Course Scheduling

How schools structure the resource of time is the province of course scheduling. Beyond designating where students and teachers need to be at various times throughout the school day, course scheduling can impact students' achievement, teachers' strategies in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. Course scheduling can be traditional in nature or adapted to a format such as block scheduling. Efforts to envision schooling in new ways have led to modification of the school calendar, for example, in year round education, that will also have ramifications for course scheduling.

Keywords 4x4 Block Schedules; A/B Block Schedules; Academic Learning Time; Achievement; Block Schedules; Course Scheduling; Master Schedule; School Calendar; Time; Traditional Schedules; Year Round Education

Overview

The standard perception of schooling for K-12 students is that it takes place in one or more buildings between the months of September to June with school days starting at 8 a.m. and ending at 3 p.m. on each weekday (Stedron, 2007). School calendars typically have nine months of schooling and three months of vacation yielding at least 180 days of school per year and an average of slightly over six hours of instruction each day for students (O'Brien, 2006). It is course scheduling that provides structure to what students do during the hours they spend in school each day. Riehl and Pallas (1999) define course scheduling as "the mechanism by which students are matched with human resources (i.e., teachers and classmates) and intellectual resources (i.e., curriculum) in the school" (p. 117). Furthermore, course scheduling can influence school climate and shape how time is used as a resource in schools (Canady & Rettig, 1995).

Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (1998) asserts that "[t]ime determines class schedules, structures the curriculum, influences teaching, and shapes the interactions between teachers and students" (p. 1). O'Brien (2006) refers to allocated, engaged, or academic learning time in reference to how time influences learning and is used in school systems. Allocated time is the amount of time that students must be in school. Engaged time is when students are involved in the learning process. Academic learning time is when instruction and preparation coincide for students such that learning takes place. Making sure that students and teachers are assigned to the appropriate classes seems to be an important step in promoting engaged and academic learning time in school while allocated time can be viewed as the parameter course scheduling must work within so that students and teachers make effective use of the school day.

Fundamentally, course scheduling entails creation of a master schedule, student placement in courses that teachers have already been assigned to lead, and schedule revision (Riehl & Pallas, 1999). Course scheduling can be traditional in nature or involve an alternative approach. In a traditional schedule, a student has the same six to eight classes every school day during the week for a period of 45 to 55 minutes (Dexter, Tai, & Sadler, 2006; Irmsher, 1996; Nichols, 2005). Concerns about traditional schedules include students having multiple courseloads in one day, the large number of students teachers must interact with and prepare for each day, and discipline problems that take place when students transition from class to class (Irmsher, 1996).

Implementation of alternative scheduling plans is one way to address concerns about traditional course scheduling. Flexible block scheduling, for instance, has been described as the most appropriate type of scheduling to bring about a personalized learning experience for students (Neubig, 2006). Cunningham and Nogle (1996) suggest that prior to undertaking a change in traditional course scheduling a school should obtain teachers' opinions on changes, make sure students and parents are comfortable with the idea of change, and provide professional development to staff throughout the process.

Applications

Block Scheduling

Block scheduling adapts traditional scheduling so that students take fewer courses during the day due to the increased length of each class period (usually 90 minutes for each course). The 4x4 block, A/B block, trimester, 75-75-30 block, and Copernican schedules are types of block scheduling plans (Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, 1998). A 4x4 block schedule is comprised of four class periods with an allotted lunchtime. Classes take place over the course of one semester so that a student should complete eight classes during the school year. An A/B block schedule, or alternate day schedule, also has four class periods in a day but classes differ on "A" or "B" days. The trimester schedule consists of two or three classes taken each trimester, or 60-day period, so that students complete six to nine classes over the school year. In a 75-75-30 schedule, students enroll in three classes for a period of 75 days, take another three classes during another 75-day period, and then enroll in a class, or microcourse (Queen & Gaskey, 1997), for 30-days. A Copernican schedule, also referred to as "macroscheduling," consists of terms from 30 to 90 days where students enroll in classes that occur over extended periods of time.

