The Call for Block and my 2021 Research Findings

For high school leaders contemplating the adoption of some form of block scheduling

Throughout my entire thirty-three-year teaching career, I’ve repeatedly heard the call — the traditional bell schedule, consisting of five-to-eight, 40–55 minute, meeting-daily class periods, should be replaced with a bell schedule consisting of longer class periods that meet fewer times each day and week (aka a block schedule.)

In the past two years, I’ve heard the call more than ever.

That said, I found myself in the summer and fall of 2021 wanting to learn the answers to the questions appearing below, all relating to “the call for block.”

• How is the term “block schedule” best defined?
• What are some of the pros and cons of block?
• Who in America first called for a block schedule?
• What percentage of high schools in America have responded to that call?
• What percentage of America’s 100 best high schools plan to start the 2021–2022 school year utlizing some form of block?
• What percentage of California’s 20 best high schools plan to start the 2021–2022 school year utlizing some form of block?
• How have New Trier High, La Canada High, and San Marino High responded to the call for block?
• What do the high schools that haven’t yet adopted some form of block have in common?

To learn the answers to these questions, I reached out to the following:

• The National Center for Education Statistics at the US Department of Education.
• The principals heading the 100 best high schools in America.
• The principals heading the 20 best high schools in California.
• Toby Boyd, the president of the California Teachers Association.
• Michael D. Rettig and Robert Lynn, the authors of Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools.
• Donald D. Gainey and John M. Brucato, the authors of the book Questions and Answers about Block Scheduling: An Implementation Guide.
• Don C. Adams and Mary E. Salvaterra, the authors of Block Scheduling: Pathways to Success.
• J. Allen Queen, the author of Block Scheduling Revisited
• Gary Lievre, a retired La Canada High School Social Studies teacher
• Alice Petrossian, the past president of the Association of California School Administrators
• Loren Kleinrock, the former superintendent of the San Marino Unified School District
• Various past and present San Marino High School site and district leaders

I have also read numerous online articles and Michael D. Rettig and Robert Lynn’s 1995 book Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools and J. Allen Queens 2000 article Block Scheduling Revisited.

The history of block scheduling in America

The “first national call for block” can be found in a 1994 U.S. Department of Education publication entitled Prisoners of Time. This publication contained a report from the National Education Commission on Time and Learning that criticized the traditional bell schedule, consisting of five-to-eight, 40–55 minute class periods meeting daily and challenged readers to think differently about class scheduling in high schools. “American students must have more time for learning,” the report stated.

At the heart of this report — the belief that a block schedule, with fewer class periods and interruptions during a school day, would:

1. Reduce the time teachers spend on routine administrative or classroom-management tasks — such as taking attendance, handing out and collecting materials, or preparing for and wrapping up activities — thus increasing the total amount of time students are engaged in meaningful and productive learning activities.
2. Reduce the time students spend in the hallways moving between classes and thus increase the number of minutes available for learning.

The traditional bell schedule, consisting of five-to-eight, 40–55 minute class periods meeting daily, said the report, “should be relegated to museums, an exhibit from our education past.”

Based on this report, the U.S. Department of Education recommended that high schools throughout America adopt some form of block scheduling.

Accordingly, the use of block scheduling increased, with nearly 40% of all public high schools utilizing some form of block by 2008. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).

However, “the reason that so many schools went to block during this period,” says former SMUSD superintendent Loren Kleinrock, “had little to do with a desire to increase learning.”

“That’s correct,” said one of the principals I talked to during the summer of 2020 and whose school went block in 2006. “The primary reason so many schools went block in the years following the National Education Commission Report was to reduce the number of fights in the hallways. It was believed back then, and rightfully, that if students were to spend less time in the hallways, there would be fewer fights in the hallways.”

“That’s certainly what happened at my school,” said one of the other principals I talked to. “In the first semester, after my school went to block in 2007, we didn’t have a single hallway fight, a first for our school. Block led to quieter hallways during passing periods with the students seeming to be in less of a hurry, though the five-minute passing period remained the same.”

