Educational Issues Series

The Change Process and Alternative Scheduling

Introduction

Consider the following excerpts from Prisoners of Time, Report of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning:

Learning in America is a prisoner of time. For the past 150 years, American public schools have held time constant and let learning vary. The rule, only rarely voiced, is simple: learn what you can in the time we make available. It should surprise no one that some bright, hard-working students do reasonably well. Everyone else—from the typical student to the dropout—runs into trouble.

Time is learning's warden. Our time bound mentality has fooled us all into believing that schools can educate all of the people all of the time in a school year of 180 six-hour days. The consequence of our self-deception has been to ask the impossible of our students . . .

As Oliver Hazard Perry said in a famous dispatch from the War of 1812: "We have met the enemy and they are [h]ours."

If experience, research, and common sense teach nothing else, they confirm the truism that people learn at different rates, and in different ways with different subjects. But we have put the cart before the horse: our schools and the people involved with them—students, parents, teachers, administrators, and staff—are captives of clock and calendar. The boundaries of student growth are defined by schedules for bells, buses, and vacations instead of standards for students and learning.

Criteria and the Change Process

Many school districts get mired in the "Ready, get set . . . ," and nothing happens. For that reason, before any district can successfully implement a change, a process must be in place. This process must include a set of criteria that any new proposal must fulfill in order to be accepted. This accomplishes two purposes. First, the ability to block a proposal rests on the purity of a proposal and not the whim of either administrators or staff, and secondly, it assures the soundness of a proposal as it measures up to the criteria. The following is a suggested list of criteria that change agents might want to consider:

Criteria #1: Utilization of Effective Research and Practice.

Criteria #2: Inclusion of appropriate assessment plan and tools.

Criteria #3: Collaboration within the school community of administration, staff, and peers as appropriate.

Criteria #4: Compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulatory agency rules, board policies and regulations, and negotiated employee agreements.

Criteria #5: Assurance of a reasonable level of awareness and support within the school district community, including the Board of Education and others with an interest in the decision.

Criteria #6: Analysis of fiscal impact.

Definitions

It is critical that the participants in the change process are clear in their understanding of key terms and concepts. For this reason, the following definitions will be used throughout this report:

Restructuring:

"...changing the system of rules, roles, and relationships that govern the way time, people, space, knowledge, and technology are used and deployed." (Ron Brandt, Educational Leadership, October, 1993)

4 x 4 Block Schedule:

Four classes, approximately ninety minutes in length, every day for the first semester. Four completely different classes, again ninety minutes in length, every day for the second semester. Each class equals one credit.

A/B Block Schedule:

Four classes, approximately ninety minutes in length, meeting every other day ("A" days) for an entire school year. Four completely different classes, again ninety minutes in length, meeting on alternate days ("B" days) for an entire year. Each class equals one credit.

Combination Block Schedule:

A combination of 4 x 4 and A/B block schedules.

Flexible Schedule:

A combination of 4 x 4 and A/B block schedules, but class length varies from day to day. One example: On three out of every five days throughout the school year, each class could be 90 minutes in length. On the other two days, designated as Advisement/Resource Days, each class is 75 minutes in length. An Advisement/Resource Hour is 60 minutes in length.

The information contained in this document is derived from the published documents of several school districts. The following information in this section is excerpted from the presentation made to the School Board by the faculty and administrators of Rosemount High School, Minnesota.

"We have a choice—we can be reactive, dealing with change in the crisis management mode, or we can be proactive —anticipate the changes, and thus be able to control, mitigate, and use change to our advantage." —Alice G. Foster, Educational Leadership, May, 1991

HAS CHANGING THE SCHEDULE WORKED AT OTHER SCHOOLS?

Changing the traditional school schedule to enhance learning apparently has been successful at Hatboro-Horsham High School in Pennsylvania. David Hottenstein and Constance Malatesta (1993) reveal that many opportunities arose with the implementation of their new schedule.

Teachers became more intimately involved on a daily basis with helping individual students in the classroom. The instruction became much more student-centered rather than teacher-centered. Many teachers began to use cooperative learning more extensively and had the time to consider student learning styles . . . Many teachers threw out old lesson plans and the level of creativity escalated (p. 28).

