The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education (2nd Ed. ) [1 ed.] 9781681235714, 9781681235691

Citation preview

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education 2nd edition

A volume in The Handbook of Resources in Middle Level Education Steven B. Mertens and Micki M. Caskey, Series Editors

THE HANDBOOK OF RESOURCES IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION Steven B. Mertens and Micki M. Caskey, Series Editors Clinical Preparation at the Middle Level: Practices and Possibilities (2016) Edited by Penny B. Howell, Jan Carpenter, and Jeanneine Jones Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. and Steven B. Mertens, Series Editors The Legacy of Middle School Leaders: In Their Own Words (2011) Edited by Tracy W. Smith and C. Kenneth McEwin

THE HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION Steven B. Mertens and Micki M. Caskey, Series Editors Research on Teaching and Learning With the Literacies of Young Adolescents (2015) Edited by Kathleen F. Malu and Mary Beth Schaefer Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., Series Editors Common Planning Time in Middle Level Schools: Research Studies From the MLER SIG’s National Project (2013) Edited by Steven B. Mertens, Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., Micki M. Caskey, and Nancy Flowers Voices From the Middle: Narrative Inquiry By, For, and About the Middle Level Community (2010) Edited by Kathleen F. Malu An International Look at Educating Young Adolescents (2009) Edited by Steven B. Mertens, Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., and Kathleen Roney The Young Adolescent and the Middle School (2007) Edited by Steven B. Mertens, Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., and Micki M. Caskey Making a Difference: Action Research in Middle Level Education (2005) Edited by Micki M. Caskey Reforming Middle Level Education: Considerations for Policymakers (2004) Edited by Sue C. Thompson Leaders for a Movement: Professional Preparation and Development of Middle Level Teachers and Administrators (2003) Edited by P. Gayle Andrews and Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. Middle School Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (2002) Edited by Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. and Sandra L. Stacki The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education (2001) Edited by Vincent A. Anfara, Jr.

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education 2nd edition edited by

Steven B. Mertens Illinois State University

Micki M. Caskey Portland State University

Nancy Flowers CPRD, University of Illinois

M

MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION RESEARCH SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov ISBN: 978-1-68123-569-1 (Paperback) 978-1-68123-570-7 (Hardcover) 978-1-68123-571-4 (ebook)

Copyright © 2016 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

This edition of The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education is dedicated to our beloved middle grades leaders, mentors, colleagues, and friends: Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. and Thomas O. Erb

M

MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION RESEARCH SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP

The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education is endorsed by the Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group, an affiliate of the American Educational Research Association. As stated in the organization’s bylaws, the purpose of MLER is to improve, promote, and disseminate educational research reflecting early adolescence and middle-level education.

Contents List of Entries ........................................................................................ix About the Editors ................................................................................xiii List of Contributors.............................................................................. xv Foreword ..............................................................................................xix John H. Lounsbury Introduction to the Second Edition...................................................xxi Micki M. Caskey, Steven B. Mertens, and Nancy Flowers Entries .....................................................................................................1 Index ................................................................................................... 441

vii

This page intentionally left blank.

List of Entries A A Curriculum for the Middle School Years .................................... 1 A Middle School Curriculum: From Rhetoric to Reality ................ 2 Ability Grouping ....................................................................... 2 Academic Achievement ............................................................ 5 Academic Excellence ................................................................ 9 Accelerated Schools................................................................ 12 Accountability ......................................................................... 12 Accreditation and Middle Level Teacher Preparation Programs ....................................................................... 16 Achievement Gap.................................................................... 19 Achievement Tests .................................................................. 22 Adaptations, Accommodations, and Modifications ............ 25 Administrators: Middle Level Principals .............................. 28 Advisory Programs ................................................................. 31 Affective Development ........................................................... 35 After School Programs........................................................... 38 Alexander, William M. ........................................................... 42 Alternative Middle Schools.................................................... 43 American Educational Research Association ...................... 46 American Federation of Teachers ......................................... 47 American Institutes for Research.......................................... 47 AMLE Magazine....................................................................... 48 Anfara, Vincent A., Jr. ............................................................ 49 Arnold, John ........................................................................... 50 Arth, Alfred A. ....................................................................... 50 Arts Education ........................................................................ 51 As I See It .................................................................................. 55 Assessment: Formative Evaluation ........................................ 55 Assessment: Summative Evaluation ...................................... 57 Association for Middle Level Education............................... 59 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ................................................................. 60 Authentic Assessment............................................................. 61

B Beane, James A. ...................................................................... 65 Bergmann, Sherrel ................................................................. 66 The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages ix–xi Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Brain Development................................................................. 67 Brain Growth Periodization .................................................. 70 Breaking Ranks Framework ..................................................... 72 BRIDGES Project.................................................................... 73 Briggs, Thomas ....................................................................... 74 Bullying ................................................................................... 75

C Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development ................... 79 Caught in the Middle ................................................................. 80 Center for Early Adolescence ................................................ 81 Center for Prevention Research and Development ............. 81 Charter Schools ...................................................................... 82 Classroom Management ........................................................ 86 Cognitive Development.......................................................... 89 Collaborative Decision Making ............................................. 92 College and Career Readiness .............................................. 94 Collegiate Middle Level Association .................................... 97 The Committee of Ten Report ..................................................... 97 Common Planning Time ....................................................... 98 Community ........................................................................... 100 Comprehensive School Reform ........................................... 103 Cooperative Learning .......................................................... 106 Council of Chief State School Officers ............................... 109 Counseling ............................................................................ 110 Curriculum Alignment ........................................................ 112 Curriculum: Core ................................................................. 116 Curriculum Development .................................................... 119 Curriculum Integration ....................................................... 122 Curriculum: Interdisciplinary Unit .................................... 125

D Democratic Classrooms ....................................................... 131 Developmental Responsiveness ........................................... 133 Dewey, John ........................................................................... 137 Dickinson, Thomas S. .......................................................... 137

ix

x ◾ List of Entries Doda, Nancy M. .................................................................... 138 Douglass, Harl R. .................................................................. 139

E Early Awareness .................................................................... 141 Early Indicator Systems ........................................................ 144 Edna McConnell Clark Foundation .................................... 148 Effective Schools ................................................................... 148 Eichhorn, Donald H............................................................. 152 The Eight-Year Study ............................................................ 153 The Eight-Year Study Revisited: Lessons from the Past for the Present ................................................................ 153 Eliot, Charles W. ................................................................... 154 English Language Learners ................................................ 154 Erb, Thomas O...................................................................... 159 Erikson, Erik ......................................................................... 160 The Exemplary Middle School .................................................. 161 Exploratory Curriculum ...................................................... 161

F Family Involvement and Partnerships................................. 165 The Forgotten Middle: Ensuring that All Students Are on Target for College and Career Readiness ........................ 169

G Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better ....................................................................... 171 Garvin, James P. .................................................................... 172 Gatewood, Thomas E. .......................................................... 172 George, Paul S. ..................................................................... 173 Gifted Students/Programs ...................................................174 Grade Configuration: K–8 Versus Middle Grades ............. 177 Grade Configurations at the Middle Level ........................ 181 Growing Up Forgotten: A Review of Research and Programs Concerning Early Adolescence........................................ 185 Gruhn, William T. ................................................................ 186

H Hall, G. Stanley ..................................................................... 187 The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education ............. 188 The Handbook of Resources in Middle Level Education ........... 189 Health: Comprehensive Health Programs ......................... 190 Health: Mental Health and Young Adolescents ................. 194 Historical and Influential Publications in Middle Level Education .......................................................... 195

I Identity Development ........................................................... 199 Inclusion ................................................................................ 202 Inclusion: Students with Disabilities ................................... 204

Institute for Education Sciences.......................................... 207 Instructional Methods: Differentiated Instruction ........... 207 Instructional Methods/Strategies ....................................... 211 Interdisciplinary Team Organization ................................. 213

J Johnston, J. Howard ............................................................. 219 Journal of Adolescent Research ................................................. 220 Journal of Early Adolescence .................................................... 220 Junior High School............................................................... 220

K Kilpatrick, William H. .......................................................... 223 Koos, Leonard V. .................................................................. 224

L Leadership ............................................................................ 227 Learning Forward ................................................................ 230 Learning Styles ..................................................................... 231 Lilly Endowment, Inc. .......................................................... 233 Limited English Proficiency ................................................ 235 Lipsitz, Joan S. ...................................................................... 238 Literacy .................................................................................. 238 Looping ................................................................................. 242 Lounsbury, John H. .............................................................. 246

M McEwin, C. Kenneth ............................................................ 249 Melton, George E. ................................................................ 250 Mentoring and Induction .................................................... 250 Middle Grades Research Journal .............................................. 253 Middle Level Education—Origin of the Term .................. 254 Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group.... 256 Middle Level Leadership Center......................................... 257 Middle Level Literature ....................................................... 258 Middle School Journal ............................................................. 260 Mindset: The New Psychology of Success ................................... 261 Motivation ............................................................................. 262 Multicultural Education ...................................................... 266 Multiple Intelligences........................................................... 268

N National Adolescent Literacy Coalition.............................. 273 National Association of Elementary School Principals ..... 274 National Association of Professors of Middle Level Education .................................................................... 274 National Association of Secondary School Principals ...... 275 NASSP National Middle Level Studies ............................... 276 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards ....... 277

List of Entries ◾ xi National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Middle Level Studies .................................................. 278 National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform ........................................................................ 278 National Education Association .......................................... 279 National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform ..... 280 National Middle Grades Research Project on Common Planning Time ........................................... 280 New American Schools ........................................................ 282 New Literacies ....................................................................... 282 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ...................................... 286

Special Education in Middle Schools ................................. 358 Sports in Middle Schools ..................................................... 361 Standards .............................................................................. 365 STEM—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math..... 369 Stevenson, Christopher ........................................................ 372 Student-Led Conferences .................................................... 373 Successful Schools for Young Adolescents .................................. 377 Swaim, John H. ..................................................................... 377 Swaim, Sue ............................................................................ 378

T O Online Learning................................................................... 291 Organizational Structures ................................................... 294

P Parents for Public Schools ................................................... 299 Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers .................................................................300 Peer Tutoring ........................................................................ 301 Piaget, Jean ........................................................................... 303 Professional Learning Communities .................................. 304 Program of International Student Assessment .................. 307 Progressivism ........................................................................308

R Relationships......................................................................... 311 Research and Resources in Support of This We Believe (2nd edition) .............................................................. 314 Research in Middle Level Education Online ............................ 314 Research to Guide Practice in Middle Grades Education .......... 315 R 3 = Research, Rhetoric, and Reality: A Study of Studies ......... 316 Response to Intervention ......................................................317 Rural Middle Schools ........................................................... 320

Taking Center Stage................................................................. 381 Teacher Certification ........................................................... 382 Teacher Preservice Preparation .......................................... 385 Teacher Professional Development ..................................... 388 Teaching Middle Years: Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment.............................................................. 390 Technology Integration ....................................................... 391 Testing ................................................................................... 394 Testing: High Stakes ............................................................. 396 Thematic Units .....................................................................400 Third International Mathematics and Science Study ....... 402 This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents ............. 403 Title I .....................................................................................404 Toepfer, Jr., Conrad F. ..........................................................406 Transition Programs ............................................................ 407 Transitions ............................................................................ 411 Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century .................................................................. 414 Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century .................................................................. 415 21st Century Skills ................................................................ 416 Tyler, Ralph W. ...................................................................... 418

U U.S. Department of Education ............................................ 421 Underachievement ............................................................... 422 Urban Middle School ........................................................... 426

S Scheduling: Flexible Interdisciplinary Block Schedules ..... 325 School Culture ...................................................................... 331 School Size ............................................................................ 335 Schools to Watch .................................................................. 338 School-Within-School Organization ..................................340 Self-Concept/Self-Esteem .................................................... 343 Service Learning .................................................................. 346 Shadow Studies ..................................................................... 349 Shooting for the Sun: The Message for Middle School Reform ... 351 Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium.......................... 352 Social and Emotional Learning .......................................... 353 The Society for Research on Adolescence .......................... 356 Soundings: A Democratic Student-Centered Education............. 357 Southern Regional Education Board ................................. 357

V Vars, Gordon F. ..................................................................... 431 Vygotsky, Lev ......................................................................... 432

W W. K. Kellogg Foundation .................................................... 433 We Gain More Than We Give: Teaming in Middle Schools....... 434 What Works Clearinghouse ................................................. 434

Y Young Adolescent Development .......................................... 437

This page intentionally left blank.

