Instructional design for innovation and reform

Decisions about structures, processes, and routines set the stage for increased student engagement and learning.

When you walk into North Kansas City High School (known as Northtown), you are greeted by a student ambassador in an embroidered purple blazer. Student ambassadors are trained at the nearby Nelson Atkins Museum of Art to be effective tour guides. Their pride in the school is evident as they lead visiting groups through halls and classrooms.

Northtown serves 1,600 students (38% white, 22% Black, 20% Hispanic, and 50% economically disadvantaged). Students learn core content by exploring one of four career-themed pathways of their choice: human services; health and wellness; business, leadership, and entrepreneurship; or design, innovation, and technology. In the human services school, for example, students in history class examine the consequences when societal institutions fail to meet the needs of their populace. Students debate what to do when vital institutions such as hospitals, municipal governments, and public safety organizations face staffing shortages. In another wing of the building, students in the school of business read examples of argumentative writing about corporate citizenship at Starbucks, Target, Nike, and McDonald’s. Students brainstorm key issues multinational companies should consider beyond profit and loss.

While excellent instruction may still only be guaranteed in some classrooms, the educators at Northtown are creating the conditions that make it possible for every child, every day to fully engage in learning. What makes this meaningful engagement possible? While the quality of the teacher, the relevance of the content, and the rigor of the task are crucial, school communities like Northtown understand the answer is more complex.

A matter of design

As former school and central office administrators, we have visited schools for many years, observing every facet of schooling, from the playground, classroom, and hallways to teacher team meetings, administrator meetings, and staff lounges. We’ve also spent time talking with students, teachers, and administrators about what enables or constrains excellent teaching. Out of all the concerns we’ve heard over the years, the design of the school day has been the most consistent and enduring.

From the teacher’s perspective, there is insufficient time in a typical school day to think deeply and plan with colleagues and specialists, get to know students well, and connect with parents as partners. It can make the job feel impossible to do well. For students, classes often feel erratic and disconnected, hallways and lunchtime stressful, and learning choices limited. School can feel rote, cold, and meaningless. For administrators, compliance with laws, union contracts, and budget mandates can result in an incoherent patchwork of issues, making it hard sometimes to get the right adults in the right rooms with the right kids at the right time (Woody-Wideman, 2023). And groups with power and status resist significant change in the basic “grammar of schooling” (Tyack & Tobin, 1994).

As schools attempt to create new structures that make better use of time and promote engagement, they must make a multitude of interrelated decisions. For example, Northtown had to determine what learning communities to offer and figure out how to offer student choice in a way that would promote diversity. They had to determine which teachers would serve on which teaching team so that there would be multiple perspectives on how to design multidisciplinary units. They had to build sufficient time into the schedule for teachers to meet to talk about both content and students.

As the design decisions become more complex, more people are involved, and students and their teachers seem to become more disconnected from the choices being made. Decisions directly impacting students are too often treated as solely logistical puzzles, and others are exclusively political, aimed at avoiding the ire of powerful (white) parents. As a result, we see tracking, segregation, and alternative school options that put certain groups of students at a disadvantage. Look at our in-school suspension rooms and alternative school options and see who needs a different design. The experiences of these students, primarily Black and Brown boys and students with disabilities, serve as a barometer revealing the poor health of the system (Cheatham, 2022).

Our core work as educators is to ensure high-quality teaching, excellent student engagement, and ongoing access to content worth learning. That work never ends, but without more attention to instructional design, we believe those efforts will never come to fruition, especially for those who have been relegated to inferior instruction because of unexamined design practices. We are working within a structure that is working against us (Mehta, 2022).

What is instructional design?

We define instructional design as the structures, processes, and routines that create the conditions for teaching and learning. The specific elements of instructional design include:

• Class scheduling
• Teacher assignments
• Student groupings
• Course offerings

Equitable instructional design is focused on ensuring that every decision is made with an eye toward excellent teaching and learning for every child, especially those furthest from opportunity. To make instructional design decisions equitably, school leaders must center the voices of young people, their parents, and their teachers, with an emphasis on the experiences of students who have traditionally been left out of conversations about design. The overarching design question is, “What kind of world do we really want [our teachers and our students] to [teach and learn] in?” (Rodgers & Bremner, 2017). A school’s instructional design process serves as the creation of that world.

A window for radical change in our instructional designs opened during the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting some schools, like Northtown, to use pandemic-era recovery funding and innovation to create enduring policies and practices on a large scale (Hibbeln, 2020). While that window for whole-school change may be closing for many, we believe our recent experiences may make school leaders, teachers, and community members more willing to contemplate alternatives to long-standing practices.

