Implementing Middle School Block Scheduling and … School...of block scheduling and identifies several different block scheduling models. Following this, the report briefly covers

In the following report, Hanover Research summarizes best practices for implementing a block schedule at the middle school level. To begin, this report discusses the basic tenets of block scheduling and identifies several different block scheduling models. Following this, the report briefly covers several issues related to student instruction and curriculum associated with block scheduling, as well as issues related to the implementation of block scheduling. The report concludes with a discussion of teacher teaming, a practice which has been recommended by a number of educators, researchers, and experts.

Implementing Middle School Block Scheduling and Team Teaching

November 2012

Hanover Research | November 2012

© 2012 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Key Findings .......................................................................................... 3 THE PRACTICE OF BLOCK SCHEDULING ............................................................................................. 3 KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 5

Section I: Considerations in Block Scheduling Implementation .......................................... 8 IMPLEMENTING THE BLOCK SCHEDULE ............................................................................................. 8 CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR BLOCK SCHEDULING ................................................................... 9

Section II: Team Teaching ............................................................................................... 13 THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAMING .................................................................................................... 14 SCHEDULES THAT PROMOTE TEACHER TEAMING .............................................................................. 15 IMPLEMENTING SUCCESSFUL TEACHER TEAMS ................................................................................. 16 CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND TEAMING ................................................................................... 21



INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS THE PRACTICE OF BLOCK SCHEDULING Over the past several decades, many proponents of education reform have scrutinized the six- or seven-period schedule traditionally found in most U.S. secondary schools. One form of schedule restructuring that has grown particularly popular in recent years for its suggested potential to create an environment that facilitates superior instruction and, subsequently, improve student outcomes, is block scheduling. The goals of block scheduling include the following: (1) improving student performance, and (2) creating an environment that makes better use of instructional time.1 Simply defined, block scheduling “organizes the day into fewer, but longer, class periods to allow flexibility for instructional activities.”2 Block schedules often feature class periods of 90-minutes or more, with class subjects offered on alternating days or alternating semesters or trimesters.3 Multiple different models for block scheduling have been implemented in schools. Each of these models has its own advantages and disadvantages. The Center for Public Education (CPE), an initiative of the National School Boards Association that serves as a resource on education topics, provides descriptions of four commonly implemented block scheduling models: the 4x4 block, the alternating (A/B) plan, the trimester plan, and the 75-75-30 plan. The definitions of each of these models for block scheduling, as provided by the CPE, are set forth in the figure below.

Figure 1: Selected Block Scheduling Models4 MODEL DESCRIPTION

The 4x4 Block

The school day is divided into four blocks, with classes lasting anywhere from 85 to 100 minutes with additional time for lunch and transitions. Students complete in one semester what would have taken them a full year in traditional schedules.

The Alternating Plan

Also known as the 8-block plan or the A/B plan. Using this format, students attend eight blocks of classes (again, typically 90 minutes long) over two days.

1 Arnold, Douglas E. “Block Schedule and Traditional Schedule Achievement: A Comparison.” National Association of

Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 86 No. 630. http://search.proquest.com/socialsciences/docview/216030958/1306C02B60D50E9058B/1?accountid=132487

2 “Block Scheduling: Innovations With Time.” Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. May 1998. P.2. http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/ic/block/block.pdf

3 “Making Time: What Research Says About Re-Organizing School Schedules.” The Center for Public Education. 2006. http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Organizing-a-school/Copy-of-Making-time-At-a-glance/Making-time-What-research-says-about-re-organizing-school-schedules.html

4 Definitions reproduced verbatim from: Ibid.



MODEL DESCRIPTION

The Trimester Plan

The school year is organized into three sessions (trimesters), with students attending two core classes per trimester. These core classes can be coupled with up to three other year-long elective classes. Students complete the core classes in 60 days and then move on to another two core classes.

The 75-75-30 Plan

This scheduling plan is one in which students take three classes each for two 75-day terms, followed by a 30-day intensive course or enrichment program. Variations include placing the 30 days between the two 75-day terms, having three long classes and one short class, or changing the configuration to 75-15-75-15.

Source: Center for Public Education In addition to these block schedule plans, other block scheduling plans also exist. In a 1998 publication on block scheduling, the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University identifies an additional block scheduling plan, called the “Copernican plan.” This plan features several different variations, though all variations involve “macroscheduling.” As the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory notes, under this plan,

Students attend classes in large blocks of time over the course of 30, 45, 60, or 90 days depending on the format of the schedule selected. [...] There is time in the afternoon for seminars and electives such as music, physical education, and AP classes. The seminars may run for varying lengths of time during the year and are selected by topics of interest.5

Other authors and experts explain the Copernican plan in a similar manner, but note that the plan reconfigures the school year into six 6-week semesters, in which students take two courses each semester and study these courses intensively.6,7 Other block scheduling plans include the following: Flexible Schedule: A combination of 4 x 4 and A/B block schedules, but class length

varies from day to day. One example: On three out of every five days throughout the school year, each class could be 90 minutes in length. On the other two days, designated as Advisement/Resource Days, each class is 75 minutes in length. An Advisement/Resource Hour is 60 minutes in length.

Modular: [T]he modular schedule system is similar to the traditional block schedule, but differs in that it allows for each day of the week to have classes (sometimes referred to as ‘mods’) scheduled in a different order.