About the Editors Steven B. Mertens is associate professor of middle level education in the School of Teaching and Learning at Illinois State University. He has authored or co-authored more than 60 publications and has presented papers at 80 international, national, and state conferences addressing varying aspects of middle level education and reform. Together with Micki Caskey, he serves as co-editor of the book series: The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education and The Handbook of Resources in Middle Level Education. Steve is a former chair of AERA’s Middle Level Education Research SIG, a former member of AMLE’s Research Advisory Board, and a member of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grade’s Reform. Email: [email protected] Micki M. Caskey is associate dean and professor in the Graduate School of Education at Portland State University. She serves as co-editor of the book series, The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education and The Handbook of Resources in Middle Level Education. She is the author or co-author of more than 60 publications and 100 conference presentations. Micki is former chair of AERA’s Middle Level Education Research SIG, former chair of Association for Middle Level Education’s Research Advisory Board, and past editor of Research in Middle Level Education Online. She is also a former public school teacher who taught young adolescents for more than 20 years. E-mail: [email protected] Nancy Flowers is Assistant Director of Research Programs at the Center for Prevention Research and Development (CPRD) in the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. For 20 years, Nancy has served as a principal investigator and project director of research and evaluation projects related to middle grades education and reform. Her work includes large-scale evaluations of comprehensive middle-grades reform efforts. Most recently, she serves as lead evaluator for two U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation (i3) grants which are focused on working with middle-grades schools. Nancy has numerous publications, reports, and presentations on topics related to middle-grades research. She has served on the board of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, as a Council Member for AERA’s Middle Level Education Research SIG, and as a co-leader for the AERA Middle Level Education Research SIG’s National Middle Grades Research Project on Common Planning Time. Email: nfl[email protected]

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, page xiii Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xiii

This page intentionally left blank.

List of Contributors Maud Abeel Contributor from 1st edition

Peter Boedeker Texas A&M University

Patrick Akos The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Michelle E. Boyer-Pennington Middle Tennessee State University

Gail Anderson Canby School District

Gena M. Bramlett Contributor from 1st edition

P. Gayle Andrews The University of Georgia

Kathleen Brinegar Johnson State College

Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. Contributor from 1st edition

Thomas M. Brinthaupt Middle Tennessee State University

Melissa Baker The University of Georgia

Dave F. Brown West Chester University

Meghan E. Barnes The University of Georgia

Alison Buehler Contributor from 1st edition

Dan Bauer Georgia Southern University

Ann Bullock East Carolina University

Candy Beal North Carolina State University

Mary Margaret Capraro Texas A&M University

James A. Beane

Jan Carpenter Marylhurst University

Stephanie M. Bennett Mississippi State University

Micki M. Caskey Portland State University

Dana L. Bickmore University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Donald C. Clark University of Arizona

Allison Reagan Bisel The University of Georgia

Sally N. Clark University of Arizona

Penny Bishop University of Vermont

Chris M. Cook Appalachian State University

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages xv–xviii Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xv

xvi ◾ List of Contributors

Sondra S. Cooney Contributor from 1st edition

Casey D. Gilewski University of Memphis

Stephanie Croneberg University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Sheila Rogers Gloer Baylor University

Larry G. Daniel The Citadel

Elsa Andreasen Glover Kaneland Harter Middle School Kaneland Community Unit School District 302

Erika Daniels California State University, San Marcos Trina J. Davis Texas A&M University Robin Dever Kent State University–Geauga Kevin Duquette Phillips Middle School Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools

Carol Goldfus Levinsky College of Education Dianne Goldsby Texas A&M University Matthew D. Goodman Contributor from 1st edition Jennifer S. Goodwin Contributor from 1st edition

Cheryl R. Ellerbrock University of South Florida

Tammy J. Graham The Citadel

Kristina Falbe Georgia College & State University

Melanie Greene Contributor from 1st edition

Francine Falk-Ross Pace University

Shannon Grey West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District

Shawn A. Faulkner Northern Kentucky University

Linda Haling Illinois State University

L. Mickey Fenzel Loyola University Maryland

Lisa M. Harrison Ohio University

Carolyn Grim Fidelman National Center for Education Statistics U.S. Department of Education

Sara Hartman Ohio University

Christine Finnan Contributor from 1st edition Janis D. Flint-Ferguson Gordon College

Heather Rogers Haverback Towson University Kristina K. Hill Texas A&M University

Nancy Flowers CPRD, University of Illinois

Linda Hopping National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform

Sejal Parikh Foxx University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Brittany L. Hott Texas A&M University, Commerce

Dana Pomykal Franz Mississippi State University

David Hough Missouri State University

Daniel M. Frederking Illinois State University

Penny B. Howell University of Louisville

Adria Gallup-Black FHI 360

Gail Ingwalson University of North Dakota

Pat George Association for Middle Level Education

Virginia M. Jagla National Louis University

Paul S. George University of Florida

Leah M. Jorgensen University of North Carolina, Wilmington

List of Contributors ◾ xvii

Janet Josephson Millersville University

Richard L. Mehrenberg Millersville University

Barbara A. Kalina Educational Consultant

Elliot Y. Merenbloom Educational Consultant

Anit Karni-Tagger Levinsky College of Education

Steven B. Mertens Illinois State University

Deborah Kasak National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform

Carla K. Meyer Duquesne University

Kriss Y. Kemp-Graham Texas A&M University, Commerce

Jim Miller Contributor from 1st edition

Brianna L. Kennedy-Lewis University of Florida

Nicole C. Miller Mississippi State University

Louise Kennelly Contributor from 1st edition

Nancy B. Mizelle Georgia College & State University

Shea N. Kerkhoff North Carolina State University

Clarice M. Moran North Carolina State University

Patti Kinney Educational Consultant

Matthew J. Moulton The University of Georgia

Mahati Kopparla Texas A&M University

Peter Mulhall CPRD, University of Illinois

James Lane University of Phoenix

P. Maureen Musser Contributor from 1st edition

Amanda Latimer The University of Georgia

William J. Rodriguez Nieves Illinois State University

Mark L’Esperance East Carolina University

Alyssa D. Nucaro University of Memphis

Courtney Lewis University of North Carolina, Wilmington

Nickolaus Ortiz Texas A&M University

Emily S. Lin University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Nita A. Paris Kennesaw State University

Richard P. Lipka St. Bonaventure University

Donna Pendergast Griffith University, Australia

John H. Lounsbury Georgia College & State University

Sara Davis Powell Contributor from 1st edition

Diana B. Lys East Carolina University

Joanne L. Previts Georgia College & State University

Katherine Main Griffith University, Australia

Donna Davenport Price Contributor from 1st edition

Monica Martinez Contributor from 1st edition

Laurie A. Ramirez Appalachian State University

C. Kenneth McEwin Appalachian State University

Brandi R. Ray Baylor University

Molly Mee Towson University

Cynthia C. Reyes University of Vermont

xviii ◾ List of Contributors

Mary Rice University of Kansas

April Tibbles Association for Middle Level Education

Lourdes M. Rivera Queens College, City University of New York

Carol Ann Tomlinson Contributor from 1st edition

Sarah A. Rozny Illinois State University

Jerry W. Valentine University of Missouri

Besty Rymes Contributor from 1st edition

David C. Virtue University of South Carolina

Risa Sackman FHI 360 Mary Beth Schaefer St. John’s University Michelle Schwartze Illinois State University Nelly Shora Texas A&M University, Commerce Michele Jean Sims Contributor from 1st edition Jennifer Smith Monticello Middle School Monticello Community Unit School District 25

Jennifer D. Walker University of Mary Washington Temple A. Walkowiak North Carolina State University Amanda Wall Georgia Southern University Hersh C. Waxman Contributor from 1st edition Gary Weilbacher Illinois State University Christopher S. Weiler Kutztown University

Tracy W. Smith Appalachian State University

Alicia Wenzel Western Oregon University

Frances R. Spielhagen Mount Saint Mary College

Marcus Wenzel Western Oregon University

Hiller A. Spires North Carolina State University Sandra L. Stacki Hofstra University Cody Stephens Contributor from 1st edition Mark Stevens George Mason University David Strahan Contributor from 1st edition Janet K. Stramel Fort Hays State University John H. Swaim University of Northern Colorado Shirley Theriot Contributor from 1st edition Nicole L. Thompson University Memphis

Katie Wester-Neal The University of Georgia Barbara L. Whinery Contributor from 1st edition Allison M. Wilson Appalachian State University Gretchen Wolfram Contributor from 1st edition Brandi Wade Worsham The University of Georgia Tabitha J. Wurster University of Virginia Carl A. Young North Carolina State University Bryan D. Zwemke Rotolo Middle School Batavia Public School District 101

Foreword T

he middle school movement is now 53 years old. Yet, in the long history of American education, “middle school” is a late entry on our education timeline where it carries an asterisk followed by the words “in progress.” The middle school movement, despite more than a half-century of existence marked by remarkable growth, from a historical perspective, is still relatively young. Though we speak of the middle school movement as an entity that began in 1963, it is really just the latest chapter in the Reorganization of Secondary Education initiated by the Commission of the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Cardinal Principals of Secondary Education (1918). In this landmark report, grades 7 and 8 were removed from elementary education and claimed as part of secondary education where they could serve the college preparation goal that was, initially, the sole motive for reorganizing. The report also suggested that the six high school grades might now be divided into junior and senior periods. This suggestion was immediately followed, thus establishing the junior high school as an independent entity. The subsequent growth of the junior high school as an administrative unit of grades 7–9 was remarkable. By 1946, just 37 years after it was initiated, the junior high school was the centerpiece of the 6–3–3 organization plan that had become the predominate organizational pattern in America, replacing the traditional 8–4 plan. The college preparation motive was soon put on the back burner as public school leaders became involved in the movement. The new 7–9 unit might then become the means for advancing a more progressive, child-centered education, which was envisioned by two founders, Leonard Koos and Thomas Briggs. Koos, a Professor of Education at the University of Minnesota and Briggs of Teachers College, Columbia University, both published books entitled simply, The Junior High School in 1920. In The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages xix–xx Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