We also contend that change does not have to happen all at once. Education Resource Strategies (ERS, 2022) advocates a “Do Now, Build Toward” approach, which involves taking small data-driven steps that address immediate needs while working toward a bold vision. While many schools don’t have the authority to make sweeping changes, school and district leaders can take steps now toward a more holistic redesign that centers authentic student engagement and learning. The idea is to start somewhere.

We offer a set of interrelated ideas from research that can inform decisions in each of the four elements of equitable instructional design to set the stage for increased student engagement and learning. For each of these elements, we also share a series of small steps leaders can take today, with some key considerations and assessments of their impact (Figures 1-4).

Class scheduling

Northtown moved toward a block schedule that prioritized common planning for teacher teams. Instead of having multiple short classes each day, the schedule consists of fewer, longer class periods. Students take fewer classes in a single day and have more time available for instructional activities in each class. Additionally, a flexible block in the middle of the day — called “Hornet Time” after the school’s mascot — offers opportunities for small-group advisory, intentional reteaching, skill-building, and extension activities that students sign up for through an online scheduling tool.

The master schedule, as outlined by Columbia University’s Center for Public Research and Leadership (Clay et al., 2021), serves as the foundational plan for orchestrating the activities of students and staff throughout the school day. It outlines the timing, sequence, location, and duration of classes, as well as the overall organization of time for both students and staff. Northtown’s redesigned schedule opened crucial time for teachers to get to know their students, setting the stage for deeper learning and student agency in and out of the classroom.

Too often, scheduling is regarded as a mere logistical exercise rather than a strategic one (Clay et al., 2021). The traditional approach to master scheduling places a strong emphasis on standardization, often without considering the unique learning trajectories of individual students and the specific time allotments that would best suit the curriculum. It relies on rigid structures modeled after early 20th-century factory assembly lines (Kruse & Kruse, 1995; Pisoni & Conti, 2019). At its core, the traditional school schedule assumes teachers should efficiently produce outcomes within a predetermined time frame without consideration of individual learning trajectories (Socol, 2018).

Leaders must consider their individual school’s circumstances when considering shifting design.

The default high school schedule, for instance, might check all the boxes for graduation requirements, but for many students, it doesn’t add up to a day of engagement in learning. A comprehensive analysis of not only school master schedules, but also specific student schedules, can reveal uncomfortable truths about who is gaining access to what coursework with what teachers. The master schedule ought to be a more central component of the school planning process, leveraged as a strategic tool to coordinate resources that enhance the learning experiences of all students (Casillas, 2018). As Cheryl Hibbeln (2020) succinctly puts it, “the only ‘right’ master schedule is the one that takes into account the needs of the students and their inalienable right to learn.”

Teacher assignments

Northtown teachers, to the greatest extent possible, work within a single themed pathway based on their interests and preferences as well as content-area expertise. They meet weekly with both their content team (colleagues teaching the same course or subject) and with their cross-curricular team (the team of teachers who share the same students) so that they can talk about how to incorporate thematic content across subjects and how to meet the needs of individual students. And their meetings are well-staffed with a school counselor, administrator, and administrative assistant to support them in problem solving. The idea is not to micromanage or monitor, but to eliminate barriers to success.

Teacher-to-class assignment involves allocating responsibilities to teachers for a semester or school year, including specific classes, course loads, and grade levels. Teacher team assignment involves deciding which teachers will work together to serve a particular group of students. These two sets of assignments must align, coalescing around the needs of students and instructional vision of the school.

Consider the common practice of assigning the most experienced teachers to their preferred grade levels or to teach exclusively advanced coursework. The choice is often made as a retention strategy — a kind of nonmonetary compensation for veteran teachers (Kalogrides, Loeb, & Béteille, 2013; Rogers & Doan, 2019). The unintended outcome, of course, is that less-experienced teachers are often working with students with the greatest needs or that teacher teams don’t have the balance of skills they need to support all students (Clay et al., 2021).

Administrators should instead assign teachers based on both student need and teacher strength. For example, studies have shown that students benefit when teachers are specialized based on their skills and content expertise (Fox, 2016). At the elementary level, that would mean allowing teachers to specialize in a subject where they have (or can develop) the greatest expertise. How much richer could a student’s experience be if teachers at all levels were able to allocate more of their planning time to fewer subjects?

Identifying instructional strengths and supporting specialization at all levels also allows for thoughtful composition of teaching teams. Teacher assignment gives you the opportunity to intentionally assign teachers to a team and allocate supported common planning time for the team to work together (Lockwood, 2018). When teacher strengths are acknowledged and made public, it helps teacher teams draw on one another’s expertise in supportive ways.

