed at other schools and I believe it would be an important issue at Akiba.
Geometry seems to be the only math class that may work in an intensified schedule,
and that assumes computers in the geometry classroom so that the sketchpad software could be utilized. Also an additional required math class would have to be added
to the schedule to make up for the great loss of curriculum. This course could be added
in the tenth grade in the semester the student didn’t take geometry. The need for an
additional course is cited in the literature and is being instituted in many area schools.
6. If we do proceed with any form of block scheduling, I strongly recommend that a
teacher’s load not increase like it did at Hatboro-Horsham.
7. As the new standards change the emphasis on what is being taught in the high school
math curricula, our math program would benefit the most from: in-service workshops
to develop the curricula around the standards; experts to come in and help us develop
material; workshops on instructional strategies to replace the lecture for any longer
periods we may have, as well as for the traditional class periods. If we have any longer
periods for math, it is essential to remember what Kramer concluded in his review of
the literature— that it is imperative to have staff development, additional planning
time and time to change the curriculum, and that teachers will not be able to change
without that support and student achievement will decrease.
52
8. If we go to block scheduling, I recommend that we wait until our facility is improved.
One teacher commented,“Can you imagine having 20 students in room seven for
eighty minutes?”
9. Another form of block scheduling that is mentioned in the literature is the trimester
schedule. That may have some application at Akiba, particularly for the seniors who
pose a problem with their community service projects. This schedule would create
other problems for the juniors, however, who go to Israel for the semester. In its relation to mathematics, however, I have found little data or information available about
this type of schedule. We would still have the problem of students not taking math
class for part of the year, possibly when they are preparing for standardized tests.
Furthermore, we would be taking risks with our math program for a schedule that has
not been tested in many schools. We would need more time to investigate this schedule further.
10. If we do not go through with block scheduling, either as an entire school or as individual departments, I would like to see us consider the option again in a few years when
there will be more conclusive results available.
Summary
In summary, my research into the potential application of block scheduling for the mathematics program at Akiba leads me to the conclusion that the math department should not convert to block scheduling. The basis for this conclusion has been detailed above and includes
the following:
•
lower achievement scores in math
•
substantial loss of curriculum
•
student absenteeism greater problem
•
blocks too long to teach math
•
no texts written for blocks
•
retention a possible problem if long gaps between sequential math classes
•
insufficient homework opportunities
•
limitations in our physical facility
•
reduced advantages of having experienced teachers
•
no assurance math teachers will (be able to) change teaching styles
•
AP Calculus a problem
Therefore, a change to block scheduling may very well jeopardize the strong program which
we presently have.
These facts lead me to recommend that although block scheduling would not benefit our
math program, a flexible schedule (e.g. 4 days traditional and one day block) may provide the
optimal schedule.
53
References
Averett, Chris P. ( 1994) Block Scheduling in North Carolina High Schools. Raleigh, NC,
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.
Bateson, D.J. ( 1990) “Science Achievement in Semester and All-Year Courses,“ Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27 (3), 233-240.
King, A.J.C, Clements, J.L., Enns., J.G., Lockerbie, J.W., and Warren, W.K. (1975) “Semestering the
Secondary School,”Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
King, A.J.C., Warren, W., Morre, J., Bryans, G. and Pirie, J. (1978) “Approaches to Semesterin,”.
Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Kramer, Steven. (1996) “What We Know About Block Scheduling: A Literature Review with
Supplemental Data,” NASSP Bulletin, in press.
Muruyama, G., Freeman, C., Hole, D., Frederickson, J., and Springis-Doss, R. (1995) “AnokaHenepin School District Schedule Study Preliminary Report, August, 1995,” Minneapolis, MN:
Center for Appplied Research and Educational Improvement.
NCTM News Bulletin Feature. (1996) “Building Block or Stumbling Block: A Look at Block
Scheduling in Mathematics Education.” National Council of the Teachers of Mathematics
news Bulletin September, 1996.
Reid, W.M. (1995) “Restructuring a Secondary School With Extended Time Blocks and Intensive
Courses: The Experiences of School Administrators in British Colombia.” Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Gonzaga University, British Columbia.
Schrothe, Gwen; Dixon, Jean. (1995) “The Effects of Block Scheduling on Seventh Grade Math
Students,” ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 387887.
Stumpf, T. (1995) “A Colorado School’s Un-rocky Road to Trimesters,” Educational Leadership.
Usiskin, Z. (1995) “Block Scheduling and the Teaching of Mathematics,” Scott Foresman
Newsletter USCMPerspectives, 11,7-10.
Wild, Reg. (1996) “British Colombia Ministry of Education,” Department of Curriculum Studies,
Vancouver, D.C. Canada, in press.
54
Intensive Block Scheduling for the Sciences
Howard Kraiman
Science
55
Table of Contents
Section
Description
Page
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Review of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
2.1 . . . . . . . .General Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
2.2 . . . . . . . .Science Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Strengths, Weaknesses and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
4.1 . . . . . . . .Technology Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
4.2 . . . . . . . .Statistical Evaluation of Block Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conclusion and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
Appendix 1 . . . .References Related to Science
Attachment 1 . .Hatboro-Horsham High School Educational Attitude Survey
Attachment 2 . .Hatboro-Horsham Senior High School
Attachment 3 . .Visit to Cardinal Dougherty High School
Attachment 4 . .Visit to Hatboro-Horsham High School
Intensive Scheduling - Year 6
An Evaluation of Extended Time Blocks
56
1. Introduction
In performing an evaluation of block scheduling for the sciences, I have considered and factored in many different opinions from science teachers who have been involved with block
scheduling for several years, as well as from Akiba’s science teachers, and numerous students.
I have also included data acquired by school visits, and an assessment of several of the many
documents available. These are spelled out in the following pages.The results are based on
my interpretation of these data.
The approach I have used is as follows:
Following a review of some the available documentation on intensive scheduling for both science and “across the board” classes, I have listed in summary fashion the strengths, weaknesses and concerns that have been expressed by others, as well as the data extracted from documentation. Those individuals who I interviewed and who expressed their opinion concerning
block scheduling, are identified along with their affiliation.
I then included a technology discussion to support the contention that many different activities can be carried out during a single science block of 90 minutes.
Finally, a statistical evaluation of block scheduling performed by the Hatboro-Horsham High
School is included, to provide a numerical basis for analyzing the results. Although these figures represent Hatboro-Horsham’s summary of applicable statistics, Hatboro-Horsham has
not evaluated their results or interpreted their meaning.
The above information was followed by my conclusion regarding the applicability of block
scheduling for the sciences at Akiba and a suggested schedule for each of the sciences.
2. Review of Research
My research includes: General Documentation and Science Documentation.
2.1 General Documentation
These documents discuss block scheduling in general terms. The consensus appears to be
that block scheduling has been a positive experience for most of the schools that have tried
it, but they caution that teacher training and reduced teaching schedules is a must. They also
indicate that the additional time spent by students in class enhances their ability to learn and
provides more time for in-depth discussion.
57
Document
Some Key Features
The Power of Innovative Scheduling
by R.L Canady and M.D. Rettig
• Quality of student’s time improved
• Provides additional time for students to learn
• Teaching cohesiveness improved
Catholic Education: Route to Freedom
by Francis I. Ryan
• Academic performance enhanced
• Additional time must be used appropriately
• In science, every day can be a lab day
• Intensive scheduling keeps the material and ideas
concentrated and connected
Block Schedules - Building the High
Schools of the Future?
by Roger Schoenstein
• AP courses were successfully offered to juniors
as well as seniors
• Gaps in sequential courses are not good, but they can
be overcome by sequential scheduling
• Students can earn more credits under block scheduling
• Less material covered, but better understanding of the
material that is covered
• Retention does not seem to be a problem
Finding Time to Learn by John O’Neil
• Smaller number of students in a given semester
(75-90 as opposed to 150) simplifies classroom
management and improves instruction strategies
• Individual instruction is greatly improved
• Overall school climate improved
• Students and teachers prefer longer classes
Colorado School’s Un-Rocky
Road to Trimesters by Tom Stumpf
• Science and math teachers can cover more material
in one trimester than they did in one semester
• Overall school climate is much calmer
Departing from Tradition: Two
Schools’Stories
by M. Salvaterra and D. Adams
• More time to delve deeply into concepts
• AP courses suffer during school closings due to weather
• Teacher workload considerably increased
Unlocking the Lockstep High School
Schedule
by R.L. Canady and M.D. Rettig
• Instructional time is increased
• Discipline problems are reduced
• “Summer School” can be offered to all students at no
additional cost
• A failed course can be repeated during the regular
school year
Measurable gains of Block Scheduling
by W.M.Reid, T. Hierck and
L. Veregin
• Average final grades improved
• Students achieving honor roll improved 50%
• Moderate improvement in physics but no
change in chemistry or French
• Failure increased in history, English, geography
and biology
58
2.2 Science Documentation
The following articles are directly related to one of the three sciences: chemistry, physics or
biology. They represent experiences obtained by schools that have instituted block scheduling. As indicated, most of the comments support block scheduling, along with certain precautions that should be considered. Each heading below in bold type represents a specific article.
The details concerning each article is listed in the References at the end of this report.
Building Block Schedules (Ref. 1) A firsthand assessment of restructuring the school day
Restructuring to block scheduling led to many changes and reenergized “burned out”
teachers.
Allows science teachers more time to teach concepts
Must be accompanied by teacher inservice
Requires that time be set aside each week for students and teachers to research and prepare
for longer classes
A set of goals were formulated and a rationale for the change was determined.
The goals were as follows:
1. All students can successfully learn and achieve the school’s curriculum, given
sufficient time.
2. Students have the potential to achieve a much higher level of quality than is
presently accepted.
3. Success is the key motivator for increased student achievement. Success breeds success.
4. Schools control the conditions for success. The structure developed and strategies
used can assure success for all students.
5. Success is judged on the basis of student outcomes which are demonstrations of
learning measured by a variety of methods: projects, authentic (real life) assessments,
portfolios, criterion-referenced tests, teacher made tests and standardized tests.
Rationale for change:
Longer class periods allow students extended time for lab work, hands-on projects,
field trips, thorough discussions, varied teaching styles and in-depth study. The
projected benefits that students will have with this schedule are:
1. Improvement in student academic success and achievement .
2. Increased opportunity for more individualized and personalized attention and
instruction, due to a period of longer duration, more varied instructional strategies and
an advisement period.
3. Greater opportunities to take elective classes.
4. Fewer classes to prepare for in a 24 hour period so quality of work can increase.
5. Expansion of opportunities to make up missed assignments during the
educational resource period.
6. Opportunity for students to assume more responsibility for their own
learning.
59
7. More flexibility in taking university or high school work-release programs.
8. Improved school climate through reduced stress and a calmer school day.
The greatest change came in the way that teachers teach. Classes of 90 minutes were divided
into three 30 minute sections, two 45 minute sections or three 20 minute segments with a 15
minute opening and closing. There was more time for group work and lectures were limited
to 10 to 20 minute segments.
More time was available to explore concepts that teachers thought students understood.
Students had more time to analyze information, make conclusions and discuss results.
Less material is covered in a block schedule. However, learning is more intense and time for
group and cooperative work is available.
New Class on the Block (Ref. 2) One school’s successful change to block scheduling
1. Smaller classes and increased student-teacher interaction are just two of the advantages of block scheduling. Other advantages include: long blocks of instructional time,
fewer interruptions per class, more time for in-depth focus on a particular topic, and
uninterrupted experimental and laboratory procedures.
2. We have used block scheduling for five years and have modified it to meet the needs
of all disciplines. For science, we use one 90 minute period each for chemistry and biology, a 75 minute period for physics and a 55 minute period for advanced biology (i.e
human biology and physiology). The 90 and 75 minute periods meet every day for 18
weeks, while the 55 minute period meets for the full year.
3. Block scheduling is ideal for the sciences. In one 90 minute period, the teacher can
introduce or influence a new concept, incorporate an experimental or research activity
to enhance the concept, and still have time for follow-up activities or discussions that
provide closure.
Advice from the School of Hard Blocks (Ref. 3)
If you’re thinking about going on the block, consider these suggestions:
1. Pick a schedule that fixes the things you want to fix.
2. If you pick a block schedule, make a three or four year commitment to trying it out.
3. Check on district and state policies that might be affected.
4. Caution your teachers against trying to plan lessons too far ahead for the first year.
5. Make sure your substitute teachers understand your new schedule.
6. Limit your visitors.
7. Watch for students who need early intervention.
8. Give yourself time to change.
9. Recognize that you’re changing more than the length of class periods.
10. Don’t expect block scheduling to solve all your problems.
60
Blockbuster Ideas (Ref. 4)
Activities for breaking up block periods
1. One of the biggest concerns among teachers is how to organize a 90 minute class.
Even most experienced science teachers will need to find a few new tricks when first
encountering extended blocks of time.
2. Veteran teachers of chemistry, physics and physical science have discovered that old
dogs can learn new tricks.
3. Learning can be fun when students do the “work” and teachers become the assistants
in the learning process.
4. Rule: Do not do anything that students can do. Students should be responsible for
cleaning all equipment, setting up equipment for subsequent classes, patrolling the
use of safety equipments at their desk, checking gas and water valves and all clerical
work. They evaluate one another’s work, collect and return work, and in some cases, do
computer recordings.
5. Long term planning is important. Students should be given yearly calendars with
monthly schedules of activities and assignments.
6. Slower students should have time to complete assignments in class and work on a
research or problem solving activity, while faster students may move ahead or work on
a computer or library project.
7. Student support teams are essential for class leadership and mentoring. Student
appointments are made up of students who have demonstrated their ability to succeed in a subject area. These students serve as role models and encourage others to
participate.
8. An example of an activity that might be conducted in a physics class is the following:
Students are given materials collected beforehand and form task forces to design,
build and test a complex machine that can move a 150 gram mass 1 meter. The final
product must contain at least on example of each of the simple machines.
61
Tackling Block Scheduling (Ref. 5) How to make the most of longer classes
1. Moving from a traditional schedule is not easy.
2. Before implementing the change, much research, discussion and study was necessary
to determine if a block schedule would be advantageous to the students.
3. The four-by four block schedule was chosen because it offers simplicity, additional
opportunities for students to gain credits for graduation, longer blocks of time for indepth discussion and project-oriented learning, and fewer classes to contend with
each semester.
4. Training and preparation are the keys to successful transition.
5. Although the block schedule provides longer class periods for instruction, actual clock
hours are lost by students completing courses in a single term. This required a reevaluation of our curricula, and required us to prioritize our course objectives. We tried to
ensure that the students were given schedules that paired two “high homework”
courses with two “low homework” courses each semester.
6. Two unique chemistry assignments were possible due to longer class periods. They
were as follows:
a) Construct a creative visual aid, such as a mobile or three-dimensional
poster that describes an element
b) Write a short story, talk show or play that describes an element. The key to
this assignment is creativity
7. Our block schedule is continually monitored and evaluated.
8. Many benefits have accrued:
a) daily attendance has increased
b) opportunities for peer tutoring have increased
c) textbook inventory procedures are greatly improved
d) quality and continuity of instruction has improved
e) there is more time available for acceleration and remediation
f ) teachers have more planning time each day
9. While not a panacea for problems encountered in education today, block schedules
are certainly a step in the right direction. The vast majority of faculty, teachers and
students say they would not go back to the traditional schedule.
62
Blocking in success (Ref. 6)
Plan ahead for big dividends from a new schedule
1. While the vast majority of teachers are pleased with their block scheduling experiences, science teachers are the most enthusiastic.
2. While laboratory flexibility is the most obvious benefit of block scheduling, the
advantages extend to every aspect of our teaching:
a) The extended time line gives the teacher an opportunity for imaginative
planning.
b) Students working in cooperative learning groups have time to discover mistakes for themselves.
c) Ninety minutes allows us to develop an entire idea in one sitting rather than
dribble it out in several consecutive installments
d) Exams can be thought-provoking rather than fast multiple choice questions
3. Lab activities that last longer than two hours are now possible.
4. Our ongoing math-science collaboration also benefits from the longer schedule. In a
180 minute block, we can collect data for 90 minutes and have the math teacher do a
mathematical analysis of the data during the rest of the block.
5. Our success in block scheduling was due to a yearlong teacher investigation of alternative scheduling options, considerable discussion and debate, and a faculty consensus
to proceed.
6. Recognizing that the traditional lecture style of teaching was not compatible with the
new schedule, we began extensive teacher training. The June before the schedule went
into effect, one-third of the faculty attended a daylong workshop on cooperative learning techniques. Those faculty members then trained the rest of the faculty in inservice
sessions held before the start of the school year.
7. Deficits include a 12.5% loss in instructional time. We went from a day that was100%
devoted to instruction. Our students now take seven courses, with the eighth time
block scheduled as an Independent Research Period.
8. Surveys of the student populations indicate overwhelming positive support for block
scheduling.
9. Teachers and students agree that returning to the traditional 50 minute period is
unthinkable.
10. Their statistical measures show the following:
a) Test results which were at or above state and national averages, remain
steady
b) AP Chemistry scores which were 10 to 15 percent above the national pass
rate have also remained steady.
c) Students continued to win top honors on the ACS national chemistry exams.
63
Year-Round Science (Ref. 7)
Shorter year-end breaks plus longer classes equal success
1. Training students to jam a year’s worth of learning into nine months, telling them to
vacation for a quarter of the year, and then wasting time reviewing what was forgotten
is a plan best buried with the last century, according to the science teachers at
Sweetwater Union High School District in Southern California.
2. Eastlake High School has adopted a calendar in which students begin the school year
in July with nine weeks of classes, have a three week break, come back for nine more
weeks, and end the semester before Christmas. Semester two begins in January and
follows the same pattern.
3. They also incorporated block scheduling. Their schedule starts with a setup day on
Monday with all 50 minute periods, followed by four days of three 110 minute classes
separated by a nutrition break and a lunch period.
4. The science department is divided on how well this schedule works for science. The
block periods have proven to be best for students in advanced classes.
5. The science teachers have recently improved the block schedule by offering an
“extended learning period”. Classes now last for 100 minutes with a 35 minute break
between the first class and the nutrition break in which students can meet with teachers for extra assistance. However, not all students want or need to spend extra time
with science teachers.
A Lesson in Block Scheduling (Ref. 8)
1. Started using block scheduling five years ago. The school now has a schedule that features four classes per day, Monday through Thursday. On Monday and Wednesday
blocks 1, 3, 5, and 7 meet, while on Tuesday and Thursday blocks 2,4, 6 and 8 meet. On
Friday, all classes meet to provide closure for the week.
2. Teaching styles must be changed from those appropriate for 45 minute periods.
3. Teachers need to conduct two, and possibly three, activities during the 80 to 85 minute
block. A short lecture, followed by a question and answer session and group work, then
followed by a short movie or video usually serves to keep students on task, interested
and active.
4. Success in block scheduling was due to teacher’s receptiveness and cooperation in
throwing away old lesson plans to meet the needs of block scheduling. Teachers teach
the same material they have always taught; they just rearrange the way they present it.
5. An example was given in classifying organisms, during which students first tried to
name unlabeled pictures of insects. This was followed by the teacher providing a “key”
to naming the insects, and how to use it. The students then used the key to determine
the actual names of the insects. Following this, the teacher explained how to “construct” a key, which they then applied to naming primates.
64
3. Interviews
In order to gain an insight into block scheduling from some of the schools that have instituted it, as well as some of the teachers who have “lived it,” I visited Cardinal Dougherty and
Hatboro-Horsham High Schools. In each of these schools, I observed chemistry, biology and
physics classes. I also spoke with each of the teachers and administrators involved, as well as
many students. In addition, I spoke to an individual at Hatboro-Horsham High school responsible for preparing the statistical evaluation of their experiences with block scheduling. In
addition, I discussed block scheduling with the science teachers at Akiba Hebrew Academy.
The persons who I interviewed are listed below.
Cardinal Dougherty
High School Chemistry — Sister Rose Anthony
6301 North Second Street
Physics — Mr. Joseph Archambault
Philadelphia, PA 19120-1599
Vice Principal — Mr. Bill Galante
(215) 276-2300
Hatboro-Horsham
899 Horsham Road
Horsham, PA 19044
(215) 441-7900
High School Chemistry — Ms. Jackie Anderson
Physics — Mr. Joe Carupucci
Biology — Ms. Natalie Sendecki
Science Dept. Head — Dr. Kueny
Student grades/statistics — Mr. Jim Sullivan
Abika Hebrew Academy
223 North Highland Avenue
Merion Station, PA 19066
(610) 667-4070
Chemistry & Biology — Mr. John Borgman-Winter
Physics — Mr. Joseph Dougherty
Chemistry & Biology —
Dr. Philip Patelmo, Science and Math Coordinator
Biology — Ms. Missy Casey
I also spoke to numerous students at each of the above schools. The comments and concerns
of all of these individuals have been incorporated into the strengths, weaknesses and concerns section below.
4. Strengths, Weaknesses and Concerns
What follows is a summary of the strengths, weaknesses and concerns expressed in the literature and in interviews about block scheduling and the sciences.
Strengths
Additional longer blocks of time are ideal for lab work and other cooperative activities.
Students may be more focused when faced with fewer subjects.
