The 1983 publication of A Nation At Risk and many subsequent reports and studies (e.g. Prisoners of Time, 1994) have spurred educational restructuring that included major revisions in the school schedule. Many secondary schools have replaced the traditional 6-7 period/day (each 40-50 minutes long) with a block schedule in which class lengths vary from 80-120 minutes each. Although there are several versions of block scheduling, most are variations of the alternate day (A/B) schedule or the 4/4 semester schedule. The 4/4 schedule typically divides the school day into four 90-minute periods with added time for lunch and passing between classes. Each class lasts for one semester, although some schools maintain full-year schedules for courses in which daily student contact facilitates learning (e.g. foreign language, advanced placement classes, math, and music). Frequently, teachers instruct three classes each semester and use the fourth class for planning. Students enroll in four classes in the first semester and four new ones in the second semester. The A/B or "alternate day" plan organizes each day into four 90-minute periods but has a total of eight classes meeting over two consecutive days ("A Day" and "B Day"). Often, the blocked time "slides" or meets at different times during the day on a rotating basis. More than 2,000 secondary schools in the U.S., including 69 in Wisconsin, follow some type of block schedule. Because a switch to block scheduling requires substantial changes in curricula, instructional approaches, classroom management, and other organizational factors, a block schedule serves as both a lever and a stage from which to challenge the assumptions, curricula, teaching, and learning associated with traditional schedules. Schools adopt block schedules in order to improve student performance and behavior; increase student interest and satisfaction with their school experience; improve student retention; and increase staff job satisfaction. Recent research results document the positive educational impact of a switch to block scheduling on students' academic performance and behavior. Problem: Though an extensive search of the professional literature, U.S. Department of Education-sponsored data bases, and databases maintained by state and local agencies uncovered several studies that evaluated the impact of block scheduling on students academic performance and behavior (see above), only one mentioned that the impact of a switch to block scheduling on the performance of special education students was detrimental, but provided no data to document that conclusion. Only two others surveyed staff in order to determine their perceptions of block scheduling's impact on special education students' academic performance and/or behavior. Neither study analyzed student academic performance data or behavioral indices. An on-line search of the 1,200 projects currently funded by OSEP uncovered no current OSEP project oher than this one that examined the possible impact of block scheduling on special education students' academic performance or behavior, or the possible influence of block scheduling on special education students' post-school status. To address this omission, this study posed and developed preliminary answers to four critical research questions: 1) To what extent do special education students participate in block schedule classes? 2) What differences, if any, exist in the performance patterns of special education students enrolled in various block schedule configurations compared to special education students' performance patterns in secondary schools that follow a traditional class schedule? 3) How do the performance patterns of special education students in block scheduled schools compare with the performance patterns of their non special education classmates? 4) How do the performance patterns of special education students in traditionally scheduled schools compare with the performance patterns of their non special education classmates?
The proposed research to answer these questions used an ex post facto design comprised experimental and comparison groups made up of stratified random samples of students and staff drawn from a stratified random sample of secondary schools that follow block schedules and secondary schools that follow traditional schedules.
Project staff selected a random sample of Wisconsin secondary schools that have used a block schedule for the previous four or more years and a random sample that used a traditional schedule for the previous four or more years. Both traditionally scheduled schools and block scheduled schools were stratified according to size (small, medium and large) prior to sample selection. For purposes of this study, "small schools" are those enrolling 299 or fewer students; "medium size schools" enroll 300 - 699 students; and "large schools" enroll 700 or more students. Twelve schools were selected during the 1999-2000 school year, and eight additional schools were selected during the 2000-2001 school year using the same procedures.
The study focused on 12th graders because the block schedule sample experienced that approach for their entire secondary education, and because student and district records will include nearly four years of data on variables of interest. From the sample schools' pool of twelfth graders, project staff drew a random sample of special education students stratified across exceptionality categories and a random sample non special education twelfth graders. From the pool of educators serving the twelfth graders in the sample schools, project staff selected a random sample of staff, stratified across block and traditional schedules and across employment roles: teaching (academic, vocational and special education); administration; counseling; and paraprofessional (educational assistant/support staff). Figure 1 summarizes the sample used in this study.