Student grouping

Students in the North Kansas City district begin to take interest surveys as early as 6th grade. They visit local employers to experience different professional pathways. In 8th grade, students fill out preference assessments to select their pathway before meeting with the college and career facilitator. Once enrolled, they take core classes (e.g., math, language arts) with other students in their chosen pathway to draw on those connections, while elective courses span enrollment across all Northtown so students can interact with students and teachers outside their pathway.

Student grouping refers to the formal assignment of peers to the same classroom or program. When grouping is used strategically so students can interact with others of diverse cultures, backgrounds, and experiences, students gain an increased sense of confidence, safety, and belonging that promotes academic success (Vang & Nishina, 2022). Yet lack of intentionality in student assignment too often leads to informal student groupings based on race, gender, or other characteristics (Casillas, 2018). For example, while there is utility in grouping of students with similar special education services and multilingual learner cohorts, these decisions are often made to facilitate ease of scheduling rather than with consideration of the student experience (Dieterle et al., 2013).

Specifically, we would contend that the debate between heterogeneous grouping (across ability levels) and homogenous grouping (based on similar ability levels) has been too black and white. Homogeneous groupings are found to enhance the learning experience, while heterogeneous groups tend to yield better academic results (Kanika et al., 2022). Given this knowledge, and depending on one’s instructional vision, one might decide there is a need for heterogeneous groupings for language arts, history, and science to build on each student’s cultural wealth; homogeneous grouping for mathematics to ensure precision of instruction; and homogenous instruction groups for specialized instruction (e.g., for students with disabilities).

Models for variable student groupings like this exist — Palmer Park Preparatory Academy, a teacher-led school in Detroit, began using a similar model in 2011 (Sawchuk, 2011). The key is intentionality and flexibility to provide varied groupings throughout the school day, week, and year.

Course offerings

Three years ago, the courses “Advocacy in the Community and Sustainability” and “Therapy Studies and Brain Development” were not listed in the 10th-grade course catalog at Northtown. Now they are two of the required tech core classes in the school of human services and school of health and wellness, respectively. Each school within Northtown developed tailored classes at every grade level to support the targeted development of skills for that industry strand. These courses are regularly updated to ensure their relevance in the field. Additionally, students at Northtown select from elective courses across the school, in collaboration with a school counselor whom they work with all four years.

Course offerings include core, elective, and advanced coursework. All these offerings must be selected carefully to ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn relevant knowledge and skills at a high level. Much of the research in this area has focused on access to advanced coursework
in secondary schools. Participating in Advanced Placement (AP) and other advanced courses increases the likelihood of underrepresented students (e.g., students of color, students with disabilities, multilingual learners) completing a post-secondary credential (Holzman et al., 2019). However, expanding the menu of offerings alone is not enough to increase enrollment among these groups (Rodriguez & McGuire, 2019).

From the teacher’s perspective, there is insufficient time in a typical school day to think deeply and plan with colleagues and specialists, get know students well, and to connect with parents as partners.

When school administrators increase the availability of seats in challenging classes, most often the students already enrolled in advanced coursework simply take more. There are many reasons behind this pattern. A report by Education Trust (2020) explained that the underrepresentation of students of color in advanced coursework is not solely due to prior preparation and historical opportunity gaps, but also is related to whether students who are ready for such coursework are actually enrolled in available courses.

Using AP as an example, we believe schools should conduct a thorough and regular examination of the core, elective, and advanced offerings that exist, along with how students are recruited, placed, and supported. Such a review may reveal coursework that is outdated or lacking in rigor. One might also find that the process of recruiting students into elective and advanced coursework surfaces limiting beliefs held by both students and educators (Edmunds et al., 2022). Administrators also may find that simple logistical matters are getting in the way, such as what courses are offered at the same time (Hibbeln, 2020).

Entry points to shifting instructional design

With the support of a partnership with ConnectEd, the North Kansas City school district completed more than 150 interviews with students, families, staff, community members, and leaders before redesigning Northtown’s instructional program. Pivoting to virtual meetings due to the ongoing pandemic, the team worked to surface areas of greatest need and successful practices they could build upon. With the support of their central office, this engagement continues as the school continually improves its instructional design annually.

We realize that even small instructional design shifts aren’t easy, given today’s challenges. Day-to-day school management is impeding long-term planning more than ever (Woody-Wideman, 2023). Administrator turnover, teacher shortages, and a youth mental health crisis have all impacted an already challenging job. It is reasonable to assume leaders do not have time to cull through research.

But even in the face of these challenges, the fact remains that shifts in instructional design are essential if we want the pandemic disruptions to serve as a catalyst for long-term change. We have compiled an initial list of small shifts that schools can use to build more equitable schools and avoid defaulting to pre-pandemic structures (Figures 1-4). For each discrete shift, we offer key considerations and impact assessments to enable you to reflect on your own school setting.

