The previous contribution by Sharon Kruse and Karen Seashore Louis sets the stage for this paper. The question examined here is whether differences in the characteristics of professional community found in the schools related to their success in implementing block scheduling. The name block scheduling is given to a schedule that has fewer, usually four, class periods per day for approximately twice the usual number of minutes. This paper draws from data collected in a broader study conducted by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI), University of Minnesota, on effects of block scheduling on high school teaching and learning. 

The framework for the study evolved from a synthesis of literature related to successful school reform and to block scheduling. Block scheduling advocates claim there will be many advantages to having fewer, but longer class periods, including improvement of teaching and learning. Specifically, some anticipated outcomes of block scheduling include: more active and motivated students; a less hurried and stressful routine for students; improved student and teacher morale; increased opportunities to take elective courses; and more individualized instruction and personalized attention for students because of lower student-teacher ratios (Canady & Rettig, 1993, 1995; Carroll, 1987, 1990, 1994; Edwards, 1993; Willis, 1993; National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994). Our framework summarizes these ideas, proposing that a fundamental change in the use of time will substantially change working conditions for teachers and students, which will result in changed teaching and learning behaviors, and eventually will lead to increased teacher and student satisfaction and achievement. 

Literature related to successful school reform suggests a different conclusion, that a single structural change, such as a four-period day schedule, cannot by itself affect important school outcomes. Newmann and Wehlage (1995) suggest that the "effectiveness of each education restructuring tool. . . depends on how well it organizes or develops the values, beliefs, and technical skills of educators to improve student learning" (p. 1). What is needed is a more complex set of factors increasingly being called "professional community" by school restructuring literature. Newmann and Wehlege (1995) found that "professional community improves student learning" (p. 30). Peterson, McCarthey, and Elmore (1996) similarly conclude from research at the elementary school level, that "while school structures can provide opportunities for learning new practices, the structures, by themselves, do not cause the learning to occur" (p. 119). 

Our research related to block scheduling supports both views. First, our data support the view of block scheduling advocates that the four-period block schedule seems to fundamentally affect school climate and the workload of students and teachers. These fundamental changes seem to produce significant differences in teacher-student interaction, classroom activity, and student success (looking at grades received) even where it appears there is little change beyond the schedule. With the schedule change, every teacher and every student experiences the change every day. Teachers teach three instead of five groups of students (classes) daily. Students are responsible for three or four classes instead of six, seven, or even eight daily. Teachers are assigned an average of 80-90 students per school term instead of 125-150. Periods are 85-95 minutes long rather than 43-55 minutes, thus requiring reorganization of the curriculum and classroom activities for every course. Everyone is involved in the change and everyone changes in some ways. These characteristics, we assert, distinguish the four-period day from other structural changes such as site-based decision making, detracking, or teacher collaboration, which may not engage all teachers, affect all students, or require changes in teaching and learning. 

Second, our data also are consistent with the view that this structural change, the schedule, operates in large part by providing the opportunity to improve teaching and learning. Other factors, such as those creating professional community within the block scheduled school, will enhance or limit changes in teaching and learning. This study adopts the professional community framework of Louis and Kruse (1995). Our conceptual framework proposes that among schools implementing a four-period schedule, those displaying stronger professional community will demonstrate more effective teaching and learning than other four-period schools. 

Description of Green Meadow Schools 
In 1994-95, Green Meadow, a suburban school district, had four high schools, two with 7-period day schedules and two with a 4-period day schedules. Avalon High School (pseudonym) opened in 1992-93. Though Avalon focused on several programs or reforms, such as extensive technology, a house plan, and outcome-based education, the four-period day was the innovation for which it had become best known. 

Until 1993-94, the other three high schools, Milton, Carroll, and Homer (pseudonyms), had a six-period day schedule. The school board mandated that all high schools implement a seven-period day, or an equivalent alternative, by fall of 1993-94 to afford students additional opportunities for elective courses. Because the other high schools had only six-periods, Avalon opened in 1992-93 with a three-period schedule. By fall 1993, Avalon and Carroll adopted a four-period schedule, and Milton and Homer changed to seven-period schedules. Therefore, in 1994-95, at the time of data collection for this study, Milton and Homer were in their second year of the seven- period day, and Carroll and Avalon were in their second year of the four- period day. Avalon was in its third year of block scheduling. 

