The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine whether a difference existed in the percentage performance of students earning a pass/advanced score on the Standards of Learning (SOL) Test in math and reading in Virginia’s Region IV for schools using an A/B block schedule and those using a traditional schedule. The research also examined if the percentage performance by race—Black, Hispanic, and White—differed on the math and reading SOL Test for Region IV in Virginia. Forty-three schools were included in the study—23 block and 20 traditional schools. The percentage performance in math and reading of each school and the percentage performance by race for each school were studied. Analyses of variance and t tests were used to examine differences. The t-test results do not show significant differences in the percentage performance of students earning pass/advanced scores in reading and math in block and traditional schools. Significant differences were shown in the percentage of Black and Hispanic students earning pass/advanced scores on the math and reading SOL Test for Region IV in Virginia. A larger percentage of Black and Hispanic students earned pass/advanced scores in the A/B block-scheduled schools than in the traditional schools.
BakerJ. (1999). Teacher student interaction in urban at risk classroom: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 57-70. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. EJ591879)
2.
CanadyR. L.RettigM. D. (1995). Block scheduling, a catalyst for change. New York, NY: Larchmont.
3.
CarrollJ. B. (1989). The Caroll model: A 25 year retrospective and prospective. Educational Researcher, 7(1), 26-31.
4.
CarrollJ. M. (1989). The Copernican plan restructuring the American high school. Andover, MA: The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED313812)
5.
CarrollJ. M. (1994). The Copernican plan evaluated: The evolution of a revolution. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 104-110, 112-113. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. EJ490904)
6.
ClarkS. N.ClarkD. (1993). Middle level school reform: The rhetoric and the reality. Elementary School Journal, 93, 447-460.
7.
CobbR. B.AbateS.BakerD. (1999). Effects of a Jr. high 4 × 4 block scheduling program. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(3), 1-23.
8.
DeRouenD. A. (1998). Maybe its not the children: Eliminating some middle school problems through block support and team scheduling. Clearing House, 71, 146-148. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. EJ566158)
9.
DiBiaseW. J.QueenJ. A. (1999). Middle school social studies on the block. Clearing House, 72(6), 377-384. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. EJ587389)
EinederD.BishopH. L. (1997). Block scheduling the high school: The effects on achievement behavior and student-teacher relationships. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 45-54. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. EDEJ544318)
EvansW.TokarczyJ.RiceS.McCrayA. (2002). Block scheduling an evaluation of outcomes and impact. Clearing House, 75, 319-325. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. EJ655293)
14.
FisherD.FreyN. (2007). A tale of two middle schools: The difference in structure and instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51, 204-211.
15.
GravetterF.WallnauL. (2007). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
16.
HackmannD.ValentineJ. W. (1998). Designing an effective middles school level schedule. Middle School Journal, 29(5), 13-25.
17.
KhazzakaJ. (1997). Comparing the merits of a seven-period school day to those of a four-period school day. High School Journal, 81(2), 87-97.
18.
KramerS. L. (1997a). What we know about block scheduling and its effects on math instruction, part 1. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 18-38.
19.
KramerS. L. (1997b). What we know about block scheduling and its effects on math instruction, part 2. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 69-81.
20.
LeeJ. (2004). Multiple facets of inequality in racial and ethnic achievement gaps. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 51-73.
21.
MattoxK.HancockD.QueenJ. A. (2005). The effect of block scheduling on middle school students’ mathematics achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(642), 3-13.
22.
MertlerC. A.VannattaR. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.
23.
NakamuraD. (2007, June12). Fenty to oust Janey today head of nonprofit that trains teachers would run schools. The Washington Post, pp. 1, 15.
24.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
25.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994, April). Prisoners of time: Report of the national education commission on time and learning. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
26.
National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
27.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 1001, 115 Stat. 1439-1440 (2002).
28.
SchrothG.DixonJ. (1995). The effects of block scheduling on seventh grade math students(Report No. 143). (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED387887).
29.
TomlinsonC. (1999). The differentiated classroom responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision & Curriculum Development.
30.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). A nation accountable twenty-five years after a nation at risk. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31.
Van RyzinM. J. V.GravelyA. A.RosethC. J. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 1-12.
WilsonJ. W.StokesL. W. (1999). A study of teacher perceptions of the effectiveness and critical factors in implementing and maintaining block scheduling. High School Journal, 83(1), 35-44.
34.
WoodsideW. S. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Paper presented at the meeting of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Washington, DC.
35.
WronkovichM.HessC. A.RobinsonJ. (1997). An objective look at math outcomes based on new research into block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 32-40.
36.
ZapedaS. J.MayersR. S. (2006). An analysis of research on block scheduling. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 137-170.