their books, they called for what we would now label a developmentally responsive school. They advocated for a varied and exploratory curriculum and pointed out the need for teachers who were prepared for work at this level. Unfortunately, the junior high school as it was being made operational was unable to escape the domination of its parent, the high school. So it became what its name implied, a junior version of the senior high school, featuring high school practices of departmentalization and homogeneous grouping among others. However, even as its rapid growth numerically was on-going, criticism of the junior high began to appear, thus, perhaps preparing the way for the middle school concept. The exclusive academic program, it appeared, was leaving little room for attention to other developmental needs. Thus, a climate was forming that would be receptive to the coming middle school idea. The term “middle school,” entered the arena in 1963 and the middle school grew at such a phenomenal rate that by 1983 the new 5–3–4 pattern had become the dominate organizational plan in the United States, and is now almost universal. Further, it should be noted that the concept of having an intermediate institution based on principles of human growth and development was unique to our country. However, without a history of its own, having gone through developments marked by conflicting views and still being a work in progress, the middle school has been somewhat of a mystery to many and inadequately understood by most educators and the general public. Fortunately, The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education was published in 2005 (Anfara, Andrews, & Mertens) and made available the authoritative information that was needed to explain the middle school idea and its practices as well as guide its further development. Encyclopedias, by their nature, are not designed to be read page by page, cover to cover. They are reference

xix

xx ◾ Foreword

materials, sources that one goes to secure information on a topic and are organized to facilitate a search for desired information. Now, a decade after the publication of The Encyclopedia of Middle Level Education comes a second edition, where the original entries have been reviewed and revised and new entries included, thereby bringing the whole field of middle school education up to date. The second edition offers brief, but ample descriptions of over 210 middle level education topics, including people, publications, organizations, and research studies. The scope and coverage is, as young adolescents might say, awesome. A copy of this resource should be housed in the library of any institution that has a teacher preparation program. In addition, copies must be available in the appropriate department or in the offices of middle level education faculty members where they can be consulted on a moment’s notice. While this resource will be used primarily to provide information on a particular topic at a particular time, I believe every middle level educator would be well-advised to spend an hour or so browsing through this volume, to get a feel for its coverage, stopping to read entries that catch your attention, and perhaps critiquing the treatment given topics that are of particular interest to you. Recognizing that all of the 133 contributors are bona fide middle level experts;

you can conclude that The Encyclopedia of Middle Level Education is, indeed, authoritative! The editors, Steven B. Mertens, Micki M. Caskey, and Nancy Flowers are to be commended for planning and executing this major resource. Its development was, indeed, a daunting and often thankless task, but it resulted in a professional publication that is timely, of genuine significance and lasting importance, and can already be considered a classic. REFERENCES Anfara, V. A., Jr., Andrews, G., & Mertens, S. B. (Eds.). (2005). The encyclopedia of middle grades education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Briggs, T. H. (1920). The junior high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education. Bulletin 1918, No. 35. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education. Koos, L. V. (1920). The junior high school. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & Howe.

—John H. Lounsbury Georgia College and State University

Introduction to the Second Edition Micki M. Caskey Portland State University Steven B. Mertens Illinois State University Nancy Flowers CPRD, University of Illinois Middle grades education is schooling for students in the “middle.” These students in the middle are young adolescents—10- to 15-year-olds—who are undergoing a distinct period of human growth and development between childhood and adolescence. They experience rapid and significant developmental changes, which in turn, require knowledgeable educators and responsive schools. Regardless of the school (e.g., junior high school, K–8 school, middle school) or grade configuration (e.g., grades 5–8, grades 6–8, grades 7–8), young adolescents deserve education—schooling—designed for their unique developmental characteristics and needs. After all, young adolescents are still in the middle. The idea of education for young adolescents is not new. At the beginning of the 20th century, the junior high school emerged as a model for educating young adolescents. The junior high model arose in response to societal pressures (i.e., immigration, industrialization, college preparation) and frustration with the traditional schooling model (i.e., irrelevant curriculum, low student retention rate). This new model was to include disciplinary education, exploratory curriculum, vocational education, recognition of students’ individual and socialization needs, and extra-curricular activities as well as teachers and principals dedicated to the junior high school. Then, in the 1960s, dissatisfaction with the junior high school model grew. Critics lamented that junior high schools were too much like senior high schools

(i.e., miniature high schools) and that they failed to provide student-centered education. The attempt to offer a richer curriculum than the elementary school and a more personal atmosphere than the high school had not materialized. Eventually, the call for reform of the junior high school model changed to a call for a new school model—the middle school. The middle school would be “the school which stands academically between elementary and high school, is housed separately, and offers at least three years of schooling beginning with either grade five or six” (National Educational Association, 1965, p. 5). In the 1980s, attention for a school in the middle accelerated. Alexander and George (1981) described the middle school in The Exemplary Middle School, advancing the middle school concept. National Middle School Association (NMSA) offered a position statement, This We Believe, (NMSA, 1982), articulating a focus on the distinct developmental needs of young adolescents and describing programmatic components (e.g., interdisciplinary teams, flexible organizational structures, varied instructional strategies, exploratory curriculum, advisory programs) for middle schools. NMSA also highlighted the importance of educators who were knowledgeable and committed to teaching young adolescents. The middle school concept has had numerous champions—associations, funders, and researchers—across the past five decades. Associations advocating for middle grades education included Association for Middle

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages xxi–xxiii Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xxi

xxii ◾ Introduction to the Second Edition

Level Education (AMLE, formerly National Middle School Association), the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. Foundations supporting middle grades education have been Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Lilly Endowment, Inc. Researchers studying middle grades education have included members of the Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group (MLER SIG) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the Center for Prevention Research and Development (CPRD), and an array of independent researchers. Numerous publications have documented the importance of the middle grades including The Middle School We Need (ASCD, 1975), This We Believe (NMSA, 1982, 1995, 2003, 2010), An Agenda for Excellence in Middle Level Education (NASSP, 1985), Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989), Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century (Jackson & Davis, 2000) and the Vision Statement of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (2014). Notably, these distinctive publications share common principles—ones that undergird middle grades education. Together, they describe ongoing work to improve education for young adolescents. The purpose of the second edition of The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education is not only to build on the aforementioned knowledge base, but also to update the first edition (Anfara, Andrews, & Mertens, 2005). These encyclopedias respond to the need for clear and concise information about middle grades education. They provide a jumping off point, an introduction, or broad overview of a selected topic in middle grades education. The first edition of The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education was designed to be a comprehensive overview of the field. It included seven anchor essays (5000 words) that addressed a variety of broader topics (e.g., history of the middle school movement; developmental responsiveness and social equity in middle grades schools; future directions in relation to the movement, practices, and policy). In addition to the anchor essays, the Encyclopedia contained 156 alphabetically organized entries (500 word short entries and 2000 word long entries) that addressed important concepts, ideas, terms, people, organizations, and seminal publications related to middle level education. The entries were introductory with an overview of the topic followed by more detailed information and references. Such an encyclopedia of middle grades education, the first in the field, was

beneficial to teacher preparation programs, graduate level programs, higher education in general, advocates, practitioners, and others. Ten years following the publication of the first edition, the editors decided to update and expand the entries in The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education. This led to the development of the second edition, which builds on the foundation of the inaugural edition. We engaged in a deliberate process to update and expand the Encyclopedia. To begin, we examined the content of the first edition of the Encyclopedia to identify which entries were current and still relevant to the field. Then, we developed a list of new topics for entries that should be added to expand the Encyclopedia. We decided to forego the inclusion of anchor essays in the second edition of the Encyclopedia as these appeared as reprints or updated versions in Research to Guide Practice in Middle Grades Education (Andrews, 2013). Prior to sending out a general call for submissions, the authors of first edition entries were contacted and invited to revise their entry for the second edition. Using a systematic approach of soliciting entries on the identified topics, we collected and edited nearly 200 entries on middle grades topics. The result is a second edition of The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education with 212 entries (a 26% increase). A number of entries in the first edition of the Encyclopedia were not updated or revised for this edition. When the original authors were not available to revise their entry, we were unable to solicit revised submissions from them. Because these original entries were important for a complete and comprehensive volume, we decided to include reprints of several first edition entries. Entries reprinted from the first edition of the Encyclopedia are noted as such at the end of the entry. As the current editors, we want to recognize and thank the many individuals and groups who contributed to this edition. First and foremost, we acknowledge Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. who identified the need for an encyclopedia about middle grades education. Vince’s vision became reality with the publication of The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education (Anfara et al., 2005). He enlisted two co-editors, Gayle Andrews and Steve Mertens to collaborate on the development and production of the first edition of The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education. Second, we thank all of the authors who contributed their entries—long and short—that provide the substantive content of the Encyclopedia. Third, we applaud the members of Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group (MLER SIG) of the American Educational Research Association who support this initiative. Last, we offer special thanks to George Johnson and his company, Information Age Publishing, for their enduring support of middle grades education.

Introduction to the Second Edition ◾ xxiii

REFERENCES Alexander, W. M., & George, P. S. (1981). The exemplary middle school. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Andrews, P. G. (Ed.) (2013). Research to guide practice in middle grades education. Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education. Anfara, V. A., Jr., Andrews, G., & Mertens, S. B. (Eds.). (2005). The encyclopedia of middle grades education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1975). The middle school we need. Washington, DC: Author. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

National Association of Secondary School Principals Council on Middle Level Education. (1985). An agenda for excellence at the middle level. Reston, VA: Author. National Education Association. (1965). Middle schools. Washington, DC: Author. National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (2014). Vision and mission. Retrieved from http://middlegradesforum.org/vision-mission/ National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author. National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author. National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.

This page intentionally left blank.

A A CURRICULUM FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL YEARS Gary Weilbacher Illinois State University Published in 1978, A Curriculum for the Middle School Years is a collaborative effort written by John H. Lounsbury and Gordon F. Vars, two founders of the modern middle school movement. While the almost “psychedelic” orange and blue cover is a function of its publication date, the words inside provide a timeless framework for planning the kind of curriculum that all young adolescents deserve. Unlike recent versions of curricular reform that minimize the influence and skills of the teacher, Lounsbury and Vars begin their book by emphasizing the importance of staffing middle schools with a “special breed of teacher” (1978, p. 1). From their perspective, teachers need to not only be leaders in curriculum planning, but they should genuinely like middle school students and take the time to build a positive, caring environment by forming authentic relationships with their students. This emphasis on the importance of the relationships among the human inhabitants of the school is a consistent theme throughout the book, as Lounsbury and Vars clearly describe the roles that teachers, administrators, students, and parents should play in creating a relevant curriculum. In order to build a relevant curriculum, teachers need to have an advanced understanding of how adolescents learn and where their interests lie. The third chapter, “Curriculum Foundations,” details the importance of recognizing the dynamic changes that continually occur within the intellectual, social, and physical The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 1–64 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

domains—captured nicely by the quote: “A teacher quite literally faces a different group of children each time he meets a particular class” (p. 36). In addition to these constant changes, Lounsbury and Vars point out the influence of the social and cultural milieu in the lives of young adolescents. A considerable part of the curriculum needs to assist students in their decision-making as they are faced with social situations involving sex, drugs, violence, and additional issues that challenge their safety and value systems. Finally, the curriculum needs to provide students with an idea of how knowledge is organized, but the authors shy away from a disciplinary organization, indicating “that [the] senior high school and college levels are quite early enough to begin direct orientation to the scholarly disciplines” (p. 39). In subsequent chapters, Lounsbury and Vars provide detailed descriptions for the three components that form their vision of a middle school curriculum: Core, Continuous Progress, and Variable. The core is a problem-centered time block program that takes seriously the questions and concerns of young adolescents by using those concerns as the organizing centers of units. Unlike more current definitions of core (math, language arts, science, and social studies) the disciplines of language arts, social studies, and often science are used to help the students study their concerns. Continuous progress involves individualized, non-graded instruction in the “skills and concepts that have a genuine sequential organization” (p. 47). The disciplines of reading, math, science, and foreign languages are included in the continuous progress component. Finally, the variable component contains, but is not limited to fine arts, industrial arts, family consumer science, physical education/health, and an array of options that are intended to meet the individual interests of the students.

