A Trimester Schedule that Works: Solutions for Secondary Teaching and Learning

A Trimester Schedule that Works Solutions for Secondary Teaching and Learning ROBERT BROWER AND COLLEEN MORAN

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD EDUCATION A division of ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Published by Rowman & Littlefield Education A division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 http://www.rowmaneducation.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright © 2009 by Robert Brower and Colleen Moran All rights reserved.No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Brower, Robert, 1951– A trimester schedule that works : solutions for secondary teaching and learning / Robert Brower and Colleen Moran. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-60709-196-7 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-60709-197-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-60709-198-1 (electronic) 1. School year—United States. 2. Education, Secondary—United States. I. Moran, Colleen, 1968– II. Title. LB3034.B67 2009 373.12'3—dc22 2009017245 Printed in the United States of America

 ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American

National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Foreword

v

Preface

vii

Acknowledgments

xi

Introduction

xiii

1

A Brief Review of the Literature on Various Scheduling Models

1

2

Why Change to a Trimester Scheduling Model?

27

3

Beginning the Process of Transitioning to the Trimester

33

4

Dealing with Naysayers

45

5

Challenges and Pitfalls to Consider

51

6

The Nuts and Bolts of the Secondary Trimester Schedule

61

7

Frequently Asked Questions

79

8

Trimester Case Studies

93

9

Conclusion

119

Appendices

123

Bibliography

151

About the Authors

159 iii

Foreword

A Trimester Schedule that Works serves as a practical guide to implementing meaningful change at the secondary level. We are all aware that there are many variables in a school. The effectiveness of the teachers, the ability of the students, and the amount of monetary support are all things that impact the success of our schools. Some of these we can control, and others we have little ability to influence. However, one thing that we can directly affect is the time schedule and structure of our school. This book focuses on one method of doing this. As practitioners, Brower and Moran offer an effective road map for secondary schools searching for an innovative scheduling model that maximizes teaching and learning. They also delineate potential roadblocks or detours to successful implementation of a trimester schedule. Impressively, they are quick to note that no schedule alone will impact student achievement as measured by a standardized test. However, they fully explain the comprehensive power behind the trimester model. This book charts the necessary structure to retool secondary schools for true positive reform. After providing a brief introduction and a review of various existing secondary scheduling models, Brower and Moran skillfully summarize the many nuances of the change process. They continue discussing the change process by describing the necessity of planning and goal development with stakeholders. A simple, yet effective, planning template, including examples of each component of the tool, have been provided. A subject of my own interest,

v

vi

FOREWORD

dealing with naysayers, is presented in chapter 4. Knowing who the people are on staff that seldom, if ever, embrace new ideas is easy. However, understanding how to deal with them is essential. Equally important to readers is calculating what other challenges (i.e., scheduling of subjects, sustained leadership, professional development, and so on) may lie ahead when changing the daily schedule. Again, through the use of skillful writing and actual case studies, Brower and Moran share with readers the potential pitfalls that might crop up with any secondary school wishing to move to a trimester scheduling model. In addition to planning for success, Brower and Moran present a detailed description of the trimester model that any reader could use as a technical how-to manual. They describe the unique features of the bonus period, which is a novel use of “carved-out” time that extends the instructional day and allows schools to provide endless opportunities for students and staff. The frequently asked questions in chapter 7 recap the main issues in which readers want to know more. The resources included in the appendices provide several useful tools for practitioners; they include sample student schedules, a goal planning template, sample school schedules, and much more. A Trimester Schedule that Works is a no-nonsense practical guide to reform written by educators for secondary agents of change. Todd Whitaker Indiana State University

Preface

In 1996, Robert Brower and a group of teachers formed a committee to examine alternative schedules for Westfield High School (WHS) in Westfield, Indiana, because Indiana’s new graduation diplomas required that a student take a more rigorous curriculum to graduate from high school. The addition of more required courses to earn the state diploma necessitated this examination of alternative scheduling models. Because it was more difficult, if not impossible, for Indiana students to earn one of the more advanced diplomas on a six- or seven-period traditional schedule, schools in Indiana began scrambling to find a scheduling structure that complemented these new graduation requirements. It was during this extensive examination period that the Indiana version of the trimester scheduling format for high schools was invented. As an outgrowth of the trimester scheduling format, we have helped several schools that had combined high schools and middle schools in establishing a fiveperiod middle school trimester scheduling format coupled with a bonus period. When we became administrators at North Montgomery Community School Corporation (NMCSC) in Indiana, we and a team of administrators and teachers developed and implemented the middle school trimester scheduling model that has become an alternative to the teaming or experiential model presently used throughout the United States.

vii

viii

PREFACE

After an exhaustive research by the alternative scheduling committee at WHS into what other secondary schools around the country were implementing in terms of creative scheduling models, two main models emerged as alternatives to the traditional six- or seven-period schedules used in most secondary schools. Two of the alternative schedules discovered during this investigative period were a Block 8 schedule (also called an “alternating block”) and a Block 4 schedule (also called an “intensive block”). The exploration committee also discovered that a handful of secondary schools had developed what we group into hybrid models. These uniquely developed scheduling models attempted to combine several aspects of the three commonly used scheduling models (i.e., traditional, Block 4, and Block 8). During the examination of various scheduling models, it was discovered by the alternative scheduling committee at WHS that most of these specially designed hybrid schedules were attempts to placate teachers, parents, and students by combining positive elements of each of the three common scheduling models into a more palatable schedule. During the examination of various hybrid models, it was discovered that a few of these hybrid schedules were working well, but that most were having trouble making the new hybrid model work effectively. The alternative scheduling committee was left with a nagging question that there had to be a different scheduling model that would convince all concerned professionals that changing from a traditional schedule to a trimester schedule would be warranted. The trimester scheduling model presently being implemented throughout the country then grew from a process that compiled all the positives of each of the common scheduling models and then eliminating the negative aspects of all the other scheduling models presently used throughout the country. At the time, the trimester model, as a three-semester model with a bonus period, had not yet been invented. So a team approach coupled with some creative thinking allowed the trimester to be born in the form that will be presented in this book. This new schedule was christened the 3 × 5 trimester plan just before the board meeting was held to approve the schedule for the following school year. The schedule was invented in November and the board approved the schedule to be implemented the following school year at its regularly scheduled December meeting. So in just a few months, the schedule was created and implemented for the first time in any high school in Indiana history. Later, when speaking with the Indiana Department of Education, it was discovered that there were at least three other high schools in the country on

PREFACE

ix

a similar trimester scheduling model. Although many of the same features existed in the newly discovered trimester models at these three high schools, none had the highly innovative bonus period that made the 3 × 5 trimester plan unique. The three schools found to be on a similar trimester scheduling format were Neena High School in Neena, Wisconsin; Bell High School in Fort Worth, Texas; and Longmont High School in Longmont, Colorado. In subsequent months, the members of the alternative scheduling committee made visits or spoke with administrators from each of these three schools to tweak and troubleshoot the newly created Indiana version of the trimester schedule that was invented independently of these three schools. As a result of the successful implementation of the 3 × 5 trimester plan for high schools in Indiana in August 1996, more than 200 high schools across the country have adopted a similar scheduling model. With the success of the high school trimester model complete, we, our administrative leadership team, and a group of teacher leaders at NMCSC began exploring a new and innovative scheduling model for the district’s middle school (Northridge Middle School). The reason this exploration took place was the fact that many middle schools across the country have witnessed plummeting test scores as a result, in large part, of a decrease in instructional minutes in core academic subjects because middle schools were using multiple-period formats to expose middle school students to more opportunities in learning. For most middle schools, this meant that daily periods were less than 50 minutes and, in some cases, less than 40 minutes per day in core academic areas. In 2002, this NMCSC exploration committee developed a similar trimester model that presents itself as a unique alternative scheduling model to the present teaming or experiential model that has dominated middle school scheduling since the 1980s and 1990s. Although the middle school trimester model is a relatively new alternative to the teaming or experiential model of years past, this innovative trimester model appears to have many of the same benefits for students as the high school model. It is hoped that by sharing the secondary alternative trimester scheduling model, along with many other aspects of its development, that other schools, seeking a retooling of their schools, can avoid the pitfalls of implementation of any scheduling change so that the transition to this or any other schedule will be successfully implemented.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all of the trimester high schools and middle schools that contributed to this book for their trailblazing initiatives in developing this unique scheduling format. Hundreds, if not thousands, of secondary schools are now on the trimester schedule throughout the country. Their efforts have given secondary schools an outstanding alternative to more traditional schedules. We would also like to thank the following educators for their input into this book’s development. Robert Klitzman, Superintendent for Eastern Pulaski Schools, Winamac, Indiana. Angela Blessing, Principal of Northridge Middle School, Crawfordsville, Indiana. Bruce Hibbard, Assistant Superintendent for Washington Township Schools, Indianapolis, Indiana. Dave Marcotte, Director of Personnel for Wayne Township Schools, Indianapolis, Indiana. Terry Russell, former Principal of North Montgomery High School, Crawfordsville, Indiana.

xi

xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Doug Miller, Principal of North Montgomery High School, Crawfordsville, Indiana. Amy Keller, Science Department Chairperson at Avon High School, Avon, Indiana. The Board of School Trustees for the North Montgomery Community School Corporation, Crawfordsville, Indiana. Sheri Brower, retired Superintendent for Mill Creek Community School Corporation, Clayton, Indiana.

Introduction

This book outlines how a secondary trimester schedule (sometimes referred to as tri-semester) is best implemented and how it functions in general terms. The authors will outline for the reader the caveats to the implementation process, the importance of leadership in the schedule’s success, and an exploration of the goals and outcomes a school can expect if they choose to implement a trimester schedule. As with any scheduling model, each individual school must tweak a particular model to fit its own specific needs. Although the trimester model has proven highly effective in most schools that have adopted it, the fact remains that no schedule, in and of itself, will solve all problems a school faces, nor will it cure the achievement gap and the schedule will not be a panacea for the myriad of social issues facing secondary schools today. However, as the reader will discover in this book, this scheduling format gives secondary schools the necessary structure to retool for much needed positive reform. In this introductory chapter, the outline of the book will be delineated and discussion points on the general nuances of a trimester schedule at all levels will be touched on. The primary focus of the book is secondary schools, but some mention of how the elementary trimester schedule can be added to complete a corporation or district trimester model is offered briefly.

xiii

xiv

INTRODUCTION

THE TRIMESTER MODEL LANGUAGE EXPLAINED

One important distinction that must be made at this point for the reader is the actual definition of what constitutes a trimester schedule and how that definition may differ from other models that use the trimester name but are, in actuality, a quarter system; those models simply divide the year into three or four (when summer is added) quarters but do not change the length of daily classroom periods beyond the traditional minutes of instruction per course. These schedules typically are broken into 10- or 12-week quarters depending on whether the schedule is a college or secondary school. The trimester model is not a quarter scheduling system in which the year is simply broken down into three separate quarters, with the fourth quarter being the summer term. In the quarter models, which erroneously tout themselves as trimester schools, the school still maintains a six- or seven-period day. In these models, the trimester name is actually a misnomer and does not reflect the true meaning of semesters. The quarter system trimester structure is not the same as the trimester semester model. This is an important distinction, particularly since there are numerous websites touting quarter scheduling structures that call themselves trimester schedules. There is a Canadian scheduling model that is touted as a trimester model. If one is to do a trimester search on the Internet, this model may come up and be confused with an actual trimester model as opposed to a quarter system of grading periods. The old college system of quarters that has pretty much been eliminated across the country is what these models are actually modeled after. For purposes of this book, the quarter system and true trimester schedules are totally different and bear little in common. The true trimester model has classes that usually have five periods a day for a duration of 12 weeks, resulting in significant increased minutes of instruction over traditional and other alternative scheduling models. So each class on the true trimester model results in a compressed semester from 18 weeks to 12 weeks, but the compression is due to lengthier class periods: normally anywhere from 68 to 72 minutes each. Thus, from a minutes-of-instruction perspective, the trimester model has nearly identical minutes of instruction per class as a semester system. This will be explained in detail later in the book. This is a profound difference between quarter systems that call themselves trimester schools and a true trimester school scheduling model. The Indiana trimester model is a true semester model of five class periods per day for three semesters, thus allowing a student to earn 15 credits per year or a

INTRODUCTION

xv

total of 60 over a high school career (in some states, the credits are half this number). This format is the same for middle schools as well. The Indiana trimester model discussed in this book is the scheduling format that has been copied around the country since 1996. To complete the vision of a K–12 trimester model for an entire district, elementary schools in a district can implement their own version of a trimester model. At the elementary level, the year is simply broken down into three grading periods with only one comprehensive, end of year, grade assessment given per subject. Permanent grades are completed at the end of the year; report cards are only distributed three times a year; and detailed progress reports are given at the six-week intervals in the middle of each trimester grading period. That is the extent of the elementary trimester model; therefore, deeper exploration of this elementary model will not be delineated in this book. The elementary trimester model bears mentioning here so that school administrators can see the ease that a K–12 trimester model can be implemented in any school district. A BRIEF REVIEW OF TRADITIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULING MODELS

Before the secondary trimester model is shared in more detail, some background information is needed so that the reader can understand better how and why the alternative scheduling movement began. Alternative schedules to the conventional teaming or experiential scheduling models are not as common at the middle school level (i.e., 6th-to 8thgrade configurations). Although certain programs necessitate some unique scheduling tweaking for some middle schools, most follow the traditional teaming or experiential model. At the middle school level, nearly all such schools have adopted the national middle school philosophy of the past quarter century by having as many as 8 to 12 class periods per day that facilitates a more experiential model for exploring multiple subjects areas. In this model, teams often share similar planning periods and students stay together most of the day with a common team of teachers. This particular model has been the standard bearer for over two-and-a-half decades and is still advocated strongly by the National Middle Schools Association. High schools, however, have been seeking new ways to structure the academic day to accommodate new mandates at the state and federal levels

xvi

INTRODUCTION

with regard to careers, college readiness, improving achievement and higher graduation standards that include a more rigorous curriculum. The increase in graduation credit requirements and the encouragement of more rigorous course work were the two main thrusts for high schools to change to another scheduling model to accommodate those new initiatives. There will be more on this throughout the book. The high school trimester model outlined in this book is a three-semester, five-periods-a-day, 60-day (12-week) model (trimester). The middle school trimester model is exactly the same in structure. As mentioned previously, at the elementary level, the breakdown in the number of subject periods and the length of each is less noticeable than with the middle school and high school trimester models. At the elementary level, the grading periods are more the operative issue with each semester being 12 weeks long and only one, yearend, permanent grading period. Traditionally, elementary schools operate on a six-week or nine-week grade period format. Implementing a trimester grading format can allow greater flexibility with school calendars, as far as when the school year begins, ends, and when semester breaks occur. The following is how the trimester structure and grading periods are broken down at the secondary level on the 3 × 5 trimester model. High School and Middle School Trimester Model

In this alternative scheduling model, there are three, 12-week grading periods with detailed progress reports given every six weeks within a given 12-week grading trimester. At these six-week thresholds of each trimester grading period, no averaged grade is computed, just a temporary progress report that reflects the work of the student at this threshold of time. Some schools may elect to actually assign an averaged progress grade instead of a working snapshot grade that is more comprehensive in nature. This detailed progress report might include daily assignments, quizzes, tests, and other projects that more accurately reflect authentic work done during this grading juncture. This six-week progress report can be generated electronically from a teacher’s computer grading software that is widely available on the educational market. No additional teacher work should be required using this method of reporting and no grades need to be averaged for a student at this six-week progress interval. This is true largely because it is not necessary for a student to have an averaged grade at this grading juncture. At the end of the 12-week

INTRODUCTION

xvii

trimester, every student is given a grade and credit (assuming the class was satisfactorily passed). Once again, a trimester is the same as a traditional semester in terms of grades and credits. Students can earn up to 15 course credits per year on a trimester schedule (half that number in some states depending on how much credit is given for each course completed in a particular state). The total credits available for any given student over their four-year high school career would be 60 (30 in some states). That would not include credits earned from summer sessions or transfer credits earned at another accredited school or online. This is addressed at greater length later in the book. The same grading format would be used for middle school students on the middle school trimester model, depending on which grading configuration model a given middle school might adopt. When an entire district adopts a K–12 trimester model, we highly recommend breaking the grading periods down so that progress reports and grade cards are distributed at the same time for all levels. On the Indiana trimester model that this book delineates, the high school and middle school levels incorporate a bonus period that is added to the end of the day to help students get extra help from their teachers, to read, for test make up, to get free tutoring help, to use labs, to take advantage of fitness facilities, to seek extra band or choir practice, or to attend various club and organization activities. The bonus period can be optional or required for students depending on transportation issues and the particular needs of a given secondary school. Some schools have placed the bonus period at the beginning of the day and still others at times during the school day. The bonus period model explained in this book is at the end of the regular school day with the minutes captured for the bonus period taken from each of the five classes during the school day. We have discovered that by taking five to eight minutes from each period that the benefits of the bonus period far outweigh the lost minutes of instruction time in each class. When districts have over seven-and-a-half hours of contract days, a bonus period can be added and still allow time for 65- to 70-minute individual subject periods during the school day. In the optional trimester bonus period, transportation is provided for all students who voluntarily use or who are required to attend the bonus period. Providing transportation for

xviii

INTRODUCTION

students 30 to 45 minutes after the regular school day ends makes the bonus period highly effective in helping and enriching all students. At the middle school level, the bonus period can work similarly to the high school bonus period. The biggest difference is that roughly half of the high school students drive to school or ride with someone that drives to school. Providing transportation for all students that stay for bonus period becomes more of an issue at the middle school level for sheer numbers of students who will ride a bus home after school. If the bonus period is carved out of the school day as a part of the regular school day, it can still be highly effective but not nearly as effective as making it optional at the end of the day. The bonus period for both the high school and middle school levels will be explored in more detail in subsequent chapters. Some schools in which we have worked name the bonus period a success period or some similar name. For the remainder of this book, the authors will use bonus period when referring to this unique time period within or outside of the normal school day. Also, the authors will consider the bonus period to be at least 30 minutes in length, offered at the end of the day, and one that provides transportation home after the bonus period ends. SUMMARY

This chapter was a simple introduction to the trimester (tri-semester) model for secondary schools. In the chapters that follow, we will give the reader some historical perspectives on alternative schedules and explore a review of the literature to give the reader an educated perspective about other secondary alternative scheduling models. Also, chapters that follow will include such topics as to why a school should consider changing to a trimester model, how to begin the process of implementation once the decision to change has been made, how to deal with naysayers, how to avoid the pitfalls that other schools have encountered, and a how-to section on successfully implementing the nuts and bolts of a trimester schedule. Additionally, a commonly asked question section complete with answers will be given as will numerous case studies for the reader to explore that will help in the implementation and understanding of the secondary trimester model.

00 1

A Brief Review of the Literature on Various Scheduling Models

We believe it is imperative for the secondary educator to become familiar with what the literature and research says about the various scheduling formats. These common models include traditional schedules, alternative scheduling models, and the reasoning and development associated with every known scheduling choice in secondary schools. Because of the educational challenges of graduation and the simple fact that high schools have a more complex curriculum, there are more choices and research available for the reader to peruse with high school models. Many middle schools in smaller districts throughout the United States find it necessary to parrot what the high school adopts in terms of scheduling. This is because these connected schools often share teachers and space. Most middle schools continue to use what has become the traditional middle school teaming or experiential model that has a minimum of seven periods per day. Because of the large number of daily periods, the core subjects have far less minutes of instruction when compared to a traditional high school schedule of six or seven periods. This book will outline to middle schools a solid new model as an alternative to the traditional middle school schedule. In the following pages of this chapter, we will provide a firm background on what the literature has to offer in terms of the entire scheduling process in secondary schools.

1

2

CHAPTER 1

A REVIEW OF HIGH SCHOOL SCHEDULING MODELS

For over a half-century, nearly all high schools in this country have followed similar scheduling formats to deliver daily instruction. These historical scheduling formats are traditionally named Carnegie units of high school credit measurement (Canady and Rettig, 1995a). The Carnegie unit format had its beginnings in the first half of the twentieth century. Frederick Winslow Taylor was the man responsible for what became the traditional way of measuring instructional credit units and subject and time standards for granting accreditation by individual state departments of education and regional accrediting agencies, such as the North Central Association. In an effort to bring uniformity to the educational process, the Carnegie Commission used a format developed through factory studies of time efficiency and fixed stations of work (Kruse and Kruse, 1995). One could accurately say that schools tended to mirror the manufacturing sector in the capitalistic marketplace for many years. Through Taylor’s studies of the industrial manufacturing model, the Carnegie Commission adopted suggestions for schools to use a factory-like system to create quantifiable products for a given amount of time. This approach reflected the manufacturing mentality of our country at the time, and this format has continued almost without exception until the last decade (Carroll, 1994a). In Transforming High Schools, Jenkins (1996, p. 101) writes the following: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching advocated, 14 standard units of credit be required for entrance to college as evidence of substantial preparation. Each unit came to represent a minimum of about 130 instructional hours. By 1931 more than 75 percent of all high schools had accepted the idea of the Carnegie unit in reporting student achievement.

The Carnegie unit format traditionally follows a six- or seven-period day with each class session lasting between 45 and 55 minutes each. High school graduation requirements have traditionally followed a structure that involves a half-unit or one full unit of credit for each semester of class work per subject. Under this model, semester lengths generally last from 85 days to 92 days depending on state and local guidelines. The total number of credits for graduation often varies from one school corporation to another, but generally, these requirements fall between 35 and 45 credits or half that number in some states (Canady and Rettig, 1995b).

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

3

Joseph Carroll (1990) elaborates about how traditional structures seemed to serve the students of past generations well. However, after 50 years of not changing significantly, it became apparent that the schedules of contemporary high schools demanded changes for an ever-changing society. Changes with societal issues, economic employment trends, and higher academic standards have generated questions about this traditional educational structure. These dramatic changes have forced high schools to examine more closely the product (student) they were graduating. A rapidly changing labor market from one of manufacturing and agriculture to a more technological and service-oriented job force created the pressure to change the way high schools educate students (National Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983). Likewise, multicultural issues, Core 40 college entrance requirements (Indiana Commission for Higher Education [ICHE], 1994), and additional credit requirements for an Academic Honors Diploma (Indiana Department of Education [IDE], 1996; 511 IAC 6-7-6.5) have contributed to restructuring Indiana high schools (Buckman, King, and Ryan, 1995). Often high school students found they could no longer take a core battery of academics to graduate and expect automatic enrollment in college or guarantee success in a field that does not require a four-year degree. Furthermore, high school graduates found they could no longer be assured of a quality career or occupation upon graduating from our nation’s high schools, and the process of simply earning a diploma would no longer automatically guarantee any kind of economic or social success after completing high school (NCEE, 1983). These conditions have necessitated changes in high schools that require adjustments to meet the requirements of an ever-changing and demanding society. Schools are now expected to solve world economic, political, and social problems by graduating a markedly different student than they did just a decade ago. Whether or not schools have the ability to change society or to change our economic future is subject to conjecture, but the fact remains that high schools are being forced to change the delivery system by which they structure the academic day (Schlechty, 1997). Without question, the business community and most politicians believe that schools must change how we educate students to meet future economic and future societal expectations.

4

CHAPTER 1

Labor market shifts, as defined by the business world, have seen changes in what is required of the contemporary employee entering a particular employment arena. The advent of cooperative work teams, more emphasis in the workplace on communication skills, more defined technical work expertise, technological advances implemented in the work environment, and more emphasis on math and science to better understand training required for employment are examples (Schlechty, 1997). Today’s high schools seem ill equipped to handle these burgeoning global economic demands under the traditional Carnegie format (NCEE, 1983). The pressure to change our schools appears inherent in any argument of how to meet these demands of an uncertain future. Changes in society, economic demands, national demands, such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, and educational conditions have magnified the need for high schools to develop more effective ways to structure the day-to-day delivery of the contemporary high school program to better prepare students for a global economy. Under the traditional structure of scheduling, schools have found it difficult to make the necessary changes to meet the challenges we face as we enter the 21st century and an ever-changing, hard-to-predict future. This has forced the leaders of our nation’s high schools to explore ways to alter the traditional format to provide a better vehicle in which to drive the new demands of an ever-changing economy (Kruse and Kruse, 1995). In addition to changing economic demands placed on our population, other segments of our society are joining in the call for revamping an antiquated system of educating our nation’s youth based largely on standardized test scores. Consequently, legislatures, parents, and business leaders are challenging the entire public school structure more vigorously to hopefully better educate our students. The major thrust of this criticism came largely from a study titled A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983). The report garnered media attention with inflammatory references to schools so lacking in quality that their imposition on America by a foreign power would be tantamount to an act of war. (Lybbert, 1998, p. 1)

This study of our nation’s schools became one of the biggest reasons that educational reform in this country began to take on a sense of urgency. After

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

5

this report was published and widely disseminated by the media, educational institutions came under attack from virtually every segment of our society. No other report since this publication has so dramatically altered the direction of education in this country (Glasser, 1986). It took only a few years for the educational community to fully digest the nuances of this report. Scholars around the country rapidly became intimately involved with research and began expressing their opinions in the form of journal articles, books, and speeches about how to “cure” what ails the nation’s schools—Glasser (1986), Carroll (1990, 1994a), Fullan (1991), Glickman (1993), Canady and Rettig (1993, 1995a,b, 1996, 1997, 1999), National Education Commission on Time and Learning ([NECTL], 1994), Jenkins (1996), and Fager (1997) to name a few. The second major onslaught on public schools and education in general was the NCLB initiative driven by President George W. Bush in his first administration. Although the political climate of the past several years spawned this change initiative, it will not be explored in detail since the structure of our high schools has not dramatically changed with this legislation. The NCLB movement is more about accountability than the structuring of our high schools, so that initiative has had a lesser effect on how high schools structure their days. One aspect of the Nation at Risk reform movement was in the form of changing the traditional high school Carnegie format to new, innovative scheduling structures. This phenomenon increased graduation requirements, and more academic rigor was the impetus for the birth of the alternative schedule movement in high schools across Indiana and throughout this country. Oddly enough, the alternative scheduling movement is now over 20 years old and still many high schools are looking for alternative ways to schedule their instructional days to meet ever-increasing demands. Furthermore, Carroll (1990), in a profoundly provocative article published by Kappan magazine, outlined what he observed educationally and economically as problematic and offered a “bugle call” for structural reform in our nation’s high schools. His research into alternative ways to schedule made him an early pioneer in the alternative schedule movement in this country. His intensive block model was copied around the country in high schools beginning in the 1990s as a result of his writings. In turn, his intensive block model led to creative variations, and as a result, other schedules soon followed. Primarily,

6

CHAPTER 1

these included the alternating block (Block 8 or a/b) and various hybrid models that combined features of at least two scheduling models. Educational scholars across the country lamented the fact that students graduating from high schools were slipping farther and farther behind with each year and that these same students could not write or speak as well as they did a generation ago. The launching of the Russian Sputnik in 1957 created tirades against our schools (Postman and Weingartner, 1973). Further harsh criticism came from the respected Admiral Hyman Rickover (1959), who called the contemporary high school nothing more than an environment of frills with little rigor or meaningful substance. The noted teacher-turned-author, John Holt, wrote a widely read series of books that served as an indictment of our nation’s schools. His 1964 book, How Children Fail, premised that the shift from basics to unproven instructional methods resulted in our nation’s children failing in large numbers. Bel Kaufman’s book, written in 1965 and titled Up the Down Staircase, harshly depicted concrete examples of what our schools were doing to students to prevent them from succeeding. Jerome Bruner indicated that our high school curriculum was problematic and called for major reform at the famous Woods Hole Conference in Massachusetts in 1959 (Postman and Weingartner, 1973). Other critics from various factions included Jonathon Kozal and Herbert Kohl from the teaching world; George Leonard and George Dennison from the journalism profession; Jerome Bruner and William Glasser from the neuropsychology realm; and David Rogers (1968) and Marilyn Gittell (1969) from the world of sociology. All of these experts wrote critiques about our nation’s schools and all offered suggestions on how to improve our public schools. Learning in the United States is a “prisoner of time.” For the past 150 years, U.S. public schools have held time constant and let learning vary. The rule, only rarely voiced, is simple: learn what you can in the time we make available. It should surprise no one that some bright, hard-working students do reasonably well. Everyone else—from the typical student to the dropout—runs into trouble. Time is learning’s warden in a prison analogy (NECTL, 1994, p. 7). These authors and their published words were the major sparks that “ignited the fire” of school reform long before the NCLB Act. That comprehensive act further placed more consequences and accountability on schools

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

7

for failure to show continued academic growth or adequate yearly progress. And before meaningful reform could take place, a scheduling structure had to be invented that would facilitate these needed changes. Thus, the advent of various alternative schedules blossomed across the country to represent the vehicle by which high schools could drive meaningful structural and systematic change in their school districts (Canady and Rettig, 1993). Because of these educational dilemmas, schools have felt the need to switch their traditional schedules to more innovative variations to solve educational challenges. We have taken the liberty to classify all alternative schedules into four basic structures that high schools most popularly use to schedule the high school day. This was done by examining the various alternative schedules we found while examining the literature on the subject. There appears to be three distinctly different alternative schedules: Block 4 (intensive block), Block 8 (alternating block), and the true trimester model (some quarter scheduling systems parade around as trimester models). There are a myriad of alternative schedules that have combinations of several schedules. These blended schedules that combine parts of other scheduling structures have little in common that would qualify them as a completely new category of alternative schedule. These mixes and blends of various other alternative schedules are usually clumped together and given the title of hybrid alternative schedules. From this research and from the gathering of data from school visitations, the trimester model for secondary schools was born. The trimester model, which utilizes the bonus period as a key component of its structuring format, appears to solve many of the inherent problems with other scheduling models as the reader will discover in the remaining chapters. Since the development of the trimester model, the other alternative scheduling models have appeared to slow down in terms of implementation. The trimester model is a relatively new scheduling format with most schools adopting it less than a decade ago. Therefore, the positive effects and data collection are just beginning to emerge. Very little quality scientific research is available on achievement, when correlating achievement, as measured by a standardized test, to any scheduling format. This is largely due to the difficulty controlling research factors to achieve verifiable results. As will be explored later in this book, scheduling formats have not been shown to significantly impact standardized test scores. The predictors of

8

CHAPTER 1

success on a standardized test have no correlation to scheduling formats. No educator should expect higher test scores simply by adopting a trimester or any scheduling format. There simply is not research to support changing for this single expectation. However, there are far more positive reasons to change scheduling formats than standardized test scores. Those positive outcomes will be listed in later chapters. A review of the literature on the subject of alternative schedules begins to reveal a sizable amount of information from which to draw conclusions about Block 4 and Block 8 alternative schedules. This information includes their effectiveness in achieving educational goals for secondary schools. COMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL SCHEDULING MODELS

The following list of schedules will help the reader summarize the various high school scheduling formats presently available to schools in a synopsis form for easy reference for the novice reader on the subject. Traditional Schedule

This refers to high school schedules that have the day broken down into six or seven equal periods per day with each period commonly being 45 to 55 minutes in length; the most common being the 50-minute, seven periods per day model. Each semester class will earn a student one credit (one-half credit in some states). Graduation requirements are based on accumulating an average of 40 to 48 credits during a student’s four-year high school career. Another name for this schedule is the Carnegie model. Minutes of instruction vary slightly with most semester minutes of instruction being in the range from 4,000 to 4,600, not counting the many interruptions to the classes on this scheduling system. For most high schools on this scheduling format there is roughly 4,500 minutes per semester class. Trimester or Tri-Semester Model or 3 ⴛ 5 Plan

These are interchangeable terms that refer to an alternative high school schedule that breaks the year down into three trimesters of 60 days each (12 weeks). Each class will meet for between 65 and 75 minutes each day; the most common being a 70-minute period. Students can earn up to 15 credits per year and up to 60 over their four-year careers. Minutes of instruction will normally be in the 4,000- to 4,500-minute range, with the 4,250-minute

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

9

range being the most common number of minutes for semester (trimester) instruction per class. Block 4

These schedules generally are 45-day semesters with students taking only four semester courses each nine-week period. A student generally completes four credits (two credits in some states depending how a state assesses credits to be earned toward graduation) each nine-week semester. There are four semesters during the regular school year on this intensive block schedule. A student can earn 16 credits per year for a total of 64 credits for a student’s high school career. Each class period consists of 85 to 90 minutes. Minutes of instruction per semester vary from school to school but, generally speaking, are around the 3,700- to 4,100-minute mark. The most common that we found in our research was around 4,000 minutes per semester. Block 8

These schedules generally meet every other day for anywhere from 85 to 90 minutes per subject period. A semester covers 90 days, but the classes only meet 45 days of those 90 days because of the alternating nature of the days when classes meet. Most of the Block 8 formats have eight total periods spread over two days. Students generally take four classes one day and three the next for a total of seven out of eight. The eighth period is usually called a student resource period (SRP) or something similar. This is basically a study hall, help time, test make-up time, or club meeting time. Most teachers have a supervisory responsibility for a set number of students, much like a study hall during this SRP time. Students on this schedule generally receive around 3,700 to 4,100 minutes of instruction per semester class. Students can earn anywhere from 48 to 54 credits over their high school careers. Hybrids

These vary too much and combine too many features of other scheduling formats to list any one as an example here, but the reader should know there are numerous variations on alternative schedules that are named hybrid schedules. It is not uncommon for hybrid schedules to disappear after a few years of experimentation with varying ideas because most are attempts to soothe naysayers, and therefore, are difficult to sustain.