The potential advantages to block scheduling are numerous. In a block schedule teachers are thought to have more class time for instruction, there might be a reduction of discipline issues due to fewer transitions between classes, and extended class time could allow for activities and projects that require more time to complete (Ediger, 1998). Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (1998) posit several benefits to block scheduling. For instance, each type of block schedule allows for fewer classes in each semester. Furthermore, students and teachers have fewer courses to attend to in each semester; this lets students engage in a more in-depth manner with material and teachers prepare for fewer courses and students. Additionally, in a 4x4 or trimester schedule, students who fail a class may be able to take the class again in the same school year if it is offered in the next semester. Finally, 75-75-30 and Copernican schedules offer students the opportunity for intense study in an area of interest or access to enrichment programming.

Concerns about Block Scheduling

There are aspects of block scheduling that cause some concern. For example,

• How to schedule classes that need to continue for more than one semester such as music and Advanced Placement (AP) classes;

• Making sure students' schedules are balanced;

• The reduction in overall instructional time and the notion that less material will be covered in this time;

• How to hold students' attention and ensure that students retain information; and

• The amount of work a student misses when absent (Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, 1998; Rettig & Canady, 1997).

Efforts have been made to address some concerns about block scheduling. Hansen, Gutman, and Smith (2000) reviewed the process by which one high school implemented a 4x4 block schedule in their AP program. AP classes were scheduled in the spring semester and students were encouraged to spread the desired number of AP classes across their 11th and 12th grade years so that they would be able to take all the AP classes they wanted. Queen and Gaskey (1997) suggested using microcourses throughout the year for students in AP classes so that they are consistently exposed to course material that will be on the AP exam scheduled toward the end of the school year.

Research on Block Scheduling

Bowman (1998) notes that the research evidence for block scheduling is inconclusive and limited in scope. Many of the studies used individual schools or school districts as sites of investigation. Most research has examined block scheduling in relation to student adjustment and achievement though the relationship between block scheduling and teachers' use of instructional strategies has also received a good deal of attention.

With regard to discipline matters, Evans, Tokarczyk, Rice, and McCray (2002) found that suspensions stayed the same for students while the amount of detentions given decreased by approximately 50 percent after implementation of block scheduling in three high schools.

Block Scheduling & Academic Achievement

In terms of academic achievement, findings from several research studies indicate a positive relationship between block scheduling and achievement. In their 2002 study of a high school that implemented a block schedule, Evans et al. found honor roll representation rose from 22 percent to 31 percent in the school. The number of Advanced Placement courses offered at the school increased with 25 percent more students enrolling in the classes and passing the AP exam. Nichols (2005) investigated the relationship between block scheduling and academic achievement over time. Five urban high schools were the sites of the study with a focus on achievement in English and language arts classes. There were small gains in the grade point average of students in language arts classes at two high schools. In all but one school more students enrolled in and completed language arts courses.

O'Neil (1995) detailed the positive effects of block scheduling in another high school that implemented a 4x4 block schedule. Attendance, honor roll representation, course credits completed, and number of students matriculating at four-year colleges increased after the block schedule was put into place. Veal's (2002) research examined traditional, block, and hybrid scheduling in relation to science achievement. For students in hybrid schedules, comparisons were made on course grades received after traditional and block schedule segments were completed. Students had higher GPAs in science courses when taught in a block schedule than they did when they were taught in traditional scheduled classes. In comparing grades across the tri-schedule format, hybrid scheduled students earned significantly higher grades than did traditional scheduled students. There were less failing grades in all of the block scheduled classes in the four science courses of interest.

Other research studies have shown negative or mixed effects of block scheduling on achievement. Lawrence and McPherson (2000) examined the relationship between type of course schedule and test scores in several course subjects. Comparisons were made between block and traditional schedules for students in a North Carolina high school. Students with traditional schedules exhibited higher scores on the North Carolina End-of-Course tests in four subjects. Trenta and Newman (2002) presented findings from an evaluation of a mid-western school where the relationship between years in block scheduling and student achievement, defined as grade point average (GPA), scores on the ACT and Ohio Proficiency Test, and school attendance was investigated. The relationship between years in block scheduling and GPA in the several subjects measured was positive while block scheduling had no relationship with cumulative GPA, ACT or Ohio Proficiency scores, or school attendance.

McCreary and Hausman (2001) studied an urban school district where high schools used block, semester, or trimester schedules. Students with semester schedules had higher GPAs and SAT Total Math scores than did students in block or trimester schedules. SAT Science scores were lower for semester students as compared to students in trimester and block schedules. Trimester schedule students attempted more credits, including elective credits, than did students in semester and block schedules. Dexter et al. (2006) examined the effect of various types of high school block scheduling on achievement in college science courses. Students from high schools with traditional schedules had significantly higher science grades in college than did most students from high schools with block schedules though the differences in grades between students were small. Students whose high school schedules operated on an AB block schedule and attained higher grades in their classes had slightly higher science college grades than did students whose high school used traditional schedules.