Students in the four high schools were demographically similar. Another similarity was the district wide curriculum in all disciplines established through involvement of teachers from all schools. Use of district curriculum guides and assessments were required of all teachers. All schools were required to offer identical courses to meet the district’s goal of providing equivalent opportunity to all students. The Green Meadow district also had an extensive professional development program making training equally available to all four high schools.

The four-period schedules were essentially the same in Avalon and Carroll. Teachers taught three classes and students took three or four classes each term. The classes were 85 minutes long. 

In response to whether their schedule restricted or enhanced a variety of factors, teachers in both four-period schools rated their schedule substantially higher on dimensions of facilitating student achievement, maintaining order, fostering quality education, and improving their work life. (Table 1) Also, when asked how frequently they did specific classroom activities considered educationally effective, the four-period schools report doing them significantly more often. In addition, Avalon teachers rated three out of these five factors significantly higher than Carroll. 

A survey of students (n=7982) found that students’ attitudes were more positive in the four-period schools on six of seven dimensions. On four dimensions: student engagement during class time, teacher quality, progressive teaching, and traditional teaching, students in both four-period schools were substantially more positive. On all seven dimensions, Avalon students are significantly more positive than all other schools. (Table 2)

There was a clear consensus among both seven- and four-period teachers that instructional strategies must change with an extended period schedule. On the teacher survey, four questions asked whether their schedule restricts or enhances certain instructional strategies. Responses were that the four-period schedule did significantly enhance: "using a diversity of instructional delivery methods or styles," "using teaching strategies which involve students in active and hands-on learning," "using classroom activities which require higher level thinking," and "teaching students how to directly apply the concepts and processes to real-world work or daily life." The schedule also significantly enhanced "using more alternative assessment approaches." 

Four-period school students reported experiencing significantly fewer lectures, significantly more variety and small group activity, and slightly less filling out worksheets. On "think hard about ideas" and "have in-depth discussion," the results were more mixed, with only Avalon students giving significantly higher responses. 

Another look at instruction was taken through classroom observation of all teachers in the four schools. Eight to 10 observers together spent one day in each of the four high schools, observing almost all teachers in two of their classes. The data showed less use of lecture and more use of small groups in four-period schools. Student engagement levels were consistently higher throughout the class periods in four-period schools. 

Four-period teachers found that a number of teaching strategies worked better with a longer period. Teachers found they could complete certain activities from beginning to end, such as cooperative learning activities. Classes could go "into the field" to do research, and they could actually "discover" in 85 minutes. 

On the teacher survey, teachers were asked whether their schedule enhanced or restricted "knowing individual students’ strengths and weaknesses" and "individualizing instruction." The differences in responses were substantially significant in favor of 4-period schools. On two items, "helping lower achieving students experience success" and "assisting students who have been absent or are behind," teachers in four-period schools responded that the schedule allowed them to help these students significantly more.

Teacher survey responses to questions about stress and workload were significantly more positive in the four-period schedule. Teachers were asked whether their schedule enhanced or restricted "having adequate time to prepare for teaching," "keeping my work load manageable," and "making the day less tiring and more sane." According to one teacher, "I experience a different kind of tired. . .tired from instructing and helping kids rather than feeling burned out from disciplining kids." 

In focus groups, students said they experienced less stress and that the time "goes by faster." Students said that it was "easier to learn things." One student thought, "You basically have everything soak in by the time you have to leave the class." Students often mentioned the ten minute passing time. They could go to the bathroom, go to their locker, talk to a teacher, or talk to their friends. One student said, "You need a break between classes." 

On the teacher survey, teachers were asked about student behavior, whether their schedule enhanced or restricted "keeping passing times calm," "reducing the number of students tardy to class," "keeping class disruptions to a minimum," and "limiting disciplinary referrals." Responses to all these statements are significantly more positive in four-period schools. In interviews, administrators, counselors, and teachers in both schools agreed that behavior referrals were fewer under the four-period schedule. On the student survey, three items related to how students perceived behavior in their school: "students in this school behave well in class," "students in this school behave well in the hallways," and "students in this school show respect for the teachers." On these items, only Avalon students gave significantly more positive responses, more positive than all the other schools. 

