THE STUDENT-CENTERED, DATA-DRIVEN MASTER SCHEDULE Written by:
D R. A B RA M J I ME N E Z JA M E S F L E MI N G
I SSU E O NE | L U M I N A
2
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Abram Jimenez, Ed.D.
James Fleming
Dr. Jimenez works with district and site leadership teams to support school improvement, strategic planning, and organizational development. He engages district leaders in comprehensive datainformed inquiry cycles to develop systems for continued student success. Before joining Illuminate Education, Dr. Jimenez was the Chief of Schools in the San Francisco Unif ied School District.
James is driven by his passion for scheduling, data-driven program placement, and leadership coaching. James f irst started his career as a middle school science teacher before moving into secondary site leadership, where he helped maximize usage around the master schedule. When James joined the district leadership team as the Director of Assessment, Accountability, and Research, he was instrumental in changing the mentality of testing for testing’s sake.
This book addresses the need for schools to increase student achievement, maximize f inancial resources, expand parental and community involvement, and develop a data-driven culture that puts students f irst. To do so, the authors focus specif ically on gaps in today’s education system that relate to master schedules, and introduce a change process for closing those gaps and a guide to sustaining that change.
PA RT [ 0 1 ]
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
00
[01] PUTTING STUDENTS FIRST
01
TH E DA N G E RS O F T RAC K I N G
03
BU ILD I N G A DATA - D R I V E N M A ST E R S C HE DU L E
04
TH E A DVA N TAG E S O F ST U D E N T - C E N T E RE D PL AC E ME N TS
06
PROV I D I N G FO R T HE N E E D S O F E V ERY L E A RN E R
07
[02] THE CHANGE PROCESS
09
A S KIN G T HE “E SSE N T I A L ” Q U E ST I O NS
11
FACIL I TAT I N G D I A LO G U E , E A SI N G D OU BTS
12
BU ILD I N G A N E F F E C T I V E M A ST E R S C HE DU L E
13
S U STA I N I N G T HE C HA N G E
16
WRAP U P
21
5
I NTROD UCT IO N
No Child Left Behind was revised in 2011 as the
learning time in terms of what is known as the
federal government continued its push to increase
“Carnegie Standard,” which correlates student
student achievement. Legislative changes were
seat-time to the completion or mastery of a given
made that allowed for more f lexibility on how
subject. In fact, the Carnegie Standard was the
student achievement is determined, and how states
basis for the industrial standardization reforms of
hold schools accountable for student learning.
the early twentieth century in which the eff iciency
With the recent adoption of new state standards,
of American workers was measured in terms of
and the implementation of standards-based
time spent at a f ixed work station. Adapting the
educational practices, that push continues today.
Carnegie Standard to America’s school systems effectively made schools more factory-like, with
More recently, school districts have turned their
learning regarded as a form of production and
attention toward redesigning the school day to
teachers expected to create a “f inished product”
improve how instructional time is used. For most
in an allotted period of time.
of the twentieth century, schools have regarded
Helping all students demonstrate increased academic achievement of learning standards has been the focus of educators since the adoption of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001. Many of the reform efforts implemented have focused on teacher quality and innovative restructuring policies for schools that fail to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) for student achievement. These have involved reconstituting schools, firing teachers and principals, and adopting multiple reading and math programs in districts across the nation.
PA RT [ 0 1 ]
PUTTING STUDENTS FIRST RE-MASTERING THE MASTER SCHEDULE
PU TTI NG ST UDENTS FIRST
In the case of Advanced Placement (AP) courses,
If educators serious about improving student
these classes are much more restrictive and are
outcomes and closing the achievement gap, the needs
traditionally restricted to students that are thought
of the student should determine the scope of the
to be “highly successful,” and a limited number
master schedule. Attempts to squeeze students into
of remediation or support courses are offered to
a box with preset boundaries drawn up by the adults
support students in reaching their highest potential.
in schools should be eliminated. In the school model
For students receiving Special Education or English
inf luenced by the Carnegie Standard, the master
Learner supports, scheduling can be stif ling and
schedule is rigid and fails to focus on the students.
restrictivea. Restrictive placement practices can
In contrast, a data-driven, student-centered master
exclude students from stimulating and benef icial
schedule tears down these walls and places students
heterogeneous placements.
where they belong—front and center.
