Table of Contents

• Introduction



• A Review of Related
  Literature



• Statement of Hypothesis



• Method



• Cross Difference in Variables
  Among Organizational Setting and Middle Level Teacher Acceptance of the
  Middle School Philosophy: A Summary of Findings



• Cross Difference in
  Variables Among Certification or Licensure Type and Middle Level Teacher
  Acceptance of the Middle School Philosophy: A Summary of Findings



• Additional Findings:
  Middle Level Teachers as a Group



• Discussion



• Limitations of the
  Study



• Future Research Needed



• Summary



• Final Conclusion



• Reference

src="../../images/uparrow.gif" alt="Arrow Up" align="right" border="0"
height="13" width="20" />

Introduction

Many could argue the middle school movement is walking in molasses as an
increasing number of districts show renewed interest in K-8 alignments or
otherwise abandon key elements of the middle school concept. Determining the
relative success of the 40-year middle school movement and its well crafted
ethos would be much easier to do if “middle school” were a single
entity that meant the same thing to all people. Let’s face it; teachers
interact with middle level students in a variety of settings. In addition to
so-named middle schools, the list includes junior high schools, K-8 schools,
and elementary schools. These same teachers also possess a variety of
certification or licensure types, ranging from elementary to middle grades to
secondary. Amidst such a cacophony of confusion, do some teachers view
“middle school” as a culture with its successful operation
dependent upon teachers’ attitudes and approaches, while others view it
as a mere configuration dictated primarily by programmatic
characteristics? Simply put, do all teachers of middle level students exhibit
the same philosophical commitment to the middle school model?

Sustaining the growth of the middle school movement becomes a daunting task
indeed if the very practitioners who lead the classrooms do not identify or
align themselves with the middle school philosophy, or fail to understand the
tenets underlying this philosophy. According to This We Believe, a
seminal document generated from the National Middle School Association (1982,
1995, 2003), the middle school “philosophy” provides a clear set of
guiding characteristics for successful, developmentally responsive middle
schools to embody. Among these are: a shared vision; educators committed to
young adolescents; a positive school climate; an adult advocate for every
child; family and community partnerships; and high expectations for all
students, buttressed by an integrative, exploratory curriculum.

Yet if teachers consider only certain building configurations to be bonafide
“middle schools” or are professionally prepared in areas other than
a middle level specialization, the result could be a wide gap in middle level
education wherein the middle school concept is not practiced, or is attempted
with indifference simply because of the name chiseled on the building marquee
or the grade denotations printed on a state certification. According to Mizell
(2000a), so long as these divisions of belief and practice exist among middle
level educators, it is not likely there will be the consensus of conviction and
action necessary to have a major impact on student learning. Revisiting this
gray area involving teacher attitudes toward the middle school philosophy may
provide valuable information to help gauge whether the middle school movement
is making an impact where it ultimately matters most, in the hearts and minds
of the middle level teachers.

While uniqueness may be fascinating for snowflakes and thumbprints, it
brings only dissonance and fluster to an educational movement dependent upon
adherence to an unequivocal set of underlying beliefs. If teachers universally
accept the aforementioned middle school philosophy and believe that
“middle school” is an idea that should be discernible
wherever transecent students are being taught, the tenets can serve as a
common denominator or shared vision for middle level teachers, thus effectively
negating any differences that may arise from variables such as organizational
setting or certification/licensure type. Conversely, differing perceptions
across building configurations or certification lines as to what constitutes a
“middle school teacher” could signal an inconsistency in how early
adolescent students experience “middle school” in the
classroom.

The Carnegie report (1989, 2000) recommends that middle schools be staffed
with teachers who are expert at teaching early adolescents and who have the
education and training necessary for the assignment. It is reasonable to
postulate that the degree to which a particular school setting is consciously
or unconsciously aligned with the middle school philosophy, or the extent to
which a building configuration actually resembles a “complete”
middle school, may have a bearing on the extent to which the teachers in
that setting feel a sense of urgency to likewise adopt the philosophy, are
encouraged to adopt the philosophy, or are provided with adequate professional
development to adopt the philosophy. Schools, after all, are both socially
conditioned and subject to political influences (Woods and Bagley, 1996).

