If wishes of and students are considered, change is not only possible but even perceived as desirable, these authors point out. EDUCATORS should be accustomed to change; educational pendulum swings left to right and back again. State legislators, parent groups, even President of United States frequently call for changes in school curricula, disciplinary policies, and scheduling practices. However, and students are rarely asked their feelings about proposed changes. And this oversight can be a major impediment to success of new ideas because and students lack any investment in them. The high hopes of reformers are dashed, and another promising innovation is tossed into trash. This does not have to be. If wishes of and students are considered, change is not only possible but even perceived as desirable. This is certainly what we've found to be true at Charlton County High School in Folkston, Georgia, with regard to our adoption of block scheduling. Charlton County High School is a small rural school in southeastern Georgia. It serves grades 7-12 and enrolls 537 senior high school students, taught by 33 high school faculty members. Approximately 75% of Charlton's high school students are enrolled in vocational program. While faculty remains relatively stable, there has been a high turnover of administrators, and this instability has contributed to a reluctance to embrace change. When idea of block scheduling was first discussed, it came from top. Although top-down decision making is common, it seemed to us to be a recipe for disaster. Indeed, many of us rolled our eyes and moaned, Here we go again! We had seen changes come and go over years, and we didn't want another fad to be implemented in our school. We were relieved, however, when this time were asked to become part of process. Indeed, a 1997 survey on implementation of block scheduling in North Carolina recommended that the staff and school be involved in decision making. That survey noted that teachers with more involvement are more likely to be satisfied with block scheduling and may have more teaching changes.1 The initial rationale given by our administration for changing our schedule was that many of our transfer students were coming from schools with block schedules, and office was having a hard time scheduling them. We didn't want to be only school in state not on a block schedule, did we? The teachers' answer was, Why not? Why change just because everybody else has? We needed reasons. Quite accidentally, we discovered them. After we expressed our hesitancy about jumping on block scheduling bandwagon, we learned that state was requiring so many units for graduation that our students were having trouble meeting requirements. At about same time, we completed school improvement model for accreditation by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. As part of SACS study, we surveyed and interviewed numerous parents, students, teachers, and community members. We found that everyone wanted more electives in both vocational and academic areas. We were going to have to change something. The opportunity to offer more classes was certainly a point in favor of block scheduling. Not only could electives such as welding and SAT preparation be offered, but so could remedial classes for Georgia graduation test and study skills classes for freshmen. On further investigation, we found even more advantages to block scheduling. Content could be covered in more depth in a 90-minute block, fewer preparations and more planning time reduced teacher burnout, and student absenteeism declined.2 Yet we also knew that not all was golden. How were we going to deal with students for 90 minutes? Wouldn't they (and we) get bored? …