New schedules and curricula will encourage new teaching approaches and creativity on
the part of the faculty.
Varied approaches to learning will encourage students to participate actively in class.
Recall of material for finals and other tests is greatly enhanced.
Intensive scheduling easily permits labs to be integrated with the rest of curriculum.
Additional time for each period permits more material to be covered in greater depth.
Students feel that there is less homework - it usually can be finished during class.
Students feel that they receive higher grades.
Students can take fewer subjects during a given semester and they like having more time
to spend in each class.
Students like having fewer term projects each semester.
Some teachers have been “revitalized“ by block scheduling.
65
Weaknesses
AP science courses could not be offered in a single semester because of the additional
time required to complete all necessary material (Example: Akiba’s present schedule for AP
biology of 7 periods over a 6 day cycle is not even adequate).
Any increase in class size or teaching six classes per day would severely stress already overworked teachers.
No texts are available for the sciences that lend themselves to block scheduling.
Many new technology materials, such as computers for each student, laser discs, innovative
lab materials, etc. are not available to the extent required.
In order to prepare for varied class activities properly, it is imperative that each teacher
have his or her own classroom with all required materials on hand.
If teachers are required to teach 3 double periods per day, workload is considerably
increased.
Preparation time for each class is increased, due to longer periods.
Students feel that if they are absent, there is too much work to make up.
Students feel that sometimes there is too much material covered during a
single class.
Classes can become boring if most of the period is devoted to lectures.
Students feel that there is generally too much material covered during a single semester.
Concerns
Trying to cover same amount of material in half a year could result in additional stress for
students and teachers.
Due to longer class period, much more teacher planning and training is required prior to a
change to block scheduling.
It would be extremely difficult for science teachers (or any teacher for that matter) to perform non-teaching duties, because much additional time is required for lab preparation
and make-up.
In order to utilize class time properly under block scheduling, teaching techniques must be
modified.
An extensive in-service program must be developed to address teacher concerns and to
provide the necessary training.
Sufficient funds must be provided to purchase supplemental materials required for cooperative learning.
Summer workshops will become the norm rather than the exception - this will require
additional funds.
Will several block scheduling formats be considered to satisfy all subjects? Some subjects
lend themselves to extended periods, while others do not.
Will subjects taught in one semester provide the retention necessary to allow students to
carry on to the next semester (e.g. math)?
Can a phased approach be considered, where not all students are “block scheduled” at one
time?
Teachers new to block scheduling may require a reduced teaching load in order to get
acquainted with the new regime.
66
Where is the hard statistical data that “proves” that block scheduling satisfies student and
teacher needs, raises grades, provides greater student retention, enhances critical thinking,
provides greater student achievement, etc.?
Block scheduling can result in lower costs to administration because some teachers may
be laid off.
Several teachers felt that block scheduling is not for bright students, but good for average
and below average students.
It takes time to specify and set up block scheduling—teachers must be part of the overall
process.
4.1 Technology Support
One of the major characteristics of science that make it applicable to block scheduling is lab
work. Labs, along with automatic data collection and data-plotting computer programs provide an interesting and challenging supplement to lectures.
In addition to laboratory experiments, there are numerous teaching aids available, such as
computer simulation programs, VCR videos and laser disc lessons. These technological
devices are merely an adjunct to lectures, but they do permit a varied teaching regime to be
carried out.
4.2. Statistical Evaluation of Block Scheduling
I felt that it was important to evaluate the “worth” of block scheduling from a statistical point
of view. However, since very few schools have performed such an analysis, I made use of the
available statistics provided by Hatboro-Horsham High School, which carried out such an
evaluation over the last 5 years. Their statistics are probably representative of any school that
has adopted block scheduling.
In evaluating the effectiveness of their block scheduling program, Hatboro-Horsham Senior
High School prepared an “Educational Attitude Survey” which was given to students, teachers
and parents to examine their attitudes. A rough draft of the results for 1996 (final report - due
December 1996) are contained in Attachment 2.
It should be noted that this is their 6th year of intensive scheduling. Hatboro-Horsham’s program consists of 4 double periods per day, with 3 lunch periods. During the 3 lunch periods,
lunch ( one period of which is assigned to each student ), study hall, teacher help for students
and even class time take place.
For example, their honor physics course consists of 5 double periods per 5 day week plus 2
consecutive lunch periods, once per week.
In their survey, a total of 853 responses were received, broken down as follows:
Teachers — 48
Parents — 187
Students — 618
The evaluation consisted of both qualitative and quantitative data in several categories. The
quantitative data is summarized below, in which the latest results are compared against a
baseline consisting of an average of the previous 4 or 5 years.
67
Category
Teacher Grades
Baseline Average
A - 26.5%
B - 33.9%
C - 24.8%
D - 9.5%
F - 3.5%
Norm Referenced Tests
PSAT
SAT
Results (Jan. 1996)
A -32%
B - 34%
C - 19%
D - 8%
F - 4%
Math - 45.2%
Verbal - 41.1%
Math - 524
Verbal - 458
Math - 47% (1995)
Verbal-47%(1995)
Math - 520
Verbal - 470
National Merit Scholars
Finalists
Semi-finalists
Commended
Attendance Records
1st semester
2nd semester
Alumni Statistics
4 year college
Community College
Part time college
Graduation Failure Rate
Dropout Statistics
0
5
4
2 (1995)
3
4
94.9%
94.7%
94.9%
94.8%
45.5%
12.0%
4.0%
17
16
54.0% (1995)
11.0% (1995)
14.0% (1995)
8 (1995)
8 (1995)
Discipline Referrals
49.7%
76.7% (1995)
Lateness to School
35.5%
23.3% (1995)
There is a significant improvement in some grades and a decrease in graduation failure rate
and dropout statistics. It appears as if block scheduling has had a positive impact on student
learning, as well as student attitudes These improvements could be indicative of the success
of block scheduling.
In addition to the quantitative analysis, a qualitative evaluation was also performed.
The qualitative data consisted primarily of responses to 56 questions. The results for each
question were compared against a baseline average for the years 1992 - 1994.
Of the 56 questions asked, the following 12 were selected for inclusion in the report for the
1994-1995 school year:
68
Baseline Average
1994-1995 Results
Entry 18 - “A 45 minute class for 1 year is better than a 90 minute class for 1/2 year”.
Strongly agree
18.1%
4.1%
Agree
15.4%
5.3%%
No opinion
29.3%
10.3%
Disagree
26.4%
44%
Strongly disagree
10.9%
36.2%%
Entry 22 - “Students have many opportunities to choose electives”.
Strongly agree
16.4%
23.6%
Agree
56.9%
60.1%
No opinion
11.5%
10%
Disagree
13.1%
5.6%
Strongly disagree
2.1%
0.7%
Entry 25 - “Students must be in class to keep up with class work”.
Strongly agree
34.4%
43.6%
Agree
52.3%
47.2%
No opinion
6.3%
5.7%
Disagree
5.9%
2.9%
Strongly disagree
1.1%
0.6%
Entry 30 - “Preparing for 3 major classes for 1/2 year is better that preparing for
5 classes for 1 year”.
Strongly agree
20%
45.7%
Agree
30.3%
41.1%
No opinion
23.5%
9.4%
Disagree
14.9%
2.5%
Strongly disagree
11.4%
1.4%
Entry 37 - “I am happy with the current scheduling in the high school”.
Strongly agree
14.6%
40.4%
Agree
38.8%
46.1%
No opinion
24.4%
7.9%
Disagree
16.5%
3.1%
Strongly disagree
5.6%
2.5%
Entry 38 - “A 90 minute class which meets daily for 1/2 year is better for learning”.
Strongly agree
14.7%
38.6%
Agree
24.9%
43.3%
No opinion
30.8%
12.3%
Disagree
15.3%
3.8%
Strongly disagree
14.3%
2%
Entry - 40 - “Missing classes for a school activity interferes with learning”.
Strongly agree
10.1%
11%
Agree
29.2%
29.1%
No opinion
17.9%
25.8%
Disagree
34.1%
27.5%
Strongly disagree
8.8%
6.6%
69
The next 5 entries were broken down by parent, student and teacher responses.
Entry 23 - “A 90 minute class for 1/2 year is better than a 45 minute class for 1 year”.
Parents
BLA*
Strongly agree
Agree
No opinion
Disagree
Strongly disagree
10%
24%
27%
22%
18%
Students
1995-1996
BLA
1995-1996
33.2%
19%
49.9%
42.6%
22%
34.5%
15.9%
28%
9.6%
5.1%
14%
2.9%
3.2%
17%
3.1%
* BLA - Baseline Average
Teachers
BLA
6%
22%
53%
10%
10%
1995-1996
46.7%
42.4%
6.5%
3.3%
1.1%
Entry 35 - “A 45 minute class which meets daily for 1 year is better for learning”.
Parents
BLA*
Strongly agree
17+%
Agree
23%
No opinion
23%
Disagree
29%
Strongly disagree
4%
Students
1995-1996
BLA
1995-1996
3.7%
8.9%
19.6%
46.5%
21.4%
15%
18%
32%
25%
11%
3.0%
4.8%
13.9%
44.0%
34.3%
Teachers
BLA
1995-1996
9%
12%
51%
24%
5%
1.1%
3.3%
9.8%
50.0%
35.9%
Entry 39 - “Preparing for only 3 major classes for 1/2 year is better for learning”.
Parents
Strongly agree
Agree
No opinion
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Students
BLA
1995-1996
BLA
9%
32%
26%
20%
13%
30.8%
47.1%
13.8%
6.2%
2.2%
22%
29%
27%
11%
11%
1995-1996
42.9%
41.4%
11.2%
2.8%
1.7%
Teachers
BLA
1995-1996
8%
33%
42%
7%
10%
51.1%
38.0%
5.4%
3.3%
2.2%
Entry 44 - “Preparing for 5 major classes for 1 year is better for learning”.
BLA
Strongly agree
Agree
No opinion
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Parents
1995-1996
15%
23%
28%
29%
5%
3.3%
8.8%
18.3%
47.6%
22.0%
Students
BLA
1995-1996
Teachers
BLA
1995-1996
12%
15%
32%
26%
15%
9%
7%
48%
29%
8%
3.4%
5.5%
14.8%
6%
35.6%
3.3%
3.3%
8.7%
45.7%
39.1%
The results of the evaluation seem to indicate that most students, parents and teachers are
happy with block scheduling and prefer it over conventional 45 minute periods, as indicated
by some dramatic changes in attitudes. Coupled with the improvement in the quantitative
data previously cited, it appears that block scheduling has been very successful at HatboroHorsham High School.
70
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
Based on an evaluation of the strengths, weaknesses and concerns of science teachers and
students, as well as the availability of several varied activities that may be carried out during a
90 minute science period, coupled with the above cited statistics, it is my conclusion that
block scheduling for the sciences should be adopted by Akiba. This is assuming that all of the
stated concerns of students and teachers are satisfactorily addressed, and the weaknesses
can be overcome. Adopting block scheduling for science would probably be an interesting
experiment for Akiba, but I would not expect to see any significant increase in grades, as the
grades of our students are generally above average.
Since science generally tends to lend itself to block scheduling because of the apparent independence between biology, chemistry and physics, it might be a candidate for one of the first
subjects to test block scheduling at Akiba. If indeed it is selected, the following schedules
might be considered, based on a five day, not a six day schedule
Chemistry, Physics and Biology
Regular - 5 double periods per 5 day cycle for 1 semester
Honors - 5 double periods per 5 day cycle + 1 extra period per cycle
AP Biology
5 double periods + 1 triple period per 5 day cycle for 1 1/2 semesters
71
Appendix 1
References Related to Science
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
“Building Block Schedules” by Janet L. Gerking
Science Teacher at Laramie High School, Laramie WY
April 1995 “The Science Teacher” pgs. 23-27
“New Class on the Block” by Terrilee Day
Science Teacher at Center High School, Center CO
April 1995 “The Science Teacher” pgs. 28-35
“Advice From the School of Hard Blocks”
Science teacher at Wasson High School, Colorado Springs, CO
August 1995 “Executive Educator” pg. 21
“Blockbuster Ideas” by Judy Bohince
Chemistry and Physics Teacher at Brentville District High School, Nokesville, VA
September 1996 “The Science Teacher” pgs. 21-24
“Tackling Block Scheduling” by Martha M. Day, Claire P. Ivanov and Stephen Brinkley
Chemistry, Physics and Physical Science teachers at Maplewood Comprehensive
School, Nashville, TN
“Blocking in Success” by Sylvia L. Cooper
Chemistry teacher at Morgantown High School, Morgantown, WV
“Year Round Science” by Marilyn J. Stenvall
Senior Consultant for Secondary Education
National Association for Year Round Education
September 1996 “The Science teacher” pgs. 32-34
“A Lesson in Block Scheduling” by Robert Barnes, Joyce Straton and Mary Ukena
Biology teachers at Hillcrest High School, Springfield, MO
September 1996 “The Science Teacher” pg. 35
72
Intensive Block Scheduling
Jewish Studies, Bible and Informal Education
Grace Perlman Miller
Jewish Studies
73
Table of Contents
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
II. Review of IBS in the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
A. Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
B. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
III. Interviews With People in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
A. Alexander Gross School
1. Rabbi Levene Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
2. Rabbi Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
3. Orly Kanner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
4. Ellen Averbrook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
B. Milkin Community High School
1. Rabbi Barnett Kunin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
2. Stacey Bryman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
C. Dr. Steven Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
D. Shari Herman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
E. Summary of Information Gathered From Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
IV. Overview of J.S. Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
B. Course Descriptions and Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
V. Conclusions
A. J.S. Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 18
B. Supervision and Staff Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
C. Informal Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
1. Field Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
2. Sports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
3. Holiday Programming/Assemblies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
4. Substitute Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
VI. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21, 22
VII. Summary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
VIII. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
IX. School Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
74
I. Introduction
This report examines the feasibility of implementing Intensive Block Scheduling at Akiba
Hebrew Academy in the academic areas of Jewish Studies and Bible courses, and addresses
the impact of IBS on the regularly scheduled holiday/Rosh Chodesh and commemorative programs currently in place at the school. This report will include summary statements of some
of the strengths and limitations of IBS published in the literature and educational research, as
well as a summary of the interviews I conducted with administrators, teachers, educators and
students from schools where some form of IBS has been implemented. The report will also
contain a description of the Bible and Jewish Studies curricula and an overview of the formal
and informal special programs at Akiba.
Using this data, I will attempt to draw some conclusions and make recommendations appropriate for Akiba. Due to the fact that all the Jewish Day Schools included in this study have just
recently implemented IBS for the 1995 or 1996 academic year, there is no instrument of evaluation available to measure the qualitative or quantitative success of this program.The comments
and reactions of all the respondents are subjective and have not been empirically tested.
My final conclusions are based on: visitations to Hatboro-Horsham and Beth Tfiloh Jewish Day
Schools; extensive reading in the field; numerous telephone interviews with Rabbis, administrators and teachers from the Solomon Schechter Day School, Milkin Community High School,
Alexander Gross High School; and twenty four years of teaching at Akiba in the Jewish
Studies/Hebrew language department and as coordinator of many of the informal educational programs under various structures and educational models.
II. Review of statements of strengths and limitations of Intensive Block
Scheduling in Educational Literature.
A. Strengths of IBS from the Literature
According to Joseph Carroll (“The Copernican Plan Evaluated”, October 1994), the teacher
becomes a “role model” under the Copernican structure - a notion virtually absent from the
current discourse concerning secondary schools and their problems.
In addition, the literature shows that with IBS, teachers deal with fewer students over
longer blocks of time.
There is higher teacher effectiveness because there is more time to show what they can do
(teacher and student).
I.B.S. is a means to improve school climate - to reduce absenteeism and encourage higher
achievement and graduation rate.
(ERS Research Digest, p. 5, 1996)
The school runs more smoothly with reduced hall traffic and fosters a team spirit that pervades the entire community.
Student stress is lowered because they take fewer classes.
Teachers have more time to give students individual assistance and to get to know students
personally. There is time for creative/meaningful student work and to structure a full lesson.
(ERS Research Digest, p.4, 1996)
75
More students achieved A’s: semester courses make it easier for capable, motivated students to improve their grades.
Students and parents seem to love it.
Students enrolled in an intensive one year program conducted in French made more
progress than students exposed to the same number of hours spread over two years.
Students exposed to intensive language programs use language acquisition differently
from those students involved in learning a language in chunks over long periods of time.
(Ulpan!) Intensive programs of language instruction yield better results than less intensive
programs of the same number of hours of instruction.
(Eric Digest, May 1988,“Maintaining Foreign Language Skills”)
“Block scheduling was brought in for only one reason that really matters: time is the only
truly controllable variable for educators. By giving teachers more time to teach, we enable
them to do more things with students to deepen understanding, not simply to impart
information.”
Ernest W. Angiollillo, Assistant Principal Upper Darby H.S.
“A quick lesson in block scheduling” Philadelphia Inquirer
B. Limitations of IBS from the Literature
Teachers need more time for planning, more resources for varying instruction, more
involved planning for subs.
3% increase in failure ratio - students who miss class or do not keep up with their studies
are more likely to fail.
ERS Research Digest, 1996, p. 4
“As a math/bio teacher, I have my doubt about the student’s ability to take on a large
amount of information in only 20 weeks.”
Math and Bio teacher
AFT Message Area on AOL messages on Block Scheduling
”I.B.S. will not improve the achievement levels or the behavior of students. Consistent standards of academic excellence and consistent application of the rules which already exist in
your school is the only thing that will improve achievement and behavior. Like so many
other items in education, Block Scheduling will come and go.”
AFT Message
76
III. Interviews With Teachers, Rabbis, Students and Educators
A. Alexander Gross School - Florida; Gan-12
1. Rabbi Levene, Teacher of Jewish Studies to Boys
Overview of the school: Orthodox Day School with a basic schedule from 8-4 each day for girls.
Extended hours for boys: 7:15 each day for minyan, till 5 on Monday and 5:30 on Thursday for
extra Torah study.The entire High School, grades 9-12, is on the trimester schedule with 6 periods a day and lunch backed to a common period. 80 minutes each day.There are 9 courses
taught each year, 4 Judaica and 5 general studies. Each major is taught in 2 trimesters of the
year and Talmud and AP subjects are taught in all trimesters.There is mishmar every Sunday
morning.There are 18 academic slots over the year. Four courses are taught each trimester.
Electives change in the schedule each trimester.The school does not have as part of its philosophy teaching Jewish Studies and Bible courses in Hebrew. (Ivrit B’Ivrit).This school experimented with a block scheduling model 5 years ago and was not successful.
Strengths
1. Lunch is now the same time for entire school rather than over four periods.
2. Teacher’s work load reduced to three or four classes, not six per day.
3. Fewer subjects per day, less overload, less frenetic, less interruption of formal classes
with the common period each day following lunch (80 minutes total block).
4. Talmud and all AP’s, given in 9-12 grades all 3 trimesters (because they are so important.)
5. Students seem uniformly happy.
6. When lunch comes you know that half the day is finished -1,2,3, lunch, 4,5,6.
7. Requirement of outside Hessed projects - mandatory hours for graduation 20 hours
per year = 4x20, a total of 80 hours to graduate (outside the framework of the academic day).
8. During common hour each day which follows lunch:
a. Clubs
b. Speakers
c. Oneg Shabbat programs
d. Moral development program every Monday
e. High school faculty meeting during school on Wednesday
9. Six instead of nine classes each day.
10. More flexible schedule.
11. Fewer preparations for the teachers.
12. Teachers feel less pressured.
13. Gives more time for science labs.
14. Students never leave for sports early. They are in leagues with weekend games. Play
only after school.
15. They group 9th and 10th grades together, and 11th and 12th grades
together to glean more levels for J.S.
77
Limitations
1
Teachers are concerned about the pacing and completion of material.
2. Difficult with teachers being in middle and high school. Schedules of full and part-time
teachers are not the same in both schools. They are running back and forth from
school to school because the middle school is not blocked. This is difficult for teachers.
3. Did not include parents and Board in the process of decision. Informed and explained
after opening of school. (Decided in May and a very small group of administrators
spent the summer working out the schedule.)
2. Rabbi Miller - Principal of the High School
The school went to IBS because the students had too many subjects which caused overload.
Each day was 9x40 minutes. There was no depth to the classes and no time to give tests. Too
frenetic of a schedule running from class to class. Whenever we wanted to do a special program we had to interrupt formal classes and the days were not productive. Cannot do a science lab in 40 minutes. English teachers felt 40 minutes wasn’t adequate to complete material. Block scheduling seemed to enable all solutions. Teachers work load reduced from 6 classes to 3 or 4 per trimester. Teacher sees 60 students per trimester rather than 100. Not implemented in the middle school because of the concern of the scheduling and continuing with
the same teacher during an entire year. The school was not prepared to involve parents and
lay leadership. Had orientation meetings to explain the idea at beginning of school year.
There are 150 students in the high school with 25 teachers.
3. Orly Kanner - Teacher and Director of Girls JS Department in the High School
Strengths:
1. The day goes faster - fewer kids, fewer subjects
2. In Honors classes you can cover more.
3. They have four or five Jewish Studies courses taught -Humash, Prophets, Oral Law,
Hebrew Language. Each trimester has two JS courses. Boys have Talmud all year, after
school and Sundays.