The professional preparation of middle level teachers might be the X factor
in determining the ultimate acceptance of middle school tenets in a given
school or district. The importance of specialized middle grades preparation can
certainly not be overstated. Stahler (1996) compared a group of middle level
student teachers that were prepared in a middle school teacher education
program with a group of middle level student teachers that were prepared in an
elementary or a secondary teacher education program. These student teachers
(n=34) completed a questionnaire about their attitudes toward middle level
learners and middle level teaching. Results of analyses showed the student
teachers with special middle school preparation knew more about early
adolescents, were familiar with the literature, prepared lesson plans that
included more practices appropriate for middle level learners, taught more
highly rated lessons, and had a better attitude toward middle level teaching
than those who had been prepared in a more general program.

Several studies, however, have suggested that fewer than one in four middle
grades teachers have received specialized preparation before they begin their
careers (McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 1996; Scales, 1992; Scales &
McEwin, 1994). This practice of staffing middle level schools with teachers and
other professional personnel who lack special preparation for working with
young adolescents appears to be a perennial roadblock to excellence in middle
level education. In short, preservice teacher programs, state departments of
education, and the profession itself have struggled to divest themselves from
the elementary-secondary mindset and, thus, have largely failed to recognize
the essentiality of introducing specific preparation programs for middle level
teachers.

As a result, many unwitting middle grades teachers fail to put serious
effort into becoming adept middle level instructors because they are waiting to
be elevated to the high school or assigned to elementary classrooms to teach
primary children. With a prevailing attitude of “no special know-how
required,” many middle level teachers forgo opportunities to improve
their skills and dispositions focused directly on the middle level environment.
In many states, for example, the only requirement for obtaining a middle school
license is to have an elementary or secondary credential and teach one year at
the middle grades level (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Likewise, the patterns of
“grade overlaps” (K-8, 6-9, 7-12) found in many teaching licenses
negate the alleged significance of a separate middle school license and send a
message that the middle grades option is relatively unimportant inasmuch as
both elementary and high school teachers are also licensed for the middle
grades classroom (McEwin & Dickinson, 1996). As an example, one state's
current plan includes the following options: grades pre k-3, 1-8, 4-8, 7-9 and
7-12. Presented with these choices when considering future employment
possibilities, many prospective teachers select programs leading to licensure
in grades 1-8 or 7-12 because these grade spans make them more
“marketable” (McEwin and Dickinson, 1995).

A study was conducted to examine the degree to which middle level teachers
in grades 6-8 in three states accept those basic principles, ideas, and ideals
which grow out of a belief that “middle school” is an educational
response to the needs and characteristics of youngsters during transecence. Two
questions guided the study: (1) Does a cross difference in variables exist
among teachers from different organizational settings or grade configurations
in respect to the teacher’s acceptance of the tenets of the middle school
philosophy? (2) Does a cross difference in variables exist among teachers who
hold different types of certification or licensure in respect to the
teacher’s acceptance of the tenets of the middle school philosophy?
Knowing the extent to which middle level teachers endorse and are committed to
the middle school philosophy could provide a yardstick for teacher educators,
school administrators, and middle school researchers who are often answerable
for difficulties encountered with innovations in education.

src="../../images/uparrow.gif" alt="Arrow Up" align="right" border="0"
height="13" width="20" />

A Review of Related Literature

In the 1970’s, Wiles and Thomason (1975) commented on the state of
germinal research efforts in middle level education and described it as being
of “remarkably low quality” (p. 421). Hopefully, we are now coming
of age in middle level research by identifying an agenda for research that can
inform and extend our agenda for action. We are also raising common questions
and beginning to identify the types of studies we need to address those
questions (Strahan, 1992).

The inaugural literature on middle level education is concerned almost
exclusively with the emanation of the junior high model and the subsequent
inability of the junior high school to effectively fulfill its mission and meet
the academic and social needs of pre-adolescent students. The pioneering works
of Koos (1927) and Gruhn and Doulgass (1956) are particularly noteworthy. The
perceived failure of the junior high school is quite significant and represents
the beginning of an unfortunate pattern of instability throughout middle level
education that continues to the present day.

Within the body of literature focusing on middle level education, variables
such as grade organization and building configuration are found in abundance.
Jenkins and McEwin (1992) point out that grade organization has remained a
controversial topic in American education for over 80 years. Indeed, beginning
in 1918 with a survey by the North Central Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools to determine the most common grade configuration in
America’s junior high schools, and continuing into the new millennium,
the quest to expose the “best” physical arrangement for the middle
grades has left us with data to literally support any combination one would
care to advocate. A gradual transition from the junior high to the middle
school arrangement has, however, clearly emerged with each passing decade. For
instance, several studies documented the growth in the percentage of schools
organized in the 6-7-8 pattern from 15% (Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, and
Keefe, 1981) to 40% (Alexander and McEwin, 1989) to 50% (Valentine, Clark,
Irvin, Keefe, and Melton, 1993) to 55% (McEwin, Dickinson, and Jenkins, 1995).
In a 1993 national study, 65% of the principals reported that their schools had
moved to a 5-8 or 6-8 grade level configuration, as compared to 25% in 1981
reporting such a change (Valentine, et al, 1993).

