While no decisions were made, recommendations point to continuing with the four-period day.

Sandy Davis, assistant superintendent for six-12 instruction, presented a list of recommendations to the school board, saying that most students, teachers and parents favored the block scheduling.

Those recommendations are to revisit the “original 1992 ‘Desired Outcomes’ of block scheduling and align with high school reform initiatives in preparing students for 21st century learning and work. The primary focus should be on continuous school improvement. These goals should be continually monitored and refined to determine if they are being implemented and met and how they can be improved.”

A second recommendation calls for exploring the continuation of the block schedule with modifications of some of the existing features for students with special needs or English as a Second Language students.

The study concludes that the high school should, “Continue to expand learning opportunities through partnerships and innovative high school program options” such as the Huskins program with Piedmont Community College, North Carolina School of Science and Math, North Carolina Virtual Public High School, Learn and Earn, and Nova Net.

The study also calls for providing “quality professional development that supports teachers in learning and utilizing best practices and engaging instructional strategies for all courses.

Included should be ongoing attention to effective and varied instructional strategies that engage the learner in high order thinking activities.”

In 2006, Davis said, the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement indicated there were 20 doctoral dissertations focused on high school schedules from 12 states. Eighteen of those studies, she said, compared traditional and block schedules.

“Improved academic achievement was originally the number one reason for converting to a four-period day,” said Davis.

Of the studies noted, nine found no differences in academic achievement between students in the two different schedule types, she reported. Additional findings indicated teachers used the same kinds of instructional strategies with the time allocated to activities being relatively equal, Davis said, noting however that today’s students need more hands-on learning than students of even 15 years ago, when Person High began using the block scheduling.

By holding four, 90-minute classes per day, Davis reported, “Most schools are able to offer a wider variety of courses, especially in electives. Students were able to earn more credits, and if they failed had more opportunities to make up credits and graduate with their class.”

The Person High School Research Committee, she said, “found that, overall, most parents, teachers, and students are satisfied with and have positive opinions of block scheduling. Some teachers, however, point out that some courses, such as Advanced Placement, do not work well on the standard block schedule and would be better as year-long courses and that sequencing of some courses” such as math foreign language “can be a problem. They also liked seeing fewer students on a daily basis,” Davis said, “affording the ability to get to know their students and develop better rapport and relationships with them.”

Four-period days also allow students the option to take college credit classes at PCC, Davis noted.

However, she said, “Students disliked the class length, [had] problems with course sequencing, and the amount of make-up work when absent.” Most parents seem to be satisfied with block scheduling, Davis said, since it allows teachers to spend more individualized time with their children; their children have fewer classes in each semester; have more opportunities to take more courses; and their children’s grades and test scores have risen.

Negatives about block scheduling centered on having fewer total hours within the classroom versus that of a traditional schedule, said Davis, and therefore less time to ‘cover the textbook. Students also reported becoming bored in classes with long teacher talk and mostly book-focused class work.

“Some of this was due to the lack of teacher training for effectively varying engaging activities while teaching in a 90-minute block,” she said.

Davis said a Person County Schools subcommittee focused on recent Person High School data as relates to student achievement and also investigated various scheduling methods used throughout North Carolina as they sought to understand the relationship between scheduling and student achievement.

“They determined that student scheduling alone is not an accurate indicator of student achievement as measured by End of Course scores,” she said.

“Ultimately, student achievement depends less on how the school day is partitioned than on what teachers and students accomplish in the classroom. This subcommittee recognized the system’s partnership with Piedmont Community College had greatly increased the opportunities for many students including classes for college credit, technical certification options, and study in other career-oriented programs.”

Quality teaching time was another expected outcome for the block schedule model, said Davis.

“Prior to and during the early years” of block scheduling here, “the emphasis on professional development focused on” training and developing “best teaching practices and strategies so students were actively engaged in learning. This committee reported professional development for varying strategies has decreased.”

She noted that, “Greater emphasis would help beginning teachers develop effective teaching strategies and act as a refresher for accomplished teachers as we meet the changing needs of our students. Teacher must effectively use the 90-minute class period for the block schedule to be effective,” the study concluded.

School board members made no formal decision on scheduling, but said they appreciated the work done by Davis and the high school staff.