I've taught traditional scheduling, and I've taught block scheduling. While each has it benefits, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that traditional scheduling is better for the majority of the students.
Good points about block scheduling:
Students focus on only four classes per semester; that means only four teachers, only four books, only four possible papers or four upcoming tests at any given time, etc.
Since students are in each class for 90 minutes/day, there are fewer class changes during the school day. Class changes are wasted time, and they are typically the time when students tend to get into fights or other mischief -- fewer class changes means fewer opportunities for these things.
Block scheduling means fewer students per class. Look at it this way: let's say you have 1000 students in a high school, and you have 7 English teachers -- let's make it simple and pretend that all the numbers work out evenly. In a traditional 6-period day, each teacher teaches five classes and has one planning period; thus, each teaches 142 students or 28 students per class. In block scheduling, those teachers will teach six classes per year (three classes per day X two semesters plus a planning period each semester); thus, each class will have 23 students per class. Of course, that's in theory.
Block scheduling means that teachers have fewer students at any given time upon which they need to focus. Back when we taught traditional schedules, I usually had close to 150 students between my five classes. Right now I have more like 75 between three classes. This means that when I collect papers, I have fewer to grade at any one time -- I can return them more quickly, which is better for the students.
Block scheduling saves money on books. If the school has 1000 students, and they all need an English book for the entire school year, the school must buy 1000 books. On the other hand, if 50% of the students take English in the fall and 50% of the students take English in the spring . . . the school can buy 550 books and be perfectly safe. Our high school textbooks are running $60-80 each these days -- cheaper alternatives just don't exist -- and schools aren't made of money.
Block scheduling means the student has the opportunity to take more classes during his high school career. In a traditional schedule, the student can take 6 classes X 4 years, or 24 classes. In a block scheduling school, the student can potentially take 8 classes X 4 years, or 32 classes. If you map out what a college-bound student would need to take, you'll see that all those extra sciences and the two foreign languages kind of prevent the student from taking "fun classes" like Modern Fitness or Art. On the other hand, with block scheduling, the student can squeeze in both Chemistry AND band or ROTC -- he doens't have to choose.
Block scheduling means that a senior who's performed well during his first three years can potentially finish his or her coursework mid-year and "graduate" in December. This would allow the student to begin college classes or go to work full-time in January.
Block scheduling also means that a student who has messed up and failed some important classes could possibly come back for JUST fall semester to repeat those 1-2 classes that prevented him from graduating. Some failing students would be willing to return August -December . . . but if it meant a whole year, they'd just drop out.
Block scheduling is most beneficial for lab classes, home ec classes, PE classes -- you know, classes in which "setting up" for the day's activities requires some time.
Block scheduling means that the class is completed in 90 days instead of 180. For a student approaching a much-hated class, this can be the silver lining to a bad situation.
A student who is seriously sick -- or who has a baby, perhaps -- can take a semester off, then return the following semester . . . and he or she can still graduate on time.
Now for the negatives -- and in my mind they are significant, especially for the low-level student:
Do the math: With a traditional schedule, the student receives 180 days x 55 minutes of instruction (9900 minutes). With block scheduling, the student receives 90 days x 90 minutes (8100 minutes). The student loses 900 minutes of instruction -- that's more than 16 traditional class periods! How is this legal? The school (well, actually, I think it's the county or the school system) must write a request asking permission to give credit with fewer hours.
Since we began block scheduling, I've been forced to give more homework to make up for the missing class time (despite the fact that a certain percentage of my students just won't do it no matter what), and I still cover MUCH LESS material than I did in the past. We have so much emphasis on making sure the kids pass the state tests these days; those things are taught, and many of the other little things that made the school day enjoyable are passed over because there's simply not enough time.
We move so much more quickly on block scheduling that a student who's out can quickly fall so far behind that he never really catches up. In the past, we might've read two chapters of a novel each evening; with block scheduling we have to read four chapters -- for a poor reader or a kid with a reading disability, that's a daunting task, and many just won't even try. Missing a day in block scheduling is bad; missing several days ALWAYS results in some loss of learning and ultimately grades.