02
Despite efforts to reform this factory-like model over the last half-century, many U.S. high schools remain attached to the Carnegie Standard. Student placement is handled as follows: students are first brought into their guidance counselor’s office to select their course work for the upcoming semesters; the school counselor then utilizes a course catalog to place students into courses to complete a course of study or graduation from high school. Oftentimes, placement does not occur based on the specific needs of the student, but on schedules that are favorable to teachers’ preference and constraints of a school’s schedule.
PA RT [ 0 1 ]
THE DANGERS OF TRACKING The insistence on generic course sequences and the misguided refusal to focus on student needs often results in a process called “tracking.” Tracking is the practice of assigning students to a certain academic “track” (e.g., low, average, high) where, unfortunately, they are likely to remain. If a student begins their schooling in a low-performing track, the likelihood is that they will remain on that track throughout their educational career, regardless of their performance. In this way, tracks can appear like life sentences. Once students have been grouped into a specif ic track and that track has been loaded into the school’s master schedule, little if any f lexibility exists for future regrouping—that is, for student growth. Tracking has an impact on how teachers see students, and how students see themselves. In Detracking for Excellence and Equity, Burris and Garrity identify how the language of tracking inf luences our perception of students. Tracking functions under the assumption that academic ability is a f ixed, rather than mutable trait from the student. To simplify, the act of tracking shifts an educator away from a growth mindset. Burris and Garrity expand on research showing that most staff perceive that their tracking is color blind, however deeper analysis of student data shows grouping biases for gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status.
03
PU TTI NG ST UDENTS FIRST
BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL MASTER SCHEDULE The master schedule is one of an instructional leader’s most important tools. It is a function of the school’s philosophy, a ref lection of its vision, and a blueprint for its resource allocation. The vast majority of a school’s resources may be spent on teachers, but ensuring a viable curriculum that helps that school achieve its academic goals is largely impossible without an effective master schedule. In today’s personalized classroom environment, constructing an effective master
04
schedule requires decisions to be driven by student need. The practice of placing students in courses based on performance data is a straightforward, low-cost strategy for building a master schedule that allows more students to gain student mastery of content and skills, as def ined by state standards. A successful master schedule should mirror the instructional focus of a school as outlined by a group of key stakeholders, including administrators, district leaders, counselors and members of the Board of Education. Those decisions should be based on answers to the following three questions:
1.
Are students placed in courses that appropriately address their individual needs (based on data)?
2.
Are teachers using data to teach courses that increase the level of learning for students?
3.
What structures are in place to ensure total commitment to the teaching and learning process during the instructional day?
PA RT [ 0 1 ]
Answering these questions connects to larger conversations about the quality and responsiveness of the school’s educational program. An exploration of scheduling practices inevitably encompasses conversations about teacher quality, collaboration, assessment strategies and MTSS. As important, it requires embracing the core belief that all students can learn, some educational initiatives are more important than others, and traditional schedules too often do not allow schools to address student needs. At the same time, school leaders must be cognizant of their institutions’ unique strengths and weaknesses. As principals and school leaders collect data on student achievement, they need to be objective about deciding which teachers will teach which courses. — THEY MUST ASK THEMSELVES:
Which teachers have content expertise as evidenced through data? Which instructional strategies are best employed by highly successful teachers as evidenced through data? Which classroom behavioral management approaches are most successfully deployed in different types of courses as evidenced through data? — Answering these questions will play a pivotal role in helping school leaders design their master schedules and assigning classroom space in the most effective way.
