Block Scheduling

Block scheduling is an alternative time management system used in US public schools that reorganizes the traditional school day into longer class periods, commonly ranging from 90 to 120 minutes. This approach emerged in response to the limitations of conventional schedules, which traditionally consist of six to nine shorter 40- to 50-minute periods. Block scheduling has several forms, including the straight block schedule, modified block schedule, and mixed schedules that combine elements of both block and traditional formats. While proponents argue that longer class periods allow for more in-depth learning, interactive teaching methods, and reduced student stress, critics point out potential drawbacks, such as reduced contact time with teachers and the risk of decreased engagement during extended classes.

Research on block scheduling has grown since the 1990s, and while some studies indicate beneficial outcomes in specific contexts, results can vary widely depending on the school environment and implementation. As schools continue to experiment with various block scheduling formats, the ongoing debate hinges on balancing the advantages of increased instructional time and deeper learning with the challenges of planning, student retention, and potential impacts on extracurricular activities. Ultimately, the effectiveness of block scheduling appears to be situational, warranting careful consideration of individual school needs and student demographics.

Published in: 2021

By: Merritt, Roy D.

Subject Terms

Block Scheduling

Abstract

This article presents an overview of block scheduling in US public schools. The general types and variations of block schedules that have wide application and that are discussed in this article are: the straight block type, semester 4 × 4 variation; the modified block type, alternate-day A/B variation; and the mixed, hybrid, or composite type, 2day block/3-day traditional variation. Block schedules have both advantages and disadvantages and have had inconsistent and sometimes conflicting outcomes even in similar school settings. The number of empirical research studies relating to the use of block scheduling has steadily increased since the 1990s and provide stronger evidence of its beneficial application in certain school settings. Replicable experimental research studies with multiple designs simultaneously under the same treatments will ultimately yield more conclusive evidence and more generalizable findings with regard to the performance and success of block scheduling in variant contextual and situational school settings.

Overview

Block scheduling originated with precursor block-time and flexible/modular schedules of the 1950s, found resurgence in the late 1980s, and has been used more extensively since the 1990s. Block scheduling has been utilized predominantly in departmentalized secondary school settings, especially high schools, and to a lesser extent in elementary self-contained classrooms. The chief common feature of the different types and variations of block-schedule designs is that class periods extend beyond the relatively short 40- to 50-minute class periods of the traditional Carnegie schedule.

Block scheduling is an alternative time scheduling arrangement used in US public schools in which students take classes in extended and more flexible periods of time called "blocks." The block scheduling model reorganizes the school day and instructional time into longer periods that are double, triple, or more in length, typically 90 to 120 minutes. Classes and subjects that are offered and taught in different time blocks can vary or alternate from day to day, week to week, semester to semester, and year to year. There are many variations of the main block schedule types, and schools may use a mixture of schedule types simultaneously (Mattox, Hancock, & Queen, 2005; Vladero, 2001; Zepeda & Mayers, 2001).

Block scheduling was developed to overcome the rigidity, inadequacies, and limitations inherent to the relatively short 40- to 50-minute class periods that have characterized the use of the traditional, conventional, Carnegie scheduling in high schools across the US for many decades (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). Although block scheduling has also existed for decades, experimentation with the design began in earnest in the 1990s and has continued since then in US schools (Mowen & Mowen, 2004). A few high schools and junior high schools in the 1950s used what might be called a precursor form of block scheduling in which a single teacher taught multiple subjects known as "block-time (core) programs" or "unified studies" during class periods of two to three standard-lengths duration (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). J. L. Trump (1959) is credited with originating block scheduling in something closer to its modern forms with his so-called "flexible/modular scheduling design" (Zepeda & Mayers, 2001).

Applications

Approaches at Various Grade Levels. Four of the many general types of alternative time scheduling arrangements that have historically been used in US schools are shown in Figure 1. These are displayed in a 1980s perspective of the different types of schedules that were being used at that time. It should be noted that there were many other scheduling designs then and many more have been developed since that time. The four types of schedules depicted in Figure 1 are the self-contained classroom schedule, the Carnegie schedule, the modular schedule, and the so-called block-time schedule. The subjects offered and taught in the different time slots or time "blocks" can vary from day to day, week to week, etc. (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986).

