Block scheduling constitutes one of the major types of restructuring considered by school administrators seeking to improve student performance. The relationship between two school schedules-the seven-period A/B block and the sevenperiod traditional schedule-and achievement of students in grade 11 was examined. Comparisons showed no significant increase in students' test scores over time associated with the alternating schedule. Although school leaders may find some improvement in the initial year of implementation, improvements may be negated by decreased improvement rates in later years. A statistical analysis bears out more general literature on the subject.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley,J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
2.
Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
3.
Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
4.
Czaja, M., & McGee,J. (1995). Block scheduling: Learning boom or bust?American Secondary Education, 23(4), 37-39.
5.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.
6.
Eineder, D. V., & Bishop, H. L. (1997). Block scheduling the high school: The effects on achievement, behavior, and student-teacher relationships. NASSP Bulletin, 18(589), 45-54.
7.
Fallon, K. (1995). Intensive education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED385504).
8.
Freeman, C., & Maruyama, G. (1995). Primer: Extendedperiod schedules. Retrieved from http://www.umn.edu/CAREIwww/primer/primer.html
9.
Goldhor, H. (1974). The use of late respondents to estimate the nature of nonrespondents. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED083309).
10.
Lehman, E. C., Jr. (1963). Tests of significance and partial returns to mail questionnaires. Rural Sociology, 28(3), 284-289.
11.
Lindsay, J. (1996). The case against block scheduling. Retrieved from http://www.athenet.net/jlindsay/Block.shtml
12.
Lockwood, S. L. (1995). Semesterizing the high school schedule: The impact on student achievement in algebra and geometry. NASSP Bulletin, 79(575), 102-110.
13.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1993). Public hearing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372490).
14.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1997). Blocked schedule high school achievement: Comparison of 1995 end-of-course test scores for blocked and non-blocked high schools. Retrieved from http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/block_scheduling_report/
15.
Rettig, M. D. (1996). Directory of high school scheduling models in Virginia: A report of the study of innovative high school scheduling in Virginia. Retrieved from http://cep.jmu.edu/EdLeadership/index2.htm
16.
Riverside Publishing Company. (1986). Teacher's guide: Tests of achievement and proficiency. Chicago: Author.
17.
Schroth, G., & Dixon, J. (1995). The effect of block scheduling on seventh-grade math students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387887).
18.
Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
19.
Sturgis, J. (1995). Block scheduling and student achievement. Orono, ME: Center for Research and Evaluation, University of Maine.
20.
Virginia Department of Education. (1990-1996). Superintendent's annual report for Virginia. Richmond, VA: Author.