5 “Block Scheduling: Innovations With Time.” Op. Cit., p.7. 6 Dougherty, Barbara. “Policy Briefing: Block Scheduling in Secondary Schools.” Pacific Resources for Education and

Learning. http://www.prel.org/products/products/block-scheduling.htm 7 Imbimbo, Josephine, Gilkes, Alwyn. “Block Scheduling.” Center for School Success. P.8.

http://www.newvisions.org/sites/default/files/publications/BlockSched.pdf



Parallel block: The parallel block is used primarily in elementary schools, whereas the modified block, alternating A/B, the 4 x 4 block, and the intensive block are used primarily in secondary schools. Parallel block takes a class of students and divides them into two groups. One group of children stay with their classroom teachers for instruction in a subject such as math or language arts, while the other group attends physical education or music, or visits the computer lab; after a prescribed length of time the two groups swap. This schedule provides all students with a more individual learning experience.8

Schools can also utilize “hybrid” models of block scheduling, whereby they blend different models and break the day into different modules. Students can then “take classes of one, two, or three modules in length depending on the needs of the specific classes.”9 According to the Center for School Success, “This structure allows greater freedom in student scheduling and programs that are tailored to individual student needs, but it can be overwhelming to the school personnel who schedule students. A less dramatic hybrid option adopts a block scheduling model for only one day each week, when students pursue narrow topics intensively for a quarter or semester.”10 KEY FINDINGS

Over the past several decades, various educators, researchers, and policymakers have weighed in on the effectiveness of the traditional six- or seven-period schedule utilized in middle schools and high schools across the country. One form of schedule restructuring that has grown particularly popular in recent years is block scheduling. Different block schedules vary in many respects, and there are a few different block scheduling models that are commonly implemented in schools, such as the 4x4 block, the alternating or A/B plan, the trimester plan, and the 75-75-30 plan.

It is important to note that accomplishing a successful transition to block scheduling

often cannot happen overnight. According to the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, preparation and planning must take place to introduce a successful block schedule.

For block scheduling to be implemented effectively, schools and school districts should also consider making instructional changes. Keeping the attention of middle school students for a full 90 minutes is a difficult task. Moreover, passive sitting is inappropriate for the needs of middle school aged children. It is important within block scheduling to apply approaches such as cooperative learning, projects, and thematic units.11

8 “Block Scheduling Resources.” National Association for Music Education.

http://musiced.nafme.org/resources/block-scheduling-resources/ 9 Imbimbo, Josephine, Gilkes, Alwyn. Op. Cit., p.7. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., p.3.



One instructional practice that has been associated with block scheduling by many authors, organizations, and experts is team teaching. In teaming, two or more teachers harmonize instruction for one group of students, so that team activities are related to the practices that the team teachers implement in their classrooms.

Research measuring effective classroom practices, including interdisciplinary teaming, at 70 middle-grade schools in Michigan illustrates the important effects that use of interdisciplinary teams has on student success. Michigan schools in the study that utilized the teaming model showed improvements in work climate, greater levels of communication with parents, a higher level of teacher job satisfaction, and greater student achievement.12 Other organizations and experts have also highlighted the positive impact of teaming. For example, in the Association for Middle Level Education’s (AMLE) statement “This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents,” the AMLE identifies “interdisciplinary teams” as one of several “related conditions that contribute to improved achievement.”13

Research has found a number of aspects of teaming which affect a team’s ability to be successful. One of the key aspects related to a team’s success is the presence of common planning time. In a 1999 article on teaming in the Middle School Journal, authors Thomas Erb and Chris Stevenson note that, “in addition to individual planning time, teams that meet four or five times per week for at least 45 minutes each time have a greater impact than do those that meet less often or for shorter periods of time.”14 Similarly, the Project on High Performance Learning Communities (HPLC), a collaboration between the University of Pittsburgh, Harvard University, and a New York City school district, found that one of the most important factors to the success of team teaching is “frequency and length of team planning time.”15

In addition to common planning time, research shows that smaller student team sizes make a difference in team effectiveness. Erb and Stevenson note that the Project on High Performance Learning Communities found that teams should have 120 or fewer students and a teacher/student ratio of 1:25 or even less.16 In a 2000 article, researcher Nancy Flowers identified the optimal size for teams as 90 or fewer students.

12 Flowers, Nancy. “How Teaming Influences Classroom Practices.” National Middle School Association. Middle

School Journal. Vol. 32 No. 2. November 2000. P.3. http://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/On_Target/teaming/teaming_7_influences.pdf

13 “This We Believe: Essential Attributes and Characteristics of Successful Schools.” Association for Middle Level Education. http://www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/ThisWeBelieve/The16Characteristics/tabid/1274/Default.aspx

14 Erb, Thomas O., and Stevenson, Chris. “What Difference Does Teaming Make?” Middle School Journal. Vol. 30 No. 3. January 1999. P.1. http://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/On_Target/teaming/teaming_9_difference.pdf

15 Ibid. 16 Ibid., p.3.



Research also demonstrates that keeping teams together for longer periods of time (several years or more) is associated with positive outcomes.17 The Project on High Performance Learning Communities has found other features of teaming that are also related to positive student outcomes. For example, the Project has found that “students are more positively affected” if they spend the majority of the day in a team, and that designating a separate area of the building that will be set aside as team space also results in more positive student outcomes.

Designing an effective middle level schedule is a process inextricably tied to the issue of designing and implementing an appropriate curriculum. It is important to note that various sources have highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary teacher teams, though such teams can differ. In a 2000 article in Education Administration Quarterly, authors Gary Brow and Diana Pounder note that “the primary type of multidisciplinary team is composed of core academic teachers (e.g., language arts, social studies, math, science, and reading) who are responsible for the required academic instruction of a contained group of students,”18 though teams can of course feature other members. A 1995 article in Educational Leadership, published by ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development), notes that schools should consider adding a “nontraditional core teacher” to an interdisciplinary team, as the inclusion of a nontraditional teacher will increase the chance that the teacher’s subject of instruction is integrated with core teaching.19

The AMLE has emphasized the importance of curriculum integration in middle school curriculum. The organization adopted a “Position Statement on Curriculum Integration” which recognizes the need to “encourage middle level educators to push themselves beyond the conventional, separate subject format and to expand their use of integrated curriculum formats.”20 In this position statement, the AMLE sets forth a variety of forms of integrated curricula, from the basic to the more advanced. The AMLE notes that greater benefits are realized the more the curriculum is integrated.