While block scheduling allows a good, motivated student the opportunity to sample lots of elective classes, it gives a poor student a good excuse to quit trying. I've had more than one student say something along these lines: "Well, I had a bad grade on my research paper, and it's just too much work to try to bring my average up to passing now -- I'll just quit coming this semster. I can come back in the spring and start this class again." We've always had kids with this apathetic attitude, but it has increased exponentially with block scheduling. The potential "second chance" gives kids an excuse not to buckle down and do their best.
A student who is absent a week or so may come back to find himself so hopelessly behind that he just can't do it -- remember, we have a certain number of kids who aren't trying to get into college or graduate in the top 25 -- they just hope that they can do their best and manage to graduate with Cs and Ds. Last semester I had a good kid who was very, very sick with the flu -- real flu, she was hospitalized, and she was too sick to keep up with her work during her illness -- and she ended up dropping out for the semester. She missed so much that she just couldn't manage the make-up work, so she went to the community college and picked up a GED instead. Under traditional scheduling, she might've had a fighting chance.
As I said above, in theory, block scheduling classes should be smaller. In reality, we're seeing MANY more repeaters -- students who have failed the class and are forced to take it a second time. Right now I have two senior English classes; in those two classes I have SEVEN students who failed the class in the fall semester and have been "recycled" back into my class a second time. This is a lose-lose situation for both the student and the teacher. At least under traditional scheduling, the student had the summer to "get over" having failed the class -- now he's thrown right back into it immediately, often with the same teacher.
Because of the kids' attention spans, the teacher is forced to change activities frequently (the mind can only absorb what the butt can withstand). So we might start with a discussion of last nights' reading, then switch to a 10-minute groupwork activity, then come back together to check the work, then move on to grammar, and finally end with a short quiz. We are forced to work "movement" into the day's lessons because it "perks up" the kids and keeps them going; for example, I have them move in and out of groups for quick activities, and I store their grammar books on a shelf in the back of the room so that they have to get up and go get them -- the movement does perk them up, but it also means I have to get them settled back down into their desks and quiet again before we can begin our next activity (wasted time).
Classes like English and history are the worst for block scheduling; unlike lab classes, set-up time isn't a factor for us. However, we are forced to assign larger blocks of reading each evening, and for some students that isn't a realistic thing. We teachers are split on whether we should use class time to do some of the reading: We're already teaching on an abbreviated schedule, so it doesn't seem right to use our limited time, yet we know a certain number of our students aren't capable of reading 3, 4, 5 chapters per night independently.
You already brought up one big issue: The student who takes math or foreign language in the fall of his sophomore year could potentially not encounter the next level class until spring of his junior year. In theory, the student should've committed the material to memory so that the lapse of time is irrelevant; in reality . . . well, that isn't always true -- especially for weaker students in thier weaker subjects.
With class time at a premium, our schools have dropped many fun things that used to boost school spirit and make kids enjoy their high school experience. Having already lost 16 class days though, we no longer have pep rallies, assemblies, senior picnics, and yearbook signing periods -- we can't afford to do it. As a result, many students see school simply as drudgery. Morale and school spirit are down.
Students who take AP tests have a surprising issue with block scheduling. These are national tests, and they are ONLY given on specific days in early May. So the AP student has two options: 1) Take the class in the fall semester, then wait 4-5 months to take the expensive test which determines whether he receives college credit, or 2) Take the class in the spring semester and take the test before he's finished the class. Obviously, the student in a traditional schedule has a big leg-up on the AP tests.
The same thing is true for the SAT. Let's say two juniors sit for the SAT in January or February. Luck of the draw gave one of these students math and English in the fall semester -- he's just finished an intensive vocabulary study, and he's finished Trig. He's going to outperform his counterpart whose elective classes fell in the fall semester. Of course, that second junior can plan to take the SAT again, or he can plan to take it later in the year.
While block scheduling has some benefits (most of them theoretical), I know that I taught more material, and I knew my students better back when we had a traditional schedule. My students now seem to pass through so quickly that frequently I'll run into them at the grocery store a year after graduation, and I won't remember their names; I have a better recollection of those students from a decade ago prior to block scheduling -- I had more time with them.
)
) and I was in work experience... I also had to take PE my senior year... because we only needed 2 years, your freshman year then you could blow it off for band or ROTC or another elective and do it at the college but I was too lazy... so I ended up taking it in my senior year!! OK I think I am going to end this novel because it probably makes NO sense... hope it helps!
