This investigation used qualitative methods to examine the impact of the implementation of a block schedule on an inclusive high school program that had been working successfully for several years. Data were collected using a series of classroom observations and interviews with seven teachers of students with disabilities and seven general education teachers who worked as co-teachers in inclusive classrooms. A constant comparative method of data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used to identify themes related to the benefits and challenges of block scheduling and the inclusion of students labeled with high-incidence disabilities. Results showed that inclusion and block scheduling were complementary and mutually supportive aspects of school reform in this high school. Furthermore, although the teachers identified several challenges related to the implementation of block scheduling, none of these challenges were unique to students with disabilities. The implications of these findings for practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Affleck, J., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lowenbraun, S. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 54, 339-348.
2.
Bear, G., & Proctor, W. (1990). Impact of a full-time integrated program on the achievement of nonhandicapped and mildly handicapped children. Journal of Exceptionality,1, 227-238.
3.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.
4.
Buckman, D., King, B., & Ryan, S. (1995). Block scheduling: A means to improve school climate . NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 9-18.
5.
Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1993). Unlocking the lockstep high school schedule. Phi Delta Kappan,9, 310-314.
6.
Carroll, J.M. (1989). The Copernican plan: Restructuring the American high school. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.
7.
Chalfant, J., & VanReusen, A. (1992). Overview of unique needs of learners with specific learning disabilities. In W. D. Frey, P. Jakwerth, L. Lynch , & R. Percell (Eds.), Special education program outcome guide: Learning disabilities (pp. 9-25). Lansing, MI: Disability Research Systems.
8.
Cole, C. (1995). A contextualized understanding of teachers' practice, their collaborative relationships, and the inclusion of students with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
9.
Cole, C., & McLeskey, J. (1997). Secondary inclusion programs for students with mild disabilities. Focus onExceptional Children, 29, 1-15.
10.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1995). Creating schools for all our students: What 12 schools have to say . Reston, VA: Author.
11.
Fogarty, R. (1995). Think about block scheduling: It's not a question of time. Palatine, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
12.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
13.
Gritzmacher, H., & Larkin, D. (1993). A comparison of middle level and special education . Middle School Journal, 25, 28-32.
14.
Jorgensen, C. (1997). Examples of inclusive curriculum units and lessons . In C. Jorgensen (Ed.), Restructuring high schools for all students: Taking inclusion to the next level (pp. 43-67). Baltimore: Brookes .
15.
Kauffman, J., Lloyd, J., Baker, J., & Riedel, T. (1995). Inclusion of all students with emotional and behavioral disorders? Let's think again. Phi Delta Kappan,76, 542-546.
16.
Lecompte, M.D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
17.
McLeskey, J., Henry, D., & Hodges, D. (1998). Inclusion: Where is it happening?Teaching Exceptional Children, 31, 4-11.
18.
Merriam, S. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
19.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time: Report of the national education commission on time and learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20.
Office of Special Education Programs. (1997 ). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Nineteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Razeghi, J.A. (1996). The challenge for career development: Preventing special education dropouts. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,19, 145-157.
23.
Rieth, H., & Polsgrove, L. (1994). Curriculum and instructional issues in teaching secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 118-126.
24.
Sage, D. (1997). Inclusion in secondary schools: Bold initiatives challenging change. Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources.
25.
Salvaterra, M., & Adams, D. (1995). Departing from tradition: Two schools' stories . Educational Leadership, 53, 32-35.
26.
Schloss, P.J., Smith, M.A., & Schloss, C.N. (1995). Instructional methods for adolescents with learning and behavior problems (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
27.
Schoenstein, R. (1994). Block schedules: Building the high schools of the future?Virginia Journal of Education, 87, 7-13.
28.
Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (1988). Implementing the Regular Education Initiative in secondary schools: A different ball game. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 36-42.
29.
Shortt, T., & Thayer, Y. (1995). What can we expect to see in the next generation of block scheduling?NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 53-62.
30.
Thousand, J., Rosenberg, R., Bishop, K., & Villa, R. (1997). The evolution of secondary inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 270-284.
31.
York, J., & Reynolds, M. (1996). Special education and inclusion. In J. P. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook on research on teacher education (2nd ed.; pp. 820-836). New York: Macmillan.
32.
Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan,76, 531-540.