1

2 ◾ A MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM: FROM RHETORIC TO REALITY

REFERENCES Lounsbury, J. H., & Vars, G. F. (1978). A curriculum for the middle school years. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

A MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM: FROM RHETORIC TO REALITY Janis D. Flint-Ferguson Gordon College In the 1993 second edition of James Beane’s groundbreaking book on middle school curriculum, he reminds readers that real reform in the middle level has yet to address reformation of the curriculum and that it should: “After all, it is the curriculum, rather than the grade level reorganization or teaming that defines the value of schools for early adolescents” (Beane, 1993, p. 107). He is right, of course, and Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century (Jackson & Davis, 2000) picks up where he and Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) leave off, calling for a middle level curriculum that is based on essential concepts, reflecting concerns of the young adolescent, and linked to the ways in which student knowledge would be assessed (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 43). Despite the changes since 1993, Beane’s discussion on curriculum remains an essential aspect of middle level education. The text begins with a discussion of the question of middle school curriculum and the various pressures that come to bear on curriculum development. Beane lists and defines the guidelines that need to be used in addressing curriculum development. These guidelines begin with a focus on general education, that which is common for all students. Such a focus is in keeping with education in the 21st century and the work to ensure success for all students through the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Beane’s curriculum adheres to the philosophy that middle school is not the “‘farm system’ for high school,” but rather a time in adolescent lives that should be focused on what they need to understand about themselves and others; he calls for the curriculum to “respect [their] dignity” (Beane, 1993, p. 18). His guidelines go on to call for curriculum that is “grounded in democracy,” “honor[s] diversity,” “of personal and social significance,” “lifelike and lively,” and finally “should enhance knowledge and skills for all young people” (pp. 18–21). His guidelines function as a mission statement, not just middle school talk but truly those principles that

middle level reform efforts need to begin with and return to, as curriculum is written and delivered. As such they stand up in discussions on curriculum reform. In Beane’s model the curriculum is organized around thematic units “drawn from the intersecting concerns of early adolescents and issues in the larger world” (p. 68). He does not set the specific concerns that need to be addressed but holds to the developmental concerns and issues of the young adolescent, recognizing that those issues, subjects, skills, and concepts may be different for different groups of students. Although written 25 years ago, Beane’s proposal advocates for responsive teaching; curriculum planning that aligns with young adolescents themselves, their unique needs and development. So it is that Beane’s call for a middle level curriculum remains as timely as ever. With standards and new, national, standardized tests, the central focus on the developmental needs of young adolescents remains the heart of the middle level and good education. Beane’s epilogue still rings true; it is always best practice “to put our efforts squarely where our rhetoric has been” (p. 107). REFERENCES Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.

ABILITY GROUPING Kevin Duquette Phillips Middle School, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Ability grouping is the practice of separating students into homogenous learning groups based on real or perceived academic ability. Students are commonly grouped by: classroom grades, standardized test scores, locally or nationally developed achievement tests, and/ or teacher recommendation. Supporters of ability grouping believe that students learn best surrounded by students of similar academic ability, while opponents of the practice believe that it creates and perpetuates achievement gaps.

ABILITY GROUPING ◾ 3

Grouping students can occur within-class or between-classes. Within-class grouping includes students from a heterogeneous class separating into smaller groups within the same classroom. Within-class grouping is most commonly used for reading and math instruction, and is generally found in elementary schools where one teacher covers all core subjects (Loveless, 2013). Grouping allows the teacher to float around the room and deliver targeted instruction based on group need rather than providing whole class instruction. Between-class grouping, also known as “tracking” separates students into homogenous classes based on ability. Between-class grouping is seen in middle and high schools, where students have multiple teachers, and may include students across different grade-levels. Separating classes based on ability allows teachers more time to create curricula centered on the needs of each class: delivering remediation and additional practice for low-ability level classes and providing enhancement and enrichment activities for students in higher ability classrooms. Since its inception, ability grouping has been a point of controversy and experienced an ebb and flow of popularity and support. The public attitude towards ability grouping has often shadowed the educational ideology of the time. HISTORY The earliest instances of tracking students were in the late 19th and early 20th century. With the industrial revolution in full swing, schools began funneling students into academic or vocational educational tracks (Rosenthal, 2008). Ability grouping rose in popularity in the first quarter of the 20th century alongside the use of intelligence testing in public education. In the 1930s and 1940s, the effectiveness and fairness of ability groups were called into question and they became less common. In the mid-20th century, foreign and domestic factors brought changes to public education. The civil rights movement and Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) desegregated schools, which led to some districts using ability grouping as a form of de facto segregation. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), and numerous court cases throughout the 1950s and 1960s challenged the use of ability grouping in this manner. In 1957, following the launching of Sputnik, fear of the United States falling behind foreign countries’ technological achievements placed emphasis on science and math instruction, and led to an increase in student grouping (Vergon, 2008). The prominence of grouping peaked in the 1960s during which roughly 80% of elementary schools reported using within-class grouping (Loveless, 2013).

In the 1970s, the practice fell in popularity, a trend that continued into the 1980s and 1990s and became known as the “de-tracking movement.” This movement was supported by studies criticizing the use of ability groups as discriminatory, and the tendency for low SES and minority students to be over-represented in low-ability groups. In recent years, ability grouping has seen a surge in popularity. This may be due in part to the increased focus on standardized testing brought on by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). Recent data show that the use of ability grouping is at the highest it has been since the 1960s, with 71% of elementary schools reporting their use in 2009 (Loveless, 2013). EFFECTIVENESS OF ABILITY GROUPING Though ability grouping has been utilized in the American education system for over 100 years, the research continues to paint a conflicting picture on whether it is effective for students. Some studies show grouping to be beneficial for all students (Kulik & Kulik, 1989; Moses, 1966; Provus, 1960; Puzio & Colby, 2010; Slavin & Karweit, 1984) while others show a negative effect of ability grouping (Davis & Tracy, 1963). Perhaps most controversially, some studies show a benefit for students of high-ability and a detriment to students of low-ability (Condron, 2008; Hoffer, 1992; Lleras & Rangel, 2008; Lou et al., 1996). The research results are further complicated because many studies examined within-class grouping only, which is often done at the elementary level and typically isolated to reading and mathematics instruction. Additionally, many of studies are very old, so their generalizability to today’s youth remains in question. The research on middle-school specific ability grouping found the practice to benefit advanced students while being detrimental to slower students, though research in this area is limited (Hoffer, 1992). ABILITY GROUPING IN MIDDLE SCHOOL There are limited studies that examine the effects of ability grouping on early adolescence. It is postulated that being tracked will raise the self-esteem of high-ability students while lowering the self-esteem of low-ability students. The research, though limited, shows the opposite to be true, however the overall effects of ability grouping on self-esteem are small (Kulik, 1993). In addition, ability grouping in early adolescence is connected to a number of other factors including: peer group, parent and teacher expectations, and general school anxiety—which make it more difficult to isolate and measure the effects of ability grouping.

4 ◾ ABILITY GROUPING

Ability grouping may also affect students’ social development. Unlike heterogeneous classes, students in tracked classes will be surrounded by students of similar academic ability. Noting the tendency for ability grouping to stratify along socioeconomic and racial lines, students in a tracked class will also have a higher likelihood of being surrounded by students who are similar to them demographically (Schofield, 2011). Middle school is a time in which friendships are most influential to students’ lives, and hold implications for school adjustment and levels of emotional distress (Berndt, 1979; Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004). The use of ability grouping may artificially narrow students’ social circles and social interactions, which affect other aspects of student well-being. ATTITUDES TOWARDS ABILITY GROUPING Support for ability groups has often come from parents of high achieving students who argue that being in a heterogeneous learning environment negatively impacts their children’s education, and that the slower pace leads to boredom and disinterest. There is also some research to suggest that high-ability students do benefit from being in separate “higher track” classes, especially when the curriculum is better designed to meet their needs (Kulik & Kulik, 1991). Teachers in favor of ability grouping believe that “mixed ability” classes lead higher achieving students to feel bored, and struggling students to feel lost (Burton-Szabo, 1996). Teachers have even gone as far as stating that whole class instruction of heterogeneous classes is at times, “impossible” (Loveless, 2013, p. 20). Admittedly, between-class grouping of students may make planning easier for teachers, as they can better differentiate their lesson plans to meet the needs of students in each class, rather than teaching across the ability spectrum in all classes. However, despite support from both teachers and parents, the practice of ability grouping is often criticized. The main criticism of ability grouping is that it promotes and maintains inequality between groups of students that only grow over time. Opponents cite the role of teacher expectations on student achievement, arguing that grouping students based on perceived ability changes student and teacher expectations, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of low-achievement. Additional research has also shown that students in low-ability groups get taught by less qualified teachers than those in high-ability groups (Education Trust, 2004). Other criticisms target the make-up of ability groupings, calling them inequitable. Students may be grouped as early as the beginning elementary school years, a time at which many students, especially those

of minority backgrounds, have not yet mastered fundamental math and reading skills. As a result, low-ability groups tend to have an overrepresentation of impoverished and minority students. The composition of ability groups is not revisited on a regular basis, so mobility between groups is difficult, and becomes nearly impossible as students get older. Students who start off in a lower-track are typically stuck in that track for the remainder of their school careers. The content of classes has also come under fire. Despite being separated by ability, students in between-class groupings are commonly taught from the same curriculum, meaning that teachers cannot truly differentiate instruction based on student-need. When all students are required to use the same curriculum, but are split into different ability groups, it leads to low-ability classes focusing on menial tasks and behavior management while high-ability classes move quickly through material and work on enrichment activities (Education Trust, 2004). THE FUTURE OF ABILITY GROUPING As the history of ability grouping shows, what is heavily practiced in one decade may become seldom used in the next. The future of ability groupings is unclear, but given the current emphasis on standardized testing and data driven instruction, and with no viable systemic alternative, it appears that they will continue to be an important part of the public school system. However, the recent adoption of the Common Core standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), and the movement towards standardizing curriculum nationwide may have an effect on the prominence of ability grouping. Theoretically, if all students are held to the same standard and expected to meet the same expectations with appropriate supports, the need for ability groups would diminish. In the mean time, it is important that teachers continue to differentiate instruction to meet student needs whether classes are grouped heterogeneously or homogeneously. Regardless of what schools decide, the use of ability groups holds implications for a child’s school experience and should not be used haphazardly. If they are to be used, they should be re-visited regularly, and allow for flexibility between groups as to not perpetuate a cycle of inequity that exists in our nation’s schools. REFERENCES Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15(6), 608–616.

