1. Middle Level Best Practice and Student Achievement in Texas D. Michelle Williams AMLE Nashville, TN November 6, 2014

2. Research funded by: Wilma Perkins Jorgenson Research Associate Grant 2013-2014 Stephen F. Austin State University

3. The Framework This We Believe (2010) Turning Points (2000) Breaking Ranks in the Middle (NASSP, 1996) Turning Points (1989)

4. 16 Characteristics Valuing Young Adolescents Student and teacher engagement. Challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant curriculum. Multiple teaching and learning approaches. Varied and ongoing assessments. Shared vision Teacher knowledge and commitment. Courageous and collaborative leadership. Professional development. Purposeful learning/meaningful relationships Safe, inclusive, supportive environment. Adult advocates. Comprehensive guidance programs. Health and Wellness programs. Family involvement. Community and business involvement.

5. Studies McEwin and Greene (2011) strong support of middle level best practice but a gap between support and implementation. Schools to Watch schools scored better on achievement tests and higher implementation of best practice. Mertens, Flowers, & Mulhall (1998) and Sweetland & Hoy (2000) compared schools with high implementation levels with schools with little or no implementation and found that those with high implementation performed better.

6. Research Questions 1. To what extent are key middle level practices implemented in the State of Texas as outlined by This We Believe? 2. What (if any) is the relationship of these practices to the schools’ academic achievement in reading and math?

7. Methodology Survey sent (via Qualtrics) to all middle level principals in Texas. Data entered into SPSS. Descriptive Statistics to determine the level of implementation. OLS Regression model to determine the relationship (if any) of best practice to student achievement in math and reading. Dependent variables average STAAR math and reading scores. Independent variable – middle level best practice.

8. Participants 95 middle level principals in Texas (1779 sent). 92% of schools were rated acceptable. 49% also had distinctions. Size varied from 25-1676 (Average 606). Minority varied from 9% - 99%. Poverty rates varied from 0-93%.

9. Grade configuration Grades 6-850 Grades 7-811 Grades 5-8 5 Grades 5-65 Grades 4-53 Grades 3-53 Grades PK-128 Grades 4-6 2 Grades PK-82 Grades 7-121 Grades K-121 Grade 61 No response1

10. Implementation of Best Practice: 50% or more specifically trained74% 50% or more staff development89% Advisory53% Flexible Block Scheduling21% Interdisciplinary teams39% Individual and Team Plan Periods28% Team meetings at least weekly89% Heterogeneous Grouping64%

11. Implementation Continued Varied Instructional Strategies84% Portfolio Assessments20.4% Project Based Assessments65.6% Rubrics77.4% Open-ended/Essay57% Integrated Curriculum51.6% Intramural Sports21.6% Clubs86%

12. Implementation Continued Exploratory classes24.7% Health classes57% Tutorials92.5% Counseling services81.7% Social skills training51.6% Student government69.9% PT Conferences93.5% Volunteers68.8% Parent Nights66.7% Parent Programs54.8%

13. Common Practices Advisory heterogeneous grouping varied instruction project based assessments Clubs parental involvement.

14. Less Common Practices flexible scheduling interdisciplinary teaming common plan times team meetings intramural sports exploratory classes

17. Relationship to Student Achievement No significant relationship between number of best practices and student achievement in math and reading. Significant negative relationship between percentage of students in poverty and student achievement (-.343 reading and -.384 math). Moderate relationship between parental involvement (.249 math and.246 reading) and achievement and also for the number of student inventions (.203 math and.227 reading).

18. Discussion No significant relationship between total number of best practices and student achievement. Poverty (Cavanagh, 2007) Parental Involvement (Mo & Singh, 2008; Chen, 2001) Interventions (Bender & Shores, 2007).

19. Other Studies Cook, Faulker, & Kinne (2009) Mertens & Flowers (2006) Mertens, Flowers, & Mulhall (1998) Sweetland & Hoy (2000) Compared schools and found implementing middle level best practice outscored schools with little or no implementation.

20. “Academic Excellence – in this case measured by performance on a state assessment – is only one measure of a school’s overall effectiveness” (Cook, Faulkner, & Vinne, 2009, p.9).

21. Limitations and Recommendations Return rate was small – might contain bias. Self-Report Phone interviews (follow up) in order to examine the practices in more detail. Providing incentives for participation. Interviewing administrators at the state conference. Longitudinal study to determine the long term effect of implementing middle level practices.

22. Contact Information Dr. D. Michelle Williams Stephen F. Austin State University williamsdm@sfasu.edu 936-468-1597 CEU Code: DY-61

23. References AMLE (2010). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Bender W. F., & Shores, C.F. (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Boston: Sage. Carnegie (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century The report of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Cavanagh, S. (2007, December 13). Poverty's effect on U.S. scores greater than for other nations. Education Week, 27 (15) 1. Mertens, S.B. & Flowers, N. (2004). Research summary: Professional development for teachers. From http://www.nmas.org/portals/0/pdf/research/Research_Summaries/Professional_Development.pdf Mertens, S.B, & Flowers, N. (2006) Middle Start’s impact on comprehensive middle school reform. Middle Level Grades Research Journal, 1(1), 1-26. Mo, Y., & Singh, K. (2008). Parents’ relationships and involvement: Effects on students’ engagement and performance. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 31(10), 1-11. National Association of Secondary School Principals (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American Institution, a report of the NASSP study of the restructuring of the American high school. NASSP Bulletin, 80(578), 55-66. NCLB (2002). Highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals. Paper presented at the Student Achievement and School Accountability Conference, Washington, D.C. Protheroe, N. (2011). Effective resource use: People, time and money. Principal’s Research Review, 6(3), 1- 7.