As well as their perceptions of positive results from the change in schedule, Hottenstein and Malatesta (1993) claim quantitative proof of widespread academic improvement in their school:
Attendance has increased from 95.8% to 96.7%.
The number of students who made the honor roll increased from 244 to 534.
Failures on final exams decreased from 34% to 24%.
First quarter interim reports decreased from 424 to 256 and second quarter interims decreased from 467 to 311 (p. 29).

Although there was initial skepticism from parents and students, Hottenstein and Malatesta claim that their end-of-the year survey indicated that "between 85% and 95% of students, parents, and teachers support intensive scheduling" (p. 29).

Another school claiming success from restructuring is Piscataquis Community High School in Guilford, Maine. The school adopted a block schedule in which students attend four 83-minute classes a day and raised academic standards, among other changes. Higgins claims academic gains due to the restructuring: "Five years ago, the school had the distinction of having one of the worst Maine Educational Assessment test scores in the state . . .114th out of 124 schools. In the most recent test results, the school placed 12th" (p. 1A).

Roy J. Wasson High School in Colorado Springs, Colorado, is nationally recognized as one of the leaders in school restructuring. The school implemented an alternative block schedule in 1990 and cites evidence of success; from 1989-1990 to 1992-1993:

Average teacher load dropped from 111.3 students to 61.22.

4-year college attendance rate increased from 40.4% of the class to 50.4%.

Honor roll increased from 20.8% of students to 29.9%.

Failure rate decreased from 31% failing one or more classes to 21.8%.

Average daily attendance increased from 91.7% to 93.9%.

Student performance on Advanced Placement tests increased from 21% receiving a score of 4 or 5 to 40% receiving a 4 or 5

The advantages Wasson High School found in implementing the block schedule are outlined by teacher Roger Schoenstein (1994): "The difference is dramatic . . . I know each of my students much better than I did before . . . with so many fewer kids and longer blocks of time. As a teacher of block English classes I have my students writing much more frequently than in the past—obviously so, since we now have eighteen weeks to complete the course instead of thirty-six. But I now carry home 75 essays from three block classes, instead of 150 essays from five traditional classes. They write more frequently, but I have half the essays to read at any one time" (p. 1).

An article that appeared in the September 26, 1994, edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune summarizes many positive results from the work of a number of high schools in the metropolitan area who have used a form of block scheduling during one or more of the past few years. Specific data from Blaine High School reveals increases in ACT and PSAT test scores, an increase in the school's grade point average and the number of students on the honor roll, a decline in the dropout rate, a reduction in the number of suspensions, and a reduction in the number of incidents of fighting. Although they are still working through some imperfections in their schedule, they are optimistic about the plan.

Teachers who have taught in a block schedule suggest that the longer time period contributes to the ability of the teacher to build important relationships with students. The data is compelling regarding the impact of teacher-student relationship on the teaching-learning process. Block scheduling allows teachers to work with fewer students at a time, and students to work with fewer teachers at a time, thereby increasing the potential for strong relationships. The block of time also allows for more in-depth focus on knowledge and skills to be learned, and for more active learning and guided practice. More flexibility is provided for teachers to meet students' individual needs.

TIME AS A PROBLEM FOR EDUCATORS

The corollary to Murphy's Law holds in schools just as it does in life—everything takes longer than you expect. School reform is no exception. While restructuring time, schools need time to restructure. Perversely, according to a recent RAND study, the reallocation of time collides directly with forces of the status quo—entrenched school practices; rules and regulations; traditions of school decision-making; and collective bargaining. The greatest resistance of all is found in the conviction that the only valid use of teachers' time is "in front of the class;" the assumption that reading, planning, collaboration with other teachers and professional development are somehow a waste of time. In light of this, the following findings are particularly troubling:

According to a RAND study, new teaching strategies can require as much as 50 hours of instruction, practice and coaching before teachers become comfortable with them.

A study of successful urban schools indicates they needed up to 50 days of external technical assistance for coaching and strengthening staff skills through professional development.

Resolution of the time issue "remains one of the most critical problems confronting educators today," according to the National Education Association. "For school employees involved in reform, time has become an implacable barrier."

