Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Middle School Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Center Grove principals propose schedule overhaul to expand targeted interventions and electives
Summary
District leaders presented an 18‑month review recommending a move away from team‑based middle schools toward a grade‑level schedule that reallocates minutes, expands Win (intervention) time, and aims to increase access to advanced coursework and targeted MTSS supports. The board asked for close checkpoint monitoring and stakeholder input before implementation.
At a work session, district administrators and the principals of Middle School North and Middle School Central outlined a proposed scheduling change for grades 6–8 intended to expand access to advanced coursework, create more consistent Tiered Multi‑Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) practice, and provide structured Win time for targeted interventions.
Dr. Harp, principal at Middle School North, and Mr. Weisman, principal at Middle School Central, explained the district launched an 18‑month inquiry after the board asked whether teaming is best for middle school students. The principals said the proposed model shifts sixth graders onto a schedule more consistent with seventh and eighth grades (moving sixth from an eight‑period to a seven‑period model), moves the computer applications course to sixth grade because sixth‑grade science is now part of the state accountability model, and aims to increase the number of electives and high‑school‑credit opportunities offered at the middle level.
Presenters emphasized MTSS alignment: teachers will identify students for small‑group interventions in Win time, interventions will be fluid and skill‑based, and PLC/data teams will monitor progress. The presenters described Win time rotations (for example, designated days for math, language arts, SEL or catch‑up) and said typical Win class sizes at Middle School Central are about 22 students; Win time in the proposed model would be ~37 minutes, supplementing core instruction so students needing extra help could receive a combined total similar to prior longer blocks (presenters said that in some cases the combination could amount to roughly 82 minutes of focused support).
Board members raised concerns about reducing scheduled daily math minutes for sixth graders (from previous longer periods to a 45‑minute core block) and whether that would hurt math achievement. Presenters replied the schedule change is meant to free time for more intentional, targeted interventions and for deeper instructional practices (for example, number talks and new HQIM resources for K–5 math), and that the district will closely monitor checkpoint and benchmark data: they will use three checkpoints per year plus biweekly progress monitoring in the MTSS model, quarterly building reviews and stakeholder feedback to detect negative trends early.
The principals also reviewed special‑education percentages (14–18% in the district versus about 10–14% statewide) and said improving Tier 2 targeted supports could reduce inappropriate identification; they noted the Department of Education monitors disproportionate subgroup identification and that the district has been through prior reviews.
Administrators described next steps as professional development for teachers, selecting valid benchmark assessments, establishing quarterly review dashboards, and a commitment to change course if data show harmful trends. The work session was informational and closed with the board asking staff to prioritize early data checks during implementation planning.