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ◾ 5 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Burton-Szabo, S. (1996). Special classes for gifted students? Absolutely. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 19(1), 12–15, 50. Condron, D. (2008). An early start: Skill grouping and unequal reading gains in elementary years. The Sociological Quarterly, 49(2), 363–394. Davis, O. L., & Tracy, N. H. (1963). Arithmetic achievement and instructional grouping. Arithmetic Teacher, 10(1), 12–17. Education Trust, The. (2004). The real value of teachers.  Retrieved from  http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/pdf/Ed%20 Trust.pdf Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 205–227. Loveless, T. (2013). How well are American students learning? (2013). Brown Center Report on American Education, 3(2), 12–21. Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives (RBDM 9204). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 095). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367095.pdf Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1989). The effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23(1– 2), 22–30. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik C. L. (1991). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 178–196). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Lleras, C., & Rangel C. (2008). Ability grouping practice in elementary school and African American/Hispanic achievement. American Journal of Education, 115(2), 279–204. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458. Moses, P. J. (1966). A study on the effects of inter-class grouping on achievement in reading. Dissertation Abstracts 26, 4342 (University Microfilms No. 66-741). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Provus, M. M. (1960). Ability grouping in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 60(7), 391–398. Puzio, K., & Colby, G. (2010). The effects of within class grouping on reading achievement: A meta-analytic synthesis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 514 135). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514135.pdf Rosenthal, J. (2008). Ability grouping. In V. Parillo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social problems (pp. 1–3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schofield, J. (2011). Ability grouping. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 3–5). New York, NY: Springer.

Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. (1984, April). Within-class ability grouping and student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 794(a). Vergon, C. (2008). Ability grouping. In C. Russo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education law (pp. 2–5). Thousand Oaks. CA: SAGE. Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 195–203.

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Mark L’Esperance East Carolina University Academic achievement may be the most sensitive of all middle level topics. From the initial days of William Alexander’s (1963) paper articulating the vision and components of the “middle school of the future” that centered on meeting the developmental needs of early adolescence, the movement has evolved into the four essential attributes and 16 characteristics of a successful middle level education outlined in This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School Association, 2010). In his 1990 landmark book, A Middle School Curriculum: From Rhetoric to Reality, Beane posited the following question: “What ought to be the middle school curriculum?” (p.  1). Twenty-five years later as public schools navigate the Common Core curriculum era, the issue of P–12 accountability creates a new question to consider. The question now becomes to what extent, if any, are middle level students’ academic achievement impacted by the curriculum and other middle level components? The answer to this question will have a major bearing on the future of the movement. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW In this “manifesto,” Lounsbury (2009) summarized middle level research studies related to academic achievement. He stated: Major research studies, including some involving networks of schools that have practiced the middle school tenets sufficiently, have made it possible to claim with confidence: When the middle school concept is implemented substantially over time, student achievement, including measures by standardized tests, rises, and substantial improvement in fulfilling the other broader, more enduring goals of an education results. (p. 34)

6 ◾ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

The reality of the middle level movement is that specific studies that align with agreed upon components or characteristics of middle level education that impact academic achievement haven’t been conducted at a national level. Analyzing the 1964–1984 period related to research on middle level education, Johnston (1984) outlined nine conclusions in which effective schools share certain characteristics that may be replicated in other school settings, but with uncertain success. Johnston stated, Effective schools emerge from a complex set of cultural and social factors that focus attention on academic performance, support academic growth in a manner consistent with the developmental stage of the youngster, and build an intellectual community that rewards and reinforces academic pursuits in its public rituals and private interactions. (p. 152)

Over the period of the next several years following Johnston’s research, middle level researchers continued to examine components of the middle level moment that were published in Transforming Middle Level Education: Perspectives and Possibilities (Irvin, 1992). The 20-chapter volume provided a synthesis of conceptual and research based discussions by leaders of the middle level movement. The chapters ranged from the middle level developing a sense of identity, responsiveness and relevance to support systems for continued improvement. David Strahan’s (1992) chapter, Turning Points and Beyond: Coming of Age in Middle Level Research was developed to provide a research framework for the middle level movement to consider. Strahan proposed the following framework to improve middle level research that included: 1. We need to accelerate our efforts to develop an agenda for research to guide our agenda for action. 2. We need to be more innovative in investigating the “intangibles” of middle schooling. 3. We need to continue to articulate more explicit standards for conducting and reporting research. The quote above by Lounsbury (2009) makes reference to the Felner et al. (1997) research that used the Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) framework to study a network of schools in Illinois. Additional studies were able to replicate many of these findings with larger samples of middle level schools in other states and regions (Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). The research studies found that students attending schools that have made the highest levels of structural changes consistent with the Turning Points framework achieve at higher rates than other schools with less structurally embedded changes.

These studies has become arguably the most cited that supports the middle level movement in relation to academic achievement. Additionally, Mertens and Anfara’s (2006) research summary, Student Achievement and the Middle School Concept (2006) and Trimble’s research summary, What Works to Improve Student Achievement? (2003), reports the research in relation to schools and achievement. Trimble (2003) stated: A prodigious amount of literature exists on middle level schools and practices, however, far less research exits that documents improved student achievement and school variables. No national study has been conducted of the relationships between student achievement data and middle school factors. However, regional studies of whole-school reform initiatives that examined multiple school sites and achievement first appeared in 1997 (Backes, Ralston, & Ingwalson, 1999; DePascale, 1997; Felner et al., 1997; Felner, Lipsitz, & Mertens, 1998, Mac Iver, et al., 2001; Mac Iver, Mac Iver, Balfanz, Blank, & Ruby, 2000; Mertens, Flowers, & Mulhall, 1998). Other types of studies included case studies of high-performing middle schools (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1998; Trimble, 2002), and school-wide factors, such as climate, as they related to math achievement and attendance (Phillips, 1997). (¶ 12)

The historical research theme of the middle level has centered on case studies of schools, districts, and/or networks that plan, implement and intentionally focus on key components of middle level education. These case studies provide evidence that there is a variance of academic achievement depending on the depth of implementation of a particular component (L’Esperance et al., 2003; L’Esperance, Farrington, & Fryer, 2005; L’Esperance, Lenker, Bullock, Jackson, & Mason, 2013). By working with several schools and school districts in North Carolina, L’Esperance and his colleagues have created a framework that supports middle level schools with a best practice implementation process that emphasizes instructional leadership and collaboration at every level. The descriptor used to define these cases of effective schools or districts became known as “Schools of Significance.” L’Esperance and colleagues, (2003) stated: They have been transformed and empowered by the collective vision of entire school communities. Their cultures are rich with indicators of broad and deep renewal with data to support the focus on both academics and community. Schools of Significance have destinations in mind that are constantly articulated by school leaders who have developed a model that serves as a “road map” to bring the vision into more concrete and understandable terms. Schools of Significance are in a constant mode of reflection, and numerous data sources provide a check on the pulse of these schools. Schools of Significance are data directed not data driven. These

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ◾ 7 middle schools are driven by a clear purpose—to become student-centered communities that provide academic achievement for all students! In Schools of Significance, students are engaged in relevant learning opportunities every day. Teachers collaborate to provide integrated instruction with a variety of age-appropriate activities. They share in the school’s decision-making process and involve parents in the school’s achievement efforts. Students in Schools of Significance take pride in the concepts of respect, safety, and learning. (p. 5)

CURRENT PUSH BACK ON THE MIDDLE LEVEL Over the past 10 years, two federal initiatives, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) and Race to The Top (U.S. Department of Education, 2009) have accelerated the culture of accountability on public school districts. A number of studies focusing on the economic viability of middle school (Goodman, 2012), or how to determine the appropriate configuration to place fifth through eighth graders (Rockoff & Lockwood, 2010; Schwerdt & West 2011), drew conclusions that question middle schools ability to raise academic achievement and act as an appropriate setting in the transition of students entering sixth grade or exiting eighth grade. The narrow focus of each of the above studies appears to directly align with what Andrews, Caskey, and Anfara (2007) warns researchers to examine the characteristics of exemplary schools in that: Two dangers are associated with any list purporting to include the characteristics of exemplary schools for young adolescents. One danger is a perception that the list is exhaustive—that it includes everything that needs to be considered. In reality, a list cannot capture the subtleties and complexities of schooling. A second danger is that each component will be seen as somehow self-contained, something that can be addressed in isolation. (p. 4)

THE CONSIDERATION The question the middle level movement must ask itself is how can we as a movement balance the characteristics of This We Believe (NMSA, 2010) while addressing the critics of the middle level movement that argue that middle schools fail to raise academic achievement. A promising study that looks at academic achievement also provides some clear direction for future middle level researchers (Williams, Kirst, & Haertel, 2010). Throughout the 2008–09 school year researchers conducted a large-scale study of middle grades schools in California. The team surveyed 303 principals, 3,752 English language arts and math teachers in grades 6–8, and 157 superintendents of the districts and charter

management organizations that oversee the schools. Several key findings and implications included: • An intense school-wide focus on improving academic outcomes most distinguishes higher- from lower-performing middle grades schools. • Higher-performing schools use assessment and other student data extensively to improve student learning and teacher practice. • Higher-performing middle grades schools emphasize early identification and proactive intervention for student academic needs. • Every role in a professional community of educators is important to making gains in middle grades student outcomes. • Leadership of the superintendent and support from the district were strongly associated with higher student outcomes. • The changing role of the principal in driving student outcome gains, orchestrating school improvement efforts, and serving as the linchpin between district and teaching staff members was documented in multiple ways in this study. • Teachers with strong competencies, substantive evaluation of their practice, and adequate availability of support, time, and resources work collectively to improve student outcomes schoolwide and individually to improve instruction. • The school’s environment and organization of time and instruction were not strongly associated with improved student outcomes, although some practices were associated with higher-performing schools. (Williams, Kirst, & Haertel, 2010). Implications for districts and schools included: • Superintendents and boards overseeing grades 6–8 students should discuss the priority they give to academic improvements in the middle grades. • The results of this study should encourage principals to engage their staff members and their teachers in conversations about their mission for the middle grades in their schools. Educators in the middle grades have long believed that responsiveness to young adolescent developmental issues and strong adult-student relationships are a central part of the middle grades imperative. They are, but so is academic learning. • Prioritize strategies for helping students make gains on standards-based exams in the context of the middle grades’ unique position in the K–12 hierarchy to prepare all students to succeed in high school. • When hiring middle grades principals, districts should consider looking for the kind of skills

8 ◾ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

and competencies found in principals of the higher-performing schools in our study. • When hiring middle grades teachers, districts and principals should consider looking for the kinds of interests, skills, and competencies that principals in higher-performing schools report about their teachers (Williams, Kirst, & Haertel, 2010). THE FUTURE Revisiting Strahan’s (1985) framework for future middle level research, as outlined above, may be the key to supporting the middle level movement during the new age of accountability. There needs to be a specific AMLE research agenda that addresses the area of academic achievement. The middle level movement needs to develop a framework that establishes “a fidelity of implementation” of the essential attributes and characteristics outlined in This We Believe (NMSA, 2010). The framework would include the minimum context, content, and competency of each attribute and characteristic that middle level schools and researchers can use to ensure appropriate implementation is taking place. Researchers can then begin to categorize networks, districts, and/or schools that provide evidence of embedding and begin to look at the “intangibles” or variance that exist amongst schools. Finally, in order to make the case that true middle level schools raise academic achievement; we must as Strahan stated “continue to articulate more explicit standards for conducting and reporting research” (1985, p. 395). REFERENCES Alexander, W. M. (1963). The junior high school: A changing view. Paper presented at Tenth Annual Conference for School Administrators: A National Conference on the Junior High School, Nashville, TN. Andrews, P. G., Caskey, M. M., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2007). Research summary: Characteristics of exemplary schools for young adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.amle. org/Portals/0/pdf/research_summaries/Exemplary_ Schools.pdf Backes, J., Ralston, A., & Ingwalson, G. (1999). Middle level reform: The impact on student achievement. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 22(3), 43–57. Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. DePascale, C. A. (1997). Education reform restructuring network: Impact documentation report. Data Analysis & Testing Associates, Inc. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.