4. “If your current program fits your needs for the most part, wait until the Jewish Day
Schools which are just starting this program evaluate their successes (from the outside)
to determine if it is worthwhile for you to implement.” (Teacher’s recommendation).
5. Now that we have established contact, let’s keep in close touch so that you can learn
from us.
Limitations
1. The entire program depends on the ability and strength of the teachers.
2. A teacher who is not particularly interesting for 43 minutes isn’t going to improve at 60
and will be a disaster at 90 minutes.
3. The teachers that have not changed their styles just do a little more of the same in 60
minutes - very few are implementing other things.
4. The upper level classes which are already filled with motivated high achieving students
are very successful, while the lower level classes and students with ADD are experiencing greater difficulty.
78
4. Mrs. Ellen Averbrook - English Teacher
Strengths
1. I never lectured, so this 60 minutes gives me more time for projects, videos, etc.
2. I am ahead of last year. I am enjoying teaching in a 60 rather than 40 minute block
because I can accomplish more in a lesson.
Limitations
1
Larger classes.
2. Students have difficulty because each course is two trimesters - sometimes not consecutive. Students and teachers have to stop and pick up again for the last trimester.
3. No teacher training was done. Teachers who are skilled in teaching with varying activities and different methods can do it on their own.
4. I would never vote for anything beyond 60 minutes. I just would not tolerate it.
5. Science, history and math only taught for three years.
6. Language is not a requirement - only two years if elected.
7. Courses are linked together by subjects and teacher availability and not by student levels and qualifications for particular Honors classes. Students might be placed in some
honors sections which are not appropriate for them due to scheduling needs.
B. Milkin Community High School - California Grades 7-12
1. Rabbi Barnett Kunin
Strengths
1. JS department involved in training on their own initiative. Purchased book of models/methods of teaching. Graduate school department members and professors from
the UJ come regularly (Wednesday,3:30-5:00) to do in service and incorporate methods
of teaching into JS curriculum. Community-based learning. Bring in specialists all the
time to give teachers new perspectives. The teachers present and critique their lessons
to each other.
2. Classes are videoed and then critiqued as a department.
3. Overwhelmingly positive.
4. More flexible schedules.
5. Great facilities - shuttle buses for students and faculty.
6. Connected to a large synagogue with a pool. A big plus.
7. The Schedule:
One class double period every other day Days A-J, lettered 10 day cycle. 5 days x 80
minutes over two weeks, six majors + electives; 7:30-3:30 each day.
7:30 -8:50; 9:00 - 10:20; 10:20 - 10:40 snack; 10:40 - 12:00
12:00 - 12:40 lunch; 12:40 - 2:00; 2:10 - 3:30
8. Had a few training days prior to school.
79
Limitations
1. Challenge to get high school teachers to vary their lessons and activities.
2. His hesitation is having a particular text to complete in 40 minutes and not being able
to do so. “In 90 minutes every other day I can have great conversations with the students, but I am not disciplined enough to stop discussion. After 40 minutes, the bell did
that for me.” It is difficult to pick up when you miss a day in between.
3. It takes much more discipline and rigid planning to use 90 minutes properly. How do
you modulate your class time? It’s hard to cut kids off?
2. Stacey Bryman - 10th Grade Student - Recent Transfer from a 7-9 IBS School
Strengths
1. Once a week minyan 9-10:20 Thursday mornings. Traditional, egalitarian, meditation,
discussion group options. Students choose one option for the semester.
2. Every week, speakers last period for Shabbat.
3. Whole school goes on a retreat at beginning of school year, including a Shabbat
experience together.
4. Easier to comprehend material because we are responsible for less.
5. More time to work. Not hassled. Better time management. Time to relax, watch TV don’t go to bed so late.
6. Easy transition from her previous school - 7th-9th grade Los Angeles Center for
Enriched Studies.
7. Town meeting every Thursday for the entire community in the common periods.
No limitations reported by this student.
80
C. Dr. Steve Brown-Director of Melton Research Center of JTS
Strengths
1. To reduce student stress levels is the whole point of this project.
2. It is very easy to devise a 90 minute Bible period to include
a. Chevrutah (study partners) groups to read and decipher Biblical texts
b. Group presentations
c. Teacher presentations of interpretations of texts and group discussions
d. Writing assignments — ask sudents to write their interpretation of the text
e. Teaching students how to develop skills to use in Biblical exegesis
f. Assignment of homework (new vocabulary)
3. The IBS structure provides greater opportunity for in-depth investigation and research
on a topic and must allow and provide planning time for interdisciplinary work.
4
Do a mini-pilot program in one grade or one course in one grade to try the system.
5. Every semester or trimester you must have at least two Jewish studies/Hebrew subjects.
Limitations
1. Challenge is to take the traditional classroom centered teacher model and come up
with different lessons to restructure that format.
2. Must build in time, money, provisions for teachers to plan, meet and learn from each
other.
3. “Akiba in its present facility cannot do IBS. A teacher must have the proper space to do
this program. Without providing adequate space, 90 minute lessons for a class cannot
be structured.”
4. Do not start this in the middle school, although there are ramifications for teachers
who teach in both schools. Do not start in 12th grade and work backwards. Both of
these grade levels are too potentially final in the education process of the students. We
must start in grade 9 or 10 when we will have future years to measure our success.
Also, most schools reported that middle school students are unable to sustain multiple
lengthy periods.
5. Teachers must be able to plan differently prior to the implementation of this program.
Needs constant, ongoing in service.
6. There has to be a commitment to implement, supervise and evaluate this program by
the Head administrator of the school.
7. The following questions must be asked:
a. Is the leadership of the school able to devote a significant percentage of its time to
this implementation?
b. Does the current professional leadership in the school possess the expertise to
implement this radically different structure?
c. Do you understand the ramifications that this schedule will have on homogeneous
and heterogeneous groupings?
d. What is the mission of your school?
e. Are there too many interlocking components for lay and professional people to
deal with making the implementation of this program just too difficult?
81
D. Shari Herman - 11th Grade Student at Harriton High School
Strengths
1. It is being fazed in very gradually. Different for every student in the school. If you don’t
like the subject or the teacher, you are finished with it in one half the time as compared
to a regular yearly course.
2. There is time for a great deal of in-class writing which has improved writing skills, even
in history.
Limitations
1. Student feels that she would be better able to absorb this material over an entire year,
rather than in one semester.
2. 90 minute periods just drag on and are so boring because the teacher never varies the
activity.
3. It isn’t productive to have six 45 minute periods from 7:50-12:50 and then have a 90
minute block at the end of the day. It is just too exhausting.
4. I only do research and reporting in my history class. There is no frontal/formal teaching.
I really miss a good history lecture.
82
E. Summary of Information Gathered from Interviews
Recognizing that many of the benefits resulting from IBS occur in schools and academic student populations which do not match Akiba’s, we must look beyond the trendy reasons for
IBS, to better understand why a few Jewish Day Schools closer to Akiba’s philosophy and population have adopted IBS. At the Alexander Gross School in Florida and the Milkin Community
High School in California, the following benefits have been derived from IBS:
1. A less frenetic day.
2. Common lunch period for the entire school.
3. Reduced teacher/student ratio each semester.
4. Less stress on the students.
5. Fewer preparations each day for teacher and student.
6. More time for complex science labs.
7. More time in one period for projects and in-depth work.
8. Allows the teacher to be a better model of the subject area and to teach the intrinsic
values incorporated in the subject.
9. Gives time for the student to become more expert in a particular field. 10. Better indepth discussion.
No one one can disagree with any of the above; they are all legitimate and worthwhile results
stemming from this new structure. In order to determine the overall net gains for Akiba (in
the Jewish Studies, Bible and Informal departments) we first have to understand the current
status of the JS, Bible and Informal departments at our school.
83
IV. Overview of JS Program
A. The present JS program at Akiba has been compiled over the last 18 years. The most recent
revisions were made for the 1995-96 academic year. Within this 7 year program every unit of
study is presented in the same textual sequence: Bible, Midrash, Talmud, Mishnah, Codes
(Rambam) and contemporary issues from the Responsa literature representing the various
branches of Judaism. The topics were selected to meet the developmental, intellectual and
social needs of Jewish adolescents in a day school. There is great potential for success in
teaching this curriculum.
JS and Bible courses are taught every year to classes which are divided by Hebrew levels. It is
an entire year course taught 5/6 or 6/6 periods each cycle.
V. Conclusions
A. Conclusions pertaining to current JS Program at Akiba
1. There is disagreement as to the goals, objectives and expectations of the JS program
within the school population among administration, education committee, parents and
faculty. Until there is a united philosophy as to the actual practiced curriculum in JS
classes, it will be very difficult to change our program.
2. The recent unilateral decision to implement an “intensive trac” causes confusion and
has a negative impact on class groupings, teacher preparedness and the scope and
sequence of the entire JS program. This causes much frustration for all the constituencies of our school, parents, students, teachers, administrators.
3. A JS teacher in a pluralistic school who has a very diverse student population in his/her
class, must be trained to meet the expectations of the student body and to understand
the orientation of the institution. This does not occur as part of the teacher’s orientation or staff development at Akiba.
4. There are no teachers’ guides or adequate resources and materials for teachers to plan
lessons.
5. The JS staff constantly changes, which makes it very difficult to train and retain a core
of experienced teachers.
6. There are too many part-time teachers in the department, making their meeting and
planning time, as a team of teachers in the school, very limited. All the teachers from
other schools whom I interviewed indicated more time is needed to plan a double
period and how important it is to work together in a team effort.
7. There is no resolution to the issue of conducting the highest level of JS classes in
Hebrew in order to give the students another opportunity to speak and improve their
Hebrew skills.
8. JS classes must share limited classroom space with other classes, making it almost
impossible to create a learning center which is conducive for optimal learning experiences or for spending extended time in one room. We cannot have small group
(Chevrutah) learning in our current facility.
84
9. The Judaica/Biblical collection, available AV equipment and the computer programs in
our library are not sufficient to sustain serious, in depth research on most topics needed for JS classes. Not having a full time Judaica librarian is also a serious impediment.
10. There is no teaching of Jewish music, Hebrew songs, liturgical/synagogue skills, all of
which has serious impact on the school’s potential to create any legitimate prayer program. The JS teachers cannot be expected to teach or even guide the students in these
areas without their own training and commitment.
11. There is a new health program being implemented this school year based on the
teaching of important Jewish values. There is not sufficient teaching of these Jewish
values because there is no Jewish studies staff in these classes.
In sum, this list of concerns which hurt the JS department must be addressed, and resolved,
before we commit to a new structure. In addition, due to the wealth of material included in
our courses, the limited backgrounds of our students, the desire to meet the developmental
needs of our student population and the perceived mission of the school (to teach Jewish
texts and values everyday), I cannot recommend that JS courses be reduced to one semester
or trimester or even two trimesters.
Under the current structure there is just too much responsibility for one Jewish
Studies/Bible/Hebrew/Foreign Language coordinator in Middle and Upper school to handle
and also be available to impose the other recommendations necessary for a new schedule to
be successful.
Lastly, in the current Akiba administration, there is no one person available to oversee the
next stage of this project. The other schools I studied appeared to have that position in place.
The Akiba JS/Bible faculty recommended the following happen before the school adopts any
form of IBS:
1. There must be a written, agreed upon statement articulating the mission and philosophy of all the JS classes at Akiba.
2. Teacher training and orientation to the philosophy of the school must be instituted
and ongoing, along with staff development.
3. Teachers’ guides must be written, published and distributed to all teachers, with more
materials available for lesson planning.
4. The school must make a greater commitment to hire full time teachers, with more time
spent together to plan, evaluate and revise the curriculum regularly.
B. Supervision and Staff Development
Of course Akiba is not alone when it comes to too little supervision and staff development.
“Real teacher supervision and teacher development is not part of the administrative priorities
in over 90% of high schools and that teachers, by and large, function as independent contractors who do their best because of their inner motivation and professional integrity.
Administrators everywhere are just too busy solving problems and avoiding problems, and
there just isn’t time in their schedules to observe, train, retool, motivate and inspire teachers.
This is a very harsh reality. To assume that 90 minute restructuring will gain better lesson
plans and use of time in a structure where there is little supervision is naive and counterproductive.” (“Myths About the 90 Minute Classroom,” internet @ Parents for Academic
Excellence)
85
Unfortunately this situation exists at Akiba, too. Until we face this reality and solve it by making supervision a priority for all administrators, we will not improve as an effective educational institution. This means freeing them from meetings and other obligations to give them the
time to be in the classrooms. According to the ERS Research Digest, school-wide staff development in preparation for the new schedule included awareness sessions with faculty, curriculum writing teams for teachers during the summer and interdisciplinary teams that discussed how to restructure curriculum and lesson plans in order to best use the longer blocks
of time. Teachers found the collegiality of planning together helped them through the
change process.
C. Informal Programming at Akiba
Assessing the impact of IBS on the informal educational programs at Akiba is complicated
because there is no one uniform schedule of events that occurs every day, every month or
even every year.
1. Field Trips - Field trips are an important component of our school’s curriculum. At
Akiba, every department has a significant budget line for field trips because this is
believed to enhance our overall educational program. Each grade level also participates in trips lasting anywhere from 1/2 day to 4 days. Classes are frequently missed
and in some cases, class trips that cut across multi-grade homogeneous groupings
(Hebrew and math) lead to even more class time lost for those left behind. Despite this,
as long as the faculty has enough advance notice and can plan appropriately, there is
support for the field trip program at Akiba.
The schools I have studied do not have the same commitment to trips as Akiba and
usually there was a deliberate decision to eliminate trips from the school calendar
when IBS was implemented. At Hatboro Horsham, trips occur after the school day and
teachers are compensated for their time. At Beth Tfiloh and Alexander Gross High
School, the administrators did away with most field trips and at Gross and Milkin, people are brought in during the common hour so students do not take trips. This aspect
of our program would be most difficult to eliminate at Akiba and would have a negative impact on the school’s philosophy. On the other hand, to maintain an extensive
field trip program in an IBS program would significantly cut out even more time from
an already reduced program.
2. Sports - At least 60% of our student population participates in after school sports programs. Akiba does not have its own fields. This and the prohibition against Friday and
Saturday games narrows the choices of leagues in which we can play. With the decision
to remain on our current campus we are locked into mostly playing away games in a
league of schools which are usually a great distance from Akiba. Athletes who play
most sports each semester frequently miss classes at the end of the day. Recently, the
roster has been more accommodating by not repeating the same major subjects at the
end of the day. The schools that I studied do not experience this problem because they
have their own fields and play in leagues which are closer to their schools. One school
never dismisses students early for sports, but plays its games on weekends. This is a
most important consideration for Akiba when deliberating about IBS.
3. Holiday Programming and Assemblies - A recent alumni study indicated the primary
impact made by the school on students is in the affective, informal educational programming areas. The students claimed that these aspects of our education have a
greater impact than the cognitive, formal academic part of our program. Unlike an
Orthodox Day School or a public school, part of the mission of Akiba is to expose our
students to the emotional, spiritual and festive aspects of the Jewish calendar and
86
Jewish life cycle. This means that taking time out of a normal daily schedule is a priority. This year, 1996-97, we have implemented a new Thursday assembly schedule. This
means that if a holiday assembly program can be planned for a Thursday, no class time
will be missed. For holiday programs which must occur on other days, missing academic class time is of great concern to the faculty, which already feels we have sacrificed
too much class time going from 6/6 to 5/6 classes per cycle. The administration is sensitive to these issues but must remind the faculty that this is a Jewish Day School and
that these celebrations are an essential part of our program. The suggestion to hold
these programs just during JS or Hebrew periods causes concern for the teachers of
those subjects, who also must complete their curriculum. In a school with courses only
taught for a semester, this will become a critical issue which must be addressed in our
deliberations. The Jewish Day Schools which I have examined have incorporated an
assembly/commons/club period into their daily rosters to do away with these problems and allow for time each week to do proper informal programs (for example, an
Oneg Shabbat program every Friday).
4. Substitutes - Teachers are encouraged to participate in conferences to enhance our
teaching and to chaperone class trips. In order to do so, substitutes must be hired and
appropriate lesson plans left so that their remaining classes can take place. This has
been a problem at Akiba even for one period classes. Finding qualified subs who can
teach for 90 minute periods would be essential to make IBS work at Akiba. The current
11th and 12th grade substitute policy, which allows teachers of these classes not to
have a substitute, would also have to be addressed.
VI. Recommendations
A. Based on the already proven success of the Ulpan structure, let’s experiment with a pilot
program blocking the introductory foreign language courses, including Hebrew. This will provide a more intensive exposure to the fundamentals of a foreign language as described in the
“ERIC Digest,” May 1988 Foreign Language Skills. There are already existing foreign language
programs that can be tailored to fit blocked periods and there is sufficient data from which to
learn how to do it. (The curricula available is just for French and Spanish and certainly not for
Hebrew Language). Curricula is already developed and available leaving the following list of
essentials necessary for implementation.
1. Extensive teacher training in various language instruction methodologies and how to
design extended language periods.
2. Provide each intensive language class with classroom space sufficient to do group work.
3. Have a language lab available for the number of students in all the classes each day.
4. Have all the necessary technical and AV equipment available for this instruction.
5. Make the intensive structure a true immersion experience.
6. Write the Hebrew programs that can fit these models!
B. We should implement an ongoing supervisory system for all teachers in the school under
our present schedule, so that we can improve our teaching techniques and class management skills in 40-48 minute periods, before we endeavor to lengthen our periods. Our current
administrators must be freed to supervise and plan staff development. For the assembly and
holiday part of my job, I have four administrators to work with two periods of every cycle. As a
team, we evaluate, plan and discuss implementations of all holiday celebrations. It is a helpful
and most necessary tool for me and could be for all teachers.
87
C. In Jewish Studies classes in particular, it is so important for each teacher to gain the trust of
his/her students before expecting students to be open to the material, and then react and
relate to it on a personal level. Here, not only is transmitting the subject matter and skills
important, but helping students to better understand that the Jewish life cycle and calendar
are intrinsic parts of the life of every Jew regardless of one’s affiliation, must become an integral part of our JS program at Akiba. THIS CANNOT BE DONE IN ONE SEMESTER, just as one’s
Jewish commitment cannot be compartmentalized into one segment of time. Also, the curricular materials are so abundant for JS and Talmud classes that meeting 5/6 days over an entire
year is not sufficient for completing the material. JS must be taught all year, but can be taught
in a team teaching model. Not all teachers can be experts in every area and by teaching in a
team in a pluralistic school we can begin to expose the students to the very broadest, expert
education available. As long as Jewish Studies spans an entire year’s course, I would consider
investigating other options of scheduling such as A/B or A-J. Also having one double period
in a 5/6 or 6/6 cycle would work.
D. I believe that our current Bible curriculum can be taught in blocked periods in one semester, assuming teachers are trained in techniques for managing longer periods. Our current
Bible curriculum is based on the teaching of individual books each year in a sequential fashion. Therefore, this is a program in the Jewish Studies Department which would easily be able
to be blocked.
E. There must be a school CALENDAR OF EVENTS and one administrator whose job it is to
clear and sanction all out of school trips and in school scheduling changes. This must be done
in a very timely fashion to give teachers proper notice. These are educational decisions and
deliberations and must be handled by the educational staff. There must be an intentional
effort made to coordinate trips that break up classes, so that class time is not lost. Guest
speakers, shabbatonim, Rosh Hodesh, holiday programs, etc. must be scheduled based on the
limitations of the existing schedule.
VII. Summary Statement
On a personal note: My style of teaching, mostly in Middle School Jewish Studies classes, and
Hebrew language courses grades 7-12, concentrates not only on imparting the subject matter
to my classes. I also attempt to work with the individual students in my classes. This requires
assessing the needs of each student and trying to help each student learn how to learn and
be most successful in the course. After researching IBS, I realized that so many of the benefits
already exist in my classes, but that I must teach the students for an entire year, because this
process usually takes me until mid-November. The thought of then giving up these students
and starting the process over again without ever “reaping the rewards of my labors” is not
pleasant for me, and I would hope not for my students. As more of our students come to us
with various learning issues and differences, isn’t it an asset to be able to work with them and
help them grow developmentally and academically over a year’s time? Do fewer subjects per
semester ultimately help the learning different students meet greater success? Is Akiba a
school that should cater to the needs of the learning different students and forget the needs
of the gifted students who can handle 8 majors and probably meet that challenge and
thrive? These are questions that I cannot answer but must be investigated to help us in our
resolution. Before experimenting with a new, somewhat controversial program, we must be
sure that we are not sacrificing this precious time with our students. We must remember that
for a segment of our student population, their Akiba education might be the last opportuity
that we have to educate them Jewishly in order to enable them to help preserve the continuity of the Jewish people.
88
VIII. References
1. AFT Message Area on AOL/Messages on Block Scheduling 95-96
2. Ernest W. Angiollillo 1996 Inquirer: A Quick Lesson in Block Scheduling
3. David Boldt Sept. 24, 1996 Philadelphia Inquirer: City and Region - More Date Rebut
Block Scheduling
4. Robert Lynn Canady and Michael D. Pettig (1996), Teaching in the Block: Stategies for
Engaging Active Learners.