Nonetheless, the recent work of Paglin and Fager (1997) now hints at a
revivification of the K-8 format (often referred to as the “elemiddle
school”). In the same vein, Offenberg (2001) compared the effects of
attending public Philadelphia K-8 schools or public middle schools on eighth-
and ninth-grade achievement and discovered students attending K-8 schools had
higher reading, mathematics, and science achievement than students attending
middle schools serving similar communities. Similarly, a study of Baltimore
City Public Schools reveals that students in K-8 schools produced significantly
higher reading, language arts, and mathematics scores than did students in 6-8
schools (Connolly, Yakimowski-Srebnick & Russo, 2002). Such vacillation on
the “configuration of choice” may have a role in the ongoing
challenge of the middle school philosophy to engender a strong sense of
identification among classroom teachers who are employed within such a
diversified collection of “middle school” arrangements.

Despite the perpetuity of this debate, the overall literature suggests that
when considering the “proper” arrangement of grades for the middle
years of schooling, the grade level configuration alone appears to bear little
consequence on student learning, school adjustment, and personal growth.
According to Norton and Lewis (2000), it is the execution of appropriate
programs delivered in the best institutions that will provide the most
responsive education for the young adolescent. Hough (1999) insists a bona fide
middle school is not an organizational structure consisting of a specific grade
level configuration and a name that includes the word middle, rather it
is a set of characteristics that meet the needs of the emerging adolescent.
Roeser, et al (2000) suggest that it is the integration of specific
instructional and interpersonal dimensions that create effective middle
schools.

Nevertheless, some research has inferred that “complete” middle
schools may foster higher teacher efficacy, which leads to positive student
attitudes (Warren and Payne, 1997). Further, teachers in “complete”
middle schools tend to perform better and have a more positive, humanistic
attitude toward teaching and student control than do their counterparts in the
junior high school and other middle level settings.

Studies of teacher thinking have revealed that if teachers’ implicit
theories about learners or their mental images of effective teaching are
contrary to that embodied in a new curriculum or teaching method, they may be
unlikely to bring the innovation alive with great enthusiasm, thoroughness, and
persistence. As represented in the literature, teacher thinking can be
described as a set of moderating contextual factors that influence
substantially the outcomes of teacher effectiveness and curriculum
effectiveness (Clark and Peterson, 1986; Cochran-Smith (1990); Richardson,
1996). A study by Vulliamy (1997) agrees that teachers' beliefs, values, and
practices are powerful mediators of their interpretations and responses to
imposed changes. To many teachers, middle schools are not compelling, and the
purpose of middle schools is fuzzy and clouded by jargon that, to them, has
little relevance to the day-to-day challenges of teaching and learning (Mizell,
2000b).

Recent middle grades research has specifically isolated a need for teacher
attitudes that embrace the concepts of the middle school model. Dickinson and
Butler (2001) uncover six elements of the transition to middle schools that
ultimately hinder full implementation of the middle school concept in many
schools: use of an incremental stage implementation model, lack of teacher
education programs, lack of curriculum development, inadequate leadership, a
paucity of research, and misunderstanding of the middle school concept.
Similarly, Pitton (2001) discusses the need for changing teacher perceptions of
middle school students in order to create a welcoming school and classroom
environment that fulfills the goals of the middle school concept. Teachers and
school districts are encouraged to focus on students' changing needs by making
connections to the middle school model.

Indeed, trends beginning in the early 1990’s indicated an increasing
number of middle level schools were implementing programs recommended to align
more closely with the developmental needs of early adolescents (Epstein and
MacIver, 1990; Valentine et al., 1993). Is this enough? Despite sporadic
studies on the classroom implementation of middle school principles, a
deficiency exists in solid research on how middle level teachers actually
encircle and accept the tenets of the middle school concept, either in a
general sense or as the tenets apply to their own unique educational
environments. The mere reported implementation of a classroom practice could be
misleading. As the research on teachers’ thought processes alludes, if
teachers do not embrace or give credence to a specific practice, the desired
outcomes may still fail to be realized, even though, on paper, the program
component appears to have been “implemented.” The components are,
in fact, implemented without integrity.