05
PU TTI NG ST UDENTS FIRST
T H E A D V A N TA G E S O F STUDENT-CENTERED PLACEMENTS The practice of placing students in courses that
Similar to how a physician adjusts a patient’s
correspond to their current academic achievement
treatment to ensure they are functioning at full
levels offers many benef its. It allows teachers
capacity; educators are tasked to ensure the right
to group students strategically and to tailor
treatment is given to all students.
their instructional practice to each student’s individual needs.
06
A recent meta-analysis of 500 studies on ability grouping, including over 300 meta-analyses, found
There is a distinction that needs made. Some may
the practice of tracking to have minimal positive
see the opposite of tracking as creating complete
effects on student performance and negative effects
heterogeneous classes. Scheduling a completely
on equity outcomes. Research has also concluded
heterogeneous student into a group can create
that the process of tracking often results in more
additional challenges for the student and the
low income and minority students being placed
teacher. The opportunities for strategic support
on lower tracks, while students from aff luent
and enrichment are limited when the teacher is
communities and white backgrounds are placed in
differentiating for a wide range of learning needs
higher ones. There is no place in the U.S. education
in the same classroom.
system for generalizations based on ethnicity,
The positive impact of diverse learning environment
stereotype, or any other egregious factor.
is well understood; however, the point of
Lastly, students that are tracked typically lack the
clarif ication here is that when there is a vast range
opportunity to adjust their learning trajectory.
of student need in a single setting, the demands
A student-centered, data-driven master schedule
on the teacher become overwhelming. The use
reverses this unfortunate trend, providing frequent,
of multiple data points to accurately describe a
data-driven measures that allow students to move at
learner’s needs will empower the school leader to
any time. The system is evidence-based, without the
schedule students in a way that ensures all students
perception bias.
reach their highest potential. These master schedule data-based decisions are iterative; student supports should increase and decrease throughout any given school year.
PA RT [ 0 1 ]
PROVIDING FOR THE NEEDS OF EVERY LEARNER From advanced students to remedial learners, student-centered, data-driven master schedules allow educators to meet their students where they are.
Consider Advance Placement programs. The demands of newly adopted state standards call for the increased rigor of course curriculum, with the curriculum’s rigor being highly associated with student achievement. Traditionally, schools have invested vast resources into supporting students that need remediation, but students in AP courses have too often been overlooked because they are perceived to be high achievers in need of less academic support. Student-centered, data-driven schedules serve to eliminate this oversight by designing strategic supports and enrichment opportunities throughout the instructional day for all types of learners, regardless of courses. Also absent from traditional master schedule considerations are students who fall somewhere between the high-achieving AP students and the struggling learners. Schools often fail to give this “middle group” the attention it deserves; it simply gets lost in the shuff le. Ironically, it is precisely this group of students that possess the growth potential that can enable a school to achieve or even exceed its learning goals. There is a stubborn perception among some educators some debate among educators that increasing the number of students in AP courses will “water down” the rigor of those classes. Therefore, it is important for educators to articulate all of the advantages of AP expansion for students.
07
PU TTI NG ST UDENTS FIRST
08
In their paper discussing how AP expansion
Additionally, too many school leaders can be
provides equitable and challenging educational
persuaded to maintain the status quo by not
opportunities for all students, Dr. Flores and Dr.
encouraging ethnic minorities to enroll in AP
Gomez cite two reasons to support AP expansion:
courses, as compared to white and Asian students.
1.
It is incumbent upon administrative staff and
2.
It makes tuition affordable by reducing the number of semesters students need to be in college when AP exams are passed. AP courses improve the writing, problem solving skills and study habits of students, consequently increasing preparedness for college.
teacher leaders to ensure that students and teachers are given a thorough rationale for converting from a traditional master schedule to a student-centered, data-driven one. Among other considerations, implementation will require a change in the allocation of resources. Such changes constitute
At the same time, the authors identify f ive existing barriers to expanding the AP program: 1.
Middle school articulation
2.
Development of the master schedule
3.