(These individuals completed or
otherwise ended their secondary experience during/at the close of the 1999-2000 and
2000-2001 school years.)
Small (5 sites)
11
62
Small (7 sites)
21
93
Medium (4 sites)
22 75
Medium (2 sites) 10
49
Large (3 sites)
51
107
Large (3 sites) 45
74
Total n/category 84
244
76
216
*Sp Ed
is defined as a student who receives special Education Services
School
Category
Staff Category
Following Block Schedule Special Ed. Academic Voc. Ed.
Admin. Counselor Ed. Ass.
PE
Small (5 sites)
11
22
12
1
5
0
2
Medium (4 sites)
13
13
7
3 4 4 0
Large (3 sites)
14
15
14
2
5
4 0
Total n/category [Blk] 38
50
33
6
14
8
2
Small (7 sites)
8
23
16
3 3
3 3
Medium (2 sites)
3
9
2
1
1
1 1
Large (3 sites)
8
16
12
2
3
3 3
Total n/category [Trad.] 19
48
30 6
7
7
7
1) Special education students whose entire secondary education occurred in schools that use block schedules score significantly higher on academic performance measures than special education students whose entire secondary school education occurred in schools that use traditional schedules.
2) Special education students whose entire secondary education occurred in schools that use block schedules will demonstrate significantly higher attendance rates than special education students whose entire secondary school education occurred in schools that follow traditional schedules.
3) Special education students whose entire secondary education occurred in schools that use block schedules exhibit significantly lower dropout rates than special education students whose entire secondary school education occurred in schools that follow traditional schedules.
4) Special education students whose entire secondary education occurred in schools that use block schedules exhibit significantly lower out-of-school suspensions than special education students whose entire secondary school education occurred in schools that follow traditional schedules.
5) Special education students whose entire secondary education occurred in schools that use block schedules exhibit significantly fewer discipline referrals than special education students whose entire secondary school education occurred in schools that follow traditional schedules.
6) The number of special education completers from block schedule schools who plan to enroll in post secondary education/training is significantly greater than the number of special education completers from traditionally scheduled schools.
7) The variance between the academic achievement levels of special education completers and the academic achievement levels of their non special education classmates in schools that use a block schedule will significantly less than the variance between the academic achievement levels of special education completers and the academic achievement levels of their non special education classmates in schools that use a traditional schedule.
Key Dependent Variables included the following:
Student Performance: u cumulative grade point average; u credits earned; u ACT Verbal; u ACT Math; u WI statewide Knowledge and Concepts Test results; u retentions; u failure rate.
Student Behavior: u discipline referrals; u in-school suspensions; and u out-of-school suspensions.
Special Education Student Goals: u postsecondary plans [college, employment, postsecondary training].
Key Independent Variables included the following:
Organizational: u the schedule used in each school; u class size; u teacher's instructional load.
Student Variables: u disability status; u gender; u course enrollment patterns [number, type, and sequence or courses taken; percentage of mainstream vocational/tech prep, academic, self contained special education courses].
Staff Variables: u teachers' academic specialties; u teachers' instructional goals; u instructors' and other staffs' expectations concerning student performance capabilities; u perceptions regarding control over individual work load and choice of approaches to carry out job duties; u job satisfaction; u perceived strengths/weaknesses of the schedule followed in their respective schools.
Instructional Delivery Variables: u percent of class time per week devoted to lecture, demonstration, discussion/class participation, guided practice, lab work, independent work, group work, and/or community based/workplace experiences; u type, extent, and manner in which teachers used instructional technology; u characteristics of homework assigned; u accommodations provided; u academic support provided.
Quantitative analysis used "school" as the unit of measure, and included t-tests and analyses ov variance to test for main effects and co-variates. Analysis included calculation of effect sizes for any statistically significant findings (.05 level or greater for one-tailed tests). There were no major statewide educational changes preventing the combining of these two data sets, so project staff analyzed them as a single group in order to increase the power of the analysis.
H324C990018 is funded at 100% by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Field Initiated Studies, from July 1, 1999 – June 30, 2002 @ $175,383 for project year three, $531,121 total. The project received a no-cost extension through June 30, 2003. Principal Investigator: Brian Bottge, Assistant Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Co-Principal Investigator: John Gugerty, Researcher, Center on Education and Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