What is lacking then in the literature is a study or series of studies to
examine organizational setting and its relationship to teacher acceptance of
the middle school philosophy. Similarly there is a lack of studies that examine
teacher certification/licensure and its relationship to teacher acceptance of
the middle school philosophy. Without the proper expectations and support by
classroom teachers, the status of the middle school movement is precarious at
best and the vision of middle level settings that are scholastically excellent,
developmentally responsive, and socially equitable will remain as little more
than fodder for academia.

src="../../images/uparrow.gif" alt="Arrow Up" align="right" border="0"
height="13" width="20" />

Statement of Hypothesis

The null hypotheses (H_o) for this study were twofold:

1. There will be no significant difference in how middle level teachers from
four distinct building configurations (teachers from schools referred to as
“middle schools,” organized with some combination of grades 6-8;
teachers from schools referred to as “junior high schools;”
teachers who teach middle level grades in K-8 or 1-8 schools; and teachers who
teach 6^th grade in an elementary K-6 or 1-6 building) accept the
tenets of the middle school philosophy.

2. There will be no significant difference in how middle level teachers
possessing various types of teaching certification or licensure (elementary,
middle, secondary) accept the tenets of the middle school philosophy.

src="../../images/uparrow.gif" alt="Arrow Up" align="right" border="0"
height="13" width="20" />

Method

The sample for this study consisted of 200 randomly selected middle level
teachers in three states from the four dominant organizational settings in
which one typically finds grades 6-8, or some combination thereof: (A)
50 teachers from schools specifically referred to as “middle
schools,” organized with some combination of grades 6-8; (B) 50
teachers from schools designated as “junior high schools;”
(C) 50 teachers who teach middle level grades in K-8 or 1-8 buildings in
which the elementary and middle level grades share a common structure;
(D) 50 teachers who teach 6^th grade in an elementary K-6 or
1-6 building.

The states of Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio were selected for the study
because these states provide ”heartland” moderation with a
desirable balance of urban/rural districts. Some studies, for example, have
suggested that very rural or very urban school systems are often
incompatible with the middle school, for explanations ranging from a perceived
loss of “community identity” to a prevailing lack of socioeconomic
“fit” (Becker, 1987; DeYoung, Howley, & Theobald, 1995).

A total of 280 questionnaires were mailed (70 in each category of building
configuration; 112 to Indiana, 91 to Kentucky, 77 to Ohio) with 204 being
returned (53 elementary, 50 junior high, 51 middle school, 50 K-8), an overall
73% return rate. Forty-two percent of the questionnaires were returned from
Indiana teachers, 31 percent were from Kentucky, and 27 percent were from Ohio.
To provide homogeneity and simplify comparisons, only the first 200 returned
questionnaires (50 in each category of building configuration) were used for
analysis. The average years of classroom experience for the teachers who
responded were: Junior High (13), Middle School (15), Elementary (15), and K/8
(13), for a combined average of 14 years.

The measuring instrument for this study was a researcher-generated
questionnaire that made use of a 1-to-5 Likert scale (1=strongly agree,
5=strongly disagree). Respondents were also asked to denote the type of
building in which they teach as well as the type of professional
certification/licensure held. Survey questions were compiled from desirable
middle level attributes as articulated by such landmark sources as Wiles and
Bondi (1981), Carnegie Council’s Turning Points (1989; 2000) and
the National Middle School Association’s This We Believe (1982,
1995, 2003). Survey questions (and the category of the middle school philosophy
apposite to each questions were as follows):

Data analysis was accomplished through the use of the two-dimensional chi
square in the form of 4 x 3 and 3x 3 contingency tables with each middle level
setting being compared with each of the other middle level settings, and each
certification type compared with each of the other certification types. The
chi-square is a nonparametric test of significance appropriate when the data
are in the form of frequency counts. It can also be used to determine whether
two variables are independent by comparing their observed joint occurrence with
their expected joint occurrence, assuming independence. To both acknowledge
minimum frequency thresholds of certain cells and to streamline the reporting
of data, survey categories were “lumped” or “collapsed”
to achieve this efficiency: “Strongly Disagree (SD)” and
“Disagree (D)” were logically combined as
“Disagreement” while “Strongly Agree (SA)” and
“Agree (A)” were merged into “Agreement.” Certification
categories were likewise synthesized to reflect “Elementary,”
“Middle,” (which includes teachers with precise middle school
certification and teachers with a so-stated middle school endorsement, acquired
through an approved program of studies), and “Secondary.” Such
aggregation preserved the integrity of the data as originally collected.