Felner, R., Jackson, A., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand. S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years: A longitudinal study of a network engaged in Turning Points-based comprehensive school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 528–532, 541–550. Felner, R. F, Lipsitz, J., & Mertens, S. B. (1998). The Middle Start Initiative, Phase I: A longitudinal analysis of Michigan middle-level schools. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. (1999). The impact of teaming: Five research-based outcomes of teaming. Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57–60. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000a). How teaming influences classroom practices. Middle School Journal, 32(2), 52–59. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000b).What makes interdisciplinary teams effective? Middle School Journal, 31(4), 53–56. Goodman, J. (2012). Gold standards?: State standards reform and student achievement. Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Papers Series 12-05. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance. Irvin, J. (1992). Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Johnston, J. H. (1984). A synthesis of research findings on middle level education. In J. Lounsbury (Ed.), Perspectives: Middle school education 1964–1984 (pp. 134–156). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. L’Esperance, M., Strahan, D., Farrington, V., & Anderson, P. (2003). Raising achievement: Project genesis, a significant school model. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. L’Esperance, M., & Farrington, V. T. (2007). The search for significance: Leadership lessons from the field. North Carolina Middle School Journal, 22(1), 1–5. Retrieved from http://www.ncmle.org/journal/archives.html L’Esperance, M., Farrington, V. T., & Fryer, A. (2005). Creating significant middle schools in the age of accountability. Middle Ground, 10(9), 35–39. L’Esperance, M., Lenker, E., Bullock, A., Jackson, B., & Mason, C. (2013). Creating a middle level environment that significantly improves student achievement. Middle School Journal, 44(5), 32–39. Lounsbury, J. H. (2009). Deferred but not deterred: A middle school manifesto. Middle School Journal, 40(5), 31–36. Mac Iver, D., Mac Iver, M., Balfanz, R., Blank, S. B., & Ruby, A. (2000). Talent development middle schools: Blueprint and results for a comprehensive whole-school model. In W. M. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority students (pp. 261–288). Mahwey, NJ: Erlbaum. Mac Iver, D., Young, E., Balfanz, R., Shaw, A., Garriott, M., & Cohen, A. (2001). High-quality learning opportunities in high poverty middle schools: Moving from rhetoric to reality. In T. Dickinson (Ed.), Reinventing the middle school (155–175). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Mertens, S. B., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2006). Research summary: Student achievement and the middle school concept. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/Portals/0/pdf/research_summaries/Student_Achievement.pdf

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE ◾ 9 Mertens, S. B., & Flowers, N., (2003, February). The impact of middle grades certification on student performance: The proof is in the practices. Paper presented at the Symposium on Middle Level Teacher Preparation, National Middle School Association, Charlotte, NC. Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., & Mulhall, P. (1998). The Middle Start Initiative, Phase I: A Longitudinal Analysis of Michigan Middle-Level Schools. Champaign: Center for Prevention Research and Development, University of Illinois. Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from high-performing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9–29. National Middle School Association (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107– 110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Phillips, M. (1997). What makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 633–662. Rockoff, J. E., & Lockwood, B. B. (2010). Stuck in the middle: Impacts of grade configuration in public schools. Journal of Public Economics 94(11–12), 1051–1061. Schwerdt, G., & West, M. (2011). The impact of alternative grade configuratons on student out-comes through middle and high school. Working Paper 11-02. Cambridge, MA: Program on Policy and Governance. Strahan, D. (Ed.). (1985). Middle school research: Selected studies 1985. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Strahan, D. (1992). Turning points and beyond: Coming of age in middle level research. In J. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and Possibilities (pp. 381–399). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Trimble, S. (2002). Common elements of high performing, high poverty middle schools. Middle School Journal, 33(4), 7–16. Trimble, S. (2003). Research summary: What works to improve student achievement? Retrieved from http://www.ncmle. org/research%20summaries/ressum20.html Williams, T., Kirst, M., & Haertel, E. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades: Why some schools do better: A large-scale study of middle grades practices and student outcomes. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top executive summary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/ programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE Gena M. Bramlett Contributor from 1st edition The term “academic excellence” refers to one of the four essential components of high-performing middle grades schools. In order to achieve its goal of improved

academic and developmental outcomes for all young adolescents, the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform articulates best middle grades practices through this evaluation criteria. According to the National Forum, “high performing schools with middle grades are academically excellent. They challenge all students to use their minds well” (National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, n.d.a). As its vision emerged, the National Forum sought to impact classrooms with schools to model exceptional middle grades instruction and structures. In 1999, a new initiative, Schools to Watch, emerged leading to what is now a nationallyendorsed recognition system for middle schools (National Forum, n.d.b). To transport the vision into fruition, members of the National Forum further developed these four essential concepts: academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, social equity, and effective organizational structures and processes. Through its Schools to Watch program, the National Forum has determined the criteria for identifying high-performing middle-grades schools, forged tools so that schools could utilize the criteria, selected and honored four high-performing schools across the country, made on-line tours to showcase those schools’ successful practices, and then expanded the selection program to individual states (National Forum, n.d.b). Therefore, numerous schools and educators have been able to seek recognition, to self-assess school practices, and to pursue effective educational structures to support young adolescents through the use of the criteria. Ultimately, academically excellent schools aspire to lead all young adolescents to educational success. ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND SCHOOL CURRICULUM A significant component of academic excellence is the notion that all students are expected to meet high academic standards. Middle level education in the 21st century warrants a careful understanding of local, state, and federal standards, yet high achievement for all students supersedes mere standardized test scores. According to This We Believe, Successful Schools for Young Adolescents (2003), the National Middle School Association (NMSA) advocates that if all members of a school are expected to meet high standards—adults and young people alike—high achievement results. Schools that meet the needs of young adolescents conscientiously dedicate themselves to analyzing such standards and, consequently, augmenting a meaningful curriculum. For example, by providing students with exemplars of high quality work that meet the academic standard, teachers can guide students to achieving academic excellence and provide them with clear expectations. In

10 ◾ ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE

such a way, educators translate expectations into tangible products (NMSA, 2003). Teachers can also utilize scoring guides like rubrics and checklists for projects and activities. Likewise, high-performing schools encourage students to consistently revise their work based on teacher and peer feedback until they meet or exceed the established performance standards. In such ways, educators inspire their students to perform well and lead them to greater academic achievement. Academic excellence is highly reliant on a school’s curriculum, instruction, and assessment simultaneously aligning with high standards. According to Turning Points 2000: Education Adolescents in the 21st Century, “curriculum defines the specifics of what students should learn: the concepts and generalizations, the related topics and facts, and the skills and habits of mind that will enable learning” (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 40). As educators work to develop an academically excellent curriculum, assessments should determine what students really know. With a developmentally appropriate rigor and an avoidance of repetition, a curriculum should propel young adolescents through their middle school years. Ideally, the level of student work should increase from the school year’s beginning to end and from one grade to the next. Therefore, schools seeking academic excellence carefully align their curriculum, instruction, and assessment tools to ensure that their students’ learning is intentionally and meaningfully developed. An academically excellent curriculum emphasizes the deep understanding of important concepts, development of essential skills, and the ability to apply new knowledge to real-world problems. Concepts are those “big picture ideas” that are the foundation for a unit of study and draw connections across the disciplines (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Furthermore, by linking curriculum across the disciplines, such important concepts are reinforced; a relevant curriculum depends on an integrative approach. Likewise, students learn problem-solving skills in order to critically examine skills; they learn how to perform research and analyze. For instance, students may use writing skills in math and science class to explain their approaches to problem solving. In high performing schools, both strategies and content evolve while classrooms purposefully adapt to the ever-changing needs of students. A relevant curriculum is a vehicle that moves students beyond mere memorization and isolated facts into an analysis of overarching ideas (Anfara et al., 2003). ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE IN THE CLASSROOM By employing both challenging and engaging instructional strategies, important concepts and skills can be taught more effectively. Although each young adolescent is developmentally unique, vast cognitive growth

occurs between the ages of 10 and 15 (NMSA, 2003). Therefore, students are capable of being active participants in the learning process. An academically excellent classroom should encourage students’ abilities to hypothesize, organize information, and analyze causeand-effect relationships. Teachers dedicated to academic excellence invite students to critically process their own learning, so that they are able to explain learning goals for all classroom projects and activities. Such authentic learning occurs when students are genuinely excited about learning and want to talk about it. Many times students may participate in activities that personally interest them, and their teachers allow them to design their own projects. Using a variety of instructional approaches, teachers can incorporate the use of technology, the arts, the media, and group work. In fact, many schools have embellished the notions of handson learning activities and embraced what is known as “hands-joined” activities that promote the collaboration of teachers and students (NMSA, 2003). Ownership and choice motivate young adolescents, and they master standards when teachers utilize a variety of methods to capitalize on those classroom attributes. Academic excellence is also apparent in exemplary classrooms which utilize a variety of quality methods to assess student performance. According to This We Believe: Successful Schools for Young Adolescents, assessment is “the process of estimating a students’ progress toward an objective and using that information to help students continue their learning” (NMSA, 2003, p. 27). Although traditional quizzes or tests may be used frequently, they are not the sole means for assessing students’ critical thinking, independence, responsibility, or other life-long skills (Anfara et al., 2003). Teachers can assess student learning in the classroom on a daily basis with informal checks for understanding like oral questions, classroom discussions, and general observations. Additionally, projects and performance tasks provide students with meaningful opportunities to demonstrate learning and offer their teachers greater insight into both their own practice as well as students’ intellectual growth. Portfolios, or accumulated collections of student products and reflections, provide evidence of a student’s academic accomplishments. In high-performing schools, students can explain their products and compare them to performance standards. They can use scoring to critique their own work as well as that of their classmates (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Many times, students are invigorated by the opportunity to present their learning to parents and community members, too. As middle grades educators seek to balance between the demands of standardized tests and young adolescent needs, varied assessment methods must be designed to complement both curriculum and instruction in order to promote academic achievement.