Teachers in flexibly scheduled self-contained classrooms such as those typically found at the elementary school level and in some secondary schools are able to select and teach units of varying length (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). The Carnegie schedule, also called the traditional or conventional schedule, is the most common type of alternative time scheduling arrangement and it is the standard time format that is still used in most high schools today. The Carnegie schedule breaks the school day up into six to nine periods of 40 to 50 minutes each. The modular schedule, or flexible/modular as it is sometimes called, is another alternative time scheduling arrangement that allows for class periods of varying lengths ranging from a fraction of a standard Carnegie period (e.g., 20-minute or 30-minute modules) to some multiple of those periods. The modular schedule was used in some schools in the 1960s and is still used in some schools today. The blocktime schedule reserves lengthy blocks of time equal to several standard periods in which teachers and students may engage in different activities (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986).

Practice in the Public Schools. Although block scheduling has shown its viability for use in high schools, there has been a paucity of research concerning its use in middle schools (Mattox, Hancock, & Queen, 2005). Several different types and variations of block scheduling have found practical application in US public schools. Here, three main types and three variations or subtypes will be described. These types and variations, which are diagrammatically illustrated in Figure 2, are: the straight or full block schedule type and semester 4 × 4 variation; the modified block type and the alternate-day A/B variation; and the mixed, hybrid, or composite block type and the 2-day block/3-day traditional variation.

In the semester 4 × 4 variation of the straight block schedule type, students take four classes for half a school year schedule or first semester and four different classes the second half of a school year schedule or second semester and over a full year spend a comparable amount of actual time in each class as they would in a traditional hourly class (Mowen & Mowen, 2004; Vladero, 2001). In the alternate-day A/B variation of the modified block schedule type, students take eight courses for the year but attend each class only on alternating days. That is, they typically spend four odd periods (i.e., 1, 3, 5, and 7) or so-called "A" days and four even periods (i.e., 2, 4, 6, and 8) or so-called "B" days of a traditional eight-period hourly schedule in block periods alternating on MWF of one week and TTh the following week (Mowen & Mowen, 2004). In the 2-day block/3-day traditional variation of the mixed, hybrid, or composite schedule type, students meet in block-scheduled class periods on Wednesday and Thursday, for example, and in traditional-scheduled class periods on Monday, Tuesday, and Friday. Obviously, there are many other variations of these schedule types that a school can use to construct an arrangement to fit its own specific needs.

Viewpoints

Advantages and Disadvantages to the Use of Block Scheduling. The research literature relating to the many advantages and disadvantages of the use of block scheduling is abundant. While the evidence cited for these advantages and disadvantages (e.g., increased/decreased student achievement, improved/declined staff morale, and raised/lowered student and parent satisfaction) is sometimes inconclusive, anecdotal, and completely dependent upon the situational context or school setting where block scheduling is employed, there clearly remain many positive and promising attributes to this alternative time scheduling arrangement. At the same time, there are many challenges and hurdles to overcome for schools that choose to adopt block scheduling.

Advantages. Block scheduling offers increased instructional time overall, and increased flexibility in the use of time during each period (Rettig & Canady, 1996). Some proponents of block scheduling have argued that the system of longer classes allows teachers to vary their instruction from just lecturing to include more interactive, collaborative activities and to better and more creatively complete the material involved in the curriculum. Additionally, some experts claim that the traditional scheduling does not cater well to implementing the greater amounts of educational technology available for students and teachers (Fitzsimgns, 2017). While providing for increased time on task and increased emphasis on content, block scheduling supports a more relaxed pace of instruction and helps students who require additional time. As a result, classes are less stressful and discipline problems are reduced. There is some evidence that block scheduling helps to ease the transition of students from the more homey self-contained classrooms of elementary schools to the prevalent departmentalized structural environment of middle schools and high schools (Black, 1998; Mowen & Mowen, 2004; Vladero, 2001).

