Making Creative Schedules Work in Middle and High Schools

Elliot Y. Merenbloom, Barbara A. Kalina

• Publisher: Corwin
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781483361802
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Curricula

This practical, user-friendly resource provides a step-by-step process for restructuring blocks of learning time to improve student-teacher relationships and promote more positive learning experiences.

1

Why Are Schools Reorganizing?

Pick up any newspaper; listen to any radio or television talk show; check the book catalogues clogging our mailboxes. When the focus is education, one theme permeates them all: change. The demands for change seem to challenge the mentality that Dolan (1994), in Restructuring Our Schools, calls “system-in-place” (p. 5), the mentality that resists attempts to reform, restructure, or reorganize. Along with Dolan, others caution us to recognize the complexity of a system’s interconnections that place obstacles in the path of change (Jackson & Davis, 2000, pp. 27–28; McAdams, 1997; Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner, 2000, p. 11; Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004). Part of this complexity includes the five pressure groups identified by Erickson (2001, pp. 2–10): business and the world of work, state governments, social forces, media, and parents. McAdams suggests five somewhat different factors: “quality of leadership, local politics and governance, state and national politics, organizational characteristics, and change.” Within this challenging climate, school districts and educators alike may feel controlled by the tides of change rather than in control of them. In the attempt to navigate the sea of expectations, a danger exists of losing education’s true mission: to meet the academic needs of each student by “recreating schools to serve students who will grow up in a post-industrial world” (Senge et al., p. 9).

To fulfill their role and meet the challenges, many secondary schools seek to incorporate the change process as a common and ongoing element of their culture. Through observation and evaluation of their specific needs, successful schools take an inside out, step-by-step approach to change, each step dependent on the implementation of the previous steps (National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 1996; Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004). Some identified school changes include reorganization of time, materials, resources, students, and teachers; new approaches to scheduling; curriculum delivery; and professional collaboration. Impetus for these changes is generated by expectations of community, parents, boards of education, and accreditation agencies. Individually and as part of a school improvement team, teachers along with administrators contribute their voices to the reform process. Through their research of theory, best practices, and classroom initiatives, they can create models for schoolwide adoption.

Today and especially since the reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, more familiarly known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, laws mandate change. These changes include increased accountability for states, school districts, and schools; greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing schools; more flexibility for states and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the use of federal education dollars; and a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for our youngest children. Those laws require schools and districts to demonstrate that adequate yearly progress and the needs of all student populations are being met.

FIFTEEN FACTORS FOR RESTRUCTURING

This chapter identifies fifteen factors for leaders and teachers to consider as they evaluate their purposes and options for the improvement of learning. These options apply to schools that are challenged to improve performance as well as schools that are currently performing well and seeking ways to provide even greater learning opportunities. These factors include the most frequently identified catalysts for change: points that cry out for increased support of students and targeted elements that require restructuring.

Ideally, purposes for reorganizing should be clearly identified throughout the early stages of the restructuring process. Prior to a revision of schedules, curriculum, and models of professional collaboration, leaders and teachers should analyze these topics as they relate to the local setting. The final assessment of the reorganization effort should be based upon reasons that address community needs, not just the schedule, student scores, or a survey. Fifteen factors to guide the decision-making process follow:

1. Respond to student needs.
2. Ease transition from elementary school to middle school.
3. Facilitate transition from middle school to high school.
4. Make effective use of available full-time equivalent (FTE) positions.
5. Increase or decrease the number of periods in the day.
6. Lengthen the instructional module.
7. Address state and national standards.
8. Improve student achievement.
9. Provide remediation.
10. Establish teams, houses, small learning communities, magnets.
11. Move locus of control from management to teacher.
12. Incorporate looping.
13. Provide opportunities for inclusion of special needs students.
14. Group and regroup students for a variety of instructional purposes.
15. Establish advisory programs.

These considerations are numbered for convenient reference but are not presented in order of importance. In fact, multiple purposes for reorganization exist, and many of these reasons are interrelated. School leaders and teachers should look at options for change presented in the following chapters, including schedules, small learning communities, and teaching in variable time periods. They may identify important factors that may be of interest or mandated. At the end of this chapter and each subsequent chapter, a set of questions appears for both leaders and teachers. The process of answering these questions is key to the effective utilization of the book as a tool in restructuring.

Respond to Student Needs

Technically, all schools exist to serve students and to respond to their needs. In actuality, some schools accomplish this task better than others. In essence, the middle school concept arose from a concern about meeting adolescent needs. In the middle of the twentieth century, studies looked more closely at the early adolescent student. Through those studies, researchers found that the needs of these students differed from the needs of the elementary student. Dr. William Alexander and Dr. Donald Eichorn, two of the early pioneers in this effort, wrote extensively about early adolescent students, describing their characteristics and introducing pedagogy designed to meet their needs. Today, the authors of Breaking Ranks (NASSP, 1996) and Breaking Ranks II (NASSP, 2004) reinforce those findings and extend them into the high school arena. Programs such as freshman academies, advisory programs, magnet experiences, and house plans for Grades 9 to 12 emerge in this response to student needs.

Ease Transition From Elementary School to Middle School

Parents perceive that the elementary school is a safe, secure environment where one classroom teacher is responsible for coordinating the learning experience of one class of students. In The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education, Anfara (2001) reports the study completed by Williamson and Johnston (1998) regarding parental attitudes toward middle level schools. Parents in four communities voiced four major concerns: potential student anonymity within the larger middle school, unclear curriculum content, minimal curriculum rigor, and instruction that did not engage students. Based on these observations, Anfara suggests that the results of the Williamson and Johnston study may be attributed to community perceptions rather than reality or to inadequately prepared middle school faculty.