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE ◾ 11

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE SUPPORTED BY SCHOOL STRUCTURES A school seeking academic excellence realizes the importance of best utilizing its instructional minutes and allows students time to meet those rigorous learning standards. A flexible time arrangement, a characteristic of middle grades schools, allows teams of teachers to schedule instructional time in flexible time periods to better meet the academic as well as social needs of students. Team teachers can autonomously vary both the frequency and order of classes as well as lengthen or shorten class periods. Extending the regular schedule can offer students more time for projects, hands-on activities, and inquiry-based learning. Because time is such a precious commodity in American middle schools, classroom minutes should be devoted to teaching and learning instead of classroom management issues or discipline problems. As a result, students can feel empowered to learn, not just do as their teachers tell them to do. High-performing schools recognize that young adolescents may need significant academic support systems in order to help students reach high academic standards. With a keen awareness that middle grades learners bring with them numerous learning styles and—in many cases—a variety of learning challenges, teachers should understand their modalities and offer students different ways to learn. In order to advance academic success for all learners, teachers should know students have or have not learned; they work to eliminate students falling behind in class. In the event of academic difficulty, students can get the extra help they need in order to be successful. Many schools form support teams comprised of school personnel like the teachers, administrators, school nurse, social worker, guidance counselor, and sometime community health representatives. The team regularly discusses concerns and offers recommendations to bolster student achievement and solutions that involve the student, parents, and his/her teachers (Jackson & Davis, 2000). If students have difficulties learning, academically excellent schools dedicate themselves to offering students extra time for work and the opportunity to revise the work. Furthermore, many schools use advisory time to promote academic skills and support academic difficulties. Academically excellent schools offer students multiple opportunities to succeed and promote various structures like before or after school tutoring programs when students need extra help. In order to embed academic excellence, professional development is a vital link to school-wide success. High-performing schools esteem teacher collaboration so that they may reflect on instruction, expand on their knowledge, and form supporting school structures. By working with colleagues, educators make decisions

about their curriculum and refine their instructional practices. Academically excellent schools value observing one another’s classrooms and invest time reviewing various forms of pertinent student data like student work samples or state test scores. In order to yield higher school performance, schools review their progress by closely examining these data forms and then create targeted staff learning programs accordingly. Meanwhile, the building administrator serves as an informed instructional leader and a resource for his/her staff ’s professional growth. In a high-performing school, school improvement and staff development are unending endeavors. CONCLUSION Academic excellence is a multifaceted criterion of the National Forum’s vision statement and an essential component of its Schools to Watch program. For schools on a trajectory toward exemplary performance, high academic standards lead curriculum, instruction, and assessment efforts. Students should learn essential skills and concepts as their teachers utilize a variety of instructional and assessment methods to ensure quality learning in the classroom. Furthermore, students should have adequate time and multiple chances to be successful, and they can receive academic assistance if they need it. High-performing schools should also seek to advance the knowledge and skills of staff members through focused and meaningful professional development. In tandem with the other Schools to Watch criteria—developmental responsiveness, social equity, and effective organizational structures and processes—schools have the opportunity to measure their progress and guide school improvement efforts. But ideally, these criteria exist to make middle grades learning relevant and engaging for all students. Educational authorities like the National Middle School Association and the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform contend that academic excellence should be the “norm, not the exception” for the young adolescents in America’s schools. REFERENCES Anfara, V. A., Jr., Andrews, P. G., Hough, D. L., Mertens, S. B., Mizelle, N. B., & White, G. P. (2003). Research and resources in support of This We Believe. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Jackson, A. W. & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (n.d.a). Schools to Watch selection criteria: Academic excellence. Retrieved from http://www.mgforum.org/Improving schools/STW/STWcriteria.asp#academic

12 ◾ ACCELERATED SCHOOLS National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (n.d.b). Schools to Watch background and information. Retrieved from http://www.mgforum.org/Improving schools/STW/STWbackground.htm National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (n.d.c). Schools to Watch state program. Retrieved from http:// www.schoolstowatch.org/state/state. htm National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH. Author.

ACCELERATED SCHOOLS Sara Davis Powell Contributor from 1st edition Christine Finnan Contributor from 1st edition Accelerated Schools PLUS originated in 1986 as the Accelerated Schools Project when Dr. Henry Levin of Stanford University acted on his belief that all students, especially those designated as at-risk, can thrive academically when challenged and provided with engaging curriculum in an atmosphere of high expectations. As founder of the Accelerated Schools Project, Dr. Levin based his belief on the questions and challenges presented in the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk. What started with two schools in Northern California has grown into a vibrant, systemic vehicle for school reform which has, as of 2005, served over 1,500 elementary, middle, and high schools in almost every state in America (The National Center for Accelerated Schools, 2005). In 2000 the national headquarters for ASPLUS moved to the University of Connecticut to work more closely with the National Research Center on Gifted and Talented. The Accelerated Schools Project became known as Accelerated Schools PLUS (ASPLUS) in 2003, an acronym for Accelerated Schools: Powerful Learning Unlimited Success. In 2005, 90 schools were actively involved in Accelerated Schools PLUS, including 11 middle schools (S. Choi, personal communication, May 23, 2005). The vision of ASPLUS is to be “recognized as an exemplary process for accelerating learning of all students through data driven inquiry, reflective teaching, and powerful learning” (The National Center for Accelerated Schools, 2005). According to two of the original leaders, Finnan and Hopfenberg (1997), the Accelerated Schools model is “a comprehensive approach to school change that offers both a philosophy about academic acceleration and a concrete process for achieving it” (p. 482). Each school’s unique goals are determined by an analysis of its existing culture and are set by internal, rather than external, decision makers. The

entire school staff participates in the change process with each individual contributing to a specific cadre addressing issues impacting student learning. The instructional focus of Accelerated Schools PLUS is based on pedagogy most often implemented in gifted and talented programs, thus providing opportunities for all young adolescents to experience powerful learning. This process-oriented reform model adapts to each school’s culture and goals requiring that they examine data to determine a baseline on demographics, perceptions, student achievement, and existing programs/ processes. Based on this foundation, and consistent with Accelerated Schools’ philosophy and commitment to powerful learning, they form individual, classroom, and school visions. The visions and baseline data are compared and priorities set to address gaps between the vision and the data collected. Cadres conduct additional inquiry into why challenge areas exist and propose solutions based on data. All of this is supported through a collaborative decision-making process that involves all members of the school community. Accelerated Schools has always supported and encouraged research and evaluation. One of the earliest studies, conducted in 1990–1991, was an ethnographic study of one of the first middle schools to embrace ASPLUS. The study found that school reform is best seen as a process of school culture change and that reform is more likely to be successful when compatibility exists between the existing school culture and the culture of the reform (Finnan & Hopfenberg, 1997). Additional information is available at http:// web.uconn.edu/asp REFERENCES Finnan, C., & Hopfenberg, W. (1997). Accomplishing school: The journey of an accelerated middle school. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 3(4), 480–493. The National Center for Accelerated Schools. (2005). ASPLUS: Powerful learning unlimited success. Retrieved from http://web.uconn.edu/asp National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

ACCOUNTABILITY Brandi Wade Worsham The University of Georgia Agreeing on the meaning and expectations of accountability within the realm of education has proven difficult for scholars, policymakers, and educators. In the simplest of notions, accountability is defined as “the quality

ACCOUNTABILITY ◾ 13

or state of being accountable; especially: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2015). Accountability is concerned with defining who should be accountable, for what one is accountable, and to whom the account should be owed (Leithwood & Earl, 2000; Levitt, Janta, & Wegrich, 2008). Accountability asks the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What level of accountability is called for? Who is expected to provide the account? To whom is the account owed? What is to be accounted for? What are the consequences for providing an account? (Leithwood, 2005, p. 11)

Similarly, Gariepy, Spencer, and Couture (2009) and Harvey (2014) argued that accountability should entail responsibility to another person or the willingness to share one’s progress as he or she works to address the concerns, expectations, and perspectives of others. In this instance, accountability results from the relationship between two people and their ability to undertake and share a required task. Specific to education, accountability refers to the understanding and implementation of effective policies and best practices that increase student success. Consequently, this notion of accountability calls for the close examination of teaching, learning, and leading practices at all levels of education. For example, Darling-Hammond (1993) stated: An accountability system is a set of commitments, policies, and practices that are designed to: (1) heighten the probability that schools will use good practices on behalf of students; (2) reduce the likelihood that schools will engage in harmful practices; and (3) encourage self-assessment on the parts of schools and educators to identify, diagnose, and change courses of action that are harmful or ineffective. (p. 40)

In her definition, Darling-Hammond provided a rationale for accountability and outlined why it is important for education. However, the level and application of accountability for schools, teachers, and students has long been debated, historically, theoretically, and in practice. Thus, it is important to unpack the modern origins of accountability from a historical perspective, examine the influence of theory on the meaning of accountability, and discuss accountability in practice via standards-based accountability. A review of accountability practices specific to schools, teachers, and students in the middle grades will follow.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ACCOUNTABILITY Historically, the first notions of accountability began to emerge in the late 1960s with the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik. To many Americans, the launch of the first man-made satellite into space called into question the nation’s lack of intellect, security, and defense (Marsh & Willis, 2007). Consequently, those accusations targeted schools as the primary reason for failure and in turn initiated the accountability of teachers and schools. Many policymakers, educators, and the general public began to question the quality and effectiveness of schools, which subsequently, led to questions about the professionalism of teachers and their ability to successfully prepare students for the workplace. In the late 1970s, the expectations of schools and teachers shifted to meet the demands of an industrialized nation interested in maintaining its position as a global leader. This era ushered in new accountability measures that focused on assessing the basics—reading, writing, and math—as the general public became more skeptical of school performance (Marsh & Willis, 2007). However, this approach consequently narrowed the curriculum, increased graduation requirements, and introduced a new level of accountability for schools to document student and teacher performance (Cuban, 1992; Marsh & Willis, 2007; Tanner, 1986). During the 1980s, the accountability of teachers and schools extended into new domains. Numerous reform reports served as catalysts in the debate, such as the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s publication of A Nation at Risk report in 1983. A Nation at Risk blamed schools for America’s inability to compete in the international marketplace. In response, schools reverted to the “back-to-basics” movement of the 1970s by requiring schools to focus on the proficiency of basic skills and worker productivity for a better and bigger America. In regards to accountability, this meant teachers felt more pressure to increase student performance on standardized testing. The 1990s continued the trend of the 1980s with such policy proposals as President George H. W. Bush’s America 2000: An Education Strategy (U.S. Department of Education, 1991), and President Bill Clinton’s Goals 2000 (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 1994). Collectively, these proposals were crafted as not only a means for improving the basic academic proficiency of students through standardized curriculum and testing, but also as a way to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of schools. Once again, the accountability delineated in these reports required teachers to demonstrate and document successful student performance. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) continued the trend of basic proficiency; however, a new

14 ◾ ACCOUNTABILITY

level of high-stakes accountability was added for schools, teachers, and students to document successes. Almost a decade later, President Barack Obama’s A Blueprint for Reform (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) continued to advocate for increased accountability of schools, teachers, and students through performance indicators and evaluations. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF ACCOUNTABILITY According to Supovitz (2009), accountability theory is supported by four underlying theories: motivational theory, theory of alignment, informational theory, and symbolism. First, motivational theory is based on the idea that one can be motivated to improve, intrinsically or extrinsically. Either way, motivational theory is often “used to motivate school faculty members to improve performance” (Supovitz, 2009, p. 214). Motivation theory ultimately serves accountability theory because it explains why and how teachers participate in school tasks. Second, the theory of alignment suggests that aligning educational reform efforts within schools will improve its effectiveness and the performance of teachers. In particular, alignment is accomplished through the act of reinforcing common beliefs and goals (Supovitz, 2009). For example, initiatives that seek to align curriculum and assessment may improve the overall performance of students and effectiveness of teachers. Thus, explaining accountability by suggesting how schools can utilize alignment and organization to improve teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Third, informational theory contributes to accountability theory by explaining how schools might use student information to guide improvement. According to Supovitz (2009), the underlying assumption behind informational theory is that “by providing student performance information to local educators and giving them incentives to improve it, the data will guide improvements in both the classroom and organizational decision making” (p. 215). Again, informational theory serves accountability since it defines who is responsible for what and how it will be accomplished through the use of data. Fourth, the idea of symbolism informs accountability theory since it examines the values stakeholders give to educational components (Supovitz, 2009). For instance, the emphasis the general public and policymakers place on standardized, high-stakes testing indicate what they value and consider most important when accessing the performance and effectiveness of teachers and schools. Accordingly, this emphasis highlights how symbolism is connected to accountability theory. Teachers and

schools are held accountable for what the public and policymakers value. Each of these theories contributes to our knowledge of how teachers implement reform strategies and experience accountability. Thus, examination of accountability in practice, through the lens of standards-based accountability, is warranted to understand what tasks are expected of teachers, by whom, and by what means. STANDARDS-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY Similar to accountability, determining the purpose and meaning of standards-based accountability, or what we expect of teachers, has been challenging for schools and policymakers. Irons, Carlson, Lowery-Moore, and Farrow (2007) defined standards-based accountability as a mechanism for ensuring that “educators would change their behavior as a result of federal and state mandates focusing upon the requirements for establishing higher standards and greater accountability for student achievement” (pp. 1–2). Standards-based accountability intends to motivate teachers and schools to improve their practice through the implementation of common standards and teaching expectations. Additionally, other scholars have argued that standards-based accountability is meant to create incentives for teachers to change the way they think about curriculum and instruction so as to ensure all students are given access to high expectations and standards (Pajak, 2001; Palmer & Rangel, 2011). In this sense, standards-based accountability is as much about the process of improvement for students and teachers rather than the end result. Standards-based accountability is about monitoring the process of improvement rather than the culminating event of standardized testing. Arguments for Standards-Based Accountability There are many arguments that support standards-based accountability. For example, research provides evidence that standards-based accountability improves curriculum and instruction, collaboration among colleagues as well as stakeholders, and student achievement. First, scholars agree that standards-based accountability can result in better teaching practice (Donnelly & Sadler, 2009; Turner, 2009). For instance, teachers devote more time to using standards to align curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Specifically, teachers consider how their instruction might be altered to optimize student learning and performance within a given time frame and context. Additionally, standards-based accountability improves and enhances collaboration among colleagues