5. Joseph M. Carroll. 1994. The Copernican Plan Evaluated -The Evolution of Revolution
6. ERIC Digest, May 1988.“Maintaining Foreign Language Skills.” (Clearinghouse on
Language and Linguistics.)
7. Research Digest. 1996 Educational Research Service,“Block Scheduling in the High
School.”
8. Hatboro Horsham Senior High School, 1996.“Rough draft of Intensive Scheduling
Year 6 - An Evaluation of Extended Time Blocks.”
9. “Myths about the 90 Minute Classroom.” Internet 1996. A current high school math
teacher.
10. Debra Roth, 1996 (National Association of Secondary Principals, Communication
Department) “Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution - Unprecedented
Recommendations Focus on High School Reform.”
IX. School Contacts
Alexander Gross High School
2425 Pine Tree Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33140
mishleu@aol.com
Rabbi Miller
Rabbi Levene
Orly Kanner
Ellen Averbrook
Milkin Community High School
Rabbi Barnett Kunen
Stacey Bryman (310) 397-0306
Dr. Steve Brown
209 Lenape Ave.
Melrose Park, PA 19027
Shari Herman (610) 668-8026
89
90
Intensive Block Scheduling Project
Leslie Pugach
Core/History
91
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Summary of Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
92
Introduction
Before I begin the presentation and analysis of my investigation, it is necessary to explain why
I decided to participate in the Intensive/Block Scheduling project.
I have been a teacher for over twenty-five years; the last fifteen have been at Akiba. For the
first ten years, I taught in public schools at the junior high/middle school and high school levels, as well as in the education departments of two college teacher preparation programs. As
part of the latter, I was a student teacher supervisor, visiting classes in urban, suburban, public
and private schools. The outcome is that over the past twenty-five years, I have seen virtually
hundreds of teachers and classrooms in all types of schools. The single common denominator
in 99% of these schools has been the rigid seven to nine period day, each period consisting of
forty to fifty minutes of teacher-led instruction. While a few teachers used cooperative learning, group work, inquiry and the like, most lectured or led discussions to groups of students
who sat numbly in straight rows. I truly believe that in most cases, the teachers believed that
the methods that they were using were the most efficacious in terms of “covering the material,” although intellectually they knew that these methods made little pedagogical sense.
From my experience at Akiba, both as a department head, and what is more important, as a
teacher, what I’ve experienced is really no different from any other school. Teachers are concerned with “coverage” of a curriculum, although most of my colleagues know that “coverage”
does not make for good teaching or learning. As Howard Gardner says,“The greatest enemy
of understanding is coverage. As long as you are determined to cover everything, you actually
ensure that most kids are not going to understand....” (Educational Leadership, April 1993) For
Akiba students, however, there is the additional pressure of “covering” eight major subjects. In
addition, because Akiba is a Jewish Day School where observance of holidays is part of the
school program and where clubs must meet during the school day, there are numerous interruptions in the school’s schedule. A consequence of these pressures and concerns, as stated in
both the 1981 Middle States Evaluation and the one conducted in 1992, is a “freneticism” and
“high level of stress” for both faculty and students.
In addition, there is a tremendous amount of frustration and resignation among the dedicated faculty members at Akiba, who truly want to use a wider variety of teaching methods and
who would like to implement the latest research on multiple intelligences in their classrooms
and curricula. For example, my colleagues and I have attended in-service programs on both
academic content and teaching methodologies that have been eye-opening and energizing.
Yet these positive feelings quickly wore off when we realized that there was no time to implement these exciting ideas into our courses. As a department head, I am loathe to criticize any
member of my department for not using writing portfolios, for example, because there is little
time to learn to use this important method effectively. Such learning would require some trial
and error, with coaching and evaluation by one’s peers. Consequently, the addition of new
teaching methods or curricular restructuring is sporadic at best.
As an educator who believes that it is a school’s responsibility to prepare students to become
life-long learners in a world that will be markedly different from the one in which I lived, I
believe that alternative scheduling may be one way to achieve greater success and satisfaction in education. As stated in the National Association of Independent Schools’ publication
Scheduling in Schools,“Nothing is in shorter supply in schools than time to think....Schools
need to find ways of providing larger chunks of time for better teaching and learning....” After
almost ten months of investigation, I do believe that some alternative form of scheduling for
Akiba Hebrew Academy is not only intriguing but mandatory.
Summary of Proposal
93
In the proposal made to the IBS Committee in September 1996, I decided to focus on two
general areas: mixed schedules (schools that use both traditional and block schedules) and
the implications of changes in scheduling on contracts between teachers’ unions and the
school boards. Through an Internet search, school visits and interviews, I hoped to be able to
make some very specific suggestions for alternatives to Akiba’s current schedule that would
address issues of pedagogy, stress, frustration and the uniqueness of Akiba’s staffing, contract
and physical limitations. I also hoped to address the unique problems of schools that use
overlapping faculties in their middle and upper schools, particularly in the humanities. Since
Linda Schaffzin’s proposal was similar to mine, we worked together most of the time.
Sources
School Visits
In the Spring of 1996, I visited Conrad Weiser Junior/Senior High School with several members of the IBS team. I sat in on both history and junior high (middle school) classes. In the Fall
of 1996, Linda Schaffzin and I visited Sparrow’s Point Middle School and Sparrow’s Point High
School in Baltimore County.
Internet Search
Through the Internet, I was able to amass random responses to my question about the effects
of block scheduling on teachers’ contracts, as well as information about how a wide variety of
public schools have implemented various forms of block scheduling. I also found a plethora
of opinions on IBS in the humanities’ curricula, with an emphasis on history/American Studies.
Professional Associations
The National Association of Independent Schools sent its publication “Scheduling in Schools”
and information about its Scheduling Database. I also received information from a major publisher: Social Studies Educator’s Handbook on Block Scheduling (Prentice Hall). In addition, the
Association for Curriculum and Supervision’s publication, Educational Leadership, had a number of relevant articles about IBS in its November 1995 edition. Also, there have been several
articles in the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) publication, Social Education,
about ways to adapt lessons and curricula to IBS.
Interview
Linda and I interviewed Ms. Chris Coleman, Asst. Principal of Keith Valley Middle School in the
Hatboro-Horsham School District.
Conference
Linda and I attended the 23rd Annual National Middle School Association Conference in
Baltimore on October 31 and November 1. In a full day session entitled “Alternative Schedules
for Middle Schools” led by Elliot Merenbloom, we learned about various models for alternative scheduling, as well as the philosophical underpinnings that any schedule must have.
94
Summary of Findings
School Visits Summaries
Conrad Weiser Area Junior/Senior High School
On May 16 1996, a group of teachers from Akiba visited Conrad Weiser Area Junior/Senior
High School, a regional secondary school serving a rural/suburban area near Reading Pa.,
about fifty miles from Philadelphia. The present school holds 2100 students in grades seven
through twelve, although there is little interaction between the students in the junior high
school and high school. However, both parts of the school utilize a 4x4 block schedule that
operates on a semester system. The two schools share bus schedules, gyms, cafeteria, music
rooms, auditorium and outdoor playing fields.
Since the area served by this school is growing and changing rapidly, Conrad Weiser Area
School District is building a new middle school for grades five through eight that will incorporate the latest technology and pedagogy related to this age group. Middle School teachers
are already being prepared, through school visits and intensive in-service, to teach in this new
school. In addition, they are encouraged to try out new ideas in their present classrooms. The
central administration has a part-time staff development coordinator and the faculty association works with the building administration to develop and present in-service programs.
A 4x4 two semester block system on a six day rotation was implemented in the 1995-1996
school year, after two years of preparation. Many teachers still believe that more work needs
to be done with staff development and curriculum revision. The district planned more workshops for the summer of 1996, although teachers are not required to attend. Although there
was no conflict with the current teachers’ contract when the switch to block scheduling was
made, teachers confirmed that it will be an issue in the next negotiations in three years.
Currently, teachers teach three out of four blocks per semester.
In the middle school, block scheduling has been used to enhance the use of teams. Since all
of the major subject teachers have the same block as a preparation period, they have time to
plan integrated lessons, discuss students and meet with parents. Although these teachers
were not certain that block scheduling would be used in the new middle school, they were
emphatic that the team approach would be continued.
I visited a 7th grade geography class, a 7th grade English class and two ninth grade history
classes. In two of these classes I had the opportunity to talk with students candidly. The middle school students praised the team approach and block scheduling, using comments like:
“the teachers care,”“it makes what we’re learning less boring.” High school students mentioned the reduction in stress and homework, the ability to learn more complex concepts, the
feeling that teachers knew them better and the idea that within each classroom they had
greater freedom. The 9th graders expressed concern about absences, bad teachers, and
scheduling difficulties.
Overwhelmingly, administrators, teachers and students essentially said the same thing:“In
block scheduling, good teachers become better and bad teachers are just as bad.” In addition,
those teachers who spoke positively about teaching in the block said that although they have
more work to do (paper load, planning), they feel greater satisfaction as teachers. Teachers
also expressed frustration over the administration’s lack of understanding or support in providing the necessary time, in-service and curriculum revision that must accompany block
scheduling. Interestingly, when I asked teachers and students if they would like to return to
the “old way,” both groups, without exception, voiced a resounding,“NO!”
95
Sparrow’s Point Middle School; Sparrow’s Point High School
In October 1996 Linda and I spent a day at Sparrow’s Point Middle School and Sparrow’s Point
High School, part of the Baltimore County School System. We selected S.P. Middle because it
was listed in the program book of the National Middle School Association as an exemplary
middle school that used block scheduling. What we discovered is that S.P. Middle is really a
rather traditional middle school in which each team (English, History, Math, Science) is
assigned a block of four consecutive 45 minute periods that are usually used in a traditional
way, i.e., each teacher teaches for one single period. Teams of special teachers (art, music,
technology) have a block of two consecutive periods that they have blocked so that art can
meet for 90 minutes one day, technology for 90 minutes the next day, etc. The advantage of
this system is that the possibility does exist for an academic teacher to arrange to have more
than 45 minutes with a group. In addition, daily team planning time has enabled team members to reinforce skills across the curriculum, encouraged some interdisciplinary projects and
enhanced the team members’ knowledge of students and ability to deal with problems uniformly. This system has also made it possible for the guidance counselor to work more closely
with teachers in their classrooms.
Serendipitously, we discovered that Sparrow’s Point High School is in the third year of an A/B
block schedule and so half of our time was spent there. Led by a dynamic principal, Dr.
Margaret Spicer, a group of teachers called the School Improvement Team investigated various types of alternative schedules and determined that the A/B schedule would be best for
S.P. High School. This School Improvement Team has continued to operate, fine-tuning the
schedule and curriculum to better fit the needs of the students and importing in-service programs for teachers. There is also considerable mentoring by the department head, master
teachers and the principal. Teachers teach three blocks per day and have 150 minutes of duty
time per week. This conforms with the Baltimore County School District’s teachers’ contract.
Non-educational duties such as lunch and bus duty are covered by paraprofessionals, not
teachers. Teachers’ duties include clubs, coaching, study halls, and supervision of a required
service learning program.
In an open discussion with two department heads (English and Science), we discussed the
advantages and disadvantages of the A/B block schedule. Advantages include that teachers
get to know students better, there is less stress on students, there are more electives for students and teachers. S.P. High School has been able to implement several innovative courses as
a result of this schedule. Disadvantages are the increased work load for teachers and a
decrease in teachers’ planning time. However, both department heads were quick to add that
teachers are more excited by their teaching and positive about their work than under the traditional system.“We really feel that we are making a difference,” was one comment. These two
teachers also emphasized the importance of Dr. Spicer’s leadership and support. Watching her
walk through the halls, calling students by name and calmly speaking with faculty and staff in
the same warm manner was an inspiration.
Internet Search
After searching several databases on the Internet, I posted a request for information about
the effect of block scheduling on teachers’ contracts. I was able to find little information from
either the National Education Association web site or the American Federation of Teachers
web site. The few responses that I did receive expressed incredulity about my question.“Why
would block scheduling affect a contract?”, was one reply from a public school teacher in the
Midwest.
96
In the few substantive responses that I did receive, most contracts specified contracted minutes, instead of teaching periods. For example, teachers who used to teach five 45 minute
periods, were now expected to have 225 minutes of teaching per day. In some cases, due to
the length of the block, this number became a minimum. For example, in a school that had 80
minute blocks, a teacher would now teach 240 minutes per day. Also, some schools that use
the 4/4 block average the load over a year. A teacher will teach 300 minutes in the first semester and then 200 in the second, averaging 250/day over the entire year. One gain mentioned
by most teachers who have switched to the block was that teachers have longer, blocked
planning periods, particularly if lunch duties and the like were assumed by paraprofessionals.
Most teachers who responded preferred the block because it not only reduced the number of
students they had, but also reduced class size. Teachers also enjoyed getting to know students better and having the opportunity to try new teaching methods. Negative comments
had to do with a lack of control over the way decisions were made, inadequate in-service
preparation, inadequate means for evaluation, and inadequate leadership in both implementation and continuation of alternative scheduling.
Professional Associations and Publications
National Association of Independent Schools
The publication from the National Association of Independent Schools was particularly helpful because the types of schools included in their data base are more similar to Akiba than
public schools. In addition, many of these independent schools have teachers who teach in
both middle and upper schools, space restrictions and disruptions caused by athletics.
However, few of these schools have contracts with teachers’ unions. Most of this information
was included in the NAIS publication,“Scheduling in Schools.”
What I found most intriguing in this publication were these points:“The schedule is not a sentient creature. To dissociate it from the people and decisions that created it is to already have
given up some power over it... Be clear about your educational goals and priorities; that clarity
will help you sort through competing interests in a way consistent with your beliefs...Better
schedules mean better teaching and learning....” (“Thoughts about Scheduling” from
“Scheduling in Schools”).
According to the scheduling database for upper schools that had submitted information to
NAIS, the contact minutes per teacher range from 205-308 minutes per day. The number of
students per teacher ran from 45 to 100, with an average class size of 12-16. This data included both schools that used extended periods as well as schools that used a more traditional
schedule. These figures are only helpful in providing parameters with which to judge Akiba’s
data. It would be helpful to contact those schools that use larger blocks of time to determine
whether the use of blocks has changed the contact minutes, number of students per teacher
and class size. In addition, information concerning the financial effects of a block system and
how these financial effects have been absorbed by the school’s budget would be helpful.
97
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)’s journal, Educational
Leadership, devoted the November 1995 issue to “Productive Use of Time and Space.” Articles
included an extensive and intensive study of schools that are trying to improve student performance. What the researchers concluded is that “Scheduling is a powerful tool that can be
used to improve the quality of teaching and learning, but by itself it will not necessarily
improve performance. Educators who share a vision of quality education and who are determined to work with others to achieve it have an exciting array of tools, including new forms
of scheduling...that can serve them well, but they must not lose sight of their real
purpose...(including) the importance of other factors affecting restructuring efforts, including
a professional community that reinforces teachers’ commitment to quality.”
The ASCD advocates a number of approaches to restructuring the school year, although all
must be concerned with the same three areas of concern: providing quality time, creating a
school climate and providing varying learning time.
The point is that by attempting to create a “one size fits all” mode of scheduling, we ignore
what is unique about each subject area, individual learners, and individual teachers. In addition, researchers said,“...teachers who experience it (block scheduling) say they can’t conceive
of returning to the inflexible treadmill of xx-minute classes...they’re not saying it because it
has made things easier for them. They think they’re more effective in working with kids.”
National Council for the Social Studies
Social Education, the journal of the National Council for the Social Studies, routinely contains
practical suggestions for teaching particular areas of the social studies. Increasingly, these
suggestions have included hands-on,“active” learning methods along with cooperative learning, role playing, activities for multiple intelligences, incorporation of computer technology
into coursework and other strategies. The February 1996 issue of Social Education presents
several model lessons that demonstrate how these methods have been used in specific
courses. However, the authors emphasize that “staff development on instructional techniques
and curriculum development is critical to the success of block plans.” Furthermore, as the
social studies curricula move away from “coverage” towards implementation of the newly
released National Standards in the Social Studies, longer class periods are necessary. Since
these new National Standards stress application, rather than memorization, of information,
class periods must allow for the teacher to become the “guide on the side,” rather than “the
sage on the stage.”
Interview
Ms. Christine Coleman is an assistant principal at Keith Valley Middle School in the HatboroHorsham School District. Before coming to Keith Valley, she was a Spanish teacher at HatboroHorsham High School and was on the planning team that helped to implement their block
schedule. She is currently in charge of developing and implementing Keith Valley’s new block
schedule in the 1997-1998 school year. They will be using a sliding block schedule in which
four blocks are rotated day-by-day. It was determined that each student will take math in
both semesters. Physical education is part of this block and will occur every other day. A
directed study hall takes place when there is no physical education. Students in the band,
orchestra or chorus will have the opportunity to rehearse during the directed study hall
block.
98
Teachers will teach three blocks per day, or six blocks a year. This is an increase from the previous teacher load, but is similar to the system used in the high school. The trade-offs in the
teachers’ contract are that all non-teaching duties are performed by teacher aides, there are
no layoffs, class size is reduced and all extra duties (coaching, advising clubs, etc.) are now
paid. There was no change made in the district’s formula for teacher evaluation, although
teachers who seemed unable or unwilling to make the adjustment were encouraged to take
advantage of the state retirement system’s “early out” program. Consequently, several teachers
have retired.
According to Ms. Coleman, advantages to the block schedule for the middle school are a
reduction in stress and pace, a reduction in the number of students each teacher sees per
semester, and an opportunity to incorporate more problem solving activities in curricula.
“You’ve got to change how you deliver instruction and assessment.” One additional bonus
that will come as a result of the block schedule, combined with an increase in the student
body, is the establishment of teams in each grade. The larger planning block can now be used
to work on curriculum integration and the development of an advisory program in the future.
In order to implement this new schedule effectively, the school district has several in-service
days built into the school year. There will also be in-service sessions during the summer. In
addition, a staff developer from the central administration will meet with each teaching team
on a regular basis. The school will also have a homework hotline and assign homework buddies to address the problems related to student absences in a block schedule.
Conference
By far the most valuable source was the one that Linda and I encountered last: the all-day session with Elliot Merenbloom on “Alternative Schedules for Middle Schools” at the National
Middle School Association Conference. Merenbloom’s presentation included the major issues
in scheduling, building a schedule and the use of the schedule. Although the paradigm used
was middle school, his format could apply to any type of school, including a middle-upper
school such as Akiba.
“A schedule is a means to an end, not an end to itself....You must start with a philosophy,
designed and formulated by teachers....It takes three to five years to implement something
new ...including teacher training before, during and after implementation...this includes time
for teachers to express their apprehensions and fears....We need to get Board members
involved in the planning and in the in-service.”These are some of the kernels of wisdom from
Merenbloom’s remarks. I emerged exhausted and exhilarated. Both Linda and I agree that
Elliot Merenbloom would be an excellent choice for an in-service program.
99
Conclusions
1
Most of the published material and information available on the Internet regarding
intensive/block scheduling relates to large public high schools whose reasons for turning to intensive/block scheduling are, in some respects, dissimilar to Akiba’s situation.
Few of these schools have faculties or facilities that are shared with a middle school.
2. In those schools where teachers’ contracts have been affected, the number of daily
contact minutes, class size, and number of students taught in a particular semester or
year have been negotiated and specified. Trade-offs include elimination of all nonteaching duties, pay for all extra duties such as club sponsorship and a promise of no
layoffs for a certain period.
3. In those schools where intensive/block scheduling was most successful, there was
strong educational leadership by the principal; extensive in-service for teachers both
before, during and after the change; opportunities for teachers to express their fears
and frustrations about the changes; ample planning time (three to five years) before
implementation of any changes; involvement by the central administration, school
board, parents and students; and a pre-determined program for objective assessment
and evaluation of the effects of IBS on students and faculty.
4. In middle schools that have used intensive/block scheduling most successfully, opportunities have been created to use a team approach. The composition of these teams
varies from grade-level teams comprised of “major subject” teachers to teams that
include the guidance counselor and “minor subject” teachers. Yet a part of all middle
school IBS programs is increased time for planning. The result is more interdisciplinary
and cooperative programs that meet the unique needs of middle school students.
5. There are some independent schools that use intensive/block scheduling. We need to
contact them to discover how this has affected them financially, since it seems that IBS
does have monetary implications for a smaller, independent school.
6. Teachers in schools that use intensive/block scheduling, where there has been appropriate teacher involvement in the planning, in-service opportunities, educational leadership and community support, tend to enjoy teaching more and, although they find
the work more time consuming, seem to be more positive about what is going on in
their classrooms. Teachers in the humanities and sciences have a more favorable
impression of intensive/block scheduling than math teachers.
7. The creation of a school’s schedule must begin with a philosophy that is created by
teachers with the ultimate goal of doing what is best to meet the needs of students.
This requires an analysis of the school’s program of studies and appropriate assignment of teachers before any other decisions are made. The process of creating a schedule should be as inclusive as possible so that most teachers have a say in the schedule
as well as an understanding of how it is formulated.