Budgetary cuts
4.
Stakeholder’s skepticism
5.
Knowledge of benef its of AP courses
a transformation in which new paradigms and learning are required and the system itself is wholly transformed. Major transformations of any kind are diff icult to enact; the task is especially diff icult in educational organizations, which are often resistant to substantive change. Making the extra effort is critical if today’s schools hope to achieve their goals.
PA RT [ 02]
THE CHANGE PROCESS 09
HOW IT BEGINS, WHY IT MATTERS
TH E CHANG E PRO CES S
To begin the change process, schools must set up time for key stakeholders to conduct an in-depth analysis of school performance data. This critically important group should include parents, students, teachers, members of the community and other administrative leaders, including representation from labor partners in unionized states. During this initial meeting, stakeholders should revisit the school’s mission and vision. They should also develop guiding principles that the master schedule needs be student-centered and data-driven. Focusing on these elements will ensure schedule-related decisions are grounded in data and that student needs are given the consideration they deserve.
10
Although it may be tempting to use the old
Collaboration is essential for any school that
master schedule as a starting point, the wiser
hopes to validate the need to adopt a student-
course of action for schools is to start from
centered, data-driven approach. Stakeholders
scratch and eliminate all existing programs.
should engage in a transparent, collaborative,
The change process is complex and can lead
data-driven discussion that results in a consensus
to unanticipated implications. For example, if
that can be shared with all staffers. Stakeholders
the data illustrates that additional sections are
should work intensively to re-craft or endorse
needed in math but not in science, members of
the school’s mission and vision, devise essential
the science department may begin to question
questions designed to ensure students are
their status; they may be discomf ited by the
college and career ready, and develop a planning
prospect of having their hours reduced or losing
calendar that sets times and dates to enable
their positions entirely.
important tasks to get accomplished.
PA RT [ 02]
ASKING THE “ESSENTIAL” QUESTIONS Having established key goals during the initial stakeholder meeting, the next step in the change process is to view those goals through a series of “essential questions.” Each of these questions should refer to one or more data points to gauge the current reality and identify performance gaps. For example, if one of the organization’s goals is to increase graduation rates, it will be important to know what the current graduation rate is, which students did not receive a diploma and why, how many sections of credit recovery are offered compared to the number of students in need, and so forth. There are other important steps that need to be taken to ensure the change process succeeds. Giving key stakeholders the resources they need to measure the commitment required to create a student-centered, data-driven master schedule. Creating a culture that welcomes feedback and consistently communicates the efforts of the working stakeholders. The process needs to be transparent to ensure nobody is alienated. Toward this important end, meetings should be open for everyone to attend, but there should be an understanding that f inal decisions will be made by the key stakeholders. Everybody should have a voice in the process.
11
TH E CHANG E PRO CES S
FA C I L I TAT I N G D I A LO G U E , EASING DOUBTS Another critical way administrators can support teachers during the all-important change process is by making sure they understand that all decisions are based on student needs. Teachers are already encouraged to work in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in order to ensure the needs of students are being met. They understand that cooperation through PLCs helps sharpen their understanding of student needs by encouraging them to collaborate with instructors that teach similar courses. Teachers work collaboratively on writing syllabuses and assessments, pacing, re-teach/re-test policy, and intervention efforts, among other areas. The change process has a similar aim in mind—the student’s welfare. Initially, teachers may feel worried or even apathetic to change. They may feel that the loss of past practice that will lead to isolation and result in a decrease in cross department collaboration. Keeping discussions focused on the school’s mission and vision is the key to easing these concerns. In addition, schools need to encourage teachers to have both interdepartmental and “traditional” meetings to maintain transparency and facilitate dialogue.
