Of all the tasks that fill a school leader’s summer, none carries more weight—or has more lasting impact—than building the master schedule. Each year, I return to one essential question: Do the individuals most affected by the schedule share a clear understanding of what informs it—and why it’s built the way it is?
A master schedule is only as strong as the shared understanding behind it. Over the past eight years as a principal, I’ve learned that building trust through transparency and collaboration is not only essential to the process—it’s the foundation for creating a schedule that truly supports students and staff.
As the last school year came to a close, I met with a team of K–5 representatives—including classroom teachers, special education staff, related service providers, and special area teachers—to begin this work together.
In this biweekly column, principals and other authorities on school leadership—including researchers, education professors, district administrators, and assistant principals—offer timely and timeless advice for their peers.
In my school, this work begins each spring with collaborative meetings, after which I refine the schedule with a smaller group in July. I then first share it with service providers, special area teachers, and special education staff before releasing it to the full faculty. We use a digital platform that allows us to view the schedule from a 5,000-foot perspective or zoom in by grade level or classroom teacher.
This collaborative process didn’t just generate ideas, it built trust. It ensured that we all understood both the what and the why behind the schedule. And most importantly, it allowed us to design a structure rooted in our collective goals and commitment to all students.
The work produced a clear map for me to follow as I moved into building the master schedule.
Just as importantly, it grounded me in the collective voice of our team—reminding me that if I stayed true to the priorities and insights we surfaced together, the schedule would reflect our shared purpose. This year, we centered our early scheduling conversations on three core areas: reflecting on what’s worked (and what hasn’t) in past schedules, identifying the key considerations that must shape this year’s plan, and developing a shared understanding of our buildingwide priorities.
Reflect on past schedules.
As we looked back at previous master schedules, the team identified several structures that have served us well. Common planning time across grade levels has supported collaboration and instructional coherence. Having consistent, predictable times for reading support and related services each day helped streamline pull-out schedules and reduce disruptions.
Likewise, scheduling specials at the same time across classrooms has brought needed predictability to daily routines. Still, we acknowledged areas for improvement. Grouping students across multiple grade levels for intervention or enrichment has presented logistical challenges. Scheduling intervention blocks just before lunch or recess has proven especially tricky during the winter months.
We also surfaced differences in preferences for related service timing—upper grades tend to prefer morning sessions, while primary grades benefit more from afternoon services.
Additionally, we discussed the need for greater intentionality around student placements, especially for those students requiring intensive support, and noted that the current last-period choir block for 5th grade has posed challenges in terms of student energy and end-of-day transitions.
Identify considerations for this year’s schedule.
The second part of our conversation centered on the practical considerations that must guide the scheduling process. Staffing allocations played a significant role, especially with just one art and one music teacher. We were intentional about which classes receive traveling teachers to maintain balance and minimize disruption. Preserving instructional minutes remained a top priority alongside ensuring scheduled time for special education services and common planning blocks to support implementation. We also committed to maintaining a 45-minute differentiated instruction block each day.
Other logistical factors included ensuring time for social-emotional-learning lessons and accounting for assemblies scheduled throughout the week. These layers of complexity require thoughtful planning to ensure we honor both our instructional vision and the operational needs of the school.
Establish shared priorities.
Finally, we outlined the non-negotiables that would anchor the schedule. These included protecting core instructional time across all grade levels and ensuring equitable access to special education services—specifically, resource room and direct- consultant teacher support. We also prioritized increased mainstreaming opportunities for students in self-contained classrooms. To support this, we committed to aligning their schedules with general education classrooms to allow for more inclusive experiences throughout the day.
Additionally, our district has emphasized the importance of small-group instruction, calling for dedicated time when teachers and service providers can work with students in targeted ways. In the past, this support often occurred during core instruction, but we are now committed to a 45-minute “intervention block” designed to protect academic time while providing rich opportunities for small-group learning. These priorities ensure our schedule is more than a plan; it becomes a reflection of our collective commitment to student growth, equity, and inclusion.
While no schedule will ever be perfect—and it’s unlikely that every individual will be fully satisfied—the strength of this process lies in the shared understanding we built together. Whether it’s the master schedule or any other decision that significantly impacts students, it’s essential to develop a collective understanding of the “why” behind the work.
By assembling a broad team for honest, intentional dialogue, we ensured that those involved can speak not only to the final product but also to the priorities, constraints, and thoughtful collaboration that shaped it. That kind of shared ownership doesn’t eliminate complexity, but it does foster clarity, trust, and a stronger commitment to serving our students well.