100
Recommendations
1. The new collective bargaining agreement between the teachers’ union and the Board
of Directors should be made as broad as possible so that any decisions regarding a different type of schedule, teams, class size, non-teaching duties, the number of teaching
preparations can be accommodated fairly.
2. Class size should be capped at 18, particularly in heterogeneously grouped classes;
preparations should be limited, in most cases, to two.
3. A scheduling team should be created to work towards the development of a schedule
that better meets the disparate needs of middle school and upper school students, as
well as the academic and pedagogical differences in the various disciplines in the
upper school.
4. Any schedule should accommodate all holiday observances, assemblies, middle school
advisory and allow for minimal disruption due to trips, athletics or other activities that
involve either a single grade or small groups within the school.
5. Decisions regarding staffing and teacher assignment should be made as early as possible so that the scheduling team can design an appropriate schedule that is both flexible and educationally sound.
6. The middle school should attempt to use some type of team approach and accommodations should be made in the schedule for this.
7. Intensive/block scheduling seems to meet the needs of middle school students, providing their teachers have had appropriate in-service training, support, leadership, and
opportunities for curricular revision. Akiba should seriously consider implementing
some type of intensive/block schedule for its middle school, particularly in Core and
Advisory.
8. The humanities, particularly history as taught at Akiba with its emphasis on depth, discussion and written analysis, would benefit from some form of intensive/block scheduling.
9. Continued in-service should be made available for teachers, particularly groups of
teachers from a specific discipline or grade level, in the classroom applications of the
latest research on learning styles, methodologies, curricula, etc. After teachers have participated in such in-service, there should be time for planning, support, curriculum revision, and evaluation so that these new ideas can be implemented effectively.
10. The Board of Directors and representatives of the PTO should be encouraged to attend
in-service sessions and to participate, or at least have an opportunity to express opinions, regarding any changes in scheduling.
11. Elliot Merenbloom should be invited to meet with the Intensive/block scheduling team
and, perhaps, with the faculty, in order to facilitate a discussion of why alternatives to
our present schedule need to be considered and how to go about designing one that
is appropriate to Akiba’s needs and variables.
12. Any plans for the expansion and refurbishing of Akiba’s building must provide for larger classrooms; movable furniture in all classrooms; computers, VCRs and TVs in all classrooms; more storage and display areas throughout the school; and a library/media center and computer facility that are available throughout the school day.
13. “One size fits all” has been perpetuated for far too long in schools. At Akiba, attempts
must be made by the faculty, Board and particularly those developing a contract, to
101
construct a schedule and contract that are based upon the best research about the disparate needs of each academic discipline and age group. For example, what is best for
learning and teaching middle school math might not be best for students taking
Calculus; the most appropriate class size, length of teaching period and number of
periods per cycle/week for a biology class may not be the same as that for English. In
other words, let’s admit that for major subjects (and perhaps minors, also) the use of a
seven period day, six day cycle, with 37-47 minute periods for that meet five out of six
days is merely convenient, not educationally defensible.
Concerns Related to Recommendations
1. At present, there are severe physical limitations at Akiba. Only the three Core rooms
(14, 15, 17) provide enough space for a variety of teaching styles to be utilized, and
even then, only when class size is 18 or less.
2. The faculty of Akiba is demoralized and frustrated. Distrust among the faculty, Board
and administration has not been addressed, although this was one of the leading recommendations of the 1992 Middle States team and an underlying cause of the labor
union strike. Until some progress is made in this area, any attempt at change is
doomed from the start.
3. The process of how changes are made at Akiba is still arbitrary and often seems to
ignore the role of the Education Committee in fostering change, as well as Akiba’s philosophy, which should be the cornerstone of all educational decisions. Without a strong
and respected educational leader, as well as a Board of Directors that truly understands
education, there will continue to be friction, frustration, and enmity. The consequence
is the status quo that is neither educationally sound nor professionally satisfying.
102
References
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Educational Leadership. Alexandria, Virginia. November 1995.
Block Scheduling Research
http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/~dhv3v/block/research.html
Building a Master Schedule on the Block. WassonHS@aol.com
Coleman, Christine, Personal Interview. 22 October 1996.
“Alternative Schedules for Middle Schools,” workshopby Merenbloom, Elliot.
National Middle Schools Association Conference,Baltimore November 1, 1996.
Scheduling in Schools. National Association of Independent Schools
Washington, D.C. Spring 1996.
Social Education National Council for the Social Studies. Washington, D.C. February 1995.
Block Scheduling, by Michael Rettig and Judith Cannizzaro Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,
Prentice Hall, 1996.
Directory of Contacts
Ms. Chris Coleman
Keith Valley Middle School
Hatboro-Horsham School District
(215)956-2918
Mr. George McLean, Director of Secondary Education
Conrad Weiser Area School District
Robesonia, Pennsylvania
(610) 693-8542
Dr. Elliot Y. Merenbloom
7 Elm Hollow Court
Baltimore, Maryland 21208-1845
(410)486-6822
(410)486-8682 (fax)
Ms. Linda Cimoneski, Principal
Sparrows Point Middle School
Baltimore, Maryland
(410) 887-7524
Dr. Margaret Spicer, Principal
Ms. Donna Moran-Darcey, Head of the Science Department
Ms. Elaine Berry, Dept. Head of the English Department
Sparrows Point High School
Baltimore, Maryland
(410) 887-7517 (Dr. Spicer, x. 11; Ms. Darcey, x. 18; Ms. Berry, x. 18)
103
104
Intensive Block Scheduling Project
Linda K. Schaffzin
Core/English
105
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
Summary/review of the exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
106
Introduction
Methodology
For the last year we have been engaged in an exploration into the possibilities of alternative
scheduling for Akiba. This examination has included extensive reading of articles about
recent trends in this area in American education as well as their theoretical underpinnings.
We have also visited a number of schools that have attempted systemic changes in scheduling, and had numerous phone conversations with educators of all kinds. We have observed
classes, poured over schedules and spoken to students. In addition, Leslie Pugach and I
attended the National Middle School Association conference and a full-day workshop on
scheduling. Though my particular mandate was to look at applications of ‘block scheduling’ in
both Middle School and High School English classrooms, most of my time has been spent in
discussions and exploration of Middle Schools.
At times, I felt like an Agatha Christie heroine, unearthing new leads to answer new questions
and concerns as they arose. Indeed, I am still in this process and thus still see this report as a
work in progress, open to revision and refinement as I continue to learn new things about
alternative scheduling.
Goals
I had set as my original goals to explore the possibilities for instituting a block schedule at
Akiba. Because as a Core teacher I have always taught in long blocks of time as part of our
schedule (some double and sometimes even triple periods of 40-45 minutes), I did not have
to be convinced of the block’s efficacy for better learning and teaching. My concern was
broader in terms of what implications a systemic change would have for the Akiba universe
— administration, teachers, students, parents and the community, as well as how a change to
blocks of time could best be implemented in the school.
As I researched more, I realized that some of these areas were more complex than I had envisioned. For example, how does this impact on teacher workload, contract and other educational goals I consider vital, such as an advisory program? I also realized that I wanted to jettison the strict limitation of block scheduling to its most prevalent form, the 4x4 two semester
plan, in favor of a look at broader and more flexible plans.
Perhaps in view of what I have learned, I feel now that the schedule is the least of our problems. More important is to define how we want to educate our children and why.
Summary/review of the exploration:
Literature
Most of the literature I reviewed sought to challenge the traditional high school day of six or
more classes (at Akiba it has been as many as nine and as few as seven) in which students
move from subject to subject every 40-45 minutes. This format was developed in the late
19th century, established in US schools as the norm in the early 20th and has held, except for
an apparent failed attempt at change to time modules in the 1960s. Criticism of the format
ranged from the theoretical (shouldn’t we be calming down adolescents who are seen as frenetic, hyperactive human beings), to the practical (what adult could move from desk to desk
and supervisor to supervisor, each assigning a different task, seven times a day?). Critics also
fed into the general perception that American education is failing the vast majority of our
children.
107
In attacking these existing conditions, proponents of a new system have benefited from new
ideas of cognitive learning theory. They are looking at multiple intelligences, learning for
understanding (Gardner), old ideas like Dewey’s “generative knowledge,” learning differences
and how those needs can be met in group learning. Theodore Sizer speaks of “less is more”
and the “student as worker,” a system that will allow students learn how to learn. This theoretical material along with evidence in the 80s and early 90s of small experimental programs tentatively begun around the country, most notably by Joseph M. Carroll as described in his writing on what he calls the Copernican Plan, have led to the excitement about alternative scheduling and specifically block scheduling.
Most of the literature points to the problems of large public school systems. Though there are
disclaimers to the inability of block scheduling to provide a ‘fix’ for these problems, many of
the predicted outcomes, and later the criteria used for evaluation of the program, point to the
alleviation of these problems.
Many of the issues that receive a great deal of play in the literature on public schools do not
apply to Akiba, including: absenteeism, discipline problems, especially during scheduled transitions, and teachers with a daily student load of 150 to 180 students.
More persuasive for Akiba were arguments that spoke to the needs of students as learners.
For example, according to a number of the authors, in the context of 90 minutes, it is possible
to work with groups of students or even individuals in order to deal with individual problems.
Varied learning styles can be addressed when more time is available. There is more time for
teaching styles that have had proven success, but less application in the harried traditional
schedule, usually because of time. Those techniques include: small group work, cooperative
learning, Socratic discussions, student-driven discussions, etc., etc.
All of this, of course, echoes the questions asked by Sizer in Horace’s Compromise (1985) and
though he does not give detailed answers (he says his Coalition of Essential Schools will do
the research to come up with the specifics), he certainly suggests systemic change. He criticizes the current frenetic structure, the overload on teachers and the emphasis on what he
calls hierarchical bureaucracy which destroys individualization and flexibility:
Many students learn a language well by an audiolingual approach; therefore all will...Many
classes are fruitfully taught in groups of twenty to twenty-five students; therefore all classes will be of these numbers. Many subjects appear well learned in fifty-minute, once-a-day,
five-times-a-week blocks; therefore all classes will be so offered...”(p. 208)
Clearly on a theoretical level, all points to the need for scheduling change and the preference
for fewer classes held in larger blocks of time is clear. It is perhaps interesting to note that
most of the literature describes these simple 4x4 or ABAB programs as high school programs.
Most of the middle schools I have read about have taken a more flexible approach to the
achievement of the educational goals. But more about that later.
The anecdotal literature describes the implementation of specific programs. It indicates that
almost all of the empirical data on the various forms of the blocking of chunks of time for
fewer courses has been positive in all areas, though in many cases differences have been marginal. Student test scores and GPAs have been raised, absenteeism has gone down, discipline
problems have been reduced. The subjective reports also support the programs: students
report more satisfaction with blocks of time, though they were afraid at first. (One internet
exploration turned up what seemed according to its title, a very negative response to block
scheduling from students. It turned out to be a series of fears and warnings expressed by students whose school had yet to implement any change, but had begun raising the issue!)
Teachers also expressed satisfaction with the program despite initial skepticism.
108
Here too, a careful review indicates that differences in data between before and after programs were often not significant, but much was made of the fact that fears of the adverse
effects of block scheduling were not realized. Again, many of the positives do not apply to
Akiba. Of more interest are the areas the theoretical literature speaks to: understanding, etc.
Here the results, of course, are less clear, though the subjective (by and large positive) opinions of principals, teachers and students are certainly impressive. Caveats for the lack of depth
of the evaluations, primarily due to the recent application of block-scheduling and therefore
the short period available for assessment, must also be taken into consideration.
There were two other observations that I feel merit inclusion in this report, as well as a great
deal of further research. Those two areas involve information on middle schools and independent schools. When we started our work on block scheduling, there seemed to be little knowledge about middle school or independent school attempts at block scheduling. Though I do
not know why, I have found that alternative scheduling has indeed been a “hot topic” in both
spheres of education. It has not, however, seen its expression in the formats suggested by
most of the high school literature, i.e., 4x4, ABAB or other dropped and rotated schedules.
Instead, there is a great deal of discussion about interdisciplinary blocks, team blocks, flexible
scheduling and a host of other solutions and suggestions.
A National Middle School Association research summary (#2) on flexible scheduling (note the
terminology) says that:
Alternative scheduling patterns address the concern for more appropriate learning
environments for students and respond to the need, not for schools to be more
organized, but to be more flexible and creative in the use of time. (Spear 1992)
and:
The type of schedule which enables schools to incorporate the most recommended
practices is known as flexible scheduling, a feature of exemplary schools that
restructures resources by optimizing time, space and staff, and facilitates varied
curriculum offerings and teaching strategies (Canady, 1995).
In an introduction to the results of a survey of their membership, Stephen Clem of the
National Association of Independent Schools says:“Unlike public schools in which uniformity
of program and resources across a district, or even a larger area, makes it relatively easy for
one school’s scheduling innovation to be adopted successfully by another school, independent schools are in many ways unique organisms, more likely to reject than accept a transplant.”
I think this last, taken with the NMSA emphasis on flexibility, is more appropriate for Akiba, as
conditions in large public schools are clearly not applicable to our students and our teachers.
Visitations, Interviews, etc.
This was perhaps even more apparent in the visitations I was able to do, as well as the interviews and conversations I had with administrators, teachers and students during the past ten
months.
The Conrad Weiser School was the only middle school I saw that attempted a straight 4x4
block, just as it has in its high school. The Dalton School in New York City and the Sparrow
Point Middle School outside of Baltimore (visit on 10/14/96) have a block of core subjects
which creates teams of core teachers (typically language arts, social studies and science or
math), who use their blocks of time flexibly. They use their common planning time to allocate
these blocks according to curricular needs. This allows for a number of strategies that are vital
109
to middle school, but I think could be beneficial to high school students, also: team planning,
team discussion of individual students, interdisciplinary learning and an advisory program.
These points, in fact, were stressed by Elliott Merenbloom in his workshop on Alternative
Schedules for Middle Schools at the NMSA Conference (10/31/96). Merenbloom defines a
block of time as a time when a group of teachers who teach the same group of students
teach at the same time and are free at the same time. The block is the major basis for teaming
which allows for better pedagogy, flexible scheduling, integrated curriculum and caring for
individual kids.
At Dalton, most of these are in place, though there seems to be very little interdisciplinary
teaching, perhaps because the middle school principal is wary of distorting curriculum to the
“great god of integration.” Sparrows Point teachers, who also function with a fixed block and
singletons, seem more open to integration, but are weaker on the advisory component. There
the advisory program is run by the guidance counselor, which does not allow for a student
advocate (who has a small number of children as advisees) as at Dalton and Akiba. All in all
though, these middle schools seem very pleased with the results of their flexible blocks.
Dalton, like Akiba, is an independent school, so the intensity of the team work seems greater.
There teachers are freed up for advisory — they teach only the three core sections and have
an advisory. Even in their upper school, which is traditionally scheduled, advisors teach only
four courses. Non-advisors teach five.
Students at Dalton seemed very happy with their set-up, while Weiser children seemed rather
passive. We did not have a chance to speak to Sparrows Point students. Block scheduling is
not yet in place at Keith Valley Middle School in Hatboro Horsham, where Leslie Pugach and I
met with the assistant principal, but they are planning a modified block which does not
include advisory. Math will be taught all year long because they have concerns about retention. There are no such concerns about foreign languages.
In general, the schools we visited seemed very happy with their changes, though I would like
to revisit the schools with the knowledge I have now, asking more questions of students and
teachers than administrators. For example, we spoke at length with the high school principal
and two heads of departments (English and science) at Sparrows Point High School. I was
very impressed with their enthusiasm for the program, as well as their dedication to their students and their education. Both teachers indicated that they are working harder, but both feel
they are better teachers because of the blocks of time and the changes necessitated in their
teaching. Both would never return to 45 minute periods and both advocated the ABAB schedule which they and their principal acknowledged was much more work for the teacher, but
better for the kid. The question remains, how do rank and file teachers feel about the workload and the block schedule?
I had two opportunities for rather informal inquiries into block scheduling. One was a conversation I had with an Upper Darby high school student who was helping me with a purchase
at Office Max. He said that he thought the longer period would be murder, but now he
wouldn’t want to go back to the old schedule.“You take role and boom the class is over,” he
declared, though he did indicate that he looked forward to what he hoped would be a snowy
winter!
I also spoke with a fellow English teacher and newspaper advisor at Upper Moreland who
confirmed rumors about workload increases, from five courses to six. She was not passionate
about either schedule, shrugging when I asked her about it.
110
Teacher Contracts and workload
It is clear that workload increased for the public school teachers whose schools we observed.
In a conversation with Chris Coleman, the assistant principal at Keith Valley Middle School,
which was in the process of formulating its implementation of block scheduuling for the
coming academic year. we realized that on the surface, the Akiba teacher’s contract is unusual
in its careful stipulation of workload. According to Chris, most of the schools with which she is
familiar do not have workload stipulations in their contracts. Thus, the rise in classes taught
from five to six was not an issue. This is especially true because preps were decreased, as were
numbers of students taught. The differences were so striking that the teachers were pleased
with their lot. This explained to some extent what seemed to us to be a surprising altruism at
Sparrows Point, where teachers made the decision to go to an ABAB schedule because they
were concerned about retention and difficulties with AP courses for students. This though
that structure meant some would teach three double classes every day.
Thus, the calming effect of three instead of five or six classes, the reduction in preps and often
in class size made it worthwhile. Because I think this is an area where independent schools
differ (i.e., very few teachers teach the same subject matter over and over), I am very eager to
continue my research into the NAIS database and I have made contact with Independent
School Management, a consulting firm in Delaware.
There is also the issue of teacher retention. Most of the public schools we visited are growing
in population. Because this necessitates the creation of new sections, job retention was not
an issue. In fact, the Keith Valley principal indicated that the rise in population allowed them
to implement IBS, a program started at the district high school years before. Three years ago
IBS could not have been implemented because teacher layoffs would have been necessary.
Conclusions
Most of my research only gave me the theoretical and practical explanation for what I had
known experientially and intuitively for all of my teaching experience: blocks of time afford
varieties of teaching methods; group work, cooperative learning, student planned activities
are good for kids; kids need an advocate in the school, one who could also work on group
processes, study skills and other non-academic areas, i.e., an advisor; assessment does not
always mean tests — student presentations are wonderful; writing and reading standards are
important, but writing and reading for their own sake gives students life-long learning tools.
Now I can tell you why.
I can also articulate why I feel frustration at having too many single periods in which my
options are limited and the bell is my tyrant.
But now I must ask the questions:
Is all this applicable to Akiba and its double program?
What are the implications specifically for English, middle school and especially, core?
First of all, despite the preponderance of positive literature and evidence in the field, I feel
very uncomfortable with the public school as a measure of what we could or should do at
Akiba. It is true that as an Akiba graduate, parent and teacher, I find myself in culture shock as
I roam the wide hallways and clean lunchrooms of these gigantic, cavernous schools. But the
differences are deeper.
111
Akiba’s population is more homogeneous than most public schools, its parent and student
body highly motivated so that issues such as absenteeism, dropouts and even discipline do
not create problems for us. Neither does band, which seems to be one of the biggest barriers
to flexibility in the public schools.
Unlike Sizer’s Horace, our faculty has had a great deal of control in the classroom and in curriculum planning. That has been one of the strengths of the school as far as I am concerned.
That is, a student can be exposed to real differences in philosophy and methodology which
are played out in the classroom without constraints from a “downtown” office. For example,
my daughter said she was glad to have had Sharon Levin as a history teacher who introduced
her to chronology, cause and effect and broad movements and small details. All this helped
her in what Allan Bloom refers to as the vocabulary of subject matter. Harold Gorvine, on the
other hand, introduced her to the inquiry method which explored original documents in an
effort to understand the human forces that moved history. Each did some of the other’s
method, of course, but Edie felt she now knows how to approach the study of history. In public schools there is a uniformity which needs to be shaken up; at Akiba we have the autonomy
and right away that gives us an advantage and probably makes us more committed and creative, according to Sizer.
That is not to say that Akiba is perfect. Far from it. I do think that our day is too frenetic. We
have lost sight of some of the ideals that the school adhered to when it called itself progressive. Indeed, I think many of the good teaching described in the articles and in the schools I
read about and saw have their origins in Dewey, where Akiba once looked for its philosophical underpinnings. I would love to see more of that philosophy returned to our classrooms.
But I am concerned that trading one rigid formula for another will not necessarily be the best
way to go. What other alternatives are open to us? More importantly, what educational goals
should we set for ourselves and can we create a schedule that will be our tool to achieve
those goals?
I have mentioned a few of my goals, some of which appear in Akiba’s philosophy statement:
– individualization for students and teacher alike, with special recognition
for learning differences.
– care for individual students — with a strong advisory program.
We have two good school counselors who cannot possibly deal with the entire student body.
Advisors should be the people who know individual students well. They should be responsible for a number of children horizontally, being the first line of defense for parents, students
and other teachers. They should know their limits and work closely with counselors when
they reach those limits. The schedule should allow for the time this sort of program entails.
– technology - the use of technologies as a tool for students who will need to use technology in the future, but also for the teacher to expand his/her abilities to reach different kinds of students.
– teaching for understanding - “an openness in discussion...(an expectation for) the
teacher to listen as well as to instruct.” (Akiba Philosophy, 1991)
– learning through experiential as well as intellectual activities.