17 Ibid., p.4. 18 Crow, Gary M., and Pounder, Diana G. “Interdisciplinary Teacher Teams: Context, Design, and Process.” Education

Administration Quarterly. Vo. 36. 2000. P.220. https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/cmayo/www/EPS%20427/crow.pounder.interdisc.pdf

19 Canady, Robert Lynn, Rettig, Michael D. “The Power of Innovative Scheduling.” ASCD. Educational Leadership. Vol. 53 No. 3. November 1995. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov95/vol53/num03/The-Power-of-Innovative-Scheduling.aspx

20 “NMSA Position Statement on Curriculum Integration.” Association for Middle Level Education. http://www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/PositionStatements/CurriculumIntegration/tabid/282/Default.aspx



SECTION I: CONSIDERATIONS IN BLOCK SCHEDULING IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTING THE BLOCK SCHEDULE Various authors, experts, and organizations have highlighted a variety of practices designed to successfully introduce block scheduling at individual schools or school districts. It is also important to note that accomplishing a successful transition to block scheduling often cannot happen overnight. As the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University notes, “Before a block scheduling model is introduced, it is important to identify the unique nature of a school community and any trends that stand out in the school’s history.”21 According to the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (referred to as the LAB), preparation and planning must take place to introduce a successful block schedule. To this end, the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory sets forth 10 “keys for successful block scheduling,” which are briefly overviewed below:22 Consult Resources External to the School Community – Identify individuals that can

be consulted about the shift to block scheduling, including other schools and communities that already use the model. Ideally, schools implementing block scheduling will have the opportunity to observe the model in action and to interview those with firsthand experience.

Involve Key Constituents Such As Teachers, Administrators, Students, and Parents – Input and ownership on the part of these groups is vital to the success of a block schedule implementation. As the LAB notes, “For the switch to a new schedule to be successful, all participants need to be involved in the transformation and feel that their voices are being heard.” Input from these groups can be solicited through mediums such as surveys, discussions, and interviews.

Offer Staff Development Opportunities – A change to block scheduling can potentially be detrimental if class time is not organized and used effectively. As such, “The needs of teachers should be determined and repeatedly addressed throughout the year in an ongoing effort to stimulate faculty interaction and collaboration.” It is recommended that time be set aside each week to allow teachers to plan, prepare, and take part in “presentations on innovative techniques that address multiple learning styles.”

Solicit Continuous Feedback – “Ongoing evaluation of the scheduling provides an opportunity for teachers, students, and parents to share concerns and successes.” To this end, the LAB recommends that a forum be arranged so that stakeholders can express their opinions on the successes and failures of the scheduling change. As the LAB points out, “While minor adjustments can be made in response to meetings

21 “Block Scheduling: Innovations With Time.” Op. Cit., p.16. 22 Quotes in bulleted points below from: Ibid., p.16-19.



of these groups, participants will also develop a feeling of ownership toward the school’s new approach.”

Keep Up-to-Date Files on Teacher and Student Performance – “Evaluations of teacher effectiveness and student achievement provide constructive feedback and stimulate improvement,” as schools can use this data to examine what is working and what is not.

Modify Requirements as Necessary – Various requirements, such as graduation requirements and athletic eligibility requirements may need to be adjusted to reflect the new block schedule.

Make a Solid Commitment to the New Schedule – As the LAB points out, “Some problems at your school will not surface during the first year; similarly some of the benefits will take time to emerge and develop before tangible results are evident.” As such, the LAB recommends that a school make a solid commitment to try the new model for three to four years.

Balance Class Schedules – “Class loads for students must be balanced between semesters or quarters to ensure an evenly distributed amount of homework during each session.”

Schedule Periodic Evaluations – It is important to periodically review how the schedule is working out, considering impacts on “student performance, attitudes, and discipline,” among other areas.

Integrate Block Scheduling Into Broader School or District Goals – As block scheduling is only one facet of school reform, administrators must carefully consider how the scheduling change fits into the overall improvement plan and how it integrates with other instructional strategies being used. Schools should also ensure that the groundwork for the successful implementation of block scheduling has been laid, and that they have a plan for measuring progress.

The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory also notes a final “key” for successful block scheduling—that is, to “remember that block scheduling is only one of many resources.”23 Alone, block scheduling will not serve to solve all the problems found in many schools and districts. As such, the schedule can be viewed “as a resource for change,” thus allowing schools to work to more effectively utilize “people, space, time, and resources.”24 CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR BLOCK SCHEDULING Schools and school districts implementing block scheduling should note that curricular and instructional changes should be made to support the move to block scheduling. Indeed, in the Center for School Success Promising Practice Series on block scheduling, authors Josephine Imbimbo and Alwyn Gilkes note, “Block scheduling is only effective as part of a larger effort to reform pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment. In fact, if a block scheduling

23 Ibid., p.19. 24 Ibid.



program is implemented poorly, or without re-thinking other aspects of instruction, it can have no effect or even a negative effect on student performance.”25 Imbimbo and Gilkes point out that, “because block schedules devote fewer days to a subject, the teacher has to develop curriculum that centers on the most important content areas.”26 While teachers operating in a block schedule environment are able to cover less information, conversely, students are able to learn about a particular topic, and absorb and process what they learn, on a “more sophisticated level.”27 Imbimbo and Gilkes also point out that, as has been noted above, teachers need to adjust their instructional techniques when switching to block scheduling. Few students can remain focused on a 90-minute lecture. Indeed, “much of the literature on block scheduling stresses the importance of cooperative learning, project-based instruction, and thematic units that provide students with a variety of engaging activities.”28 Schools will also need to adjust their assessments to match the curriculum and pedagogy implemented as part of the block scheduling format. Other authors, experts, and educators have noted the need for curricular and instructional changes when transitioning to a block schedule. In a 1999 article in the journal Middle Ground, a publication of the Association for Middle Level Education, educator Rick Wormeli, then a middle school teacher and a previous recipient of the Disney American Teaching Award, notes the importance of modifying curriculum and instructional practices to facilitate student attention and achievement in block periods. As Wormeli notes, according to Robert Canady and Michael Rettig, the authors of the book Teaching in the Block, “the beginning and end are the most remembered parts of any lesson.”29 As such, teachers should ensure that they

