This article reports the results of the first phase of a longitudinal study of 568 public high schools in Illinois and Iowa in which the relationships among three common secondary school scheduling types and average composite scores on the ACT Assessment were examined. Preliminary findings suggest that merely adopting a different scheduling approach without engaging in any additional reform initiatives within a school will have little effect, if any, on student achievement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bateson, D. J.1990. Science achievement in semester and all-year courses. Journal of Research and Science Teaching27: 233-240.
2.
Battistich, V., D. Solomon, D. Kim, K. M. Watson, and E. Schaps. 1995. Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes, motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal32: 627-658.
3.
Black, S.1998. Learning on the block. American School Board Journal185 (1): 32-34.
4.
Buckman, D. C., B. B. King, and S. Ryan. 1995. Block scheduling: A means to improve school climate. NASSP Bulletin79 (571): 9-18.
5.
Cheng, M., A. S. Dhanota, and E. N. Wright. 1981. A study of two types of scheduling arrangements for grade 9 students in Central High School of Commerce, 1980-1981. Research Service No. 160. Toronto, Canada: The Board of Education for the City of Toronto.
6.
Claritas, Inc. 2000. PRIZM cluster narratives: Summary lifestyle descriptions. San Diego, Calif.: Claritas, Inc.
7.
Denison, D. R.1990. Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science6 (2): 204-223.
8.
Dougherty, B.1998. Policy briefing: Block scheduling in secondary schools. PREL Briefing Paper. Honolulu, Hawaii: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. ERIC, ED 415587.
9.
Edwards, C. M., Jr.1995. The 4 x 4 plan. Educational Leadership53 (3): 16-19.
10.
Hackmann, D. G.1995a. Improving the middle school climate: Alternating-day block schedule. Schools in the Middle5 (1): 28-34.
11.
Hackmann, D. G.1995b. Ten guidelines for implementing block scheduling. Educational Leadership53 (3): 24-27.
12.
Hackmann, D. G. In press. Secondary school scheduling trends: Tales of two Midwestern states. Planning and Changing.
13.
Jenkins, E., Queen, J. A., and Algozzine, B.2001. What’s new on the block?NASSP Bulletin85 (625): 56-61.
14.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). 1996. Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. Reston, Va.: NASSP.
15.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). 1983. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: NCEE.
16.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning (NECTL). 1994. Prisoners of time. Washington, D.C.: NECTL.
17.
Rettig, M. D., and R. L. Canady. 1999. The effects of block scheduling. The School Administrator56 (3): 14-16, 18-20.
18.
Shortt, T. L, and Y. V. Thayer. 1995. What can we expect to see in the next generation of block scheduling?NASSP Bulletin79 (571): 53-62.
19.
Wronkovich, M., C. A. Hess, and J. E. Robinson. 1997. An objective look at math outcomes based on new research into block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin81 (593): 32-41.