10

CHAPTER 1

The literature review revealed a myriad of reasons why high schools elect to change to an alternative schedule versus staying on some version of a traditional schedule. Once again, this literature review and school visitations resulted in the development of the Indiana trimester model. Lastly, the amount of literature on all alternative schedules is sparse at best. Few educational professionals have undertaken extensive writing on the subject of alternative schedules. Carroll, Canady, Cawelti, Rettig, Hottenstein, and Strock appear to be the leaders in writings with regard to alternative schedules, but even their data collections and scientific studies lack statistical analysis and are more qualitative in nature. Although authors, such as Sizer, Senge, Schlechty, Schmoker, Fullan, Apple, Glasser, Glickman, Goodlad, Arnstine, and numerous others, have written about restructuring, they have written little about actual alternative scheduling types or the effectiveness of alternative schedules. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULING MOVEMENT

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, James B. Conant, through his studies of U.S. high schools, predicted accurately that our urban schools were centers for “social dynamite” in meeting the demands of our major metropolitan areas. He pointed out the societal ills filtering into our schools that would profoundly affect our teachers’ abilities to educate our youth. These bold predictions proved all too accurate as the nation progressed through the troubled ’60s and ’70s. Conant’s studies (1959, 1961) of U.S. high schools was the first recognized research work that exposed “the crack in the dam.” More than 20 years later in 1983, the NCEE (1983) published a report on the condition of U.S. schools. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform was the bugle call for meaningful educational change in this country. The national examination that was commissioned by the federal government became a report card on U.S. schools. The publication offered a crystal ball prediction of where we were headed collectively as a nation if we did not address the concerns cited in this report. The study profoundly changed the landscape of U.S. education for the next decade. The report examined all grades but was more critical of all schools, and in particular, high schools. This single report turned the educational establishment upside down. U.S. schools began to examine themselves in an effort to correct the alleged shortcomings cited in the commission’s findings. The report followed several years

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

11

of declining enrollments in public schools, falling standardized test scores, increases in financial burdens for school districts, and voters’ increasing unwillingness to raise school taxes (Carroll, 1990). A ground swell of criticism mounted as a result our nation’s economic and social woes as we entered the 21st century; people began holding our nation’s public schools accountable for these declines. The NCLB Act became a kneejerk bipartisan reaction to all the criticism coming from the reform circles. But even before the NCLB Act, schools were taking the majority of the criticism for many failed societal issues from government officials, civic leaders, and business leaders (Glasser, 1986). Although the educational establishment originally largely rejected the NCEE report, it appears to have been embraced as a central theme of consensus among our nation’s political leaders. That trend continues to this very day with our political leaders of today almost universally condemning public schools and their supposed failures. A common thread runs through most reports and studies examining our nation’s secondary public schools as one reviews the history of educational research. These reports are either “immensely complimentary or devastatingly critical” (Carroll, 1990, p. 359). These reports tend to agree that secondary public schools are largely responsible for developing character and cognitive competence to ensure our future in an increasingly global economy as well as developing good, productive citizens. Regardless of one’s political, social, or economic position, one commonality can be found in nearly all research concerning the traditional high school: we must restructure our high schools for positive change. Carroll sums up the history of criticism by our nation’s leading educators and leaders this way: Moreover, these reports refer not just to ineffective high schools but also to all public high schools. Even the so-called good public high schools must assess their performance to some standard of achievement and to show continual improvement, even when, statistically, that may be impossible. (1994b, p. 360)

The educational reform movement is not a demand to return to some mythical golden age of “the basics” to make schools as effective as some think

12

CHAPTER 1

they once were. The reports generated by these leading think tanks, chambers of commerce, and legislators ask our high schools to meet the higher standards necessary for the national survival in a competitively global economy. The question is not, how good have our high schools been? The question is, how good must they be (Carroll, 1990, p. 359)? With volumes of research reporting that our high schools are not performing satisfactorily, our legislators continue to demand more and more of our nation’s high schools. These include pressures to improve graduation rates, increase attendance rates, add more breadth and depth to the curriculum, implement value- and character-driven curricula, and to implement student, teacher, and school accountability. School choice, privatization of schools, more competition for students, vouchers, charters, and magnet schools are all indicators that our public high schools must restructure for positive change or risk disappearing from the U.S. landscape (Lybbert, 1998). This is the historical climate in which public high schools find themselves presently. These are the historical seeds behind schools changing to alternative schedules. High schools are attempting to solve the myriad of concerns that face our schools, whether those concerns come from inside or outside the public school establishment. Therefore, high schools across the country are looking at alternative scheduling structures to meet these increasing demands (Schlechty, 1997; Sizer, 1996). Michael Fullan, in his 1993 book Change Forces, states that “organizations . . . must be proactive with their environments” (p. 3). He further writes in this book that schools must constantly reinvent themselves to better meet the needs of an ever-changing world. Schools are change agents and must lead the charge to new ideas. Change is inevitable, so schools must be self-renewing if they are to stay on the cutting edge of a global world. John Goodlad’s theories (1990) revolve around failed implementations of school reform. He states that the problem is not so much the programs, but that the implementation and the strategies used for these unsuccessful implementations were flawed. He states that the structure of schools lends itself to these failings. He suggests it takes a wholesale change of what we are presently practicing to make meaningful change. Goodlad is adamant that schools can make a difference if the structure to deliver instruction is radically changed to allow proper implementation of a myriad of sound, educational practices and theories.

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

13

Steven Covey has written several books that educators have embraced. One of his books, written in 1990 and titled Principle-Centered Leadership, talks about the importance of trust on an interpersonal level that must be present in an organization in order to facilitate an effective environment that allows for positive growth and a prospering climate. He further discusses that organizational alignment through vision-building must be achieved for this growth and prospering to occur and to be sustained in any organization. If the wrong structure, wrong vision, lack of alignment, no meaningful empowerment, and lack of trust are pervasive in an organization, then the organization is doomed to a continued lack of productivity and growth. Parallels to schools can be seen in these ideas. One can understand that present structures of delivering instruction have been flawed and that educators are looking at alternative methods to achieve some of Covey’s ideas. That pervasive sentiment was one powerful reason that led to North Montgomery adopting the trimester model for its high schools in the mid-90s. Peter Senge’s 1990 book titled The Fifth Discipline is another example of a respected researcher pointing out effective ways for organizations (schools) to become effective in managing varying mindsets that seem to bog down an organization’s effectiveness to grow and change for the good of that organization. Senge offers the following disciplines to ensure effective organizations: personal mastery, organizational alignment, vision-building, learning teams, and systems thinking. He writes in detail about how each of these disciplines must be properly practiced to achieve results that move organizations forward continually. All of Senge’s articulated disciplines have practical applications to schools. One can understand why schools must look at alternative scheduling practices to achieve some of his touted theories. Teams, cooperative learning, mastery of material, and thinking globally all might be difficult to effectively master in short Carnegie unit periods at the high school level. Thus, schools may be looking for alternative scheduling that facilitates these types of practices to be implemented. Donald Arnstine (1995) writes about educating our youth in ways which teach what is important to them by giving the students ownership in what they learn and perceive to be important to them individually. There is a cliché that states, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”; so what better way

14

CHAPTER 1

to educate our youth than to delve into what is important to each child and structure learning to fit that need? Arnstine writes the following: Consider the most familiar feature of American public schools, the classroom. Inside are two or three dozen young people listening to an adult who talks most of the time. They all stay in the room most of the day, five days a week. When the children get older, the classroom is emptied every fifty-five minutes, and it is filled with another batch of young people. Children learn quickly to adjust or they disappear. (1995, p. 3)

In this book, he writes boldly that if public schools are to survive and be effective in meeting students’ and community needs, they must either change drastically or they will perish. Phil Schlechty writes in his 1997 book, Inventing Better Schools: An Action Plan for Educational Reform, that all learning must be knowledge work. That is, everything that is done in the classroom should be practical, activity driven, and be directly related to learning skills or knowledge that is meaningful to the students. He further writes about the need to practice and use technology in the learning process. Schlechty believes and advocates mission-building at all levels. His visionbuilding criteria are based on these constructed mission statements developed by each school and thus aligned to carry a school’s vision to full fruition. Schlechty believes in “constant invention” in the learning process and teaching delivery system. He writes about the importance of teaching what matters and then measuring those same items to gauge mastery. Nothing else should matter except those adopted items that are deemed “what matters.” He further espouses the importance of understanding that change is always a constant. Schools must constantly reinvent themselves and continue to be flexible in an ever-changing world that places ever-greater demands on the system. The shortened periods and factory-like models traditionally practiced with the Carnegie unit seem ill equipped to implement this type of learning environment. Schmoker (1996) makes it clear that schools are floundering in what they identify to be of importance. He writes that schools must be precise in identifying all skills, objectives, goals, concepts, and other ideas that they deem absolutely essential. Then these schools need to implement testing or authen-

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

15

tic assessments to identify accurately if these critical items are being mastered sufficiently. All effort must be focused on accomplishing results. Identifying and then assessing is the backbone of his book on improving schools. Structures necessary to implement these changes in our schools may lead or have led to alternative scheduling exploration in our high schools. These are but a few of the experts whose books and articles influenced the development of the secondary trimester model. In subsequent chapters, we will review and present reasons why a secondary school may want to retool using the trimester model as a structure to accomplish the many positive goals schools seek to implement today. THE MIDDLE SCHOOL TRIMESTER MODEL

School leaders are inundated by the wave of reports that flood through the pipeline each year, each touting the panacea for effective change. Middle level education has certainly weathered the storm of reform efforts. By wading through the bog of information that exists for how to best deliver instruction to young adolescents, we offer the ultimate, comprehensive model for this stage of learners. In fact, this work may well prove to be the most promising discovery for the middle grades yet. However, before presenting an effective trimester model for the middle level, it is important to first understand what has been learned from existing published research, as well as our own study of the model, to recognize the rationale and potential of such a schedule. Hackmann and Valentine (1998) caution educators about getting on the bandwagon and moving to a new scheduling model without careful consideration and planning. Therefore, chapter 3 examines how to begin the transition to the new schedule, with a well-designed planning tool to facilitate second-order change. Chapter 4 describes how the leadership must approach the naysayers. Shift in Thinking

Over the past century, the education system has witnessed two significant shifts involving middle level learners. In the 1940s, the junior high school was established in U.S. school systems, replacing the K–8 and 9–12 models with K–6, 7–9, and 10–12 configurations (Lounsbury and Vars, 2003). The junior high was created based on the developmental differences that exist between

16

CHAPTER 1

early adolescents and other students. Most junior high schools were subject centered, included a six-period day, organized teachers by departments, and focused mainly on the intellectual development of students. The traditional departmentalized schedule is characterized by a fixed number of daily periods of uniform length, with delivery of instruction strictly adhering to departmental classifications (Hackmann and Valentine, 1998). Meehan (1973) indicated that uniform scheduling makes instructional experiences, such as lab activities, field trips, and cooperative learning, difficult. Most of the research on junior high schools noted that these schools evolved into miniature versions of traditional high schools (Cuban, 1992). The middle school philosophy began in the United States in the early 1970s. The National Middle School Association (NMSA) was founded in 1973 and its core beliefs are outlined in the report, This We Believe: Successful Schools for Young Adolescents (2003). The basis of middle school philosophy is that “no other age level has so clear and legitimate a claim to the designation of unique as does this period of transition between childhood and full-blown adolescence, roughly ages ten to fourteen” (NMSA, 2003, p. 4). This belief differs significantly from the foundation beneath junior high schools, which were designed to be junior versions of high school curriculum and organization (Lounsbury, 1996). Those perceived as influential in the development of the middle school (i.e., Alexander, Eichhorn, Lounsbury, Vars, and others) insisted that the developmental needs of young adolescents should influence the school environment and structure of the middle school. Therefore, the premise of developmentally appropriate drove every operational decision. Middle schools no longer subscribed to the departmentalization and focus on content basis for the traditional junior high school. This movement was endorsed, with great support from the NMSA and others, as essential to early adolescents. Freshman-level students should be immersed in high school credits, while students in grades 6th to 8th should not be viewed as miniature high school people, they should be treated as unique individuals with special needs that require daily attention and nurturing. The experts continued to espouse these beliefs to school leaders as the basis for immediate change. As a result of this shift in philosophy, freshman students were ushered into high school buildings and sixth grade students were extracted from elementary settings into newly created middle schools, leaving most middle level learning institutions with sixth- through eighth-

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

17

grade configurations. The freshman transition was for obvious curricular reasons, but the sixth grade shift was justified by the development of the new middle school philosophy. The middle school concept defines the following as essential components of effective schools: interdisciplinary or thematic teaching (eliminating the subject area emphasis that persisted in junior high schools), advisory programs, exploratory programming, varied instructional strategies, career orientation, and transition programs. This philosophy continues to be advocated by the NMSA today. In fact, numerous articles have appeared in professional journals stating emphatically that the best middle schools must have these components to be considered exemplary. However, not until NCLB was enacted had anything been mentioned about standards, curriculum, common assessments, core content mastery, standardized testing, and accountability. Today’s demands of the education system bear little resemblance to the middle school philosophy followed for the past 30 years. Two substantial problems exist with the middle school concept. First, it is not effective by the current accountability standards; and second, middle school leaders now find it increasingly difficult to shift schools away from teaming and interdisciplinary planning and toward the requirements of state academic standards, core content mastery, and standardized testing. Some educators will insist that the middle school philosophy has worked and should continue, but the facts do not support the position of continuance. Therefore, there are districts across the country that contain schools with an excess of exploratory teachers and a limited supply of core content teachers. Many of these schools treat the core subjects with the same importance as electives in terms of minutes of instruction. It is not unusual to see middle school students having math, language arts, science, and social studies classes consisting only of 35 to 45 minutes per day within a seven- to eight-period day. However, comprehensive reports such as Turning Points (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) indicate that a 40- to 50-minute class is not adequate time to present content, practice skills, and reinforce concepts. Obviously, this structure is woefully inadequate in preparing students for the rigors of high school as mandated by sweeping reform efforts across the U.S. education system. Students and teachers are often expected to cover an entire textbook in math, language arts, science, and social studies with only 3,000 to 4,000 minutes of instruction per semester of work, while a traditional high school class will usually have 4,000

18

CHAPTER 1

to 5,000 minutes of instruction in the same class. Multiply this semester total over the course of a year and a middle school student may receive 1,000 to 2,000 less minutes of instruction in the core subjects. All of this is occurring at a time when expectations are increasing for math, language arts, science, and social studies. Simply stated, middle schools of this nature are mired in a theory without the necessary tools and staff to shift to a more rigorous and academic curriculum based on assessments from state and national mandates. Therefore, many middle schools are ill equipped, structurally, to compete in a high stakes accountability movement. A shift in how to configure schools’ operation must occur in order to meet the challenges of a society with increasing educational expectations. It has become blatantly obvious that a total redesign of the basic structure of the middle school day is imperative for providing the best possible learning environment for students at this level. Some middle level leaders have begun to realize this sense of urgency. There has been a trend, albeit slight, toward increased scheduling flexibility in recent years. In a national study, Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe, and Melton (1993) reported that more than 90 percent of middle schools subscribed to traditional, fixed-period schedules, with seven instructional periods of 40 to 55 minutes each. Three years later McEwin, Dickinson, and Jenkins (1996) reported that 40 percent of sixth and seventh grade and 27 percent of eighth grade respondents had implemented some form of alternative scheduling. In 2003, the same authors found one-third of fifth through eighth grade respondents implemented a schedule with some sort of alternative other than a fixed number of uniform periods. COMPARISON OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SCHEDULING MODELS

The following section outlines middle school scheduling models that have emerged in this country. While similar to the high school formats previously discussed, the four models described by the NSMA (2003) provide the reader with the structure and rationale of each toward achieving educational goals at the middle level. Block 4

Most often used by interdisciplinary teams, blocks of time usually consist of two or more combined periods (Hackmann, 2002). In its simplest form, blocks are all the same length of time (e.g., 100 minutes). For example, in the

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

19

common 4 × 4 (four-by-four) scheduling arrangement, students take only four classes in the first half of the year and four different classes in the second half of the year. In more creative arrangements, the length of time devoted to each time block may vary based on the instructional needs of the teachers and students (i.e., core academic subjects may be assigned to longer blocks while advisory and electives are assigned to shorter blocks), and length of time devoted to any given block may vary from day to day. A common block arrangement in middle level schools consists of two blocks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, or alternately, one before lunch and one after lunch. Block 8

Sometimes referred to as an A/B schedule or alternating day schedule, this arrangement assigns classes on an every-other-day basis during the week. For example, a student can take music on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (A schedule), and art on Tuesdays and Thursdays (B schedule), with the core academic classes meeting all five days. Or a career class and a study skills class can meet on alternate days, taught by two teachers or the same teacher, depending on staffing requirements. In some middle schools, the use of the A/B alternate day schedule refers to students taking two core academic classes (i.e., mathematics and science) on one day and the other two core academic classes (i.e., language arts and social studies) on the alternate day. Rotating Schedule

Following a master schedule of all classes in sequence, classes are conducted at different times each day, by rotating the classes one period later each day. This process enables students to have all subjects at various times of the day and can be implemented by teams or by an entire school. Dropped Schedule

Students are scheduled for more classes than class periods, with one class being dropped on any given day. This schedule provides allotted times for advisory programs, electives, assemblies, and other curricular offerings beyond core academic requirements. While all of these alternatives pose the opportunity for greater flexibility, it is important that teachers and administrators not become so enamored with any particular alternative that it becomes just as restrictive as the traditional six- to eight-period day (Hackmann and Valentine, 1998).

20

CHAPTER 1

Because we examined all known models, the following points emerged as structural considerations for sweeping changes needed in middle schools. 1. Restructure the daily schedule to allow less passing periods. 2. Restructure the daily schedule to allow more minutes of instruction in the four core content areas of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. 3. Maintain some exploratory or elective courses but drastically cut the number of weeks and minutes of instruction exploratory courses offer compared to the core subjects. Reduce the offerings of exploratory courses to a few basic courses that each school or community deems appropriate. For example, a school may only offer physical education, computers, reading, art, band, and choir. Other schools may offer Spanish or industrial technology. Hard decisions must be made about what should be offered each of the two or three years a student is in middle school. 4. Teaming must become a secondary focus in the restructured middle school. More focus must be given to the core subjects to ensure mastery and continuity of standards instruction. 5. Thematic and interdisciplinary instruction is of secondary importance to relevance of material- and standards-based instruction. 6. Standards-based instruction must be emphasized over coverage of material. 7. Learning must be perceived as the result of effective teaching. 8. Multiple assessments and accountability for results must become the fortification of middle schools. 9. Mastery of material must take the place of advising approaches. 10. Reading and writing must become the central theme of all instruction. 11. Discipline and rigor must take the place of leniency and mediocrity. In order to fully understand the rationale for each previously listed point, it is important to delve a little deeper. Restructuring the Daily Schedule

In the traditional model of the middle school concept, students spend as much time in the hallways as they do in core subjects each day. This hall time allows opportunities for students that result in increased discipline referrals,

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

21

student tardiness, and interference with learning. Not only are students in the halls far too often in the traditional model, but also each period, teachers are faced with calming these overstimulated adolescents so they can teach. Both are not elements conducive to a productive learning environment. Increasing Instructional Time in Core Areas

Middle school educators once believed that shortened periods were needed due to the limited attention span of students age 10 to 13. The problem with this approach is that class periods beyond 20 minutes can cause problems with attention spans. The answer is not the shorter period we see in the middle schools where teachers are forced to lecture to cover material (which is the fastest, easiest, and most efficient delivery system) but rather a longer period. In a longer period, 60 to 70 minutes, teachers can implement strategies that encourage knowledge work, participation, exploration, experimentation, hands-on activities, and experiential studies that research shows develops mastery of material. Allocating sufficient time for students to be engaged in actual text reading is imperative for able and struggling readers (Allington, 1983). Shortened class periods often force language arts teachers to focus only on isolated skill instruction. As long as teachers vary instructional strategies and keep students active in the learning process, lengthier class periods will produce better results. Also, by lengthening the minutes of instruction in the core subjects, the results in learning will yield increased achievement (National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994). Exploratory or Elective Classes

Exploratory, elective, or survey courses are a necessity in any child’s education but not at the expense of foundation core courses. We believe that each school must develop a list of electives that the leadership in the school, as well as community, believes to be essential for students. The operative caution here is to ensure that the elective courses do not take precedence over core subjects. These elective courses must be offered to complement a student’s education but only in a context of what is being assessed and expected by local and state officials. Teaming

Teaming is an admirable concept when used for shared planning, aligning curriculum, developing common assessments, and examining student work.

22

CHAPTER 1

This core value served a valuable purpose in middle schools that adopted the philosophy. However, the problems associated with the approach are many. (1) Schools often did not have a large enough enrollment to support full teaming. (2) Some schools had to hire more teachers. (3) Many schools could not offer a team-meeting period. (4) Many schools found that putting 100 students together all day long actually increased discipline problems rather than reduced them. (5) Many schools had to add elective teachers to build the master schedule to allow for teaming of core area teachers. (6) Some schools found teams to be dysfunctional, leaving those 100 or more students with less than high performing professionals. The opposite may also be said about teaming. Some schools have had highly successful teaming programs. However, even those schools must reexamine the priorities that today’s schools must entertain. Today, schools are held accountable with true measures of achievement. Schools today face loss of funds and state control if they do not perform. Also, competition among teams can destroy schools even though it was originally thought that healthy competition would push teams and students to higher achievement. That attitude has proven a miserable failure. Collaboration, not competition, is the key to higher achievement for students. Thematic or Interdisciplinary Instruction

Thematic or interdisciplinary teaching was also promoted as the panacea of effective instruction. This too has proven largely ineffective. Just because teachers tried to use themes and connections between subjects did not mean that students actually learned better. The key to all learning is relevance to students’ lives, not some artificial connection with which students have difficulty relating. The wealth of research available today suggests that brain patterning, relevance, identifying similarities and differences, emotions, choice, and active engagement have far more to do with learning than do themes or interdisciplinary initiatives (Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock, 2001). All people will naturally see relationships between and among subjects with mastery of material. Trying to artificially create relationships between subjects is often difficult, and ultimately, unnecessary. Mastery of Standards

One of the biggest mindsets the average teacher must address is the age-old adage that we must cover the textbook. Textbook manufacturers have driven

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

23

curriculum for decades based on 18-week semesters. College textbooks are usually written for 14- or 15-week semesters. Still other textbooks simply follow what a writer believes to be important. None of these are important. The only important feature in today’s environment of increasing expectations is to master required academic standards. If one teaches to mastery of standards, coverage becomes unimportant. Teachers, for years, have taught their personal favorite projects or spent inordinate amounts of time covering topics that they personally love to teach. Educators can no longer apply this instructional approach. Teachers must become familiar with the standards, pace the learning of the standards based on the school’s schedule structure and curriculum map, and then teach for mastery (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998). This approach will remove the stress of coverage and allow a more reasonable approach to teaching necessary standards. Teaching and Learning

In a study by Wright, Horn, and Sanders (1997), more than 100,000 students’ achievement scores were analyzed and the authors concluded that “The most important factor affecting student learning is the teacher” (cited in Marzano, et al., 2001). For decades, teachers have been more concerned with saying they covered the chapters by teaching the material in the book instead of concentrating on the students learning the concepts. Oftentimes, teachers faced with difficult time schedules and requirements would rush through the text just so they could say they covered the book. This did not result in satisfying teaching, and it surely did not work in improving students’ skills and knowledge. The answer lies in changing instructional strategies that benefit students: providing greater opportunities for student reflection; designing activities that promote critical and creative thinking through extended opportunities for manipulation of concepts and principles; and use of more student-tostudent collaborative learning experiences that promote mastery learning. No longer should teachers be evaluated on what they teach; rather, they should be held accountable for what students learn. This is a huge shift for teachers and administrators. If a student does not learn the material, what difference does it make if the teacher taught it? Multiple Assessments and Accountability

With the implementation of the NCLB Act of 2001, schools must comply with federal requirements for accountability systems. No longer can schools

24

CHAPTER 1

simply measure their success based on opinions, feelings, or mere beliefs. For far too long, schools have assumed they were doing a good job, but that has proven largely ineffective for measuring schools’ growth and improved student performance. Schools must now develop multiple assessments that ensure students are learning. Schools must use reliable assessments to ensure that the school results match state accountability standards. Trends and patterns from locally developed and standardized assessments should assist educators in developing individual goals for students and school-wide instructional goals. This data should be analyzed and used to inform instruction. When effective structures are implemented to assess students’ learning and when people are held accountable, then growth will occur. The new middle school philosophy of contemporary thinking must be structured around this basic premise. Cognitive versus Affective Emphasis

In the middle school philosophy model, students explored courses instead of obtaining mastery in subjects. Skills were not emphasized for this age group. Schools were encouraged to nurture students, encouraged to foster expression of problems to adults, encouraged to allow social interaction, encouraged to protect self-esteem, and encouraged to be themselves at the expense of academic learning. These philosophies took precedence over discipline, rigor, learning, and individual accountability. Now schools are held accountable for discipline referrals, attendance, mastery of subjects, standardized test scores, and many more measurable requirements. Measuring the qualitative domain is difficult and emphasizing the affective domain has shown few positive results in these domains let alone the cognitive domain. Literacy as the Focus of Instruction

Research from Ruddell and Unrau (1997) reveals that as students progress through school, their interest in pleasure reading and motivation to read to learn diminishes; therefore reading is fundamental to all learning. If educators are to make significant gains in learning, then reading must be the vehicle to drive our students to this destination. Reading must be developed as a class subject requirement and also as an across-the-curriculum accepted practice. Read, read, read, and read some more is the tune educators must be singing. Every available opportunity must be explored and utilized to get students to

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON VARIOUS SCHEDULING MODELS

25

read. If educators do nothing else, they must create reading initiatives. Reading is the foundation upon which everyone builds the house of learning. The second part of the reading equation is learning to write well and write effectively. When students can read and express themselves, all other subjects begin to blossom into understanding. By the time a student reaches middle school, he or she should be so well versed in reading and writing, that learning takes quantum leaps each semester. With strong writing skills, comes an effective communication skill. When a student develops strong communication skills, he or she becomes poised to reach unbelievably lofty goals in life. If writing and reading comprise the foundation of the house of learning, then the sky that surrounds this structure becomes the vast potential of each child. Discipline and Rigor

When most people hear the word discipline, they think punishment. When one thinks of rigor, one generally thinks difficult. Neither are accurate interpretations of these two words. Discipline comes from the word disciple, which means to teach. Therefore, when one disciplines in the right way, one is teaching. Using the discipline approach is positive versus the negative connotation of the word punishment. Disciplining students means applying expectations for behavior and performance. Failure to meet expectations results in communicated consequences. With the consistent application of consequences comes positive growth in behavior and performance. Schools should never use the words threats and punishment; these words have little positive meaning. Educators should not hesitate to discipline appropriately using acceptable procedures. Most educators also misunderstand rigor. Rigor does not mean something is necessarily hard to understand but rather is a positive term that means what we teach is meaningful and important to success in one’s life. By making this declaration, concepts should be determined that are necessary to master in a given subject. Rigor then dictates that what is taught has meaningful substance and is worthy of mastery. Accountability is the measuring stick used to determine if mastery has been reached. While middle grade advocates for several decades have recommended flexible scheduling (cf. Alexander, Williams, Compton, Hines, Prescott, and Kealy, 1969; Beane, 1993; Curtis and Bidwell, 1977; Epstein and MacIver,

26

CHAPTER 1

1990; Hackmann, 2002; Kindred, Wolotkiewicz, Mickelson, and Coplein, 1981; NMSA, 2003), middle grades schools have been somewhat slow to veer from the traditional day. After much consensus building, providing appropriate professional development, studying what the literature and research has to offer on middle school scheduling, and maintaining a clear focus on what is positive and appropriate for the middle school student of today and tomorrow, the trimester middle school schedule was born. SUMMARY

In summary, the purpose of the literature review on high school and middle school schedules was to explore the history and philosophy of alternative schedules, to identify alternative schedules for the purpose of grouping them for better analysis, to examine other educational scholars and their views on restructuring, and finally, to review the reasons behind the alternative reform movement. All of these factors have influenced the development of the trimester model.

