MCEA
advocate
The Future of
Middle School Reform
M
ontgomery County Public
Schools is at a crossroads.
For 7+ years, the system’s
focus has been on improv-
ing student achievement in elementary
schools. Full day kindergarten was
implemented. Class sizes have been
reduced across the board, and even fur-
ther in 60 elementary schools with the
May 2008 highest poverty rates. Extensive work
has been done on curriculum and
professional development. As a result,
Which Road Forward on meaningful progress has been made.
Middle School Reform?............ 2 93% of kindergarteners can read simple
texts now, compared with just 39% six
MCPS Middle Schools: years ago. 48% of 5th grader are taking
A Variety of Schedules 6th grade math (or higher) – compared
and Models................................... 3 to just 2% six years ago. The achieve-
ment gap in elementary schools has
Candidates for MCEA narrowed significantly.
Board of Directors.................... 5-8 Four years ago, MCPS began re-
examining its middle schools program
Student Achievement (see box on page 10 and 11). Today, on
Gains in MS Magnet the cusp of major changes in middle
Consortium Schools..................... 9 school education, the county faces a
Teacher Workload: Why
Do Some Middle Schools
Require Teachers to Teach
a Six Course Schedule?........... 10
Recent History of MS
Reform in MCPS........................ 10
Principals’ Views on Middle
School Reform..............................11
for better schools
budget squeeze that is putting funding
for middle school, and all of MCPS,
at risk. At the same time, uncertainty
remains over the best models for
improving middle school educa-
tion. Should MCPS invest millions
in reforms before we know if they
improve student achievement? Can
we afford to wait? What about mod-
els like the Middle School Magnet
Consortium, which is already showing
very positive impacts on closing the
achievement gap and increasing student
success?
As we go to press, the County is
still struggling to finalize the school
budget for next year. Regardless of the
outcome, we will continue to face the
question of what kind of ‘reform’ our
middle schools need. With this edi-
tion of the Advocate, MCEA hopes to
provide a foundation of understanding
about middle schools in MCPS today,
to better inform our community’s
decision-making about the future.
 Which Road Forward on
www.mcea.nea.org
Middle School Reform?
The Advocate is published by the Montgomery County
By Bonnie Cullison, MCEA President

A
Education Association (MCEA), 60 West Gude Drive,
Rockville, MD 20850, Phone 301-294-6232. MCEA is
solely responsible for the Advocate’s content. MCEA is
ll across the country, middle that keep staff morale high, teacher
an affiliate of the Maryland State Teacher’s Association schools are struggling with turnover low, and parent involvement
(MSTA) and the National Education Association (NEA).
sagging student performance. strong. We must pay attention to the
President MCPS has made the review community nature of schools and to all
Bonnie Cullison and redesign of these programs a prior- of the factors that play a role in increas-
Vice-President ity. Over the last four years MCPS has ing student learning.
Doug Prouty been developing, implementing and Meanwhile, the Board of Educa-
Secretary evaluating its middle school program tion wants to expand the MS Reform
Abby Hendrix
reform plans. Yet Phase 1 initiative to ten more schools
Treasurer the future course next year. This is premature. Since
Geraldine Duval
remains uncer- this is the first year of implementation,
Board of Directors tain. This month, there is no data on whether students
Elementary School Directors the County in the Phase 1 schools are doing any
Randy Grove Council and better than they were before – and if
Janice Miller
Joan Mory Board of Educa- they are – why. Additionally, staff in
Amy Watkins tion will be final- both the Office of Curriculum and
Middle School Directors izing a budget Instructional Programs and the Office
Eric Luedtke for next year that may well eliminate of Organizational Development have
Veronica Peirson
funding for any expansion of middle
HIGH School Directors
Beth Daniels
school initiatives. Even absent funding We know the factors that improve
John Hendrix problems, the exact nature of changes student achievement: we need to
At-large, Retired & Non-school to middle schools remains unclear.
based Directors Decision-making needs to be based learn from the best practices that
Edward Hsu
Robert Pine
on knowledge of what works well. We keep staff morale high, teacher
Regina Robinson cannot afford to maintain programs
Kate Ross-Keller
turnover low, and parent involve-
and strategies that do not yield results.
Mavis Ellis To the credit of the staff in middle ment strong.
Staff schools, the number of middle schools
Tom Israel, Executive Director making AYP is increasing. voiced real concerns about MCPS’
Diana White-Pettis, Director of Operations
However, we must be judicious in organizational capacity to expand to so
Field Staff
how we define success and in determin- many additional schools so fast.
Elaine Burks, UniServ Director
Jon Gerson, UniServ Director ing what will sustain growth in student Many months of work by many
Jamal Miller, UniServ Director achievement over time. To do that people went in to designing the MS
Jennifer Nguherimo, UniServ Director we must look at the complex interac- Reform Phase 1 plan. But it is just
Mary Pat Spon, UniServ Director
Paul Pinsky, UniServ Director tions that contribute to that growth. too early to know what pieces of that
Kim-Shawn Stansbury, UniServ Director Standardized test scores provide just a plan are working and what ones aren’t.
Help Desk snapshot and are limited in the informa- What can we learn from Phase 1?
Jerome Fountain, UniServ Director tion they give us. We must also look at Should literacy and math coaches be
Mary Neal, Sick Leave Bank Coordinator
Jackie Thompson, Membership Coordinator staff engagement and motivation. If staff fulltime release or still teach a period?
Training & Organizational
morale is low, and teacher turnover is What is the best way to provide con-
development high, increased test scores may be just tent area team planning? Until we can
Naomi Baden, Director a blip response to the focus on process, answer those questions, it is premature
administrative sTAFF and not be sustainable. We must also to duplicate the model in so many
Alzada Hill, Receptionist
Paulette Jackson, Conference Center Coordinator look at community engagement. When additional schools. We are not asking
Deborah Mackall, Administrative Assistant parents are meaningfully involved, MCPS to put middle school students
Kiwana Williams, Administrative Assistant student performance increases. Some on “hold;” we are just asking that the
GRAPHIC DESIGN schools do that well. We know the fac- decisions about how to proceed are
GO! Creative, LLC; www.go-creative.net
tors that improve student achievement: based on real data. They ask the same
PHOTOGRAPHY
we need to learn from the best practices of us in our classrooms every day.H
www.EarlDotter.com
2 © 2008 MCEA
MCPS Middle Schools:
A Variety of Schedules and Models