As a representative of the American Federation of Teachers said at a recent Teachers Forum on GOALS 2000 sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, "We've got to turn around the notion that we have to do everything with out being given the time to do it.

Teachers, principals and administrators need time to come up to speed as academic standards are overhauled, time to come to grips with new assessment systems, and time to make productive and effective use of greater professional autonomy, one hallmark of reform in the 1990s. Adding school reform to the list of things schools must accomplish, without recognizing that time in the current calendar is a limited resource, trivializes the effort. It sends a powerful message to teachers: don't take this reform business too seriously. Squeeze it in on your own time.

STRIKING THE SHACKLES OF TIME

Given the many demands made of schools today, the wonder is not that they do so poorly, but that they accomplish so much. Our society has stuffed additional burdens into the time envelope of 180 six-hour days without regard to the consequences for learning. We agree with the Maine mathematics teacher who said, "The problem with our schools is not that they are not what they used to be, but that they are what they used to be." In terms of time, our schools are unchanged despite a transformation in the world around them.

Each of the five issues—the design flaw, lack of academic time, out of school influences, time for educators, and new content and achievement standards—revolves around minutes, hours, and days. If the United States is to grasp the larger education ambitions for which it is reaching, we must strike the shackles of time from our schools.

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994) concludes: " . . . Learning in America is a prisoner of time. For the past 150 years, American public schools have held time constant and let learning vary. The rule, only rarely voiced, is simple: learn what you can in the time we make available . . . Time is learning's warden . . . If experience, research, and common sense teach nothing else, they confirm the truism that people learn at different rates and in different ways with different subjects. But we have put the cart before the horse: our schools and the people involved with them . . . are captives of clock and calendar" (p. 7).

Peter J. McCarthy (1991) and Joseph M. Carroll (1990) find that the organizational pattern of most American secondary schools is basically the same: the school day is divided into seven periods of 50 minutes. The length of the period is the same whether the subject is English or home economics. Each class meets five days each week. All students take six; many take seven classes a day. Credit is measured by "seat time," time spent in class. The school is organized into academic departments which rarely interact. Teachers operate in isolation from each other.

The research of Clarence Edwards (1993) analyzes the consequences of the traditional high school schedule: " . . . As a result, students must cope daily with six or seven teachers, sets of class rules, and homework assignments. In addition, they are responsible for coordinating and managing their academic, co-curricular, social, and family obligations. High school teachers provide instruction for up to 175 students each day. Their teaching schedule may require preparation of lessons for as many as five different courses" (p. 78).

Several concerns with the traditional pattern of " . . . Much of what goes on in schools is like the CNN World News. We cover the world in 30 minutes and what we get are little pieces of this and chunks of that. Students are inundated with stuff (factoids) but come away lacking stuffing (understanding). We are creating trivial pursuit experts who are incapable of synthesizing data in order to see the big picture" (p. 8).

McCarthy and others believe that educators will not be able to put "stuffing" into our schools until the traditional structure is changed. Even though educators may have the best intentions for change, "when structure and intentions are in conflict, structure, rather than intentions, is likely to dominate" (McCarthy, p. 7).

The daily schedule is a common starting place for re-examining school structure. The National Commission on Time and Learning (NCTL) concludes: "Both learners and teachers need more time—not to do more of the same, but to use all time in new, different, and better ways. The key to liberating learning lies in unlocking time" (1994, p. 10).

The NCTL report (1994) adds: "Research confirms common sense. Our students are caught in a time trap—processed on an assembly line scheduled to the minute. Our usage of time virtually assures the failure of some of our students" (p. 15).

Schools across the country are re-examining their use of time and resources and successfully implementing changes that enhance learning. In most successful restructuring efforts, the goal is "to create schools that are more centered on learner's needs for active, experiential, cooperative, and culturally connected learning opportunities supportive of individual talents and learning styles" (Lieberman, 1991).

