Apodaca: Block scheduling is one way but not a panacea

To block or not?

That is a question being posed at secondary schools across the country, and the answers are as varied as they are controversial.

I’m referring to block schedules, a catch-all term used for the myriad types of modified schedules that generally call for fewer, longer periods during a school day. Block scheduling has been widely praised by some educators and parents as a means of adding depth and flexibility to instruction, while critics deride it as just another educational fad with no rational underpinning.

Complicating the debate is the lack of large, systemwide studies of block scheduling’s effectiveness. Supporters can point to small-scale research focusing on positive trends in test scores or other outcomes at certain schools and districts, while opponents just as easily pull targeted data buttressing their views. Sweeping generalizations simply aren’t credible.

Even assessing how many schools actually use block schedules is plagued with uncertainty. I’ve seen references to anywhere from one-third to 70% of secondary schools adopting some form of block scheduling. Enthusiasm for the practice varies considerably by state, county and district.

Fad or not, it’s easy to see the allure of block scheduling as we struggle to add depth and complexity to education, a movement that has led us to the adoption this year of the rigorous Common Core State Standards.

Twenty years ago, an influential report by the National Education Commission on Time and Learning said that students had become “prisoners of time,” a sentiment that resonates today as we try to move away from passive instruction and rote learning, and focus more on helping students become creative, innovative thinkers.

But whether block scheduling really lends to that effort remains an open question.

“There’s no conclusive data that it’s better or worse,” said Steve McLaughlin, Newport-Mesa Unified’s director of secondary education, although he acknowledged that he’s had “a great experience” working with block schedules as both a teacher and administrator. “It comes down to a management-teacher conversation at each level.”

My only experience with block scheduling was 13 years ago, when my older son was in seventh grade at Corona del Mar Middle School, which then had a modified block schedule two days a week.

I liked that system, in part because it allowed my son more flexibility in his homework and study time. I was disappointed when the school dropped it in favor of a traditional schedule, yet I could easily see that some students might not have responded as well as he did to the modified schedule.

Another reason it’s difficult to draw conclusions about block schedules generally is that there is no one way to do it. Every school makes its own decisions about how to schedule classes, attempting to provide answers that work best for its teachers and students. A block schedule at one campus might bear only a passing resemblance to that of another.

Generally, block schedules fit into a few rather loose categories. The most common is to have three to four classes per day, with each class meeting on alternate days.

This is the type of scheduling used at Newport Harbor and Estancia high schools, and at many other schools, such as Northwood High in Irvine.

At each of those campuses, students attend odd-numbered periods one day, then the even periods on the alternate day. Over a two-week time frame, each class meets a total of five times, but for much longer sessions than a traditional six-to-eight-class-a-day schedule.

The other types of block schedules commonly utilized focus more on breaking up the entire school year into blocks of time much shorter than typical semesters. During each block a student might take just three or four courses, then switch to new classes during the next block.

Proponents of block schedules see many benefits. Less time is wasted on housekeeping items, such as attendance-taking, and on settling down students, they say.

Instead of a pressurized, assembly-line environment, more time in each period can be given to engaging students in both individualized instruction and cooperative learning activities. Students can also be challenged with deep-thinking exercises, such as experiments and writing, they contend.

But many see block schedules as little more than gimmickry. Any possible benefits come at too high a price in a lack of continuity, they say, particularly in subjects such as math and languages, which require sequential instruction.

Another frequently cited problem is that students miss far more instruction time when they are absent from block-scheduled classes, and could quickly fall behind, particularly in demanding Advanced Placement courses with rigid timetables for covering large amounts of material.

Ultimately, the decision to go to block scheduling is one that must be made based on the needs and goals of each school. While teachers have the final say on scheduling issues, based on their union contracts, parents and students must also have a voice in this issue that deeply impacts them.

Even the most-ardent advocates of block scheduling, however, stress that it shouldn’t be viewed as a panacea, just one of many tools used to foster the right environment for the challenges of secondary education today. That tool will only be useful if other elements — sufficient teacher training, administrative support, and student buy-in — are also present.

PATRICE APODACA is a former Newport-Mesa public school parent and former Los Angeles Times staff writer. She lives in Newport Beach.