00 2

Why Change to a Trimester Scheduling Model?

As administrators struggle to implement change, retool their schools, and seek answers to confounding problems facing education today, they usually establish goals as to what to expect by any reform effort. Some schools change their scheduling formats only to return to the traditional schedule a few years later. Others change to one alternative schedule and then adopt another one later after the first schedule fails to live up to lofty expectations. Although we will explore many of the positive reasons to change schedules, we will also help the administrator in charge of these changes avoid the pitfalls of implementation and to curtail misdirected expectations of what a new schedule can deliver. If expectations are not based on reality, no schedule change will be successful. Success has to be defined by measurable goals associated with the expectations of the new scheduling format. For example, if a particular school reads in the research that students can earn more credits on a given schedule, once the new schedule is implemented, did the schedule deliver on that assumption? Conversely, if a school expects kids to be happier on a new schedule, how is that happiness factor going to be measured? Subjective evaluations, mere opinions, beliefs, and I think mentalities have no place in objective evaluation of a given change to any alternative schedule. The research is clear on numerous items that can be expected to transpire by changing to any alternative schedule. But still, some reform efforts, such 27

28

CHAPTER 2

as using a new schedule, fail, not because goals are not reached, but rather, because naysayers are able to finally convince others that key parts of the new schedule are not working as promised. This phenomenon will be explored in depth in later chapters. In this chapter, we review what the literature has to offer in terms of the reason why schools seek change; the goals a particular school can expect; and the reasons some leading experts share that will most likely happen. In 1994, the National Education Commission on Time and Learning (NECTL) published Prisoners of Time. In this report, the following quote fundamentally addresses the problem of schedules and the need to change: “Schools will have a design flaw as long as their organization is based on the assumption that all students can learn on the same schedule” (NECTL, 1994, p. 11). Gary Watts and Shari Castle in their article for Kappan in December 1993, say that “Traditional, inflexible scheduling is based on administrative and institutional needs” (Castle and Watts, 1993, p. 306). They further write that flexible schedules (alternative schedules) are much better for varying pedagogical practices that meet the educational needs of students and the complex professional needs of teachers. Castle and Watts write about how traditional schedules continue to be teachers’ greatest fundamental frustration due to the lack of time for daily instruction. This teacher frustration is proven in more than 100 studies. The obvious conclusion that these two researchers draw is that with longer class periods this frustration will wane. Changing to alternative schedules will not bring fundamental positive change simply by adopting this change, but two items remain clear: the trimester schedule gives schools a structure to fundamentally change instructional strategies and offers a sound alternative from the traditional model of scheduling delivery. Mistretta and Polansky, in a 1997 article for NASSP Bulletin, delineated 12 positive reasons for changing to alternative schedules but cite that a major reason for change is to dramatically improve school climate. They also cite more creativity and better quality of instruction as major reasons for changing to alternative schedules. Shortt and Thayer, Stenvall, and Irmsher all cite numerous benefits of alternative schedules in their journal articles. These benefits include more

WHY CHANGE TO A TRIMESTER SCHEDULING MODEL?

29

lab time, more student-directed learning, and better quality learning due to teachers’ inherent need to change instructional strategies. Exclaiming it is a different world now, Irmsher (1996, p. 2) writes in Eric Digest that the old Carnegie unit schedule is too hectic, too impersonal, and too inefficient for quality instruction to take place. Don Adams and Mary Salvaterra, in their 1997 book, make it clear that change is needed to give teachers and schools a vehicle to drive their respective schools forward. The schedule itself will not bring about dramatic change unless proper staff development and proper implementation take place. Hess, Robinson, and Wronkovich (1997) cite the common threads of alternative schedules. These include more advanced classes offered; accelerated subject curriculum completion, which allows higher levels of exploration; and better math scores due to more classes taken. They write about how alternative schedules may have fewer total minutes of instruction per class, but that this is more than made up when students are able to take more advanced classes due to more credits allowed to be earned with most alternative schedules. After reviewing thousands of pages of literature on alternative schedules, the following comprehensive list demonstrates goals cited as positive justifications for changing to alternative schedules in high schools. Nearly all of these research- or literature-based justifications for change apply to the trimester scheduling model presented in this book. 1. Fewer passing periods for students (Fager, 1997, p. 6; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 81; Canady and Rettig, 1995a, p. 12; Hampton, 1997, p. 5). 2. The need for summer school is reduced significantly (Fager, 1997, p. 6; Canady and Rettig, 1997, p. 12). 3. More curricular offerings (Canady and Rettig, 1993, p. 312; Lybbert, 1996, p. 20; Mistretta and Polansky, 1997, p. 29). 4. Increased graduation rates (Carroll, 1994a, p. 110). 5. Better school climate (Canady and Rettig, 1995a, p. 2; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Hampton, 1997, p. 5). 6. Fewer discipline problems (Canady and Rettig, 1995b; Hampton, 1997, p. 5). 7. Better for at-risk students (Hampton, 1997, p. 5). 8. Better for special education students (Hampton, 1997, p. 5).

30

CHAPTER 2

9. Improved student attendance rates (Hampton, 1997, p. 5; Lybbert, 1996, p. 20). 10. Less stress for students (Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80; Fager, 1997, p. 6). 11. Less stress for teachers (Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80; Fager, 1997, p. 6). 12. Improved quality of instruction for learning (Canady and Rettig, 1995b, p. 1; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Sturgis, 1995, p. 2; Lybbert, 1996, p. 20; Mistretta and Polansky, 1997, p. 29; McClaran, 1994, p. 1). 13. More interaction between teachers and students (Sturgis, 1995, p. 2; Fager, 1997, p. 7; Mistretta and Polansky, 1997, p. 29; McClaran, 1994, p. 1; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Hurley, 1997, p. 65). 14. Better rapport between student and teacher because teachers get to know students better due to lengthier classroom periods (Miller, 1998, p. 3; Hampton, 1997, p. 5; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Hurley, 1997, p. 65). 15. More efficient use of materials and resources (Hampton, 1997, p. 5; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Hottenstein and Strock, 1998, p. 8; Hampton, 1997, p. 5). 16. Increased scores on standardized tests (Mistretta and Polansky, 1997, p. 29; Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 1; Lybbert, 1996, p. 20; Geismar and Pullease, 1996, p. 103). 17. Increasing the number of students on honor rolls (Mistretta and Polansky, 1997, p. 29; Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 1; Hampton, 1997, p. 5; Lybbert, 1996, p. 20). 18. More flexibility for students to schedule to meet individual needs (Miller, 1998, p. 3; Sturgis, 1995, p. 2; Lybbert, 1996, p. 20; Mistretta and Polansky, 1997, p. 29; Hottenstein and Strock, 1998, pp. 27–28). 19. Articulation has improved between teachers (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, pp. 1–2; Kruse and Kruse, 1995, p. 7). 20. Teachers practice more interdisciplinary instructions (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, pp. 1–2; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Kruse and Kruse, 1995, p. 5). 21. Teachers can feel more rejuvenated (Fager, 1997, p. 7; Geismar and Pullease, 1996, p. 96; Carroll, 1994a, p. 110).

WHY CHANGE TO A TRIMESTER SCHEDULING MODEL?

31

22. More productivity due to less start-up and teardown time (Sturgis, 1995, p. 2; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Hampton, 1997, p. 5; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80). 23. More credits can be earned each year and over the four-year high school career (Geismar and Pullease, 1996, p. 96; Edwards, 1995, p. 28; Shortt and Thayer, 1997, pp. 1–2; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96). 24. Students can accelerate their education and take more advanced classes (Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Shortt and Thayer, 1997, pp. 1–2; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80; Lybbert, 1996, p. 20). 25. Improved opportunities to vary instruction due to longer class periods (Canady and Rettig, 1995b, p. 1; Geismar and Pullease, 1996, p. 96; Kruse and Kruse, 1995, p. 5; Shortt and Thayer, 1997, pp. 1–2; Sturgis, 1995, p. 2; Hampton, 1997, p. 5; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; McClaran, 1994, p. 1). 26. Fewer student failures (Canady and Rettig, 1993, p. 311; Shortt and Thayer, 1997, pp. 1–2; Lybbert, 1996, p. 20). 27. Less homework (Hurley, 1997, p. 65). 28. Students can retake failed classes sooner (Carroll, 1990, p. 364; Canady and Rettig, 1995b, p. 28). 29. Students have more opportunities to explore careers outside the schools (Geismar and Pullease, 1996, p. 96; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96). 30. Teachers have fewer total numbers of students (Geismar and Pullease, 1996, p. 96; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Sturgis, 1995, p. 2; Hampton, 1997, p. 5; Lybbert, 1996, p. 20; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80). 31. Teachers have more preparation time (Hampton, 1997, p. 5; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80; Huff, 1995, p. 22; Canady and Rettig, 1995a, p. 28; Mistretta and Polansky, 1997, p. 29; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96). 32. Teachers have fewer subject preparations (Lybbert, 1996, p. 20; Jenkins, 1996, p. 96; Kruse and Zulkowski, 1997, p. 19; Shortt and Thayer, 1997, pp. 1–2; Adams and Staunton, 1997, p. 80). 33. More advanced courses can be offered (Edwards, 1995, p. 28; Carroll, 1990). SUMMARY

In Canady and Rettig’s book titled, Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools (1995a, p. 12), the authors list eight goals that are most often

32

CHAPTER 2

cited in the alternative scheduling reform movement. Although this list is less comprehensive that those previously listed, they, nevertheless, give the reader a list of excellent reasons why schools make the change to an alternative schedule. The trimester schedule meets all of these goals. ■

■

■

■ ■

■

■

■

Reduce the number of class changes and movements that large groups of students are required to complete during any one school day. Reduce the duplication and inefficiency reportedly documented in many high schools using the daily, single-period high school schedule. Reduce the number of students for and with whom teachers must prepare and interact each day and/or each term. Reduce the number of courses for which teachers must prepare daily. Reduce the number of classes, and the accompanying assignments, tests, and projects that students must address during any one day or term. Reduce the fragmentation inherent in single-period schedules, a complaint that is especially pertinent to classes requiring extensive practice and laboratory work. Provide teachers with blocks of teaching time that allow and encourage the use of active teaching strategies and greater student involvement. Allow students variable amounts of time for learning, without lowering standards, and without punishing those who need more or less time to learn.

This chapter has included numerous anecdotal benefits related to the trimester model. An unsolicited letter from a high school student regarding a student’s perspective of the benefits of the change in schedule has been included as appendix 1.

00 3

Beginning the Process of Transitioning to the Trimester

You cannot have a learning organization without shared vision.

—Senge, 1990, p. 209

When the dust has settled, at least to the point of which consensus is solid enough among staff to move forward with the change in schedule, consideration must be given to the development of a shared course of action. While the inclination is to simply jump in headfirst, the process is more complex if implementation, sustaining, and supporting a new schedule is a viable reform effort. Therefore, the principal must assess where the school should begin depending on the readiness, willingness, and interpersonal relationships of the people that define it. In order to do that, the school leader must also recognize the type of change being considered by altering the daily schedule. Marzano, McNulty, and Waters (2004) describe two types of change as incremental and deep. We describe the former as first-order change. This includes small change that slightly alters an already existing system. It generally does not greatly impact the work environment and is met with little resistance. For example, changes might include developing more productive relationships through team building so that consensus is more easily built, improving communication processes to improve efficiency or eliminate duplicate paperwork, or acquiring resources such as technology to improve productivity. 33

34

CHAPTER 3

While first-order change was most likely reflected in the consensus building process resulting in the decision to move to the trimester schedule, the actual transition to a new daily schedule, for most schools, would involve second-order change. This deeper transformation can dramatically alter the organization’s direction. For example, a new schedule may cause considerations that may be challenging for some staff members, such as accepting a new vision for the school; developing and being accountable for well-defined student learning goals; understanding expectations for what will occur within the new schedule; teachers’ capacity to instruct during an extended period of time; coordinating curriculum over two to three trimesters instead of one to two traditional semesters; restructuring exploratory course offerings; helping parents and students understand the need for the change; the potentially radical shift in the school’s culture; and the time and resources needed to develop a successful implementation plan. Simply put, there is much more to changing a scheduling structure than adjusting the time spent in each class period by resetting the bells. The following pages provide one example of a planning model; however, many exist. The principal must determine how best to lead his or her staff through the transition. THE FIRST STEP What’s really important to being our best is concentration and focus on something that is meaningful to us.

—Kouze and Posner, 1999, p. 53

When working with schools, and the educators within them, we must get to the heart of why? The pulse, of course, is student learning. This mission reminds us of our purpose and why we exist. In the previous chapter the stage was set. The learning benefits from a schedule that includes many opportunities for student success are numerous. However, before proceeding with change, several elements must be considered. “Tell me and I will forget, show me and I may remember, involve me and I will understand.” This Chinese proverb captures the essence of the importance of the process of planning for second-order change. Whether a school-age student or adult learner, the

BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF TRANSITIONING TO THE TRIMESTER

35

experience is much more meaningful and owned by those that are actively involved in decision making, especially when those adult learners, in this case teachers, are directly linked to student achievement. Few professions have more demands on personnel than education. Teachers experience countless hours of weekly lesson planning, assessing student work, communicating with students and parents, 35 to 40 weekly hours of actual teaching, leaving little time for collaboration with colleagues. We have all read about or even experienced the necessity of a shared mission, vision, and value statements, shared goal setting, action planning, and progress monitoring. However, teachers and school leaders are so often bogged down in the day-to-day operations of the school that those essential components are lost. The principal must ensure that the school maintains order and discipline, orders supplies in a timely manner, makes certain that food service operates efficiently, hires and supervises competent staff members, effectively communicates with parents, meets the academic and social needs of each student, and of course, meets the state and federal standards for accountability. With increasing expectations, there is little time in schools available for the collaboration necessary to develop the important elements necessary for the design of an effective action plan for school improvement. However, Douglas Reeves has perhaps best defined the role of school leaders needed to facilitate change. He describes the best school leaders as “the architects of individual and organizational improvement” (2006, p. 27). He makes reference to the work of great architects that have built long lasting structures, with a well-developed plan and the hard work of others. He also discusses how distributing or flattening out the leadership develops trust in achieving goals, whether building temples or an effective learning community. Reeves also cites the importance of school leaders being able to identify those staff members that complement their expertise. No single person can be an expert at everything needed to successfully lead an organization. While some may specialize in data gathering, research, and analysis, others may serve as curriculum and instruction leaders, and still others are more inclined to pay attention to detail and logistics such as scheduling, transportation considerations, food service, and so on. Determining the strengths that exist among staff members is essential to the planning process. A system of distributed leadership responsibilities with high trust, no hidden agendas, honesty, and openness is essential to the success of the

36

CHAPTER 3

development and implementation of any new schedule. Therefore, it is important that all stakeholders understand the purpose for the change, their role in the well-designed action plan, and the use of assessment data to determine the impact of the new schedule on student learning and teacher instructional practices. MOVING FORWARD

After the building principal has identified those within the school that can be objective, provide expertise within a specific area, remain focused, and lead others, a common planning tool is needed. This tool will be necessary whether the principal decides to move forward as a larger planning team or an executive leadership team in which each identified leader works with smaller teams and then collaborates with the larger group. While working with the Indiana Principal Leadership Academy (IPLA), participants involved in the two-year professional development program learn how to utilize a very simple, yet effective tool called a Goal Action Plan (GAP). While the current director and previous directors are unsure of this tool’s origin since the inception of IPLA in 1986, it has been used by several divisions within the Indiana Department of Education, Butler University’s Experiential Program for Preparing School Principals, and other educational agencies. The GAP serves as the blueprint or canvas for a well-constructed plan. While it includes the key elements described for effective reform and is succinct in structure, the magic comes from the team effort that orchestrates the plan. This tool works well for large team planning or smaller team-driven work. The reader will quickly learn that it could be used for a variety of planning purposes. The blank GAP form can be found as appendix 2.

Vision

The first step in the plan is to develop a vision. Many cringe at the mention of the term vision. It can mean different things to people, and for some, it may be painted negatively by the association of lengthy staff meetings in which personnel labored over correct word choice, differing philosophies, or unsuccessful consensus building. Unfortunately, this was never the purpose of establishing a vision. Blankstein (2004) describes a school’s vision as “a realistic alternative for a better future” (p. 77).

BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF TRANSITIONING TO THE TRIMESTER

37

The vision clarifies the direction the school needs to go. IPLA describes vision as “the best that you can imagine . . . written as a statement as if it already exists.” The statement should describe intended change and be vivid, forceful, and motivating. It should inspire and guide future action. While we are reluctant to provide an example of vision since that should be developed by the organization itself, as adult learners, we crave models. Therefore, an example of a vision statement for a school considering the trimester schedule for the benefits of teaching and learning might resemble the following: At ABC High School, students immediately recognize that learning is important. ABC students take charge of their own learning and reach their academic potential with the support of parents, teachers, administrators, and support staff. Students know they are cared for, easily pursue opportunities to learn more, and freely offer positive assistance to their peers. A great sense of pride and belonging exists among the students because a variety of curricular and extracurricular offerings are available to each. Mutual respect is apparent between the students and adults, fostering positive relationships with clear communication and expectations. Therefore, students are actively engaged in learning, serving as positive contributors to the school and community, working diligently to complete a career path, and going beyond fulfilling minimum graduation requirements.

Developing a vision may seem too pie in the sky for some; however, the challenge of the process will be good for the team. When the planning team sees a vision grow into reality, the dividends are worth it. It may take several years to reach a vision, but the next step will help measure that success. Goals

The next step in the GAP is developing goals. Strong, measurable goals are essential to any plan. Blankstein (2004) reminds us “Strong goals are particularly important in school cultures with little previous record of success” (p. 89). Setting short-term, attainable goals will build credibility and success. This reinforcement will be needed to not only maintain the focus, but to also provide commentary about the progress toward the vision. IPLA simplifies a goal as “an outcome statement that is measurable.” For the purpose of following the GAP template, that definition needs to be expanded to include that goals should also be specific, attainable, and quantifiable. Schmoker (1996),

38

CHAPTER 3

as well as Blankstein (2004), describe goal development best as SMART. The acronym provides a rubric for constructing a well-written goal. Each goal statement should be: Specific and strategic, Measurable, Attainable, Results oriented, and Time bound. Whatever weak area(s) prompted the discussion about the need for an improved scheduling model should serve as the basis for where to begin with writing goals. It is important to keep the goals student focused. In the beginning, it is wise to limit any GAP to one to three goals. Again, the necessity for short-term success will ensure credibility and trust as the team moves toward that desired vision. For example, if increased time for core classes, such as language arts and math, was a recurring theme, perhaps a goal inclusive of that need could be considered. Beginning in the fall of the 2008–2009 school year, all ABC High School students not passing a required course(s) for any diploma level will have opportunities to participate in intensive, research-based interventions during the bonus period or within the students’ academic schedule, resulting in an increase in passing grades and earned diplomas.

How is this goal SMART? It is specific in that it targets students not passing required courses. It is strategic in that intensive, research-based interventions will be utilized with the students. The goal will be measured by the number of passing grades and participation in extended services available to students. A new schedule that allows a student to accommodate these services within his academic plan makes the goal attainable. The goal is results oriented by the increase in passing grades and achievement of each level of diploma. It is time bound by the comparison of baseline data from the percentage of passing grades from previous years.

BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF TRANSITIONING TO THE TRIMESTER

39

Another goal may be that ABC High School has not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) two consecutive years due to the performance of special education students in the area of language arts, a goal statement may resemble the following: Beginning in the fall of the 2008–2009 school year, all special education students not passing an English class or the state standardized exam will have opportunities to participate in intensive, research-based language arts interventions through bonus period, resource, or within the academic schedule, resulting in an increase in passing English grades or performance on the state exam in the spring.

How is this goal SMART? It is specific in that it targets a population of students: those in need of special education services that have not passed an English course or have not passed the state exam. It is strategic in that intensive, research-based interventions will be utilized with the students. The goal will be measured by the availability of extended services for all students meeting these criteria. A new schedule that allows a student to accommodate these services within his or her academic plan makes the goal attainable. The goal is results oriented by the increase in passing English grades or performance on the state exam. It is time bound by the comparison of baseline data from grades and assessment performance to that same data later in the spring. Whatever the needs of the school, well-designed goals are essential to developing the plan necessary to achieve them. Plan

The GAP proceeds to the actual action plan. The plan outlines the methods, strategies, people, and resources needed to ensure the achievement of the goal(s). Be cautioned, there will be members of the team that wish to fastforward to this step! While this portion of the GAP is important, the previously described steps lay the foundation needed to get to this step. IPLA stresses the importance of well-developed strategies, the identification of key personnel needed to execute the plan, resources needed for implementation, and a timeline that keeps the plan moving forward. Continuing with the vision example previously described and the goal involving increased passing grades and earned diplomas, the following plan serves as an example for the reader.

40

CHAPTER 3

Strategies

Develop a three-trimester schedule that includes job-embedded professional development time for staff, more time for core academic courses as well as electives, and a bonus period that provides additional opportunities for student success. Students will be identified that are not passing required courses for graduation. Each will be scheduled to participate in the appropriate intervention program during the bonus period or during the academic day depending on each student’s individual need. Intervention programs may include the following: Scholastic Read 180 for assistance with language arts components; an etymology course for vocabulary development; a math lab course to reinforce skills; online credit recovery courses; study groups led by certified teachers that focus on specific skills such as studying, test-taking, or core academic standards; and test preparation for state exams, the SAT, or other required exams. Student progress will be monitored weekly by assigned teacher mentors and reported to parents to ensure student success. If a student is not progressing after three weeks, an intervention team will convene with the student and parent(s) present to formulate a new strategy for the student.

People

The counseling staff will identify those students not passing a required course during the school year and communicate those student names and needs to assigned teaching staff. The principal, counselors, and assigned teachers will comprise the intervention team and review progressing monitoring information. This team will communicate successes and challenges to parents. Parental support is needed to help each student. Therefore, parent participation in intervention meetings is strongly encouraged.

Resources

The greatest resource needed is time. However, professional development time included in the schedule, and within the teachers’ contract, will allow for the intervention team to meet. Students and parents will also be asked to attend meetings convened at this time. Since the intervention programs were funded during the 2007–2008 school year, only consumable

BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF TRANSITIONING TO THE TRIMESTER

41

student resources such as Read 180 workbooks are needed in subsequent years. If other items are needed, the staff will approach the principal about possible funding.

Timeline ■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

August 11, 2008—Implement the new trimester schedule. Counselors will notify the teaching staff of their assigned students not passing a required course. August 18, 2008—Teachers will begin providing intervention services either during the school day or during the bonus period. Staff will also begin monitoring student progress. September 8, 2008—Intervention team will meet to discuss students not making progress. September 22, 2008—Intervention team will meet to discuss students not making progress and those making significant progress. Parents and students will be included in this meeting. September 29, 2008—Intervention team will meet to discuss students not making progress and those making significant progress. Parents and students will be included in this meeting. October 6, 2008—Intervention team will meet to discuss students not making progress and those making significant progress. Parents and students will be included in this meeting. October 20, 2008—Intervention team will meet to discuss students not making progress and those making significant progress. Parents and students will be included in this meeting. November 3, 2008—Intervention team will meet to discuss student progress as the first trimester concludes. Decisions will be made regarding student placement in programs or courses during second trimester.

The process will continue throughout the second and third trimester. For the purpose of brevity, the description of the timeline has only been developed through the first trimester. However, developing an actual timeline with specific dates and times throughout the school year is essential. If the plan is put on the calendar, it shall be done!

42

CHAPTER 3

Anticipating Problems and Preventions

The next step in the goal action plan is anticipating problems and possible preventions. The team should consider anything that may serve as potential obstacles throughout the plan. Kotter (1996) identifies four of the biggest obstacles for organizational change as: 1. Formal structures make it difficult to act; 2. A lack of needed skills undermines action; 3. Personnel and information systems make it difficult to act; and 4. Bosses discourage actions aimed at implementing the new vision (p. 102). In changing the daily structure of a school some obstacles may include funding, resources, more time, the skill of teachers to teach during an extended period of time, people resistant to change, and so on. The latter will be discussed further in the next chapter. The process of forecasting challenges prepares the team for removing such barriers and also finding solutions. This empowers the team to develop strategies to either prevent or remove the barriers. For example, if the team recognizes that many staff members have taught on the traditional 42-minute period schedule, they should plan the professional development needed to teach during a 70-minute period. This plan for a plan will not only ensure the success of transitioning to a new schedule, but it will also instill confidence in every staff member to teach in the extended block. This foresight will elevate others’ perspective of and trust with the planning team, hence providing best practice instruction for student learning. Levels of Progress

As a school implements the new schedule and develops goals in which to monitor, the next step in the GAP includes measures of success as a monitoring tool for the overall plan. IPLA defines the lowest level of progress as minimum. At this level, the team determines the smallest measurement of improvement or change that is acceptable. For example, in keeping with the goal of increasing passing grades, the minimum level of improvement is a 50 percent increase in passing grades from school year 2007–2008 to grades from school year 2008–2009.

BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF TRANSITIONING TO THE TRIMESTER

43

The next level is considered satisfactory. This would be the average or expected measure of improvement. The satisfactory level of improvement may be a 75 percent increase in passing grades from school year 2007–2008 to grades from school year 2008–2009. The optimal level of improvement or goal achievement is that of excellence. This is truly setting the bar high. The excellence level of improvement is a 100 percent increase in passing grades from school year 2007–2008 to grades from school year 2008–2009. The best educators and school leaders know that we must continually hold high expectations for students and staff. Celebration

Often the hard work of team members goes unrecognized. However, many change models include an element of celebration. Blankstein (2004) reminds readers that schools are typically hesitant to celebrate successes, which may be one of the most motivating strategies for promoting change. Blankstein maintains that celebrating true successes, directly related to a school’s improvement plan, has “the power to make the school’s overall values increasingly positive . . . and mark milestones and build motivation in the long journey of school improvement” (p. 92). The planning team should decide what celebrations to observe based on the levels of performance for each goal included in the plan. Each celebration should be shared and not single out an individual or only the planning team. They should be designed to be attainable and relate directly to the established organizational vision and goals. Celebration activities should be appropriate and pleasurable to enjoy the achievement of the staff. The planning team will need to know what is perceived as rewarding to the staff and make celebration plans known to the staff during the presentation of the goal action plan. SUMMARY

In this chapter, the specific steps of an effective GAP have been described as a school implements the trimester schedule. Examples of components from the plan have been included from actual schools that have moved from a traditional schedule to the trimester model. It is imperative that whatever plan a school designs must be revisited, monitored, and celebrated frequently. The next chapter addresses one of the greatest challenges any organization faces, how to deal with the naysayers.

00 4

Dealing with Naysayers

Blankstein (2004) perhaps best describes the greatest challenge or barrier that schools face when implementing change: resistance of people within the school. Understanding and empathizing with people’s legitimate concerns and fears goes a long way in helping to overcome them. At the same time, we often find too much attention paid to a few holdouts to the overwhelming consensus for a particular school-wide reform effort. Gaining consensus on the definition of consensus is a critical first step (Blankstein, 2004, p. 47). Eaker, DuFour, and Burnette (2002) suggest that one way to realize that consensus has been reached is to (1) be sure that all perspectives have been heard, and (2) the will of the staff is evident, even to those who most oppose it. Once consensus is reached, it is more important to commit support to those leading the change than those resisting it. There is no question that there will be staff members that will not immediately, or may never, embrace the change of the daily schedule. The immediate urge of the principal and planning team may be to jump into defensive mode. However, there are some strategies that can be utilized to address those naysayers. Armed with this information, the team can maintain the focus of an improved learning environment and successfully implement the action plan, curtailing anticipated resistance.

