(posted Monday, Sept 10, 2007)

New CEEP policy brief examines alternative school time structures.

Engaged academic learning, community support, and consistent evaluation is needed to determine if alternative school time schedules make a difference in student learning, according to a new report from the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) at the Indiana University School of Education. The authors of “School Time Issues: A Look at the Relationship Between Time and Academic Achievement” conclude there’s not enough research to determine if they produce positive academic outcomes.

The brief considers several nontraditional school time structures used in Indiana and throughout the country, including block scheduling, trimesters, and year-round schooling. Report co-author Terry Spradlin, associate director of education policy at CEEP, said about a third of high schools national in 2001 used some form of block scheduling, many use a trimester system, and around twenty use year-round schedules. Schools are considering longer hours and longer school years to address shortfalls in meeting “Adequate Yearly Progress” under the “No Child Left Behind” law. “There’s not a clear body of evidence that says those alternative class schedules are more effective,” Spradlin said. The report acknowledges there is recent research indicating adolescents might learn more effectively if the school day started later.

Spradlin said that schools must carefully consider time changes before implementing them. “Do they expect that they’ll have higher student outcomes for that?” he said. “If that’s their strategy, then that’s probably very shortsighted. Really, they need to couple time changes with other school reforms.”

In particular, administrators and teachers must make sure the time allocated for instruction involves engaged academic learning. “That requires a rigorous and relevant curriculum that the students find engaging,” Spradlin said. The report cites overwhelming evidence that students don’t feel engaged in their classes. The latest High School Survey for Student Engagement national survey issued earlier this year by CEEP found two in three students said they are bored in class every day. The authors recommend curriculum changes accompany any time shift.

Changes in the school schedule mean adjustments for transportation to and from school as well, meaning schools corporations must rearrange bus routes and parents must work around work schedules. “So community support is vital,” Spradlin said. “Without that support, I think it will be a short-lived reform.” The report recommends any change come from the community, not be imposed upon it.

Finally, the report concludes that more evaluation of time changes should be done. “Evaluation of these models is imperative,” the report states, “to determine the most efficient and effective use of time to support academic achievement.”

The full report may be viewed at http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V5N6_Summer_2007_EPB.pdf.

CEEP promotes and supports rigorous program evaluation and policy research primarily, but not exclusively, for education, human services and non-profit organizations. Its research uses both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. To learn more about CEEP, go to http://ceep.indiana.edu .

Media Outlets: the following comments are available as mp3 files on the IU School of Education Website at http://education.indiana.edu/news/tabid/5663/Default.aspx. Look for the story headline under “Podcasts.”

Spradlin says schools must do more than just add time to the day:
“Do they expect that they’ll have higher student outcomes for that? If that’s their strategy just by adding more time, that they expect that outcome, then that’s probably very shortsighted. Really they need to couple time changes with other school reforms. You know, professional development, teachers need to be trained on how to use that time more effectively. If they add more time they need to ensure that the time is geared toward engaged academic learning time, not necessarily time that they’re in school, but not utilizing the time wisely, but that they’re actually receiving instruction; the students are engaged in the learning process.”

Without the community backing the change, Spradlin says it will fail:
“Community support is vital. A school district should make a change with an informed community, a community that’s behind and supporting the change versus mandating the change and imposing it on families, parents and students. I think if a school district can build support, build awareness of why the change is necessary then the administrators and teachers will likely find a much more supportive parent and family network that will make sure their kids are there on time that they’ll realize the benefits of adding the time to the school day or the school year or the changes in the start time of the school day.”

Spradlin says the different class schedules just don’t have the research that backs up definite success:
“We looked at some variations in class schedules, block scheduling and trimester schedules. Block scheduling I think more than a third of our high schools in Indiana are on a block schedule, presently, so that’s nothing new per se. Same with trimester scheduling, many of the year round schools, and we have 21 year round schools in Indiana, but a number of them nationwide. Many of the year round schools use a trimester schedule. That’s nothing new, but ‘we tried to look at to see whether those types of schedules produce greater academic outcomes for students. And there’s not a clear body of evidence that says those alternative class schedules are more effective per se.”

For More Information, Contact:

Chuck Carney
Director of Communications and Media Relations
Office: (812) 856-8027
ccarney@indiana.edu