… start each lesson with materials and methods that are both intellectually rigorous and engaging. Get students involved in a substantive task as soon as they arrive. Save clerical matters for the middle of the lesson or while students are completing that first activity. Leave time at the end of each lesson for reflection, summary, or synthesis.30

Canady and Rettig further suggest a number of successful models for extended classes. One of these models is the “1/3” model, which is comprised of “one-third presentation of content; one-third application of knowledge and skills learned; and one-third synthesis of the information.”31 Another such model is the “Concept Attainment Model.” In this model, the teacher: Presents examples and students work with them, noting attributes;

25 Imbimbo, Josephine, Gilkes, Alwyn. Op. Cit., p.3. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Wormeli, Rick. “Block Classes Change Instructional Practice – Carpe Diem!” Association for Middle Level Education.

Middle Ground. Vol. 2 No. 3. February 1999. P.2. http://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/On_Target/scheduling/scheduling_3.pdf

30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.



Asks students to define the concept to be learned;

Critiques more examples in light of newly discovered concepts;

Asks students to complete activities that enable them to apply the new concepts and demonstrate their understanding of the lesson; and

Evaluates students’ knowledge through additional applications.32 In all, Canady and Rettig suggest a ratio of three-quarters direct instruction and one-quarter classroom management.33 Similar points are made in a National Middle School Association “Research Summary” on block scheduling. The authors of this document note,

The full advantage of extended periods is obtained if enriched daily activities are incorporated into weekly and monthly teaching plans. Teachers benefit from training in cooperative learning and other strategies that support the goals of extended classes. Teachers planning, choice of materials, class content, in-class assignments, and homework assignments are different than approaches in shorter or less flexible lengths of class time. Improvement in student skills and abilities are significant if the teacher is prepared for the new challenges of the classroom.34

In his article, Wormeli also sets forth a number of other instructional practice changes for block scheduling. For example, Wormeli recommends that teachers take into account the physical needs of growing young adolescents, and allow students to “move every 15 minutes or so.”35 He also favors a constructivist teaching approach, which works well in longer class periods as it allows “students to create their own meaning instead of listening to their teachers spell it out for them.”36 As has been noted by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory above, changing to a block schedule “can be detrimental” unless class time is used in an efficient manner.37 In his 2003 publication The Block Scheduling Handbook, author J. Allen Queen echoes the necessity of changing instructional practices when implementing block scheduling, noting that “planning in block scheduling involves more than preparing a traditional classroom lecture.”38 Keeping the attention of middle school students for a full 90 minutes is a difficult task. Moreover, passive sitting is inappropriate for the needs of middle schoolers.39 In the words of Queen, “Teaching strategies in blocked classes must include more than the traditional chalk and talk.”40 As such, Queen recommends a variety of strategies designed to increase the quality of instruction in blocked classes:41 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Wunderlich, Karen, Robertson, Tara, et al. “What Types of Block Schedules Benefit Middle School Students?”

NSMA Research Summary #17. National Middle School Association. 2000. http://www.ncmsa.net/ressum17.htm

35 Wormeli, Rick. Op. Cit. 36 Ibid., p.3. 37 Ibid., p.17. 38 Queen, J. Allen. The Block Scheduling Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc. 2003. P.48. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid., p.48-49. 41 Bulleted points from: Ibid., p.49.



Make certain that all learning experiences are developmentally appropriate for middle grade students.

Include topics of interests for all students. Make the content real and relevant.

Have the students work alone and in collaborative groups.

Incorporate the use of computers and other learning technologies.

Use pacing guides for long-term planning.

Structure learning experiences in a learning cycle format of pre-assessment, exploration, concept development, and concept application. This method of instruction incorporates the use of discovery and open-ended inquiry. This will allow the students to discover personal meanings and understandings and construct their own knowledge.

Do not let the adopted text drive the curriculum.

Use a variety of resource materials, including, but not limited to, texts, trade books, magazines (such as Cable in the Classroom), newspapers, and the internet.

Use assessment alternatives, including journals, portfolios, traditional pencil-and-paper tests, and performance based tasks. This will provide students with more than one way to demonstrate what they know, what they can do, and what they have learned.

Use higher-level questions.

Engage the students in a variety of student-directed activities.

Let students do the work. Teachers become assistants to the learning process. […]

Make students take responsibility for a variety of tasks. It should be noted that this modification of instructional techniques is often not something that can be accomplished overnight. For example, Payne and Jordan (1996) found, in a study of high school A/B block scheduling, that teachers reported needing more resources for varying instruction and more time for planning.42

42 Lewis, Chance W., Cobb, R. Brian, et al. “The Effects of Full and Alternate Day Block Scheduling on Language Arts

and Science Achievement in a Junior High School.” Education Policy Analysis Archives. Vol. 11 No. 41. November 11, 2003. P.4. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/269/395



SECTION II: TEAM TEACHING One instructional practice that has been associated with block scheduling by many authors, organizations, and experts is team teaching. In teaming, two or more teachers harmonize instruction for one group of students so that team activities are related to the practices that the team teachers implement in their classrooms. In a 1995 publication by the Coalition of Essential Schools, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for whole-school reform, the author notes that longer-block schedules can afford schools a number of potential advantages, including the facilitation of team teaching:

Long blocks make it easier for classes to practice applying knowledge via sustained projects, and they facilitate team-teaching. Long blocks bring down the number of students a teacher will have (at least during each semester and possibly for the whole year), which makes it easier to know every student well. Depending on the schedule, long blocks can offer more sustained planning time for teachers to work together. And in the very flexible long-block schedules most often used by middle schools, teams of teacher-generalists can adapt day by day so as to shift groups of students without tracking, carry out special activities, and tailor what they teach to the times of day in which kids learn best.43

Team teaching has also been linked with block scheduling by Turning Points, a “comprehensive education reform model” put forth for middle schools and coordinated by the Center for Collaborative Education.44 As part of the Turning Points Model, a number of strategies are set forth for structuring Turning Points Schools, including organizing “teachers and students into academic teams with no more than 50-100 students per teacher.”45 This teaming is identified as “an essential element of Turning Points schools,” and is linked to the practice of block scheduling.46 Indeed, Turning Points recommends that “school schedules that allow for flexibility, longer blocks of learning, and common planning time” should be created, and notes that “flexible block scheduling allows teacher teams to configure their time as needed to meet their learning goals.”47 The combination of these two practices (flexible block scheduling and teaming), Turning Points notes, can improve student outcomes: “When combined with flexible block scheduling and ample common planning time for teachers, teaming can help improve student learning by giving students and teachers the opportunity to work more closely on in-depth learning experiences.”48

43 Cushman, Kathleen. “Using Time Well: Schedules in Essential Schools.” The Coalition of Essential Schools. 1995.

http://www.essentialschools.org/resources/11 44 “What Is Turning Points?” Center for Collaborative Education. http://www.turningpts.org/work.htm 45 “Transforming Middle Schools: School Structures that Support Learning and Collaboration.” Turning Points. P.5.

http://www.turningpts.org/pdf/Structures.pdf 46 Ibid., p.13. 47 Ibid., p.6. 48 Ibid., pp.13-14.



THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAMING The practice of teaming, which has been adopted at many middle schools across the country, has shown promise for success by helping core curriculum teachers work together to ensure that students are gaining a firm grasp of the essential subjects. An article published in the Middle School Journal in the fall of 2000 outlines the results of research measuring effective classroom practices, including interdisciplinary teaming, at 70 middle grade schools in Michigan. The 70 schools were part of the Center for Prevention Research and Development’s (CPRD) School Improvement Self-Study in 1994-95, 1996-97, and 1998-99.49 Together, these schools accounted for a total of nearly 2,000 teachers and 23,000 students. This research, as well as other studies, illustrates the important effects that use of interdisciplinary teams has on student success. Michigan schools in the study that utilized the teaming model showed “improved work climate, more frequent contact with parents, increased teacher job satisfaction, and higher levels of student achievement.”50 Indeed, in this analysis, researcher Nancy Flowers found that a number of classroom practices that “were identified by practitioners and researchers as effective strategies for impacting student success” were associated with teaming.51 Flowers found that the strongest association was “between team-level curriculum coordination activities and classroom-level integration and interdisciplinary practices,” demonstrating how closely related these practices are.52 As Flowers notes, in analyzing data from these Michigan schools, “a positive association (i.e., correlation) between the practices occurring at the team level and those occurring in the classroom is evident.”53 The fact that team and classroom practices were positively related to each other is important as the frequency of certain classroom practices had an impact on student achievement scores as measured by the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). Correlations between student scores and the use of classroom practices associated with teaming showed positive relationships every time, with some classroom practices appearing to show “a stronger affiliation with student achievement gains than others.”54 For example, Flowers found that, “in the case of reading achievement gains, the classroom practices of critical thinking enhancement (r2=0.32), reading skill enhancement (r2=0.26), and mathematical skill enhancement (r2=0.26) has statistically significant correlations. In other words, as the frequency of these three practices increases, the reading achievement gains increase.”55

49 Flowers, Nancy. “How Teaming Influences Classroom Practices.” Op. Cit. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., p.2. 52 Ibid., p.3. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., p.7. 55 Ibid.



Other authors, educators, and experts have also highlighted the positive impact of teaming. For example, in the Association for Middle Level Education’s statement “This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents,” the AMLE identifies “interdisciplinary teams” as one of several “related conditions that contribute to improved achievement.”56 For schools to coordinate team curricula successfully, teachers must be willing to integrate interdisciplinary approaches at the classroom level. Flowers’ study of the 70 middle grade schools in Michigan found that “schools that are teaming with high levels of common planning time are integrating instruction in the classroom more frequently as compared to schools that are either teaming with low levels or no common planning time, or that are not engaged in teaming,” and that the amount of common planning time was one of the “three most critical aspects of a team that affect its ability to be successful.”57 Furthermore, the study found that student achievement gains were higher “in schools engaged in teaming with high levels of common planning time.”58 SCHEDULES THAT PROMOTE TEACHER TEAMING While teaming has been identified as a promising practice to promote student learning and achievement, it should be noted that not all forms of block scheduling have been identified as being equally conductive to teacher teams. For example, in a National Middle School Association “Research Summary,” the NMSA (now the AMLE) distinguishes between different models of block scheduling and identifies several advantages of flexible block scheduling for the middle level learner. As the NMSA defines the flexible block schedule in this summary, the schedule is used to support integrated activities. The NMSA notes that “the integration model is typically characterized as two to five teachers who ‘ignore subject area lines and instead draw from any subject on the problem or issue at hand,’ which is of interest to the students.”59 This flexible block scheduling is often used with interdisciplinary teaming. In the flexible interdisciplinary block schedule, “block-time scheduling assigns a group of students to a team of teachers (i.e. 120 students) and provides a period of time in which two to four class periods of 45-60 minutes each are in session.”60 The team is usually “responsible for instruction in math, science, social studies, and language arts,” and strives to create a “school within a school.” The purpose of this flexible scheduling is to empower teachers “to make time frame decisions” to encourage student achievement. The NMSA sets forth the example of core teachers planning “to teach an integrated unit on indigenous people of the area. In their planning, they may decide that on Monday and Wednesday for the next month they will block students into 90-minute periods to allow students project time to investigate sources or plan with peers.”61

56 “This We Believe: Essential Attributes and Characteristics of Successful Schools.” Op. Cit. 57 Flowers, Nancy. Op. Cit., p.4. 58 Ibid., p.6. 59 Wunderlich, Karen, Robertson, Tara, et al. Op. Cit. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid.