src="../../images/uparrow.gif" alt="Arrow Up" align="right" border="0"
height="13" width="20" />

Cross Difference in Variables Among Organizational Setting and Middle Level
Teacher Acceptance of the Middle School Philosophy: A Summary of Findings

Data in this study suggest substantial teacher acceptance of the middle
school philosophy across the various organizational settings. There were, for
example, no significant differences revealed on the following items: the school
schedule should be flexible and permit time for recreation breaks or special
activities; each curriculum area should have a prepared statement of goals and
a continuum of objectives; evaluation should be keyed to the goals and
objectives; instruction should match the goals and objectives; students should
be given directed practice in the use of materials and the “ways of
knowing” appropriate to the subject; and the value of interdisciplinary
teams. Such findings are consistent with earlier published research summaries
from the National Middle School Association that concluded effective programs
and practices, not grade configuration, determine quality schools (Lucas and
Valentine, 2001).

Pearson chi square values denoting significant differences among building
configurations were, however, revealed for eight of the 20 questions on the
survey (see Table 1). This lack of symmetry on 40 percent of the items would
suggest some association between school setting and how teachers accept
the tenets of the middle school philosophy. The items with significant
differences may serve to isolate those tenets that have, perhaps, made less
headway in gaining universal acceptance by middle level teachers in all
settings.

Table 1. Organizational Setting and Teacher Acceptance of Middle School
Philosophy

Note. Elem is abbreviation for Elementary, Mid is abbreviation for
Middle School, JH is abbreviation for Junior High, A is abbreviation for
Agreement, U is abbreviation for Undecided. Terms in bold print indicate
pairings of significant differences.

*p < .05

df=6

href="#tableofcontents"> align="right" border="0" height="13" width="20" />

Cross Difference in Variables Among Certification or Licensure Type and
Middle Level Teacher Acceptance of the Middle School Philosophy: A Summary of
Findings

A greater sense of uniformity existed across certification or licensure
types than building configurations. Efforts by teacher education programs and
district-sponsored professional development to emphasize experiential,
student-centered, cognitive approaches to learning may slowly be blurring the
lines between elementary, middle, and secondary certification. Pearson chi
square values indicating significance among certification types were uncovered
for four of the 20 survey questions (See Table 2).

Table 2. Certification / Licensure Type and Teacher Acceptance of Middle
School Philosophy

Note. Elem is abbreviation for Elementary, Mid is abbreviation for
Middle School, Sec is abbreviation for Secondary, A is for Agreement, U is for
Undecided. Terms in bold print indicate pairings of significant
differences.

*p < .05

df=4

href="#tableofcontents"> align="right" border="0" height="13" width="20" />

Additional Findings: Middle Level Teachers as a Group

With varying degrees of enthusiasm, the 200 middle level teachers who
participated in this survey (with a combined average of 14 years classroom
experience) were in agreement as an aggregate with 15 of the 17 questions for
which an affirmative response would be viewed as consistent with the beliefs of
the middle school philosophy. Similarly the teachers disputed two of two
statements for which a negative response was consistent with the beliefs of the
middle school philosophy. Nonetheless, the items where teacher responses were
incompatible with middle school beliefs can certainly not be disregarded
or discounted. In fact, these responses are very telling, especially when
placed in juxtaposition with the idea that 61 percent of the participants
considered themselves to be “middle school” teachers. The teachers,
for example, rejected the notion that reports to parents concerning learner
progress should be multi-dimensional, relying more on narrative accounts and
less on letter or numerical grades (62% disagreed or were unsure). Teachers
disagreed textbooks should be used seldom or never (75% disagreed),
demonstrating a reluctance to subjugate the textbook even within a classroom
philosophy based around learning that really matters, higher-order thinking
skills, authentic contexts, and demonstrations that engage students in role
performances. In addition, the teachers were collectively unsure about the use
of multiage groups to improve student learning (58% unsure). The argument can
be made the aforementioned tenets are more than incidental components of the
middle school concept. In many ways these tenets represent much of the kernel
of the middle school movement.

src="../../images/uparrow.gif" alt="Arrow Up" align="right" border="0"
height="13" width="20" />

Discussion

Based on the overall data, the middle school movement appears to be making
steady progress. The first phase of the movement was obviously the creation and
development of middle schools themselves. The second phase, currently in
progress, emphasizes increased knowledge and skills for principals and
teachers, the strengthening of curriculum and the significant reform of
education for young adolescents. The level of agreement by teachers with the
tenets of the middle school philosophy (building configuration and
certification type notwithstanding) shows recognition that the disparate needs
of young adolescents were not being adequately met within the context of
previous administrative units. Teachers are expressing widespread agreement
with those program components that align with key recommendations from the
literature on middle school education.

