In May 1995, educational researchers at the University of British Columbia conducted a second major study comparing high school schedules/timetables and student learning. Led by David Bateson, author of the May 1986 study, UBC researchers assessed the math and science achievement of 30,000 British Columbia 10th graders in all-year, semester, and quarter courses.

The UBC team found a scoring pattern in which students in all-year courses consistently scored highest, semester were second, and quarter third. Semester totals on multiple forms of the tests were consistently one to two percent below the all-year totals which ranged from 56% to 66% correct. Quarter totals were consistently one to six percent lower than the all-year. Bateson and the UBC team conclude the pattern of scores is significant and attribute the difference to the schedule/timetable.

A close review of both UBC studies identifies serious design flaws in the selection of the May test date. The school year in British Columbia begins the first week of September and ends the last week in June. When the UBC team administered their tests in May, all-year students had yet to receive three to seven weeks of instruction. For semester students that equates to six to fourteen weeks of instruction and for quarter students twelve to twenty-eight weeks. The UBC researchers refer to this missing instruction as an "opportunity to learn" problem. But they only see it as a factor within the semester and quarter systems.

The UBC researchers had to expect semester and quarter students who completed course work earlier in the year would have "retention problems." In '86, Bateson had found "second-semester students out-performed first-semester students" and suggested it was because of retention problems. Given the "opportunity to learn" and "retention" disadvantages built into the UBC studies, semester and quarter students could not be expected to equal or outscore all-year students. The pattern of scores in both studies is more the result of the May testing date than to schedules/timetables.

Even the UBC team had to acknowledge problems with the May testing date when their '95 findings contradicted the '86 study. Findings that "students who took science [mathematics] in the first semester consistently outscored those in the second semester" invalidated the '86 conclusion about retention. The researchers discovered the "opportunity to learn" problem when trying to explain this surprising development. Apparently, second-semester students missed more instruction than the first-semester students had forgotten.

To determine if there is a correlation between achievement and schedule/timetable, factors such as "opportunity to learn" and "retention" must be equalized. For this to happen the learning assessment must be made at the same point in the learning process. Researchers should either assess the learning as the student exits the course or begins the next school term. The latter still favors the all-year courses, but assessing at the beginning of the year will offer a measure of the retention problems facing teachers and students in all the systems. Either way, the determination will be a fairer, more accurate comparison.

Bateson, David J. (1990). "Science Achievement in Semester and All-Year Courses," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3) pp. 233-240.

Marshall, M., Taylor, A., Bateson, D., & Brigden, S. (1995). The British Columbia assessment of mathematics and science: Preliminary report (DRAFT). Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Ministry of Education.