On the survey, teachers were asked about student learning behavior, whether their schedule restricted or enhanced "having homework you assign completed and turned in," "having students who are focused and ready to learn," and "getting high quality work from students." Responses were all significantly more positive in four-period schools. 

On the student survey, students were asked about achievement by reporting their average grades. In both four-period schools, students reported getting higher grades than seven-period students. Approximately 17% more four-period students identified themselves as receiving mostly A’s or A’s and B’s. In focus groups, many 4-period students said they were doing better in school.

A number of findings arose from the comparison of the seven-period and four-period schedules. All sources of data were considered as a whole to conclude the following: 

Four-period students were more positive about their school climate, schoolwork, and quality of teaching. Avalon students were particularly positive. 

The pace of the four-period schedule was less stressful. The 10-minute passing time added greatly to the sense of calm and reduced class disruptions for tardiness and passes to the bathroom. 

1. Four-period teachers agreed the schedule made their day less tiring and their workload more manageable. While their morale was higher, they still felt they worked as hard. 
2. Student behavior had improved in both four-period schools under the schedule, but only Avalon students responded to questions about student behavior more positively than the other schools. 
3. Teachers and counselors found it easier to work through problems with students. Teachers got to know students faster and better because they had 80 to 90 students instead of 150 to 160 at a time. Classroom activities requiring student interaction were more effective because students knew one another better. 
4. Student learning behavior was improved. Students were focused and ready to learn when class started, more likely to have their homework done, and more often did high quality work. Students were more likely to understand and do the work because the learning environment was more effective, and they had only four classes on which to concentrate. 
5. Students’ grades were higher in both four-period schools. Avalon staff and students had the most positive feelings about student achievement; student grades there were slightly higher than at Carroll. 
6. Classroom instruction changed when teachers had an 85-minute period. There was less lecture and more small group activity, more variety of activities during the class period, more student participation activities, and more knowledge application activities. There seemed to be more opportunity for higher-level thinking, delving deeply into topics, and connecting school work to the world outside school, along with higher student engagement. Many instructional strategies worked better in a longer period. 

Teacher survey items as well as reference to qualitative data were used to characterize the schools on certain components of professional community (Table 3). 

On the teacher survey dimension, shared norms and values, Avalon was significantly different from the other three schools (Table 3). Avalon teachers were the most positive about the statement, "teachers share a sense of common purpose." 

Interviews with Avalon staff reveal extensive preparation for opening the school. Plenty of opportunity was provided for inclusion of all staff in conversation, consensus building, and buy in. Carroll also had a consensus building process, theirs initiated by the teachers, which was inclusive of all staff, but was more narrowly focused on the schedule. 

On three professional community components, collaboration, reflective dialogue, and deprivatization, all schools rated their presence relatively low (Table 3). However, both four-period schools said they collaborated significantly more than seven-period schools. Avalon teachers felt they engaged in reflective dialogue more than the other three schools. But none of the schools felt they had deprivatized practice by visiting one another's classes or providing feedback on performance. 

All survey and interview data indicated that the four-period schedule in these schools did not provide teachers more time to meet and talk. However, when asked whether their schedule enhances or restricts "having formal meeting time to spend on curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment issues with other teachers," both four-period schools were significantly more positive than seven-period schools. 

Both four-period schools are significantly different from the seven-period schools on items measuring interdependent teaching (example: meeting abut pedagogy) (Table 3). In addition, Avalon teacher responses were significantly different from Carroll teachers. 

Avalon’s staff rated their school communication structures significantly better than the other three schools, and Carroll was significantly lower than the other three schools (Table 3). Many interviewees at Avalon said their department leader was very effective in consulting with the department and bringing back information. Carroll interviewees often mentioned being taken by surprise by decisions. Several teachers at Avalon mentioned e-mail as a very important information source. The other three schools did not have e-mail.

On items related to teacher empowerment, Avalon was significantly higher than the other three schools (Table 3). At Avalon, all teacher comments about decision making and administration in the school were positive. For example, one teacher said, "I think we have one of the best administrations in the district. They are always asking for input from here and there." 