Then with the birth of the Common Core Standards in 2009 and the related call for teachers to provide students with a more student-centered learning environment, even more educators found themselves concluding that it was “time for block.”

“It was believed, and still is,” says one of the principals I spoke to this past summer, that it is “far easier (for teachers) to respond to the Common Core Standards and to establish a student-centered learning environment within the confines of a block schedule than within the confines of a traditional 45–55 minute schedule.”

When working within the confines of a block schedule, argues The Glossary of Education Reform, teachers are better able to “utilize more varied or innovative instructional techniques, cover more content with fewer interruptions, provide students with more attention and one-on-one support, and engage students in more sustained, in-depth learning activities, including more sophisticated projects, teamwork-based exercises, or other activities.”

Then with the 2018 Stoneman Douglas (Parkland) High School shootings and the follow-up calls for a greater focus on student and teacher “wellness,” even more educators found themselves concluding that it was “time for block.” Scheduling fewer classes per day,” it was argued, “reduces burdens on both teachers and students.”

In a traditional five-to-eight period day, the Glossary of Education Reform explains, “teachers need to prepare for up to eight courses and possibly double the number of students. Consequently, teachers may be forced to rush the grading of work, provide less substantive feedback to students, or hastily plan and organize lessons.”

Furthermore, says the Glossary, “a traditional five-to-eight period day requires students to prepare for more courses, which can be overwhelming.”

Also, notes the Glossary, “the more students teachers have to see each day, the less time and attention they can devote to each student. Consequently, (with a traditional schedule) student-teacher relationships may not be as strong (as with a block schedule), and students, particularly those with significant learning needs or disabilities, may not get the personal attention and support they may need to succeed in a course.” Healthy student-teacher relationships, the Glossary appears to suggest, are needed more so than ever today.

“A wonderful stress buster,” said one of the principals I talked to, “that’s what block is.” Another said, “with block, the pace just seems to be a little different, a little slower, a little gentler. A saner, less hectic school day, that’s what you get with block.”

Then as schools planned to reopen in the Spring of 2020 after a year of Covid-19 induced shutdown, even more educators called for block, with this call often sounding a far greater tone of urgency as school leaders tried to find the safest transition from a Covid-induced remote learning environment to a face-to-face learning environment.

Despite all the calls for block made in the past 27 years, not every educator has “bought into block.” Below, a few representative arguments made by critics of block scheduling:

• Students (particularly at certain developmental stages) cannot stay focused for longer periods of time
• Knowledge retention will be diminished if classes, math, and foreign language, in particular, do not meet every day.
• Block scheduling, for it to prove effective, often requires significant changes in the way lessons are structured and taught. This may lead to teachers resisting or disliking the call for block because they feel less confident with the new format, or they are emotionally attached to a more familiar scheduling system. If teachers from the outset are overly resistant to block, the Glossary suggests, most attempts at block are sure to fail.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of block, all can agree that school-by-school variations in block-scheduling systems are numerous, with the most common formulations (according to Education Reform)including:

• An “A/B” or “alternating-day” block schedule in which students take eight 90-minute classes that meet every other day.
• A “trimester” schedule in which students take two or three core courses at a time, with each class meeting daily, over three 60-day trimesters.
• A “75–15–75–15” schedule in which students take four 75-minute classes every day and finish courses in a semester, with each semester followed by an intensive 15-day learning-enrichment course or remedial program. Another variation is the “75–75–30” schedule, which uses only a single 30-day intersession rather than two 15-day intersessions.
• A “Copernican” schedule in which students have longer classes for core academic subjects during one half of the school day and shorter daily periods for electives such as physical education or music during the second half of the day.
• A “4 x 4” block schedule in which students take four 90-minute classes every day and finish a course in one semester rather than a full school year

As for the question of what percentage of high schools in America today are utilizing some form of block scheduling, I have learned that approximately:

• 80% of the 100 best high schools in America currently utilize some form of block
• 80% of the 20 best high schools in California currently utilize some form of block.

