Many school districts that have adopted block scheduling are trying to determine if the change was worth the effort. This case study examined one school district's attempt to answer the question: Is block scheduling cost-effective? Analysis of a wide range of data suggests that traditional notions of cost-effectiveness are not always applicable when considering school reform. A novel interpretation of cost-effectiveness emerged that may encourage districts to make further improvements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, D. C., & Salvaterra, M. E. (1997). Structural and teacher changes: Necessities for successful block scheduling. High SchoolJournal, 81, 98-105.
2.
Beyea, S. C., & Nicoll, L. H. (1999). Finding answers to questions using cost analysis. AORNJournal, 70, 128-131.
3.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
4.
Deuel, L. (1999). Block scheduling in large, urban high schools: Effects on academic achievement, student behavior, and staff perceptions. High SchoolJournal, 83(1), 14-26.
5.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College.
6.
Fullan, M. (1993). Changeforces: Probing the depth of educational reform. London: Falmer.
7.
Hawkes, M., & Cambre, M. (2000, August). The Co$t Factor: When is interactive distance technologyjustifiable? TH.E. (Technological Horizons in Education). Retrieved February 8, 2002, from http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A2962.cfm
8.
House, E. R. (1996). A framework for appraising educational reforms. Educational Researcher, 25(7), 6-14.
9.
Lawrence, W., & McPherson, D. (2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(3), 178-182.
10.
Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Odden, A. (2000). The costs of sustaining educational change through comprehensive school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 433-438.
12.
Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3), 214-222.
13.
Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Staunton, J. (1997). A study of teacher beliefs on the efficacy of block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 73-80.
15.
Voelkl, K E. (1995). School warmth, student participation and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 63, 127-138.
16.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