Lewis, Winokur, Cobb, Gliner, and Schmidt (2005) reviewed evidence-based research on block scheduling's impact on academic achievement. After applying a stringent set of criteria to articles and reports on block scheduling and achievement, the researchers examined seven articles that used experimental or quasi-experimental research methods for various forms of validity and then evaluated their findings. The studies reviewed indicated no difference between traditional and block scheduling for English achievement and slight negative effects of block scheduling in science and math achievement. Overall, the slight negative effect of block scheduling was seen across subjects. Because the effect sizes for the studies were so small, the negative effect was not thought to have a tangible impact on student achievement. Lewis et al. state that more evidence-based research on block scheduling and its impact on achievement is needed.

Block Scheduling & Teaching Strategies

Another body of research focused on the relationship between block scheduling and instructional strategies used by teachers. Jenkins, Queen, and Algozzine (2002) compared eleven instructional strategies used by teachers in traditional- and block-scheduled high schools in North Carolina. Schools included in the study had been implementing block scheduling for at least three years. Block-scheduled teachers reported using peer coaching/peer tutoring more often than traditional-scheduled teachers. Traditional-scheduled teachers believed that projects and Socratic seminars were more appropriate for use in class than did block-scheduled teachers. The use of and views on the appropriateness of the other nine instructional strategies, such as cooperative learning and discovery learning, were not significantly different for teachers in block- or traditional-scheduled schools. There were also no statistically significant differences for teachers in block- or traditional-schedules in regard to the training received in any of the instructional strategies.

Other studies have replicated the findings of Jenkins et al. (2002). Veal and Flinders (2001) investigated how different types of course schedules were related to teacher practices in the classroom. A high school implemented three types of schedules during one school year. The school used a traditional schedule, a 4x4 block schedule, and a hybrid of traditional and block scheduling. Results from student surveys indicated that more students in the block and hybrid schedules believed that teachers used different teaching methods than did students in traditional schedules. Teachers in hybrid and block schedules described using more diverse types of instruction and increasing the rate at which they taught. They also reported that they were able to have more contact with students for longer periods of time and related this to the quality of the student-teacher relationship. Evans et al. (2002) also addressed how block scheduling impacted teaching strategies in their study of three high schools. Teachers noted in focus groups and interviews that their instructional strategies included more group work and projects along with lectures.

Though not focused on instructional strategies per se, Zepeda and Mayers (2001) interviewed first-year teachers at several points during a school year about their experience with block scheduling. The main areas of concern for first-year teachers were the ability to manage the extended length of class time in block schedules, effective ways to move between activities during the class period, and accurate assessment of students given the variety of activities that take place during the extended class periods in block schedules.

Other Scheduling Alternatives

Some schools implement composite schedules that mix attributes from traditional and block schedules (Childers & Ireland, 2005). For example, Veal (2000) studied a high school that implemented a tri-schedule format where block, traditional, and hybrid schedules were in place at the same time. Delany, Toburen, Hooton, and Dozier (1997) describe parallel block scheduling where teams of four teachers consisting of three base teachers and an enrichment lab teacher work together. During each block, one base teacher works with an entire class, the two other base teachers send half their class, high achieving students from one class and low achieving students from the other, to the enrichment lab. The enrichment lab teacher works with the mixed ability group of students and the two base teachers work with their smaller class groups. Another scheduling alternative is the four-day school week (O'Brien, 2006). The fifth school day is excluded from the weekly schedule and the school day is extended on the other four days of school. Four-day schools weeks have been seen most often in rural schools.

Issues

Along with block and other alternative schedules, schools have explored different types of school calendars and schedules, such as year-round education, as a means to restructure how time is used in schools (O'Brien, 2006). Online courses are another method by which schooling is being restructured that also relates to course scheduling.

