A Report to the Superintendent
on Block Scheduling
Part of O'Leary's school improvement strategy involved researching the potential of block scheduling. Principal Wiley Dobbs initiated the research and convened a review committee. He was asked to put his research into a report for the superintendent to review. The proposal was subsequently approved and initiated in 1998.

Historical Background and Overview

Learning in America is a prisoner of time. For the past 150 years, American public schools have held time constant and let learning vary. The rule, only rarely voiced, is simple: learn what you can in the time we make available. It should surprise no one that some bright, hardworking students do reasonably well. Everyone else-from the typical student to the dropout-runs into trouble. Time is learning's warden.
--(National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994, p. 7)

For nearly six years our school, O'Leary Junior High School in Twin Falls, Idaho, has incorporated many changes. We practice interdisciplinary teaming where teachers in four core subject areas (math, social studies, language arts and science) share the same preparation time and the same students throughout the day. We have received meritorious recognition by the Idaho State Department of Education and have had numerous visitations from staff members of other schools from around Idaho to see and learn more about this program. Five years ago we began using the Inclusion Model of special education and yearly we receive many visitors from other schools who want to learn about our variation of this model. Our school district has created a staff development process which has also received meritorious recognition from the ISDE. We have four "Teacher Workshop Days" where staff members receive training in technology and high-yield teaching techniques for half of the day and then work with their colleagues within teams or departments for the remainder of the day. We have incorporated site-based management strategies where employees are empowered to make or influence decisions that effect them. We have utilized many middle school strategies. For example, recently we revamped our electives offerings to include more exploratory classes. Examples include our "FLEX" class (Foreign Language Exploratory for French, Spanish and German languages), our "Gateways" class (a series of six classes on processing and materials, audio-video technology, career exploration, digital graphics and more) and our "Exploring the Fine Arts" class ( a series of classes that allow students to try drama, creative writing, dance, art and more).

Evidence from various performance sources indicates that we have a much better school now than we did six years ago. Our ITBS scores have soared. For example, our 8^th grade core score has gone from the 44^th percentile in 1994 to the 75^th percentile in 1998. Disciplinary referrals of students to our office for both serious and non-serious offenses have reduced over the past six years. Vandalism is down and student achievement is up, as measured by increased school G.P.A., a reduced number of at-risk students, an outstanding attendance rate, improved scores on the Direct Writing Assessment, the Direct Math Assessment and our district summative assessments.

While our school is seeing a rise in student achievement and an improvement in student performance, our staff is committed to providing the most effective learning conditions and instructional practices. One such practice we are evaluating for implementation is block scheduling. Many of our staff members have expressed an interest in block scheduling. While our staff is aware that block scheduling in and of itself is not a panacea, it may be the next logical step in our school improvement efforts. The quote above captures the thinking of many of our teachers in that we are searching for ways to better utilize the time we have with our students. Kai-zen is a Japanese word that I have been told Edward Demming used frequently. It means "continual improvement." Nearly all of our staff members at O'Leary Junior High School subscribe to this philosophy.

The rigid American junior high/middle school and high school schedules did not always exist in their current state. A brief history of high school scheduling appears in Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools (Canady and Rettig, 1995):

"Prior to 1892 and the work of the National Education Association's Committee of Ten, early high schools and their predecessors, Latin Grammar Schools and Academies, showed some flexibility in their schedules. The academies, for example, and the high schools prior to about 1910 offered many subjects on two, three or four-day schedules. The report of the Committee of Ten was the seed for the formation of the rigidly structured high school schedule as we know it today. The result was to encourage every high school to center the work of each student upon five or six academic areas in each of four high school years. With the development of the "Carnegie Unit" in the early 20^th century, the every-day-period schedule became standardized. The Carnegie Foundation proposed a standard unit to measure high school work based on time. A total of 120 hours in one subject - meeting 4 or 5 times a week, for 40 to 60 minutes, for 36 to 40 weeks a year - earns for the student one "unit" of high school credit. "The Carnegie Unit" became a convenient, mechanical way to measure academic progress throughout the country. And, to this day, this bookkeeping device is the basis on which the school day, and indeed the entire curriculum is organized. And at some schools, adding up Carnegie units seems to be the main objective. The every-day-period high school schedule, which developed from the recommendations of the Committee of Ten and the development of the Carnegie Unit, has remained remarkably unchanged for the past 70 years, except for the addition in some schools of an extra period or two." (p. 13)