M
ontgomery County is
not alone in struggling to
figure out how best to help
middle school students be
successful. National conferences and
publications are filled with debate and
discussion about improving middle
school education in our public schools.
The National Association of Secondary
School Principals (www.nassp.org) has
published a useful report on middle
schools. The National Middle Schools
Association (www.nmsa.org) is also a
source for relevant resources, as is the
National Forum to Accelerate Middle–
Grades Reform (www.mgforum.org).
Here in MCPS, there is no one
model. There are five basic school
designs being used in Montgomery
County Public Schools, and as many
individual sub-variations and local
school uniqueness as there are Mont-
gomery County middle schools. n The Six-Out-of-Eight
Here we strive to provide a rubric of schedule: Several MCPS schools
the basic differences between the designs have been operating on an 8
of different MCPS middle schools. period schedule, but have teachers
teaching 6 classes rather than the
n The traditional seven period traditional 5 class load. One school
day: The traditional schedule (Sligo MS) has decided to abandon
most parents and teachers grew the “6/8” schedule and return to
up with when they were middle a traditional 7 period schedule for
school students: 7 periods a day, next year.
45 minute class periods.
n The MS Magnet Consortium:
n The traditional block schedule: The three MS Magnet Consortium n The MS Reform Initiative
First popularized in high schools, schools also run an 8 period sched- Phase 1 schools: Most of the
a number of middle schools have ule, which provides students with Phase 1 schools in MCPS’ MS
now moved to some form of block an extra elective period as part of Reform Initiative use a traditional
schedule where classes are lon- the thematic focus of their consor- 7 period schedule. However these
ger, but do not meet every day. tium school’s program. However schools receive additional resources
The most typical schedule has a 7 teachers in the MSMC schools only to provide for department planning
period schedule with 90 minute teach the standard 5 course load, time beyond the regular work day,
classes that meet every other day. and the additional period is used or within the day with substitutes
Most schools also have an “anchor for department planning and pro- and to separate out the roles of
block” – one 45 minute period that fessional development embedded in department chair (“content special-
meets every day. the regular work day. ist”) and team leader.