The literature reveals some agreement on essentials needed for successful restructuring. All efforts must focus on enhanced learning for students (David, 1991). Long-term commitment and training are vital (David, 1991; Tye, 1992; Owens et al., 1991). Developing a collective vision and shared leadership are a first step (Tye, 1992; Owens et al., 1991). Faculties must be trained in team-building, decision-making, conflict resolution, and leadership skills as teachers become empowered (Foster, 1991; Owens et al., 1991). Tye (1992) contends that educators must change the embedded practices and expectations of what "school" is: (the physical uniformity of classrooms, the orientation toward control, the reliance on textbooks and test scores, the traditional management behaviors, and the notion that all students must have similar curricula and schedules). Staff development must be at the heart of any restructuring effort, providing a vehicle for developing new knowledge, skills and attitudes, helping people cope with change, and promoting a vision of the school as a learning community (Owens, et al., 1991). The final key is time; studies show that time for interaction and planning is essential to effective restructuring (Tye, 1991; David, 1991).

"There is no such thing as the perfect plan, the final plateau. Improvement must be continuous; the revolution is perpetual."

- Hedrick Smith, Rethinking America

WHY CHANGE THE SCHOOL SCHEDULE?

Changing the traditional school schedule is a typical starting point for schools attempting restructuring. As Canady and Rettig (1993) point out, "We must view a schedule not simply as a barrier blocking the path to school improvement, but as an untapped resource that can be drawn on to solve problems and implement needed programs" (p. 314).

The NCTL report (1994) concludes that "we must use time in new, different and better ways" (p. 30).

Although innovations in scheduling abound, one of the most popular is the "block schedule" model proposed by McCarthy (1991), Carroll (1990), Edwards (1993) and others. Edwards claims the advantages of such a schedule: "If students and teachers worked with fewer classes and fewer people each day, they could focus more time and energy on improving instruction and increasing learning. Consequently, student achievement would improve" (p. 78). The advantages for students, according to Edwards (1993), are that: "Fewer classes permit students to devote more time and energy to mastering these subjects without adding to their total study time. Working with fewer teachers each day, students have fewer differences in learning and behavior expectations to address. If a student is absent or gets behind, he or she has fewer classes to make up . . . Although a simpler schedule in and of itself will not improve performance, it does afford students a better chance to do so" (pp. 78-79).

Teachers also benefit from a block schedule. By changing the teacher's work load, opportunities arise for the improvement of instruction. According to Edwards' model (1993), teachers would teach three classes per day with 90 minutes of unencumbered time with students. With the elimination of two teaching periods, teachers work with three-fifths as many students, and have no more than three preparations" (p. 79). The results Edwards predicts are: "teachers can give greater attention to their students' individual learning needs and the planning of effective lessons. In addition, less complex teacher schedules will facilitate team teaching, interdisciplinary studies, and other cooperative teaching strategies. All this should have a positive impact on the quality of instruction, and ultimately improve student performance" (p. 79).

The National Commission on Time and Learning supports Edwards' beliefs that a more flexible time schedule will encourage greater use of team teaching, permit more individualized instruction, make it easier for schools to take advantage of educational resources in the community and allow students to participate in more seminars, laboratories, and team learning, all of which the Commission finds essential for implementing higher academic standards. "In terms of learning," the Commission concludes, "time as an elastic resource is the main road to excellence" (p. 44).

WILL CHANGING OUR USE OF TIME AFFECT LEARNING?

Herbert J. Walberg (1993) writes, "Time is one of the most important correlates of academic learning, and its linkage with learning is one of the most consistent findings in educational research" (p. 1). Walberg provides a synthesis of the research on time and learning: "The body of research literature suggests that large increases in productive learning time (other things being equal) can be expected to result in correspondingly large learning effects" (p. 1)

Anderson and Walberg (1993) make several recommendations based upon their synthesis of research on time and learning: (1) Institute flexible scheduling in an effort to meet students' interests and needs; (2) Increase students' emotional investment in schools and the intensity with which they experience schooling; (3) Provide more continuous learning experiences for students; (4) Make the connections between and among events clear; (5) Use instructional techniques and teaching strategies that involve students in learning and ensure their success in learning; (6) Learning depends on the activities and involvement of the learner, not the teacher. They conclude that schools should shift the time paradigm; that "extending and enhancing learning time are likely to pay great benefits in terms of the qualities of teaching and learning in our schools" (p. 44).