Block scheduling reduces the number of classes students are required to take on a daily basis and, concomitantly, student load at any given time (Mowen & Mowen, 2004; Perreault & Isaacson, 1996). Block scheduling may also permit students to take more classes during an academic year and thus help them to meet the more stringent 22- to 24-credit high school graduation requirements and better prepare them for college classes (Hughes, 2004; Vladero, 2001). Block scheduling lessens the necessity of frequent class changes, which results in fewer disruptions during the school day (Hughes, 2004; Mowen & Mowen, 2004; Rettig & Canady, 1996). Students have fewer homework assignments and projects and are better able to stay on top of them (Mowen & Mowen, 2004; Rettig & Canady, 1996).

Other advantages cited for block scheduling are that it increases the variety of instructional strategies and assessment methods used by teachers within and across class periods, and provides improved flexibility to use methods that are impractical in traditional 50-minute class periods (Rettig & Canady, 1996; Veal, 2000). Block scheduling reduces time in whole-class instruction and allows teachers to use more small-group instruction, portfolios, and related strategies. Middle-level schools have used block scheduling to support the increased use of the interdisciplinary team teaching approach. Block scheduling provides the additional time needed to study integrated units and the design has proven beneficial to classes such as science laboratories and design projects that require longer but fewer divisions of time (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Howard, 2001).

Disadvantages. The most common forms of block scheduling reduce the amount of contact time between students and teachers, and they require more careful planning and greater preparation (Mowen & Mowen, 2004; Veal & Flinders, 2001). Students typically spend less face-to-face time with their teachers during a course, and when students are absent for a single block-scheduled class, they miss two or more classes of a traditional schedule and thus have more time to make up (Mowen & Mowen, 2004; Vladero, 2001).

Undoubtedly as viewed in its worst light, block scheduling has been equated to a "shell game" in which time in some classes is increased during certain time periods and decreased during other time periods (Reeves, 2004). There are difficulties with balancing students' "uneven" schedules, and discontinuous scheduling may be counterproductive for students requiring more stringent instruction and may cause low-achieving students to struggle (Hurley, 1997; Nichols, 2000). A good example of this is scheduling a math class for middle-school students the first semester of one year and the second semester of the next year with one full year of time in between, that is, a two-semester gap (Mowen & Mowen, 2004). Maintaining student retention of content knowledge, their attention and time on task, and their interest and motivation is problematic with the discontinuity commonly attributed to the use of block scheduling (Rettig & Canady, 1996). Furthermore, some studies of the topic have had students report feeling a greater sense of boredom toward the end of the extended classes in the block scheduling format (Kaya & Aksu, 2016).

Block scheduling can also create problems and conflicts with extracurricular programs and can cause students in skill-and/or performance-building classes such as foreign language or music to experience a decreased level of skill or performance since they meet fewer times during the week (Mowen & Mowen, 2004; Rohner, 2002). Block scheduling has caused some students to drop out of music programs because they can only take certain classes every other semester (Rohner, 2006).

Research Studies on Block Scheduling. Although there is abundant research literature relating to the use of block scheduling in the public schools, there have been few hard, empirical, replicable studies (Vladero, 2001). As such, conclusions and claims such as the examples in Figure 3 below must be scrutinized with a critical eye. This does not necessarily mean that the conclusions and claims are inaccurate but that they must be examined closely, considered and evaluated in the context of the situational school setting where outcomes and results are reported.

Some conclusions and claims about the use of block scheduling are clearly anecdotal. Others are empirical. Research studies in which school policies such as grading, attendance, and tardiness affect students similarly on different scheduling types, for example, semester 4 × 4 block, alternate-day A/B block, and mixed block that are being analyzed under and influenced by the same treatments simultaneously are more generalizable (Vladero, 2001).

Thus, in reading, reviewing, and evaluating research conclusions and claims regarding the use of block scheduling, factors relating to both the specific types of block-scheduling arrangements being employed and the specific types of research being utilized should be determined (see Table 1). If a research study cites evidence for increased student achievement with the use of block scheduling, numerous clarifications need to be made in considering and evaluating the conclusion or claim. What was/were the type(s) and variation(s) of block schedules? What was the context and situational school setting (i.e., school and grade level, courses, classes, subjects, or content areas)? Was it a case study, an observational study, a survey, or an experimental study? How many schools, classes, teachers, and students were involved? What was the length of the trial period or study? What were the research designs, the variables, the treatments, the performance measures, and the outcomes or results? What type of evidence was provided for the conclusion or claim? Was it a measurable difference or statistically significant? And, last but not least, what was the generalizability of the findings of the research study?