And so on throughout the 1991 philosophy statement.
112
In its Research Summary (#4), the NMSA lists the characteristics of a successful middle school:
I.
Interdisciplinary teaming
II. Advisory programs
III. Varied instruction including: integrating learning experiences, addressing students’
own questions; problem-solving; emphasizing collaboration and cooperation;
developing democratic values and moral sensitivity
IV. Exploratory programs including student government, the arts, independent study
projects and others
V. Transition programs to create a smooth move into high school.
Change this last to “college” and I would propose these are the marks of successful schooling
at any age.
Concerns
1. Though our philosophy statement was written with the entire school in mind, there
seems to be some dissonance between the goals of upper school and middle school.
Assuming that both divisions see these differences as necessary and appropriate (a
point I am most willing to explore), can we develop a schedule that will not be driven
by one or the other’s needs, as is sometimes now the case? This is especially complex
because we share faculty so completely since the 1993 contract changes.
2. Can we take the time to explore other alternatives as well as brainstorm our own solutions to achieving our goals?
3. What are the implications for teacher load? Teachers now teach five courses. How can
that be configured in a system that seems to lean toward even numbers?
4. Specifically in core — our typical load is two core sections (treated as four classes) plus
a single section in Upper School (history or English). I cannot imagine going to three
core sections, so what will give? (Note: both Merenbloom and Sizer, and perhaps others, have suggested that the ideal is one teacher teaching 2 disciplines, thus lowering
student numbers even more. Akiba has been doing this for 50 years!) On this point, my
recommendation would be to give teacher credit for advising a class, a la Dalton.
5. How do we deal with what the philosophy statement calls the raison d’etre of Akiba,
the Jewish studies program? Certainly the half semester solution presents problems for
the ideal of studying tanakh all the time, for speaking Hebrew at Akiba Hebrew
Academy, not to mention the new Talmud tracks which are important to a small segment of our population.
6. Can systemic change be advised at a time when there are a number of other serious
problems in the school:
a. The types of activities favored by the proponents of good teaching need
more room than we have in the school. I teach in the largest room in the
school and even I have problems with some group activities. As one student
evaluator put it, most of the classrooms in public schools are larger than room
15 at Akiba. With the zoning variance in appeal will we ever have facilities we
need?
b. Though the school is committed to technology, the process is very slow. The
problems are endless and are not the subject of this paper, but they have
implications for schedule change and its necessary teacher change.
113
c. As difficult as it is to say, the atmosphere at Akiba may not be conducive to
widespread change, not because people hate change — that is true in any
organization. What is worrisome here is the lack of trust that exists between
the segments of the school and I mean all segments. The evidence exists in
any number of anecdotes. Can the school be taken through such a major
change when none of us trusts one another to do the right thing for
everyone?
d. Despite the articulation of its philosophy, there is no daily adherence in
theory or practice. Decisions are made arbitrarily and reversed because they
prove to be ill-advised. Surely a decision like the one we are contemplating
cannot be handled this way.
5. The driving force behind most decisions does not seem to be education. What are the
implications for such enormous change?
114
Recommendations:
My ideal school would have flexible scheduling in all divisions. I would like to see us take at
least another year to explore other possibilities, perhaps the way we would ask our students
to devise a semester plan. That is, perhaps volunteer groups should begin dreaming dreams
and devising new strategies to use time. [An idea: One educator I spoke with in Israel is very
excited about interdisciplinary work, but like Dan Kramarsky at Dalton, she does not like to
see it forced. So she is exploring the possibility of choosing key concepts across curricular
lines in each grade. When the class hits on one of these concepts in any class, everything
stops and all disciplines explore that concept for a week or two. Are we willing to look at that
paradigm and take the risks it would afford for the positives it would engender?] Other possibilities include blocking some classes or blocks of disciplines — Jewish studies or the arts and
core in the middle school, Jewish studies and/or English and history in the Upper School.
Perhaps my own hesitation at this point comes from the certainty that the possibilities are
endless and have not been explored adequately by our committee. Perhaps it comes from a
feeling that we can never be sure in the field of education. That was brought home to me by
a quote from Freud cited by Sarah Lawrence Lightfoot:
It almost looks as if analysis were the third of those “impossible” professions in which
one can be sure beforehand of achieving unsatisfying results. The other two, which
have been known much longer, are education and government. (Sigmund Freud,
“Analysis Terminable and Interminable” (1937).
Surely, we cannot be frozen by the “gnawing imperfections” (Lightfoot, p. 305), but all too
often ill-considered change has led to backlash that stops all change and does not admit
any serious evaluation.
Were I forced to implement a specific course of action now, I would suggest that we begin to
bring the various school constituencies into our deliberation by teaching them what we have
learned while we define our goals and explore various scheduling permutations. This could
be done with the consultation of Elliott Merenbloom or a careful examination of the NAIS
database with calls to many of its schools.
Assuming that we come up with a few possibilities for scheduling, we could try to apply these
‘finalists’ to our situation, perhaps involving other members of the school community with
fresher perspectives. Hopefully, by fall 1997 we could have a proposal to bring before the
entire school community, for implementation the following fall. This would give us another
year for staff development and planning.
As a core teacher I am convinced that some form of block scheduling will lend legitimacy to
the core program, but I also feel it has potential for all of Akiba to reach some of its goals.
How to do it is still the question.
115
Sources
Brandt, Ron.“On Teaching for Understanding: A Conversation with Howard Gardner.”
Educational Leadership. April, 1993, pp. 4-7.
Carroll, Joseph M.“The Copernican Plan Evaluated: The Evolution of a Revolution.” Phi Delta
Kappan. October, 1994, pp. 105-113.
Carroll, Joseph M.“Organizing Time to Support Learning.” The School Administrator. March,
1994, pp. 26-33.
Clem, Steve,“Scheduling in Schools: The NAIS Scheduling Database: Some Findings.” National
Association of Independent Schools, October, 1995.
Lightfoot, Sara Lawrence. The Good High School. Basic Books, Inc. USA, 1983.
National Middle School Association Research Summary #2:“Flexible Scheduling.”
National Middle School Association Research Summary #4:“Exemplary Middle Schools.”
National Middle School Association Research Summary #9:“Advisory programs.”
Schoenstein, Roger.“Block Schedules: Building the High Schools of the Future?” Virginia
Journal of Education. December, 1994, pp. 7-12.
Sizer, Theodore R. Horace’s Compromise. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, 1985.
Taylor, Scott,“The Success of Block Scheduling in Bringing About Positive Atmospehere in the
Classroom.” Newsleader, January, 1996.
116
Intensive Block Scheduling for English
Rita Schuman
English
117
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
Section One—Written Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
Section Two—Interviews and Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Section Three—Akiba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
118
Introduction
Akiba Hebrew Academy is examining the possibility of implementing block scheduling. To
that end, as a representative of the English Department, I have been reading, observing, interviewing, and using the internet in order to determine whether or not block scheduling would
be beneficial for the school, and most particularly for the English Department at Akiba.
The results of my study are described in the following pages. Each section of my report
describes the benefits and drawbacks of block scheduling. The first section is a description of
my study of written research - articles, books, and internet. I have organized that section by
describing some of the theoretical issues that would affect scheduling changes - how we
learn, ease in learning, and retention. I have gathered explanations of different learning theories and have looked at the issue of according to how we learn, whether or not block scheduling is more helpful and fitting or less apt than traditional scheduling. The second section of
my report focuses on actual pragmatic applications, which I have seen in observations and
interviews. This section is divided into two parts - the first part describes teacher benefits and
drawbacks and the second part describes student benefits and drawbacks. The information
for this second section comes from my visits to schools, examination and discussion of visits
made by others on the team, a workshop on block scheduling for the humanities, and interviews with students, teachers, and administrators.
I have also included a section on Akiba, so that I would be able to measure general concerns
against the reality of what Akiba already has to offer, both in terms of strengths and weaknesses. For this section, I have described four areas: first, a look at actual teaching methods in
the English department; second, a description of the physical limitations of Akiba; third, an
acknowledgement of the difficulties of the dual curriculum; and fourth, a description of the
relationship between the teachers and the administration and the board. My final two sections are a conclusion, which attempts to summarize the key benefits and limitations of block
scheduling for Akiba and a list of recommendations.
Section One — Written Research
For years, philosophers, educators, and psychologists have thought about how we learn. Plato
addressed this issue in ancient times, Romantic poets like Wordsworth addressed it in the
early nineteenth century, and educators like Kozol and Hirsch addressed it in this century. The
question of how we learn, of course, affects how we should be taught, and it is this connection that is most interesting to those thinking about block scheduling. Critics of education
often find fault with the connection (or lack of ) between how we learn and how we are
taught. Proponents of block scheduling often extol this kind of change in teaching as a perfect way to reestablish a fitting connection between learning and teaching. With this in mind,
I have looked at information on learning theory to see how fitting a match block scheduling
can be with the reality of how we actually learn.
Many educators believe that we learn best by methods that eschew rote memorization and
provide opportunities for meaningful application. Preston Feden asserts that “all learning,
except for simple rote memorization, requires the learner to actively construct meaning.” He
cites research that supports the importance for students to practice what they are taught, as
well as the need to address different kinds of learning styles. Since we learn by active application, Feden feels that finding core concepts for teaching will be “more likely to produce conceptual change that moves learners along from novice to expert.” David Perkins describes
how understanding goes beyond merely “knowing,” and defines understanding as being able
to “perform in a variety of thought-demanding ways with the topic.” He provides evidence
that shows why learners must be involved with activities that have them “generalize, find new
119
examples, carry out applications and work through understanding performances.” Ron Brandt
cites as a goal learning situations that minimize the mindless, context-less learning that often
takes place in schools. He states that “when you’ve encountered an idea in your own way and
brought your own thinking to bear, the idea becomes much more a part of you.” John T. Bruer
studied what it takes for someone to go from novice to expert. He shows how students must
master strategies for learning. This is best done when teachers model the strategies for the
students and then provide opportunities for the students to use the strategies. Bruer is certainly not alone when he says that “schools need to be restructured to develop these tools.”
In 1983, Americans were warned in A Nation at Risk that “a rising tide of mediocrity in their
education system threatened the nation’s security.” Since then, there has been a call to arms
to look at ways to restructure schools. Block scheduling is not the only type of restructuring
that has been suggested, so while the problem in education has been acknowledged by
many, block scheduling exists as one of many possible alternatives. Reports on block scheduling have been varied. Many educators see it as a valuable tool for meshing capacity to learn
with methods to learn. Others see it as flawed in its attempt to provide a fitting solution to
learning problems.
Many teachers and administrators have seen the implementation of block scheduling as a
successful way to maximize learning. The evidence they cite centers on four main areas. Block
scheduling, they claim, provides enough time for varied instructional methods, provides
opportunities for application, forces teachers to be innovative, and allows students to focus
more effectively on the subject at hand.
Most educators agree that using a variety of teaching methods is necessary to reach all kinds
of learners and provide students with multiple opportunities for learning content and skills.
Time appears to be the predominant factor in encouraging use of different learning strategies. There is more time available during the block period, and so the teacher more readily
has the luxury of teaching in a variety of ways. Teachers have more time to know students
better which encourages teachers to address various learning styles and personalize material.
One teacher reports on the internet that it’s “just much easier to know my students better
with fewer kids and longer blocks of time.”There is usually time during the longer block to
meet with students individually, something that traditional short periods would never permit.
There are also more opportunities for different kinds of cooperative learning that can allow
teachers to “group and re-group students according to what they’ve mastered” (John O’Neil).
Teachers claim that the longer periods allow more time for application of concepts and skills.
Often, the traditional periods allow simply for the introduction of new concepts without providing time for practice. Waiting until the next day often ruins the continuity and the chance
to maximize learning by immediate application. Saving application for homework, teachers
complain, can often lead to problems if the concept is not clearly understood. Having the
opportunity to apply knowledge immediately allows for immediate help. English teachers
have reported that teaching literature in depth in block scheduling keeps this kind of work
from becoming “diffused and disjointed over a long period of time” (Francis Ryan). All too
often, traditional periods encourage simply teaching the content, without providing opportunities for application until the day of the test. Teachers worry more about hurrying through
content than on making sure understanding actually exists. It is no wonder that Ron Brandt
claims that the “greatest enemy of understanding is coverage.”
Educators like John O’Neil claim that block scheduling does more than encourage innovative
teaching; it forces it since if you are not innovative the longer period will drive the students to
“eat you alive.”There are more opportunities to experiment as the teacher is forced to move
away from lecturing. There is more of a chance to perform longer activities since there are
120
fewer time-consuming class beginnings and endings. For example, internet reporters describe
how the extra time has permitted more utilization of outside speakers to enrich curriculum.
The last major benefit of block scheduling, proponents claim, is the ability for students to
focus better. They are less stressed, have fewer classes on which to focus, and are therefore
readier to focus on the subject at hand. This can affect retention since many teachers see that
the material stays with the student in ways that it never did before.
Opponents of block scheduling claim that while there are clearly problems in the disunion
between learning and teaching, there are more effective ways to bridge the gap. One frequent complaint is simply the length - an advantage for some, a clear disadvantage for others. There are many different theories as to how we learn. Psychologists from Thorndike to
Watson to Skinner have differing opinions from their scientific research to explain exactly
what learning is. Most do agree on two points though: 1.) that learning styles are often individual and 2.) that learning must be evidenced by some change in behavior. These individual
responses remind us that what is good for one learner is not as effective for another. One student might find the longer periods less pressured and more interesting, but another student
might feel the longer period to be constraining and boring. As Rabbi Field said about a longer
block-like period in a class in Israel,“it was just too long.” In fact, almost every description of
how to use the longer period begins with suggestions for breaking up the longer period of
time. Students frequently cite being able to do homework in class as a benefit of block scheduling, but is the homework “application” or merely a lag in instruction? Block scheduling is
praised because it provides opportunities for better teaching, but all too often the reality is
that many teachers are not skillful enough or have enough preparation time to make the best
of the longer periods. Students frequently complain that there are all too many long and boring classes.
This only points up another complaint - that because the skill and preparation necessary to
be effective over ninety minutes is far more demanding than over a mere forty-five minutes,
there ends up being wasted or unused time. From the students’ point of view, some educators
claim that research has shown that students have a saturation point of about forty-five minutes. This would suggest that they would not function well in long blocks of time. Another
complaint has been the possibility of too many demands being placed on the students as
they are empowered - in other words, some students need a more formal structure and support instead of the independent or group work that is usually the mainstay of block periods.
Jerome Bruner, a leading educator, writes that “most pupil ‘types’ progress better under more
formal teaching. And particularly the insecure and neurotic pupil: he seems able to attend to
work better, and harder, in a formal setting.” (from Bruner’s introduction to Bennett’s book).
Absenteeism, both for the student and the teacher, is an important area of concern for those
involved in block scheduling. The student who misses a few days is suddenly weeks behind. A
teacher who is absent creates terrible problems for subs who are not trained in block scheduling techniques, and what is often just a wasted day or two becomes a wasted week or two.
There is not that much in the way of detailed scientific study of this problem, but even the
anecdotal reporting shows that this is a serious concern that needs to be studied.
Retention is an issue for those who cite research that spacing content improves learning. One
study points out that “for a given amount of study time, spaced presentations yield substantially better learning than do massed presentation” (internet) thus spacing may help students
integrate knowledge and construct abstract concepts and theories. Another research study
cites that block scheduling provided 50% less primary and recency events than year long
courses, which will have a negative effect on student recall. The shorter course time is also
harmful because it provides 50% less time to review on a regular basis. This is another area
121
that needs to be tracked over a period of time. The issue of retention from year to year gets
mixed reports; retention for longer periods - that is, for example, how students fare in college
with this new format - has not been adequately studied.
Probably one major proof of dissatisfaction with block scheduling is that many schools are
returning to traditional scheduling. At best, there are many areas that are simply unanswered
or not adequately studied to state definitively that block scheduling offers a totally positive
improvement in the learning process.
Section Two — Interviews and Observations
My visits to different schools and discussions with students, teachers, and administrators have
been very valuable. What has been most interesting is that what often sounds good on paper
is not as good in practice. What I have observed has been disappointing; what I have garnered from interviews has been very mixed. My interviews with school administrators have
yielded positive and negative reports. For the most part, assistant principals and principals
seem quite pleased with the progress of block scheduling in their schools. The superintendent I spoke with was not enthusiastic about block scheduling. He was very concerned about
parent concerns. The reports from students and teachers have not been anywhere near as
uniform. My findings are divided into three parts: administrator concerns and comments,
teacher concerns and comments, and student concerns and comments. These findings come
from interviews (both in person and by telephone) with: a superintendent, three principals,
and three assistant principals; seven English teachers (three of whom are also department
heads); and eight students. In addition, I have culled comments from two videotape presentations and two parent and teacher surveys.
Administrator benefits and drawbacks:
1. Administrators see benefit of all-school issues attendance, disruption in halls between
classes, and dropout rate.
2. They see benefit of creating an easier teaching load by reducing number of students
for teachers.
3. They like the less hectic atmosphere in the school.
4. They see teachers as either energized by the change and the newdemands or
destroyed by it. Some feel that bad teachers will retire early or receive negative evaluations, thus making it easier for the school to fire them.
5. They are concerned about the issue of retention and standardized test scores, which
many feel has not been studied enough yet.
6. They are more concerned about parent concerns and complaints than the teachers
are. The superintendent felt that this was a strong negative in even implementing
the program.
7. Some recognize the difficulty in setting up a writing across the curriculum program to
compensate for the fact that writing is not taught for half a year.
8. They recognize the need for supportive facilities - large classrooms, computer labs and
writing centers, and fully staffed libraries.
122
Teacher benefits and drawbacks:
1. Teachers say they prefer the less hectic schedule. They aren’t running from class to class
like the students and enjoy being able to concentrate on fewer classes.
2. Teachers like being able to spend more time with students. There is more time for individual conferencing.
3. In some respects, teachers seem to have an easier time in that the burden of teaching
is placed more on students. One English department head who teaches two block periods describes how she has “empowered students.” Students work in groups and present lessons to the class. Another teacher explains that the teacher has to be a manager in partnership with students who share control in theclassroom.
4. Teachers enjoy not having to rush through lessons and having the opportunity to do
more projects.
5. Teachers see an improvement in student writing. There is more time for writing practice and more opportunities for immediate feedback since the paper load is less.
6. Teachers feel that the quality of understanding in students is improved because there
can be immediate follow-up. They see the “teachable moment” as being made more
readily available in longer class periods.
7. Teachers like the way there are opportunities to try different teaching techniques.
8. Teachers are concerned about planning time. Some feel that therehas not been
enough planning time provided.
9. Teachers are teaching fewer books, and this is bothersome. Books were taught in-depth
before and now there are even more projects. The class generally spends two or three
weeks on a book. More reading is assigned per night, but the feeling is that even with
fewer classes, there is only so much reading a student can do in one sitting. Some
schools have instituted electives in the subsequent semester to try to alleviate this
problem. Extended summer reading and outside reading has often been added to alleviate this problem.
10. Teachers are also concerned about the fact that writing practice stops after the course
is over. While they like what they can do with writing during the course, teachers would
like to see writing across the curriculum as a way to keep students writing and receiving instruction. They admit that most other teachers are either not qualified to teach
writing or not interested in doing it.
11. Teachers who are teaching five classes worry about being moved up to six.
12. Teachers have complained there was not sufficient preparation before block scheduling was put into place. Curriculum has been revised, but this is an ongoing process.
13. Teachers are very concerned about continuing preparation time and opportunities for
communication with other teachers. They expressed concerns about many areas of
communication - between the district and the school and with parents.
14. Teachers are concerned about the availability of physical resources. Most of the large
public high school have more than adequate facilities. Teachers acknowledged this as
an important need for block scheduling to be successful.
123
Observations: It’s interesting that while teachers are mostly enthusiastic, the practice of
what happens in the classroom is not always very good. The classes that I observed seemed
rather traditional in format. One class was presenting projects. They were interrupted by
lunch, so it was really like two traditional length classes. Another class was working on writing. Students sat in rows, read the paper of the person next to them, then put the papers
away. There was no general discussion or follow up. The rest of the time was spent in silent
reading. Students read book report books while the teacher graded papers. It seemed pretty
effortless from the teacher’s point of view - no wonder she liked it. Two other teachers supposedly loved block scheduling, but refused to allow me into their classes. For one class, I was
able to peek into the room a few times. The students were sitting in rows doing seat work
every time I looked in. The other teacher raved about block scheduling, but refused to let me
into her school - let alone her class. The one teacher who did look impressive was the department head from Hatboro-Horsham. I did not see her in person, only on videotape. The principal acknowledged that she was an excellent teacher before block scheduling and was still an
excellent teacher with block scheduling. When I spoke with her on the phone, she appeared
totally enthusiastic about block scheduling, but recognized that it would work only with support from the administration and trust on both sides. She was adamant that any problems in
this area be settled before a major change like block scheduling take place. I also had a long
workshop with two teachers from Vermont. This was during the English conference last
spring. This was a different kind of block set-up. One teacher was a history teacher, the other
teacher was an English teacher and together they taught a year long interdisciplinary course
in American Studies. This seemed a very interesting alternative to the usual block scheduling
that provides for semester long courses. The teachers worked with full cooperation and support from the principal, who even came to the workshop at the English teachers conference.