Year Round Education

In year round education (YRE) 180 days of schooling are spread over the calendar year (or 12 months), as opposed to a nine-month period, with vacation time taking place at various points during the year. Scheduling occurs in a single-track or multi-track in YRE (Kneese, 2000; O'Brien, 2006). Single-track schedules have all students and teachers on the same schedule. Multi-track schedules counterbalance instructional days and vacation over the course of the calendar year. In multi-track schedules a group of students may be on vacation while another group of students is in school. 60-20 and 60-15 tracks in YRE calendars allow for three 60-day terms and three 20-day (or 15-day) vacations. More popular plans are the 45-15 and 45-20 schedules where 45-day terms and 15-day vacation periods are alternated four times during the year. Classes are usually conducted in shorter time periods in YRE calendars (Kneese, 2000; O'Brien, 2006).

Online Courses

Cavanagh (2006) explores the burgeoning presence of online courses in schools across the country. Many high school students enroll in online courses to complete summer school classes or classes they failed during the school year. If schools do not have Advanced Placement or similar courses some students take advantage of online courses to challenge themselves. Cavanagh states that one-third of public school districts have students that take online courses.

Conclusions

Course scheduling encompasses more than placement of students and teachers into designated courses and classrooms at specific times of the day. Course scheduling is a process by which schools structure the resource of time for students and teachers and ultimately shape the school environment for members of the school community. Block scheduling has been a prominent method for adapting schedules traditionally implemented in schools. Possible benefits to block scheduling exist alongside concerns. The relationship between block scheduling and constructs such as achievement, instruction, and student adjustment has been investigated to an extent but more comprehensive research is still needed. Other forms of alternative scheduling and approaches to school restructuring, such as year-round education, also relate to course scheduling. Better understanding of the process of course scheduling and how it impacts the use of time within schools is to the benefit of all members of the school community.

Terms & Concepts

4x4 Block Schedules: In 4x4 block schedules students enroll in four extended length class periods each day over the course of one semester. By the end of the year students will have earned eight credits if all courses are passed.

A/B Block Schedules: In A/B block schedules students enroll in four extended class periods each school day. Students take one set of classes on "A" days and take a different set of classes on "B" days.

Block Schedules: Block schedules are an alternative to traditional scheduling where students enroll in fewer courses per school day. Each course in a block schedule is longer in length than traditional courses, for example, 90 minutes as compared to 45 minutes.

Course Scheduling: Course scheduling is the means by which students are matched with resources such as teachers and curriculum in schools. Course schedules can be traditional or take on an alternative form, as seen in block scheduling.

School Calendar: School calendars consist of at least 180 school days. The traditional school calendar extends nine months, usually from September through June, with vacation taken at various times throughout the year. Year-round education is a variation on the traditional school calendar.

Time: Time is a critical resource in schools that structures school calendars, course schedules, and learning. Integral components of time within the school environment are allocated time, engaged time, and academic learning time.

Traditional Schedule: A traditional course schedule consists of six to eight classes per school day along with an allotted lunch period. Class periods in a traditional schedule are usually between 45 to 55 minutes in length.

Year Round Education: Year round education is an alternative format for school calendars such that 180 school days are extended over 12 months as compared to nine months in a traditional school calendar. In year round education, school calendars operate on single track or multi-track plans.

Bibliography

Bowman, R. (1998). If block scheduling is the answer, what is the question? Clearing House, 71 , 242-244. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=390531&site=ehost-live

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1995). The power of innovative scheduling. Educational Leadership, 53 , 4-10. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9512110866&site=ehost-live

Cavanagh, S. (2006). To tailor schedules, students log in to online classes. Education Week, 26 , 1-24. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22912462&site=ehost-live

Childers, G., & Ireland, R. (2005). Mixing block and traditional scheduling. Education Digest, 71 , 43-49.

Cunningham Jr., R., & Nogle, S. (1996). 6 keys to block scheduling. Education Digest, 62 , 29-33.

Delany, M., Toburen, L., Hooton, B., & Dozier, A. (1997). Parallel block scheduling spells success. Educational Leadership, 55 , 61-63. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=87159&site=ehost-live

Dessoff, A. (2011). Is year-round schooling on track?. District Administration, 47, 34-45. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65050347&site=ehost-live

Dexter, K., Tai, R., & Sadler, P. (2006). Traditional and block scheduling for college science preparation: A comparison of college science success of students who report different high school scheduling plans. High School Journal, 89 , 22-33. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20316443&site=ehost-live

Ediger, M. (1998). Improvement of scheduling in a boarding school. Education, 119 , 53. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1267361&site=ehost-live

Evans, W., Tokarczyk, J., Rice, S., & McCray, A. (2002). Block scheduling. Clearing House, 75 , 319-323.

