This article reviews pertinent research literature that documents the efficacy of alternative scheduling formats in U.S. secondary schools since the late 1990s. Gains attributed to alternative scheduling formats are discussed by subject area. Common educational dilemmas occasioned by a change to alternative school scheduling are outlined and discussed. Recommendations are provided for school administrators and faculty who are contemplating a transition to more innovative school schedules.
Anderson, J. (1994). Alternative approaches to organizing the school day and year. School Administrator, 51(3), 8-11, 15-15.
2.
Boaler, J. (2006). Urban success: A multidimensional mathematics approach with equitable outcomes. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 364-369.
3.
Brake, N. (2000, November 15-17). Student course-taking delivered through a high school block schedule: The relationship between the academic core and student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Bowling Green, KY.
4.
Bruckner, M. (1997). Eavesdropping on change: Listening to teachers during the first year of an extended block schedule. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81(593), 42-52.
5.
Bryant, R. H. (1995). A comparative study of teaching strategies used in block and traditionally scheduled high schools in the state of Wyoming (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wyoming, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(05).
6.
Bush, M. J., & Johnstone, W. G. (2000, April). An observation evaluation of high school A/B block classes: Variety of monotony? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
7.
Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (2000). The effects of block scheduling. School Administrator, 56(3), 14-14, 18-20.
8.
Childers, G., & Ireland, R. (2005). Mixing block and traditional scheduling. Education Digest, 71(3), 43-49.
9.
College Board Online. (2000, March). AP teachers' FAQ: Block scheduling and AP exams, block scheduling and student performance on AP examinations. Available from http://www.collegeboard.org/index_this/ap/teachers/faq/faqOQ7.html
10.
Cooeyman, M. (2002, July 16). Popular reform draws mixed reviews. Christian Science Monitor. Available from http://www.csmonitor.com
11.
Copernican Associates, LTD. (1999). The final report concerning the impact of Copernican scheduling on student performance at Palisades Park High School: 1998-99 and 1999-2000 compared with the 1997-98 baseline year. Prepared for the Palisades Park Public Schools by Copernican Associates, LTD Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Topsfield, MA.
12.
Davis-Wiley, P., & Cozart, A. (1996, November). Block scheduling in the secondary arena, part II: Perceptions from the inside. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL.
13.
Dexter, K., Tai, R., & Sadler, P. (2006). Traditional and block scheduling for college science preparation. High School Journal, 89(4), 22-33.
14.
Geismar, T. J., & Pullease, B. G. (1996). The trimester: A competency based model of block scheduling. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80(581), 95-105.
15.
Hackmann, D. G. (1995a). Improving school climate: Alternating-day block schedule. Schools in the Middle, 5(l), 28-33.
16.
Hackman, D. G. (1995b). Ten guidelines for implementing block scheduling. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 24-27.
17.
Hart, W. H. (2000). A comparison of the use of instructional time in block scheduled and traditionally scheduled high school classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(01).
18.
Hurley, J. C. (1997a). The 4 x 4 block scheduling model: What do students have to say about it?National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81(593), 64-72.
19.
Hurley, J. C. (1997b). The 4 x 4 block scheduling model: What do teachers have to say about it?National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81(593), 53-63.
20.
Key, D. (2004, December). Adoption and abandonment of block scheduling: One system's decision.Presentation made at the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement annual convention, Atlanta, GA.
21.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Block scheduling and the high school mathematics instruction. Mathematics Teacher, 89(9), 758-768.
22.
Kramer, S. L. (1997). What we know about block scheduling and its effects on math instruction, part 1. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81(586), 18-42.
23.
Marshak, D. (1997). Action research on block scheduling.Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
24.
Mistretta, G. M., & Polansky, H. B. (1997). Prisoners of time: Implementing a block schedule in the high school. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81(593), 23-31.
25.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
26.
Nichols, J. (2005). Block-scheduled high schools: Impact on achievement in English. Journal of Education Research, 98(5), 299-309.
27.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1997). 1997 state report card. Raleigh, NC: Division of Research and Testing Services.
28.
Queen, J. A., Algozzine, R. F., & Eaddy, M. S. (1997). The road we traveled: Scheduling in the 4×4 block. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81(588), 88-99.
29.
Queen, J. A., & Gaskey, K. A. (1997). Steps for improving school climate in block scheduling. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(2), 158-161.
30.
Reid, L. (1995). Perceived effects of block scheduling on the teaching of English (Report No. S 214 828). Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 950)
31.
Rice, J. K., Croninger, R. G., & Roellke, C. F. (2002). The effect of block scheduling high school mathematics courses on student achievement and teachers' use of time: Implications for educational productivity. Economics of Education Review, 21(599), 9-9.
32.
Richardson, J. K. (2000). The impact of block scheduling on student performance on the Virginia standards of learning end-of-course assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(06).
33.
Rofes, E. (2001, April). How do student and teachers experience block scheduling? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
34.
Shockey, B. P. (1997). The effects of varying retention intervals within a block schedule on knowledge retention in mathematics (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(11), 4215A-4216A.
35.
Shortt, T. L., & Thayer, Y. V. (1997). A vision for block scheduling: Where are we now? Where are we going?National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81(593), 1-15.
36.
Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's compromise.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
37.
Staunton, J., & Adams, T. (1997). What do teachers in California have to say about block scheduling?National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81(593), 81-84.
38.
Wilson, J., & Stokes, L. C. (2000). Students' perceptions of the effectiveness of block versus traditional scheduling. American Secondary Education, 28(3), 3-12.