45

46

CHAPTER 4

In order to deal with difficult people, it is important for the team to know what type of resisters and difficult behaviors make up the staff. Christiansen, Cochran, and Corkery (2000) describe seven types of difficult behaviors and ideas for how to cope with each in a training guide developed by the University of Iowa Counseling Service. Most readers will quickly identify with each description. The Sherman Tank describes individuals that behave in an insulting, impulsive, and threatening style. Their abrupt manner causes others to withdraw or to become defensive. They try to overpower those with which they interact. They feel the need to prove they are right. Tanks do not respect others they perceive to be wrong or weak. They lack patience and care for those they see as feeble. To best deal with Sherman Tanks, leaders should take a stand without being taunted to engage in an argument. Allow them a little time to vent. However, leaders must proceed by defining the moment by emphatically stating the necessary point across any way possible. Sometimes leaders must understand that uncharacteristic directness is needed to get a Tank’s attention. The next difficult individual may be the Exploder. This type of behavior is similar to that of a childish temper tantrum. Exploders lose control, make unfortunate remarks, and can even become violent. These reactions are in response to feeling threatened by new ideas or change. Therefore, they resort to volatile and irrational behavior in an effort to regain power. The best way to deal with an Exploder is to give them time to calm themselves and regain self-control. If the Exploder cannot compose himself or herself, it may become necessary to intervene to stop a tantrum by stating a simple, yet direct phrase such as, “Stop!” or “That’s enough.” It is important to let the Exploder know that their concerns are taken seriously; however, that may be best accomplished by moving that conversation to a more private setting. This serves dual purposes. First, the Exploder’s dignity remains intact. Secondly, the remaining staff does not become influenced or threatened by the continued negative behavior. Sadly, there always seems to be at least one of these next characters in most workplaces. The Complainer is the person who finds constant fault with every decision made by colleagues, the boss, or even his or her own family members. These people believe that someone else should be doing something about their problems. Complainers are unable to engage in meaningful problem-solving

DEALING WITH NAYSAYERS

47

processes. They often respond to such exercises as a problem. Playing the blame game is much easier for them than seeking solutions and owning a problem. The most appropriate way to handle the Complainer is to first listen to their initial complaints so they can feel heard. However, it is unnecessary to agree or apologize for the concerns. Simply acknowledge what is said by restating or summarizing. Restate the facts without opinions. Proceed to problem solving by posing direct questions, requesting specific facts, or having them put their concerns in writing. If that does not satisfy the Complainer, ask How would you like this discussion to end? Put the onus of resolution on the Complainer. The Clam is the individual who responds to proposed change with silence, a mumble, or some other neutral response. They typically maintain a stance with no explanation for their position. This allows them to avoid painful situations, while expressing a muted hostility. This behavior usually camouflages anxiety, annoyance, or an insubordinate cooperation. Clams, as the label suggests, need to be opened up to discuss the reason for the fear or anger the issue has caused. They need to be asked open-ended questions with a patient amount of response time permitted. Go slow to go fast is the best coping strategy with a Clam. Resist the urge to fill the silence with idle chatter. If no responses surface, describe the lack of interaction that is taking place and continue to ask open-ended questions. The Wet Blanket is the staff member that responds to new ideas immediately and negatively. With a critical eye, they are quick to point out that proposals will not work. These characters feel that everything is beyond their control. This attitude is used as an excuse to flee from commitment or incompetence without recognizing this behavior. They often feel this way about themselves, others, and life in general. To best cope with Wet Blankets, one must try to engage them in discussion without getting pulled down into the abyss of gloom. It is important to approach Wet Blankets with positive and realistic statements about successes experienced in solving previous similar problems. There is no point in arguing with them or offering solutions until they have been given an opportunity to discuss the issue. A Wet Blanket is just that: they view the negativism as problems that cannot be solved. The Know-It-All is similar to the Sherman Tank. They are the consummate experts on everything. They have no difficulty weighing in all matters, thus

48

CHAPTER 4

making others feel uniformed or without value. They respond to others in anger, hostility, or sometimes not at all. When asked about their thoughts, they discharge an abundance of facts and arguments on listeners. They are driven by a need to simplify their world so as to control what they know and believe. They believe in an uncertain world they are protected from the hopelessness and inadequacy of others. The Know-It-All could be an asset if it is possible to get them to consider alternatives without challenging their conviction. It is best to carefully listen, ask questions about concerns, and explore any possibility of resolution. It would be advantageous to turn this character into a quick-to-support-andpromote Know-It-All. The final behavior is the Staller. These are the people that are routinely wavering and overthink everything. They are quick to accept responsibility and slow to follow through, leaving colleagues to complete the task. They are usually easy to work with until an issue of failed dependence changes the relationship. Stallers want to be helpful, but not disappoint anyone. They labor over this duality and are unable to complete a task or make a decision. Great leaders know that all decisions, in fact most, do not please everyone. It is important to realize that when dealing with a Staller, that is their mode of problem solving and cannot be easily changed. However, they can still be engaged in problem solving, without taking on their indecisiveness as a problem. Be careful not to put these individuals in any type of leadership role. They can, however, serve on a team and achieve simple tasks that require few decisions. The previously mentioned negative behaviors and suggestions for dealing with each are only that . . . suggestions. When it is all said and done, it is most important to consider what is in the best interest for the greater good. As Todd Whitaker describes in What Great Principals Do Differently (2002) great leaders consider what will the best people think? If those staff members are not on board with proposed change, then what is the likelihood of others buying in? Furthermore, if those best people do not think something is a good idea, then it is likely that the change initiative is not a good idea. The most effective school leaders regularly bounce ideas off of key staff members before pursuing a second-order change initiative such as changing the daily class schedule. Great leaders and effective teams maintain a clear focus of direction and do not allow the resisters to cloud the change initiative being

DEALING WITH NAYSAYERS

49

considered. Quality leaders frequently revisit the organizational vision, goals, and action plan to preserve the shared direction of the school. Eventually, great leaders learn to embrace resistance. Resistance can become a productive piece of the problem solving process. Leaders must always remember to water the garden and not the rocks! SUMMARY

In this chapter, we presented strategies for dealing with difficult staff members who seemingly meet every change with resistance. By utilizing active listening, mutual respect, building consensus, and maintaining the vision, a leadership team can move forward in spite of some opposition. The next chapter addresses some of the other challenges and pitfalls to consider.

00 5

Challenges and Pitfalls to Consider

When reviewing the pertinent literature and research conducted on the effectiveness of various forms of alternative schedules, it was discovered that the successes, problems, and challenges vary greatly from school to school. Most likely, these variances of outcomes are due largely to the people involved and how they accepted the change and whether or not these same people were problem solvers or just naysayers. Without question, the schools that have made the change to the trimester schedule or any alternative schedule for that matter have had great leadership in place. That positive leadership is imperative for the initial change to successfully take place, but keeping the original leadership is critical to the future success of the program. That is not to say that a principal’s departure would spell doom to the scheduling change, but many times, we have witnessed a lack of enthusiasm by the new leadership, who may not have shared the passion of the original principal. In visiting with schools that revert back to the traditional six- or seven-period day after experiencing an alternative schedule, either the leadership had changed or there were fatal flaws in the implementation process that were either ignored or not addressed previously. After a close review of the challenges of alternative schedules, several traits emerge that warrant discussion regarding potential problems with all alternative schedules. Areas of challenges created by switching to any alternative

51

52

CHAPTER 5

schedule will be the focus of this chapter. By exploring the common challenges of changing to an alternative schedule including the trimester schedule, it will help the discriminating reader to discover possible pitfalls when considering any alternative schedule. We used this literature review to tweak the secondary trimester model to minimize or eliminate these concerns all together. Since the secondary trimester model has been in existence for more than a decade now, there are some caveats and challenges that we can share with the reader so as to avoid the common problems associated with any scheduling format change. Although other challenges will be explored in this chapter to help the administrator or teacher in their reform efforts, generally speaking, the partial list below gives constructive reasons that the trimester scheduling format might fail or encounter overwhelming challenges to successful implementation. By avoiding these pitfalls or planning for their inevitable surfacing, one can be prepared to confront these challenges. 1. The school loses its impassioned leader of this change. 2. The school does not implement the full power of the schedule’s possibilities, leaving the implemented schedule as a mere shadow of its potential. 3. Districts use transportation as an excuse not to have an optional bonus period. 4. A few naysayers are allowed to drive changes in the trimester schedule that are largely only important to a few teachers and not for the common good of the school, teachers, or students. 5. Subject level courses are allowed to go three trimesters when it is not necessary to do so. Some courses can be allowed to go three trimesters but only those listed here: (1) Band or choir where necessary; (2) Remedial classes; (3) Dual credit courses that have more than three college hours of credit; (4) Special education classes and resource; (5) Mentorships, educational learning experiences, internships, and certain vocational education co-op classes or courses requiring attendance outside the home school. Allowing a teacher to spread their class over three trimesters because they “say” they cannot get through the material is a prescription for failure. Advanced placement (AP) classes should be allowed to go three trimesters simply because the AP exams are given in May.

CHALLENGES AND PITFALLS TO CONSIDER

53

Some of the educational leaders in the field cited for this book include Shortt, Thayer, Canady, Rettig, Stenvall, Hottenstein, and Fager. Shortt and Thayer reveal questions about the use of technology and scheduling types when choosing alternative schedules. All of these researchers write in their books, listed in the bibliography section, about the need to involve staff to support the changed environment, to plan effective staff development, to set clear expectations, and to address the compressed curriculum. They further mention the need to be cognizant of accreditation agencies’ requirements, retention of information with gaps in learning (see appendix 3), effects on advanced placement, effects on elective offerings, the potential problems with balancing teacher and student schedules, the effects on band and choir programs, and finally, the effect on student transfers. Canady and Rettig in their book, Teaching in the Block (1996), mention that some concerns can easily be resolved with proper staff input and good communication. Staff development is a recurring theme among educators when expressing their concerns about alternative schedules and may be the single most important ingredient to successful implementation of any alternative schedule. When the bonus period is implemented as we recommend on the trimester schedule, there is imbedded staff development. This is a huge positive component to successful implementation. Marilyn Stenvall in her 1999 report It’s about Time writes that time, its effect on more daily time and less semester time, is a major challenge that educators must address to effectively implement an alternative schedule. The major challenge she addresses throughout this work is the critical issue of lost minutes of instruction over a semester time period. A change in mindset from one of textbook coverage to concept learning can effectively eliminate the major challenge of alternative schedules. Also, the trimester schedule when implemented on a 70-minute-per-period format often sees no appreciable difference in the total minutes of instruction per semester class when one removes all the interruptions to traditional schedules. The bonus period effectively eliminates these interruptions to the regular school day. Hottenstein and Fager talk mostly of favorable reasons to change to alternative schedules but again mention staff development, proper planning, adequate support, and the need to involve everyone in the school family to ensure proper successful implementation.

54

CHAPTER 5

The following is a comprehensive list of challenges facing successful implementation of any alternative schedule. A review of the literature gives one a chance to compare and contrast goals with potential challenges to make sure, when the trimester schedule is implemented, that the educator is armed with as many facts as possible. The following list of concerns, challenges, or caveats helped us in the development of the middle and high school trimester models. 1. Teacher in-servicing is critical to successful implementation (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 4; Canady and Rettig, 1995b, p. 20). 2. No schedule, in and of itself, will ensure success for schools (Canady and Rettig, 1995b, p. 20; Hottenstein and Strock, 1994, p. 30). 3. In the transition period, teachers need to have a support system (Hottenstein and Strock, 1994, p. 30; Fager, 1997, p. 7). 4. There needs to be an air of honesty and trust for successful implementation (Canady and Rettig, 1995b, p. 21). 5. Some teachers simply do not change their strategies to fit the alternative time frame (Mistretta and Polansky, 1997, p. 30). 6. Some teachers ignore curriculum because they report difficulty in covering the curriculum (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 4). 7. Some alternative schedules cost more to implement (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 7). 8. Some schools report difficulty in scheduling students to meet their needs (Miller, 1998, p. 3; Boarman and Kirkpatrick, 1995, p. 50). 9. Curriculum is often compressed and minutes of instruction lost on some alternative schedules (Sturgis, 1995, p. 2; Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 4). 10. Preparation time on some schedules can be a problem (Miller, 1998, p. 3). 11. Standardized test scores do not consistently demonstrate significant improvement. Some stay constant, some improve, and some actually go down (Carroll, 1990, p. 364). 12. Time gaps in instruction are perceived to be a problem with some students and teachers (Hess, Robinson, and Wronkovich, 1997, p. 40). 13. Performing arts can be adversely affected on some alternative schedules (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, pp. 1–2).

CHALLENGES AND PITFALLS TO CONSIDER

55

14. Sequencing of courses can be difficult on some alternative schedules (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 6). 15. Student assessment does not always change just by changing to alternative schedules (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 8). 16. Student transfers can pose potential problems on some alternative schedules (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 9). 17. Some teachers and students say classes are too long (Hurley, 1997, p. 67). 18. Some schools report difficulties with study halls (Fager, 1997, p. 7). 19. On some alternative schedules, students report unbalanced hard/easy semesters (Hurley, 1997, p. 67). 20. Absences can cause bigger problems on some alternative schedules (Hurley, 1997, p. 67). 21. Addressing the unique qualities and problems associated with the performing arts instruction can present problems for block schedules (Shortt and Thayer, 1997, p. 7). It is imperative that standardized testing is addressed from the onset. No schedule has been proven, without a shadow of doubt, to be the panacea of improving achievement as based on a standardized test. That lack of achievement data is also true of traditional high school and middle school schedules. There is, however, anecdotal data that is listed under the middle school scheduling nuts and bolts section of this book that demonstrates a spike in standardized test scores at the middle school level. This is thought to be largely because of the additional minutes of instruction devoted to the core academic subjects on a middle school trimester schedule. In the testing environment that has swept this country for the last decade or more, someone will inevitably ask the question about improving test scores and changing to any alternative scheduling model, so educators must be able to answer this important question intelligently and with conviction. Here is an example of how that achievement question is often asked when schools entertain changing scheduling formats. “Why, if we cannot demonstrate that test scores will improve, are we changing scheduling systems?” There are simply many more positives to consider in changing to the trimester schedule besides test scores. A by-product of changing teaching strategies, more

56

CHAPTER 5

minutes of instruction, and building strong rapport with students “should” result in improved instruction. There are simply no studies that can control the many variables required to test for significance in achievement and scheduling formats. The answer to that question must be that the change to another scheduling format has enough guaranteed positives that it becomes a near necessity to change. When one reviews the literature and data on any alternative schedule, there are numerous good reasons to change, but are those changes noteworthy enough to move the masses of people that must be convinced? Once again, the goals for change must be clear and the change must address those goals in highly positive ways for any schedule to be successful. Another huge factor that any leader must consider is whom they must win over to successfully implement the trimester schedule. Inevitably, some school buildings have teachers or administrators that are the movers and shakers who can give their blessing or spell the doom to any change initiative. In Brower and Balch’s book, Transformational Leadership Decision Making in Schools (2005), there is a chapter titled, The Eleven Fundamentals of Human Nature. In this list of 11 fundamental reasons why people act and react the way they do to various challenges, all 11 apply as considerations for why some people will or will not support changing to a new scheduling format. A leader must become familiar with this list to avoid the pitfalls or challenges of implementation and to ensure success once the change has been made. 1. It is always about me. Understand that people generally agree or disagree with any change initiative based on how it will affect them personally. 2. People believe they are doing the right thing and doing a good job. People on both sides of the “fence” on the issue of changing to a new scheduling format will all feel they are “right” and have the best interest of the students when they offer their concerns or support. 3. Defining moments clarify and reveal relationships. If someone is being totally unreasonable and out of line in their passion, a leader must step in and set the record straight as to what is and is not considered or will be tolerated in the free expression of ideas and thoughts. Emphasis should be added here to encourage data and objective statistics as to why a change is needed and not allow feelings, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and other such subjective input to dominate the investigation.

CHALLENGES AND PITFALLS TO CONSIDER

57

4. People desire to leave a lasting legacy. A leader must be careful not to pursue change for his or her own personal gain. The reasons for change should never be personal but rather based on objective input. 5. It takes a significant event to change fundamental values and beliefs. Some people simply fear change and must be shown that fear alone is not a legitimate factor in blocking change but rather something that must be confronted head-on. 6. People are fundamentally good. As the process of change unfolds, people may begin to get personal with their attacks. Leaders must address this potential problem before it ever presents itself. Even when someone honestly disagrees with us or interprets data differently, they are still good people, they just may not act appropriately at times when their safety zone is affected. 7. The soul does not age. Even when people grow older in the profession, inside they are still that young teacher. But even a young teacher can disagree and become disagreeable. So a leader must beware that age is not a determining factor in whom will advocate or reject a given change initiative. 8. People want to be liked and accepted. Everyone wants to be liked by their peers and supervisors so a leader must be cognizant of this simple rule of human nature so as to understand why certain factions will group themselves together based on professional or personal friendships or for some other unknown or known reason. Being liked by our peers is often more a consideration than an objective analysis of a change initiative. 9. People have similar basic needs. Even though all humans have similar needs, these needs often manifest themselves in different and confounding ways. Looking at these needs is very important for change agents to realize as they move forward in their change initiative. 10. People make mistakes. A leader must realize that people make mistakes in their choice and decision making. A great leader must convince those that are being affected by a given change that they must keep an open mind, must analyze using objective data versus subjective feelings, and must realize that mistakes can be corrected without causing emotional scars within an organization during and after a change has been implemented. 11. People are influenced by the “law of firsts.” This is a huge part of the success in implementing any change initiative. The leader must get to the movers and shakers first and ask for help in its development. If we fail to

58

CHAPTER 5

comprehend the law of firsts, it can well spell the doom of any change initiative. The leader must make sure no leaks occur prior to the leader getting the word out in a timely fashion. If word leaks out about a particular change and naysayers get to certain influential people before all the facts are on the table, it can spell success or failure in any change initiative. In Brower and Keller’s book, Empowering Students (2006), the authors point out how important it is for students to learn the nuances of how to be successful by taking charge of their lives and doing some simple behaviors that include getting to know the adults in their school buildings on a more personal or professional level. When a school implements a trimester schedule that includes lengthier periods, more informal time with teachers, and with a bonus period in which students can seek additional help, there appears to be a structure that encourages these things. Knowing what motivates students to succeed and understanding how students must be brought into the decision-making process will increase the likelihood of the change’s successful implementation. A quality leader understands that in order for the change to a trimester schedule to work effortlessly and seamlessly, he or she must elicit help and input from a wide range of students, not just the normal student leaders. By successfully “selling” students on the ingredients of the schedule that most benefit them, a given leader will be more likely to succeed once parents are informed of the changes. In Brower’s book, Whose Business Is School Reform? (2006), he makes the point that if schools are to improve, it must be at the hands and minds of those that understand all nuances of education. Even though school people must lead school reform, it is imperative that the school leader gain the support and knowledge of a wide range of school patrons. In order to avoid the pitfalls of successful implementation, a committee of the following groups should be in place. The committee must know that their mission is to provide input, not to make the decision. The makeup of the committee should represent the following groups: ■

The principal(s) of the building being affected. This task should not be delegated to an assistant, as is often the case.

CHALLENGES AND PITFALLS TO CONSIDER

■

■

■

■ ■

■

59

A central office administrator unless the district is so small, there is only a superintendent. At least five teachers representing all the various subject areas even though a teacher from each subject is not necessary. Select those that are objective and are good listeners with no preconceived notion of what should or should not be done. At least three separate parents representing all three grade levels (i.e., elementary, middle school, and high school), even if two of the levels are not immediately impacted by the five. Students representing both sexes and all grades involved. A local business person who does not have children in the school district. If at all possible, include one university person who understands statistical analysis, data collection, and the scientific method. Either a guidance counselor or an assistant principal in charge of the master schedule and with knowledge of how students are scheduled using the software student management system presently in use.

A leader must assert his or her leadership from the first meeting. Specific roles should be delineated; specific goals and outcomes to be accomplished; specific timelines to be followed; all dates for future meetings; and the committee’s mission as a whole. An astute leader will avoid the pitfall of allowing a few (or an individual) on the committee to dictate direction, to dominate the discussions that will take place, to overly attempt to influence, or to bring subjective feelings into the mix of the investigation. Although members may give their thoughts and opinions, a leader will avoid the pitfall of allowing their subjective thoughts to dominate the discussions. We have found that when a leader openly teaches all committee members about proper decision making, then that simple maneuver will block future attempts to use subjective thinking to override good objective data collection. SUMMARY

The purpose of this chapter was to list some common pitfalls or challenges to successfully implementing a trimester schedule. By being aware of common challenges listed in the literature review, the school administration and

60

CHAPTER 5

teaching staff can troubleshoot potential challenges. If the educators advocating the change to a trimester schedule are not well versed in the specific nuances of the schedule and the challenges facing any change initiative, the hope for implementation will be doomed either from the start or at some point during the development.

00 6

The Nuts and Bolts of the Secondary Trimester Schedule

The 3 × 5 trimester model that features the unique bonus period started in Indiana with the beginning of the 1996 school year. This scheduling format was a new concept to most secondary schools, although it was later discovered that there were at least three other trimester schools operating in high schools in three separate parts of the country. However, none of the known trimester schools at that time included the bonus period feature, which enhances and magnifies the benefits of the trimester scheduling model. As high schools in Indiana and around the country were made aware of the trimester model, more secondary schools began to adopt this schedule largely because the trimester model evolved as a consensus schedule combining many of the positive features from the traditional, Block 4, and Block 8 schedules. The first middle schools that adopted the trimester schedule did so out of necessity due to the fact that many middle schools are “joined at the hip,” that is, sharing the same physical space and faculty with their high school partners. These combined secondary schools tended to be smaller building configurations housing grades 6 to 12 or some similar combination of grades. Later, the trimester model spread to other middle schools due to the schedule’s intrinsic merits. The trimester concept spread to the middle school level in an attempt to correct the downward trend in standardized test scores across the country for that age group. Other big reasons cited to shift away 61

62

CHAPTER 6

from the experiential, teaming model to the trimester model were a hope that discipline problems would improve and the necessity to increase minutes of instruction in core academic areas. Without question, the minutes of instruction are dramatically increased in all the core subjects on a middle school trimester schedule versus multiple-period teaming models that most traditional middle schools have used for nearly a quarter century. As a caveat alluded to in several chapters of this book, the reader should be cautious about adopting a trimester schedule solely to raise standardized test scores. To date, no scheduling model, including those presently used in the majority of secondary schools, have shown any significant increase in achievement as measured by a standardized test score. In chapter 8, we have included some anecdotal data showing that the middle school at North Montgomery has shown significant gains in achievement after changing to the trimester model. So although the data does appear to support achievement gains at the middle school level, it is largely thought to be due to the drastic increase in minutes of instruction for the core subjects being tested. Generally speaking, high schools will not see an achievement spike like some middle schools because the increase in minutes of instruction for high schools is not as significant as those with middle schools. It is hoped, however, that when teachers change their teaching strategies due to the 65- to 75-minute period lengths, there will be a corresponding jump in instructional effectiveness. If teachers continue to lecture and test as in the past on other scheduling models, the outcomes will be similar. This paragraph is a critical concept for all educators to grasp. To truly reform and retool secondary schools, every school must undertake complementary change that we have shared previously in this book if the transition to any scheduling model is to be effective. This chapter will outline the specifics of the 3 × 5 secondary trimester scheduling model. This chapter outlines in more detail how the schedule actually works. The appendices section of this book contains a hypothetical master schedule, a daily schedule for all students, with some concrete examples of student schedules for better understanding the specifics, as well as a sample calendar of the recommended bonus period structure. THE MIDDLE SCHOOL TRIMESTER MODEL

Because there are numerous inherent differences in the complexity of high school and middle school schedules, specific data related to successful middle

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE SECONDARY TRIMESTER SCHEDULE

63

school implementation have been included in the appendices. However, the overall trimester benefits are quite similar to the high school model delineated previously. The middle trimester schedule is somewhat different in that a middle school often has more than seven classes per day and often more than eight per day. When a school shifts to the trimester schedule, the daily schedule is just five classes per day with an optional bonus period after the regular school day. By reducing the daily classes to five and by allowing up to a total of 15 semester classes per year, a given middle school can actually dramatically increase the minutes of instruction per academic core subject. In some cases, the minutes of instruction per core academic class can be increased by more than 50 percent. That dramatically increases the direct amount of instruction a middle school student gets in a core subject. There will be more on this later. The increased minutes of instruction addresses low achievement, excessive discipline referrals, and appropriate instructional methods at the middle school that often guarantee results. The confidence behind the philosophy to change the traditional middle school concept is more common sense than having data to support such a change. If adding minutes of instruction to a core academic class and lengthening class periods to encourage research-proven strategies that are more conducive to longer class periods does not impact student performance, then little else will help in improving achievement. The middle school trimester model appears to offer a more productive atmosphere for all ability levels of middle school students. The middle school trimester model, just like the high school model, follows the traditional seasons, with a fall, winter, and spring term or trimester. The ending date of each trimester can be fluid, thus balancing each grading period. It is much more difficult to make these shifts with other scheduling models. Similar to the high school model, the middle school trimester model has numerous unique features that create supplementary scenarios that allow students to succeed and provide opportunities for teachers to be professionally rejuvenated. The schedule permits five periods of instruction per day with each teacher teaching four classes. A few rotation teachers may teach three classes and have a supervision period. Teachers teach on average 120 students per day compared to 170 on the former traditional teaming or experiential model. Although class sizes are not reduced on this schedule, the number of students that a teacher has daily is significantly reduced, allowing each teacher more time with each student and thereby decreasing the number of assignments

64

CHAPTER 6

and projects to grade. Minutes of instruction in the key core subject areas (i.e., language arts, math, science, and social studies) are increased significantly, too, which is addressed later in the chapter. At the end of each regular instructional day, the middle school model adds an extra 30- to 45-minute bonus period that provides a support structure for every student and staff member in the school. The bonus period format is nearly identical to the high school bonus period, but due to the age difference and unique challenges middle school students afford, there are slight differences. For the sake of consistency, we will once again delineate the nuances of the middle school bonus period here. Three days per week (i.e., Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) allow for flexible instruction to take place during the bonus period. The middle school staff can utilize the extended time for reading and math intervention, high ability enrichment activities, club meetings, test makeup, book study groups, counseling groups, zeroes are not permitted (ZAP) tutoring, and computer lab work. These opportunities are afforded to smaller groups of students, thus allowing teachers to really focus on individual needs of students. Students without bonus period assignments are dismissed after fifth period and transportation is provided home. Students staying for the 30- to 45-minute bonus period may ride the bus on a later afternoon route when transportation is provided. Knowing that teaching in an extended period of time requires appropriate professional development, scheduling considerations must be considered to ensure job-embedded opportunities for adult learning. Instructional planning should be approached as a fresh beginning rather than a process for adjusting old lesson plans. The full potential of extended periods is reached if enriching 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 (Brett, 1996). Therefore, Monday afternoons are utilized as early release time for students so that professional development takes place weekly in 45-minute segments. The exchange with the North Montgomery Teachers’ Association (NMTA) for

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE SECONDARY TRIMESTER SCHEDULE

65

the extended days on Monday through Thursday is an early release after fifth period on Friday. Students and teachers are dismissed at the same time. The trimester schedule provides a middle school with structure that benefits all factions of the school family. As all schools in the nation focus on improved student performance in accordance with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) by making adequate yearly progress (AYP), in the areas of language arts and math, the schedule allows for built-in intervention, acceleration, and enrichment opportunities. It provides all ability level students multiple possibilities for success and allows for more in-depth study of certain subjects, mastery remediation for those students who need it, and facilitates needed change in instructional strategies to ensure learning. Additionally, this innovative format provides students the opportunity to accelerate their math and language arts by a full year or more. For example, on this schedule, a student can complete three years of math in just two years. This allows high ability 8th grade students to take algebra in middle school and some may even start geometry by the time they enter high school. This, coupled with an additional trimester of language arts and required content area reading in each core subject each year, adds one and one-half years of reading instruction for most middle school students. Students who may not have mastered the grade-level standards and proficiencies will use the third trimester in language arts and math to work toward grade level mastery. Under this model, lower ability students have significantly more minutes of appropriately paced, quality instruction, and accelerated students have the opportunity to advance at least one full year before leaving middle school. Through its unique and flexible structure, the middle school trimester schedule allows for job-embedded professional development without adding additional days to the calendar, provides every teacher fewer students per day, and provides 65 minutes for preparation daily for each teacher. The schedule offers built-in articulation via intra- and interdepartmental communication through common grade level planning periods. It positively affects overall climate in the middle school atmosphere because students are in the hallways 30 percent less time; it facilitates teachers’ ability to involve students in active learning versus passive learning; it gives parents flexibility with their child’s education; and it allows for reading instruction

66

CHAPTER 6

to continue through the middle years. Additionally, the schedule allows principals to be instructional leaders by providing growth opportunities for everyone; discipline referrals decrease due to reduced hall time; and honor roll achievement increases because students are able to concentrate on five classes instead of seven to nine classes daily. Appendix 4 contains two tables with time comparisons of minutes of instruction for traditional middle school schedules and the middle school trimester model. The middle school trimester model, with all of its many positive features, easily exceeds traditional middle school schedules, including time for the great advantages of a comprehensive reading program. Students are assigned to various intervention programs based on academic need. At Northridge Middle School, the math lab has been designed to extend the amount of intensive time and practice that students struggling with math need. Working in small groups, the instructor uses accelerated math to customize individualized lessons for students. In Scholastic Read 180, during the intensive 60 minutes between the whole-group meetings, students break into three small groups that rotate among three stations. (1) Through small-group instruction, the teacher works closely with students so that individual needs can be met. (2) Students use Read 180 software independently, providing them with intensive, individualized skills practice. (3) Students build reading comprehension skills through modeled and independent reading of the paperbacks and audio books. The session ends with 10 more minutes of whole-group instruction. The guided study class has been created to help students do their class work, get organized, and become a successful student. Student grades are monitored very closely. If a student is failing, or at risk of failing, his or her schedule is revised. He or she is placed in a guided study class. The student receives one-on-one or small-group instructional or counseling support. Resource is available to any student with an individualized education plan (IEP) that needs additional one-on-one or small-group support. Appendix 5 contains the structure of the middle school trimester model and an example of a student schedule. The implementation of any new program carries with it a number of concerns from those involved. A few early concerns that were addressed dealt with a couple of common misconceptions about learning. One such concern with the implementation of the trimester schedule for middle school students

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE SECONDARY TRIMESTER SCHEDULE