In addition to enhancing learning by increasing the length of time students spend in class, redesigning the schedule can enhance what Rita Smilkstein terms "the natural learning process." In her research on the brain and the natural process of learning, Smilkstein (1993) finds that "Learning is physiological: new brain structures grow during learning" (p. 43). Smilkstein lists several implications for education based on her research of the brain: (1 ) Teaching is like gardening; we need to help students grow new organic brain structures; (2) We must provide a lot of time for authentic practice and feedback; (3) Students must make personal connections with new knowledge before they can learn; ideas and events need to be connected for learning to occur ("connected learning is a physiological imperative"); (4) Knowledge does not automatically transfer into skills; (5) Active student involvement is highly effective for learning; (6) The class/learning environment must be supportive, positive, and encouraging, with full belief in students' desire and innate ability to learn.

Smilkstein agrees with other researchers that shifting the time paradigm is essential to enhance student learning. She offers several rhetorical questions to consider in implementing what she terms "learning for empowerment": Would we go more slowly and lecture less in order to provide more time and opportunity for students to thoroughly grow their brain structures through sufficient authentic active in-class participation and practice? Would we need to cover less in a quarter? Would we need to revise our curriculum? (p. 43)

According to Smilkstein, the new brain research shows that, "The traditional lecture- and teacher-centered approach continues to ask and expect students to behave in ways that run counter to what we now see more clearly as the cognitive system's natural learning process" (p. 3). Her research concludes that it is not enough to increase the amount of time students spend in class; the time must be used in different ways as well to have a significant impact on learning.

". . . the process of change is steady, never ending. It stops for no one. That means that the process of renewal in both thought and action must be constant in order to ensure survival and success . . ."

To achieve your goal, a vision of the peak is needed, For the first step depends upon the last. But do not mistake the vision for the reality, For the last step depends upon the first. —Old Chinese Saying

BENEFITS OF A 4-PERIOD FLEXIBLE SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Improved Time on Task

Condensed Bell Schedule
Fewer Stops and Starts

More Focus, Less Division

Active vs. Passive Learning
Learning vs. Memorizing
Balancing Content with Process
Teaching and Learning Styles Change
"Complete" Lessons
Reduced Fragmentation
Students Learn Time Management

Less Stress for Students

4 vs. 6 or 7 Subjects per Day
Fewer Classes, Exams, Assignments on any Day
Fewer Sets of Teacher Expectations
School Demands are More Manageable
Opportunities for Extended Socialization During Passing Times

Improved Climate

Fewer Discipline Problems
Cleaner, Quieter Building
With Limited Exceptions, No Study Halls
Reductions in Numbers of Passing Times
Reduction of Administrivia (taking attendance, issuing passes)

Scheduling Flexibility

Enhanced Elective Program
Increased Academic Opportunities
Enhanced Opportunities for School To Work Programs

Less Stress for Teachers

75 vs. 125 Students Per Day
1, 2, or 3 vs. as Many as 5 Preparations Per Day
Fosters Collegiality
Expanded Time for Parental Contacts

Improved Relationships

Greater Opportunities for One-On-One Instruction
Student Deals With 4 Teachers Per Day Instead of 6 or 7
Earlier Intervention for Students With Problems
Greater Opportunities for Teacher Peer Observations

Improved Attendance

Improved Student Performance
Improved G.P.A.s
Reduced Failure Rate
Advanced Placement Successes
ACT/SAT Score Improvements
Improved Student Retention

Curriculum Enhancement

More Opportunities for Interdisciplinary Teaching
Varying Teaching Methods—Reduced Lecture
Improved Instructional Techniques
More Timely "Retake" Following a Course Failure
Ability to Accelerate Through a Course of Study
More Quality Assignments
Advisement Time More Meaningful than Study Hall
Encourages Greater Creativity in Both Students and Teachers
Increased Opportunities
Individualized Attention and Instruction
Increased Flexibility for Field Trips and Guest Presentations

Concentrated Preparation Time for Faculty

One 90- or 75- Minute Block of Time vs. Fragmented Periods

"If we say our business is selecting and sorting students, which is what our present schools are designed to do, we structure the system one way. But if we say our business is developing the capacities of all students, we design the system another way."