Student benefits and drawbacks:
1. Students are for the most part less stressed. The overwhelming advantage of block
scheduling for them is having fewer classes to deal with at a time.
2. Students who like a particular teacher love spending more time with that teacher.
3. Students feel they can do better because they have fewer classes.
4. Students like the variety that some block periods offer, and often feel that the longer
periods are more challenging and stimulating.
5. Students feel that there is often more hands-on activities, which is interesting and fun.
6. Students complain that the long periods can be boring when thereisn’t a lot of handson activity. The favorite classes for block scheduling are usually science classes because
of the labs - not English classes.
7. Three students complained that there is too much reading per night.
8. Students are mixed on whether or not block scheduling prepares them well for college.
They feel that they really won’t know the answer to this question until they go to college.
9. Students admit that a long period with a bad teacher is terrible.
10. Some students feel they haven’t been involved long enough to comment on retention;
others feel that it is a serious problem - especially for the weaker student.
124
Observations: Students generally like having fewer classes. They seem unable to judge
whether or not they are learning as much - or learning better. It’s just easier not having as
many classes. There are still many teachers who are not doing a good job and it is death to
have them now for longer periods. They agree that they usually do more work in small
groups, do more project-based assignments and research and engage in more classroom discussions. They also comment that some classes provide them with time for homework. It’s
clearly easier for most students; whether or not it’s better is debatable.
Section Three — Akiba
While there are many attractions for block scheduling, the reality of Akiba may, in fact, preclude
adoption of so drastic a restructuring. I have included only those aspects of Akiba which I feel
have obvious bearing on our acceptance or rejection of a block scheduling proposal.
Change in teaching methods is a frequent and major benefit cited by proponents of block
scheduling. The desirability of innovative teaching methods that can enhance learning is
denied by no one, though educators disagree whether or not block scheduling is the best
way to facilitate this change. It seems crucial then to look at current teaching methods in the
English department at Akiba to see just how much change might be needed. As a member of
the department for many years and department head for three years, I have had the opportunity to work closely with my colleagues as well as observe them in the classroom. What I have
seen consistently is a great variety of innovative teaching methods. There is certainly no
teacher in the department who merely lectures or has classes centered solely around lecture
and discussion. English teachers routinely involve students in a great many activities - from all
kinds of cooperative group work, dramatic performances, outside lecturers, mock trials and
debates, oral presentations, and varieties of application, including written, artistic and kinetic.
Even within the standard forty-five minute period, teachers have used imaginative methods
to try to involve students in a variety of ways. It’s hard to envision how teachers could be
more innovative, vary activities more, or involve students in hands-on kind of application. We
might have more time to keep doing what we are doing, but I don’t see how there would be
a drastic change. The techniques and ideas suggested in block scheduling reports outline
what we are already doing.
The physical limitations of Akiba are a serious concern. Time and time again, whether it is in
written reports or from actual interviews, teachers cite how necessary it is to have basic physical requirements to fill the ninety minute period in an interesting and meaningful way. At
best, teachers should have their own rooms and access to libraries and computer labs. No
English teacher at Akiba has her own room - in fact, no teacher at Akiba has his/her own
room. There are simply not enough rooms. There must be space to store material for projects
and varied activities. Some schools have acknowledged that this a problem with them too,
but then they use office space for storage and have supplies on carts ready to go. We barely
have enough room to walk in the office as it is; there is certainly no room for carts unless a
means could be found to hang them from the ceiling. It is cumbersome enough for us to
gather materials for one short class period; we would need more for the longer period. Those
having success with block scheduling in English also cite the availability of the library and
computer or writing labs. Part of a longer period could be spent with some students in these
different areas. At present, there is only one librarian. The library is not even open every period, so we can not send students at will. There is no writing lab or resource room to send students to and the computer room is used by computer classes. Classrooms are small, so setting
up rooms with stations for different activities becomes almost impossible, and with more students in a class it is now harder than ever before even to do group work. This is much more
than a matter of not having the best equipment; physical limitations at Akiba are daunting.
125
The dual curriculum also presents a rather unique problem. Many schools have managed to
alleviate certain problems with block scheduling by having the option of open periods. Since
we have more required courses, we have fewer opportunities to ameliorate problems in this
way. For instance, English department heads involved in block scheduling have acknowledged
the desirability of keeping students reading and writing all year. Their schedule has allowed for
inclusion of electives in writing and literature as options for students when they are not taking
the regular English class. Our dual curriculum would seem to make that impossible.
The last issue is the less than happy relationship between the teachers and the administration
and the board. Teachers have a lack of trust that has existed since the last contract, if not
before. Teachers have been promised that education comes first, but have seen all too frequently that it’s cost that comes first. More and more is expected of teachers who are teaching not only more classes, but now more students. The current contract finds teachers in the
difficult position of teaching five classes - not the norm for private schools. The administration
and the board assured teachers that everything would be done to try and make the situation
easier for teachers in other ways. This has not happened. Just one example is the way that
class size has grown this year. The problem of distrust is an important one. Teachers need to
feel that physical problems will in fact be addressed before scheduling changes are implemented. Teachers need to feel that they won’t at some point be asked to teach six classes - an
all too common practice in block scheduling. In short, the relationship between teachers,
administration and board must be strengthened before teachers can have faith in any
change.
Conclusions
1. Block scheduling is not a change that should be dismissed forever since there is much
to offer that is very positive.
2. Block scheduling is more successful at some schools than others, and generally seems
more useful for public high schools that do not have a dual curriculum.
3. Research and practice suggests that block or intensive scheduling offers the following
benefits:
a. Daily schedules become less hectic.
b. Students are less stressed.
c. There are more opportunities for immediate reinforcement, thus making
learning easier.
d. There are more opportunities for varied teaching approaches and longer
periods for projects that would have to be divided over different days or not
done at all.
e. There is a chance for renewed energy and interest which any change can
bring.
f. Block or intensive scheduling can provide the impetus for examination of
current teaching techniques.
4. Research and practice suggests that block or intensive scheduling offers the following
drawbacks:
a. Coverage, while not necessarily a crucial issue, is still an area of concern for
many.
b. Retention is an area that has not been studied enough to suggest meaningful
results.
c. Assessment of future effect — i.e., college — is not yet known.
d. Longer periods can be misused by teachers who do not have proper preliminary training or ongoing time for preparation.
126
e. Concern is apparent for lack of continuity in writing.
f. This change in scheduling could result in more work for teachers if not
enough preparation time is provided and if teachers are moved to teach six
classes instead of four or five.
5. Everyone agrees that physical facilities are crucial to the success of a change to block
or intensive scheduling.
6. Everyone agrees that trust between teachers and administration is crucial to the success of a change to block or intensive scheduling.
Recommendations
My overwhelming recommendation is that Akiba should not institute block or intensive
scheduling at this time. While I feel that this kind of scheduling does offer very real benefits
and should not be completely dismissed, I feel very strongly that there are too many obstacles for this change at the present time. I also have concerns that even under the best of circumstances, block scheduling is far from a proven educational benefit; in fact, there are serious concerns I have about the benefit this change might bring to the English department.
There is no clear consensus about whether block or intensive scheduling is beneficial to both
teachers and students. Some of the benefits seem to help large public high schools more
than schools like Akiba. Our dual curriculum is a serious obstacle when it comes to eliminating some of the problems that other schools have been able to deal with because of the flexibility in their scheduling. Also, the instruction at Akiba is exceptional. Teachers, for the most
part, in the humanities employ a variety of challenging and project-oriented activities. So,
while we might benefit from longer periods, there is not that felt need that other schools
clearly have with instructional issues. A major problem is the facilities - or lack of - at Akiba.
While it is certainly possible for teachers to be flexible, the logistical problems at Akiba are
just too great to allow for a comfortable match up of longer periods with what we have now.
Corresponding with this is the distrust that now exists between faculty and administration. As
a teacher who is a strong supporter of block scheduling said to me,“it’s imperative that the
school deal with these problems first - before any changes are made.”
My final recommendation then is that we try to dispel the distrust that exists in the school
and remedy as many of the physical problems as possible. I also recommend that we return
to having teachers teach four classes and meeting those classes every day. One possible alternative would be to arrange the roster in such a way that there is one double period in the
cycle, skipping class for one day. That would give teachers gradual exposure to the longer
periods and provide us with the opportunity to learn how to use them to greatest advantage.
127
Bibliography
Bennett, Nevill. Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Brandt, Ron.“On Teaching for Understanding: A Conversation with Howard Gardner.”
Educational Leadership. April 1993.
Bruer, John T.“The Mind’s Journey From Novice to Expert.” American Educator, Summer 1993.
Canady, Roberrt L. and Michael D. Rettig.“The Power of Innovative Scheduling.” Educational
Leadership, November 1995.
Canady, Robert L. and Michael D. Rettig.“Unlocking the Lockstep High School Schedule.” Phi
Delta Kappan, December 1993.
Carroll, Joseph M.“The Copernican Plan Evaluated.” Phi Delta Kappan. October 1994.
Clayton, Thomas E. Teaching and Learning: A Psychological Perspective. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.
Feden, Preston D.“About Instruction: Powerful New Strategies Worth Knowing.” Educational
Horizons, Fall 1994.
Greenwalt, Charles E. Educational Innovation: An Agenda To Frame the Future. Lanham:
University Press of America, 1994.
Newmann, Fred M. and Gary G. Wehlage, Successful School Restructuring. Madison: University of
Wisconsin, 1995.
O’Neil, John.“Finding Time to Learn.” Educational Leadership. November 1995.
Perkins, David.“Teaching for Understanding.” American Educator. Fall 1993.
Ryan, Francis J.“Intensive scheduling: when less is more.” Momentum. February/March 1996.
Sizer, Theodore R. Horace’s Compromise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1984.
Stumpf, Tom.“A Colorado School’s Un-Rocky Road to Trimesters.” Educational Leadership.
November 1995.
128
Intensive Block Scheduling for Foreign Languages
Sigal Strauss
Foreign Languages
129
Table of Contents
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
II. Summary of research work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
III. Results of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
V. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
130
I. Introduction
The goal of the IBS team was to examine the possibility of making the learning experience
more interesting while increasing academic achievement by implementing IBS at Akiba. As a
member of the IBS research team representing the Foreign Languages Dept., I have become
very knowledgeable about IBS. In this paper I will summarize the steps I took in my research,
share the findings, reflect on how those findings apply to the study of foreign languages at
Akiba, and conclude with my recommendations for further action.
II. Summary of research work
In order to gain information, I began by reading research documents and educational articles,
and searching the Internet. Many articles were provided by Dr. Robert Vogel. I found more
articles about IBS and IBS in foreign languages through intensive research. Many articles
praise IBS while others describe its negative aspects.
I found three major sources which were very helpful in understanding the issues of IBS and
the teaching of foreign languages. The Wisconsin Association of Foreign Language Teachers
published a report of the task force on IBS as it affects foreign language teaching and
learning. Questions related to students, teachers, and school organization were examined.
Those include questions concerning student learning, access and workload, teacher workload,
methods, and the effects of IBS on class size, student class selection, sequential courses and
interdisciplinary teaching.
A second important source was a booklet called “Foreign Languages on the Block,” developed
by The State Board of Education of North Carolina Public Schools. It addresses issues
regarding the foreign language program (curriculum, scheduling, retention, articulation, and
language development). The report is designed to provide assistance to foreign language
teachers and school administrators by addressing the concerns of the foreign language
program. It examines the advantages and disadvantages of IBS, articulation and scheduling
of foreign languages courses, instructional strategies, and assessment in foreign languages.
The third valuable source is an article written by Dr. Maria Sergia, a Wasson foreign language
teacher, in which she relates the experiences of a team of teachers during a semester of
teaching under the Block System. She reveals the same concerns as other foreign language
teachers, lists the pros and cons of IBS in the foreign languages, and discusses some
approaches to be used in the foreign language classroom.
Equipped with this information, I started my day long visits to school that have adopted IBS.
My first visit was to Cardinal Dougherty High School (CDHS), a Catholic high school, where IBS
was used for the second year (see my report for details).
My next visit was to Hatboro-Horsham High School (HHHS). It was an excellent opportunity to
observe IBS at its best in a “state of the art” school (See my report for details). The third school
I visited was Beth Tfiloh High School in Baltimore. It was the only Jewish Day School similar to
Akiba that I visited. That, unfortunately, was the opportunity to observe what happens when
IBS is not carefully implemented (see my report for details).
During all that time, the committee members were engaged in discussing their observations,
and finding ways to answer the questions that came up as we all became “experts” on IBS.
Some questions were answered by interviewing more people, and by finding more documents about IBS.
131
III. Results of research
What are the advantages and the disadvantages of IBS in the foreign language classroom? In
an attempt to narrow down the information gathered from the literature, and from the
observations and interviews of instructors in the field of foreign languages, I tried to list the
pros and the cons of IBS in a way which summarizes the main concerns revealed. I found that
the same basic ideas were shared by all foreign language teachers whose reports I read, and
those who I observed and interviewed.
Following is a summary of the comments received from teachers and students in the schools
visited, and revealed in the documents read.
Pros:
The longer period in each class period allows studentsto explore and apply concepts in
depth and give more opportunities for proficiency activities.
Students are calmer since they don’t need to change classes frequently.
Teachers have fewer students and therefore get to know the students better, and are more
reponsive to individual needs.
Especially in the foreign languages classroom, the longer period allows a variety of activities which improve oral skills. The variety helps class time move quickly.
Students learn how to manage their time.
Students can (depending on the schedule) finish two years of a language in one year. They
can move on to higher levels of study or even study a new language.
IBS allows for in-depth understanding of the material and for better retention as a result.
Students have less homework and more time to focus on their studies and be better prepared for tests, and therefore achieve better results.
IBS brings more opportunities for flexibility.
Students become less passive in their learning.
Students and teachers are able to use media and library more.
Cons:
Teachers need to change their approach and learn how to function effectively in IBS.
More daily planning is needed and materials are needed to accommodate the different
activities. The time involved in preparing effective classes is overwhelming.
Teachers have more paperwork.
Teachers cover less material due to loss of instructional time.
Some students found 90 minutes block too long.
Absentees can be a significant problem with the longer period. It is difficult to make up all
the varied activities which happen during the period missed.
It is difficult to find substitute teachers to cover a 90 minutes period effectively.
Scheduling can be a problem because student choice might be limited.
132
There is inadequate time for teachers to meet and plan.
Athletic programs disrupt the end of day classes.
Lack of continuity from level to level, which might affect language retention.
General observations:
The facilities of all school visited were more than adequate. All foreign language classrooms were very spacious, well equipped with appropriate boards, audio-visual aids, language labs, etc. Each foreign language teacher had her own classroom.
With the exception of Beth Tfiloh, the disciplined atmosphere in the school was striking.
The halls were clean, the students looked neat and calm, students walked calmly in the
halls, no one yelled, no one pushed, no one ran. The cafeteria was left clean after hundreds
of students had eaten, students were where they were supposed to be at all times, and
classes started on time in an orderly manner.
It took two years to prepare for the change to IBS for those schools which experienced success.
We saw that IBS can work if planned properly. The faculty, administration and students at
Cardinal Dougherty HS and Hatboro-Horsham HS like IBS very much and would not go
back to traditional scheduling.
IV. Conclusions and recommendations
After examining the pros and the cons of IBS in the foreign languages, I believe that it is
possible to make the experience of learning a new language more interesting and to increase
academic achievement by teaching a longer period, though I do not recommend a double
period of 90 minutes, which I find too long. The teachers I observed in CDHS and HHHS were
well trained. In addition, they had every possible piece of equipment and the conditions
necessary for a successful implementation of IBS; they all had very spacious classrooms, well
equipped with audio-visual aids, and a modern language lab which they visit twice a week
for 40 minutes each time. In both schools the teachers and the achievement in their classroom are continuously monitored in order make recommendations for a better year the
following year.
I believe that the longer period (not a double period of 90 minutes!) at Akiba would be
beneficial for Spanish and French. The programs we currently use in Spanish and French offer
a wide range of material and provide enough varied activities to keep students motivated.
The use of multimedia is an integral part of every lesson, and cooperative learning is already
happening in the French and Spanish classrooms. For a successful implementation of IBS in
Latin and Hebrew, however, we must revise those programs. Continuity and articulation
between the various levels must be taken into consideration in class scheduling. Sequential
courses must be offered in order to maintain the retention of the material.
I believe in change and in exploring new ways for innovations in education, and I would like
to see Akiba offer the best education to its students. With that, I also believe that any major
change should be studied and planned very carefully in order to achieve only the best results.
It is the future of our students and faculty that we hold in our hands!
Therefore, my recommendation is to consider the option of teaching a longer period in
foreign languages, and at Akiba in general, in a positive way. IBS might be the way to increase
students’ learning and improve instruction at Akiba. We should be open-minded about the
133
opportunity for innovation, but we must not forget our limitations and our faults before we
attempt to implement any radical change.
Our facility is not adequate. For a successful implementation of IBS, classrooms must be
spacious and well equipped with A/V aids. Each teacher must have his/her own classroom.
Currently, the classroom I use for French is so small that the students can’t lift their elbows
without touching their neighbor and I can’t walk down the aisles. Even the simple act of
calling a student to the board becomes a difficult task. The only reason my classroom is
equipped with a TV/VCR and a CD/tape player is because the French club has been selling
croissants in the past few years. It is very difficult to work in pairs/groups in class because it
is almost impossible for 20 students to move under such conditions.
After spending the day in CDHS and HHHS I felt that Akiba has a lot to learn about discipline
and respect. I believe that Akiba’s student body, as well as the faculty and administration,
must learn new ways to improve discipline and respect, for IBS cannot succeed with the
current system of rules. Until we realize that we have a serious problem in that area, and
attempt to solve it, we should not consider implementing IBS.
The change to IBS is not an easy one. For the faculty it means changing methods, learning
many new things, and spending more time in daily preparation. It means changing work load,
teaching conditions, and other issues that are a part of the teachers’ contract. All that must be
taken into consideration when planning for major changes. The relations between the faculty
and the administration/board have been somewhat tense in the past few years. We must
work on having more mutual trust in each other before implementing IBS.
The success of IBS depends mainly on intense training of the faculty. It took two years to plan
and prepare for IBS in the schools that have experienced great success. We must also take our
time to plan and prepare carefully in order to achieve nothing but success. We observed the
terrible results of the implementation of IBS without proper preparation at Beth Tfiloh in
Baltimore and we must learn from others’ mistakes.
I believe that if we consider such major change for Akiba, we should look not only to improve
instruction, but also for ways to offer more variety of courses in our curriculum. By changing
the schedule we might improve our teaching, but we are basically going to offer the same in
a different format. We must take advantage of the flexibility IBS can offer and attempt to
increase the variety of course offerings.
134
V. Summary
The longer period in the foreign languages could be very beneficial for the program. It could
give the students the opportunity to be immersed in the language and study it more
intensively. Research indicates that “intensive” in the foreign languages means more “in
depth.” I recommend the implementation of a longer period in the foreign languages, but I
do not recommend the semeser courses. However, before we take any further step, we must
not forget the points of concern mentioned above: facility, resources, discipline & respect,
general atmosphere, training and growth, and schedulings.
135
Additional References
Cardinal Dougherty High School. General information about IBS given by the school.
Foreign Languages on the Block. Public Schools of North Carolina State Board of Education.
Raleigh: North Carolina, May 1995.
Hatboro-Horsham High School. General information about IBS, and information prepared
by the foreign languages department.
“How has the Block Schedule Impacted Longmont High?”. A report prepared by Longmont
High School, Longmont, Colorado.
Steen, Maria Sergia, Ph.D.“A Block for a change.“ CCFLT Spring conference in Colorado Springs
in March 1992.
“Redesigning High School Schedules. A report of the task force of Block Scheduling by the
Wisconsin Association of Foreign Language Teachers.”Whitewater, Wisconsin. ERIC Document
No. ED391391.
136
Additional Parent & Student Reports
137
138
Student Evaluations
Bill Cohen
Reactions to Cardinal Dougherty's Block Scheduling
Having sat through several of the classes at Cardinal Dougherty High School, I received the
impression that block scheduling was a beneficial format for learning in certain situations.
The first period class I attended was English. The teacher handed back the students' rough
drafts to their papers and had them make grammatical corrections by reading from English
textbooks. They sat down and worked diligently for about fifteen minutes with hardly any
interruptions, such as side conversations. After that time everybody moved into the computer
lab and typed their reports. The teacher was collecting whatever they finished in that class
time. One student told me most of their classes were spent working like the one I witnessed.
That class period seemed to be productive and it seemed a ninety minute class was the best
thing for the work they were doing. However most Akiba students have access to computers
outside of school and our English classes are spent leaning from lectures or discussions. It
may not be a bad idea to spend a portion of class time working with a teacher present to
answer questions, but I do not feel that is the best way to utilize class time for our school.
