1. Middle-Level Education: Gateway or Gap? What have we learned about effective programs and practices?

2. 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?

3. 1961 1900-1910 1910-55 1956 1957 Charles Eliot & G. Stanley Hall JHS “Movement” “The Modern Junior High” “Crisis in the Classroom”

4. Mounting Criticism “The wasteland of the American school system.” Elliot Silberman, Crisis in the Classroom,1961

5. The JUNIOR High School “If the junior high school is to provide a better learning situation than exists today, then some far reaching improvements are necessary. At present, the junior high school is but a small imitation of the senior high school.” -Nelson Bossing - 1954

6. 1985 -89 1961 1960-70 1977 1984 2000 - Tanner’s Research on Adolescent Development Alexander & Eichorn NMSA The Major Policy Statements Standards & Assessments “A Nation at Risk”

7. What is the Problem?

8. The Cornell Junior High Conference of 1963  A well-articulated 5-8 curriculum  A preparation for adolescent transition  A strong academic program  Abundant opportunities for exploration  The study of “values” -William Alexander

10. Carnegie’s Turning Points 1989 “A volatile mismatch exists between the organization and curriculum of middle grade schools and the intellectual and emotional needs of young adolescents.” “A last best chance…”

11. NMSA’s This We Believe (1989) Educators committed to young adolescents Curriculum that is integrated, exploratory and challenging An adult advocate for every child Varied teaching and learning approaches Flexible organizational structures Assessment and evaluation that promote learning

12. Regents Policy Statement (1989) …what is provided in the elementary or high school grades is not necessarily appropriate for children in the middle grades.”

13. Essence of All Policy Statements

14. How did we respond? Configuration Changes Formation of Teams Increased dialogue of early adolescent development “MIDDLE SCHOOL”

15. Middle School Configurations Grade Span 81-82 91-92 98-99 99-00 00-01 20 Year Change 5-85087101 102+52 6-8162292398397436+274 6-9343015 14-20 6-121630424348+32 7-81209371 76-44 7-92117839 29-182 7-12227224166171168-59

16. How well did we implement the model?

17. Paths that we took… Business as usual The Checklist Approach “Balance of purpose and comprehensive fidelity”

18. “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 National Middle School Association Survey….

19. 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”

20. Frustration? “This We Believe and Now We Must Act” Turning Points 2000 NYS’s Essential Elements Et. al.

21. Why the resistance to change? “unresolved tensions” academic development vs personal and social development

22. Current Needs “Safe Schools” Standards & Assessments

23. What is the Evidence for MS Model? The Young Adolescent Instruction School Organization Leadership Academic Achievement

24. Early Adolescence Developmental Research Physical Psychological Cognitive Social

25. Developmentally Responsive Instructional Strategies Varied and Multiple Social “Hands-on” Meaningful, Connected, and Relevant Challenging

26. Organization Interdisciplinary Teams Flexible Schedules Flexible Grouping Comprehensive Guidance Services Exploratory Experiences Articulated and Integrated Curriculum

27. Teaming CPT – Frequency and Length Teacher-student ratios Training & Experience Quality of Planning

28. The Status of Teaming in the U.S. 57% of middle schools have teams 90% of middle schools identified as “exemplary” include teaming Less than 20% of teams receive adequate CPT

29. 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

30. Leadership Aging Inexperienced Lack of training for work with young adolescents

31. Academic Achievement How well do students learn in well-designed middle schools?

32. Do Middle Schools Result in Higher Academic Achievement than Junior High Schools? The Bradley Study 1988National Longitudinal Study 1988 University of Florida1987Clark & Clark 1992 Maine SED1991University of Michigan 1993 California SED1994Keefe, et. al 1994 George & Shewey1994New York 2001 Felner, et. al.1997

33. 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.

34. 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

35. 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.

36. 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

37. New York - 2001 Study of low and high performing schools Performance on assessments Level of “Essential Elements” implementation

38. 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 Performing11/914133.76/6.00 High Need - Urban/Suburban Low Performing12/813682.92/6.00 High Need – Rural High Performing11/1014243.82/6.00 High Need – Rural Low Performing11/1013892.39/6.00 Average Need High Performing12/1114534.64/6.00 Average Need Low Performing12/1113903.33/6.00 Low Need High Performing11/814835.40/6.00 Low Need Low Performing12/1014233.99/6.00 Column A:Need/Resource Category Explanation Column B: Student Achievement Designation – High Performing or Low Performing

39. The Multiplication Factor MacIver & Epstein, 1991 Van Zandt & Totten, 1994 George & Shewey, 1994 Felner, 1997 New York, 2001 Teams Advisory Comprehensive Guidance Heterogeneous Grouping Strong Transitions Appropriate Instruction

40. 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).

41. 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”

42. Closing the Middle School Gap “Balance of Purpose and comprehensive fidelity”

43. “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