Since test scores at the elementary school level are frequently higher than comparable scores in Grades 6–8 (Alspaugh, 1998), parents wish to extend the security and perceived success of elementary school beyond Grade 5 or 6. Consequently, some communities are creating K–8 schools in an effort to keep the student in what they believe to be a safe environment. Many of the K–8 schools, however, lack the comprehensive secondary curriculum, resources, and teachers trained in content areas. This becomes a dilemma.

In a New York Times article, Deborah Nussbaum (2004) identifies some of the attitudes for and against middle level schools, noting especially the urban school situations in which truancy and the loss of individual attention play a part. A K–8 advocate, Cheri Pierson Yecke (2006) created a stir in the middle level school community when she questioned the success of middle level education by calling to account its academic rigor. In part, the rebuttal to her charges occurred before the accusation: Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, and Flowers (1997) emphasized that achievement and success in the middle level grades require full implementation of the middle school philosophy and practices rather than the cafeteria selection approach that has too often perpetuated the system-in-place. According to McEwin, Dickinson, and Jenkins (2003), however, the trend to reorganize from middle level schools to K–8 remains limited. Therefore, the burden to provide a safe transition is incumbent upon the middle level school. Overall, decision makers recognize the importance of addressing the specific needs of this unique population, which includes the recognition of developmental needs and academic rigor.

Another related issue appears to be the transition from a self-contained environment to departmentalization. While some middle schools include self-contained fifth- and sixth-grade classes, most middle schools feature interdisciplinary teams. School personnel develop a variety of activities to ease the transition for the student as well as for the parent, activities such as middle level and elementary student visitations, parent-student orientations to the building, and team letters or phone calls. As required by current law (No Child Left Behind), middle level teachers are more often subject matter specialists. They collaborate to deliver the total core curriculum according to the individual needs of their student team. When effective, the team becomes the security for students.

McEwin, Dickinson, and Smith (2004) maintain that middle level schools can carry out their original mission and attain the goals of intellectual and individual development during these early adolescent years. As evidence, they cite the ongoing research completed by Mertens, Flowers, and Mulhall at the Center for Prevention, Research, and Development (CPRD) at the University of Illinois, Champaign (1998, 2001, 2003). In November 2002, Mulhall, Flowers, and Mertens reported the importance of considering and understanding all of the data regarding this age group, not only the standardized achievement score data. By implementing a larger body of disaggregated data, schools and districts are better able to develop intervention methods for immediate action and for program evaluation.

Aware of the challenge before them, today’s middle schools are reorganizing to achieve the necessary balance between the security of the elementary-oriented teacher and the subject matter specialization of secondary teachers. In this way, they facilitate the transition of students.

Facilitate Transition From Middle to High School

An equally important transition takes place between middle school and high school. From the inception of the middle school concept, districts assigned ninth grade students to high school campuses. Whereas middle school education attempted to create a different experience for those sixth graders housed in a 6–8 building, ninth graders were given the “standard” high school schedule and often were not successful in that model. Success was measured in terms of grade point average, retention and dropout rates, attendance and tardiness, participation in extracurricular activities as well as suspensions and expulsions.

In the current 9–12 high school model, more developmentally appropriate measures are being used to determine success. High school educators address the transition of students from Grades 8 to 9 by creating academies or small learning communities to deliver the ninth grade curriculum and an advisory component to facilitate the adjustment to Grade 9. High school counselors and administrators meet with their middle level colleagues to learn more about the nature and needs of the rising freshman class. Some districts establish separate freshman schools within the high school structure. To facilitate the adjustment, the advisory component includes study skills, test preparation, conflict resolution, decision making, career development, and communication skills. In the NASSP report Breaking Ranks (2004), this advisory component appears as one of the strategies necessary for essential high school reform.

As in the transition from elementary to middle school, ninth grade teachers strive to achieve the proper balance between the security provided by the team or small learning community within the middle school philosophy and the subject matter specialization ultimately needed in Grades 10–12.

Make Effective Use of Available Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Positions

In many school districts, the superintendent allocates FTEs or a fixed number of personnel to each building principal, who then apportions these positions to each department, team, house, or academy. When a district loses positions because of budget reductions or declining enrollment, when special education or bilingual positions displace regular education positions, or when graduation or state requirements change, adjustments affect the FTE distribution.

Several subtopics further compound the issue of FTE allocation:

Number of periods in the school day

– Schools moving from a six- or seven-period day to an eight-period day realize the need for additional staff to offset an increase in average class size and/or average daily pupil loads. Because of reductions in staffing mandated by the district, some schools change to a six-period day.

Number of periods per day a teacher can teach

– Beyond the question of the number of periods in the day is the issue of the number of periods in the day a teacher can tea...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figure
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• About the Authors
• 1. Why Are Schools Reorganizing?
• 2. Structural Options
• 3. Steps in Building a Middle School Schedule
• 4. Steps in Building a High School Schedule
• 5. Small Learning Communities: Role and Function
• 6. Elements of Teaming: A Goal-Setting Process for Curriculum and Instruction
• 7. Elements of Teaming: A Goal-Setting Process for Organizational Considerations
• 8. Teaching in Variable-Length Time Periods
• 9. Implementing Change
• References
• Index