According to Canady and Reddig (1995) during the 1960's and early 1970's there was an attempt "to break away from this lockstep format: the flexible modular schedule." J. Lloyd Trump (1959) is credited with the original design of the "flexible modular schedule" (FMS). The "Trump Plan," as it came to be called, sought to eliminate the rigid class schedule of the traditional high school and replace it with instructional sessions of varying length. Based upon the time needs of individual subjects and different instructional strategies, some classes might have short meetings of one "module" or 20 minutes, while other subjects might convene for longer classes of 40, 60, 80, or 100 minutes. For example, a biology class might meet for two 40-minute lectures, one 100-minute lab, and one 20-minute help session weekly. In its heyday during the late '60s and early '70s it is estimated that around 15 percent of American high schools were utilizing modular scheduling. Ultimately, as Canady and Reddig point out, "most high schools returned to traditional schedules because of a number of problems with flexible modular scheduling-most related to student discipline. A popular notion during the '60s was the individualization of learning; hence, a major feature of FMS was the allocation of 30 to 40 percent of the school day to unscheduled student time to be used for independent study and individual tutorials." (p. 14) As any educator might guess this unscheduled time apparently led to student discipline problems. Another leading factor was that teachers found it difficult to tailor their teaching practices to the varying lengths of time. (Goldman, 1983) Goldman's comments regarding the demise of FMS were somewhat prophetic. He wrote:

"Some form of flexible, adapted scheduling is a sophistication which we probably cannot afford to overlook; the lesson to be learned from the FMS experience is that such flexibility must be real, must produce significantly better results than any system it replaces, and must not cause more problems than it solves." (1983, p. 209)

By the late 1980s and early 1990s many middle level schools and high schools began to reexamine scheduling practices. In fact, block scheduling is a major component of the systemic educational reform / restructuring movement afoot in the United States today.

The superintendent of the Twin Falls School District #411, Dr. Terrell Donicht, has asked that we at O'Leary Junior High School first identify why the need for a change to block scheduling exists in our school. Before he would support such a change, he has asked us to identify the reasons why we would move to a block schedule, the implications, and what results we hope to achieve by doing so. My plan to provide Dr. Donicht with this information is three-pronged. The first step is to thoroughly research the theory behind, and application of, block scheduling culminating in this written report. The second part of the plan is to create a folder on our LAN (local area network) which is accessible to all O'Leary staff members. This folder would contain two headings; ADVANTAGES / STRENGTHS and DISADVANTAGES / WEAKNESSES, and a copy of this report. For the next six months, I have asked our faculty to research the practice of block scheduling as it pertains to their subject area. They will e-mail any research-based information they acquire to me and I will add it under one of the headings. Each staff member has been asked to keep abreast of this collected data and to add their documented findings. The third and final step of this plan will be a presentation by me to Dr. Donicht and the Twin Falls School District #411 Board of Trustees. My presentation will include the information in this research paper and the collaborative list of perceived advantages and disadvantages our staff has compiled.

It seems the first implication one must consider when one is exploring an educational change is that of cost. Currently, we have one 8^th grade team of teachers who are practicing block scheduling. During the schedule-making process last year, this team indicated to our associate principal and me that they would like to be able to block schedule for days when more time is needed. The math and science teachers on this team block together so that if the need for additional time arises, these two teachers can get together and arrange it. Students on this team are scheduled back-to-back in their science and math classes to accommodate this. The social studies and the language arts teachers on this team block in the same fashion. I have heard very positive comments from these teachers regarding their ability to plan for and utilize blocks of time together. We have requests from other teams to arrange this for them for the 1998-99 school year. At this time we believe that we can do it; however, it will definitely stretch and stress the schedule. This strategy will cost the district nothing extra from what is currently allocated to our school. The downside is that our electives teachers, many of whom teach classes that are tailor-made for larger segments of time, would not be able to block. Recently, I created a sample "4 x 4 block schedule" for our staff and presented it at a faculty meeting. I did this to help those who were unfamiliar with this concept. A "4 x4 block schedule" allows students and teachers to meet as a class for longer segments of time every other day. Students would have a total of eight classes and teachers would teach six of the eight periods or three of four daily. Here is the sample schedule I presented to the O'Leary staff:

With regards to money, this schedule expands the class offerings to our students from seven to eight and would necessitate the cost and addition of approximately four to five teachers. Additionally, due to the lack of space, this option would require the cost of building additional classrooms or more likely that some of our staff become "traveling teachers" who would use the classrooms of teachers who are on their prep period. There would most likely be start-up costs for some of the added classes. Tom Erb (1998), editor of the Middle School Journal, warns against hastily ruling out block scheduling and interdisciplinary teaming because they cost more than the "departmentalized alternatives." He indicates that studies in three states provide data that challenge the "oft-held belief that middle schools are too expensive to fully implement" (p.3). In an editorial entitled, Last Best Chance on the Cheap (May, 1998), Erb uses data from three studies and makes the following argument:

"All three studies document the reality that states and districts spend less per pupil to educate students in the middle grades than they do to educate elementary students in self-contained classrooms or secondary students in the presumed more efficient departmentalized ones. In the state of Florida the school-level per pupil expenditures reported by Nakib (1995) were these: grades K-3, $3167; grades 4-8, $2984; and grades 9-12, $3518. A study by Richards (1996) found a similar pattern at a slightly higher level of support among Baltimore City Schools: elementary, $4338; middle, $4026; and high school, $5553. Three quarters of a continent away in New Mexico the same pattern has been reported. Jordan, Garcia, Kops, and Jordan (1998) discovered mean expenditures per pupil to be grades 2-3, $2443; grades 4-6, $2251; and grades 7-12, $2607.

Though each study was conducted for some other purpose than to find the relative costs of middle grades education, the data are consistent in pointing to the conclusion that middle grades education is the least supported of the three K-12 levels of education.

If early adolescence is the "last best chance to avoid a diminished future" and "middle grade schools are potentially society's most powerful force to recapture millions of youth adrift" are we, as a nation devoting the resources necessary to avoid "a volatile mismatch....between the organization and curriculum of middle grade schools and the intellectual and emotional needs of young adolescents" (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989, p.8)?

Even if a particular middle grades school did have to hire an additional teacher or two to make team organization or flexible interdisciplinary block schedules work, can anyone show that such additional expense would do anything more than move the middle grades schools toward equity with their better financed elementary and secondary school partners?

The preliminary data reported here would suggest that school finance formulas are inverted. If not, why would the very age group that most people agree is in need of the most instructional resources due to the profound developmental changes be given the least amount of educational resources? In spite of the reforms that have been made in middle grades education over the past thirty years, equitable resource allocation is apparently not one of them. Middle level education is still the stepchild of American public education" (p. 2)."

In an e-mail conversion with Dr. Donicht, I attempted to procure information about per pupil expenditure at the three levels in the TFSD #411. He was not able to give me the exact information for which I was looking, but his response was very enlightening. He wrote, "We don't have the information by grade level. The latest information we have is published by the state for the district as a whole. It is for 1996-97, showing that our M&O expenditure per student was $3679. We were 108^th of 112 school districts. The state average per student was $4290, which was somewhere around 48^th or 49^th in the U.S." Later he wrote, "You did remind me; however, that we do have a little information regarding allocations to schools by grade level. The allocation for supplies and materials for students is as follows:

If we were looking at other "disparities," I would have to say that they exist at: a) K-3 student-teacher ratios (about 20 to 21:1), b) (lower) high school teacher loads and 5 period teaching day, and c) the allocation of special program staff (Title I, special education, migrant, etc.) at all levels. As you look at these distributions, you can see that O'Leary benefits from almost none of them." Obviously, on the part of our superintendent there is a willingness to look at this situation. We must all keep in mind that funding in the TFSD #411 is just about as low as it goes anywhere in the United States. Funding by grant(s) may be a solution and, certainly, creativity will be a key ingredient.

A major implication for teachers centers around teaching methodology. Extended blocks of time allow teachers to use a variety of high-yield, creative teaching strategies while accommodating individual learning styles. However, Hackmann and Schmitt (1997) warn that:

"These large blocks...may be viewed with a great deal of apprehension by veteran teachers. A typical reaction may be "What am I going to do for that many minutes?" Even though a new scheduling configuration may have unanimous faculty support as "the thing to do," teachers still must confront the daily reality of preparing creative, enriching lessons that keep students engaged academically.