While the NMSA notes that both block scheduling and interdisciplinary teaming are popular practices used at the middle school level, it further notes that, “ideally, all interdisciplinary teams are scheduled on a flexible block basis.”62 Conversely, the NMSA notes that another form of block scheduling commonly used in high schools (the 4x4 block schedule in which students take four periods per day over the course of a semester to earn a year’s worth of credit) is less suited for middle level instruction. As the authors of this research summary point out,

The high school 4x4 block schedule is problematic for implementation at the middle level because courses are offered on a semester or trimester basis, and students cannot be enrolled in all required core classes the same semester. Consequently, it is impossible to design and implement interdisciplinary units that fully integrate language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science.63

The flexible block schedule, however, can be used to support the implementation of teacher teams. Indeed, the authors of this summary conclude that “the research evidence is clear that a flexible block schedule to support integrated team teaching is the most beneficial to high quality adolescent learning.”64 Similarly, in a 2001 article in Research in Middle Level Education, author Dave Brown interviewed ten middle school teachers from two separate U.S. middle schools who had implemented a 4x4 block schedule to gather data on “their perceptions of the effects on instructional strategies and curricular decision making.”65 In this study, Brown found that the 4x4 semester block schedule did not promote teacher teaming or “the development of interdisciplinary studies;”66 rather, the schedule prevented teaming, “thus lessening the opportunity for teachers to develop thematic interdisciplinary units, or to provide time for students to design units.”67 IMPLEMENTING SUCCESSFUL TEACHER TEAMS As has been noted above, the success of a teacher team is dependent in part on the amount of common planning time provided to team teachers. Other research supports the impact of common planning time on the success of team teaching. For example, the Project on High Performance Learning Communities (HPLC), a collaboration between the University of Pittsburgh, Harvard University, and a New York City school district,68 has found a number of structural elements that “have an impact on how

62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Brown, Dave F. “Middle Level Teachers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Block Scheduling on Instruction and

Learning.” Research in Middle Level Education. Vol. 24. 2001. P.1. http://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/RMLE/rmle_vol24.pdf

66 Ibid. 67 Ibid., p.9. 68 “High Performance Learning Communities.” University of Pittsburgh. http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/hplc/hplc.html



teachers function and on how they regard the quality of their work lives.”69 One of the most important factors to the success of team teaching is “frequency and length of team planning time.”70 As Thomas Erb and Chris Stevenson write in a 1999 article on teaming in the Middle School Journal, “In addition to individual planning time, teams that meet four or five times per week for at least 45 minutes each time have a greater impact than do those that meet less often or for shorter periods of time.”71 According to Erb and Stevenson, the frequency of team meeting time is also correlated with a number of teaching practices. The Project on High Performance Learning Communities found a high correlation “between frequency of common planning sessions and coordination of student assignments, assessments, and feedback,” which led to greater curriculum integration and more interdisciplinary units. 72 The frequency of common planning time has further been positively correlated with curriculum coordination and increased contact with parents and parental involvement in their children’s education. As Erb and Stevenson note, “as the frequency of team planning time increases so do efforts to communicate with parents and involve them in the education of their children.”73 Additionally, the HPLC study found that frequency of common planning time appears positively correlated with an increase in “teachers’ perceptions of the quality of teaming,” an outcome which could be expected to have further positive effects on teacher performance.74 In addition to common planning time, research shows that smaller student team sizes make a difference in team effectiveness. The Project on High Performance Learning Communities found that both the number of students in a team and the teacher/student ratio of the team impacts team effectiveness. As Erb and Stevenson note, “At the risk of being overly prescriptive, the Project on High Performance Learning Communities [has] identified 120 or fewer students as a guideline for maximum team size and a teacher/student ratio of 1:25 or less.”75 An analysis by the Project on High Performance Learning Communities found that team size has a negative correlation with a number of “aspects of teacher performance and school climate,” including highly negative correlations between team size and teacher contact with parents and other school research staff.76 Furthermore, the HPLC study found that “team size also had a negative impact on both the coordination of instruction and the coordination of curriculum.”77 As teams grew larger in size, it became less and less likely that teachers would teach “interdisciplinary or integrated thematic units.”78 Similar results are documented in Nancy Flowers’ 2000 article “How Teaming Influences Classroom Practices.” Flowers notes that research by the Center for Prevention Research and Development has “identified teams with 90 or fewer students as being an optimal size

69 Erb, Thomas O., and Stevenson, Chris. “What Difference Does Teaming Make?” Op. Cit. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid., p.2. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid., p.3. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid.



for engaging in team-level activities related to the curriculum as well as student assignments and assessments.”79 Research also demonstrates that longer periods of time devoted to team-based activities correlate with greater improvements in student achievement. Results from the 70 Michigan Schools that were part of the Center for Prevention Research and Development‘s School Improvement Self-Study (see above) indicate that schools that have been using teaming for four or more years “have significantly more frequent implementation of classroom practices than teams that have been collaborating for three years or less.”80 Similarly, Erb and Stevenson (1999) note that “keeping teams together for at least three years is associated with more positive outcomes.”81 As they point out, “The more complicated demands of teaming such as creating integrated curriculum are likely to emerge only after less complex operations are mastered.”82 Teams that are not together for over a year, they note, are unlikely to impact student achievement. The Project on High Performance Learning Communities also found other features of teaming that are related to positive student outcomes. First, it should be noted that results from the HPLC project indicate that “students are more positively affected if they spend a majority of their school day on the team;” in other words “A two-period time block has a less positive impact on students than does a four-period time block.”83 This seems to contradict the group‘s findings about team size, which suggested that smaller team size is more effective. As Erb and Stevenson note,