I have also learned that when a school principal, heading one of the best schools in America, reports that his/her school hasn’t yet adopted some form of block, its because that school was either:

• Founded long before World War II.
• Founded in a politically conservative community between 1945–1965.
• Founded between 1965–1975 by community leaders determined to provide their students with an anti-hippie, anti-counterculture learning environment.
• Founded after 1975 for religious reasons.

One more thing I’ve learned — of all the best schools in America that have experimented with block, not one has reverted to a traditional bell schedule (On the other hand, I did find a few schools that have experimented with block, are not on any of my “best-of” lists, and that have reverted to a traditional bell schedule. (Glendale’s Hoover High School, for example — this because “Hoover’s immigrant population struggled to embrace block scheduling.”)

New Trier High School and its Response to the Call for Block

New Trier is a four-year high school that serves the Chicago suburbs of Wilmette, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glencoe, and Northfield as well as portions of Northbrook, Glenview, and unincorporated Cook County.

The school was founded in 1901and ranked, by Newsweek magazine in 2016, as the top open-enrollment high school in Illinois and the 17th best high school in the country.

During Covid, New Trier not only moved to block for the first time in its 121 year history, but it also found itself committed to the adoption of some form of block for the 2021–2022 school year.

On April 28, I spoke for a half-hour over the phone with Paul Waechtler, the principal at New Trier High School. Below, what he said.

• Before Covid, New Trier had never adopted any form of block scheduling, though the district’s long-term strategic planners were envisioning (in the years leading up to Covid) that the school would adopt some form of block by the start of the 2023–24 academic school year. “Covid accelerated this timeline.
• Above all else, we decided to move to block because we believe that a block schedule has a better potential of reducing student stress levels than any traditional schedule.
• We also believe that scheduling fewer classes per day reduces stress on the teachers.
• Most of our teachers, as well as most of our department chairs, support the move to block. Our Science, Social Studies, and English Department Chairs most strongly support the move to block.
• Our math teachers are a mixed bag” when it comes to the support of block. So too our Special Education teachers.
• 2/3rds of the best schools in the Midwest have adopted some form of block, though 1/3 of these schools offer a “blended form of block.
• We believe that our fall block schedule will help us to better achieve one of our primary goals — to have students enjoy coming to school every day and then end up viewing their time here at New Trier as a great overall experience.

San Marino High School and its Response to the Call for Block

San Marino High School, where I teach, is a high-performing, 9th-12th grade public school located twenty miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Since first opening its doors in 1952, the school has utilized some form of a traditional schedule. Yet, for the past decade, the question of whether San Marino High School should adopt some form of block scheduling has been discussed numerous times, with the issue last officially visited in 2016.

It was then that the San Marino High School Academic Advisory Committee concluded that it was “not timely” to consider the adoption of even a basic and simplistic form of block scheduling.

The AAC’s reasoning boiled down to the following:

• “The average maturity level of our freshmen and sophomores” wouldn’t support the adoption of some form of block scheduling.
• The call for the adoption of some form of block scheduling would need the teachers to engage in an “extensive and transformational change to instruction” and, given all the other changes that the teachers in 2016 were being called upon to make (with these changes related to the rollout of the Common Core State Standards), the timing somehow wasn’t right.
• The adoption of some form of block scheduling would result in “the students who are involved in certain activities like athletics and speech and debate finding themselves (falling) far behind in their classes due to regular absences related to these activities.”
• A block schedule is suited best to English, Social Studies, and some CTE — project-based learning courses. Block is not as useful in Math, Science, World Languages, PE, and Health.

Then in March of 2020, the school shut down due to Covid fears.

A year later, and in the weeks leading up to the 2021 Spring Break, SMHS statistics teacher and SMTA negotiator Russell Silver emailed the faculty with what appears below.

“Hello all. I will be meeting with Jason and others this afternoon to discuss what our daily/weekly schedule will look like if and when we return to school (after Spring Break). To this end, would you please take a few minutes to fill out the attached survey? I very much want to ascertain what our staff’s priorities are.”