The next class I visited was Spanish and I feel that a ninety minute period may be useful for a
language class. I asked one student if he felt he would forget what he learned after one
semester, but he said that this was his first semester of Spanish so he had no idea. Other people said the same thing many people were arguing in some of the articles "It's not any worse
than a summer vacation." Even though I do not take Spanish, it seemed as though these students knew as much, if not more, of the language than Akiba students learn in their first year
of language, and they only had one semester.
The teacher began the class with some oral exercises and then she went over corrections on
their test. After that they had another oral activity where they paired into groups and had
conversations with each other in Spanish. The class then moved to a language lab with headphones on and could speak into a microphone to hear their own pronunciation of words.
They answered questions from the tape on a separate piece of paper as they also read from a
book. After the tape, the teacher was able to work on pronunciation over the headphones
with the whole class.
Like the Spanish class, my French class at Akiba, has several different multimedia types of
learning and I feel it is very worthwhile. Having a chance to do so many different types of
exercises gives good exposure to the language and lets each student learn from the method
he/she knows best. Having so much time to get involved with the language (ninety minutes)
also gives good exposure and helps get everyone involved.
Sometimes during classes at Akiba, I may find myself watching the clock and waiting for the
rest of the short period of time to end. One might feel that having twice as much time would
just increase the time to watch the clock. I feel that I watch the clock because I only have
forty-five minutes and it could end soon. With ninety minutes the students got involved with
class. A student does not go into class with the idea of just forty-five minutes and they're
done. They go to class knowing that they will be there for a long time so they should make
the best of it. The mentality is not "just seven of these short classes" but this is what I am
doing today and so now I'm going to do it. I can't remember watching a class in preschool.
139
Then I just felt like I was with the teacher for the day and I was going to do what she planned.
The students at Cardinal Dougherty seemed to be the same way. They were in class and were
going to concentrate on that subject at that time.
The students told me they did not have very much homework because they had fewer classes. I'm not saying Akiba should give less work if we got block scheduling; even though I
should. But I feel with fewer subjects it would be easier to concentrate on the homework and
one would produce the best work possible for every subject. The kids at Cardinal Dougherty
did not spend the class worrying about a test in the next class or doing work for the next
class because they did not have as many classes to worry about. They worried about the tasks
they had at hand, their class. So overall at Cardinal Dougherty I observed that students were
able to concentrate on their class and its subject in a different and possibly better way than
students concentrate at Akiba.
140
Tamar R. Field
Visit to Hatboro - Horsham
When we first arrived at Hatboro Horsham High School we were escorted to the main office
where, one by one, our "buddies" for the day came to pick us up. The first class I attended with
my "buddy" was Spanish class. This was a problem because I took Latin and didn't understand
a word they were saying. However, I did watch to see how the class was operated. The first ten
minutes of class seemed unproductive as the students settled into their seats, but as soon as
the teacher announced that they were starting, the students became quiet. The rest of the
class period did not run in its usual manner because the students were asked to prepare an
oral presentation for that day. For the remaining hour and fifteen minutes the students got up
to give oral presentations to the class. It seemed boring to me, but the students remained
quiet as they listened to their peers.
The second class I attended was Television Productions. This class contained only five boys, of
which only one really knew what he was doing. During the whole period the boys were taking turns editing a tape they made. On the tape was a survey that they asked people in the
school what they thought about year-round schooling and if lunch should be eliminated to
shorten the day. During the whole period the teacher came in and out of the room telling the
boys what they were doing right and what they were doing wrong. The atmosphere seemed
pretty relaxed and at times didn't even really seem like a class.
The rest of the day was spent in the headmaster's office where we got a chance to ask all the
questions we wanted to ask. The visit was very productive and we got a chance to really find
out what the students think about block scheduling.
PROS:
-classes seemed more focused and clear
-students had more opportunity to be active vs. passive
-students said they learn material vs. memorize material
-students said less stress and homework
-more time in class to ask questions that need to be asked in order to understand certain
material
-fewer discipline problems
-because fewer discipline problems, teacher-student relations are better
-periods seem shorter even if they are much longer
-days seem shorter because fewer classes
-mid year everything starts new and fresh again
-atmosphere is much more relaxed
-better relationships with classmates because you are always working with them
CONS:
-often a lot of time is wasted because you think you have tons of time
-atmosphere becomes so relaxed that learning begins to slow down
-you miss a day, you miss a lot of work
-if you have a bad teacher, your whole semester could be bad
-less homework could hurt you in college
-some students don't have a long attention span
-curriculum pacing could be rushed because you only have a semester
-if a student transfers from another school mid year there is no way he/she could catch up
141
Marc Romanoff
Visit to Cardinal Dougherty High School
The facility:
Immediately upon entering the school, I was struck by the size of the facility. The hallways
were spacious, as was every office and classroom. The first class I attended, an Algebra class,
was conducted in a huge room. After a long period of lecture, the class easily split up into
study groups of about 4-5 members for the remainder of the period. I noticed there was
enough space in the classroom for seven or eight groups to meet, with plenty of room left
over for the teacher to walk around between the groups and also for the front of the class to
remain open space
From the algebra class, my host escorted me to study hall; for the first 45 minute period, he
gave me a full tour of the building - every class, office, auditorium, gym, and hallway. It was
then that I realized the extent of the facility: the language labs, the computer rooms, the
music rooms, the T.V. studio, the many offices, the extensive library, and even the college guidance computer rooms. Even the main auditorium was large enough so that the entrance was
not the same door as the exit; this eliminated chaos completely as students filed in and out.
After the tour, we went down to the lunchroom and played Uno with my host's friends until
the next period, which was homeroom. In homeroom, the students watched several programs
on T.V. Every room was equipped with a T.V., which was hooked directly to the student-run T.V.
studio. From homeroom, we went to lunch. Again, the facility was large enough to provide a
lunchroom that could easily seat the entire school at once. The cafeteria, although enormous,
seemed efficient, as well.
After lunch, I proceeded to my last block which was Religion. The teacher was extremely
inclusive and even took time out to catch me up to speed. (The class loved it because my
presence delayed a test they would have had to take that day.) I was told that the teacher
who taught that particular class was one of the most effective users of the block schedule.
Indeed, he was: The teacher pointed to one wall in the class that was covered with important
concepts and related pictures of key points in the curriculum. I noticed that there was a raised
platform at the front of the class. The teacher would move on and off the platform, as well to
a third position when he taught. This made the class flow a lot more smoothly, as it was an
effective technique of keeping the student's attention. A second aspect of the class was the
use of the overhead projector. This listed either a key concept or a relevant image. Every student would then copy the image down into his/her text along with an explanation of how
the picture was related to the concept. This also seemed an effective technique for every student. Finally, the use of text was minimal; although the text itself was clear and concise (the
teacher lent me his copy to peruse), it was merely an outline of what was taught in class. In
fact, a great deal of time was spent on discussion of current events and other "hot" issues. This
added an important dimension to the religion class.
Finally, I met back up with my student colleagues and we discussed with Bob Vogel what we
had experienced.
In my discussions with my host and his classmates and friends, one point that was brought up
continually is that [the new scheduling] was working; many students pointed to higher
grades and fatter honor roles as proof. However, when I pressed them on the reason it was
working, I received a number of different responses. Some could not explain it at all. Others
said that it was a result of the use of new equipment and techniques. A great many students
said that instead of learning at home, they were actually learning in school. (Consequently,
142
they had much less homework.) Although several students complained that the time
dragged on endlessly, others said they became used to it after a while. Everyone I spoke to
said that most of the teachers made an effort to teach in the most effective way possible.
However, everyone also pointed out that not everyone succeeded with equal results. I was
introduced to several teachers who students agreed had mastered the technique of block
scheduling. One such teacher was the person whose religion class I attended. I have listed the
reasons why I believe he was successful.
I feel it is essential to mention that the general attitude of the students, faculty, and administration was one of the utmost respect and caring. Everyone was invariably polite, courteous,
and friendly. I literally could not walk down the hallway without a librarian or a nun approaching me and asking me my impressions of the school. It was a unique and wonderful experience, one for which I had no precedent at Akiba.
I myself found the whole experience confusing. On the one hand, the students seem to be
excelling in the school. On the other hand, they could not adequately explain why. I suspect
that the program's success was based on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:
facility; increased technology and computer use; flexibility, diligence and excellence on the
part of faculty; and a warm, nurturing environment existing throughout the entire school
community.
I believe to transplant the success of Cardinal Dougherty's block scheduling program to
Akiba, it is essential that each of these broad categories are addressed before we proceed.
Further, although initially I was highly skeptical about adopting any schedule change at
Akiba, I must admit that my positive experiences at C.D. came as a surprise to me; I now
believe a modified program of block scheduling should be pursued for Akiba, but we should
look before we leap, and not forget that Akiba is a tiny facility, with a pluralistic dual-curriculum at its core.
143
Eli Segal
Reflections on My Day at Cardinal Dougherty
My visit to Cardinal Dougherty left me with nothing but enthusiasm about the prospect of
instituting block scheduling at Akiba. After spending a full day observing the system in action
and interacting with the students who learn in this "alternative" setting, my initial positive
feelings on the issue were solidified and greatly bolstered.
My experience in Cardinal Dougherty's eleventh grade Spanish class serves as a vividly
demonstrative example of why I think block scheduling is such an effective style of learning.
For the full eighty minutes, the teacher held my attention. The most ironic part about it,
though, is that I do not know any Spanish. As a Latin student, I could barely understand anything that the class was doing, yet I was interested for the whole time.
The double length period allowed the teacher to use an incredible variety of teaching styles.
In just one class period, the students completed and corrected a quiz, discussed their weekends in Spanish, composed sentences with their vocabulary words, and then read them
aloud, receiving feedback from both the class and the teacher. The students had significant
time for both individual work and for group work, but no partlcular exercise was allowed to
drag on for too long. With the constant changes of activity, there was always some sort of
movement going on in the class, holding everybody's focus (including mine) and effectively
eliminating the possibility for boredom and monotony. I know it sounds cliched, but there
was never a dull moment for me in the Spanish class that I visited (and I didn't even know the
language.) I have suffered through enough straight lecture classes to recognize the innumerable educational benefits offered by block scheduling due to the opportunity for variety that
it presents.
Virtually all of the students with whom I spoke had good things to say about block scheduling. Almost everyone said that since block scheduling was implemented they have performed
at a much higher le~el in school. Block scheduling brought with it better grades. The students
attributed their academic improvement to a number of factors.
Obviously, they said that the new educational diversity has played a major role. Also, with half
as many subiects to think about, the students remarked that they have been able to focus
much more effectively. A number of kids and also a few teachers pointed out to me another
important plus of the block scheduling system. Teachers now have only half as many students, allowing student-teacher relationships to be much more intimate and student-teacher
out of class interaction to be much more available.
I know that there are many details to be worked out, but my opinion is that block scheduling
represents educational progress and that bringing it to Akiba is a terrific idea.
144
Dan Vogel
Comments On Cardinal Dougherty
Things I observed in the class:
First period I was in Biology class. In the beginning, for about the first 30 minutes we watched
a movie strip on genetics. More was covered during the time than in my class at Akiba. Then
for the next 40 minutes the students took a test on this material. I think by having 30 minutes
before the test for the teacher to review the material, a student gets the chance to recall
everything he/she studied the previous couple of nights and is able to have everything fresh
in his mind.
Second period I went to world history. The teacher lectured half the period. She stood on the
side of the room so you could not even see her. She was exactly like the teacher in Ferris
Beuler's Day Off except she couldn't hear. She was boring and taught the same way. For the
second part of the period, the class broke into groups. This room, just like all of the other
rooms was big. Room 15 at Akiba, which is our biggest room, was slightly smaller than this
one.
The next time slot was a combination of different assemblies and lunch. For the first 15 minutes, there was a grade meeting. There were announcements, and then we watched the
Channel One (an educational T.V. program). This channel gave the students updates on what
was happening in the school. After that, all the students went to a big assembly hall, where
the world's news was shown on a big screen. After that lasted for 15 minutes, the kids had
lunch for approximately 60 minutes.
The next time period was split into two periods. Both of these periods were 45 minutes. The
first period was typing. The students sat at typewriters, not computers, typing for nearly 40
minutes. The last five minutes they checked over what they had previously typed. They typed
from a book, which I thought was long, strenuous, and boring. With around 5 minutes remaining in the class, they stopped typing and corrected all the mistakes on their papers with a pen
or pencil. The next half of the period was a religion course, Church history. During this period,
the teacher showed slides of churches in Rome. Next year this period will be the full length of
time, 90 minutes. The older kids who have religion for 90 minutes now have no complaints
and neither do their parents. That is why next year all the high school will have 90 minute
periods of religion.
Every room in the school is equipped with a T.V. The school had a lot of mechanical content. I
don't know how Akiba could afford all this equipment. All of these mechanical things make
the class so much better. It's a relief to see something else in front of the class besides the
teacher sometimes.
In this school the kids have less homework, compared to what they had when they did not
have block scheduling. Not only do they have less work because they have fewer classes, but
also because more is accomplished in class than out. This gives the students a lot less to
worry about. I think if Akiba would make the switch, they would have no problem. I am sure
Akiba's teachers would have no problem in making their periods to a 90 minute time slot
from a 45 minute time slot. The person who took me around said that periods like math and
language were not boring. Even though she did have a little negative attitude towards going
to her math class, I think her actions were taking over a bit by her hatred of the material. Kids
who have detention serve it during the 60 minute lunch period. Kids who have frees last period can leave school. If a teacher is not at school, the class has a free period. If a student has a
free first period, they don't have to come in until second period.
145
In class, the kids do not take notes. But, the kids were rather attentive. The kids did participate
a lot, and the teachers do grade them on that. The students were not wild, and they kept their
"side chats" to a quiet minimum. I was very surprised to see how some of the kids were motivated. When a teacher would ask a question, a lot of hands would go up to answer it. Not only
does that show that the students know the material, but also that they want to show off their
knowledge of it. Only a few of the kids did not try to participate. In the world history class I
observed, which was the most boring thing I had ever seen, kids were participating and paying attention most of the time.
146
Parent Evaluations
Debby Malissa
Report on visit to Cardinal Dougherty High School
My visit was divided into three parts: two classes and an extended dialogue with the principal. I was unable to observe the first class, ninth grade English, because the teacher had given
the students group work and had ushered me into the next room for a chat; so what I learned
was from her perspective. Sr. Miriam is all in favor of block scheduling. She sees fewer failures
and a higher number of students on the honor roll. She is aware of the added burden on
teachers to plan for 80 minute periods; however she said she was from the old school of overplanning, so the change did not present a problem for her. The one pitfall she identified was
the issue of failures. If a student fails a first semester class, he/she knows it will need to be
made up in summer school, which might lessen motivation for second semester classes. Yet
this is hypothetical, as Sr. Miriam has had no failures.
The second class I observed was eleventh grade Chemistry. Not a moment of the period was
wasted! Sr. Rose Anthony changed the activity every few minutes. First there was classroom
business: prayer, homework for the next day, today’s schedule, distribution of papers. Then she
did frontal teaching with Q and A to review; then a presentation of new material. Next was a
one minute break for group work to arrive at an answer, with a return to Q & A. She used
inductive reasoning to discover the meaning of a new term. To wake the kids up, she threw
molecule models at them and asked for identifications. She then collected homework, gave
instructions for the lab work and moved the class to the lab. In the lab, the students sat in
teams. Their task is similar to that on the TV show,“Family Feud,” in which one person writes
the answer, but the whole team can help. The teacher repeated the instructions for the task
five times. When she saw some of the results, she completely stopped the lesson to make a
meta-statement,“I want you to learn Chemistry, but it is more important to learn communication skills.” She switched the activity again to model building and uses the overhead projector
to explain the notation system. She concludes the lesson with a summary of what they’ve
done and a forecast of tomorrow’s work.
The students pay attention and are always engaged. I thought they were extremely well
behaved; she apologized for infractions. My major observation was that although the teacher
varied the activities, she was always in control. I certainly see how an 80 minute period’s time
can be maximized, yet I didn’t see much cooperative learning or student initiative.
Our meeting with Eileen Poroszak was fascinating. She is a dynamic woman who explained
CD's journey to block scheduling, including the difficulties with certain subjects and teachers,
scheduling obstacles to be overcome and the academic advantages they have realized as a
result of the new system. Twenty teachers went through 36 hours of in service; after which,
they trained the others. The decision to adopt IBS came after the year of training. Some teachers were resistant to the change and opted to transfer. The Math and foreign language concerns that I and others from Akiba have, were not found at CD. The language chair found no
difference in learning even with breaks of one to two semesters. Under IBS, the "Math
whizzes" have the option of taking more Math. However, due to Akiba's scheduling constraints, this may not hold for us. The faculty collected baseline data on which subjects were
experiencing failures. The failures were in subjects not taught in IBS. Eileen admitted that it is
difficult for people to change and that the leap from theory to practice was large and took a
147
lot of hand holding by Bob and Preston. The obstacles she saw were 1 ) problems with AP
courses and exam scheduling; 2) cooperative learning does not equal working in groups--an
obstacle that I observed; 3) it takes a long time to reach authentic assessment. The advantages that have been self reported by graduates are that they are able to take more responsibility for themselves academically; and they are able to retain more knowledge.
I left Cardinal Dougherty feeling exhilarated. Though one day is not enough upon which to
base a decision, what I saw was a school willing to take a risk in order enhance the students'
learning. There are problems, as I mentioned, but nothing is cost-free. While there is a similarity in our schools, because of their religious nature, Akiba presents a unique array of challenges. We need to evaluate the costs and benefits of IBS, keeping in mind two things: 1 ) the
opportunity for positive growth and 2) the desire to maintain the unique quality of Akiba.
Emilie S. Passow
Cardinal Doughtery High School
The two classes I observed included a Religion III class conducted by Fr. Kearns and an AP
English class conducted by Mr. Rauscher. Both teachers are seasoned and dynamic, with excellent reputations, so that each probably would do very well under any circumstances. Class
activities for that day also did not allow me to directly observe extensive teacher student
interaction or any specific pedagogic methods. In the religion class, a representative from
each of several groups gave a summary presentation, including a picture shown on an overhead projector, of the group's views on changing conceptions or images of G-d from childhood to adulthood. After class, Fr. Kearn described the effects of Intensive Block Scheduling in
his classes. The English A. P. class was divided into groups, each discussing a particualr poem,
while the teacher, Mr. Rauscher described his assessment of the change in schedule to me
and Dr. Saundra Epstein. At the end of our time in class, the principal, a most able, articulate
woman with a wry, winning sense of humor, described the genesis, trials and tribulations of
implementing this approach. Thus I base the following remarks on the teachers' observations.
Both the teachers and the principal were extremely enthusiastic about Intensive Block
Scheduling because of its positive effect on students and also themselves. The longer periods
allowed the teachers both to address the needs of different learning styles without compromising the quality or level of the material being presented. Indeed they felt they also could
explore fairly sophisticated ideas, because they could use different pedagogies, including
drawing and collaborative learning.
The student drawn mural in Fr. Kearns' class depicting core theological concepts and the relationship between G-d and the self was impressive proof of this claim, as was the manual Fr.
Kearns developed for the course. In fact, I would recommend that the Jewish Studies
Department review this material, since much of it is applicable to religious studies in general,
not only Catholicism in particular.
The teachers and the principal also noted that students experienced more ownership and
thus gained confidence in themselves and actually became excited about learning. The number of failures dropped, the number of students on the honor roll increased, and eager anticipation around report times was perceptible. The students I saw were obviously engaged in
their group presentations and group discussion.
Students also remarked that they were able to do better because they felt less pressure.
Similarly, collaborative learning, which is distinct from simply working in groups, increased the
students' social skills and decreased competition. Some students actually complained about
148
the lecture format when used: "I don't feel empowered when I just have to listen" or " I have
no ownership of this material" were student quotes that Mr. Rauscher cited.
Both teachers shared this decrease in pressure, which they felt gave them more energy for
planning innovative assignments. Similarly, they felt the time freed by in-class collaborative
learning gave them extra time for planning, especially interdisciplinary projects, grading
papers or conferrring with individual students. Each teacher claimed to be more relaxed.
Neither felt they were covering less material, but commented that even if or when that were
to happen, the fact that students were learning the process of learning, the how of learning
more intensively through more independent assignments and participation was adequate
compensation for a little less material. Mr. Rauscher noted that he developed 6 core concepts
for each semester, and that this appraoch worked well.
The only drawback that each teacher noted was the complications in scheduling including
meeting the bus, having AP courses coincide with the timing of the standardized tests, and
maintaining continuity in subject matter. After giving the history of this program in the
school, including problems with teacher resistance and transfers, the principal observed that
a crucual feature of success is teacher support and training.
My visit, thus left a very favorable impression of this institution and how it has successfully
integrated Intensive Block Learning.
149
150

Flexible Scheduling Project, Akiba Hebrew Academy

Transcription

Similar documents

K-8 Schedule Examples

Mobile Scheduling App

RoomWizard® II Scheduling System Technical

Zero Touch Backups

REGIONAL SCHEDULER

CaseStudy-Direct Energy 2016_8

10 Questions to ask before you buy - Appointment-Plus

Sinai akiba academy ai akiba academy

Flyer Berechtigung Vorfahrt en 1603_X16038.indd