A Survey of Middle School Interdisciplinary Teaming Practices
Members Only Content
By: AMLE
In August, 2025 AMLE conducted a survey of its membership to better understand interdisciplinary teaming practices across middle schools. For the purposes of this survey, interdisciplinary teaming was defined for respondents as teams of two to five teachers representing the core subjects. The team shares the same schedule, students, area of the building, responsibility for the core courses, and has common planning time.
The survey included 301 schools represented across 46 states, Washington D.C., the DODEA, and 9 countries. The survey included a mix of geographic representation (26% Rural, 51% Suburban, 23% urban) and student populations:
- Less than 300: 12%
- 300 – 600: 32%
- 601-900: 27%
- 901 – 1200: 19%
- More than 1200: 9%
Teaming Practices
85% of schools reported teaming, while 15% reported not having teaming practices in place. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of “Yes” to “No” answers based on student population size.
For those that reported not engaging in teaming, the responses highlight a mix of uncertainty (unsure why they do not), resource limitations (e.g., funding, time, small class sizes), and a lack of expertise or initiative as the primary reasons schools do not engage in interdisciplinary teaming. The data suggests that structural and resource-related barriers are significant, alongside a notable level of uncertainty or lack of clarity among respondents.
Average teachers and students per team
The results indicated a gradual increase in the student to teacher ratio per team based on the size of the school:
| Student Population | Average Teachers/Team | Average Students/Team | Ratio student to teacher |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 300 | 4.7 | 71 | 15.1 |
| 300-600 | 5.1 | 103.2 | 20.2 |
| 601-900 | 4.7 | 115.2 | 24.5 |
| 901-1200 | 6 | 146.3 | 24.4 |
| More than 1200 | 5.3 | 162.3 | 30.6 |
Note: Where respondents provided ranges the median was used to calculate the average (ex: 3-4 teachers on each team = 3.5, 100-110 students = 105). Where answers were unclear the response was disregarded for this calculation.
Disciplines Represented
Schools were almost uniformly consistent in their inclusion of core subjects (math, ELA, social studies, and science) on the team. Additionally, 51% reported including special education representation on the team and 30% reported included electives/specials teachers.
When asked if counselors are included on team meetings/on the team, 72% reported yes and 13% indicated no. For the rest reporting “other,” the primary reasons for this ambiguity include scheduling challenges, availability of counselors, and varying needs or circumstances. The lack of a formal policy or regular practice is also evident, with participation occurring “sometimes,” “occasionally,” or “as needed” rather than as a fixed component of team meetings.
Common Planning Time
Teams reported the regularity of their common planning time as follows:
- Daily: 33%
- 2-3 Times/week: 33%
- Weekly: 33%
- Monthly: 28%
A handful of respondents reported other cadences, including two times per a 6-day cycle or bi-monthly, as well as other configurations of team meetings (Content specific PLTs meet twice a week, Interdisciplinary teams meet 2-3 times a week. There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of responses based on school size.
Activities of the Team
60% of schools reported engaging in creating interdisciplinary units of instruction.
As to other activities of the team, respondents reported the following (listed in order from most frequently cited to least):
- 91%: Discussing individual students
- 84%: Establishing consistent policies and procedures
- 72%: Team culture building (planning team-wide activities, celebrations, etc.)
- 68%: Reviewing holistic student academic performance
- 59%: Making phone calls home
- 56%: Planning interdisciplinary units/discussing curricular connections
- 51%: Ensuring every student has an adult advocate
- 49%: Discussing weekly homework/assignments
- 36%: Professional learning (reading articles together, book studies, etc.)
Teaming Challenges
The primary challenges in teaming identified in the survey responses revolve around time constraints and scheduling difficulties, which are the most frequently cited issues. Communication problems, limited resources and support, and challenges in team dynamics and collaboration also play significant roles. Additional barriers include gaps in training and expertise, heavy workloads leading to burnout, structural inefficiencies, and student-related factors. These responses collectively suggest that successful teaming requires addressing logistical, interpersonal, and resource-related obstacles.
Anticipated changes or improvements to teaming
The anticipated changes in school teaming practices center on increased collaboration and inclusion, enhanced professional development, and improved scheduling and time management. There is also an expectation of greater technology integration, structural and policy adjustments, and enhanced resource support, with a focus on addressing student needs and improving communication. However, some respondents express uncertainty or doubt about significant changes, often citing dependence on funding or other variables, indicating a mix of optimism and caution about future developments.
Conclusion
The survey results provide valuable insights into the state of interdisciplinary teaming in middle schools across a diverse geographic and demographic landscape. The high adoption rate of teaming underscores its widespread acceptance as a practice. The lack of a statistically significant difference in teaming adoption based on student population size suggests that school size alone does not determine the implementation of interdisciplinary teaming. Overall, the survey reveals a robust framework for interdisciplinary teaming, but its effectiveness is tempered by logistical, resource, and training gaps. Future success will likely depend on addressing these barriers.