67

from teachers was the “gap in learning” time that might occur for some students when a class is split between first and third trimester. In this model, this would involve classes like social studies, choir/band, and foreign language. These yearlong courses may have a trimester gap. Numerous studies, however, do not support this notion. In fact, when data was studied from several high schools that have intensive block schedules or trimester schedules, grade distributions did not change and a gap in learning was not evident. Students whose high school schedules created a trimester gap (i.e., Algebra I, Algebra II, Spanish, and so on) found that they quickly adjusted along with students who had no gap between the first and second trimester of a course, and in fact, grades did not significantly differ between the groups. Also, the failure rate did not increase for students with 12-week (or more) gaps in instruction. Even when a trimester gap was coupled with a 12-week summer period, grades and failures remained constant for students who did not have a gap in instruction. It would appear from our experience that the gap-inlearning problem is a myth and cannot be substantiated. A second concern was that middle school students have a limited attention span and there was a feeling among some teachers that longer periods would be a problem keeping students’ attention. However, after much discussion, the leadership and faculty concluded that switching to longer periods actually reduced the number of classes in which a student must focus and allow more time for students to be engaged in more active, hands-on learning experiences. Short periods encourage lecture and longer, intensive periods create greater flexibility and more uninterrupted time on task. If elementary students can have reading and math for as long as 90-minute blocks, middle school students should easily adapt to the longer periods. The key is to support and train teachers in the use of effective instructional strategies that ensure learning. With teacher training, the teaching and learning process at the middle level became much more active than passive. Learning how to structure a longer block of instructional time was at the core of professional development. During the first year of implementation, after a two-hour delay in late winter due to inclement weather, teachers confessed that they did not know how they had ever taught on the traditional schedule with only 42-minute periods. Finally, some teachers had concerns about “covering” material in a condensed format that changed from 18 weeks to 12 weeks. With this in mind,

68

CHAPTER 6

the leadership planned to provide staff development opportunities to help teachers explore instructional methods that concentrate on concepts more than coverage, just as Harry Wong promotes, “mastery over mystery.” This change of focus is appropriate in any middle school schedule structure, and we felt that using methodologies more closely aligned with best practices was a positive side effect of the implementation of the middle school trimester schedule. Additionally, the leadership recognized and guided the staff in seeing that aligning curriculum with state standards was more effective than coverage of textbooks and personal “pet” projects. This has proven to be effective in middle school buildings, and few teachers, particularly those who have followed research-based guidance of concept teaching versus coverage, report problems in this area. A shift of thinking was all that was needed. After nearly six years on the trimester schedule, data from Northridge Middle School have been collected and analyzed, resulting in positive, significant improvement. Northridge continues to see growth in multiple areas, and this appears to be true in high schools that subscribe to a 3 × 5 plan. With the addition of 50 percent more minutes of instruction for language arts and math, not to mention the increased emphasis on reading, social studies, and science, student learning and test scores have increased significantly. The data included in appendix 4 portray the positive gains observed since the implementation began in 2002. These results have given us the impetus and confidence to share the scheduling structure with other school leaders through the composition of this book. In summary, we believe this new, innovative schedule has the potential to revolutionize the way educators look at scheduling students in middle schools across the country. We feel strongly that once middle school educators look at the 3 × 5, they will see the enormous potential for improving student learning in middle schools. We have felt so strongly about the positive components of this program that we have dedicated a great amount of time and effort in sharing their previous implementation and planning successes with others, locally, statewide, and nationally. From the brainchild of an administrative team to the shared vision of many, the middle school trimester schedule is the only recent development in middle school scheduling options that addresses the total middle school learning cycle. In the scheduling arena, the previous middle school model has proven largely ineffective at better educating students. Educators at all levels

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE SECONDARY TRIMESTER SCHEDULE

69

must continue to study the structures and practices to make any learning conditions stronger. Canady and Rettig’s book, Scheduling Strategies for Middle Schools (2000), is an excellent supplemental book for middle school educators to read. In this book, the authors give concrete outlines of various scheduling models. Starting on page 123, the authors outline a Block 5 schedule that has a few common characteristics of the trimester schedule. The authors of this book do not use the term block to describe the trimester classes largely because a 65- to 70-minute period of time can hardly be called a large block of time like the 85- to 90-minute alternative schedules. However, the reader may find some interesting and helpful insights into the nuts and bolts of other middle school scheduling models by examining Canady and Rettig’s book. A sample middle school master schedule has been included in appendix 6. HIGH SCHOOL TRIMESTER FORMAT (3 ⴛ 5 PLAN)

On a trimester high school schedule, the year is broken down into three, 12-week, 60-day semesters. Each day then has five classes per day with period lengths anywhere from 65 to 75 minutes each. These sessions can be called semesters or trimesters. We prefer to use the term trimester to describe each of these 12-week semesters. For our purposes, we use the word trimester as synonymous with semester. It is important for the reader to keep in mind that this schedule is much more than simply breaking the grading periods into three 12-week segments. If a school maintains a daily schedule of more than six periods and simply changes its grading periods to 12-week intervals, then that school is not a trimester school by our definition. Those types of schedules are actually quarter systems much like the system that many colleges used several decades ago. Each trimester, there are five periods per day and a bonus period during the day that is not considered an academic period. In the model shown in this book, the bonus period is scheduled after the regular school day, five days a week; the middle three days of which are for the direct benefit of students. The other two days per week are for professional purposes. When the bonus period concept is structured in such a way to offer full transportation services to all students at no cost, the full power of the bonus period is realized. However, schools that cannot provide transportation may elect to offer the bonus period during the day but at a reduced benefit to

70

CHAPTER 6

the school. The inherent problems with scheduling the bonus period during the day are obvious to most secondary teachers and administrators, but regardless, we believe that having a bonus period, even if during the regular academic day, is better than no bonus period at all. There is a more detailed explanation of the bonus period later in this book. Each of the five periods or classes during the day range anywhere from 65 to 75 minutes in length depending on the state requirements, local requirements, mandates, union contracts, or other such parameters. If a school elects not to have a bonus period during the actual day, then the five classes should be 70 minutes or longer. If a bonus period is scheduled for at least 30 minutes or longer per day, the instructional time for the five regular periods is usually somewhere between 65 and 70 minutes per class period depending on the contractual length of the school day. These five classes meet daily for a total of 60 instructional days that comprise a full trimester (semester). We have broken down the actual minutes of instruction in the appendix section of this book for the reader to compare and contrast various scheduling formats. This is done by calculating the total minutes of instruction per schedule per semester class. Although secondary schools have varying degrees of minutes of instruction, we use a more standard range for comparison purposes. When the reader studies the various minutes of instruction for each scheduling model, he should compare a hypothetical scheduling day so that each schedule can be compared using similar circumstances. Appendix 7 compares the instructional time available for three different high school schedules. Appendix 8 contains a sample of a daily 3 × 5 trimester schedule. Appendix 9 provides a sample master schedule for the high school level. Appendix 10 includes a sample high school student schedule planning template. One idea that requires the reader to “think outside the box” is the fact that when a school adopts a trimester schedule and utilizes the recommended bonus period as a part of the scheduling system, virtually all interruptions to the school day are moved to the bonus period. When this is done and when one compares the total minutes of actual minutes of instruction per semester class, one will see that the trimester model has actually more minutes of instruction per semester class than a traditional schedule that does not factor in all the interruptions to the instructional days over the course of a full semester. When one factors these interruptions into the equation, the

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE SECONDARY TRIMESTER SCHEDULE

71

trimester has many advantages in terms of total actual minutes of instruction per semester course. Some of these interruptions that routinely occur in high schools might include such meetings as freshman ring sales, student graduation sales, pep sessions for sports, convocations, class meetings, emergency meetings, orientation sessions, graduation practice, standardized testing in some instances, test makeup time, and so on. It might be added here that the middle school trimester model (3 × 5 plan) has exactly the same format as the high school. The difference lies with the creativity allowed with extending a core subject over three trimesters and also increasing the total minutes of instruction for core classes over more traditional middle school schedules that often have over seven periods per day, thus reducing the minutes of instruction in a core subject area. TRIMESTER BONUS PERIOD

The bonus period is a name given to describe the “bonus” time a student and teacher enjoys before or after the normal school day. For the purpose of this book, we will describe a bonus period that is at least 30 minutes in length, occurs at the end of the regular academic school day, provides transportation for those students that utilize the bonus period, and may be required of some students who may be failing a class or who may require extra work to be successful. Student bonus period days are Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Teacher and administrator bonus period days are Mondays and Fridays during the same time. It might be noted here that schools that experience difficulty with transporting students a second time after the regular dismissal time for purposes of establishing their bonus period can easily consider unique variations of this same concept without the transportation piece. The bonus period can be placed anywhere in the school day but seems to work best first in the morning or the last time slot of the day. Generally, the bonus period will last anywhere from 30 minutes to 50 minutes in length depending on teacher contracts, length of regular periods, or transportation issues. The bonus period for students can be all five days per week or as a model we propose, just three days per week (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday). Monday and Friday bonus periods would then be for various teacher- or administrator-oriented functions, such as professional development, book

72

CHAPTER 6

study groups, student problem-solving teams, teacher meetings, department meetings, team meetings, and such. The following is a partial list of the items that can be scheduled for students during the bonus period: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Test or quiz makeup. Club meetings. Small, guided-group sessions. Individual tutoring sessions. Help with homework. Time to work on projects. Use computer labs. Yearbook or newspaper publication. Weight lifting or other fitness activities. Individual or small-group counseling. Vendor sales (i.e., class rings, fundraising, graduation items, and so on). SAT/ACT preparation classes. Advanced placement (AP) preparation classes. State graduation exam preparation. Study halls or study tables. Special education resource or intervention programs. Parent meetings. Case conference committee meetings. Independent study projects. Mentoring sessions.

Of course, the only limitation on how the bonus period is used is the imagination of the administration, teachers, staff, and students. When the bonus period is placed at the beginning of the day or at the end of the day, students’ attendance can be voluntary, thus eliminating the need to have teachers supervise students in a study hall–type environment. When we use the term voluntary, we mean that for most students, they have the choice of attending, but, for some students, the administration or teachers reserve the option to require attendance. When a school uses this requirement feature of an optional bonus period, that the school has the right to make this a requirement of any student must be stated in the student and teacher handbooks.

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE SECONDARY TRIMESTER SCHEDULE

73

It is imperative that parents and students understand that when a student is required to attend the bonus period that the action is viewed as positive and not punitive. Additionally, students and parents must know that they cannot schedule routine appointments or schedule jobs that might interfere with the requirement to attend bonus period. Taking this approach is a huge advantage over other scheduling models that have similar bonus or success periods. Conversely, when the bonus period is scheduled during the regular school day, a teacher must supervise a classroom of students, while simultaneously trying to help students or conduct club meetings. In these instances, the teachers are not as readily able to help individual students, who may need to make up tests, or to simply help students with their academic work. When the bonus period is placed at the beginning of the day or end of the day and made optional with accompanying transportation provided, Mondays and Fridays can be special for everyone. Here is how we suggest using the bonus period for optimal professional growth. On Mondays, students either arrive late or leave early (this depending on working this out with the transportation department in a district). For the sake of redundancy, we will simply study the end of the day bonus period here. Appendix 11 provides a sample of a one-month calendar for scheduling bonus activities. On the four Mondays of the month, principals can use this time to conduct faculty meetings within the contractual day, thus eliminating the need to have faculty meetings that go into the time period beyond the contractual day. Professional development activities can be held during some of these Mondays as well. Here is an example of how we would suggest using the Mondays of each month for the professionals in the school: First Monday of the month: Faculty meeting Second Monday of the month: Staff development activities Third Monday of the month: Department or team meetings Fourth Monday: Professional reading circles This schedule can be altered as needed, but the operative nature of the bonus period for teachers and administrators allows for these types of regularly scheduled meetings or professional development activities within the regular

74

CHAPTER 6

contractual day. Since these professional meetings are all held within the contractual day, teachers seem happier and more attuned to what is being discussed or shared. Students involved with sports that must stay after due to transportation issues can be supervised with aides, thus freeing up teachers and coaches to attend all professional meetings. If, for example, the principal decides to place each department in charge of one staff development activity per month (one Monday), 9 to 12 departments would be involved in peer teaching, depending on how the departments are configured in a given school. Even if more than one Monday were needed for a particular in-service topic, several Mondays could be scheduled either back-to-back or from month-to-month to ensure a given staff development topic is fully addressed. Fridays could be used similarly by utilizing inter- and intradepartmental meetings, that is, meetings with grade level teams or subject teams. Interdisciplinary time could be used on Fridays as well. In fact, allowing an early dismissal of teachers is another possibility on Fridays, if the particular school or school corporation deems a perk of that nature would be a selling point for getting the bonus period or trimester schedule in place. Here is a list of how Fridays can be used: First Friday of the month: Additional preparation time for teachers Second Friday of the month: Staff development (principal’s responsibility) Third Friday of the month: Peer teaching in-services by department Fourth Friday of the month: Inter- or intradepartmental or team meetings for planning; interdisciplinary meetings; department chair, lead teacher, or team head meetings with the principal; or early dismissal for teachers. In the hundreds of schools that have implemented the trimester schedule, the bonus period concept is the biggest “selling” point of changing to this alternative schedule. The embedded nature of staff development, peer teaching, and communication between and within other departments are critically important to the success of any schedule. Appendix 12 provides a sample district daily schedule that includes the bonus period for students and job-embedded professional development time for the staff. Appendix

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE SECONDARY TRIMESTER SCHEDULE

75

13 provides a sample final exam schedule for those leaders charged with the task of designing such plans. Students express that they like the “free” tutoring nature of the bonus period; they like the ability to makeup tests or quizzes rather than doing it during class time, which is often the case; they like small-group sessions; they like being able to use the computer labs for projects; they enjoy using the media center outside of regular class time; and they like being able to join numerous clubs and activities because students can attend at times that allows them opportunities to participate that otherwise would not be possible because of after-school conflicts. Once again, the imagination of those planning the bonus period is the only limiting factor in adopting creative ideas for implementation. ANECDOTAL BENEFITS FREQUENTLY CITED BY TRIMESTER SCHOOLS

The trimester schedule is an outstanding structuring model for all secondary students, but when one adds the numerous benefits of the bonus period into the mix of exciting opportunities for administrators, teachers, and students, the entire trimester package is simply an outstanding way to structure the scheduling of secondary schools. The following is a partial list of benefits that schools can expect once the trimester schedule is fully operational. These benefits are routinely reported by trimester schools as anecdotal positives. Any size secondary school can implement the trimester schedule with existing staff and without spending money for additional teachers. Chapter 8 includes eight case studies from middle and high schools that have implemented the trimester. Although results vary by school due to unique features of implementation, this list of benefits tends to be universal in outcome: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■

Honor roll numbers increase. Failures are reduced. More electives are available to students. Discipline referrals are reduced. Semesters (trimesters) follow the seasons. Athletic eligibility becomes all or none depending on reporting schedules. Teachers have 20 to 25 percent fewer students during any given semester (trimester). Teachers have less grading. Teachers have a lengthy preparation time daily.

76

■

■ ■

■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■

■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■

■

CHAPTER 6

All professional development and teacher meetings take place during the contractual day (if the bonus period is enacted). Attendance rates improve slightly for students and faculty. Failures of first semester classes can often be minimized by offering the first semester classes during the second trimester to help failures (this is a benefit usually available in bigger high schools). Graduation rates improve because students have more opportunities to pass required courses. More electives can be offered each trimester. More remediation or intervention opportunities are available. Increased support for subject failures and test preparation can be required. Fewer interruptions are in the academic day. No need to start the school calendars by trying to end semesters at the holiday break before the new calendar year. More professional development time is available during bonus period. Improved authentic teaching and assessment is facilitated by longer periods. Most teachers and students report they experience less stress during the day. Tardies and truancies are reduced. Cost effect to the school district to implement the trimester schedule is neutral. Vocational education can actually grow in course selections. Cooperative programs can run regular semester schedules by allowing half days for trimester students to be on semester schedules. Facilitates students’ ability to learn outside the walls of the school. Students can take trimesters off to travel abroad, participate in specialized training, and attend college, career, or technical school earlier than normal. All of these opportunities coupled with the fact that students can still graduate on time with their cohort class (if graduation credits are not significantly increased). Cooperative learning in the classroom is more readily apparent. Differentiated instruction becomes more widely used due to longer periods. More students pursue post-graduation initiatives. More students taking advantage of mentor programs, internships, independent study, job training, and educational study of courses not offered at school, but available online. More students earning credits outside of the school walls.

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE SECONDARY TRIMESTER SCHEDULE

77

Because the trimester scheduling model evolved as a compromise schedule by combining as many positive points and eliminating as many negative points with other scheduling formats, the trimester schedule is usually well received by the entire school community. Although there is a certain degree of opposition to any change, the reader is encouraged to understand that no schedule in and of itself will solve all problems that schools face today, including increasing achievement as measured by a standardized test. Now that the reader understands how the trimester schedule works, it is hoped that the schedule will afford middle schools with another model in which to schedule their instructional day. Although the teaming model has seen some success in the affective realm of helping students succeed, the loss of instructional minutes due to experiential nature of multiple class periods that stretch to as many as 8 to 14 per day makes it clear that emphasis on quality minutes of instruction must be addressed to offset the decline in test scores and the sheer large amount of time spent in the hallways rather than in classrooms by middle school students. By increasing the minutes of instruction in key foundation courses, reducing the time in the hallways, combined with the power of the bonus period, the benefits of this new scheduling model manifests itself in profoundly positive ways. SUMMARY

In both the middle school and high school models, having only five 70minute classes per day for 12 weeks appears optimum for learning. Teachers have the ability to use instructional methods that promote authentic learning versus the traditional lecturing format used primarily in old middle school scheduling formats. Teachers tend to have to rush through material and present that material in a lecture format due to the shortened periods created by the experiential, multiple-period formats of most middle school schedules. Teachers will have fewer students any given trimester, which translates into fewer papers to grade, less students to get to know, more time to work with individual students, and more time to explore creative teaching and learning opportunities. Students are less inclined to have discipline problems when there are fewer minutes in the hallways needed for passing periods in multiple-period middle school models. Students report that they are less stressed because they only take five classes any given trimester. The bonus period affords time for the

78

CHAPTER 6

following: remediation, free tutoring for students who need it, time for clubs to meet, standardized testing preparation, pep sessions, convocations, smallgroup and individualized instruction outside the regular school day, test makeup, counseling sessions, and intramurals. In our anecdotal models, the climate of the school appears to be more positive, failures go down, attendance goes up, standardized test scores are improving, and many more opportunities for students to succeed exist on the trimester model. The objective data from the schools that we have compiled in this chapter make it apparent that the benefits of the trimester schedule mirror other alternative schedules even though there is no data supporting an increase in standardized test scores. We have discovered that the benefits are similar for all secondary schools on the trimester model. Depending on a specific school’s unique scheduling challenges, our hope is that by explaining the trimester scheduling model to the readers that a new scheduling format will be available for consideration. For those readers more concerned about the research into alternative scheduling, the authors recommend a book by David Marshak, Action Research on Block Scheduling (1997). In this book, Marshak outlines various action research methods that were used to evaluate block schedules. Those findings will help readers to configure their own methods of conducting original research before and after adopting any alternative scheduling model. Also, the finding will give the reader confidence to know that there are many positives that can be expected by changing schedules. Conversely, there are also areas that educators must be cognizant of as they tread through the waters of change.

00 7

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why might the trimester scheduling format appear a better alternative than Block 4 (intensive block), Block 8 (alternating block), or the traditional seven-period formats? A: When the trimester schedule was invented in the Indiana format with the bonus period component, it was deemed the compromise scheduling format because it took the best and eliminated the negative parts of three basic scheduling formats: the six- or seven-period day; Block 4; and Block 8. Although there were similar trimester schedules in a few locations in the United States at the time, the Westfield Model of the trimester schedule with the bonus period component was developed totally independent from those few others in existence at the time; thus the creative aspects of the trimester model grew. From compromising the length of the actual class periods to learning how to teach on the extended period, the trimester schedule just seemed to be the perfect fit. If one looks at all the positives and negatives with each of the other scheduling formats, the trimester does an excellent job of solving those problems and accentuating the positive aspects of those other three formats. Since teachers and administrators built the trimester from scratch, the schedule seems to answer all the confounding problems with other scheduling formats.

79

80

CHAPTER 7

Q: Why have a bonus period as opposed to making the daily class lengths longer? A: The “bonuses” of having a bonus period are so great, that shaving a few minutes from the five regular periods on a trimester schedule is necessary so that the full power of the trimester schedule manifests itself. Clubs, class meetings, test makeup, homework makeup, mandatory attendance for failures, enrichment and remediation programs, one-on-one instruction or small-group instruction, student government, athletic teams study tables, fitness classes, nutrition classes, and free tutoring are some of the key positives that are possible with a bonus period. Q: Is it better to make the bonus period an optional period, or is it better to make the bonus period a sixth period required class? A: If transportation can be worked out (and it can in nearly all cases), having an optional bonus period is far superior to having a mandatory bonus period, much like a sixth period without credit earned. The reasons for favoring the optional bonus period are many but here are a few. Teachers are free to sponsor clubs, help tutor failing students, administer test makeups, work oneon-one or in small groups to help students, and to run special enrichment or remediation programs. Doing this kind of work on a mandatory bonus period is nearly impossible because each teacher most likely would have to supervise a given number of students rather than be free to do other important educational duties. Our anecdotal research working with several schools demonstrates time and time again that only between 15 and 18 percent of all students will utilize the optional bonus period. Therefore, transporting the percentage of students becomes doable and also frees teachers up to do other important work with students. Q: Is the “gap in learning” that one finds by having a trimester off a real problem, or is it a perceived problem? A: Although this has been studied only a few times, each time, it appears learning is unaffected by a layoff of 12 weeks of more. When students are given tests at the end of a year-long class, there is no statistical advantage or harm done when there was a gap in learning between semesters (trimesters).

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

81

Of course there is some minor “catching up” that needs to be addressed in the first few weeks of taking the second semester after a several-week gap in the learning sequence, but in the long run, it does not appear to present any long-term detriment to the overall learning within the subject with or without a gap of time between semesters in a yearlong course. Foreign language and math teachers tend to be the subject area professionals making the charge that a gap is real and detrimental; but to date, we are unaware of any data to support these subject teachers, and several studies support no significant concern with a learning gap between semesters. To put this in perspective, the reader is encouraged to study the long approved practice of offering algebra to all freshmen and then taking a year off from algebra, usually taking geometry, before returning to second-year algebra. This has been done for years in this and other countries, and few experts are stating emphatically that this more-than-a-year gap in algebra from first year to second is harmful to the learning of a student. Fact be known, when a student enters college, there are numerous gaps in learning lasting from a few weeks, to summer, to whole years between classes. Some of the researchers studying this gap in learning issue and found it not to be a problem are Carroll, 1994b; Marshall, 1995; Stennett and Rachar, 1973; Smythe, Stennett, and Rachar, 1974; Rachar, Rice and Stennett, 1973; Canady and Rettig, 1995a; and the March 1997 issue of the NASSP Bulletin. Q: Is the trimester schedule harmful to band and choir programs? A: At first scheduling choir and band might seem challenging on the trimester schedule. However, the opposite is true. Many outstanding high school band and choir programs flourish in the trimester format. Most band directors and choir directors bemoan any block schedule because they fear it limits the number of students available for these two programs, but the opposite is the reality simply because more credits can be earned on the trimester schedule, or any block schedule for that matter. The problem comes in when some band or choir programs remain inflexible to possibilities outside the traditional thinking. Also, most block schedules were developed before more mandates, more requirements for graduation, and more credits to earn certain specific diplomas. Just doing the math on the number of credits potentially earned over a high school or middle school career makes it nearly impossible for band or choir

82

CHAPTER 7

students to take full schedules year-round on a traditional seven-period day, let alone take multiple periods of each or both of these disciplines. If band and choir people remain flexible and see how new requirements impact even a seven-period day, they would be more receptive to listening to the many benefits of the trimester schedule. The days of taking multiple band and choir periods in a given semester are long since gone, particularly as long as the academic areas continue to get all the scrutiny and accountability measures. Q: Is it better for schools presently on a six-period day to change to a traditional seven-period day or change to a trimester model? A: With all the increased requirements that most states now require to earn a high school diploma, it is virtually impossible for a given high school to stay on a six-period day. The biggest single reason most high schools in this country left the traditional six-period day was because of the increased requirements to earn a high school diploma or one of the specialty diplomas many states now offer. If a school has a six-period day, and assuming each semester class earns one full credit (some states a semester class earns only half of a full credit), then a student can only earn 48 credits (24 credits in some states). By adding a single class each day for a total of seven class periods, one increases the total possible earned credits by eight for a total of 56 credits (28 in some states). Since many states have academic honors diplomas that require a minimum of 48 credits (24 credits), one can readily see how staying on a six-period day dries up most elective classes and leaves virtually no choice in a high school student’s academic career. Even with the added class per day, it becomes increasingly more difficult for students to take all the electives a student may wish to explore. Changing to the trimester schedule offers an additional four credits (two credits) over a high school career or one additional elective class more per year over the seven-period traditional day. Q: What about the difficulties for vocational education and special education coops with some schools on a trimester schedule and others in the co-op on a traditional or block scheduling format? A: Vocational education co-op classes and special education co-op classes need not suffer when changing from a traditional schedule to a trimester

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

83

because of the large number of credits that can be earned over a high school career. This flexibility is possible because morning or afternoon blocks of times can be carved out for students that travel to neighboring school districts and any loss of travel time out of the instructional day becomes a moot point. A student in his or her senior year may be on another school’s traditional schedule while simultaneously attending a trimester schedule in his or her home-base school. The grade reporting simply waits until the semester class ends and is then placed on the permanent record at that time. The key to this working is the willingness to allow students the flexibility to do both. Students that might attend another school corporation in a co-op special education program will simply follow the receiving school’s daily and semester schedule. The yearly calendar is unaffected by the semester or trimester starting or ending dates. Q: Are transfers in and out of trimester schools from other schedules a problem? A: Transfers in or out are always a concern for any receiving school because of the differing curricular offerings among high schools. For example, a student may have been enrolled in Japanese at school A, and when transferring to school B, there is no Japanese offered. Schools must be flexible when examining a given student’s schedule and make any and all necessary adjustments. In the past, we have seen schools have students audit classes, do independent study, take mentoring classes, or take concentrated Internet courses when transferring from a traditional semester schedule to a trimester schedule at the traditional semester break around the new year. Q: Because a student can earn many more credits on the trimester schedule, is it a good idea to increase graduation credit requirements? A: We believe that increasing graduation credits above the prevailing state requirements of 42 credits (21 credits) is not advisable. The biggest single reason for not increasing credit requirements beyond incentive diplomas is that struggling students often find it difficult or impossible to see “the light at the end of the tunnel” in a career that has made it hard to earn the minimum number of credits, let alone earn more.

84

CHAPTER 7

An interesting fact to note is that back in the days of the common sixperiod traditional schedules popular in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, before Nation at Risk was published in mid-1980s, students in most states only needed 32 or 34 semester credits (16 or 17 semester credits) to graduate and SAT scores were at an all-time high during these years. Increasing the number of required credits to graduate has done little to improve standardized test scores. This is an interesting phenomenon some researcher should undertake to study. We like incentives for students to take additional credits but favor not increasing graduation requirements. When credits are increased, the number of dropouts will increase as a result. Q: Will schools have to increase staff to change to a trimester schedule? A: Schools will not have to increase staff or need additional money to implement a trimester scheduling format. The added number of credits that can be earned simply allows more electives to be offered. As a result, teachers are able to teach more sections and new courses. Q: Will schools be able to reduce staff after a few years on the trimester schedule? A: Although after a school has been on the trimester scheduling format for two years, the number of students graduating early and those learning outside the building increases, there is no reason to reduce staff numbers. In districts strapped for money, this could conceivably help those districts, but we advocate reducing class sizes rather than reducing staff. Q: What about the problems of the length of a period (roughly 70 minutes) and keeping students’ attention for a longer block of time? A: A boring teacher or a teacher than does little more than lecture during most of the class period will begin to lose the attention of even the most ardent student, regardless of period length. So it is not so much the time block but rather the skill of the teacher to diversify delivery and approach that becomes more paramount to successful teaching and learning. The fact remains that a longer block period affords much more time to teach in ways that foster opti-

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

85

mal learning. Most labs can be completed in a 70-minute block of time. Group work, research time, play acting, debate, cooperative learning, and other proven teaching strategies are more appropriate in a longer teaching block. Q: Will teachers change from a primary mode of lecture to convey information to a more research-based approach to learning that might involve such authentic learning ideas as problem solving, activities, projects, reenactments, debate, cooperative learning, group work, and such? A: The answer to this question lies with the ability of the leadership in a particular building to motivate, teach, and require teachers to change their methods of instruction. Absent those important ingredients, many teachers will continue to teach the same old way. If we give the same input as before, we can expect similar outputs. If teachers make a strong effort to make fundamental changes in their approach to teaching on an extended period of 70 minutes, profound positive changes will follow. The leadership in a building and the person in the classroom remain the two most important constants in quality instruction. Q: Does changing to the trimester schedule require extensive professional development? A: This is a fallacy of understanding. Teachers are bright people, and those that say teachers need extensive training to be able to teach a longer period are giving teachers virtually no credit for being the professionals they are. In our experience, good teachers can teach in any length of period, but the longer the period, the more creative the good teacher becomes. We believe that a two- to three-hour in-service can enlighten even the most enlightened professional on how to teach in the expanded period. When we give in-services on this professional development activity, we model how it is done rather than “tell” teachers how teaching in an extended period is best done. In other words, the transition from a 50- to 55-minute period (or shorter period length) to a 65to 75-minute period is relatively easy to learn. Q: Does data support the change to a trimester schedule as opposed to other scheduling formats?