PA RT [ 02]
BUILDING AN EFFECTIVE MASTER SCHEDULE There are several major components stakeholders should incorporate into the comprehensive planning process as they think about building their master schedules. THESE COMPONENTS INCLUDE:
Convening stakeholders to determine an appropriate course of study
Forging consensus on placement recommendations
Evaluating budget allocations and section development with key staff
Constructing the Master Schedule
Determining Teacher Assignment
Programming Students, Releasing Schedules
13
TH E CHANG E PRO CES S
C O N V E N I N G S TA K E H O L D E R S T O DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE COURSE OF STUDY
14
It has already been posited that stakeholders should determine the course of study by referring to the data established by the essential questions worksheet. Similarly, the existing master schedule should be ref lected upon by reviewing the responses to the essential questions worksheet and determining how effective the past master schedule has supported student success (but ultimately discarded) to anticipate potential strengths and challenges. It is the school’s stakeholders, with input from teachers and administrators, who should determine an appropriate placement matrix for students. This is the only failsafe way to ensure students are placed in courses based on data, not other considerations. This becomes especially important in institutions faced with declining enrollment numbers, in order to keep these schools focused on their instructional goals.
FORGING CONSENSUS ON PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS In the spirit of cooperation and inclusivity, site leaders should consider hosting meetings to address topics pertaining to the master schedule, such as course offerings, teacher reductions in force, facilities, and material resources such as textbooks. At this stage of master schedule development, there may be differing philosophies as to the best overall approach. For example, some schools might wish begin to construct a master schedule by placing singleton, doubletons, and tripletons f irst. Other schools might wish to start the process by addressing the needs of the students that require the most attention. Whichever approach the organization chooses; it should be discussed with the group f irst.
Reviewing performance data to place students in courses appropriate to their learning levels is a thorough and laborious process, but there are tools available in high quality student information systems that are designed to help. Using key student academic indicators, students can be slotted into courses based on academic needs. Placement recommendations can then be sent to teachers to provide additional data. While quantitative academic indicators, such as assessment scores and grades form a solid foundation, it cannot completely replace a teacher’s understanding of an individual student. Teachers possess essential qualitative data that informs student placement.
PA RT [ 02]
EVALUATING BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND SECTION D E V E L O P M E N T W I T H K E Y S TA F F Throughout the change process it is important for school leaders, key stakeholders and site leadership teams to bridge the gaps between budget allocations and master schedule section development. Traditionally, schools do not engage in an extensive review of their master schedule in a way that focuses on student need. As a result, students are prevented from enrolling in courses they need or are forced into courses based on irrelevant factors, such as teacher preference or low enrollment numbers. This can lead to wasted investment of critical budget dollars, wasted instructional time, and squander student engagement capital. Reviewing student data in combination with a thorough analysis of the school’s instructional goals can reduce the creation of unnecessary sections,
reduce extraneous costs, maximize the impact of instructional minutes and conserve student engagement. There are direct implications for this sort of waste on the public coffers. To bridge the budget divide described above, schools traditionally turn to federal and state monies. The money is typically used to purchase class-size reduction teachers and to ensure there are enough seats in each period to run a school. This effectively draws federal and state resources away from the school’s “Essential Question.” The course selection and section allocation are the evidence of the school’s mission and vision. Ensure that the allocation of sections aligns with the expectations of the stakeholders.
CONSTRUCTING THE MASTER SCHEDULE Here’s where it all comes together! During this stage of the change process, it is essential to have at hand data aggregated from the section allocation process. The construction of the master schedule should be conducted by arranging a series of meetings between key site leaders and other stakeholders to ensure the process is collaborative, transparent and, above all, studentcentered. If all interests are not represented, a sense of
agenda-based decision making may upset the process, undermining the instructional leadership’s mandate for a student-centered master schedule. At the end of the day, there are many philosophies schools used to construct master schedules, and it is important to consider varying viewpoints. If the foundation of the master schedule is not inclusive, it won’t be conf lict-free and disruption will invariably result.
15
TH E CHANG E PRO CES S
16
DETERMINING TEACHER ASSIGNMENT
S U S TA I N I N G THE CHANGE
Part of the master scheduling process is making decisions regarding teaching assignments. With aggregated data being used as a reference point, other factors to consider include both teacher preferences as well as data that relates specif ically to which teachers yield the highest increase achievement in targeted subject areas.