Leaders must consider their individual school’s circumstances when considering shifting design. If you are newly building social capital in a school community, it is likely you will have less credibility than a leader who has served in a building for a decade. Union presence and contract stipulations can restrict some shifts from occurring without a memorandum of understanding or other collective bargaining. Budgetary constraints, student data, and staff capacity all must be considered. But above all, the voice of students and the school’s vision of excellent instruction must be centered when making decisions.

The answer does not lie in any specific research or design shift but rather in a commitment to action. There are no shortcuts on the journey toward more equitable schools, and long-term transformation will first require small steps. Some will be more impactful than others. But if we learn from examples such as Northtown, change is possible. The opportunity to use the return from pandemic school closures as an opening for whole-school redesign might be receding, but the lessons learned and the collective willingness for change remain. Incremental, data-driven steps can lay the foundation for a more holistic redesign.

As we contemplate embracing equitable instructional design, the overarching question persists: What kind of world do we want our students and teachers to inhabit? It is time for every school to depart from the traditional instructional design models that have persisted long past their relevance. Let every decision we make demonstrate our commitment to excellence for every child.

References

Clay, A., Chu, E., Altieri A., Deane, Y., Lis-Perlis, A., Lizarraga, A., . . . & Wolters, M. (2021). About time: Master scheduling and equity. Columbia University.

Casillas, C. (2018). Master schedules: Translating values into practice. Principal Leadership, 19 (1), 54-57.

Cheatham, J.P. (2022). Entry planning for equity-focused leaders: Empowering schools and communities. Harvard Education Press.

Dieterle, S.G., Guarino, C.M., Reckase, M.D., & Wooldridge, J.M. (2013). How do principals assign students to teachers? Finding evidence in administrative data and the implications for value-added (Working Paper #30. Revised). Education Policy Center. Michigan State University.

Edmunds, J.A., Grebing, E., Coyle, V., & Rosof, L. (2022). Addressing inequity: Expanding access to college-level courses for high school students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 27 (4), 297-321.

Education Resource Strategies. (2022, August 16). How to enable transformational change in K-12 school districts through a “Do Now, Build Toward” approach.

Education Trust. (2020). Inequities in advanced coursework: What’s driving them and what leaders can do.

Fox, L. (2016). Playing to teachers’ strengths: Using multiple measures of teacher effectiveness to improve teacher assignments. Education Finance and Policy, 11 (1), 70-96.

Hibbeln, C. (2020). Mastering the master schedule: Improving instruction and strengthening culture through the master schedule. Educational Leadership, 77 (9), 36-40.

Holzman, B., Stroub, K., Kennedy, C.C., & Lewis, B. (2019). The role of college prep course offerings and course-taking in long-term educational outcomes. Research Brief for the Houston Independent School District, 8 (2). Houston Education Research Consortium.

Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S., & Béteille, T. (2013). Systematic sorting: Teacher characteristics and class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86 (2), 103-123.

Kanika, Chakraverty, S., Chakraborty, P., & Madan, M. (2022). Effect of different grouping arrangements on students’ achievement and experience in collaborative learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-13.

Kruse, C.A. & Kruse, G.D. (1995). The master schedule and learning: Improving the quality of education. NASSP Bulletin, 79 (571), 1.

Lockwood, M. (2018). Making teacher teams work. Educational Leadership, 78 (3).

Mehta, T. (2022). Possible futures: Toward a new grammar of schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 103 (5), 54-57.

Pisoni, A. & Conti, D. (2019, April 20). What does your school schedule say about equity? More than you think. EdSurge News.

Rodgers, P.A. & Bremner, C. (2017). The concept of the design discipline. Dialectic, 1 (1).

Rodriguez, A. & McGuire, K.M. (2019). More classes, more access? Understanding the effects of course offerings on Black-white gaps in Advanced Placement course-taking. The Review of Higher Education, 42 (2), 641-679.

Rogers, L.K. & Doan, S. (2019). Late to class: Estimating the relationship between teacher assignment change and student sorting. Elementary School Journal, 120 (2), 347-371.

Sawchuk, S. (2011). School restructures student grouping. Education Week, 30 (17), 1-13.

Socol, I. (2018). Timeless learning: How imagination, observation, and zero-based thinking change schools. Jossey-Bass.

Tyack, D. & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31 (3), 453-479.

Vang, T.M. & Nishina, A. (2022). Fostering school belonging and students’ well-being through a positive school interethnic climate in diverse high schools. Journal of School Health, 92 (4), 387-395.

Woody-Wideman, N. (2023, March 14). ‘I was ready to walk away’: The silent scream of school leaders. Education Week.

This article appears in the March 2024 issue of Kappan, Vol. 105, No. 6, p. 18-25.