These seemingly contradictory findings about team size and the amount of time students spend on a team have powerful implications for defining the roles of teachers. Modifying the secondary model by putting four subject specialists together on a team does not appear to be the most effective way to organize instruction for young adolescents. If students are to spend longer periods of time together with fewer numbers of teachers, then rigid subject specialist designations will have to be examined… the interactive relationship between features of teaming do not easily reduce themselves to simple formulas for improving schools.84

The Project on High Performance Learning Communities also found another factor that positively affects teaming. The HPLC project found that designating a separate area of the building (such as a group of classrooms) that will be set aside as team space “has a positive impact on students.”85 For teams to be effective, it is important that teachers avoid common “stumbling blocks”‖ and adhere to a set of best practices, as outlined in the following table.

79 Flowers, Nancy. Op. Cit., p.5. 80 Ibid., p.6. 81 Erb, Thomas O., and Stevenson, Chris. Op. Cit., p.4. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid.



Figure 2: “Stumbling Blocks” of Teaming and Tactics to Keep Teams on Track86 THE STUMBLING BLOCKS OF TEAMING

Some teams do not spend time dealing with real issues and real solutions. Team time, at times, equals a waste of time. Not all members of a team share the workload and responsibility. Some team members look for opportunities to cancel team meetings instead of staying

on schedule. Grading papers during team time is considered acceptable. After all, when else can you

do it? Too much time is spent on trivial details. There is no structure for team meetings.

TACTICS FOR KEEPING YOUR TEAM ON TRACK Consider team time as a sacred time - it’s not for grading papers. Insist that team meetings are never canceled or postponed—only if there is a critical

reason for doing so. Create an agenda that focuses on three main topics—students, curriculum, and tasks

you need to complete. Rotate the responsibility of being the team leader at least annually. Some teams rotate

their leader every semester. This allows for everyone to share the load and learn team organization and management.

Assign tasks to each team member and give due dates for all tasks. This allows the leader to hold all team members accountable.

Talk about curriculum issues in every team meeting. Go beyond sharing what you are teaching. Bring in examples of what you are planning to do with your students. Teach a lesson to your team. This is a great way to evaluate and get feedback to help you improve your lesson plans. You and your team have a common goal, so their advice is some of the best you’ll get.

Bring samples of student work to each team meeting. Share strategies you used to motivate students. Describe the topic and tasks required. Talk about whether students worked individually or in groups. Did they have a choice? Mention the work process—where the students sat in the classroom and how much time it took to complete the assignment. You can gather great information on how to help students succeed by sharing and discussing the instructional process in your classroom. Just think of how much more productive your meetings would be if you focused on the important issues like student success.

Deal with classroom discipline issues as a team. Share strategies you have used that have successfully curbed bad behavior. For example, you might have spent one-on-one time with a misbehaving student to describe directions for an assignment. This technique might have helped the student comprehend what she needed to accomplish. Or maybe you changed your seating format and project pairings to deal with disruption issues.

Source: National Middle School Association

86 Figure text taken verbatim from: “Classroom Connections (Teaming).” Classroom Connections. Vol. 4 No. 4. Pp.1-

2. http://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/On_Target/teaming/teaming_2_cc1.pdf



Principals can also act to support teaming. In a 2006 article in Middle Matters, a newsletter of the National Association of Elementary School Principals designed for NAESP administrators of schools serving students in the middle grades, authors Ronald Williamson and Barbara Blackburn note a number of ways in which school principals can support teacher teams. Echoing the importance of common planning, Williamson and Blackburn note that the most important thing a principal can do is to provide teachers with common planning time. However, principals can also take several other helpful approaches and actions. First, Williamson and Blackburn point out that “principals in schools where we found a successful teaming model were actively involved with their teams.”87 In these schools, principals “met with their teams regularly, were comfortable suggesting strategies for team operations, and routinely worked with teams on curricular and instructional practices.”88 Furthermore, the principals also “engaged team members in conversations about curricular and instructional issues.”89 At the same time, however, principals “supported effective teams by allowing team autonomy.”90 Prior research has described team autonomy as follows, which the research of Williamson and Blackburn supports: Supporting team decisions about student discipline;

Encouraging the flexible use of the team’s instructional time;

Providing a team budget;

Allowing team members to make and change student schedules for team subjects; and

Providing professional development on teaming practices.91 Principals at schools with effective teaming practices were also identified as advocating for teaming, and three actions were found to be “keys” for teaming success: Talking regularly with individual parents, as well as groups of parents, about the

importance of teaming and its impact on the educational experience of students.

Seeking out opportunities to talk with community groups about their school and their teaming model. (Principals regarded these conversations as an important way to build and sustain community support for the success of their students.)

Advocating for teaming with other district administrators. (This included seeking support for the fiscal and human resources to nurture and sustain a teaming model.)92

87 Williamson, Ronald, and Blackburn, Barbara. “Leadership for Effective Teaming.” Middle Matters. Vol. 15 No. 2.

October 2006. P.1. http://ronwilliamson.com/uploads/LdshpEffTeaming.pdf 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid., p.2. 90 Ibid. 91 Points taken verbatim from: Ibid.



CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND TEAMING Designing an effective middle school level schedule is a process inextricably tied to the issue of designing and implementing an appropriate curriculum. Indeed, the middle school schedule itself has been defined as “the plan to bring together people, materials, and curriculum at a designated time and place for the purpose of instruction.”93 As such, several brief observations relating to middle school curriculum and teaming are presented below. Before discussing several brief curriculum recommendations, it should be noted that various sources have highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary teacher teams. In a 1998 journal article in the Middle School Journal, Donald Hackmann and Jerry Valentine note that a middle school schedule “should support interdisciplinary team organization,” as interdisciplinary teams are a “signature practice” at the middle school level.94 Indeed, Hackmann and Valentine note that, “in middle level research, the worth of interdisciplinary teaming has been so thoroughly documented that the issue has become a ‘given’ when speaking of organizational expectations of a quality middle level program.”95 The makeup of such interdisciplinary teams can differ. According to Heather Coffey writing for Learn NC of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Education, different team teaching models exist. A two-teacher team model is often used with 6th grade students, in which “the teachers are usually certified in two content areas or are certified in elementary education and teach two subjects.”96 Conversely, the four-teacher team model is “the most commonly used and most logical composition, with one teacher specialist in each of the four core areas,” and is generally used in middle school grades after the 6th grade.97 Similarly, in a 2000 article in Education Administration Quarterly, authors Gary Brow and Diana Pounder note, “The primary type of multidisciplinary team is composed of core academic teachers (e.g., language arts, social studies, math, science, and reading) who are responsible for the required academic instruction of a contained group of students,” while teachers of other subjects may be integrated into these teams or may form their own such teams.98 However, in a 1995 article in Educational Leadership, published by ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development), authors Robert Canady and Michael Rettig suggest that schools should “consider adding a nontraditional core teacher to the interdisciplinary team,” as “being part of the team increases the likelihood that the content of these exploratory subjects will be integrated with the core.”99

92 Ibid., p.2-3. 93 Hackmann, Donald G., and Valentine, Jerry W. “Designing an Effective Middle Level Schedule.” Middle School

Journal. Vol. 29 No. 5. May 1998. P.1. http://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/on_target/scheduling/scheduling_5.pdf

94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Coffey, Heather. “Team Teaching.” University of North Carolina Charlottesville School of Education.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4754 97 Ibid. 98 Crow, Gary M., and Pounder, Diana G. “Interdisciplinary Teacher Teams: Context, Design, and Process.” Op. Cit. 99 Canady, Robert Lynn, Rettig, Michael D. “The Power of Innovative Scheduling.” Op. Cit.



More generally, a middle school’s scheduling model “should support an appropriate curriculum.”100 Curriculum decisions should be made not based on the number of periods in the school day, but based on student needs. In their 1998 article, Hackmann and Valentine note that

… decisions as the time devoted to core studies, time devoted to exploratory courses, and time spent on thematic or integrated instruction are to be made by the faculty without being restricted by a set number of periods available in the school day. Instead, teachers should determine what instructional strategies will best facilitate the learning of curricular content by students.101

Speaking generally about middle school curriculum, the Association for Middle Level Education (formerly the National Middle School Association) has emphasized the importance of curriculum integration. The Association for Middle Level Education has adopted a “Position Statement on Curriculum Integration” which recognizes the need to “encourage middle level educators to push themselves beyond the conventional, separate subject format and to expand their use of integrated curriculum formats.”102 In this position statement, the AMLE sets forth a variety of forms of integrated curricula, from the basic to the more advanced. At the most basic level, integrated curricula “might involve a few individual teachers or a small team of teachers who begin to collaborate.”103 These teachers, after examining their curricular requirements, “select those concepts they teach that complement those being taught by other teachers,” and design together “new units of instruction that encourage students to see connections and to apply learning in one subject area to learning in other subject areas.”104 At a more sophisticated level, “teams of teachers actively plan to teach simultaneous classes centered around a common interdisciplinary concept.”105 For example, a team of teachers could plan lessons around the American Civil war. In this example,

Language arts classes can investigate that era of our history through explorations of its own literature, through subsequent literature about the time period, and through its popular culture. Art and music classes can research the arts of that time, while social studies classes can examine the economics and politics of the era, as well as its famous people and battles. At the same time, science classes can focus on scientific exploration and discoveries of that period, along with its technological achievements and their impact.106

100 Hackmann, Donald G., and Valentine, Jerry W. Op. Cit., p.4. 101 Ibid. 102 “NMSA Position Statement on Curriculum Integration.” Op. Cit. 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid.



Curricula that is integrated at a still higher level, the AMLE notes, features teachers in a partnered team that “could team-teach a common, unified course.”107 These teachers could examine a common interdisciplinary topic, such as the Civil War in perspectives listed above, but could do so in a “single space and a larger block of time,” thus freeing them of “the constraint of changing classes periodically.”108 Finally, at the most intensive level of curriculum integration, the AMLE notes that

... this same partnered team of teachers works collaboratively with the students to plan the curriculum. Their focus of study would most likely shift to a larger theme with real-world implications; a theme determined through a questioning process…that relates students' concerns about themselves to those about their world within a democratic environment, emphasizing consensus building.109

The AMLE notes that the more sophisticated forms of integrated curricula promote the “four types of relationships that affect how young adolescents learn” as set forth by the AMLE better than “the conventional, separate-subject curriculum:”110 relationships between the learner and the content

relationships between the learner and the teacher

relationships among the learners

relationships within the content itself111 Furthermore, the AMLE opines that the more the curriculum is integrated, “the greater the benefits.”112 As such, the AMLE notes that the fully integrated level results in the greatest degree of success.113

107 Ibid. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid.



PROJECT EVALUATION FORM Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds member expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every member. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Members requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php



1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20006

P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585 www.hanoverresearch.com

Documents

Implementing Middle School Block Scheduling and … School...of block scheduling and identifies several different block scheduling models. Following this, the report briefly covers