—Ron Brandt, Educational Leadership, October, 1993

FLEXIBLE SCHEDULE CONCERNS*

Retention

Probably the greatest concern raised with an extended block schedule is the question concerning retention. In that there may be longer blocks of time that elapse between consecutive levels in a course of study, the concern is that students may "forget" basic information necessary to be successful in subsequent courses. The "retention problem" is most often cited by teachers in the areas of foreign language and mathematics. Research (U.S. Department of the Navy, Stanford University, New Mexico State University and Harvard University) and experiences by those utilizing a block schedule have shown that retention is not a significant problem for students. Proper review re-engages students.

No Study Halls

When will busy students have the opportunity to complete their assignments? At first glance, this issue seems to negate the advantage of reducing stress for students. In reality, students homework quality will improve because of the anticipated improvement in the quality of the classroom instruction. Homework assignments become applications of knowledge acquired rather than a repeat of facts learned. Homework becomes an integral part of the class with discussion and an assurance that students are able to understand and complete assignments before leaving. Students should expect no less, nor more, homework under a four-period day.

Absences

Will students who are absent on any given day miss twice as much class time? In reality, students who are absent miss the same amount of class time—the time loss occurs in fewer classes. However, because of the time available to a teacher in an extended period, a student is more able to receive the individual attention needed to be brought "up to speed." The Advisement/Resource hours each week will provide further opportunities for making up work. Also, the student has only four classes in which to catch up instead of six or seven. Extended absences can be a problem, just as they are under the current system.

Instructional Techniques

An instructional period under a four-period day is not simply the equivalent of two "regular" periods. The old tried and true methods of instruction will not work in this structure. Change is necessary. Faculty members will need "retooling" in order for the improvements and opportunities envisioned to be achieved. This will require a significant effort in in-service planning. The undertaking of this restructuring effort will result in a great deal of work for the faculty, using all available in-service and early release time.

Curriculum Pacing

Will teachers be able to "cover" as much in a semester vs. a year? Experience shows that "less becomes more." Teachers do not, for the most part, "cover" as much under a block schedule. However, the topics and concepts that are "covered" are learned in greater depth with a greater understanding—less is more. Teachers, as a matter of course, redefine and refine their curriculum to become more realistic to the demands of today's world.

"At-Risk" Students

What happens to students with learning, behavioral, attention deficit disorders? Will more time in one class be too much? If we take a critical look at our current structure, what could be more detrimental to such a student? Instead of allowing them to work on a single topic, we move them constantly—from room to room, teacher to teacher, subject to subject, task to task. Logically, and from experience, we have found this to be detrimental to these students. The extended period allows these students to focus on a single subject for a longer period of time. Within the period, the activities change; however the topic or concept remains the same. Along with the continued, responsible inclusion of the EEN resource specialist and resource room, the four-period day should give these students improved chances of success. In addition we have students making up failed courses during summer sessions; these students have a proven track record of success in passing the make-up courses. The extended period has been shown to be good for all students. Students get more teacher time at a better pace with a greater variety of activities (little lecture). They have a better chance for success.

"Academically Talented" Students

Ironically, some schools that have made similar transitions have faced resistance from high- achieving students. The underlying concern revolves around the change process. These students are, typically and realistically, highly competitive. Any change to a system in which they have been highly successful is cause for concern. If it isn't broken, why fix it? This is an understandable concern. However, it is unfounded as well. Experience shows that "academically talented" students flourish under an extended period schedule. They are able to extend their learning independently. The relationship between the teacher changes to one where the teacher is no longer "the sage on the stage," but becomes "the guide on the side." Good students simply become better.

*Adapted from The 4-Period Day: A Recommendation to Restructure the School Day at Howards Grove High School, June 13, 1995.

Concluding Observations

The approach of a new century offers the opportunity to create an education system geared to the demands of a new age and a different world. In the school of the future, learning—in the form of high, measurable standards of student performance—must become the fixed goal. Time must become an adjustable resource.

What lies before the American people—nothing short of reinventing the American school—will require unprecedented effort. This report concludes with several recommendations about time. The simple truth however, is that none of them will make much difference unless there is a transformation in attitudes about education.