One question the survey asked was, “How open are you to adjusting to a block schedule when we come back this semester? (5 = Very open)”

Below, the results of this survey question.

“This survey finding,” said SMHS Principal Jason Kurtenbach, “provides insight into how some staff felt (those who completed the survey) about block scheduling when considering how we might approach the rest of the 20–21 school year while managing online and in-person learning. Therefore the results truly only articulate how people feel about that particular opportunity. I am not sure that one can extrapolate those results to how people think about block scheduling as a whole. It also doesn’t seem appropriate to dismiss the results out of hand.

Principal Kurtenbach then encouraged the faculty to “continue to have this and other conversations regarding all things in education. The free and kind exchange of ideas helps us all grow, learn and improve.”

Below, what some teachers said when I, in response to Mr. Silver’s survey findings, revealed that I am a fan of block scheduling.

• Prior to (my having been hired here at) San Marino, I’ve taught at schools with block scheduling . . . and I really liked it . . . I think block scheduling allows for teachers to dive deeper into content/a particular lesson, instead of having to break things up into 50-minute chunks that students then have to review again the next day.
• This is not a discussion that should be had over email.
• Block? Over my dead body!
• I’m for block, and I know many teachers at this school who feel the same but are afraid to say so. They fear getting their teeth kicked in if they don’t say what the anti-block teachers want to hear.
• We say we’re a college prep high school but look at our bell schedule. How many colleges have a bell schedule like that?
• Why are we talking about this now? We have SO MUCH on our plates just finishing the year.
• Block scheduling is counterproductive for math learning. Students can not absorb the quantity of information we would be forced to teach in a single period if we resorted to block. I can guarantee there would be losses in Math, and possibly Science and World Languages as well.
• This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.
• My block scheduling experience both as a high school student AND a high school teacher was GREAT! On both sides of the fence, I saw the benefits of block scheduling beyond the individual classroom.
• I believe I speak for the Science Dept; we are not in support of a block schedule.
• I’m a science teacher, and I can’t entirely agree with the statement that the SMHS Science Department teachers do not support the idea of a block schedule. I’m somewhere in the middle between those who support the call for block and those who are opposed to it. Just haven’t yet decided one way or another.
• The survey revealed that nearly 80% of the faculty are open to block. Perhaps it’s time for the school to give block another look.

After administering the survey, Mr. Silver and fellow SMTA negotiator Jana Downey produced a “block schedule” that they presented to principal Kurtenbach during the referenced return-to-school after Spring Break planning meeting.

After looking over Silver and Downey’s schedule, Principal Kurtenbach decided to adopt a more traditional bell schedule.

Mr. Silver recalls Mr. Kurtenbach as saying, “in this case, it’s best to go with something that the students and teachers are familiar with.”

School leaders also decided to “go with a traditional bell schedule” at the start of the 2021–2022 school year.

Given those two back-to-back administrative decisions, I reached out to a number of past and present SMHS site and district leaders to find out how they might respond to those calling for the adoption of block for the 2022–2023 school year.

Below, a representative sampling of the response I received.

• As the SMUSD leaves the pandemic year behind, many will no doubt be tempted to revert to pre-pandemic routines and operations. However, reverting to pre-pandemic practices without reflecting and learning from the year would be unfortunate. There is an opportunity to grow from the year and a half — to use the lessons learned to reset patterns and expectations for student learning. As a school district committed to positive growth and whole-child instruction, implementing block scheduling is an opportunity that ought to be seized to pivot to a challenging yet nurturing learning environment that puts students first.
• Many years ago, I attended a conference where the speaker claimed that “the typical high school still operates on an instructional model that was implemented during the Industrial Age with a school calendar that is a relic from the earlier agrarian period.’” That’s how I view the traditional schedule. As a relic of the past.
• Every high school I know, with the exception of San Marino, has some form of block schedule. That seems strange to me but what seems even more strange are the arguments I keep hearing as to why we should hold on to our nearly 75-year-old traditional bell schedule.
• I’m agnostic when it comes to the issue of block, though if pressed to take a stand, I’d stand on the side that calls for the adoption of some form of block coupled with a serious encouragement for, if not providing of, professional development.
• If we were to take a deep dive into the question of whether the high school should adopt some form of block in 2023–2023, we will probably find that the benefits outweigh the costs.
• Linda Darling-Hammond has it correct when she says that “the current comprehensive high school model is an outmoded relic and incompatible with today’s workplace. Today teachers need to spend more time with their students, either through longer periods or having educators teach the same group for multiple years.” (Darling-Hammond is one of the nation’s foremost education researchers and policy analysts, a professor of education emeritus at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education, and a member of the CA State Board of Education.)
• I’ve had years of experience working with both a block and a traditional bell schedule. I give a thumbs up to block.