The following strategies for sustaining the master schedule model are grounded in educational consultant Michael Fullan’s research on whole system reform (2011). They include the following:
Getting buyin
PROGRAMMING STUDENTS & RELEASING SCHEDULES At this step in the change process, students should be programmed and should have received their tentative schedules. Typically, this takes place towards the end of the school year. Any f inal modif ications that need to be made should also take place at this time. Included in this phase of the process is the balancing, collapsing and addition of sections. Any adjustments requested by parents, teachers, and administrators will have been considered. The only changes needed to the master schedule at this point should be based on new enrollees and students not pre-enrolled from feeder middle schools.
Fostering motivation for all stakeholders
Engaging educators and students in continuous improvement of instruction and learning
Inspiring collective teamwork
Getting buy-in
PA RT [ 02]
ENGAGING EDUCATORS & STUDENTS IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF INSTRUCTION & LEARNING For Fullan, continuous improvement is closely linked to student and teacher engagement. If a school is to undergo a major change such as transforming its master schedule, the process must involve the input of all of its stakeholders, including teachers, parents, students, and administration members. This process of “ownership” is crucial if changes are to be sustained. Fullan’s strategy corresponds to Richard Elmore’s theory on improving educational organizations by aligning policy with practice (2005). Elmore posits that “the inf luence of learning on practice is greater the more direct and immediate the application to practice.” By connecting all stakeholders to the process of creating the master schedule, schools are more likely to produce positive inf luences and sustain major organizational changes.
FOSTERING MOTIVATION F O R A L L S TA K E H O L D E R S Fullan argues that “the mindset that works for all systems reform is the one that inevitably generates individual and collective motivation.” Although it may seem like individual appraisal and incentives are a logical way to increase motivation, Fullan further argues that to make it happen, the bar must be raised for everyone. Schools should invest in collaborative group work. Administrators should use aggregated data to demonstrate that everyone benef its from developing a student-centered master schedule, not just the students. Once all stakeholders see the advantages of transforming their school, and have been given the opportunity to collaborate on the endeavor, consensus building is more likely to occur and any changes the school makes are more likely to be sustained.
17
TH E CHANG E PRO CES S
INSPIRING COLLECTIVE TEAMWORK
18
“Teamwork and ‘allness’ are the crucial elements for all system reform,” writes Fullan. In order for teamwork to take place, each stakeholder group must be incorporated into the system. By aligning the organization’s goals with the stakeholders’ goals, team members will be more likely to be invested in the changes and to participate in the reform process. Fullan further argues that to increase motivation levels, individuals in the organization must participate in work that is personally meaningful to them. If teachers and administrators recognize the importance of the master schedule and can contribute to its development, they are more likely to be invested in the work of moving the school forward.
GETTING BUY-IN Once the school’s goals have been successfully aligned with those of the stakeholders, teachers and students can both play a role in the development of the master schedule. Once again, every voice needs to be heard. Teachers should indicate their class preferences and strengths, students should indicate their preferences and needs, parents should contribute their unique perspective on their child’s needs, and administrators should consider all of the data before making any f inal determination about the student’s placement. When stakeholders work together, the change process moves forward seamlessly, and the change that process creates is more likely to last.
PA RT [ 0 1 ]
WRAP UP 19 With student-focused learning increasingly at the forefront of today’s educational system, more schools are looking for ways to integrate the philosophy into their classroom models. The master schedule represents an ideal place to start, offering schools a powerful enabler of change and placing students at the center of the conversation. The change process outlined in these pages isn’t easy (fundamental change never is), but it will help to foster a transparent, collaborative environment in which students can thrive and schools can achieve their goals.
PA RT [ 0 1 ]
Written by:
D R. A B RA M J I ME N E Z JA M E S F LE MI N G