The human ability to learn and grow is the cornerstone of a civil and humane society. Until our nation embraces the importance of education as an investment in our common future—the foundation of domestic tranquility and the cure for our growing anxiety about the civility of this society—nothing will really change. Both learners and teachers need more time—not to do more of the same, but to use all time in new, different, and better ways. The key to liberating learning lies in unlocking time.

It is not a panacea for every issue or problem facing education. However, it can be a catalyst which leads to major improvements in learning and instruction.

A Day in School

I've just begun my math, when it's time once more to be going out the door. . . for a ballgame in the gym.

I've finally caught the ball, and I'm having lots of fun,

When I'm told it's time to run. . . so I won't be late for music.

I've barely learned the words to the song we have to sing,

When I hear the lunch bell ring . . . and I have to go and eat.

I've learned to gobble lunch, so I can run and play,

But then I hear "Today . . . we have art instead."

I'm still working on a picture or two,

When art is through . . . and we have to go to health.

There we learn to brush our teeth,

Before we race to get a seat . . . on the school bus home.

My math isn't done! The game's not won!

The song's not sung! Lunch was no fun!

My painting's just begun! And my teeth half-done!

A day in school!

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. and Walberg, H. (1993). Timepiece: Extending and Enhancing Learning Time. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Barth, R. S. (1991, October). Restructuring schools: Some Questions for Teachers and Principals. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 123-128.

Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1993, December). Unlocking the lockstep high school schedule. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 310-314.

Carroll, J. M. (1990, January). The Copernican Plan: Restructuring the Arnerican High School. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 358-365.

Conley, D. T. (1991, February). Restructuring Schools: Educators Adapt to a Changing World. Trends & Issues Series, 6. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328 954).

David, J. L. (1991, May). What It Takes to Restructure Education. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 11-14.

Edwards, C. M. (1993, May). Restructuring to Improve Student Performance. NASSP Bulletin, pp. 77-88.

Foster, A. G. (1991, May). When Teachers Initiate Restructuring. Educational Leadership, pp. 27-30.

Hamilton High School. (August, 1995). Proposal of the Design Team to Restructure Hamilton High School. Unpublished Document.

Higgins, N. (1994). Comments on Block Scheduling. Unpublished manuscript.

Hottenstein, D., & Malatesta, C. (1993, December). "Putting a School in Gear With Intensive Scheduling." The High School Magazine, pp. 28-29.

Howards Grove High School. (June, 1995). The 4- Period Day: A Recommendation to Restructure the School Day.

Lieberman, A. (1991, August). "Early Lessons in Restructuring." (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339 114).

McCarthy, P. J. (1991). "Initiating Restructuring at the School Site." Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Murphy, J. (1991, May). "Restructuring Schools: Fourteen Elementary and Secondary Teachers' Perspectives on Reform." Occasional Paper No. 9. (ERIC Document Service No. ED 334648).

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1992). A Leader's Guide to School Restructuring. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1991, October). Scheduling: From Micro to Macro." The Practitioner.

National Commission on Time and Learning. (1994, April). Prisoners of Time. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Owen, J. M., Loucks-Horsley, S., & Horsley, D. L. (1991, Summer). "Three Roles of Staff Development in Restructuring Schools." Journal of Staff Development, 12, pp. 10-14.

Peters, D. A. (1993, December). "A Travel Guide to Restructuring: The Sights and Sounds." The High School Magazine, pp. 37-38.

Schlechty, P. (1993, October). "On Restructuring Roles and Relationships: A Conversation with Phil Schlechty." Educational Leadership, pp. 8-11.

Schoenstein, R. (1993, September). "Some Comments on a Block Schedule." Unpublished manuscript. Rosemount High School, MN (1994). Unpublished Document. (School Board Presentation)

Smilkstein, R. (1993, Fall). "Acquiring Knowledge and Using it." Gamut, pp. 1643.

Smilkstein, R. (1993, Winter). "The Natural Human Learning Process." Journal of Developmental Education, pp. 2-10.

Tye, K. A. (1992, September). "Restructuring Our Schools: Beyond the Rhetoric." Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 8-14.

Westerberg, T. R., & Brickley, D. (1991, May). "Restructuring a Comprehensive High School." Educational Leadership, pp. 23-26.

Posted June 1996