I also received this

I have no strong feelings either way when it comes to the issue of block scheduling as long as it is in the best interests of the students. I do, however, urge caution as school officials start to officially consider the move to block. Here are some issues to consider, in no particular order:

Determine whether collective bargaining is required to implement block scheduling. You don’t want to get far down the road and then find out that certain terms need to be negotiated in order to implement block.

Even if collective bargaining is not required, buy-in from all stakeholders is essential. Administrators who will implement block scheduling have to be on board. It is imperative to have a healthy majority of the teachers/coaches support the call for block, and SMTA’s official endorsement is important. You may also want to get the middle school teachers and admins to support the call for block . . . if only because the high school’s move to block may require that the middle school also moves to block, even if that move is only to take place years down the road. If teachers are not happy, they will complain to parents and administrators, and parents will complain to the superintendent and school board, and that may impact support for block scheduling. Keep in mind that historically, San Marino doesn’t like change, so it’s important to get the parents and broader community to buy in as well.

Be prepared with a communications strategy to engage and inform stakeholders to ensure that you are controlling the message and that the effort will be successful.

Consider when the timing for introduction and implementation is the best. On the one hand, we know that many teachers are exhausted from this past year and a half and may not have the energy to adapt their curriculum and lesson plans yet another time for block scheduling. On the other hand, the pandemic may have led to an acceptance of change and a willingness to see the benefits of block scheduling, and teachers may be more open to making the move toward block scheduling given there has been so much change already.

Bottom line — I suggest that before you move forward with this, you first develop a methodical and strategic plan — one geared to ensuring communication, engagement, and buy-in.

La Canada High School and its Response to the Call for Block

La Canada High is yet another high-performing high school located less than an hour's drive from downtown Los Angeles.

Founded in 1963, the school adopted a block (Red and Gold) bell schedule in the early 1970s, though for reasons I’ve been unable to ascertain (despite my having graduated from LCHS in 1976.

On the other hand, during the spring of 2021, I did learn the following from LCHS principal Mr. Jim Cartnal:

• The school since the 1970s revised its Red and Gold (block) schedule to include three full, six-period days and two block schedule days with only three periods.
• LCHS plans to open the 2021–2022 school year with a bell schedule that includes “one day of daily demand (all six classes) and four block days, where busy students only need to prepare for three of their subjects for each following day.”
• “The goal here is two-fold: We think that a greater embracing of a block schedule will not only result in teachers being able to provide their students with more sustained and engaging in-depth learning activities, we also think it will lead to a reduction in student and teacher stress and strain.”

The 20 Best Schools in California and their Response to the Call for Block

This past summer, I asked former SMUSD Superintendent Loren Kleinrock to provide me with the names of the 20 best high schools in California.

I then contacted the principals at each of those schools, asking what kind of bell schedule the school would utilize for 2021–2022. The principals at seventeen of the twenty schools said that their school would start the 2021–2022 school year utlizing some form of block scheduling.

1. Agoura
2. Calabasas
3. Campolindo
4. CA Academy of Mathematics & Science
5. Cupertino
6. Harvard Westlake
7. Henry Gunn
8. La Canada
9. Lynbrook
10. Mission San Jose
11. Monta Vista
12. Oak Park
13. Oxford
14. Piedmont
15. Saratoga
16. University
17. Whitney (though my admin contacts at Whitney tell me that they will probably be adopting some form of block for 2022–23.)

