In 1983 the findings of a national study of American schools indicated that American students were performing behind their counterparts in a number of industrialized nations. This landmark study, A Nation at Risk, prompted numerous research initiatives to improve American schooling. Common findings of these initiatives were the over-reliance of traditional high school programs on memorization and teacher-directed instruction and limited opportunities for students to engage in active, participatory learning, higher-order thinking and accelerated class work. As a result of these findings, many college preparatory schools began to experiment with classroom scheduling modifications that would provide more time for more in-depth forms of teaching and learning. Thus the 4x4 block schedule was born as a response to the challenges of modern education.

What is a 4x4 Block Schedule?

A Block Schedule organizes class time into 4 one semester 90-minute classes instead of 7 two semester 45-50 minute classes. In the Block Schedule students take 8 classes per year.

Proponents of the 4x4 Block Schedule maintain that this type of schedule is particularly suited for college bound students because of the following:

In the summer of 1994 the St. Scholastica faculty began its own investigation of a block schedule and the above ideas. The research consisted of reading the most current research with regard to school reform and proposals for a scheduling structure that would support higher rates of student academic progress as well as teaching methodologies that encourage thinking and understanding. Faculty members visited various schools, each with a different block scheduling format. During this time, the school improvement team immersed itself in the comprehensive process to achieve Southern Association accreditation (SACS/CASI). Interestingly enough, a major recommendation of the visiting SACS committee was the suggestion that SSA explore implementing a restructured class schedule. Armed with educational support for a more rigorous academic schedule, the faculty met to clarify their goals.

Note: A rise in standardized test scores was never a purported reason for the school to implement the 4 x 4 schedule. Research did not support this as an outcome, but rather that scores should remain relatively the same. However, the data in this paper reflects an upward trend.

In order to achieve many of these goals, the faculty and administration decided to implement the 4 x 4 block schedule, which allowed students to take eight credits each year instead of seven. This schedule addressed the stress issue for both teachers and students. Students prepared for only four classes each day, allowing them to spend more time on their studies. Teachers taught only three blocks of students, decreasing the number of students they taught, graded papers for and advised by 40% each term; this smaller teacher/pupil teaching ratio provided more opportunities for teachers to know their students' learning needs and interests. With the 4x4, students experienced a schedule that mimicked a college schedule in terms of completing a course within a semester's worth of time. In order to effectively and successfully implement a 4 x 4 schedule, the school engaged a team of consultants from LaSalle University in Pennsylvania who were assisting other schools in the nation, to train the faculty to meet the challenges of this system. Within the current research the school identified the idea that consistent, job-embedded staff development would continue to be critical to a successful schedule implementation; the administration renewed its commitment to on-going, research-based, best practices staff development. (NASSP, Gold Book 1995)

Like most schools implementing a block schedule, SSA was mindful of the concern about retention. The research that was studied stated that there was an 80 to 85% retention rate of original learning even after 11 months away from the subject. The faculty approached implementation of the 4 x 4 schedule with the idea of keeping a watchful eye on how SSA students performed, as well as what teachers noticed in terms of their students' retention, comparing that with the educational research. The administration has consistently examined the retention issues with current students, teachers, and alumnae. In the 12 years of 4 x 4 implementation, no school-wide retention issues or downward trends in student performance have surfaced. Grades and honor roll numbers support these observations. Anecdotal data from alumnae have also supported these observations. (more on this aspect later in this paper)

Initial Evaluations

After three years of implementation of Block Schedule, SSA found four major benefits:

1. Expansion of elective offerings

The school's elective offerings increased (courses added were Latin I and II, Humanities, 20^th Century History, Intermediate Composition, Choir, Contemporary Issues, Holocaust*, Journalism, Southern Literature*, Women Writers*, Shakespeare*; Utopian Fiction, Environmental Science, Film Study, Biology AP, English Language and Composition AP, Calculus AP AB/BC, Psychology AP, American Government AP, Fine Arts Survey AP, Geology/Astronomy, Sociology, Video Production, Visual Art, Probability and Statistics, Theater) with more electives and required courses to come out of the curriculum renewal that is occurring as part of the strategic plan [*elective course developed by SSA faculty with state approval].

2. Greater implementation of interactive teaching practices

A wider variety of interactive instructional strategies addressing students' cognitive styles were used by the faculty. A few examples of these researched best practices are

· Simulations – teaching students about concepts that they are unfamiliar with in their culture or in this era by allowing them to experience in a more tangible way those concepts, ex. “going on a quest”

Lesson design and unit planning have been major areas of emphasis with attention paid to utilizing the 90 minutes fully for academic experiences.

3. Across the board improvements in student grades

The number of “F's” in each grading period and course failures decreased; the number of “A's” and honor roll students increased despite the more rigorous criteria for honor roll.

4. A shift in focus from memorization of facts to thinking and deeper levels of understanding.

Overall, SSA students and teachers reported that the schedule supported a less stressful and more successful academic atmosphere, which then began to be focused on increasing the students' responsibility for their own learning. The longer class periods allowed time for deliberate, well-planned discussions provoking more critical thinking. Consistent staff development provided teachers with knowledge of critical thinking methodology, which they put into practice in their classrooms. Faculty began to examine assessments looking for critical thinking aspects, as well as developing elements with student learning tasks clearly spelled out for students to be able to take charge of their learning progress

· Honor Rolls for SSA student body were consistent, with Alpha honor roll running about 37% and Beta honor roll running about 13% per quarter.

· Course failures ran about .03% consistently each school year.