86

CHAPTER 7

A: Although it is difficult to show measurable increases in standardized testing based on change to any known scheduling format, there are numerous quantifiable areas that have been shown to happen once a school changes from a traditional schedule to the trimester schedule. So although this data shared here is anecdotal, the objective results are clearly present in nearly all schools that make the switch. Honor roll numbers tend to go up over 20 percent. Failures generally go down in a range of 8 to 14 percent. Attendance increases slightly. Discipline referrals go down. Qualitative perceptions are improved: Things like students saying school is fun; there is more time for homework; they get to know the teacher better; there is less time in the hallways; there is less stress in school; students have less trouble juggling all their subjects at the same time; there is less homework; there is improved communication; and teachers have less students at any given trimester even though they actually teach more aggregate numbers over the course of the year. Q: Does student achievement improve on the trimester schedule? A: As mentioned previously, when we measure achievement based on the scores of a standardized test, no research study that we are aware of can demonstrate that a schedule in and of itself will improve achievement based on standardized testing. Research into this subject by professionals such as Richard Rothstein (2004), James Popham (2007), Ken Robinson (2001), and Alfie Kohn (2000) suggest that there is little “sensitivity” to instruction and scores on standardized tests; the fact that these standardized tests have scores that are highly predictable based on the socioeconomic status of the students taking these tests, the educational level of the parents, a student’s intelligence quotient, and the way these tests are constructed all point to a huge gap between how and what we teach in the classroom and the scores we can expect based on what we know about these tests. In the bibliography section of this book the reader can explore these authors in more detail to understand the nature of measuring achieve-

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

87

ment based on high stakes standardized testing. We highly suggest reading Popham’s Phi Delta Kappan article on the subject of instruction and standardized test scores. His work is eye opening and of interest to every educator. Encouraging anecdotal evidence at several middle schools, which have completed at least two years on the trimester schedule, suggest there might be some significant gains on achievement. These spikes in scores on math and language arts are most likely attributable to the drastic increase in minutes of instruction allotted to the core subject areas being tested on standardized testing. This finding is not research based using the scientific method and is only preliminary in nature. However, the results are encouraging for middle schools on the trimester schedule. High schools most likely will not see the same benefit as middle schools because semester and trimester minutes of instruction per class are not significantly changed regardless of scheduling formats. Q: Is there a difference between trimester scheduling formats? A: Yes. There are some schedules touted as trimesters that are actually the old quarter systems, meaning that some courses are simply broken down into three parts rather than two. Many colleges had the quarter system, but most have since gone to the traditional semester format. Any so-called trimester format that has more than five actual class periods of credit-driven courses is not a true trimester. The reason is the minutes of instruction for schedules that have more than five periods is such that they cannot be called semester courses due to the large reduction in minutes of instruction per course. Only scheduling formats that have five actual class periods per day for a total of 15 classes per year are true trimester formats. All others compromise the integrity of how the trimester schedule was formulated originally. Also, some schools on a trimester schedule do not have a bonus period. Some have a bonus period but make it mandatory. Still others have a bonus period and make it totally optional for most students. (This is explained further in chapter 6.) Q: Why is the trimester scheduling format so popular when schools are choosing a new scheduling format? A: Largely because the original trimester schedule as developed at Westfield High School and North Montgomery High School in Indiana was a

88

CHAPTER 7

compromise schedule that answered nearly all the problems that plagued traditional schedules and other block scheduling. Because the trimester schedule was developed as a total team effort among professionals, nearly every problem with all other schedules was successfully addressed when implementing the trimester schedule. Those that continue to say the trimester schedule has problems have not truly addressed the many other problems created with other scheduling formats if a school were to return to the traditional schedule or to change to another block schedule. Among schools that study every schedule and when objective data is examined, rarely does a school stay on a traditional schedule or change to one of the two remaining block schedules. The trimester schedule is the best when looking at all data and objective facts. When decisions are made with opinions, beliefs, or feelings rather than objective facts, it is not uncommon for schools to use erroneous thoughts to drive decisions. Also, reality tells us that some schools are driven to make decisions to appease certain voices from a political standpoint. When one makes decisions in this way, one begins the spiral of making one bad decision after another. (Readers are encouraged to read Brower and Balch’s book Transformational Leadership Decision Making in Schools (2005). This book outlines objective decision making.) Q: Will changing to the trimester increase test scores? A: As mentioned previously, merely changing the scheduling structure in and of itself will do little to improve test scores. However, if a school seriously undertakes the task of insisting that all teachers teach in ways that research proves to be effective, then making the change to the trimester schedule facilitates what the research says must happen to show improved achievement. The trimester schedule allows for accelerated core subject course work; allows for remediation opportunities within the school year; facilitates using teaching methods that are more research based for optimum learning; promotes learning outside the classroom; allows flexibility in scheduling; creates more electives for students to pursue, thus broadening a student’s academic exposure to other subject areas that complement the core areas; and creates a climate in which students can concentrate on five subjects versus seven at any given time.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

89

Q: What about the brain research and the trimester schedule? A: First of all, there appears to be little conclusive research into how educators should couple brain research with classroom practice. However, there are some studies that suggest there might be a correlation, albeit a slight correlation, between some aspect of brain research and classroom instruction. There are no known studies linking any brain research to a specific scheduling model except to mention the fact that when a longer class period is in place, there is a common sense notion that teachers have more time in which to teach in ways that promote learning. When a teacher only has between 40 and 50 minutes in which to teach a given concept or lesson, there is a tendency to lecture the material to students. In an article by Eric Jensen in Phi Delta Kappan magazine in February of 2008, many of his conclusions about what we “think” we know about brain research would appear to support a longer period for classes. Schedules that see daily classes of 85 to 95 minutes in length may well be too long and less compatible with post-graduation class lengths. The reader should draw his or her own educational conclusion as to whether a 65- to 75-minute trimester period promotes or hinders some of Jensen’s findings delineated in the article. Here is his partial list: 1. Exercise, low levels of stress, and good nutrition help grow neurons in the brain. 2. Strengthening prosocial conditions rather than random social interaction is better for brain development. Longer periods appear to support this finding. 3. Skill building, reading, thinking activities, the arts, and meditation can aid the brain in learning. Longer periods appear to support these findings. 4. Stress hurts brain development and hinders learning. When students have fewer classes per day when on the trimester schedule, to juggle each semester, it would naturally follow that a student would have less stress. 5. Epigenetics can and do affect brain development. Environments and exposure to certain environmental hazards can influence future generations as well as alter certain genes. This is a relatively new chapter in genetics. At this time, the stress of multiple periods and more unsupervised time during numerous passing periods now has raised concern for the health and well-being of students.

90

CHAPTER 7

6. High stakes testing has led to the elimination of recess, physical education, play, the arts, and so on. The trimester schedule keeps all of these elective courses intact and does not significantly alter their availability to students when changing from an experiential model of teaming to a trimester model. 7. The brain appears malleable even into adulthood so doing more activitybased instruction is healthy for the brain. Once again, a longer period appears to encourage instruction that follows these basic tenets of how learning is best achieved for lasting effects. Q: What quantifiable data can be demonstrated to justify changing to the trimester schedule? A: Anecdotal evidence is all that is available to use at this time because no extensive research has been conducted comparing achievement on a trimester schedule to any other model. The same is true for a traditional schedule. There are simply too many confounding variables and too many learning variables, not to mention controlling for all the known factors influencing learning to undertake such a study. No one has figured out a way to do this type of research to control for data related directly to any particular scheduling format. As mentioned previously though, some of the data has shown time and time again, anecdotally, that the trimester does accommodate certain positive increases in quantifiable data. Honor roll will increase, failures will decrease, attendance should increase slightly, discipline referrals will go down, and school climate issues will improve. Every school we have worked with that has switched to the trimester reports similar results. The interesting thing to note is that of the small number of schools that clamor back to traditional schedules after being on any block schedule, school officials often fail to continue tracking this same data that most likely would show a return to less favorable quantifiable data. The reasons for the shift back to a traditional schedule rarely are data driven decisions, but are driven by opinion. Q: Do certain subject areas favor or reject the trimester model and why? A: In our experience in working with over 200 trimester schools, it is interesting to note that opposition or favoring a change is less driven by subject area

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

91

and more driven by individual personalities. We have seen schools that have physical education teachers resisting change, which seems on the surface to make no sense. But generally speaking, foreign language teachers, some math teachers, and many band and choir teachers oppose any block schedule. All of this resistance to change can be traced back to the first fundamental law of human nature: it is always about me! If one examines the positive results on the entire school and nearly every student in schools on a trimester schedule, one would be hard-pressed to come forward with a single objective criterion that would be fatal to the change to a trimester schedule. Once again, opinion or personal feelings can drive decisions, and oftentimes, it is the loud naysayers that get their way even though all evidence may point to the right direction. Why is that? Many times, leaders simply do not want to take on the challenge of those that have strong influential voices. Q: On the trimester scheduling format, one often talks about thinking “outside the box” with possibilities, yet state mandates often forbid or make it nearly impossible for schools to be creative and innovative. What can be done about this problem? A: That is a confounding problem in nearly every bureaucracy controlled with government taxpayer money. The answer is not complicated but requires bold action on the part of educators and legislative and executive leaders: take away controls and allow the expertise of those that understand what it takes to improve education to lead. Too often, well-meaning, but unqualified people are making decisions based on political sound bites rather than statistical, research-driven, and objective data. Leaders should dare to do the right thing and promote ideas that are proven but that may not be politically popular or the current “correct” thinking. Being bold, creative, innovative, unique, and confident is what has driven economic and educational improvement throughout our nation’s history.

00 8

Trimester Case Studies

In order to share the experiences of other schools that have implemented the trimester schedule, the following case studies are presented in narrative form. The level (high school or middle school), demographic classification (small town, rural, urban, or suburban), and enrollment are included for each. CASE STUDY 1 High School, Small Town, 650 Students

The journey to move our small town high school from a traditional sevenperiod day to the trimester schedule was unique in that our restructuring efforts were not primarily motivated by poor performance data. In 1995, our high school was a school of approximately 650 students with above average test scores and low free and reduced lunch numbers located 20 miles west of downtown Indianapolis. By all indications, our high school was a “good” school, serving our community for generations. The only real community stress appeared to be the conflict between longtime residents who wanted our small town to remain a small, conservative Indiana town and the numerous new residents, living in the newer upscale housing developments that were changing the demographics of our community. It did not take long for the principal of the high school to realize that change was on the horizon for this community; his challenge was to provide the necessary leadership to transform a good school into a great school. 93

94

CHAPTER 8

Changing the daily and semester schedule was not favorably looked on by some faculty and parents as a direction in which the high school should embark. The prevailing thought by many was that after all, making changes did not make much sense for a school that was already considered good. One of our high school teachers put it very succinctly by asking, “What’s wrong . . . why do we want to change?” The principal’s response was very clear, “There is nothing wrong, but can’t we be better?” By answering this teacher’s question with a question, it set the tone for our restructuring work. The difficult hurdle is motivating people to make a good school even better. Many restructuring efforts in the 1990s centered on instructional time, specifically the Block 4 and Block 8 schedules. In 1997, however, we learned that Westfield (IN) High School implemented the trimester schedule, and it appeared from what we had heard that the schedule was becoming popular with schools wanting to change schedules but who rejected the other conventional alternative schedules. This piqued my interest greatly due to Westfield being of similar size and student population as our high school. After several conversations with Dr. Robert Brower, principal, and other members of his guidance department and teaching staff, I was convinced the trimester schedule could be the springboard for positive change at our high school. Our superintendent was enthusiastic about restructuring and encouraged me to continue the effort. We also knew that any change in schedule must also incorporate staff development to make the change successful. Throughout the 1997–1998 school year, our faculty and staff investigated various schedules through the dissemination of the various research and visits to numerous schools in our area using the Block 4 and Block 8 schedules. Our interest, however, seemed to focus on the benefits of the trimester schedule, and it quickly became the schedule of choice to those involved in investigating the various alternatives. From a teaching standpoint, moving to a 70-minute period from a 50-minute period seemed less radical than a 90-minute block of time in the Block 4 and Block 8 schedules. However, the greatest benefit of the trimester schedule seemed to favor students, although we felt the trimester schedule benefited teachers as well. Taking five classes at one time versus seven or eight classes and the ability to earn 15 credits within an academic year instead of the traditional 14 was a real plus. Focusing on fewer courses at one time was an enticing situation for both students and teachers.

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

95

During our investigation and eventual planning for the trimester, every possible roadblock was thrown our way. Skeptical teachers criticized the “gap,” or the middle trimester as a huge problem. A course meeting the first and third trimester could not possibly work by having to spend too much time reteaching content students forgot during the second trimester off. Other teachers got excited and lobbied for their course to go all three trimesters. It seemed logical to them that 70 minutes all year long would be a great advantage for students, especially in advanced placement (AP) courses. What about band, choir, winter break, lunch schedules, and on and on? Without question, we had naysayers at every turn; most of these people objected for personal reasons. Throughout all the planning and enormous amounts of time discussing and sharing, one constant was always at the forefront. Changing the schedule did not bring about change alone. Changing the way we teach brings about change, and the schedule is just the avenue to make other needed changes happen. At one point during a rather heated debate about some trivial matter, the principal announced to the entire staff that if every single teacher did not change the way they taught, then we should stop all this work and forget about the trimester schedule! New instructional strategies were tantamount to whether a change in the schedule would succeed and the principal had to be blunt about that much needed ingredient to drive improvement in our school. Through the vigorous efforts of our curriculum coordinator, every teacher was able to get the materials, tools, and professional development necessary for real change to occur in instructional practices. Throughout the trimester planning process and as an ongoing strategy, the monitoring of instruction was the key element to the success of the trimester schedule. Without that piece, no schedule will be successful in improving the achievement in a school. The research studied was clear: if teachers continued to instruct the same old ineffective ways, then the trimester was doomed to do no better than the traditional schedule. The key for us was the 70-minute periods facilitated better instructional practices as opposed to the tendency to just lecture on a 50-minute format. This was the critical piece and one that had the greatest potential for improved student achievement. The amount and effectiveness of instructional change would dictate whether the trimester schedule was just

96

CHAPTER 8

a new way of doing what was always done or truly a positive restructuring strategy with explicit results. Even though the faculty and staff at our high school were engaging in the healthy, yet exhausting, conversations about restructuring and putting details to the trimester schedule, the board of education was hesitant to support a change of this magnitude when only one other school in the state had done the same. During our research, however, we found that L. D. Bell High School in Hurst, Texas (near Dallas/Fort Worth), had been on the trimester schedule since the 1970s and had strong data showing the positive impact on student achievement. So, the superintendent and the high school principal packed the five members of the board of education on an airplane and headed to Dallas. Don Brown, principal at L. D. Bell, and his staff were gracious in allowing us to ask every possible question and to visit classrooms during our stay. It was a great trip that “sealed the deal” for our board and superintendent. Our board of education was now 100 percent behind our high school restructuring efforts and was now excited about the trimester’s potential impact on our community. The trimester schedule was fully implemented in the fall of 1998 after many community forums, parent meetings, and talking to whomever wanted to listen (e.g., Rotary Club meetings, grocery store encounters, and such). We were fortunate to continue to rely on the expertise of L. D. Bell High School by sending each department chair to Texas to glean instructional strategies and ask content specific questions to trimester experienced teachers. Westfield High School also became a strong partner with us as we shared information and solved mutual issues. The two schools even cohosted a trimester symposium to share our knowledge and experiences and was attended by numerous schools throughout Indiana in the spring of 1999. On the first day of school in August of 1998, the difference in school climate was astonishing! Although not necessarily a reason for restructuring, the by-product of our intensive work created a different atmosphere around the building. The secretaries were wondering if the students were actually in the building! Throughout the first year on the trimester, faculty meetings and teacher gatherings focused on effective instructional strategies. Our concentration on instruction was resulting in the use of a wide variety of new strategies to the smiles of most faculty members. Over the next couple of years, the data supporting the successful implementation of the trimester schedule included increased student and teacher

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

97

attendance, fewer discipline referrals, positive school climate audits, increased number of credits earned, increased elective programming enrollment, and increased number of students earning the Indiana Academic Honors Diploma (the highest graduation diploma). Overall, the trimester schedule created a less stressful and more relaxed academic environment. Our high school has remained on the trimester schedule since 1998, with a few minor modifications and tweaks, continuing to attain the goal of making a good school a great school. There were numerous people responsible for the successful implementation and continued success of the trimester schedule at our high school. Although there are still a handful of people that will never be convinced that changing the high school schedule was warranted or needed, well over 95 percent of our faculty and community have embraced the trimester schedule. Using any objective measurement, too, one would be hard-pressed to say anything except that the trimester schedule has been hugely successful at our high school. CASE STUDY 2 High School, Suburban, 850 Students

Due to the increasing graduation requirements in Indiana and the addition of more rigorous graduation diplomas, it became necessary for high schools in Indiana to visit other scheduling formats in an effort to save elective courses and teachers while trying to improve numerous quantitative data. The Nation at Risk movement also put public schools at the forefront of criticism, so many schools were looking for ways to improve their delivery of instruction in more productive ways. Schools that remained on a six- or seven-period day were experiencing difficulties in getting students the necessary credits to graduate while simultaneously trying to allow time in a student’s schedule for the electives they desired. The elective areas in danger of disappearing included band, choir, industrial technology, art, family and consumer science, physical education electives, and numerous other elective courses. As a result of these mandatory changes in Indiana schools, nearly all high schools began to explore alternatives to the classic scheduling models. In the fall of 1996, our high school put together a 12-member restructuring committee to explore alternative possibilities for scheduling the high school day. This committee of teachers, parents, administrators, students, and community members compiled a timeline to visit other high schools

98

CHAPTER 8

that were on alternative schedules. All visitations were to be completed by November 15, 1996. At the time, the only schedules available to visit in Indiana involved schools on the Block 4 and Block 8 format. All other high schools in Indiana were either following a six- or seven-period traditional semester format. At that time, there were fewer than a dozen schools in Indiana on alternative schedules. At the first meeting in November, all visits were shared with other members. From the very beginning of this entire reporting back process, it became apparent that people were already drawing sides as to which schedule would best fit our school. There was almost immediate division within the committee. Several had come to the conclusion that staying on the traditional schedule was best for our school. Others were adamant that the school change to either the Block 4 or Block 8 models of scheduling. Still others were indifferent to changing or staying on the present schedule. Trouble was looming from the onset, and it appeared that achieving consensus would be very difficult. It appeared that regardless of direction the school was headed, there would be people upset with any decision regarding scheduling. Seeing what was happening to the committee and the apparent divisiveness on the horizon, our principal, who was a former art teacher, talked boldly to the committee about trying to invent a schedule that melded the best parts of all schedules while keeping the negative parts of each to a minimum. He stated, “How about we invent a totally new and different schedule? Let me work on this concept a few days given what we know at this point in the investigation.” Within a week, the committee reconvened to discuss what was later known as the 3 × 5 trimester plan that our principal devised on his own. Our principal’s enthusiasm was infectious and our entire committee saw an opportunity to be the first at something. As we listened intently to how the trimester schedule worked, we were surprised to learn that the schedule did indeed answer most of the problems that were leading to a split committee. The principal’s enthusiasm and confidence appeared infectious to the entire committee. Not a single committee member was opposed to moving forward. After tweaking and brainstorming the nuances of this new schedule, the entire committee voted to present it to the entire faculty at the following Monday’s full faculty meeting. The committee was careful not to divulge specifics in an attempt to build suspense. The principal then met privately with two “movers and shakers” in the building for a personal presentation of the

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

99

positives. Our principal was a master at asking for help from those that could be stumbling blocks to acceptance. Because of a promised vote on any change, the faculty was given one week to ask questions and to give needed input before a full vote was cast. At the faculty meeting to make the final decision in late November of 1996, to everyone’s surprise, the principal asked for complete support from the staff along with a promise that if the schedule fell flat on its face that the schedule would return to the traditional schedule the next year. The principal spoke of vision, putting our professional integrity on the line in hopes of bettering our school. The fact that our principal was willing to put his professional life on the line for a good cause impressed the entire teaching staff. The final tally was a 100 percent vote of confidence to change to the trimester schedule after the lone original negative vote changed his mind once the final tally was announced because he said he liked the schedule but believed that nothing deserved a 100 percent endorsement. So we, figuratively speaking, were jumping off the cliff together but exhilarated at the prospect of positive change. With the overwhelming supportive vote in hand, the process moved quickly along. The trimester schedule had no models to copy so all the planning and adjustments were all new. The principal and committee members met several times to get all the kinks worked out before unveiling the schedule to the five-member school board and superintendent. The superintendent loved the possibilities after seeing the entire schedule. With the superintendent’s support, the decision was then made to do a full-blown presentation to the school board and ask for permission to start the schedule with the 1997–1998 school year. Prior to the public board meeting in December of 1996, the principal met with individual board members to allay any concerns and to delineate the timelines and expectations and goals for changing to a novel new scheduling format. At the December public board meeting, there was a media circus. Because our school was the first in Indiana on the trimester schedule, there was a lot of interest with the media. The school board had originally planned on taking the schedule under advisement for one month, but with all the excitement in the air, the board voted to allow the district to change to the new schedule in the fall of the coming school year. That left only five months to get student schedules out, to compile the master schedule, and to make necessary changes to language in the student and teacher handbooks. Even the teacher master

100

CHAPTER 8

contract had language that had to be addressed. A lot had to be done but everyone was excited about the changes. There was an air of cooperation and exhilaration that we were blazing a new trail for all high schools. The biggest single reason the schedule met with little opposition during the development and implementation process was the fact that 100 percent of the faculty bought into the change. That helped with student acceptance and with student acceptance came parent acceptance. Schools that develop opposition to any change initiative in the faculty ranks will not enjoy this luxury. We credit the principal’s ability to “sell” the schedule and to move people through inspiration and motivation. The number one key to the successful implementation of our new schedule was leadership. After getting the green light from the school board, the next move was to present the schedule to each class from 8th grade to 11th grade while simultaneously having two planned evening meetings for parents. Our principal took the lead on every presentation by being the keynote speaker flanked by the support of the professionals that would carry out every detail of this new schedule. There was always a unified front during every presentation so as not to derail the effort with a divide-and-conquer mentality. This was critical to the successful implementation. Strangely enough, the next school year started with virtually no disgruntled students, parents, or faculty. We continued to wait for the “roof to cave in” because of some unexpected consequence of the change or oversight of some meaningful piece of information, but that fear never even remotely materialized. The schedule remains in effect today and our school remains the model for how to effectively and efficiently implement the trimester schedule. We credit the skill of the leadership to pulling this whole change initiative off without so much as a blip on the radar from those that might have opposed the schedule. We continue to marvel at how well the schedule has allowed our high school to retool and restructure in so many positive ways. When looking at objective evaluations of the trimester schedule, we can honestly find not a single disadvantage to this schedule over other scheduling formats. In a word, the trimester schedule has been successful. We would never go back to the traditional schedule but every year we continue to make important tweaks to an already great schedule.

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

101

CASE STUDY 3 High School, Rural, 400 Students

Our high school, like nearly all high schools in the country, began exploring alternative scheduling models due to increasing graduation requirements, more federal, state, and local mandates, increased discipline referrals, and to improve achievement. Most high schools were faced with a dilemma to either increase opportunities for kids outside the core subject areas or lose courses and teachers to the changing landscape of graduation requirements. All elective subjects and courses were vulnerable to the onslaught of more rigor and more college-level preparation courses. As a result of these mandatory changes in schools, nearly all high schools began looking at other scheduling options. During the 1997 school year, our high school began exploring alternative schedules. Department chairs were sent on visits to the schools presently on alternative schedules in hopes of finding a schedule that would meet our unique needs as well as to meet the new state requirements in a more productive format. As a result of these statewide visitations, our teacher leaders then reported back their findings to the administration. The only scheduling model that appeared to meet with approval from nearly all the teacher leaders was the trimester schedule. This was largely because that scheduling model was seen as a compromise schedule, meaning that schedule appeared to address the problems inherent in other scheduling options. Subsequently, we discovered as a faculty that the principal of the first school to implement the trimester schedule in Indiana was instrumental in our being sold on the merits of the schedule. The personality and abilities of the leadership cannot be understated with any school undertaking significant change. After our school level administrators were convinced that the best of the three alternative schedules was the trimester schedule, they invited the principal from the first school to actually implement the schedule to come and speak to our faculty in the fall of 1997. After that presentation meeting and due to the motivational nature of the presentation, our faculty was pretty much sold on the trimester schedule. We credit our presenter as the biggest reason for getting everyone on board at our school. Although we did have a few naysayers to the change, most were willing

102

CHAPTER 8

to give it a chance. More visits to the original high school were planned by various departments. Since there was only one school in Indiana on the trimester schedule, this school was instrumental in how, why, and what we did during every phase of inquiry and implementation. In short, that high school served as our model and blueprint. We basically copied everything this school created and modeled nearly every detail of the master schedule, student schedules, and handbook changes after this school. After the nuts and bolts were worked out, our superintendent allowed us to proceed with his blessing saying if it did not involve more money and did not change contract language, that we could basically change to any schedule we felt was best for our school. That fact made the transition less cumbersome and the timelines more streamlined to full implementation. We have since learned that getting by this huge hurdle can be daunting at some school districts. Originally, we thought we would have to wait a full year to fully implement the trimester schedule but with the help of the originating high school, we were able to fully implement the trimester schedule for the fall of 1998, thus becoming only one of a handful of schools in Indiana to adopt the trimester schedule at this date. We felt excitement being one of just a handful of schools that were bold enough to change to the trimester schedule. That positive feeling among students and faculty helped inspire the many positive changes. As we found out during the entire process, strong, positive, and capable leadership is critical to the success of this and any other major change initiative. We have now been on the trimester schedule for nine years, having finally provided transportation just this past year for all of our students who stay for the bonus period. Getting the transportation piece worked out for bonus period took some visionary leadership to realize that transportation was not the obstacle some thought it would be when the schedule first was implemented. Without transportation provided to make the bonus period work to its full potential, the power of the bonus period is not fully realized in our professional opinion. Prior to the optional transportation-provided structure of the bonus period, the trimester schedule was answering our most critical concerns for improvement, but with the transportation component in place, the schedule is amazing in how that added ingredient could help students and the professionals in our building. Failures were drastically reduced and honor rolls jumped close to 25 percent the first year we were on the trimester schedule.

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

103

Although we have not seen a spike in standardized test scores, we have seen modest increases in scores but nothing we feel we could directly correlate to the schedule change. However, the many other positive aspects of the trimester schedule have made the transition a huge success for our high school. We have seen a vast improvement in honor rolls, failures, and graduation rates. We send more students on to post-graduation programs and our disciplinary referrals have gone down and stayed down as compared to the baseline data we had prior to converting to the trimester schedule. We see more students graduating a trimester earlier, more learning outside the walls of the high school, more kids involved in vocational education, and more special needs students succeeding in our school. In short, we have not found a better schedule that would pull us off the trimester schedule. Virtually all those that initially opposed the change to an alternative schedule have been won over with the objective facts showing success. The key to showing success with any initiative is comparing baseline data before the change to new data compiled after three or four years. We saw a significant change in nearly all quantifiable data from our traditional data we used as a baseline. No data showed a negative result by changing to the trimester schedule. Advanced placement scores, SAT scores, ACT scores, and other standardized tests were not impacted either negatively or positively; the effect was neutral in our estimation. We highly recommend this trimester schedule to any high school. We do feel it is the best of all four scheduling formats currently available. But we caution any school that thinks that simply changing schedules will be the panacea for all problems facing secondary schools today. CASE STUDY 4 High School, Suburban, 2,000 Students

The following narrative portrays how our large, suburban high school decided to adopt the trimester schedule. Included is the timeframe, the process, and who was included in the final decision to switch to a trimester schedule. Our school took two years to research possible scheduling ideas. We looked into the seven-period day (which was the existing schedule to determine if it was advantageous for us to change schedules), trimester, Block 8, Block 4, and other hybrids of these same schedules. A committee was developed to oversee the research, visitations, interviews, and such of schools on these various

104

CHAPTER 8

schedules. Very early on, the group narrowed down the search to the trimester schedule and the various block schedules. The committee of 12 teachers and administrators visited many schools (including Westfield High School and North Montgomery High School in Indiana) on the trimester plan. Dr. Robert Brower, principal of Westfield High School, was approached to make a presentation to the faculty on the trimester schedule. After that presentation and a comprehensive planning session with him and the committee, it was then the committee’s recommendation to the staff that we change to the trimester schedule. The only real concern came from our highly successful band program, as that group of educators feared any alternative scheduling format. After this group of concerned staff members was shown the positive aspects and potential for the trimester schedule, they agreed to try to make the new schedule work, given the overwhelming support from other staff members. As was promised from the initial investigation process, the entire staff voted for their preferences on all scheduling types. The result was that a vast majority of the faculty and administrators chose the trimester as the overwhelming favorite due to its compromise and consensus structural nature. After the school had been on the schedule for nearly a decade, the school solicited input via a survey in the spring of 2000 to research teacher and student viewpoints on the trimester schedule. Over 80 percent of everyone surveyed said they were either totally satisfied or satisfied with the trimester schedule. Input was solicited for improvements and some tweaking of the schedule came about as a result of this input. Nothing of a structural nature was changed, however. Leadership was essential to our implementation of the trimester schedule. Our leadership changed shortly after implementation but the new leadership was imperative to the schedule’s success. The leadership of our high school is now very important to the schedule change. Our current principal (the previous principal who instituted the trimester moved to a different high school as an assistant principal) is utilizing many different school-based models to attempt to utilize the trimester schedule to its fullest potential. The leadership changed soon after we implemented trimester scheduling and so there was a period of concern by some staff members that there might be a push to return to the seven-period day. That concern never materialized as the new principal was a trimester advocate.

