Variations on a Team: Changing Paradigms October 2003 Volume 7 Number 2

October 2003 • Volume 7 • Number 2 • Pages 10-12

Variations on a Team: Changing Paradigms

Jerry Rottier

A paradigm is a model, a pattern, or a standard . Often a paradigm develops because people believe it is the best strategy to use, are unable to create an alternative model, or are so comfortable with a particular archetype they dare not risk trying something different. Paradigms that date back nearly 100 years include the nine-month school year, a five-day school week, and 45-minute classes.

Today's middle schools have their roots in models developed when the middle school movement hit its stride in the 1970s and 1980s. One of those models is teaming. Let's look at three paradigms related to teaming and how they might be revised to improve the quality of today's middle school program.

Paradigm Number One: Team Configurations
Teaming today closely resembles the original model. Four or five teachers from the core disciplines of mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts/reading are responsible for the same 100–125 students.

Because encore (non-core) teachers not included on these teams often feel disenfranchised, the quality of the total program is limited.

Two Wisconsin middle schools that have enhanced the quality of their total program by breaking this paradigm of teaming are Springhill Middle School in Wisconsin Dells and Seymour Middle School in Seymour.

Springhill Middle School reorganized the entire education program by developing a required curriculum for all students and capitalizing on the creativity and flexibility of the foreign language and music teachers. A core team and an encore team at every grade level share daily planning time.

A nationally recognized Blue Ribbon Middle School, Seymour Middle School developed a schedule more than a decade ago that placed all teachers on teams. Two days a week during their "in-house" time (advisory), the encore teachers meet as a team with the core teachers. Although they do not have the same amount of common planning time as the core teams, encore teachers work together to provide an exemplary program to students.

A few middle schools around the United States have disciplinary teams for the arts and physical education. While not the usual teaming arrangement, it allows teachers of like disciplines to work together as a means of strengthening the middle school program.

Research is beginning to show that smaller teams have a greater impact on students and their achievement than larger teams. (See, for example, "When Smaller Is Greater: Two or Three Person Partner Teams," by Bishop and Stevenson, published in the January 2000 Middle School Journal .)

A team of two or three teachers spends a greater portion of the school day with the same students, thus strengthening the teacher–pupil relationship. To achieve the advantages of smaller teams, however, schools must employ teachers whose certification allows them to teach more than one subject.

Including all teachers on teams, using disciplinary teams when appropriate, and creating smaller teams changes the structural paradigm of teaming yet retains its power.

Paradigm Number Two: Teaming for Interdisciplinary Instruction
A second paradigm is the creation of one or two interdisciplinary units of instruction in a school year. Teams create these units to help students see and understand the connections in the curriculum.

Some teachers resist interdisciplinary instruction because they see it as taking time away from their required curriculum—a concern magnified with the No Child Left Behind legislation. Teachers may agree to participate in an interdisciplinary unit for the unity of the team but may refuse to be involved in more than one such experience.

When only one interdisciplinary unit is taught in a school year and the connections are vague, the effectiveness of the instruction is limited. However, numerous connections are within easy reach if the paradigm of interdisciplinary instruction is changed. With the state curriculum standards as a starting point, all members of the team can show students the relationships that exist among their disciplines.

An examination of Wisconsin eighth grade standards identified more than 100 intersections of disciplines. For example, the concept of measurement must be addressed in mathematics, science, and social studies; sales tax in mathematics and business; culture in the disciplines of language arts, social studies, and foreign language; and movement in physical education and science.

Even though a topic such as measurement may be a standard in three disciplines, it does not have to be taught simultaneously by all teachers on the team. The science and mathematics teachers might teach a unit on measurement the first week of the school year; the social studies teacher might focus on the topic months later.

The science and mathematics teachers can teach the concept simultaneously, or they can sequence the topic so the science teacher helps students see the applications of the measurement concepts immediately after the mathematics teacher presents them.

When teams change the traditional presentation of interdisciplinary units, they dramatically increase the number of opportunities to help students make connections among the disciplines. What's more, reducing the number of teachers involved in a unit makes planning easier and increases the chances that teachers of core subjects will make connections with encore teachers.

Paradigm Number Three: Teaming and Advisory
A third paradigm focuses on the relationship between teaming and the advisory program. Today the advisory model that began with the middle level movement involves small groups of students meeting with a single teacher one or more times a week. In many instances, it is little more than a social period or study time—a far cry from the vision of program creators.

Even when teaming is the norm at the school, most advisory teachers are expected to function independently. Breaking this paradigm by merging the power of teaming with the advisory program has the potential not only to improve the advisory program but to strengthen teaming as well.

However, some changes need to be made in the current paradigm to achieve these benefits.

In general, teaming tends to focus primarily on the intellectual needs of students while the advisory program addresses their social and emotional needs. To change this paradigm, core teams must be challenged to address all the needs of students.

No longer labeled as the advisory period, a 20–30 minute block of time might be assigned to the core teams as an extension of their total instructional time. Core teams utilize this time to teach learning skills such as test taking, information retrieval, decision making, and computer skills. Large groups of students could learn by watching videotapes and listening to speakers.

Social and emotional needs are sometimes addressed most appropriately through the curriculum of a discipline such as reading The Diary of Anne Frank . However, core teams also can use this time to focus on social and emotional issues with team members, each contributing in their area of strength.

Using the common planning time to discuss all the needs of all students can counteract the feeling of helplessness some advisory teachers experience.

Encore teachers can address social and emotional needs in their disciplines and help core teachers when appropriate. For example, they might allow students to visit the art room to complete assignments or the computer room for tutorial instruction. Since the teams have jurisdiction for students during this extra period, including encore teachers in common planning on selected days as is done at Seymour Middle School , elevates their status among team teachers.

Teaming Smarter
Change in education does not come easily. The teaming structure was never intended to continue indefinitely in its original form. It has remained static, however, because educators are comfortable with the results.

Only when we accept that the full potential of teaming has not been reached will we conclude that simply working longer or harder will not improve teaming. Working smarter by making necessary changes in the teaming paradigms offers the opportunity for significant improvement.

Jerry Rottier directs the Center for Middle Level Assessment at the University of Wisconsin . He has written numerous articles and is author of Implementing and Improving Teaming and Taking Teaming to the Next Level, available from NMSA.