In response to whether "our school has appropriate autonomy to make its own decisions," there were no significant differences among the four high schools (Table 3). This was not surprising because they were in the same district. 

The two four-period schools had higher responses on the component, "openness to improvement," but only Avalon rated this question significantly more positive than both seven-period schools and, in addition, more positive than Carroll (Table 3). Openness to improvement was one of the most often mentioned qualifications to be hired at Avalon. 

Avalon is significantly different from the other three schools on items measuring trust and respect (example: respected as a colleague). (Table 3). 

Three teacher survey items comprise the component, access to expertise: "I have access to expertise in my subject area from within the district," "I have access to expertise in my subject area from outside the district," and "staff development programs in this school permit me to acquire important new knowledge and skills." Taken together, there is not much difference among the four schools (Table 3). There were no differences among the 4 schools with regard to access to expertise within the district. Avalon was significantly different from the other three schools with regard to access to expertise from outside the district. 

Two teacher survey questions related to supportive leadership: "administrators work hard to provide adequate resources for teachers" and "the building administrators’ behavior toward the staff is supportive and encouraging" (Table 3). On both items, Avalon was significantly more positive than the other three schools, which were not different from each other.

Two teacher survey questions related to socialization: "I have a chance to get to know other teachers in my school" and "teachers new to this school are given a great deal of assistance and support" (Table 3). Avalon responses were significantly higher than the other three schools on both items. 

1. Avalon had a decidedly stronger professional community than any of the other three schools, while Milton, Homer, and Carroll were more alike than different. All three components on which Carroll was different from the seven-period schools related to what the schedule stimulated them to do: time to collaborate; time to meet and talk; and time to coordinate and meet with other teachers about curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. The four-period schedule could be seen as a catalyst for increasing these aspects of professional community. 
2. Avalon was particularly strong on components of shared norms and values due to the processes they used to prepare for opening the new school. 
3. None of the schools were particularly strong on collaboration or reflective dialogue, though Avalon was stronger than the other three schools. Avalon teachers articulated the importance of collaborating to change what one is doing. 
4. Though time was not built into their schedule, teachers at Avalon said they had significantly more time to meet and talk than the other three schools. 
5. Avalon was very positive about communication structure, both in terms of technology, e-mail, and the extent to which they knew what was going on. 
6. With regard to supportive leadership and teacher empowerment, Avalon staff rated their administration and decision making processes significantly higher. Avalon staff also felt significantly more trust and support from colleagues. They had the highest concern for socializing new staff to their school. 
7. Openness to improvement was one of Avalon’s strongest themes. Teachers were more likely to experiment and have access to outside expertise.

Examination of the two parts of the conceptual framework, school schedule and professional community suggests that: 

• A change to a block schedule like the four-period day inevitably will change working conditions for teachers and students. Teachers will have fewer classes, fewer students, and longer classes each term. Students will have fewer classes, fewer teachers, and longer classes each term. In addition, students will have more electives during the year. 
• These improved working conditions will create better teaching conditions for teachers by decreasing stress and increasing morale, requiring instructional change, and allowing teachers to know students better. Students’ learning conditions will be better in that they will be less stressed, more focused and ready to learn, have fewer discipline problems, improved student learning behaviors, and improved student performance (measured by student grades).
• Four-period schools in which significant levels of professional community are found will demonstrate better conditions for teaching and learning, more improved teaching and learning behaviors, and greater levels of achievement and satisfaction than four-period schools with lower levels of professional community. 
• Further work with these and other high schools found that professional community was not a precondition to successful change of schedule. In schools implementing block scheduling, levels of professional community did not determine whether teachers preferred their old or new schedule—all schools decidedly preferred their new schedule. In addition, patterns of growth in professional community emerged. In most schools, the process of change to the new schedule promoted increased cooperation and collaboration around adjustments in curriculum and teaching strategies. Many schools reported greater teacher empowerment, first in making decisions about school goals and professional development related to the schedule, but later in dealing with other important school issues. There were signs of faculties developing clearer shared norms and values and greater focus on student learning. In most schools in the study, conversations about the schedule facilitated growth in some elements of professional community.