The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of traditional and block schedules on the academic achievement of high school students with and without disabilities. Achievement data were collected from the cumulative records and Individual Education Plans of 160 students with disabilities and the cumulative records of 460 students without disabilities. Achievement was measured by students' GPA; state-mandated tests in reading language, math, science, and social studies; and college entrance ACT Results showed no difference on all comparisons between students with disabilities attending block-scheduled high schools and students with disabilities attending traditional-scheduled high schools. Similar results were found for students without disabilities. Teachers on both schedules reported high levels of satisfaction and comparable amounts of time on instructional activities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akins, J. G. (2000). High school block scheduling and selected student outcomes: A longitudinal approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.
2.
American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Block scheduling-look before you leap. American Teacher. Retrieved March 15, 2002, from www.aft.org/publications/american-teacher/sept99/block.html
3.
Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, 64 Fed. Reg. 12,405 (Mar. 12, 1999) (codified at 34 C.F.R. pts. 300, 303).
4.
Barcikowski, R. (1981). Statistical power with group mean as the unit of analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 267-285.
5.
Blackorby,J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.
6.
Blair, R. C., Higgins,J.J., Topping, M. E. H., & Mortimer, A. L. (1983). An investigation of the robustness of the t test to unit of analysis violations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(1), 69-80.
7.
Bond, L. A., Braskamp, K., & Roeber, E. D. (1996). The status of state assessment programs in the United States. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Laboratory and Council of Chief State School Officers.
8.
Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z., & Hung, Y. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 186-200.
9.
Bugaj, S.J. (1998). Intensive scheduling and special education in secondary schools: Research and recommendations. NASSP Bulletin, 82(594), 33-39.
10.
Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
11.
Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1996). Teaching in the block: Strategies for engaging active learners. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
12.
Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
13.
Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Kroczynski, S. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423-435.
14.
Davidson, U. S. (2001). Exemplary teaching practices in high schools utilizing the block schedule. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University.
15.
Fritz, D. (1995). Teaching for ninety minutes: Conversations with teachers using block scheduling. Unpublished manuscript. Seward (NE) High School.
16.
Hart, W. (2000). A comparison of the use of instructional time in block scheduled and traditionally scheduled high school classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
17.
Hopkins, K. D. (1982). The unit of analysis: Group means versus individual observations. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 5-18.
18.
Hottenstein, D. (1999). Block scheduling's success formula. The School Administrator, 56(3), 23-26.
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).
20.
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
21.
Jenkins, E. D. (2000). A comparative study of teaching strategies reported by North Carolina high school teachers in block and traditional schedules schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
22.
Jenkins, E., Queen, A., & Algozzine, B. (2002). To block or not to block: That's not the question. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 196-202.
23.
Killough, G. N. (2001). A study of the comparison between three scheduling model types and performance on the Virginia's high schools standards of learning tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.
24.
Levin, J. R., & Serlin, R. C. (1993, April). No way to treat a classroom: Alternative units-appropriate statistical strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
25.
Lindsay, J. (2001, February 24). Pros and cons, alternatives. In The case against block scheduling. Retrieved from www.jefflindsay.com/Block3.shtml
26.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (2001). An introduction to Minnesota's graduation standards. Retrieved November 30, 2001, from http://cfl.state.mn.us/GRAD/Introl.htm
27.
Mutter, D. A., Chase, E., & Nichols, W. R. (1997) Evaluation of a 4 x 4 block schedule. ERS Spectrum, 15(1), 3-8.
28.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
National Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
30.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
31.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1998). Block scheduling in North Carolina: Implementation, teaching, and impact issues. Raleigh, NC: Author.
32.
Pliska, A. M., Harmston, M., & Hackmann, D. (2001). The relationship between secondary school scheduling models and ACT assessment scores. NASSP Bulletin, 85(625), 42-55.
33.
Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, Retrieved April 30, 2002, from www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kqueOOll.htm%237
34.
Queen,J. A., Algozzine, R. F., & Eaddy, M. A. (1997). The road we traveled: Scheduling in the 4 x 4 block. NASSP Bulletin, 81(588), 88-99.
35.
Queen,J. A., & Isenhour, K. (1998). The 4 x 4 block schedule. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
36.
Rettig, M. D., & Canady, R. L. (1999). The effects of block scheduling. The School Administrator, 56(3), 14-20.
37.
Richardson, J. K (2000). The impact of block scheduling on student performance on the Virginia standards of learning end-of-course assessments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
38.
Shortt, T., & Thayer, Y. (1999). Block scheduling can enhance school climate. Education Leadership, 56(4), 76-81.
39.
Spaulding, A. (1998). Building the block: A qualitative study of the perspectives of high school teachers in rural districts. Connections, 1(1), 10-20.
40.
Trenta, L., & Newman, I. (2002). Effects of a high school block scheduling program on students: A four-year longitudinal study of the effects of block scheduling on student outcome variables. American Secondary Education, 31(1), 54-66.
41.
Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of student with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305.
42.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. § 5801.
43.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: Author.
44.
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K. & Bryant, D. P. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading as a means to enhance peer-mediated instruction for reading comprehension and content-area learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 66-74.
45.
Viadero, D. (2001). Changing times: Despite its popularity, block scheduling's effect on learning remains unproven. Education Week, 11(5), 38-40.
46.
Walsh,J. E. (1947). Concerning the effect of intraclass correlation on certain significance tests. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 88-96.
47.
Weller, D. R., & McLeskey, J. (2000). Block scheduling and inclusion in high school: Teacher perceptions of the benefits and challenges. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 209-218.