3
4
Middle Schools in MCPS
Percent of instructional periods
Length of instructional periods
Percent of instructional minutes
per course per year
Percent courses taught per teacher
Percent of core academic classes
exceeding the Board’s recom-
mended class size maximums
Average class sizes:
english/other core subjects
Curriculum2
Professional Development
Content Area Team Planning Time
Supplemental Funding
1
Silver Spring International MS operated on a modified 5/8 schedule, but is not a part of the MS Magnet Consortium
2
Five middle schools have language immersion programs, and five have Middle Years International Baccalaureate Programs, but the schools with these special curriculum span these five school designs
Traditional Designs
Traditional
Briggs Chaney, Cabin John, Farquhar,
Frost, Gaithersburg, Hoover,
Kingsview, Lakelands, Lee, Rosa
Parks, Poole, Redland, Ridgeview,
Shady Grove, Tilden, West. Westland
7 periods
48 minutes
147.2 hours
5 courses
4.4%
23.6/24.8
Standard MCPS MS Curriculum
Provided during the summer as
needed, at additional cost to MCPS
None built in to the regular schedule
No
Modified Blocks
Baker, King, North Bethesda, Pyle,
Banneker, Neelesville, Rocky Hill,
White Oak
7 periods
60, 70 or 80 min.; some with a daily
45 min. “anchor block”
On a 70 min rotating block: 153.3
hours (equivalent to 7.6 additional
traditional class periods, or 1 1/2
weeks worth of additional instruc-
tion on the traditional schedule)
5 courses
6.1%
23.2/24.3
Standard MCPS MS Curriculum
Provided during the summer as
needed, at additional cost to MCPS
None built in to the regular schedule
No
Six-Out-of-Eight School Design
Eastern, Takoma Park, Key,
Newport Mill, Sligo(FY08),
Forest Oak
8 periods
90 minutes
138 hours (equivalent to 11.5
fewer traditional class periods,
or 2 1/2 weeks worth of instruc-
tion on the traditional schedule)
6 courses
3.0%
22.2/22.4
Standard MCPS MS Curriculum
Provided during the summer
as needed, at additional cost
to MCPS
None built in to the regular
schedule
Eastern, Takoma Park & Clem-
ente get supplemental funding
to support ‘school-within-a-
school’ magnet programs
MS Magnet Consortium Schools1
Argyle, Parkland, Loiederman
8 periods
90 minutes
138 hours (equivalent to 11.5 fewer tradi-
tional class periods, or 2 1/2 weeks worth
of instruction on the traditional schedule)
5 courses
3.3%
22.2/24.4
Accelerated Magnet Curriculum for all
students, with individual school thematic
focuses: advanced information technol-
ogy & performing arts (A), humanities
& communication (L); and aerospace
technology and robotic engineering (P)
Additional Professional Development/Dept.
Planning period during the day allows for
ongoing job embedded professional devel-
opment throughout the school year.
Additional Professional Development/Dept.
Planning period during the day allows for
regular content area team planning every
week
yes
MS Reform: Year 1 Pilot Schools
Banneker, Clemente,
Montgomery Village,
Sligo, Wood
7 periods
48 minutes
147.2 hours
5 courses
4.2%
21.4/23.1
Standard MCPS MS Curriculum
Provided during the summer as
needed, at additional cost to MCPS
Each school receives additional
funding for supplemental content
area planning, either for after
school meetings or during the day
with substitutes. Implementation
varies between schools.
yes: including funding for Literacy
Coach and Math Content Specialist
positions, and Grade Level Team
Leaders and support for Extended
Learning Opportunities (ELO)
Student Achievement Gains in MS Magnet Consortium Schools
After two years of implementation, the data
shows dramatic improvements in student
achievement at Argyle, Loiederman and
Parkland Middle Schools. Most strikingly,
achievement has soared among those in-
boundary students who would have been
attending these schools anyway. 66% of
the students have participated in the Free
and Reduced Meals (FARMS) program –
significantly above the countywide middle
school average of just 39%. 33% are African-
American, 39% are Hispanic, 16% are White
and 12% are Asian.
n In 2007, 74.4% of in-boundary 6th
Grade African-American students
scored Proficient or Advanced on
MSA-Reading: up from just 50.0%
in 2005.
n In 2007, 59.9% of in-boundary 6th
Grade African-American students
scored Proficient or Advanced on
MSA-Math: up from just 40.1%
in 2005.
n In-boundary 6th Grade Hispanic
students increased from 45.1%
(2005) to 66.5% (2007) Proficient
or Advanced in MSA-Reading, and
from 48.9% (2005) to 66.0% (2007)
Proficient or Advanced in MSA-Math
n All in-boundary 6th Grade MSMC
students increased their MSA-Read-
ing Proficiency by 18.5 % (54.5% to
73.0%) in just two years; compared to
just a 6.3% increase in three similar
schools chosen by MCPS for compari-
son purposes. The increase in math
proficiency was also higher.
n In Grade 7, in-boundary African-
American and Hispanic students
demonstrated larger gains in reading
and math proficiency than students
in the comparison schools.
For a complete copy of the 1/15/08
MCPS MS Magnet Consortium Evaluation
Update, go to: www.mcea.nea.org . The
report also documents high levels of both
parent and student satisfaction.

