In an article by Michael Rettig and Robert Lynn, they say, “Schools that adopt a block schedule are more successful when they address several key implementation issues: the decision-making process, the actual construction of the schedule, the commitment to sustained staff development and the creation of a responsive monitoring and evaluation process. Teachers and parents are more positive toward block scheduling when they have been involved in the decision-making process.” Rettig and Lynn also compare the block scheduling system to the traditional scheduling system. They say, “Researchers used two controls to equalize the populations taking the tests. Overall, schools adopting the 4/4 had a lower "starting point," meaning their test scores in nearly every area were lower prior to block scheduling than were scores of non-blocked schools. In addition, early adopters of the 4/4 also served a population with an overall lower socioeconomic status. The study reported: ‘Overall, students in block and non-block scheduled schools have equivalent end-of-course test scores.’ Yet, it should be noted that while scores were equivalent, students in 4/4 schools earned eight credits per year, while students in most single-period schools earned six or at most seven credits per year.” This quote explains the similarities and differences between both systems. It explains that while the test scores are mostly the same, block scheduling can help students gain more credits per year than traditional