Scheduling Strategies for Middle Schools

Michael D. Rettig, Robert Lynn Canady

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781883001674
• eBook ISBN: 9781317921769
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

With over 150 sample schedules, this book shows how scheduling strategies can enhance your school's capacity to offer exploratory courses, interdisciplinary teaching teams, teacher-based guidance programs, and other programs and practices which are responsive to the needs of early adolescents.

1
THE CRITICAL ROLE OF SCHEDULING IN FULLY IMPLEMENTING MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES

Schools designed specifically for middle-level students were implemented beginning in the mid-1960s. Since that time there has been a continuous trend away from the traditional junior high school that serves grades 7-9 toward middle school configurations, typically involving grades 6-8 (Viadero, 1996). In 1973, there were nearly four junior highs for every middle school; by 1993, there were approximately three middle schools for every remaining junior high (9,573 vs. 3,970) (National Center for Education Statistics, 1995). While there has been widespread adoption of the general concept of the “middle school/’ not all aspects of its philosophy have been implemented equally.

Despite the progress made during the past three decades toward the implementation of middle school philosophies and practices, such as interdisciplinary teaching teams, exploratory courses, and teacher-based guidance programs, the dominant form of scheduling continues to be daily periods of uniform duration rather than the more flexible scheduling patterns that middle school advocates endorse (Viadero, 1996). In this book, we advocate a reconsideration of the traditional scheduling arrangements and related practices of middle schools. Our thinking is guided by these eight questions:

1. What is an appropriate number of students a middle school teacher should see each day/term/year? Is there a relationship between how a teacher works with students and the number of students assigned to a teacher?

2. What is the appropriate number of teachers for middle school students to see each day/term/year? Is there a relationship between student behavior and “sense of belonging” and the number of teachers a student is assigned during a day/term/ year?

3. What is the appropriate time balance between core and encore subjects? What factors should be considered in determining this balance?

4. What is the appropriate number of subjects in which a student should be enrolled during any one day/term/year? Is there a relationship between the number of classes for which students are responsible and their success in those classes?

5. How should exploratory classes be scheduled in relation to other subjects?

6. While many middle school schedules on paper show the possibility of flexibly combining single periods into longer instructional blocks, in practice, we find classes typically are taught in single periods. Does this practice make the middle school experience even more fragmented for both students and teachers? Does such practice create stress and make it difficult for teachers to implement some of the more productive teaching strategies?

7. With the growing diversity of school populations, do we need to plan schedules that permit extended learning time for those students who need additional time to meet course expectations?

8. Should a middle school schedule be compatible with elementary and high school schedules in the same feeder pattern?

As we reflected upon the roots and history of the middle school movement, we kept these key questions at the forefront of our consciousness.

BACKGROUND OF MIDDLE-LEVEL SCHOOLING

When the concept of middle schools was first proposed during the early 1960s, middle schools were seen as a bridge between elementary schools and the traditional high school. It was thought that the existing junior high schools were primarily mini-high schools organized for pre- and young adolescents. Most of the existing junior high schools and their parent high schools had fragmented 50- to 55-minute periods; departmentalized faculties; teacher-directed, lecture-style instruction; and class assignments that left students reshuffled each period, often attending classes with students thought to have similar abilities and academic prowess.

In terms of scheduling, what we now find in many middle schools is NOT students being reshuffled for six 50- to 55-minute periods but students being reshuffled 7 to 10 times each day for periods of 38 to 42 minutes. Is such a schedule consistent with what we know about middle school students? Is it consistent with middle school philosophy?

Middle schools began in different parts of the country for various reasons. In the early days, middle schools were often a local response to a local need or initiative. In some communities, they were organized as a result of student population shifts; in other communities they were organized around space availability. Quite often a new high school was built and the old high school building became the middle school because middle school space, such as gymnasiums, did not require the same standards as high school space. In some sections of the country, middle schools with varying grade levels were offered as a way to deal with integration issues, such as sharing busing equally—for example, one school might be assigned all students in a particular district in grades 7 and 8, while another building site was assigned all students in grades 5 and 6; often both buildings would have the name “middle” somewhere in the title, while some simply were called intermediate schools. This early development of the middle school may have been more a product of the administrative needs of school districts than the instructional needs of students (Smith, 1998).

At about the same time, educational psychologists, sociologists, and educators were documenting the unique developmental characteristics of children approaching and beginning adolescence. For example, it was stated that children in the 10- to 15-year-old group undergo rapid physical, cognitive, emotional and social changes (Lawton, 1993). The rate and extent of growth of this age group is matched during a person’s lifetime only between birth and age 3 (Lipsitz, 1984). It also was calculated that children are maturing physically at earlier ages than a few decades ago and that all these changes are factors that should be considered in how children learn (Crockett, 1995, cited in Smith, 1998). Middle schools became the organizational structure designed to teach children in what several writers referred to as the turbulent period of a child’s life.

The flexibility of middle school programs, practices and organizational structures was seen to be more responsive to this identified age group than the traditional, somewhat rigid structures of junior high schools. The failure of junior high schools to be “needs responsive to students” again was invoked by Dennis Sabo in his study of middle school climate, as he reported that “middle schools were developed in response to the failure of junior high schools to address the growing knowledge of the needs of early adolescence” (1995, p. 157). It was even stated that middle schools were seen as an opportunity to “re-organize in support of good teaching” (National Education Association, 1966).

In view of the above statements, how can we continue to justify short, choppy periods of time as being “needs responsive to middle school students”—and, we might add, “needs responsive to middle school teachers?” How can such a scheduling format support what we know to be good teaching? How do teachers in a daily, single-period schedule engage middle school students in active learning strategies? In short time periods, how do middle school teachers make the best use of technology in today’s classrooms?

The current acceptance of the term and grade grouping known as “middle school” by a majority of school districts across the country is well established. It generally is accepted that middle schools were defined by William Alexander, a recognized leader of the middle school movement, as schools containing grade levels between grades 5 and 8 (Smith, 1998). As recapped in the most recent publication of its basic position paper, This We Believe: Developmentally Responsive Middle Schools, the National Middle School Association advocates middle schools that are characterized by:

♦ Educators committed to young adolescents,

♦ A shared vision,

♦ High expectations for all,

♦ An adult advocate for every student,

♦ Family and community partnerships, and

♦ A positive school climate (NMSA,1995).

Is a middle school schedule an important factor in providing students with: (1) an adult advocate; (2) a need to belong, which appears to be even more important for today’s middle school students than it was 30 years ago; and (3) a positive school climate?

Such schools would provide:

♦ Curriculum that is challenging, integrative and exploratory,

♦ Varied teaching and learning approaches,

♦ Assessment and evaluation that promote learning,

♦ Flexible organizational structures,

♦ Programs that foster health, wellness and safety, and

♦ Comprehensive guidance and support services (NMSA, 1995).

If middle schools are to offer curriculum that is challenging, integrative and exploratory, varied in teaching and learning approaches, flexible in structure, and comprehensive in guidance and support services, what would be a defensible scheduling format to facilitate the achievement of such goals? Is the schools schedule an important factor in facilitating the achievement of such goals? Does reshuffling middle school students every day in 7 to 10 single periods of different disciplines facilitate the achievement of these such goals?

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN BELIEF AND PRACTICE: THE ROLE OF SCHEDULING IN IMPLEMENTING EXEMPLARY MIDDLE SCHOOLS

As we examine the major premises of the middle school movement and match those goals with what we know about teaching and learning, we find little disagreement about what constitutes good education for middle-level students. There are, however, gaps between some of the concepts as described in the literature and what we observe in the daily operations of many middle schools throughout the country. Too often there is a gap between what middle school advocates say they believe regarding “flexible organizational structures’7 (NMSA, 1995) and the actual middle school schedules utilized throughout the country. We believe that several of the discrepancies between stated middle school beliefs and actual practices have their roots in the school schedule.

It is the schedule that gives teachers sustained instructional periods of time with students; until that time is provided, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for teachers to involve students in the integrated, active, relevant, and application-oriented activities, such as cooperative learning, Socratic seminars, effective use of technology and project-based learning, recommended by middle school advocates (Allen, Splittgerber, & Manning, 1993; Crockett, 1995, cited in Smith, 1998; Doda & George, 1999; George & Alexander, 1993; Lipsitz, 1984; Rafferty, Leinenbach, & Helms, 1999; Scales, 1999; Wiles & Bondi, 1993).

If we truly believe middle school instructional practices should include cooperative learning, individual and group projects, and active learning activities, what type of schedule can best facilitate such instructional strategies?

The organization of teachers into interdisciplinary “teams” is another defining aspect of a middle school (Alexander, 1987; Allen et al., 1993; George & Alexander, 1993; Doda & George, 1999). Grouping teachers into interdisciplinary or modified interdisciplinary teams facilitates the planning and delivery of integrated thematic units. The collaboration on student management and discipline issues is enabled when teacher teams work and plan together on a regular basis.

If implemented correctly, one of the most important benefits of the team concept in the middle school is the relatively small number of teachers and students with whom an individual student must interact. It can be argued that the developmental needs of the young adolescent who is transitioning from a self-contained elementary classroom are better served with a limited number of teacher contacts during any one day/term/ year. The schedule design determines the structure and membership of teams; without careful attention to schedule design the benefits of teaming can be lost or diluted.

If we believe that middle school students should have a limited number of teacher contacts during any one day/term/year, what does such a belief imply for scheduling? What are we likely to find today in schools operating with a single-period format?

One of the few absolutely consistent components of a true middle school is the “flexible schedule” (Lipsitz, 1984; Alexander, 1987; George et al., 1992; Allen et al., 1993; George & Alexander, 1993; Wiles & Bondi, 1993). It is through the schedule that administrators begin to meet the important goals of middle school and to respond to the needs of the students (Lipsitz, 1984). It is the schedule that provides a more reasonable workload for teachers and students (Carroll, 1994a, 1994b). It is the schedule that determines the number of students /grades/records for which a teacher must be responsible during any one day /term /year. It is the schedule that can reduce how frequently students and teacher teams change classes (Hackmann, 1995). It is the schedule that determines how many teachers a student must interact with on any given day/term/year. It is the schedule that can fundamentally affect the relationship among staff and between staff and students (Carter, 1995).

Conversely, however, the school schedule, rather than serving as a positive element in the learning environment, can make teaching and learning more difficult. It is importa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Also Available from Eye On Education
• Table of Contents
• About the Author
• Acknowledgements
• Dedication
• Preface
• 1 The Critical Role Of Scheduling In Fully Implementing Middle School Practices
• 2 Adapting Principles Of Modular Scheduling For The Middle School
• 3 Alternate-Day Schedules In The Middle School
• 4 The Four-Block Schedule: Adapting The 4/4 High School Block Schedule For Middle Schools
• 5 The Five-Block Middle School Schedule
• 6 Scheduling Exploratory And Elective Classes In The Middle School: Expanding The Possibilities
• 7 Using Principles Of Parallel Block Scheduling In Middle School To Reduce Class Size
• 8 Scheduling Extended Learning Time In The Middle School
• 9 Teaching In The Middle School Block Schedule
• 10 References