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

105

Some noteworthy tweaking that our school has initiated as a result of changing to the trimester model include: freshmen teaming, offering earlyout graduation opportunities, business apprenticeships/internships, cadet teaching, peer tutoring, and travel abroad. Our current leader has made all of these alternative ideas possible and has been critical to the schedule’s huge success at our school. An obvious goal was to increase teacher performance and student achievement. The trimester offers many different scheduling opportunities for both students and teachers. The longer periods were not so long that teachers struggled with the change. We began to see alternative teaching strategies that we hoped would translate into continuing improvements in standardized test scores. The electives have flourished in this new scheduling format, something that was being hurt on the old seven-period-day format. Attendance rates, graduation rates, and standardized test scores have not statistically been affected either positively or negatively. However, these various cohort groups, who have traveled through our high school, have historically performed poorly on standardized tests and attendance has always been a concern for our students in our district. Due to the state’s methods of calculating graduation rate, it is nearly impossible to make comparisons between the traditional schedule and the trimester schedule, but it appears that we are making progress in our goals to improve keeping students on course to graduate with their peer group. We do have good data to report, however. Our school failure rate has steadily declined since implementing a requirement for bonus period attendance for those students who are failing a class. In addition, a disciplinary detention is assigned should the student fail to attend bonus period. In the year preceding the change, we used the majority of our stateapproved professional development days to train our teachers on: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

differentiated instruction. nonlecture-based learning. hands-on instruction. small-group instruction. use of technology to enhance a lesson plan. lesson planning (on 70-minute period). use of bonus period for student benefit.

106

CHAPTER 8

If we were doing it all over again, what would we do differently? Utilizing the bonus period to its fullest potential from the very start would have helped our students even more. Initially, the bonus period gave the impression to students that it was optional for all students. Because we wanted to utilize this great time for remediation, failures, retesting, reteaching, and so on, we decided to change the whole philosophy of the bonus period, which gives the persona of being part of the school day, instead of an added period used as punitive rather than as a positive feature. We would have given more professional development on differentiated instruction by using teachers within our own corporation. We sent teachers to various workshops and other schools to visit but failed to tap into the resource of our own staff members. In addition, our band department has struggled scheduling students into band classes without conflicts with the other core and elective courses. We have changed band requirements and band times, after three years. However, next time, we would be sure to address these issues up front. But it should be added that our band program remains a national and state powerhouse so it has not been harmed in any way contrary to what many band programs may attest to when on an alternative schedule. We have found the trimester schedule to be the best alternative schedule for band programs. In fact, with the many new state requirements, it would have been difficult for our band program to flourish due to limited number of credit opportunities for electives on the previous schedule. Here are some noteworthy successes we have experienced after nearly a decade on the trimester schedule. ■

■

The trimester has been a true success at our high school. The students talk about how they are only responsible for five classes (sometimes, only four) at a time, which gives them more time to spend on any given subject. Also, with one more class “spot” a year, another elective can be chosen. The teachers enjoy the schedule, because with four classes to teach, that equates to less grading every day, less total students per trimester to teach and supervise daily, less teaching time, more prep time, and more variety in teaching.

Our bonus period runs from 2:25 p.m. to 2:55 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday for students and the same time Monday and Friday for

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

107

just teachers. For students, this time is used to make up work from absences, remediation opportunities, reteaching when needed for better understanding of difficult concepts, question-and-answer sessions with teachers, test and quiz preparation, test corrections, and retesting. Also, the media center, coaches’ study tables, and computer and science labs are available to students. Our band program uses this time for small-group, individual, and whole-group practice. For teachers, Mondays and Fridays are used for collaboration meetings, faculty meetings, team meetings, department meetings, and such. Each department has scheduled meetings on certain days through a given month. The science department, for example, would meet every other Monday as an entire department to discuss important items per administrative discussions. Then, on the other Mondays and Fridays, collaborative groups meet to discuss common formative and summative assessments, lesson plans and lab ideas. Once a month we have a school-wide faculty meeting unless it is canceled for a lack of discussion points. This professional time for students, teachers, and administrators is a great addition to the day, as it gives students, teachers, and administrators a time to discuss, debrief, and relearn. This time can also be used effectively to involve parents when warranted. There will always be naysayers to any change, especially at the high school level. Initially, we had 20 teachers out of 100 that voted not to change to an alternative schedule. However, most of these teachers now see the true benefits behind this schedule and are much less vocal about the change. We did a survey at the end of last year and overwhelmingly, the staff was in support of the trimester schedule and how it operates. Our new principal has done wonders turning any naysayers around. He has been a communication icon and has used communication to keep teachers up-to-date with changes, ideas, collaborative mechanisms, and so on. CASE STUDY 5 High School, Urban, 1,500 Students

During the middle 1990s, our 1,500-student urban high school had been on a seven-period schedule for a number of years. I became principal in the fall of 1995 and it soon became evident to me that as a result of a variety of schedules that were beginning to emerge in high schools around Indiana that there was some interest at our high school to do some research with regard to restructuring the instructional time within our school day.

108

CHAPTER 8

In the beginning, our research started with information we could gather from Internet sources, professional journals, and other related high school scheduling literature. Our next step was to develop four teams consisting of teachers, students, parents, and administration to make a number of on-site visitations to 16 schools around Indiana that were engaged in some form of alternative schedule. These “scout teams” were responsible to bring back objective information with regard to overall scheduling for our high school. The third and most difficult stage was trying to gain a consensus for the type of schedule to gain the most acceptance. There were many key points that had to be overcome as part of this process; including length of period, seeing students every (other) day, and total minutes of class time per each semester. We knew that we were not satisfied with our current 48-minute class periods, but what to do next led to a great deal of discussion. For our high school, the trimester schedule proved to be the ideal solution to meet the needs of all faculty concerns as compared to the seven-period day. The number of minutes per period was perfect to provide multiple activities in the classroom or lab with comparable minutes for each semester. Seeing students every day was a very important issue for our teachers. As we came to our final analysis and conclusion, it was decided that there was no downside for teachers or students with the trimester schedule and that it was a perfect fit for our high school. The entire process took an 18-month time period with the trimester schedule being implemented in the fall of 1997. Getting the necessary leadership in order to move forward with the process was extremely important. Obviously, the role of the principal was key to facilitate, coordinate, and move the process along, but even more important was the development of “teacher leaders” to move forward in a positive way with 90 faculty members. Now in our 10th year of working with the trimester schedule, the primary leadership focus and framework has remained the same. Like all schools considering a change in schedules, our primary goal was to increase student achievement. One extremely apparent improvement that we felt immediately was simply a better school day for both teachers and students. With fewer classes, fewer passing periods, a reasonable number of minutes per class, and more planning time for teachers, the instructional time and quality for both students and teachers improved. Quite frankly, the overall school day became less hectic.

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

109

In terms of school improvement and student achievement during the early years, there were immediate gains followed by a plateau in comparison to the seven-period day. Improvements were demonstrated in areas such as test scores, grade percentage, honor role rates, and such as opposed to failure rates, dropout rates, and suspensions or expulsions. We recognize that there is no perfect schedule; however, we believe that the trimester schedule provides us with the best framework to give all students in the comprehensive high school setting the best chance of success from the advance placement student to the at-risk student. With any scheduling initiative, professional development is a key component to a successful implementation. Of primary interest to many of our teachers was the issue of effective usage of instructional time with the longer periods of the trimester schedule. One of the things that was highly successful for us was a series of internal staff development presentations made over the course of one year by different instructional departments at our high school. The whole notion of “teaching on the block” was covered in depth from all areas of our curriculum. The faculty felt a high level of ownership and professional growth during this process. This model of sharing best practice instruction was very valuable to our teachers in the beginning period of the trimester schedule implementation. Overall, because we had a well-developed plan for research, stakeholder involvement, and a manageable time frame, the trimester schedule process has gone very well at our high school from the beginning. For the faculty members that were a part of this initiative and taught in both schedules, it would be a unanimous vote of confidence within our staff to teach with the trimester schedule. I would conclude my thoughts with the notion that there is no perfect schedule; rather, what it most important is how we utilize the time within the schedule. For our high school, the trimester schedule has been the best fit for the needs of our faculty to provide outstanding instruction for our students. CASE STUDY 6 Middle/High School, Small Town/Rural, 750 Students

One of the goals established in 1986 for our small town/rural public school district, which included our connected middle and high schools, was to do in-depth research into alternative scheduling formats. Our challenge was to

110

CHAPTER 8

determine whether or not the arbitrarily set time for each class period was controlling the amount, content, method, and quality of instruction. In other words, are we “prisoners of time” in the way we teach? Any alternative scheduling, block scheduling, and other unique scheduling formats were researched. The conventional wisdom was that teachers needed more time per day for a given class for them to be more effective. At the same time, students not only needed more time per class, they also needed to be able to take more classes throughout the school year and earn more credits in elective courses outside the increasing graduation mandates. Our exploration team, which included teachers and administrators, sought ways to have longer class periods per course with fewer classes per day. The tri-semester plan, in comparison to our current plan and other forms of block scheduling or alternative schedules, allowed for more student-teacher contact time on a daily basis, fewer classes on a daily basis (seven versus five), and more classes on a yearly basis (12 versus 14 to 15). This tri-semester concept was exactly what we were looking for and quickly became the schedule of choice even though that scheduling format was not presently being used at any middle school and only one high school in the state of Indiana. Our district adopted a 25-minute bonus period each day to be used for extra or specific help, activities, and faculty meetings. Our study led our team to take several trips to Westfield Washington High School to discuss the tri-semester with Dr. Robert Brower. Without question, Dr. Brower is the most visionary and knowledgeable person in this area. He gave us as much time as we needed and answered as many questions (sometimes more than once) to help learn about this very new form of scheduling. Back home we held staff meetings, parent meetings, and community meetings to explain the tri-semester (later named the trimester plan) and to answer questions about the transition from traditional schedule to the trimester plan. Our staff took advantage of limited professional development time to learn how to modify their instructional approach to fit the increased minutes per class and the compressed semester. Without Dr. Brower’s help (including a presentation to our staff) we would have had a herculean task of transitioning to this unique and somewhat unorthodox format of scheduling secondary schools. We received almost immediate positive results. Although several variables undoubtedly came into play, the one big new variable was the trimester schedule. After one year of the trimester schedule in our high school, our aca-

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

111

demic honors diploma (an Indiana diploma that requires a rigorous four-year curriculum) recipients increased by 33 percent; honor roll students increased by 35 percent; Core 40 (another Indiana diploma that requires more than a minimum curriculum to graduate from high school) students increased by 60 percent; split lunches were reduced by 50 percent; remediation time became a part of our 25-minute bonus time; three elective classes were added to the high school course offerings; and there was a notable drop in discipline referrals to the office. As we had hoped, students are now able to take more classes over their school careers and the door has been opened for high school students to take college classes or do outside-of-school projects for a semester. These results of the shift to the trimester have improved our overall school climate dramatically. Similar results were experienced in our building-connected middle school. One big advantage for the middle school students was the extra class time per class period facilitated positive relationship building to be established between students and teachers. The entire culture of the middle school shifted to be a more caring and nurturing environment, where student needs can be addressed at a crucial time in their development both academically and socially. Although it is hard to quantify the benefits in terms of other areas of concern, we know they exist and the trimester schedule is the most overarching reason for these positive changes. One noteworthy indicator is the fact that for the first two years of the trimester, we did not have one single out-ofschool suspension at either the high school or middle school and the number of discipline referrals was less than 10 each year. As we begin the 2008–2009 school year, a full decade later, our middle school and high school are solid trimester schools. We are often visited by other secondary schools to share our story of success. The extra time offered to our teachers for collaboration has proven incredible. We have no intention of changing from the trimester schedule and are glad we took the initiative to make this bold step. CASE STUDY 7 Middle School, Suburban, 650 Students

We attended a trimester symposium held at a school district that presently had both the middle school and high school on the trimester model. We visited this district because of our interest in the trimester scheduling models.

112

CHAPTER 8

The symposium had several impressive keynote speakers and numerous afternoon breakout sessions on the middle school trimester schedules. There were also supporting breakout sessions on how to effectively teach on a trimester schedule. We found the symposium to be a complete package in-service on how to implement the schedule and what to expect and what not to expect if a middle school were to change schedules. Our team of two administrators and three teacher leaders divided up the responsibilities of which sessions to attend in the afternoon of the symposium. What we saw was a middle school that had seen a jump in standardized test scores over the previous five years of being on a teaming model of 10 periods per day. Students had been in the hallways at various times over 20 times per day on the old schedule. There were teams for each of the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades before the trimester was put into place during the 2003–2004 school year. The data presented was from the state department of education and compared like schools over the previous three years on the trimester model. Since our scores at our middle school were falling, we were looking to find a scheduling model that would see more minutes of instruction in the core disciplines without significantly harming elective courses. The trimester schedule was the only practical choice to accomplish our goals. After we returned to school, we met as a team and decided to present the concept to the remainder of the faculty. We were surprised that there was general consensus to explore the trimester schedule further. Because of our discipline problems and falling standardized test scores, there were no teachers questioning our motives, but some that thought nothing would help. Our principal was careful how he divided the faculty into exploratory groups, making sure the tough-to-convince group would be coupled with other teacher leaders that were sure to keep an objective mind. By the winter break, our entire faculty was ready to move to the trimester schedule. The only teachers that had reservations were the band and choir teachers. When these two teachers were shown how they and their programs would be protected from the change to the trimester, they cautiously agreed to move forward. We did not vote as a group to change schedules, largely because our principal felt that when a group votes on any change initiative, there is always the tendency to isolate positions. Once someone votes for or against something, there is often a tendency to try to justify that vote for eternity. So

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

113

we sought to build consensus instead. We felt there were enough positives that we could expect by changing to the trimester schedule that even if our test scores did not improve like the model school could demonstrate with anecdotal facts, we would still see many benefits. Besides, we felt our students were in the hallways for far too much time each day and that our core subjects just did not have enough minutes of instruction because of the 10-period days presently employed. With the start of the 2004–2005 school year, we adopted the middle school trimester model of five periods per day for 12-week trimesters. Each class was 70 minutes in length with a 30-minute bonus period at the end of the day. Teachers immediately expressed the fact that they liked the longer periods to do some fun teaching activities never before attempted due to the time restrictions of the old schedule of 10 periods. Teachers liked the fact that they only taught four periods per day and had a 70-minute preparation period daily. On the old schedule, teachers at our school taught eight classes per day, had a mandatory teaming period, and a 34-minute preparation period daily. On the old schedule, teachers had over 200 students daily that required enormous amounts of grading and numerous preparations per day. On the new schedule, teachers averaged only 100 students per day. This was a huge benefit that few thought about ahead of time. We implemented a bonus period at the end of the day and provided transportation to students who were required or elected to stay for extra help. At first, some of the students and parents viewed the bonus period as a punitive period of 30 minutes after school. But we chose to express and view the bonus period as a positive for all students, not just for those that were struggling or who refused to do homework or turn in assignments. After the first grading period, we saw a drastic drop in failures largely because of the bonus period. We require students who do not turn in assignments, fail assignments, tests, or quizzes, do not complete homework, or are disruptive in school or class to stay after for the bonus period. They have no choice because we state that any student on Tuesday through Thursday can be required to stay after school during bonus period because we provide transportation. Now our parents view this extra help period as very beneficial because their child is having more success. All clubs, meetings, test makeup, tutoring, small-group instruction help session, and other neat things are

114

CHAPTER 8

held during the bonus period and not during class time. All athletic practices cannot start until after bonus period each day. On Mondays and Fridays, we have faculty meetings and staff development and meet as teams. Students that are involved with athletics are sent to the cafeteria for study tables until their coaches can begin practice. We view the bonus period as the biggest success of the trimester schedule. Although we have only been on the trimester schedule for three short years, we have seen a drastic reduction in the number disciplinary referrals to the office, a sharp decline in subject failures, honor roll numbers are up over 20 percent, more students are involved in clubs and organizations, more students are participating in athletics, and our teachers seem very happy with the change overall. Band and choir participation has not declined and the effect has been neutral on those two departments. No teacher lost his or her job. In 6th and 7th grade, all students must take three trimesters of language arts and math. This increased the minutes of instruction by over 60 percent over the past schedule. Our top 8th graders now take algebra and are outscoring our high school algebra students on the end-of-course assessments. There are so many creative possibilities on the trimester schedule, that depending on the school size, just about anything is possible. Students seem to love the trimester because they are only juggling 5 classes as opposed to 10 per day. Instead of herding kids all day in the hallways, they are in the classrooms more and creating far less problems in the hallways, at lunch, and in the classrooms. We credit the reduction in classroom referrals to the fact that in the longer periods, teachers can do more hands-on activities and get to know their students better. All in all, after three years on the trimester schedule, all the positives of the trimester schedule were realized pretty much the same as the data showed at the model middle school we visited at the symposium workshop. Our superintendent was so thrilled with the results, we are adding a language arts teacher and math teacher to our building so we can accelerate some of our students and help our struggling special education students even more. There is something positive in this schedule for everyone. The only teachers that struggle are those that struggled in the shorter periods. Some continue to lecture as they have always done but most have adapted their teaching to more innovative techniques that students appear to respond to. We wish this schedule had been available years ago because we knew that something was

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

115

missing on the old schedule with some inherent problems of too many classes and too few minutes of instruction. CASE STUDY 8 Middle School, Rural/Small Town, 550 Students

Our rural middle school decided to adopt the trimester model after looking at several key pieces of data. Our discipline referral rate was quite high and our academic achievement indicators were low. During the 2000 school year, our middle school staff examined each piece of gathered data. There were over 800 discipline referrals to the office, and students were scoring below the state average on standardized testing. As teachers studied this data, it was apparent that Northridge needed to do something to decrease discipline incidents and increase student achievement. The leadership team studied various scheduling models and brought to the teachers the model of trimester scheduling. The leadership team was critical to the successful implementation of the trimester scheduling model. The leadership team met with the stakeholders of our middle school to explain proposed plans and gather input. They met with each team of teachers in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, as well as exploratory domains. Each team offered their input of what they thought would work best for their team. The various teacher teams struggled with some very important questions: Would going from back to back semesters to possibly skipping 12 weeks in between courses affect learning? Would teachers be able to get everything taught in 12 weeks? Would exploratory teachers be able to see all the students? All of these questions were discussed and debated. However, in the end it was decided that the gains outweighed the risks. The trimester model was successfully implemented in the fall of 2001. Over the course of the next six years, the schedule continued to evolve into the trimester schedule we currently have today. The leadership and staff at our school have also evolved; however, the trimester model continues to be successful. The trimester model allows us to have five periods a day, each of which is 65 minutes long. Having five periods a day cuts down on the amount of time students are in the hallways, which leads to fewer disciplinary problems. When changing to the trimester model, the stated goals included decreasing discipline referrals and increasing student achievement. These areas have improved significantly over the six years since we started the trimester schedule. Discipline referrals were cut in half from 800 in the year prior to

116

CHAPTER 8

implementation and then down to 400 during the year of implementation. Discipline referrals have steadily gone down each year. We have seen significant increases in student achievement data. Our students are now getting much more time in each of the core content area classes. In language arts and math, students are receiving 3,000 additional minutes of instruction each year in all grades. The overall pass score in math and language arts has increased by 14 percentage points since 2001 on the Indiana State Assessment test (ISTEP+). While increasing student achievement, we have decreased the number of failures per grading period. We were averaging 146 failures per grading period prior to implementation and during implementation we decreased to 99 and each year we have continued to decrease the number of failures. Currently, we average 26 failures per grading period. As we continued to be successful with the trimester, we also knew we could get better. We wanted to give our students more opportunities to be successful. After five years of using the trimester schedule, the leadership team realized that we were not using the bonus period effectively. The bonus period was included as 20 minutes of additional time during first period three days a week. This led to a different bell schedule each day signaling the start and end times of each block. Including the bonus period in the first hour forced teachers to develop additional materials and resources for all kids. There was no structure to this time and it became ineffective, leaving no room for enrichment or remediation of various student abilities. In working with our central office leadership team and transportation department, we came up with a bonus time at the end of the day for 40 minutes. We also wanted to focus on using that time with students who needed additional help or for clubs and activities so that parents would not have to bring students back and forth to school. At our middle school, we call it student resource time (SRT). Tuesday through Thursday, the school day ends at 3:40 unless a student has previous administrative approval to leave at 3:00. We run two bus routes so that transportation is not an issue for students who have to stay for resource time. On Mondays, all students leave at 3:00; however, the teachers stay for professional development until 3:45. This allows professional development to be built into the teacher workday; we are able to have book studies, team and department meetings, and whole staff meetings. Tuesday through Thursday, students may stay for a variety of reasons: if they need extra help, if they are failing a

TRIMESTER CASE STUDIES

117

class, if they did not turn in their homework that week, clubs, activities, and sports study tables. If a student does not need to stay for any of those reasons, they may be dismissed at 3:00. Having this additional time has decreased the number of students failing a class and increased homework completion rates. Students are required to stay if failing is occurring and they have to stay until the grade is brought up. Our deficiency rate has decreased quickly in the two trimesters since implementation. While 35 percent were failing in 2007, only 7 percent were failing in 2008. At our middle school, the trimester schedule is what we know works for students, faculty, and staff. We will continue to find new ways to improve the schedule each and every year because we believe that every student is capable of being successful in the right environment. SUMMARY

The case studies tell the successes of the trimester model from multiple perspectives. For each of the different factors (i.e., location, enrollment, and level), similar benefits were reported. In addition to this book, certainly visiting schools like those previously studied would be useful to any school considering the transition to a trimester schedule.

00 9

Conclusion

We have presented a case for secondary schools to examine closely the positive benefits of switching to a trimester scheduling format. Because both the middle school and high school trimester schedules were consensus or compromise schedules in the development process, borrowing some of the best ingredients from the other known scheduling formats, it stands to reason that the trimester schedule will be of particular interest to all secondary educators. As with any change, there will always be naysayers to change, but when one examines the objective data available surrounding the power of the trimester model, one can understand why so many secondary schools are making the shift to this powerful scheduling model. In this book, we have given the reader a brief review of the literature on the alternative scheduling movement over the past decade and a half. In this literature review, we gave examples of the various types of scheduling formats presently available. Then we gave research-based reasons how various scheduling models can affect different avenues of schooling. Lists were developed to give the reader some sound reasons for changing to an alternative schedule that involved quantifiable positive reasons as well as qualitative reasons. We shared caveats, challenges, and pitfalls that must be addressed before contemplating change. Leaders must go into the process of changing schedules with their eyes wide open to what they can expect as outcomes and what to beware of as the process unfolds. 119

120

CHAPTER 9

One important item that bears repeating is how achievement, as measured by standardized testing, should not be a reason to change to a different scheduling format, at least not at the high school level. There is no good scientific research that supports raising achievement on standardized testing using any scheduling format. That includes a traditional schedule of two semesters and a six- or seven-period day. Having said that, we believe there are sufficiently good reasons to change scheduling formats to the trimester schedule. In the largely anecdotal data that many middle schools are reporting informally to us, it appears that the drastic increase in the minutes of instruction per trimester, or for the year in some cases, in the core academic subjects (math and language arts primarily), is preliminary evidence that achievement is affected in positive ways. As Alfie Kohn states in his book, The Case Against Standardized Testing (2000), how well students perform on most standardized testing models is highly predictable. Those predictors that are the most reliable on average are the educational level of the parents, the intelligence of the student, and the socioeconomic conditions in which a child is raised. Since no schedule can alter those predictors, it is highly unlikely that test scores can be significantly raised regardless of what politicians or business leaders are telling us. But if anything will work in raising test scores, it is putting more minutes of quality instruction into the classroom. With the middle school trimester model, getting more minutes of instruction into the core subjects is a given. The issue of standardized testing as a measure of achievement must be addressed up front with the entire school family before, during, and after the change process to a new scheduling format begins. The lengthier periods offered on trimester scheduling allows for teaching that facilitates quality teaching techniques and procedures. Teaching on a 50- to 55-minute daily format forces more lecture and traditional teaching methods. Conversely, the block schedules, that often see classes of 85 to 90 minutes in length, often make it difficult for some teachers to adjust to a class period that requires so much preparation to utilize that length of time more efficiently. The 65- to 70-minute period length just appears to be the perfect length, one that many students will see at the college level. Although we shared with the reader how to deal with naysayers and how to avoid the pitfalls of changing schedules, the single most important ingredient to any change initiative’s success is the leadership in the building. That leader-

CONCLUSION

121

ship must be the principal, and that role cannot be delegated to anyone else. The exception to this important rule is when an assistant will be taking over when the change is implemented, or in a case where an assistant has unique skills that a principal may not possess to move the process along in highly objective and inspirational ways. Nothing takes the place of excellent leadership. The instances when we have witnessed failure in changing to any new scheduling format are when the leadership is lost and not so much because the schedule failed per se. If the leader is still in place, any unforeseen problem or tweaking that needs to take place can usually be done without much trouble. Lose the leader, though, and anything is possible. Once an impassioned leader leaves, any organization is vulnerable, not just in the area of change. So the biggest single ingredient to having a successful transition to any scheduling change is for the principal to lead and for the principal to stay until the schedule is functioning properly and as promised. We also shared a series of important questions and answers to many commonly asked questions about the trimester schedule. Although it is nearly impossible to foresee every conceivable question, we have offered to the reader the most commonly asked questions along with the response to those frequently asked inquiries. Finally, we included several case studies written by those that successfully carried out the change to a trimester schedule. Their experiences are unique but the reader will see common threads of thought. We used a basic format so that each school addresses key elements of the change process. Some schools that have not experienced the same degree of success that nearly all other trimester schools have experienced were due to the following consistent problems: ■ ■ ■

■

■

The school loses its impassioned leader of this change. The school does not implement the full power of the schedule. Districts use transportation as an excuse not to have an optional bonus period. A few naysayers are allowed to drive changes in the trimester schedule that are largely only important to a few teachers and not the common good of the school, teachers, or students. Subject level courses are allowed to go three trimesters when it is not necessary to do so. Some courses can span all three trimesters but will be

122

CHAPTER 9

limited. For example, band or choir; remedial classes; dual credit courses with more than three college hours of credit; special education classes and resource; educational learning experiences such as internships and mentoring programs; and certain career and technical education classes or courses requiring attendance outside the home school. Allowing a teacher to spread a class over three trimesters because they “say” they cannot get through the material is a prescription for failure. With everything considered, we sincerely believe that when schools objectively examine the many benefits of the trimester schedule, they will overwhelmingly choose the trimester model for both the middle school and the high school.

Appendix 1

Unsolicited High School Student Letter Written to Principal

Dear Dr. Brower: I am writing this letter to inform you of the views and opinions that I have about the 3 × 5 trimester schedule that we have incorporated into our school system. I am very pleased to have been able to experience this type of system. Compared to other schedules that I have experienced or seen, I truly believe we have the best type of schedule. The regular two semesters with seven classes a day that we had before we started this was simply “OK.” I liked it mostly because I didn’t know of any other way to go to classes. The worst part about it was attempting to study for seven exams that we would take over a two-day period. As you know, _______ High School has a block system. I don’t like that either because they have 90- to 95-minute classes. No class can keep a teenage student tuned in for that long of time. Even though they meet every other day, it still doesn’t sound exciting enough to meet my satisfaction. Our schedule is very distinguished. First off, I like having only five periods a day. The classes are a little longer than what they used to be, but only by about 8 to 10 minutes. I very much like the opportunity to be able to take a lot more classes than normal. That means more subjects I can learn and more credits that I can receive. We don’t have to study for as many exams at once, either. You may have to take more exams, but they aren’t all at once. Plus, if you missed a day and need to make up work or a test, you can stay after in 123

124

APPENDIX 1

Bonus Period to take care of it. Unfortunately, many students do not take advantage of staying after school during the Bonus Period. I like that clubs meet during this time, too. Most coaches make their athletes stay after and do their homework. That is a very good idea. As you can see, I am very happy to have been able to be a part of this schedule. What I like most about the schedule is the idea of being able to take more electives. This helps in finding an area of interest for a possible career. If you would like to me speak from a student’s perspective to people who are looking at what we have, I will be glad to help. Thank you for your time in reading this letter. Sincerely, Senior Student

Appendix 2

Goal Action Plan

Vision: Goal(s): Plan: Timeline: Anticipated Problems/Preventions: Levels of Progress Minimum: Satisfactory: Excellence: Celebration: Adapted from the Indiana Principal Leadership Academy, available at www.doe. in.gov/ipla/docs/blankgapform.pdf.

125

Appendix 3

Gaps in Learning on Alternative Schedules

RETENTION OF LEARNING AFTER A GAP IN SEQUENTIAL INSTRUCTION

In semester and other intensive schedules, do students forget more after a gap of a summer vacation plus one or more semesters between courses than they do in traditional schools after only the summer vacation? The most detailed look at this question was in an early series of articles by Rachar, Rice, and Stennett (1973), Stennett and Rachar (1973), and Symthe, Stennett, and Rachar (1974). They conducted a three-year longitudinal study involving 215 students in London, Ontario, who completed a yearlong grade 9 math course in 1972. Of these students, 108 studied grade 10 math in all-year schools, 63 studied grade 10 math in the first semester (fall of 1972), and 44 studied grade 10 math in the second semester (spring of 1973). At the end of their grade 9 year, all students were given a 28-item test, consisting of a 10-item numerical skills subtest and an 18-item algebraic skills subtest. The three groups scored nearly identically on both subtests. Each group was given the same test at the beginning of their grade 10 math course. Thus, the 44 second-semester students had a longer gap (summer plus fall) before beginning instruction than did students in the other two groups (summer only). Although there were no differences among the three groups on the basic skills subtest, the second-semester group (i.e., the group with the longer time gap) scored lower than the other two groups on the algebraic skills subtest.

127

128

APPENDIX 3

The test was administered again at the end of grade 10 instruction. By the end of grade 10 instruction, the second-semester group had caught up with the other two, so there were again no differences in test scores on either subtest. Finally, all three groups were administered the test at the beginning of grade 11, and all three maintained their scores, with the groups receiving nearly identical results on both subtests. Thus, when tested, students with an extra semester time gap did have more difficulty recalling recently learned concepts, but they recovered quickly during the subsequent math course. Over the longer term, there were no negative effects. More recent studies (Carroll, 1994b; Marshall, 1995) confirm that recall of recently learned material is less accurate after a longer time gap. However, opinions remain split about whether this makes any practical difference. Students and teachers at six Ontario schools with semester block schedules indicated on a questionnaire that students encountered difficulty in returning to a subject after a break of a semester. In contrast, Canady and Rettig (1995b) provide anecdotal evidence that teachers could discern very little difference between the retention of students who had recently completed a prerequisite course and that of other students with greater time lapses between courses. Furthermore, none of the math teachers interviewed for this article indicated that gaps in sequential instruction had required them to spend extra class time on review. Overall, it seems safest to conclude that a gap in instruction may reduce recall of recently learned material, but this will probably have no long-term negative effects on student learning. However, this conclusion is very tentative. The longitudinal studies conducted in London, Ontario, need to be replicated with data that are both more recent and conducted in a wider variety of settings.