· TOPS qualified students (both ACT score and GPA) from '03-'04 through '07-08 were 88%, 90%, 83%, 84%, and 88% respectively. Scholarship monies earned by the respective senior classes are as follows:

· The attendance figures evidenced about 94% attendance on average for any given year for these last five years. See table below.

PSAT National Merit and Commended Students

* For the 2009-10 school year, SSA has 5 national merit semi-finalists; these students go on to the next round of competition

PLAN/ACT Predicted Scores

Year	Test Section	Less than predicted by PLAN	As predicted by PLAN	Greater than predicted by PLAN	% Scoring in the 20-23 Range of ACT	% Scoring in the 24-36 Range of ACT
2003 (99 Students)	English	10%	34%	56%	29%	57%
	Math	4%	49%	47%	28%	30%
	Reading	7%	24%	69%	25%	48%
	Science	10%	34%	56%	44%	29%
2004 (106 Students)	English	11%	23%	66%	28%	51%
	Math	4%	42%	54%	27%	31%
	Reading	8%	43%	49%	36%	43%
	Science	12%	41%	47%	48%	26%
2005 (105 Students)	English	3%	30%	67%	23%	63%
	Math	6%	36%	58%	25%	36%
	Reading	9%	27%	64%	30%	50%
	Science	8%	46%	48%	52%	30%
2006 (118 Students)	English	5%	26%	69%	30%	59%
	Math	2%	35%	63%	32%	30%
	Reading	9%	30%	61%	29%	49%
	Science	9%	37%	54%	53%	23%
2007 (107 Students)	English	2%	30%	68%	30%	62%
	Math	9%	43%	48%	31%	30%
	Reading	4%	16%	80%	32%	52%
	Science	13%	41%	46%	46%	26%

2007 graduates in St. Tammany public schools had the highest composite in the state. SSA's composite score was above the national average and above the highest public school composite in the St. Tammany school system. Non-public schools traditionally do not reveal school scores to the public. Archdiocesan schools are not allowed to release scores to the public other than their specific school community.

Standardized Subject Area Subtest Performance

ACT Subscores	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
English	23.9	24.8	24.6	25.3	25.6
Math	20.8	21.3	21.4	21.2	21.4
Reading	23.2	24.0	23.5	23.9	23.8
Science	21.5	21.7	21.7	21.7	21.8
Composite	22.5	23.1	22.9	23.1	23.3

SSA's ACT scores have risen consistently over the five years reported here with perhaps a year or two aberration of .1 or .2 of a point. It should be noted here that the scores reported in the chart above are aggregate data. This means that they are averages of all students tested each year. Aggregate data is especially difficult to change; and therefore, gains, even small gains, are significant.

These data clearly support that SSA's standardized test averages are consistent with a notable trend toward progress which clearly affirms the positive growth of the school's overall academic program.

The five-year data trends, as can be seen in the above chart, clearly denote a pattern of progress. These data, although not causative, clearly support a link between the 4 x 4 schedule and the progress of student performance on standardized measures of achievement. Certainly teaching methodology that has changed because of the 4 x 4 schedule structure, school culture, specific student population in any given year among other things have also contributed to the progress of SSA student performance on these standardized achievement measures.

Teaching methodology has shifted so that responsibility for learning becomes part of the students' everyday lives. The students learn the skill of time management that is such a critical skill for college success. They learn how to study in chunks of material for broader-based exams, which is more of a college experience.

Upon examining the ACT scores or actually any standardized test scores, one should notice an obvious discrepancy between particularly English and Math. This discrepancy should not by any measure be attributed to the implementation of a 4 x 4 schedule at SSA. Looking at the past 12 years of ACT scores in math particularly, these scores have continued to be above the state and above the nation. One can also notice that the one year in the chart below (95-96) that the school was still on the traditional 7 period day, standardized composite scores were lower than any time on the 4 x 4.

Year	SSA Average Math Score	Nat'l Average Math score
1995-96	20.5	(20.2)
1996-97	21.8	(20.6)
1997-98	21.5	(20.8)
1998-99	21.9	(20.7)
1999-2000	20.9	(20.7)
2000-01	21.0	(20.7)
2001-02	20.8	(20.6)
2002-03	21.2	(20.6)
2003-04	20.8	(20.7)
2004-05	21.3	(20.7)
2005-06	21.4	(20.8)
2006-07	21.2	(21.0)
2007-08	21.4	(21.0)

So why are SSA's math scores lower than the English scores? There are many factors that contribute to this English/math gap. One factor is that the students have been using reading and language arts skills every day in every subject since kindergarten. They use math skills in math class and usually in science, not in every course every day. SSA students have outstanding English and reading scores; this is obvious looking at national scores and at local public school scores. Nevertheless the math and science departments are committed to the goal of improving the students' scores in these subtests to be more reflective of the students' math abilities currently at SSA and in the college environment.

A Final Note

This last piece of data about the 4 x 4 is anecdotal but particularly relevant to the assessment of the impact of our programs at SSA. The school has recently improved its ability to survey the alumnae in several ways:

The past two years the school talked with all the alumnae who came back to the school for visits especially during the college forum event. The information that was collected is summarized as follows:

The conclusion after examining the current data is that SSA students are in a unique learning environment that

SSA students succeed both in high school as well as in the college environment, and this success is the goal of the school's program. The administration is confident that a successfully implemented 4x4 schedule is a vehicle for higher levels of student understanding and academic learning. The administration will continue to be committed to that schedule, and will consistently set into place teacher training that will enable teachers to remain current with research-based teaching methodology to support their students' learning experiences.