Making A Schedule That Works

for Teachers And Students

T
he leadership team at Wood MS has created a schedule
that gets high marks from staff. It virtually eliminates all
after school required meetings (staff meetings are down
to about 2 per year) and puts time for the collaborative
work inside the day. There are only three required team meet-
ings most weeks. The time in the other two days is used for
collaborative planning with subject-alike teachers. On alternate
Fridays, the principal meets with each of the teams during
one of the team meeting periods to engage in discussions, get
feedback and convey information. This virtually eliminates the
need for whole staff meetings after school, except in rare cir-
cumstances. Teachers say that meeting with the administrator in
these smaller group settings leads to richer discussions.
How is this done and can it be replicated by other
schools? We believe that it can, but it takes careful placement
of students in classes, beyond what the computerized schedule
will do. The allocation of staff is consistent across the county.
Wood has no additional staff beyond what is available as a
phase 1 school in middle school reform. The key is in the
scheduling of the subject areas; each core subject is taught
during one period, making it possible to have one period for
cross grade level collaboration. The team meeting period and
individual planning times are arranged to accommodate
that time.
Most of the special educators work in the general educa-
tion classes and meet with the team where they have the most
students. The schedule for the elective teachers is a little more
complicated and their class sizes may be increased slightly to
accommodate the core subject schedule; however the teachers
in those classes are given more flexibility about when to meet.
The staff at Wood have time to work together and their
afterschool time is spent in doing the tasks related to their
specific students, like grading papers, planning for differentia-
tion and calling parents. The result? A stronger instructional
program, which is great for students. H
9
 Teacher Workload: Why Do Some Middle Schools
Require Teachers to Teach a Six Course Schedule?

A
sk any middle school or high
school teacher in MCPS what
a fulltime teaching course load
is, and they will say five classes.
But due to a loophole in the MCEA/
BOE contract, seven schools have been
requiring teachers to teach six classes.
These schools all operate eight period
day schedules in order to provide stu-
dents with an extra period for a double
period or additional elective. Since
MCPS does not provide any additional
funding for eight period days, the only
way to accomplish it is to increase the
teacher course load from five to six.
During last year’s contract negotia-
tions, MCEA worked hard to close this
loophole and re-establish a standard five over whether to keep or change the course load expectations. As a result,
course load in all schools. This ended up schedule – so the status quo continues. the MCEA Representative Assembly
being the last unresolved issue on the Several of those schools did affirmatively overwhelmingly voted to have MCEA
table. In the end, agreement was reached decide to continue considering changes publicize the list of 6/8 schools (at
on a process that each of these schools for the 2009-2010 school year. the job fairs and in the MCEA News)
would go through to review its master MCEA believes that a six course to ensure that teachers transferring to
schedule and consider changes. The teaching load is excessive, and adversely those schools know before they get
negotiated process called for a multi- impacts the quality of the instructional their teaching schedule.
stakeholder group, including parents and program. Several of the “6/8” schools MCEA will continue to pro-
students, to study schedule alternatives show high levels of teacher turnover. vide support to schools interested in
and make a recommendation to the MCEA has learned that sev- examining alternative master schedule
school’s leadership team, who in turn eral teachers – both new hires and models. The issue is likely to be front
would make a recommendation to the voluntary transfers – arrived at 6/8 and center when negotiations begin
MCPS Office of School Performance schools this past August with no over renewal of the current contract
(the Community Superintendents). advance knowledge of the additional (which expires 6/30/10).
Disputes were to be resolved by a
countywide joint committee of union
and management leaders.
Some schools spent months exam- Recent History of MS Reform in MCPS
ining the strengths and weaknesses of
their current schedule and considering
alternatives. Other schools engaged 1999: BOE adopts strategic plan “Our Call to Reform Steering Committee is established
in a more cursory process. In the end, Action: Pursuit of Excellence.” to guide the reform process and oversee the
only one of the schools – Sligo MS development of recommendations.
2004: MCPS contracts with external research
– reached agreement to abandon the 2005: The Middle School Magnet Consortium
firm to conduct a comprehensive middle
six-out-of-eight schedule. opens in the fall at Argyle, Loiderman and
school review.
At Forest Oak MS, all the stakehold- Parkland middle schools.
ers agreed to maintain the six-out-of- 2004: MCPS applies for, and wins, a three-year,
2006: More than 160 staff members,
eight in order to preserve the eight peri- $7.2 million dollar U.S. Department of Educa-
parents, employee association representa-
od days for students. At the five other tion desegregation grant to establish a down
tives, and community members begin work
county middle school magnet consortium.
schools (Eastern MS, Key MS, Newport on middle school reform project teams to
Mills MS,Takoma Park MS, and North- 2005: Middle School Audit report presented solicit input, gather research and make
wood HS) there were disagreements to the Board of Education, and the MS recommendations.
10
Principals’ Views on
Middle School Reform
In 2006, The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) issued a
comprehensive report entitled Breaking Ranks in the Middle: Strategies for Leading Middle
Level Reform. They identified nine “cornerstone strategies”, including:

1 Establish academically rigorous essential learnings, and align curriculum and

teaching strategies.

2 Create dynamic teacher teams with common planning time.

3 Provide structured planning time for teachers to align curriculum across grades and
schools and focus on the needs of students.

4 Implement advisory-like periods that provide students with frequent and meaningful
adult interactions.

5 Ensure that teachers assess individual learning needs and use differentiated
instructional strategies and multiple assessments.

6 Entrust teachers with the responsibility of implementing schedules that are flexible
enough to accommodate differentiated teaching strategies and that allow for effective
teacher teaming and common planning time.

7 Institute structural leadership systems that allow for substantive involvement in decision
making by students, teachers, families and the community.

8 Align all programs and structures so that all social, economic and racial/ethnic groups
have open and equal access to challenging activities and learning.

9 Align school wide and individual professional development with the required knowledge
of content, instructional strategies and student development.

For more information on NASSP’s Breaking Ranks in the Middle Report, go to www.nassp.org

Spring 2007: The Board of Education ap-
proves funding to implement a MS Reform
Initiative in five “Phase 1” middle schools
beginning in the fall for the 2007/2008
school year. Schools are invited to apply and
Bannecker, Clemente, Montgomery Village,
Sligo and Wood are selected.
Fall 2007: The Middle School Magnet Consor-
tium schools enter their third and final year
of federal grant support.
January 2008: The Board of Education
receives an evaluation of the Middle School
Magnet Consortium. Results from two years
of student achievement data show dramatic
improvement for all students and closing of
the achievement gap (see story on page 9).
January 2008: The Board of Education propos-
es a budget for 08/09 that maintains funding
for the 3 MS Magnet Consortium schools (after
the federal grant expires in 2008). They also
increase funding to add 10 additional schools
to MS Reform, but support the administration’s
position that those schools must implement
the MS Reform school design and cannot opt
for the MS Magnet Consortium design instead.
March 2008: There is no evaluation to date of
the MS Reform Initiative. This summer, MCPS
is expected to complete an evaluation that
looks only at the fidelity of implementation
of the model’s components. The first evalua-
tion of student results is not expected until
the summer of 2009.
April 2008: The following ten additional middle
schools are selected to be in Phase 2 of the MS
Reform Initiative: Eastern, Gaithersburg, King,
Lee, Newport Mill, Shady Grove, Silver Spring
International, Tilden, West, and White Oak.
May 2008: Funding for continuation of the
Middle School Magnet Consortium, and
expansion of the MS Reform Initiative, is in
doubt pending County Council action on the
final MCPS budget for next year.
11
 Dive into summer
savings with MCT!
Open an MCT Summer Paycheck Savings Account and start
saving for all those summer expenses ahead: family
vacations, camps, day care . . . and that pool membership
you’ve been wanting, of course.
Your savings federally insured to at least
$100,000 and backed by the full faith and
credit of the United States Government.

National Credit Union Administration, a

U.S. Government Agency.

Open an account today at mctfcu.org, or by calling us at 301.948.9880.