When traditional schedules are restructured into larger blocks, some teachers may naively assume that they can force-fit two "old" lessons into this restructured time frame. Teachers soon learn, however, that they cannot take the simplistic approach of using the same methods they did before, only for a longer time, since nothing will disengage a group of students from the learning process more quickly than lecturing for an entire class block. Students (and adults, for that matter) are rarely excited about sitting passively for hours at a time - they become excited when they are physically engaged in authentic and challenging learning activities." (p. 1-2)

At O'Leary and in the Twin Falls School District #411, we may be ahead in this area. Teaming is solidly practiced by our teachers. A block schedule, similar to the sample schedule included in this report, would nearly double the time our teachers would have for individual and team preparation. As previously mentioned, for the past five or six years the district has provided learning opportunities in the form of what was called "Strand Training" or what is now called "Teacher Workshop Days." Our district faculty members engage in four such days each school year. This practice has been recognized as a "merit program" by the Idaho State Department of Education for the past three years. During these inservice days teachers have been able to take for credit courses on high yield, research-based teaching strategies. "Strand" choices have included Cooperative Learning, Mastery Learning, Responsibility Training/Reality Therapy, Assessment, Learning Styles and Curriculum Compacting. For the past year we have concentrated the workshop focus around computer training. Trained staff members teach these courses. Many teachers have incorporated these strategies and techniques effectively in our classrooms. Some have not. In classrooms where teachers are using various methodologies, students appear to be more actively engaged and excited about applying their learned knowledge. It has been my observation that the teachers who are constantly updating their skills and creating positive change in their educational programs are meeting with more success in this profession than those who are not. I would also speculate that the same would be true if we converted to a block schedule.

The research literature is brimming with instructional strategies for block-of-time scheduling. An example from Hackmann and Schmitt (1997):

"It is frequently necessary for teachers to deliver brief lectures so students can fully master critical concepts. Even during lectures, however, teachers can include active student participation, using such suggestions and activities as the following:

1. Continuously engage students in active learning.

     Think-pair-share. The teacher poses a question and asks each student to think about appropriate solutions. Students are next asked to discuss potential answers with a partner. Finally, the teacher calls on students randomly or asks for responses from volunteers.

     Learning journals. Students can routinely write new concepts they have learned in daily journals. They should be prompted to focus on connecting this new information to previous topics or other interdisciplinary areas, and to write down the concepts they still have not mastered.

     Guided notes. Teachers can prepare handouts that summarize the lesson's major concepts, with significant portions left blank for students to complete during the lecture.

     Active questioning. Asking questions of individuals is an excellent way to determine if a student understands the concept being presented, but this is an extremely inefficient method for assessing all students' levels of understanding. Teachers can pose questions to the class, allow sufficient wait-time, then call for "thumbs up-thumbs down" responses from everyone. Students can raise their left or right hands to answer true-false questions, or can call out or display numbers that correspond to the correct answer in multiple-choice questions. The point is, all students are involved, and the teacher has a quick and accurate method to assess student mastery of new material.

2. Include group activities to encourage student participation.

     Cooperative learning. A substantial body of research exists documenting the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies (Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Slavin, 1990). Any faculty that is considering implementing block scheduling should seriously consider cooperative learning training for all teachers and make this instructional method the cornerstone of lesson planning.

     Writing groups. Students can critique their fellow group members' writing for errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, word choice, and sentence structure. Oral and written feedback will help students improve their writing style as they learn to write for their peer audience.

     Case studies, role playing, and simulations. Case studies allow students to view situations through the depersonalized actions of a story character ("I agree/disagree with what he/she did because..."), rather than risking peer disapproval for personal solutions. Class discussion, consequently, remains focused on finding appropriate solutions rather than confronting conflicting student values, beliefs, and feelings. Through role plays and simulations, students have an opportunity to employ their dramatic talents, in addition to experiencing how a person in that role may actually feel or react when confronted with the solution.

3. Incorporate activities addressing the multiple intelligences.

     Gardner (1983) suggests the following seven categories of human intelligence: Linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Teachers should incorporate these dimensions into their lessons so students can experience learning through a variety of modalities. In addition, students should be offered opportunities to complete alternative assignments that explore the intelligences and capitalize on individual student strengths.

4. Use creative thinking activities.

     Though teachers today are generally familiar with the taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive domain (Bloom et al., 1956), they are likely to be less aware of similar taxonomies in the affective and psychomotor domains (Krasathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, 1956; Harrow, 1969). These latter two domains include learning activities that challenge students to develop skills in such areas as organizing preferences and developing confidence.

     Lessons that attend to the affective and psychomotor domains, in addition to the higher levels of the more traditional cognitive domain, provide opportunities to emphasize the more spontaneous and creative capabilities of students. Examples of classroom attention to creative aspects of learning include assignments to develop illustrations of solutions to current affairs problems in social studies, or to exchange and solve student-created problems in math. Having students describe how they arrived at answers to assignments that require higher order thinking is also of great value in encouraging nontraditional thinking.