Below, the three California schools that can be found on Mr. Kleinrock’s “best-of” list and that did not start the 2021–2022 school year utilizing some form of block.

1. Lowell
2. Palos Verdes (not PV Pennisula)
3. San Marino

From the above, it appears that, as of June 18, at least 85% of the best schools in California kicked off the 2021–2022 school utilizing some form of block scheduling

The 25 Better Known Schools in Los Angeles County and their Response to the Call for Block

The list below contains the name of twenty-five of the better know schools in Los Angeles County, though not one of these schools is to be found on any list of the top 100 schools in America.

• The names of schools followed by the word “Yes” are schools where the school’s principal has confirmed that his/her school WILL begin the 2021–2022 school utilizing some form of block scheduling
• The names of schools followed by the word “Yes-P” are schools where the school’s website suggests that this school WILL begin the 2021–2022 school utilizing some form of block scheduling, though this school’s principal has not yet confirmed.
• The names of schools followed by the word “No” are schools where the school’s principal has confirmed that his/her school WILL NOT begin the 2021–2022 school utilizing some form of block scheduling

1. Alhambra — Yes
2. Azusa — Yes-P
3. Claremont — Yes
4. Crescenta Valley — Yes
5. Diamond Bar — Yes-P
6. Duarte — No
7. Flintridge Prep — Yes-P
8. Gabriello — Yes-P
9. Glendora — Yes
10. Loyola — Yes
11. Mira Costa — Yes-P
12. Monrovia — Yes-P
13. Montebello — Yes
14. Rosemead — Yes-P
15. Palos Verdes — Yes
16. Polytechnic — No
17. San Gabriel — Yes-P
18. San Dimas High Yes — P
19. South Pasadena — Yes
20. St. Francis — Yes
21. Temple City — No
22. Thousand Oaks — No
23. Villiage Christian — Yes
24. Walnut — Yes
25. Westridge Yes — P

From the above, it appears that, as of June 18, at least 80% of the better known (though not top tier high schools in Los Angeles County School) kicked off the 2021-2022 school utilizing some form of block scheduling

The 100 Best Schools in America and their Response to the Call for Block

The list below contains the name of the 100 best high schools in America.

• The names of schools followed by the word “Yes” are schools where the school’s principal has confirmed that his/her school WILL begin the 2021–2022 school utilizing some form of block scheduling
• The names of schools followed by the word “Yes-P” are schools where the school’s website suggests that this school WILL begin the 2021–2022 school utilizing some form of block scheduling, though this school’s principal has not yet confirmed.
• The names of schools followed by the word “No” are schools where the school’s principal has confirmed that his/her school WILL NOT begin the 2021–2022 school utilizing some form of block scheduling.

From the above, it appears that, as of June 18, at least 80% of the 100 best high schools in America kicked off the 2021–2022 school utilizing some form of block scheduling.

The CTA and the Call for Block

For months, I’ve been told that in California “block must be negotiated.”

To find out if this is true, I reached out to Toby Boyd, the president of the California Teachers Association. His response appears below.

The setting of a new schedule within the confines of an established work/contact day may not strictly be a mandatory subject of bargaining (and more a management prerogative), but shifting from a regular schedule to block typically has many potential impacts that are or are likely bargainable (such as the number and length of prep periods, different prep and grading
requirements, the number of subjects taught and student contacts
required (“class sizes”), and possibly others depending on how the two
systems were/are structured).

Therefore, as a practical matter, the change will likely have to be bargained to be implemented (to accommodate the various impacts the proposed change may create).

Of course, some local associations forego formal bargaining over the
shift and instead develop the program jointly on an informal basis or,
unfortunately, sometimes without much input at all.

For Those Looking to Create a Block Bell Schedule

Click here for a free tool to help school and district leaders create a block bell schedule and visualize how this change to their existing traditional bell schedule might impact the student and staff experience..