Perhaps most encouraging was the lack of significant differences between the
attitudes of teachers in buildings called “middle schools” and the
attitudes of teachers in buildings called “junior high schools.”
The junior high school, with its reputation for a sterile fixed curriculum and
didactic approach to instruction, has been perceived for decades as an
antithesis to the organizational flexibility, individualization, and humanistic
sensitivity of the middle school. Both organizational settings appear to be
moving closer together in the attitudes they exhibit toward meeting the
developmental and social needs of young adolescent students.

Interestingly the questionnaire items which produced significant differences
for certain pockets of middle level teachers were those items concentrated in
clusters of tenets most explicitly representative of a middle school structure
(e.g. Meeting Needs of Emerging Adolescent, Instruction for Middle Level
Learners, Parental Cooperation, Staffing in Middle School). Despite the absence
of a clear trend regarding those groupings that revealed significant
differences, the data suggest that some strong and traditional schooling
cultures might still exist. Teachers who teach sixth grade in an elementary
building, teachers who are elementary-certified, teachers who teach middle
level grades in a K-8 building, and teachers who are secondary-certified appear
to be the most vulnerable to a departure from the tenets of the middle school
philosophy. Targeting the improvement of teachers’ learning through
consistent and high quality middle school-specific staff development holds
promise as an effective intervention.

Teachers who teach sixth grade in the elementary school, for instance, must
be made aware of the value of student exploration and the wisdom of special
training for middle school teaching provided by the district. Most importantly,
these teachers need to identify themselves as middle school, not elementary,
teachers. Likewise, it is important for teachers who are elementary-certified
to align themselves with the middle school philosophy if they are teaching
middle level students. Otherwise, the teachers may defer to an
“elementary” predisposition and fail to adequately acknowledge the
needs of “tween-agers.”

K-8 teachers were irresolute about the value in housing middle level
students in smaller areas. Such buildings may benefit from a variation of the
“school within a school” or “small school” concept to
personalize teaching and learning. To avoid sacrificing middle level
educational needs to elementary or high school program priorities, educators
should provide separate bell schedules, faculty, and budget categories for the
middle level program as well as staff development based on the separate needs
of the middle level staff. Teachers should be involved in the planning and
reorganization of the middle level school curriculum and programs. Ninety
percent of K-8 teachers were either opposed to or undecided about the tenet
that administrators and teachers should understand and be committed to the
middle school concept. Such a scenario is quite unsettling and should be a
cause of great concern to those who are in leadership roles within the middle
school movement. Teachers in K-8 schools also need to understand the value of
parental involvement in the governance of the school (K-8 teachers led all
building configurations with more than 1/3 of respondents
“undecided”); this sharing of authority with parents clearly helps
to establish a coordinated home-school effort.

Teachers with secondary certification should come to recognize the
importance of physical movement, team planning, and, like elementary-certified
teachers, the ability of students to identify one teacher to whom they can go
for guidance and support. Junior high teachers in the sample were unconvinced
about the need to individualize instruction, thus effectively disregarding the
premise that students are always unique, even in classes of supposedly
homogeneously grouped students. Strikingly, middle school teachers led all
organizational settings in their agreement with ability grouping, and,
therefore, must work to create a culture of detracking in which the right and
ability of students from every background to learn from the best kind of
curriculum is respected. The common practice of pacing instruction to the
“average” student must be reevaluated.

While the affirmation that middle level schools should be about the business
of developing a true identity has not been fully realized to date, there is
certainly room for optimism. True, some middle level settings and professional
certification types display evidence of “blended outcomes” as they
reconcile traditional structures with the components of the middle school
philosophy, yet the teachers as a whole appear to be moving toward greater
implementation of middle school programming. Such findings should inspirit
middle school advocates who frequently face a significant communications
challenge as they attempt to inform educators as to the reasons why middle
schools exist and why the experiences they should provide for young adolescents
are different from those at the elementary and secondary levels. This st


Tags: education, online-college,


See Other Education Articles...