Fortunately or unfortunately, the research conclusions and claims regarding the use of block scheduling are not unequivocal. The outcomes and results vary in different contexts or situational school settings. Some time-scheduling arrangements find apparent success in certain schools, at certain levels or grades, and with certain classes or courses while others do not. Perhaps, one day in the not too distant future, researchers will be able to say with a greater degree of certainty that block-scheduling type "A-1" works best at the high school level in these contexts and type "B-1" works best at the middle school level in these contexts. Until then, readers must critically evaluate and interpret research conclusions and claims regarding the use of different types and variations of block schedules in the public schools.

Terms & Concepts

Alternate-day A/B block schedule: A type of block schedule in which students take four 90-minute or longer classes meeting on "A" days that alternate every other day with four 90-minute or longer classes meeting on "B" days for an entire school year. Students spend four odd periods and four even periods of the traditional eight-period hourly schedule in block periods that alternate MWF of one week with TTh the following week.

Alternative time scheduling arrangement: One of any number of time design variations or model formats that have been developed for use in US public schools.

Block schedule: An alternative time scheduling arrangement used in the public schools that involves several different design variations or model formats of extended periods or "blocks" of time.

Block-time schedule: An earlier and alternate name for precursor forms of the block schedule. "Block-time schedule" was used from the 1950s to the 1990s.

Carnegie schedule: Also known as the traditional or conventional schedule. A class-day time schedule based on the Carnegie unit consisting of 6 to 9 short periods of 40 to 50 minutes each.

This schedule remains as the prevalent time scheduling arrangement used in U.S. high schools. The schedule is named after Andrew Carnegie, the New York City philanthropist and his Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which heavily influenced American secondary education beginning in the 1950s.

Mixed schedule: Also known as the hybrid, composite, or combined schedule. It is an alternative time scheduling arrangement that blends block and traditional schedules (e.g., the 2-day block/3-day traditional variation). In another common variation, students take two blocked periods and three traditional periods each day. There are a number of other variations that allow schools to construct their own unique versions of mixed schedules. A mixed schedule is sometimes confused with a modified block schedule.

Modified block schedule: A modified block schedule modifies the straight or full block schedule in some way to form a new type. For example, an 8-block schedule is one common modification of the 4-block straight schedule. Students still only have 4 blocked periods each day but the classes and courses that are offered and taught alternate from day to day. Students take the same 8 classes or courses for one full year or two semesters. The alternate-day A/B block schedule is one variation of a modified block schedule. A modified block schedule is sometimes confused with a mixed schedule that combines blocked periods with traditional periods. However, the modified block schedule includes only block-scheduled periods of time and not traditional periods as in the mixed schedule.

Modular schedule: Also called the flexible/modular schedule. In this schedule type, the school day is divided into a number of modules or modular units that may be of the same or varying time lengths. The total number of modules depends on the time lengths (e.g., 30, 60, 75, or 90 minutes) of each. With this schedule, students may take more than the usual number of subjects by having classes that meet several times (e.g., two to five) a week.

Self-contained classroom schedule: An alternative time scheduling arrangement for organizing and structuring the instructional class day and the instructional class week in a single-teacher educational setting. Teachers in this type of non-departmentalized setting, such as most elementary schools, teach all subjects (e.g., language arts, social studies, math, and science) within a grade rather than using a team of teachers.

Semester 4 × 4 block schedule: A named variation of the straight or full block schedule. In this type of block schedule, students take 4 different classes in blocked periods in each of two separate semesters.

Straight block schedule: Also called full block schedule. In this type of block schedule, students take four 90-minute or longer classes a day in blocked periods for semester 1 and four different 90-minute or longer classes a day in blocked periods for semester 2. The total time spent in each semester blocked class is equivalent to that spent in a traditional hourly class over a full year. A named variation of the straight block schedule is the semester 4 × 4 blocks.