5. Move outside the classroom.

     Approaching instructional time with a commitment to including "outside-the-classroom" resources and processes as much as possible helps teachers and students focus on real-life applications of their classes. Using community resources within the classroom, such as guest speakers and community artifacts, effectively ties community and school together, while simultaneously building invaluable community support for the schools (Schmitt and Tracy, 1996). Similarly, the use of integrated field trips and assignments to gather information from the immediate community through "community scavenger hunts" helps to create relevance in the students' learning.

6. Employ authentic forms of assessment.

     Traditional paper-and-pencil tests are limited in the types of learning activities for which these methods of assessments are valid. If emphasis in classroom strategies is placed on less traditional and more creative learning, less traditional and more creative forms of measuring the results are needed.

     Demonstrations of a wide range of student behaviors, such as cooperative problem analysis and resolution with a classroom partner, or use of technology in assessing, manipulating, and presenting information are more characteristic of situations students will confront outside the classroom, and more telling of the level of integration in multi-domain learning. The use of others besides the classroom teacher to assist in evaluating student growth, based on clearly-defined objectives also helps to make assessment more authentic.

7. Integrate and reinforce basic skills throughout the curriculum.

     Students can engage in the writing process in all classes; science and math concepts can readily be integrated; history can be infused into foreign languages, art, and music. Students can make connections and transfer knowledge more readily across these artificial disciplinary boundaries.

     A natural progression to this concept is an interdisciplinary approach to the curriculum. Faculty members can begin this process by sharing curriculum content, agreeing upon times during the school calendar when major concepts could most appropriately be integrated, and identifying overarching themes and learning activities that would connect the various disciplines.

8. Incorporate technology.

     Technology is an excellent learning tool when it is purposefully crafted to facilitate student understanding of concepts, and it can be used effectively for both whole-class instruction and individual drill-and-practice. Technology should never be used as the "lazy teacher's lesson plan," however, since it is extremely easy to throw a 90-minute videotape in the VCR, sit back, and enjoy the show.

     On the other hand, countless teachers are discovering the power of teacher-developed multimedia presentations and the benefits of the Internet as a student research tool. Teachers should exercise caution when planning activities that incorporate student use of the Internet, however, since students can spend inordinate amounts of time "surfing" and exploring areas that have little or no educational value. Lessons using the Internet should direct students to appropriate sites for specific purposes so this technology is actually used as an educational tool.

9. Share resources and ideas with colleagues.

     One of the major fears of making change lies in confronting the unknown. When teachers change their instructional patterns from the tried-and-true methodology of the past to the uncharted waters of teaching in a block schedule, having the support of colleagues is invaluable. Patterns of "lone ranger" efforts to achieve should be replaced with active seeking and giving of both information and support in a collaborative forum that brings teachers together. Longer periods of time and more flexibility in the schedule allow teachers to plan and work together in ways not previously available.

     Teachers can capitalize on this advantage by being open to sharing both successes and roadblocks that occurred in implementing new instructional strategies. Besides helping one's colleague think through the "whys" of the situations discussed, the process can be directly helpful to the other teacher. Often, what did not go so well for one teacher may be an excellent strategy for someone else in another setting.

     Building administrators can support this process by encouraging teachers to take risks in the classroom without reprisal. Time can be set aside in faculty meetings for teachers to share both successful and unsuccessful classroom experiences, so teachers can receive suggestions and feedback from their peers. In this way, teachers begin to develop a learning community while modeling the practice of continuous learning for their students.

10. Plan ahead for support activities.

     Longer periods of teaching time require longer-range thinking and planning. Informal learning activities that enrich and supplement the formal instructional objectives of the class should be readily available and carefully planned, especially for classes that include more complex learning and/or diverse student populations, or for those times when students are just not ready to engage in additional formal learning activities.

     Educational games of various kinds, whether commercially prepared or student created, relieve the stress of long periods of intense instruction while also supporting the learning goals of the class. "Brainteasers" that capture the content of the class in new and unusual patterns, such as visual presentations of ideas or cross-disciplinary applications of the day's lesson, provide opportunities for students in pairs or teams to review curricular content and to develop cooperative learning skills. (p. 3-8)

It seems a large part of the success for block scheduling is determined by the willingness of the school's staff to make changes in their instructional methods and a commitment of their principal to support teachers in their efforts. Perhaps this list will provide some guidance in that effort at O'Leary Junior High School.