Flocco, D. C. (2012). Deeper learning, reduced stress. Independent School, 71, 62-68. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=75497227&site=ehost-live

Hansen, D., Gutman, M., & Smith, J. (2000). Scheduling AP classes in a 2X4 block schedule. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 , 209-211. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3738815&site=ehost-live

Irmsher, K. (1996). Block scheduling. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393156). Retrieved October 13, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/6e/04.pdf

Jenkins, E., Queen, A., & Algozzine, B. (2002). To block or not to block: That's not the question. Journal of Educational Research, 95 , 196-202. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6673801&site=ehost-live

Kneese, C. (2000). Teaching in year-round schools. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449123). Retrieved October 13, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. Edhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/ca/cb.pdf

Lawrence, W., & McPherson, D. (2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27 , 178-182. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3667522&site=ehost-live

Lewis, C.W., Winokur, M.A., Cobb, R.B., Gliner, G.S. & Schmidt. J. (2005). Block scheduling in the high school setting: A synthesis of evidence-based research. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://www.mprinc.com/products_and_publications/pdf/Block_Scheduling_in_HS.pdf

Long, C. (2012). Time is on their side. NEA Today, 48-52. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74293710&site=ehost-live

McCreary, J., & Hausman, C. (2001). Differences in student outcomes between block, semester, and trimester schedules. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED457590) Retrieved October 13, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED457590

Neubig, M. (2006). Essential scheduling practices for high-performing schools with career academies/SLCs. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 81 , 42-44.

Nichols, J. (2005). Block-Scheduled high schools: Impact on achievement in English and language arts. Journal of Educational Research, 98 , 299-309. Retrieved October 16, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16808461&site=ehost-live

Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998). Block scheduling: Innovations with time. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/ic/block/block.pdf

O'Brien, E.M. (2006). Making time: What research says about re-organizing school schedules. Alexandria, VA: The Center for Public Education. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=kjJXJ5MPIwE&b=1498577&ct=2949959

O'Neil, J. (1995). Finding time to learn. Educational Leadership, 53 , 11-15. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9512110868&site=ehost-live

O'Sullivan, M. (2013). The ten-month school year: Are we ignoring educational research in order to preserve summer vacation? Finding a compromise between educational advancement and over-schooling. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, , 395-415. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89986800&site=ehost-live

Queen, J., & Gaskey, K. (1997). Steps for improving school climate in block scheduling. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 , 158-161. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9710150593&site=ehost-live

Rettig, M., & Canady, R. (1997). All around the block schedule. Education Digest, 62 , 30. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9703076156&site=ehost-live

Riehl, C., & Pallas, A. (1999). Rites and wrongs: Institutional explanations for the student course-scheduling process in urban high schools. American Journal of Education, 107 , 116-154. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2177385&site=ehost-live

Stedron, J. (2007). A new day for learning. State Legislatures, 33 , 32-35. Retrieved October 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24237492&site=ehost-live

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 , 54-71. Retrieved October 12, 2007

from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7886758&site=ehost-live

Veal, W. (2000). Teaching and student achievement in science: A comparison of three different schedule types. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11 , 251-275. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16981400&site=ehost-live

Veal, W., & Flinders, D. (2001). How block scheduling reform effects classroom practice. High School Journal, 84 , 21-31. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4390127&site=ehost-live

Wallicia Allen Gill, W. (2011). Middle school A/B block and traditional scheduling: An analysis of math and reading performance by race. NASSP Bulletin, 95, 281-301. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=70604790&site=ehost-live

Zepeda, S., & Mayers, R. (2001). New kids on the block schedule: Beginning teachers face challenges. High School Journal, 84 , 1-11. Retrieved October 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4390121&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Hackmann, D. (1995). Ten guidelines for implementing block scheduling. Educational Leadership, 53 , 24-27. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9512110873&site=ehost-live

Krasner, S. (2002). Block scheduling, school schedules, and use of time in school. Middletown, CT: Special Education Resource Center. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from www.ctserc.org/library/bibfiles/blocksched.pdf

Mowen, G., & Mowen, C. (2004). To block-schedule or not? Education Digest, 69 , 50-53. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12810402&site=ehost-live