Appendix 4

Comparison of Instructional Minutes in Four Different Middle School Models

EightPeriod Day Allocated minutes of instruction per math and language arts classes Allocated number of school days per math and language arts classes Total allocated minutes of instruction per math and language arts classes per year Allocated minutes of instruction for all other classes Allocated number of school days for all other classes Total allocated minutes of instruction for all other classes per year

Block 4

Block A/B

Trimester

40

80

80

65

180

90

90

180

7,200

7,200

7,200

11,700

40

80

80

65

180

90

90

120

7,200

7,200

7,200

7,800

Allocated Instructional Time Comparison

6th–8th Grade Math and Language Arts 6th–8th Grade Social Studies and Science

Minutes of Instruction for Traditional Schedule

Minutes of Instruction for Trimester Schedule

7,200

11,700

7,200

7,800

Total Instructional Time Gain 4,500 minutes or 75 hours per class 600 minutes or 10 hours per class

129

Appendix 5

Sample Middle School Trimester Model

Content Area Required Courses Math Language Arts Social Studies Science Wellness/Health Health

Total Trimesters over Three Years

Trimesters/Grade per Year 3 3 2 2 1 1

(6th), 3 (7th), (6th), 3 (7th), (6th), 2 (7th), (6th), 2 (7th), (6th–8th) (8th)

3 3 2 2

(8th) (8th) (8th) (8th)

Exploratory Courses

9 9 6 6 3 1 Can Vary over Three Years

Art (6th–8th) Band (6th–8th) Choir (6th–8th) Family and Consumer Science (FACS; 6th–8th) Business Technology Lab (6th–7th) Music Appreciation (6th) Student Health and Physical Energy (SHAPE; 7th) Career Planning & Success Skills (8th) Gateway to Technology (8th)

1–3 3 3 1–2 1–3 1 1 1 1

Intervention Programs for Student Placement Math Lab (6th–8th) Scholastic Read 180 (6th–8th) Guided Study (6th–8th) Resource (6th–8th)

131

SS

Science

Math

3

4

5

Ex

2

Math

Ex

SS

LA

Ex

Sixth Grade Ex

3

Math

Well

Science

LA

Ex

EX, Exploratory Course; LA, Language Arts; SS, Social Studies

Trimester

1

LA

2

Bonus

Ex

1

Period

Ex

1

Well

Science

Ex

LA

Math

2

SS

Science

Ex

LA

Math

Ex

Seventh Grade

Sample Student Schedule

3

SS

Ex

Ex

LA

Math

1

Health

SS

LA

Ex

Math Ex

Ex

2

SS

Science

LA

Math Ex

Eighth Grade

Ex

3

Well

Science

LA

Math

Appendix 6

Sample Middle School Master Schedule for Trimester 1

133

112 21 104 84 102 88 125B 116 78 53 82 96 43 98 35 45 51 55 37 57 94 125A 100 29 27 49 30 18 52 48 50 47

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF

MA6 Reading6 SocA6 LAA6 TT LAA6 SciA6 Wellness6 MAHA7 MA7 LAA7 LAA7 SciA7 Prep Prep Reading7 SocA7 Prep Prep Prep Prep Prep Prep R W Lab 8 FAC8 Art8 Computer8 Choir8 Band8 Math Lab 8 Reading LS Resource 8 LAA6 TT

Prep Prep Prep Prep Prep Prep Wellness 7 MAHA7 MA7 LAA7 LAA7 SciA7 USHistA8 SciA8 Reading7 SocA7 LAA8 PreAlgA8 PreAlgA8 USHistA8 SciHAA8 (1) PE A8 R W Lab 6 FAC6 Art6 Computer6 Music Ap 8 Band6 Math Lab 6 SS LS PreAlgA8 Prep

Per. 2 9:20–10:25 MA6 Reading6 SocA6 LAA6 LAA6 SciA6 Prep MAHA6 Prep Prep Prep Prep UsHistA8 SciA8 Prep Prep LAA8 PreAlgA8 PreAlgA8 USHistA8 SciHAA8 (2) PE A8 R W Lab 7 FAC7 Art7 Computer7 Choir 6 Band7 Math Lab 7 LA LS MAA6 Resource 7

Per. 3 10:30–11:35 MA6 Reading6 SocA6 LAAHA6 LAA6 SciA6 Wellness6 Prep MA7 LAAHA7 LAA7 SciA7 SocA7 SciA7 LAA8 TT SocA7 LAA8 PreAlgA8 PreAlgA8 USHistA8 SciA8 PE A8 Prep Prep Prep Prep Choir 7 HS Math Lab 7 Math LS MAA7 LAA8 TT

Per. 4 11:40–1:20 MA6 Reading6 SocA6 LAA6 MA6 SciA6 Wellness 7 MA7 MA7 LAA7 TT LAA7 SciA7 SocA7 SciA7 LAA8 SocA7 LAA8 PreAlgA8 PreAlgA8 USHistA8 SciA8 PE A8 LAA6 FAC 8 Art 8 Computer8 Prep HS Prep Prep Prep LAA7 TT

Per. 5 M/F, 1:25–2:40 T/W/TH, 1:25–2:30 As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned Supervision As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned Supervision As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned As assigned HS As assigned Intervention Services Intervention Services Intervention Services

Bonus SSR T/W/Th, 2:35–3:10

MA, Math A; HA, High Ability; TT, Team Teaching; LAA, Language Arts A; SSR, Sustained Silent Reading; HS, Teacher at high school; R/W, Reading/Writing; FAC, Family and Consumer Science

Rm.

Teacher

Per. 1 8:10–9:15

Appendix 7

Comparison of Instruction Minutes of Different High School Schedules

Block 4 and Block 8

Traditional

3 × 5 trimester

Allocated daily minutes of instruction per class period

85 minutes 88 minutes 90 minutes

45 minutes 48 minutes 50 minutes

Allocated minutes of instruction per grading period

9 Weeks/45 days 3825 minutes 3960 minutes 4050 minutes

18 Weeks/90 days 4050 minutes 4320 minutes 4500 minutes

66 minutes 68 minutes 70 minutes 72 minutes 74 minutes 12 Weeks/60 days 3960 minutes 4080 minutes 4200 minutes 4320 minutes 4440 minutes

135

Appendix 8

Sample Daily High School 3 × 5 Trimester Schedule

Trimester 1

Trimester 2

Trimester 3

1st Period: 7:40–8:48, 68 minutes 2nd Period: 8:54–10:02, 68 minutes 3rd Period: 10:08–11:16, 68 minutes 4th Period: 11:22–1:01, Three lunches 5th Period: 1:07–2:15, 68 minutes; allows 2 minutes for announcements Bonus Period: 2:20–3:00 60 days/12 weeks

1st Period: 7:40–8:48, 68 minutes 2nd Period: 8:54–10:02, 68 minutes 3rd Period: 10:08–11:16, 68 minutes 4th Period: 11:22–1:01, Three lunches 5th Period: 1:07–2:15, 68 minutes; allows 2 minutes for announcements Bonus Period: 2:20–3:00 60 days/12 weeks

1st Period: 7:40–8:48, 68 minutes 2nd Period: 8:54–10:02, 68 minutes 3rd Period: 10:08–11:16, 68 minutes 4th Period: 11:22–1:01, Three lunches 5th Period: 1:07–2:15, 68 minutes; allows 2 minutes for announcements Bonus Period: 2:20–3:00 60 days/12 weeks

180 days/36 weeks For high schools, students can earn 15 credits per year or a total of 60 credits per high school career (Indiana units). Middle school students increase the minutes of instruction in core subject areas up to 50 percent.

137

Appendix 9

Sample High School Master Schedule for Trimester 1

139

Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Dept Chair Prep A Wrld Hst (1) TT Scanlon Spn Lvl II-3 (4) English 3 (5) English 5 (3) Photo I (2) Prep Prep Prep Yearbook 1 (1) Kybd (1) Resource (1) Prep Clg Crdt Calc 1 (2) Geometry 1 (2) Prep 439 Alg 1 (3) Spn Lvl I-1 (2) Adptv PE I (1) Prep Des Procs 1 (2) US History 1 (1) Frnch Lvl IV-7 (1) Pre-Alg 1 (2) 190 Cmp Apps 1 (2) Hon US Hist 2 (1) W Geo 2 (1)

PERIOD 1 7:40–8:48 Prep Health (10) W Geo 1 (1) Prep Spn Lvl III-5 (2) English 1 (3) Prep Phot I (1) E/S Sci1 (1) Latin Lvl III-5 (1) Bio 3 P&A (1) Dept Chair Prep Resource (2) MPS 3 (1) Prep Inv Geom 1 (1) Intro 2D Art (3) 487 Alg 1 (2) Spn Lvl II-3 (1) Prep Farm Rel (1) Prep Prep Frnch Lvl III-5 (1) Alg 1 (1) 194 Kybd (4) Law Ed (1) Topics in History (1)

PERIOD 2 8:54–10:02 166 B Th Arts (1) Adv Hlth (1) W Geo 1 (2) Resource (9) Prep English 3 (9) Hon Eng 5 (1) Photo II (1) Bio 1 (1) Latin Lvl IV-7 (1) Bio 3 P&A (2) Mass Media 1 (1) Kybd (3) Prep Geometry 1 (3) Clg Crdt Calc 1 (1) Geometry 1 (4) Drawing I (1) Prep Prep Basic PE 10 (2) Nutr & Food 2 (1) Des Procs 1 (1) US Gov (1) Prep Prep 190 Kybd (5) US History 2 (1) US History 1 (2)

PERIOD 3 10:08–11:16 Auditorium Adv Hlth (3) Psychology (1) Resource (10) Spn Lvl III-5 (1) English 3 (4) Hon Eng 3 (1) Prep E/S Sci1 (3) Latin Lvl I-1 (1) Bio 6 Genetics (1) Prep Kybd (2) TT Schaaf Inv Geom 1 (2) Dept Chair Geometry 1 (1) Ceramics (2) 484 Geom 1 (1) Spn Lvl I-1 (1) Adptv PE II (1) Indp. Lvng (1) Commun Proc1 (1) US Gov (3) Frnch Lvl I-1 (1) Alg 2 (1) Prep Prep US History 1 (3)

PERIOD 4 11:22–1:01

123 Tech Thtre (1) Mod. P.E. Prep Resource (3) Spn Lvl II-3 (3) Prep Hon Eng 5 (2) Photo II (2) E/S Sci1 (2) Latin Lvl II-3 (1) Bio 1 (5) Clg Prp Cmp (1) 476 Bus Fndtns II (1) TT Schaaf Geometry 1 (5) Pre Cal 1 (1) Prep Ceramics (1) 487 MPS 1 (1) Spn Lvl II-3 (2) Health (3) Nutr & Food 1 (1) Cmp Dsgn-Mech (1) US Gov (2) Frnch Lvl II-3 (1) Alg 1 (4) 190 Cmp Apps 1 (1) US History 2 (2) Prep

PERIOD 5 1:07–2:15

Hon Eng 7 (2) Rem Eng 1 (1) Alg 3 (1) Co-Teach Life Skills Prep Prep Voc Ens 1 (1) Administration AIME 1-1 191 Cmp Prgrm (1) English 5 (2) Middle School Prep Basic PE 10 (1) Dnc Chore 1 (1) Health (2) Prep Prep Alg 3 (3) Resource (8) 216 Sculpt (1) Env Sci 1 (1) Creat Writ (1) English 3 (3) 198 Spn Lvl I-1 (6) Prep Mod Lang Arts 1 (1) 442 W Hst Mdl Ages (1) Dept Chair

There is a six-minute passing between periods.

Teacher 30 Teacher 31 Teacher 32 Teacher 33 Teacher 34 Teacher 35 Teacher 36 Teacher 37 Teacher 38 Teacher 39 Teacher 40 Teacher 41 Teacher 42 Teacher 43 Teacher 44 Teacher 45 Teacher 46 Teacher 47 Teacher 48 Teacher 49 Teacher 50 Teacher 51 Teacher 52 Teacher 53 Teacher 54 Teacher 55 Teacher 56 Teacher 57 Teacher 58 Teacher 59

Hon Eng 7 (1) Rem Eng 1 (2) Alg 3 (2) Resource (7) Life Skills Bio 1 (3) Chem 1 (1) Beg. Chorus 1 (1) Administration IND/ARCH 190 Adv Cmp Apps1 (1) English 1 (1) Middle School Chem 1 (1) Basic PE 10 (3) Prep Prep Alg 3 (5) Adv 2D Art (1) 472 Phys Sci 1 (1) Prep Intro 2D Art (10) Prep English 7 (2) English 3 (2) 224 Grm Lvl I-1 (1) English 1 (2) Mod Gov (1) 435 Econ (9) Prep

Accel Eng 1 (1) Rem Eng 5-7 Pre Cal 1 (3) Resource (6) Life Skills Gen Bio 1 (1) Dept Chair Intrmd Chrs 1 (1) Administration Prep 476 Bux Fndtns 1 (1) Prep Middle School Chem 1 (2) Basic PE 9 (1) Jazz Ens (1) Adv Hlth (2) Alg 3 (6) Painting 1 (2) Alg 3 (4) Co-Teach Prep Env Sci 1 (2) English 7 (1) Debate (1) 196 Spn Lvl I-1 (3) English 1 (4) Mod Math 1 (1) Supv Econ (3)

Prep Prep Pre Cal 1 (2) Prep Life Skills Bio 1 (4) Clg Crdt Chem 1 (1) Mus Appr/Hist 1 (1) Ind. Co-op Ed (1) Indp. Stdy 1 (3) 190 Cmp Apps 3 (1) English 5 (4) Prep Chem 1 (3) Basic PE 9 (2) Instr Ens1 (1) Adv Hlth (4) Pre-Alg 2 (1) Graphic Des 1 (1) Physics 1 (1) Resource (4) Intro 2D Art (1) Bio 1 (11) Prep English 3 (1) Prep Prep Mod Ind Lvng (1) Prep Econ (2)

English 1 (5) Prep 440 Curr Prblms (1) Econ (1)

Accel Eng 1 (2) Etym (1) Prep Dept Chair Life Skills Bio 1 (2) Chem 3 (1) Prep Ind. Co-op Ed (1) AIME 1-5 Prep English 5 (1) Emp Skills (1) Chem 1 (5) Prep Adv Cncrt Bnd 1 (1) Health (1) Pre-Alg 1 (1) Painting 1 (1) Prep TT FelgerF Intro 2D Art (2) Bio 1 (10) English 7 (3) Prep

Appendix 10

Sample High School Student Four-Year Plan

Grade 9 Required 1. English 9 Accelerated

Electives or Courses to Be Repeated 9. Digital Comm. 1

Alternates (List at Least Three Alternates) Journalism

2. English 9 Accelerated

10. Spanish 1

French 1

3. Math

11. Spanish 2

French 2

4. Math

12. Symphonic/Band

5. Science Biology 1

13. Symphonic/Band

6. Science Biology 2

14. World Geography 1

7. Health

15. World Geography 2

8. PE 9 Grade 10 Required

Electives or Courses to Be Repeated

1. English 10

9.

2. English 10

10.

3. Math

11.

4. Math

12.

5. Science

13.

6. Science

14.

7. Adv. Health

15.

Alternates (List at Least Three Alternates)

8. PE 10

143

144

APPENDIX 10

Grade 11 Required

Electives or Courses to Be Repeated

1. English 11

5.

2. English 11

6.

3. US History

7.

4. US History

8.

Alternates (List at Least Three Alternates)

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Grade 12 Required

Electives or Courses to Be Repeated

1. English 12

5.

2. English 12

6.

3. Economics

7.

4. US Government

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Alternates (List at Least Three Alternates)

Appendix 11

Sample High School Bonus Period Schedule

145

15 STAFF DEVELOPMENT

22 STAFF DEVELOPMENT

29

14

21

28

30

23 KEY CLUB

16 LATIN CLUB

9 KEY CLUB

2 MATH CLUB CONTEST NATURAL HELPERS THESPIAN OFFICERS

1 FACULTY MEETING

8 DEPARTMENT COLLABORATION MEETINGS

Tuesday

Monday

7

Sunday

24 FCA/BIBLE STUDY FRENCH CLUB HISTORY CLUB

17 FCA/BIBLE STUDY

10 FCA/BIBLE STUDY HISTORY CLUB PHYSICS CLUB

3 FCA/BIBLE STUDY NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY

Wednesday

25 BRAIN GAME CHORAL ENSEMBLE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

18 MATH CLUB BRAIN GAME CHORAL ENSEMBLE HOPE LETTERMEN’S CLUB STUDENT COUNCIL

11 ART CLUB BRAIN GAME CHORAL ENSEMBLE HOPE PHOTO CLUB SPANISH CLUB

4 BRAIN GAME CHORAL ENSEMBLE HOPE LETTERMEN’S CLUB STUDENT COUNCIL

Thursday

26 NO BONUS EVERYONE LEAVES EARLY

19 NO BONUS EVERYONE LEAVES EARLY

12 NO BONUS EVERYONE LEAVES EARLY

5 NO BONUS EVERYONE LEAVES EARLY

Friday

27

20

13

6

Saturday

Appendix 12

Sample District Daily Schedule

Elementary 1

Elementary 2

Elementary 3

Middle School

High School

Students

7:50–2:25

7:40–2:15

7:40–2:15

Teachers

7:40–3:10, M–TH 7:40–2:25, F

7:30–3:00, M–TH 7:30–2:15, F

7:30–3:00, M–TH 7:30–2:15, F

8:05–3:10, T–W–TH 8:05–2:40, M&F 7:55–3:25, M–TH 8:00–2:40, F

8:08–3:17, T–W–TH 8:08–2:47, M&F 7:55–3:25, M–TH 8:00–2:47, F

Elementary 1 Monday Tuesday–Thursday Friday

2:25–3:10: Professional development for teachers 2:25–3:10: Professional development for teachers/tutoring students 2:25: Release of students and teachers

Monday Tuesday–Thursday Friday

2:15–3:00: Professional development for teachers 2:15–3:00: Professional development for teachers/tutoring students 2:15: Release of students and teachers

Monday Tuesday–Thursday Friday

2:40–3:25: Professional development for teachers 2:40–3:10: Student resource time (SRT) or bonus period 2:40: Release of students and teachers

Elementary 2 and 3

Middle School

High School Monday Tuesday–Thursday Friday

2:47–3:25: Professional development for teachers 2:47–3:17: Student resource time (SRT) or bonus period 2:47: Release of students and teachers

147

Appendix 13

Sample High School Final Exam Schedule for Students

Day 1 Period 2 Period 4 Period 3

Period 2

7:40–7:57 8:03–9:33 9:39–11:09 11:15–11:39 11:45–12:09 12:15–12:39 12:45–2:15

Exam Study Table Exam Exam A Lunch B Lunch C Lunch Exam

(17 minutes) (90 minutes) (90 minutes)

(90 minutes)

Day 2 Period 5

7:40–8:40

Period 5 Period 1

8:46–10:16 10:22–11:52

Exam Study Table and Locker Clean Out* Exam Exam

(60 minutes) (90 minutes) (90 minutes)

*No lunch served on Day 2. Bus service on Day 2 at noon only. All students are expected to be in class at 7:40 a.m. on both exam days. Tardies to exams will not be allowed. If a student is tardy to an exam, the exam must be made up on Day 2 in the afternoon during the scheduled test makeup time (1:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m. in the teacher’s room). Any student needing to make up an exam on Day 2 will be responsible for his or her own lunch and transportation.

149

Bibliography

Adams, D. C., & Salvaterra, M. E. (1997). Block scheduling: Pathways to success. Lancaster, PA: Technomic. Adams, T., & Staunton, J. (1997, December). What do teachers in California have to say about block scheduling? NASSP Bulletin, 80–85. Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1989). Schools in the middle: Status and progress. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Alexander, W. M., Williams, E. L., Compton, M., Hines, V. A., Prescott, D., & Kealy, R. (1969). The emergent middle school (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561. Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics. New York: Teachers College Press. Arnstine, D. (1995). Democracy and the arts of schooling. New York: State University of New York Press. Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Blankstein, A. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

151

152

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boarman, G. L., & Kirkpatrick, B. S. (1995, May). The hybrid schedule: Scheduling to the curriculum. NASSP Bulletin, 42–52. Brett, M. (1996). Teaching block-scheduled class periods. The Education Digest, 62(1), 35–37. Brower, R. (2006). Whose business is school reform? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Brower, R., & Balch, B. (2005). Transformational leadership decision making in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Brower, R., & Keller, A. (2006). Empowering students. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Buckman, D. C., King, B. B., & Ryan, S. (1995, May). Block scheduling: A means to improve school climate. NASSP Bulletin, 9–18. Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1993, December). Unlocking the lockstep high school schedule. Kappan, 310–314. Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995a). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995b, November). The power of innovative scheduling. Educational Leadership, 53, 3, 4–7. Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1996). Teaching in the block. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1997). All around the block, Educational Digest, 62, 30–34. Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1999, March). The effects of block scheduling. School Administrator, 14–20. Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (2000). Scheduling strategies for middle schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York: Author. Carroll, J. M. (1990, January). The Copernican plan: Restructuring the American high school. Kappan, 358–365.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

153

Carroll, J. M. (1994a, October). The Copernican plan evaluated: The evolution of the revolution. Kappan, 105–113. Carroll, J. M. (1994b). The Copernican plan evaluated. Topsfield, MA: Copernican Associates, LTD. Castle, S., & Watts, G. D. (1993, December). The time dilemma in school restructuring. Kappan, 306–310. Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Center. Christiansen, M., Cochran, S., & Corkery, J. (2000). Dealing with difficult people: A training program. Iowa City: The University of Iowa. Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today. New York: McGraw-Hill. Conant, J. B. (1961). Slums and suburbs: A commentary on schools in metropolitan areas. New York: McGraw-Hill. Covey, S. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster. Cuban, L. (1992). What happens to reforms that last? The case of the junior high school. American Educational Research Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, 227–251. Curtis, T., & Bidwell, W. (1977). Curriculum and instruction for emerging adolescents. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & Burnette, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Edwards, C. M. (1995, May). Virginia’s 4×4 high schools: High school, college and more. NASSP Bulletin, 23–41. Eichhorn, D. (1966). The middle school. New York: Center for Applied Research in Education. Epstein, J. L., & MacIver, D. J. (1990). Education in the middle grades: Overview of national practices and trends. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Fager, J. (1997). Scheduling alternatives: Options for student success. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. Geismar, T. J., & Pullease, B. G. (1996, September). The trimester: A competency based model of block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 95–105. Gittell, M. (1969). Confrontation at Ocean Hill-Brownsville. New York: Praeger. Glasser W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J. I. (1997). The public purpose of education and schooling. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnou, L. B. (1996). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. Hackmann, D. G. (2002). Block scheduling for the middle level: A cautionary tale about the best features of secondary school models. Middle School Journal, 33(4), 22. Hackmann, D. G., & Valentine, J. W. (1998). Designing an effective middle level schedule. Middle School Journal, 29(5), 3–13. Hampton, D. (1997). Strengthening your block schedule program: Practical teaching strategies for extensive class periods. Medina, WA: Institute of Educational Development. Hess, C., Robinson, J., & Wronkovich, M. (1997, December). An objective look at math outcomes based on new research into block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 32–51. Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. New York: Dell Publishing. HOPE Foundation. (2002). Failure is not an option [video series]. Bloomington, IN: Author. Hottenstein, D., & Strock, G. (1994). The first year experience: A high school restructures through Copernican plan. The School Administrator, 51, 3, 30–31. Hottenstein, D., & Strock, G. (1998). Intensive block scheduling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Huff, A. Leroy. (1995). Flexible block scheduling: It works for us. NASSP Bulletin, 79(571):19–22.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

155

Hughes, L. W., & Ubben, G. C. (1997). Restructuring time. The principal: creative leadership for effective schools. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hurley, C. (1997, December). The 4×4 block scheduling model: What do students have to say about it? NASSP Bulletin, 64–71. Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (1994). Statewide cooperative plan for improving the fit between secondary and postsecondary education, Core 40. Department of Education Press. Indiana Department of Education. (1996). Academic Honors Diploma. Amendments to Curriculum Rules, State of Indiana. IC, 511 IAC 6-7-6.5. Indiana Principal Leadership Academy. Goal action plan. Retrieved May 28, 2009 from www.doe.in.gov/ipla/docs/blankgapform.pdf. Irmsher, K. (1996, March). Block scheduling, Eric Digest, 104, 1–5. Jenkins, J. M. (1996). Taking charge of time. Transforming high schools. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing. Jensen, E. (2008, February). A fresh look at brain-based education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89-6, 409–417. Jones, R. (1995). Wake up! Executive Educator, 17, 8, 15–18. Kaufman, B. (1965). Up the down staircase. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kindred, L. W., Wolotkiewicz, R. J., Mickelson, J. M., & Coplein, L. E. (1981). The middle school curriculum: A practitioner’s handbook (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kouze, J., & Posner, B. (1999). Encouraging the heart: A leader’s guide to rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kruse, C. A., & Kruse, G. D. (1995, May). Intensive block 4 vs. the Carnegie unit. NASSP Bulletin, 1–8. Kruse, G. D., & Zulkowski, M. (1997, December). The Northwest experience: A lesser road traveled. NASSP Bulletin, 16–21.

156

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lounsbury, J. (1996). Curriculum integration: Problems and prospects. Middle School Journal, 28(1), 3–4. Lounsbury, J., & Vars, G. (2003).The future of middle level education: Optimistic and pessimistic views. Middle School Journal, 35(2), 20–38. Lybbert, B. (1996). Block scheduling: Considerations for adoption and implementation. Austin: Texas Study of Secondary Education. Lybbert, B. (1998). Transforming learning with block scheduling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Marshak, D. (1997). Action research on block scheduling. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press. Marzano, R., McNulty, B., & Waters, T. (2004). Developing the science of educational leadership. Spectrum, 22(1), 4–13. Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. McClaran, N. (1994). Re-examining curriculum. Austin: Texas Association for Curriculum and Development. McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Jenkins, D. (1996). America’s middle schools: Practices and progress—A 25 year perspective. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Meehan, M. L. (1973). What about team teaching? Educational Leadership, 30(8), 717–720. Miller, B. (1998). Advantages and disadvantages of the trimester schedule. School Administrator, 55, 5, 1–4. Mistretta, G. M., & Polansky, H. B. (1997, December). Prisoners of time: Implementing a block schedule in high school. NASSP Bulletin, 29–30. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994, September). Prisoners of time research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. National Staff Development Council. (2008). The learning system. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from www.nsdc.org/publications. Popham, W. J. (October, 2007) Instructional insensitivity of tests: accountability’s dire drawback. Phi Delta Kappan, 89-2, 146–150. Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a subversive activity. New York: Delacorte Press. Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (1973). The school book. New York: Delacorte Press. Rachar, B., Rice, E. T., & Stennett, R. G. (1973). Retention of mathematics knowledge in semestered and non-semestered programmes over the end of grade 9 to beginning of grade 10 interval. London, Ontario: London Board of Education. Reeves, D. (2006). The learning leader. How to focus school improvement for better results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rickover, Hyman G. (1959) Education and reform. New York: E.P. Dutton. Robinson, K. (2001), Out of our minds. Sussex, England: Capstone Publishing. Rogers, D. (1968). 110 Livingston Street: Politics and bureaucracy in the New York City schools. New York: Random House. Rothstein, R., (2004). Class and schools. Washington, DC: Columbia Press. Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (1994). Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Schlechty, P. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmoker, M. J. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. Shortt T. L., & Thayer, Y. V. (1995, May). What we can expect to see in the next generation of block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 53–61.

158

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Shortt T. L., & Thayer, Y. V. (1997). Block scheduling can enhance school climate. Educational Leadership, 56, 4, 76–81. Sizer, T. R. (1996). Horace’s hope. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company. Sizer, T. R. (1997). Horace’s school. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company. Smythe, O. G., Stennett, R. G., & Rachar, B. (1974). Longterm retention of numeric and algebraic skills in semesterized and non-semesterized programmes. London, Ontario: London Board of Education. Staunton, J. (1997, December). A study of teacher beliefs on the efficacy of block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 73–80. Stennett, R. G., & Rachar, B. (1973). Gains in mathematics knowledge in grade 10 semesterized and non-semesterized programmes. London, Ontario: London Board of Education. Stenvall, M. J. (1999). It’s about time. San Diego: National Association for YearRound Education Press. Sturgis, J. D. (1995, Summer). Flexibility enhances student achievement. NASSP Newsletter, 10, 4, 1–2. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Irvin, J. L., Keefe, J. W., & Melton, G. (1993). Leadership in middle level education, Volume 1: A national survey of middle level leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Whitaker, T. (2002). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998) Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wright, P., Horn, S., & Sanders, W. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11, 57–67.

About the Authors

Robert Brower is superintendent of the North Montgomery Community School Corporation in Crawfordsville, Indiana. In addition to these duties, Brower is a consultant and presenter for many educational issues including: trimester scheduling, discipline in schools, teaching on the extended period, leadership topics, decision-making philosophy, building professional staff capacity, and teaching for learning. Colleen Moran is assistant superintendent of the North Montgomery Community School Corporation in Crawfordsville, Indiana. She previously served as the associate director of the Indiana Principal Leadership Academy, coordinating professional development for building level administrators. She currently serves as an adjunct professor within the Experiential Program for Preparing School Principals (EPPSP) in the College of Education at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana.

159