After examining many of the probable implications for the Twin Falls School District #411, the teachers and the administrators of O'Leary Junior High, it is only fitting that the implications for our students be explored. In fact, the answer to Dr. Donicht's question, "What results do we hope to accomplish by moving to a block schedule?" lies in an examination of the possible implications for our students. Changing the structure of the school day is one step in our journey to create a school where all students learn well. The main purpose of all of the steps we've taken is to improve student achievement as measured by the various assessments utilized by our staff to report student learning. Eineder & Bishop (1997) found that "block scheduling had a tremendous impact on the academic success of ninth grade students who were making the transition from the middle school to high school. The number of ninth graders on the honor roll increased by 92%." In the National Science Teachers Association's book entitled, Block Scheduling, it is reported:

"According to the five-year study conducted by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "In schools where most teachers feel they can make a difference in students' academic performances, students learn more and learning is more equitably distributed." The study also showed that greater achievement gains in math and science were seen in schools that allow teachers to "adapt their practices to reflect students' needs." These schools, according to the study, gave teachers more opportunity to develop a curriculum focusing on high-level learning for all students." (p. v)

Increased safety and an improved school climate are probable implications which would be certainly appealing to all stakeholders in a school. Buckman, King & Ryan (1997) cite several studies which illustrate improved school safety and climate after implementation of a block schedule. For example, they cite a study done by Koepke (1990) who found, "In addition to instructional benefits, the change to block schedule reported by Howard Middle School in Ocala, Florida, resulted in a sense of calm on the campus and brought a decrease in disciplinary infractions." (p. 11) Anyone who has been on a middle / junior high school campus and watched as students changed classes and teachers seven different times probably has no trouble relating to these findings. In analyzing the data, the authors explain:

"Unlike the workplace, in most secondary schools students move from room to room ... seven times a day with ...seven teachers using...seven textbooks and varying methodologies. Students report to a different "boss" every 50 minutes and must adjust to several sets of rules and expectations. The content in each of the courses is often disconnected from other disciplines. The 50-minute time blocks limit opportunities to engage students in activities that develop higher level thinking and problem-solving skills. (p. 11)

In an attempt to help the O'Leary staff analyze and become familiar with the research surrounding block scheduling, I have created a folder on the computer in which we all have access. From my report I will list in this folder the advantages/strengths and disadvantages/weaknesses that I perceive from the literature I have read on block scheduling. O'Leary staff members will be able to open this folder and read it. If a teacher finds research and would like to add it to one of the lists, he/she could e-mail it to me and I will use the information to update the folder. It will be important to make an informed decision when we choose to block or not, and this plan allows for participation in that decision on the part of all staff .

• Increased team and individual preparation time (Using Mr. Dobbs' model this would extend teachers' daily individual/team prep time from 47 to 85 minutes)
• Double the language arts class time for 7^th and 8^th grade students (Using Mr. Dobbs' model 7^th and 8^th graders would continue to have 7 classes. They would have language arts every day)
• 7^th and 8^th grade language arts teachers would have double the time and half as many students
• Additional elective class choice for 9^th grade students
• Allows more time for labs, incorporating technology in the lessons, class trips, and various applications of learned material on the part of students
• Improved school climate and decreased disciplinary referrals (Koepke, 1990)
• Student surveys indicate that block scheduling allows more time to do homework (Hurley, 1997)
• Improved academic achievement by students (Eineder & Bishop, 1997) (NSTA, 1997)

• Additional cost (Using Mr. Dobbs' model we would need four additional language arts teachers and probably an additional electives teacher)
• Could require "traveling teachers" (Using Mr. Dobbs' model)
• Absences are more difficult to make up since missing one day is like missing two classes (Hurley, 1997)
• Teacher surveys indicate that they aren't able to "cover" as much material even though the data suggests teachers see the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (Hurley, 1997)
• Performing arts classes would not be able to meet every day, however, they would meet every other day for a longer period of time (Using Mr. Dobbs' model)
• Would be difficult for teachers who do not use varying teaching methodologies (Hackmann & Schmitt, 1997)

Only time will tell what form and direction block scheduling will take, if any, at O'Leary Junior High School. I have enjoyed studying the research pertaining to block scheduling. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this issue with my colleagues as we attempt to provide the best "product" possible to our "customers."