Teaming has numerous benefits at the middle level, but there are several reasons why teaming might not be implemented in today's schools.  The economy is one of the issues why teaming might not be implemented.  Many school districts are having a tough time passing much needed school levies due to the current economic strain on taxpayers.  Thus, school districts are making due with what they have to work with which might mean a shorter school day with more content crammed into less time.  The shorter school day would lower the energy costs of the school - allowing the school to turn the lights off and adjust the thermostats accordingly once the school day was over.  The schedule then becomes more compact and most likely causes any extra planning periods to be discarded.  The article "What Difference Does Teaming Make?" by Erb & Stevenson (1999) suggests that teachers should have planning periods devoted to team planning in addition to individual planning; and those teaming periods should meet at least four to five days for forty-five minutes per day in order to be effective.

The difficulty of passing school levies due to the poor economy would also take a toll on the ability to hire extra staff.  Therefore, the teacher to student ratio would increase.  Erb & Stevenson mentions that an effective team should have a 1:25 teacher:student ratio to be effective.  The purpose of having teams within the middle level is to break a larger school down into smaller, more personable learning units.  If the teachers are responsible for more and more students due to financial constraints of the school district, then the positive effects of the teaming model is undermined by the larger teams.

No Child Left Behind and high stakes testing is another reason that teaming might be difficult to implement.  The influx of data collected from these standardized tests as well as the emphasis on high performance can be overwhelming for a team of educators.  According to Kain (2003), teaming and other middle level philosophies are discarded due to the heightened expectations of NCLB accountability even if those practices show improved student performance.

As a future educator, I agree with Kain that "the leader who builds and sustains purpose leads a team to success" (p. 3).  Teams will need to digest the standardized testing data and use it to base their future integrated lessons.  Teaming meetings - during scheduled planning periods or after school - should be focused, with an agenda, and have completion times for project ideas.  Teaming should be continued despite the aforementioned adversities because research has shown that teaming does indeed improve student performance.  Without teaming, the students and teachers are only focusing on passing a test rather than creating an integrated learning community in which passing a test is an additional bonus. 

Resources

Erb, T.O. & Stevenson, C. (1999). From faith to fact: Turning Points in action. What difference does teaming make?
     Middle School Journal. 30(3), 47-50.

Kain, D.L. (2003). Leading teams in the era of No Child Left Behind. Middle Ground. 7(2), 15-18.