Transcript Middle-Level Education: Gateway or Gap?

Middle-Level Education:
Gateway or Gap?
What have we learned about
effective programs and
practices?
Purpose



What are the reasons for the middle
school?
What are the elements that contribute to a
successful middle school experience for
students?
What is the evidence?
1900-1910
Charles Eliot & G. Stanley Hall
1910-55
1956
“The Modern Junior High”
1957
1961
“Crisis in the Classroom”
JHS “Movement”
1961
Tanner’s Research on Adolescent
Development
1960-70
1977
NMSA
1984
1985
-89
Alexander & Eichorn
“A Nation at Risk”
The Major Policy
Statements
2000 -
Standards &
Assessments
Regents Policy Statement (1989)

…what is provided in the elementary or
high school grades is not necessarily
appropriate for children in the middle
grades.”
Essence of
All Policy
Statements
Leadership
M-L
Organization
Teachers & Instruction
for Young Adolescents
Developmental Needs of
Young Adolescents
How did we respond?



Configuration
Changes
Formation of Teams
Increased dialogue of
early adolescent
development
“MIDDLE SCHOOL”
Middle School Configurations
Grade
Span
81-82
91-92
98-99
99-00
00-01
20 Year
Change
5-8
6-8
6-9
6-12
7-8
7-9
7-12
50
162
34
16
120
211
227
87
292
30
30
93
78
224
101
398
15
42
71
39
166
101
397
15
43
71
39
171
102
436
14
48
76
29
168
+52
+274
-20
+32
-44
-182
-59
How well did
we implement
the model?
Paths that we took…

Business as usual

The Checklist
Approach

“Balance of purpose
and comprehensive
fidelity”
National Middle School Association Survey….

“Currently, few middle grades schools
have implemented many of the practices
recommended for the education of early
adolescents, and even fewer have
implemented them well.”
Epstein and MacGiver
1993
Education Week - October 2000




The Weak Link … “ill equipped to deliver”
An Incomplete Education… “teachers lack
knowledge about subject matter and young
adolescents”
Adrift at the Top… “principals without much
preparation”
Missed Opportunities… “shallow, fragmented,
and unchallenging curriculum”
Frustration?

“This We Believe and
Now We Must Act”

Turning Points 2000

NYS’s Essential
Elements

Et. al.
Why the resistance to change?

“unresolved tensions”
academic
development
vs
personal and social
development
Current Needs

Standards &
Assessments

“Safe Schools”
What is the Evidence for MS Model?





The Young Adolescent
Instruction
School Organization
Leadership
Academic Achievement
Early Adolescence
Developmental
Research
Physical
Psychological
Social
Cognitive
Developmentally Responsive
Instructional Strategies





Varied and Multiple
Social
“Hands-on”
Meaningful, Connected,
and Relevant
Challenging
Organization






Interdisciplinary Teams
Flexible Schedules
Flexible Grouping
Comprehensive Guidance Services
Exploratory Experiences
Articulated and Integrated Curriculum
Teaming
CPT – Frequency and
Length
Teacher-student ratios
Training &
Experience
Quality of Planning
What is the relationship between
interdisciplinary curriculum and
academic achievement?





Brazee & Capelluti,
1995
Clark and Clark, 1992
St. Clair & Hough,
1992
Vars, 1987
“The Eight Year
Study” - Aiken, 1942
Leadership



Aging
Inexperienced
Lack of training for
work with young
adolescents
Academic Achievement
How well do students
learn in well-designed
middle schools?
Do Middle Schools Result in Higher Academic
Achievement than Junior High Schools?
The Bradley Study
1988 National Longitudinal Study 1988
University of Florida 1987
Clark & Clark
1992
Maine SED
1991
University of Michigan
1993
California SED
1994 Keefe, et. al
1994
George & Shewey
1994
2001
Felner, et. al.
1997
New York
The Maine Study (1991)




15,000 eighth graders
220 Maine schools
The Maine Educational Assessment
Scores of 48 schools that used the
middle level model approach were
compared to another group of 48
schools that did not use the approach.
University of Michigan Longitudinal 1988
(Lee & Smith 1993)
Studied a sub-sample of 8,845 8th
graders in 1,035 middle schools* of
a 25,000 student study
 Results - Gains in student
achievement

*Had implemented recommendations of Turning Points
California 1994




A 1988-1993 California study of the
implementation of middle grade public
school reforms
600 schools
Approximately 425,000 students
40-43% gain in all areas of student
achievement occurred since
implementing the reforms.
Felner, Jackson, et.al. 1997


Longitudinal Study of 1500 students & 900
students in five states (Schools that have
implemented Turning Points
recommendations)
Results-greater outcomes in achievement,
behavior and socio-emotional factors in
schools with a HIGHER IMPLEMENTATION
FACTOR
New York - 2001



Study of low and high performing schools
Performance on assessments
Level of “Essential Elements”
implementation
Degree of Implementation of the Characteristics of an Effective Middle-Level School by
Need/Resource Category)
A
B
C
D
E
High Need Urban/Suburban
High Performing
11/9
1413
3.76/6.00
High Need Urban/Suburban
Low Performing
12/8
1368
2.92/6.00
High Need – Rural
High Performing
11/10
1424
3.82/6.00
High Need – Rural
Low Performing
11/10
1389
2.39/6.00
Average Need
High Performing
12/11
1453
4.64/6.00
Average Need
Low Performing
12/11
1390
3.33/6.00
Low Need
High Performing
11/8
1483
5.40/6.00
Low Need
Low Performing
12/10
1423
3.99/6.00
The Multiplication Factor





MacIver & Epstein,
1991
Van Zandt & Totten,
1994
George & Shewey,
1994
Felner, 1997
New York, 2001
Heterogeneous
Grouping
Teams
Strong
Transitions
Advisory
Appropriate
Instruction
Comprehensive
Guidance
Researchers have concluded
that the combined benefit of
using multiple program
components enhances the
effectiveness of individual
practices
(MacIver & Epstein, 1991; Van Zandt & Totten,
1994).
Connor & Irvin (1989)


74% of nationally recognized middle
schools implemented 6 to 10 of the
essential elements of a true middle
school as compared to 47% of
randomly selected schools
Effective middle schools reflect a
higher degree of “middle schoolness”
Closing the Middle School Gap

“Balance of Purpose
and comprehensive
fidelity”
“You may not divide the seamless
cloak of learning. There is only
one subject matter for education
and that is life itself in all its
manifestations.”
–The Aims of Education Alfred
North Whitehead