Bibliography

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Beane, J. A., Toepfer, C. F., Jr., & Alessi, S. J., Jr. (1986). Curriculum planning and development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Black, S. (1998). Learning on the block. American School Board Journal, 185 (1), 32–34. Retrieved April 24, 2007

Childers, G. L., & Ireland, R. W. (2005). Mixing block and traditional scheduling. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 71 (3), 43–49. Retrieved April 24, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18783397&site=ehost-live

Fitzsimgns, J. T. (2017). Challenging the status quo on schedules: Is it time to change start times and instruction periods? Principal Leadership, 18(4), 54–57. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=126592553&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Flocco, D. C. (2012). Deeper learning, reduced stress. Independent School, 71 (4), 62–68. Retrieved December 3, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=75497227&site=ehost-live

Hackmann, D. G. (1999). The status of high school scheduling in Illinois. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 12 (2), 25–31.

Howard, D. (2001). Serving advanced learners in the inner city: One school's odyssey. Understanding Our Gifted, 14 (1), 11–14.

Hughes, W. W., Jr. (2004). Blocking student performance in high school? Economics of Education Review, 23 (6), 663–667. Retrieved April 24, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14647858&site=ehost-live

Hurley, J. C. (1997). The 4 × 4 block scheduling model: What do teachers have to say about it? NASSP Bulletin, 81 (593), 53–63. Retrieved April 24, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9712055347&site=ehost-live

Johnson, D. N., Lybecker, K. M., & Taylor, C. H. (2011). Retention of economics principles by undergraduates on alternative curricular structures. Journal of Education for Business, 86 (6), 332–338. Retrieved December 3, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65084808&site=ehost-live

Kaya, S., & Aksu, M. (2016). The advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling as perceived by middle school students. Journal of Educational & Instructional Studies in the World, 6(1), 50–59. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=113123820&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Mattox, K., Hancock, D. R., & Queen, J. A. (2005). The effect of block scheduling on middle school students' mathematics achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89 (642), 3 -- Retrieved April 24, 2007 From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16610392&site=ehost-live

Mowen, G. G., & Mowen, C. (2004). To block-schedule or not? Education Digest, 69 (8), 50–53. Retrieved April 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12810402&site=ehost-live

Nichols, J. D. (2000). Scheduling reform: A longitudinal exploration of high school block scheduling structures. International Journal of Educational Reform, 9 (2), 134–147.

Perreault, G., & Isaacson, N. (1996). Learning from schools with restructured schedules. Clearing House, 69 (5), 265–268.

Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rettig, M. D., & Canady, R. L. (1996). All around the block: The benefits and challenges of a non-traditional school schedule. School Administrator, 53

Challenges of a non-traditional school schedule. School Administrator, 53 (8), 8–14.

Rohner, J. T. (2002). When block schedules begin instrumental music declines. Instrumentalist, 56(9), 19–24. Retrieved April 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21450950&site=ehost-live

Rohner, J. T. (2006). A triumph of teamwork. Instrumentalist, 60 (11), 4.

Trump, J. L. (1959). Images of the future: A new approach to the secondary school. Washington, DC: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Veal, W. R. (2000). Teaching and student achievement in science: A comparison of three different schedule types. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11 (3), 251 -- Retrieved April 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16981400&site=ehost-live

Veal, W. R., & Flinders, D. J. (2001). How block scheduling reform affects classroom practice. High School Journal, 84 (4), 21–32. Retrieved April 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4390124&site=ehost-live

Vladero, D. (2001). Changing times. Education Week, 21 (5), 38–40. Retrieved April 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5410798&site=ehost-live

Williams, D. A. (2011). The elephant in the room. Music Educators Journal, 98 (1), 51–57. Retrieved December 3, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74022376&site=ehost-live

Zepeda, J. J., & Mayers, R. S. (2001). New Kids on the Block schedule: Beginning teachers face challenges. High School Journal, 84 (4), 1–11. Retrieved April 24, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20272910&site=ehost-live

Block Scheduling

On this Page

Subject Terms

Block Scheduling

Abstract

Overview

Applications

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading