2008 MECA, Block Schedules & Middle School Reform

8/14/2019 2008 MECA, Block Schedules & Middle School Reform

1/8

May 2008

Which Road Forward onMiddle School Reform? ........... 2

MCPS Middle Schools:A Variety of Schedulesand Models .................................. 3

Candidates for MCEABoard of Directors ...................5-8

Student AchievementGains in MS MagnetConsortium Schools .................... 9

Teacher Workload: WhyDo Some Middle SchoolsRequire Teachers to Teacha Six Course Schedule? ..........10

Recent History of MSReform in MCPS ....................... 10

Principals Views on MiddleSchool Reform .............................11

for better schools

MCEAv

Montgomery County Public

Schools is at a crossroads.

For 7+ years, the systemsocus has been on improv-

ing student achievement in elementary

schools. Full day kindergarten was

implemented. Class sizes have been

reduced across the board, and even ur-

ther in 60 elementary schools with the

highest poverty rates. Extensive work

has been done on curriculum and

proessional development. As a result,

meaningul progress has been made.

93% o kindergarteners can read simple

texts now, compared with just 39% six

years ago. 48% o 5th grader are taking

6th grade math (or higher) compared

to just 2% six years ago. The achieve-

ment gap in elementary schools has

narrowed signicantly.

Four years ago, MCPS began re-

examining its middle schools program

(see box on page 10 and 11). Today, on

the cusp o major changes in middle

school education, the county aces a

The Future of

Middle School Reformbudget squeeze that is putting unding

or middle school, and all o MCPS,

at risk. At the same time, uncertaintyremains over the best models or

improving middle school educa-

tion. Should MCPS invest millions

in reorms beore we know i they

improve student achievement? Can

we aord to wait? What about mod-

els like the Middle School Magnet

Consortium, which is already showing

very positive impacts on closing the

achievement gap and increasing studen

success?

As we go to press, the County is

still struggling to nalize the school

budget or next year. Regardless o the

outcome, we will continue to ace the

question o what kind o reorm our

middle schools need. With this edi-

tion o the Advocate, MCEA hopes to

provide a oundation o understanding

about middle schools in MCPS today,

to better inorm our communitys

decision-making about the uture.


2/8

2

Pidnbnni cuin

Vi-PidnDug Puy

sayAy hndix

tauGadin Duva

Board of directors

ElEmEntary School DirEctorS

randy GvJani MiJan MyAmy Wakin

miDDlE School DirEctorS

ei ludkVnia Pin

hiGh School DirEctorS

b DaniJn hndix

at-larGE, rEtirED & non-School

baSED DirEctorS

edwad hur Pinrgina rinnKa r-K

Mavi ei

staff

tm Ia, exuiv DiDiana Wi-Pi, Di opain

FiElD StaFF

eain buk, Unisv DiJn Gn, Unisv DiJama Mi, Unisv DiJnni Nguim, Unisv DiMay Pa spn, Unisv DiPau Pinky, Unisv DiKim-sawn sanuy, Unisv Di

hElp DESk

Jm funain, Unisv Di

May Na, sik lav bank cdinaJaki tmpn, Mmip cdina

traininG & orGanizational

DEvElopmEnt

Nami badn, Di

aDminiStrativE StaFF

Azada hi, rpiniPau Jakn, cnn cn cdinaDa Maka, Adminiaiv AianKiwana Wiiam, Adminiaiv Aian

Graphic DESiGn

Go! caiv, llc; www.g-aiv.n

photoGraphy

www.eaD.m

2008 mcEa

www.m.n.g

te Advocate s used e mge cu

Edu ass (mcEa), 60 Wes Gude De,

re, mD 20850, pe 301-294-6232. mcEa s

se esse e Advocates e. mcEa s

fe e md Se tees ass

(mSta) d e n Edu ass (nEa).

2

Which Roa Forwar on

Mile School Reform?by bnni cuin, MceA Pidn

All across the country, middle

schools are struggling with

sagging student perormance.MCPS has made the review

and redesign o these programs a prior-

ity. Over the last our years MCPS has

been developing, implementing and

evaluating its middle school program

reorm plans. Yet

the uture course

remains uncer-

tain. This month,

the County

Council and

Board o Educa-tion will be nal-

izing a budget

or next year that may well eliminate

unding or any expansion o middle

school initiatives. Even absent unding

problems, the exact nature o changes

to middle schools remains unclear.

Decision-making needs to be based

on knowledge o what works well. We

cannot aord to maintain programs

and strategies that do not yield results.

To the credit o the sta in middle

schools, the number o middle schools

making AYP is increasing.

However, we must be judicious in

how we dene success and in determin-

ing what will sustain growth in student

achievement over time. To do that

we must look at the complex interac-

tions that contribute to that growth.

Standardized test scores provide just a

snapshot and are limited in the inorma-

tion they give us. We must also look at

sta engagement and motivation. I sta

morale is low, and teacher turnover is

high, increased test scores may be just

a blip response to the ocus on process,

and not be sustainable. We must also

look at community engagement. When

parents are meaningully involved,

student perormance increases. Some

schools do that well. We know the ac-

tors that improve student achievement:

we need to learn rom the best practices

that keep sta morale high, teacher

turnover low, and parent involvement

strong. We must pay attention to thecommunity nature o schools and to all

o the actors that play a role in increas-

ing student learning.

Meanwhile, the Board o Educa-

tion wants to expand the MS Reorm

Phase 1 initiative to ten more schools

next year. This is premature. Since

this is the rst year o implementation,

there is no data on whether students

in the Phase 1 schools are doing any

better than they were beore and i

they are why. Additionally, sta inboth the Oce o Curriculum and

Instructional Programs and the Oce

o Organizational Development have

voiced real concerns about MCPS

organizational capacity to expand to so

many additional schools so ast.

Many months o work by many

people went in to designing the MS

Reorm Phase 1 plan. But it is just

too early to know what pieces o that

plan are working and what ones arent.

What can we learn rom Phase 1?

Should literacy and math coaches be

ulltime release or still teach a period?

What is the best way to provide con-

tent area team planning? Until we can

answer those questions, it is premature

to duplicate the model in so many

additional schools. We are not asking

MCPS to put middle school students

on hold; we are just asking that the

decisions about how to proceed are

based on real data. They ask the same

o us in our classrooms every day.H

We know the factors that improve

student achievement: we need to

learn from the best practices that

keep staff morale high, teacher

turnover low, and parent involve-

ment strong.


3/8

Montgomery County is

not alone in struggling to

gure out how best to helpmiddle school students be

successul. National conerences and

publications are lled with debate and

discussion about improving middle

school education in our public schools.

The National Association of Secondary

School Principals (www.nassp.org) has

published a useul report on middle

schools. The National Middle Schools

Association (www.nmsa.org) is also a

source or relevant resources, as is the

National Forum to Accelerate Middle

Grades Reform (www.mgorum.org).

Here in MCPS, there is no one

model. There are ve basic school

designs being used in Montgomery

County Public Schools, and as many

individual sub-variations and local

school uniqueness as there are Mont-

gomery County middle schools.

Here we strive to provide a rubric o

the basic dierences between the designs

o dierent MCPS middle schools.

n The traditional seven period

day: The traditional schedule

most parents and teachers grew

up with when they were middle

school students: 7 periods a day,

45 minute class periods.

n The traditional block schedule:

First popularized in high schools,

a number o middle schools have

now moved to some orm o blockschedule where classes are lon-

ger, but do not meet every day.

The most typical schedule has a 7

period schedule with 90 minute

classes that meet every other day.

Most schools also have an anchor

block one 45 minute period that

meets every day.

MCPS Middle Schools:A Variety of Scheules an Moels

n The Six-Out-of-Eight

schedule: Several MCPS schools

have been operating on an 8

period schedule, but have teachers

teaching 6 classes rather than the

traditional 5 class load. One school

(Sligo MS) has decided to abandon

the 6/8 schedule and return to

a traditional 7 period schedule or

next year.

n The MS Magnet Consortium:

The three MS Magnet Consortium

schools also run an 8 period sched-

ule, which provides students with

an extra elective period as part othe thematic ocus o their consor-

tium schools program. However

teachers in the MSMC schools only

teach the standard 5 course load,

and the additional period is used

or department planning and pro-

essional development embedded in

the regular work day.

n The MS Reform Initiative

Phase 1 schools: Most o the

Phase 1 schools in MCPS MS

Reorm Initiative use a traditional7 period schedule. However these

schools receive additional resources

to provide or department planning

time beyond the regular work day,

or within the day with substitutes

and to separate out the roles o

department chair (content special-

ist) and team leader.


4/8


5/8

Ater two years o implementation, the data

shows dramatic improvements in student

achievement at Argyle, Loiederman and

Parkland Middle Schools. Most strikingly,

achievement has soared among those in-

boundary students who would have been

attending these schools anyway. 66% o

the students have participated in the Free

and Reduced Meals (FARMS) program

signicantly above the countywide middle

school average o just 39%. 33% are Arican-

Student Achievement Gains in MS Magnet Consortium SchoolsStudent Achievement Gains in MS Magnet Consortium Schools

American, 39% are Hispanic, 16% are White

and 12% are Asian.

n In 2007, 74.4% o in-boundary 6th

Grade Arican-American students

scored Procient or Advanced on

MSA-Reading: up rom just 50.0%in 2005.

n In 2007, 59.9% o in-boundary 6th

Grade Arican-American students

scored Procient or Advanced on

MSA-Math: up rom just 40.1%

in 2005.

n In-boundary 6th Grade Hispanic

students increased rom 45.1%

(2005) to 66.5% (2007) Procient

or Advanced in MSA-Reading, androm 48.9% (2005) to 66.0% (2007)

Procient or Advanced in MSA-Math

n All in-boundary 6th Grade MSMC

students increased their MSA-Read-

ing Prociency by 18.5 % (54.5% to

73.0%) in just two years; compared to

just a 6.3% increase in three similar

schools chosen by MCPS or compari-

son purposes. The increase in math

prociency was also higher.

n In Grade 7, in-boundary Arican-American and Hispanic students

demonstrated larger gains in reading

and math prociency than students

in the comparison schools.

For a complete copy o the 1/15/08

MCPS MS Magnet Consortium Evaluation

Update, go to: www.mcea.nea.org . The

report also documents high levels o both

parent and student satisaction.

The leadership team at Wood MS has created a schedule

that gets high marks rom sta. It virtually eliminates all

ater school required meetings (sta meetings are down

to about 2 per year) and puts time or the collaborative

work inside the day. There are only three required team meet-

ings most weeks. The time in the other two days is used or

collaborative planning with subject-alike teachers. On alternateFridays, the principal meets with each o the teams during

one o the team meeting periods to engage in discussions, get

eedback and convey inormation. This virtually eliminates the

need or whole sta meetings ater school, except in rare cir-

cumstances. Teachers say that meeting with the administrator in

these smaller group settings leads to richer discussions.

How is this done and can it be replicated by other

schools? We believe that it can, but it takes careul placement

o students in classes, beyond what the computerized schedule

will do. The allocation o sta is consistent across the county.

Wood has no additional sta beyond what is available as a

phase 1 school in middle school reorm. The key is in the

scheduling o the subject areas; each core subject is taught

during one period, making it possible to have one period or

cross grade level collaboration. The team meeting period and

individual planning times are arranged to accommodate

that time.

Most o the special educators work in the general educa-tion classes and meet with the team where they have the most

students. The schedule or the elective teachers is a little more

complicated and their class sizes may be increased slightly to

accommodate the core subject schedule; however the teachers

in those classes are given more fexibility about when to meet

The sta at Wood have time to work together and their

aterschool time is spent in doing the tasks related to their

specic students, like grading papers, planning or dierentia-

tion and calling parents. The result? A stronger instructional

program, which is great or students.H

Making A Scheule That Worksfor Teachers An Stuents


6/8

10

A

sk any middle school or high

school teacher in MCPS what

a ulltime teaching course load

is, and they will say ve classes.But due to a loophole in the MCEA/

BOE contract, seven schools have been

requiring teachers to teach six classes.

These schools all operate eight period

day schedules in order to provide stu-

dents with an extra period or a double

period or additional elective. Since

MCPS does not provide any additional

unding or eight period days, the only

way to accomplish it is to increase the

teacher course load rom ve to six.

During last years contract negotia-

tions, MCEA worked hard to close this

loophole and re-establish a standard ve

course load in all schools. This ended up

being the last unresolved issue on the

table. In the end, agreement was reached

on a process that each o these schools

would go through to review its master

schedule and consider changes. The

negotiated process called or a multi-

stakeholder group, including parents and

students, to study schedule alternatives

and make a recommendation to the

schools leadership team, who in turn

would make a recommendation to the

MCPS Oce o School Perormance

(the Community Superintendents).

Disputes were to be resolved by a

countywide joint committee o union

and management leaders.

Some schools spent months exam-

ining the strengths and weaknesses o

their current schedule and considering

alternatives. Other schools engagedin a more cursory process. In the end,

only one o the schools Sligo MS

reached agreement to abandon the

six-out-o-eight schedule.

At Forest Oak MS, all the stakehold-

ers agreed to maintain the six-out-o-

eight in order to preserve the eight peri-

od days or students. At the ve other

schools (Eastern MS, Key MS, Newport

Mills MS, Takoma Park MS, and North-

wood HS) there were disagreements

Teacher Workload: Why do Some Mile Schools

Require Teachers to Teach a Six Course Scheule?

over whether to keep or change the

schedule so the status quo continues.

Several o those schools did armatively

decide to continue considering changes

or the 2009-2010 school year.

MCEA believes that a six course

teaching load is excessive, and adversely

impacts the quality o the instructional

program. Several o the 6/8 schools

show high levels o teacher turnover.

MCEA has learned that sev-

eral teachers both new hires and

voluntary transers arrived at 6/8

schools this past August with no

advance knowledge o the additional

course load expectations. As a result,

the MCEA Representative Assembly

overwhelmingly voted to have MCEA

publicize the list o 6/8 schools (at

the job airs and in the MCEA News)

to ensure that teachers transerring to

those schools know beore they get

their teaching schedule.

MCEA will continue to pro-

vide support to schools interested in

examining alternative master schedule

models. The issue is likely to be ront

and center when negotiations begin

over renewal o the current contract

(which expires 6/30/10).

1999: BOE adopts strategic plan Our Call toAction: Pursuit o Excellence.

2004: MCPS contracts with external research

rm to conduct a comprehensive middle

school review.

2004: MCPS applies or, and wins, a three-year,

$7.2 million dollar U.S. Department o Educa-

tion desegregation grant to establish a down

county middle school magnet consortium.

2005: Middle School Audit report presented

to the Board o Education, and the MS

Recent History of MS Reform in MCPS

Reorm Steering Committee is establishedto guide the reorm process and oversee the

development o recommendations.

2005: The Middle School Magnet Consortium

opens in the all at Argyle, Loiderman and

Parkland middle schools.

2006: More than 160 sta members,

parents, employee association representa-

tives, and community members begin work

on middle school reorm project teams to

solicit input, gather research and make

recommendations.


7/8

Spring 2007: The Board o Education ap-

proves unding to implement a MS Reorm

Initiative in ve Phase 1 middle schoolsbeginning in the all or the 2007/2008

school year. Schools are invited to apply and

Bannecker, Clemente, Montgomery Village,

Sligo and Wood are selected.

Fall 2007: The Middle School Magnet Consor-

tium schools enter their third and nal year

o ederal grant support.

January 2008: The Board o Education

receives an evaluation o the Middle School

Magnet Consortium. Results rom two years

o student achievement data show dramatic

improvement or all students and closing o

the achievement gap (see story on page 9).

January 2008: The Board o Education propos-es a budget or 08/09 that maintains unding

or the 3 MS Magnet Consortium schools (ater

the ederal grant expires in 2008). They also

increase unding to add 10 additional schools

to MS Reorm, but support the administrations

position that those schools must implement

the MS Reorm school design and cannot opt

or the MS Magnet Consortium design instead.

March 2008: There is no evaluation to date o

the MS Reorm Initiative. This summer, MCPS

is expected to complete an evaluation that

looks only at the delity o implementation

o the models components. The rst evalua-

tion o student results is not expected untilthe summer o 2009.

April 2008: The ollowing ten additional middle

schools are selected to be in Phase 2 o the MS

Reorm Initiative: Eastern, Gaithersburg, King,

Lee, Newport Mill, Shady Grove, Silver Spring

International, Tilden, West, and White Oak.

May 2008: Funding or continuation o the

Middle School Magnet Consortium, and

expansion o the MS Reorm Initiative, is in

doubt pending County Council action on the

nal MCPS budget or next year.

Principals Views on

Mile School Reform

In 2006, The National Association o Secondary School Principals (NASSP) issued a

comprehensive report entitled Breaking Ranks in the Middle: Strategies or Leading Middle

Level Reorm. They identied nine cornerstone strategies, including:

1 Establish academically rigorous essential learnings, and align curriculum and

teaching strategies.

2 Create dynamic teacher teams with common planning time.

3 Provide structured planning time or teachers to align curriculum across grades and

schools and ocus on the needs o students.

4 Implement advisory-like periods that provide students with requent and meaningul

adult interactions.

5 Ensure that teachers assess individual learning needs and use dierentiated

instructional strategies and multiple assessments.

6 Entrust teachers with the responsibility o implementing schedules that are fexible

enough to accommodate dierentiated teaching strategies and that allow or eective

teacher teaming and common planning time.

7 Institute structural leadership systems that allow or substantive involvement in decision

making by students, teachers, amilies and the community.

8 Align all programs and structures so that all social, economic and racial/ethnic groups

have open and equal access to challenging activities and learning.

9 Align school wide and individual proessional development with the required knowledgeo content, instructional strategies and student development.

For more inormation on NASSPs Breaking Ranks in the Middle Report, go to www.nassp.org


8/8

Dive into summersavings with MCT!Open an MCT Summer Paycheck Savings Account and star

saving for all those summer expenses ahead: family

vacations, camps, day care . . . and that pool membershipyouve been wanting, of course.

Open an account today at mctfcu.org, or by calling us at 301.948.988

Your savings federally insured to at least$100,000 and backed by the full faith andcredit of the United States Government.

National Credit Union Administration,aU.S.Government Agency.

Documents

2008 MECA, Block Schedules & Middle School Reform