ACCOUNTABILITY ◾ 15

and stakeholders (Donnelly & Sadler, 2009). Standards-based accountability seeks to overcome teacher isolation by fostering conversations about what works in classrooms and how curriculum and instruction can be improved for maximum student achievement. Finally, standards-based accountability improves student achievement (Donnelly & Sadler, 2009; Louis, Febey, & Schroeder, 2005). Arguments Against Standards-Based Accountability Conversely, there are many arguments against standards-based accountability. For instance, Donnelly and Sadler (2009) argued that standards-based accountability narrows the curriculum, causes instruction to focus on test preparation, encourages a teacher-centered classroom, increases the achievement gap, and decreases teacher professionalism. In support, one of the most prevalent arguments against standards-based accountability is concerned with the narrowing of curriculum. Clark and Clark (2000), Darling-Hammond (2004), and Herman and Dietel (2005) asserted that standards-based accountability ignores non-core subjects, such as art and music, and overemphasizes basic skills within the core subjects of math, science, and language arts. Additionally, experts contend that standards-based accountability leads to instruction that focuses on test preparation and teacher-centered classrooms. For instance, Clark and Clark (2000) and Musoleno and White (2010) have documented how test preparation overshadowed best practices in middle school. Further, Donnelly and Sadler (2009) argued that standards-based accountability increases the achievement gap between students of minority and majority while Darling-Hammond (2004) has noted how standards-based accountability has decreased the professionalism of teachers as opportunities to contribute to the creation and implementation of curriculum is minimal. ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE MIDDLE GRADES A collective consideration of the meaning and expectations of accountability in education—historically, theoretically, and in practice via standards-based accountability—offers insight into the roles and responsibilities of educators. Specific to the middle school, accountability requires examination of the organizational structure, culture, and practices of schools. Middle schools are accountable to the public and should make every attempt to implement and support best practices outlined in This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School Association, 2010) and

Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century (Jackson & Davis, 2000). For instance, middle schools should: regularly submit to school quality reviews to evaluate the implementation and success of its organizational structures, leadership, teacher quality, and student achievement; review assessment data from locally administered tests, state-mandated tests, and national standardized tests to plan for continued teacher and student growth; and establish a plan for sharing indicators of accountability with the general public. In summary, the notion of accountability is rooted in the culture of education and requires all stakeholders to regularly examine their teaching and leadership practices with the end goals of creating effective schools, increasing teacher quality, and raising student achievement at the forefront. REFERENCES Clark, D. C., & Clark, S. N. (2000). Developmentally responsive curriculum and standards-based reform: Implications for middle level principals. NASSP Bulletin, 84(615), 1–13. Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P. W. Jackson, (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 216–247). New York, NY: Macmillan. Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Creating standards of practice and delivery for learner-centered schools. Stanford Policy and Law Review, 1(4), 37–52. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085. Donnelly, L. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). High school science teachers’ views of standards and accountability. Science Education, 93(6), 1050–1075. doi: 10.1002/sce.20347 Gariepy, K. D., Spencer, B. L., & Couture, J-C. (2009). Educational accountability: Professional voices from the field. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227. 103rd Cong., 2d sess. (1994). Harvey, L. (2014). Analytic quality glossary. Quality Research International. Retrieved from http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/ Herman, J. L., & Dietel, R. (2005). A primer on accountability. American School Board Journal, 192(12), 26–28. Irons, E., Carlson, N. L., Lowery-Moore, H., & Farrow, V. R. (2007). Standards and accountability implementation, why, how, where: Teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 7(2), 1–19. Jackson, A., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational accountability: Issues and alternatives. Saskatchewan School Boards Association, Research Report #5-01. Retrieved from http://www. saskschoolboards.ca/research/governance/05-01.pdf

16 ◾ ACCREDITATION AND MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS Leithwood K., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability effects: An international perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 1–18. Levitt, R., Janta, B., & Wegrich, K. (2008). Accountability of teachers: Literature review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/ technical _reports/TR606 Louis, K., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation And Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177–204. doi: 10.3102/01623737027002177 Marsh, C. J. & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2015). Accountability. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/accountability Musoleno, R. R., & White, G. P. (2010). Influences of highstakes testing on middle school mission and practice. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 34(3), 1–10. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Pajak, E. (2001). Clinical supervision in a standards-based environment: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 233–43 Palmer, D., & Rangel, V. S, (2011). High stakes accountability and policy implementation: Teacher decision making in bilingual classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy, 25(4), 614–647. doi:10.1177/0895904810374848 Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2/3), 211–227. doi:10.1007/ s10833-009-9105-2 Tanner, D. (1986). Are reforms like swinging pendulums? In H. J. Walberg & J. W. Keefe (Eds.), Rethinking reform: The principal’s dilemma (pp. 5–17). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Turner, S. L. (2009). Ethical and appropriate high-stakes test preparation in middle school: Five methods that matter. Middle School Journal, 41(1), 36–45. U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Sourcebook. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from ERIC No. ED 327 985. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ blueprint/blueprint.pdf

ACCREDITATION AND MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS Penny B. Howell University of Louisville For more than 80 years advocates for specialized middle level teacher preparation have called for educator preparation grounded in the development of young adolescents and focused on the structures, practices, and pedagogy honoring their needs (McEwin & Smith, 2013). Numerous individuals and organizations have worked consistently within the field of teacher education policy and research to increase the number of education professionals specifically prepared to teach young adolescents. Through the accreditation process of educator preparation programs in the United States, advocacy efforts have led to an increasing number of specialized middle level teacher preparation programs. COUNCIL FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF EDUCATOR PREPARATION In 2010, the boards of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) unanimously agreed to create a new accrediting organization to consolidate the work of both councils. This new organization is the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). Becoming one association allowed the education profession to speak with one voice about the preparation of teachers, administrators, and other P–12 professional educators. CAEP is the governing body for the professional accreditation of educator preparation providers in the United States and seeks to improve the quality of teacher education through the accreditation process by establishing goals for continuous improvement to ensure growth in P–12 student learning (CAEP, 2015a). Accreditation requirements for educator preparation providers differ from state to state and are governed by state departments of education. Given the recent merger of NCATE and TEAC, CAEP is currently renegotiating partnership agreements with all stakeholders. The procedures for accreditation that develops from these renegotiated partnership agreements will determine the options allowed in each state regarding program approval and will consider the needs of states, communities, and institutions. States are allowed to choose how they engage in this partnership and the method of evaluation used for educator preparation providers. In all cases, the focal point of the partnership is the teacher education standards used by CAEP and individual states

ACCREDITATION AND MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS ◾ 17

to evaluate quality and continuous improvement of educator preparation providers. ACCREDITATION OF MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS In 1995, NCATE, one of the original accreditation organizations of CAEP, requested preparation standards for teachers seeking certification to teach young adolescents. This development legitimatized specialized middle level teacher preparation as a distinct part of the landscape of teacher education. The Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) (called the National Middle School Association at the time) and NCATE jointly established seven standards focused on middle level teacher knowledge, dispositions, and performances in 2001. These standards have led many institutions with educator preparation programs to design and establish specialized middle level teacher preparation programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. While not all states or institutions have utilized these standards to make changes in educator preparation for middle level teachers, the partnership with CAEP and the adoption of AMLE standards has helped ensure an increasing number of teachers entering middle level classrooms have specialized knowledge and skills to effectively teach young adolescents. AMLE is one of several member organizations of CAEP and works closely to ensure the quality of middle level teacher preparation programs through the accreditation process (CAEP, 2015b). AMLE’s partnership with CAEP supports the specialized professional preparation of teachers through the voluntary decision by states to adopt AMLE/CAEP-Approved Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards as state certification/licensure standards or credentialing regulations. When states adopt or utilize these standards in the evaluation of educator preparation providers’ middle level programs, it wields a powerful influence, helping shape the nature of middle level teacher preparation programs and leveraging this influence to make the desired changes actually happen. States have two options for institutional approval through CAEP. The first option is for institutions to proceed with program review through Specialized Program Associations (SPA) such as AMLE to determine if programs within the institution’s education unit are meeting the established standards and making continuous improvement in the preparation of educators in those specialized areas. When states select this option, it means all institutions in the state preparing educators for the middle level grades must provide evidence of meeting the five AMLE-CAEP-Approved standards for middle level teacher preparation. Upon successful

review and accreditation, these programs are deemed nationally recognized by AMLE. If programs are not approved, the institution must discontinue the middle level educator preparation program. The second option states have for program review is to conduct the accreditation process at the state level with state education officials reviewing educator preparation programs’ evidence for quality and continuous improvement. In many cases, state review boards will choose to use standards from SPAs such as AMLE’s Teacher Preparation Standards and rely on them as benchmarks during the accreditation process. While institutions with middle level programs in these states will not be nationally recognized by AMLE, they will still be required to show evidence of meeting the AMLE standards through their state review process. MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION STANDARDS In 2010, AMLE tasked its Professional Preparation Advisory Committee to revise the Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards in an effort to make them current and consistent with national trends in teacher education and accreditation. Multiple drafts were shared on the AMLE website and communicated through AMLE publications starting in 2011. The final version was approved by the AMLE Professional Preparation Advisory Committee, the AMLE Board of Trustees and NCATE/CAEP in early 2013. The new standards share the same format with CAEP to focus only on initial certification programs and be performance-based. These standards reflect a strong commitment to the essential components of middle level teacher preparation (McEwin, Dickinson, & Smith, 2003). Other components of effective teacher preparation (e.g., field and clinical experiences, content knowledge) are not included explicitly in these standards as they are required through unit level standards for all educator preparation programs seeking national accreditation from CAEP. The current AMLE-CAEP-Approved Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards for middle level teacher preparation programs consist of five performance-based standards and center around four principals: (A) The Learner and the Learning; (B) Content; (C) Instructional Practice; and (D) Professional Responsibilities. All of the standards have specific elements to assist in better understanding the intent of the standard and are accompanied by research-based supporting explanations, references, and rubrics for each respective standard (AMLE, 2012). For a complete list of standards, elements, and supporting explanations, see http:// www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/ProfessionalPreparation/ AMLEStandards.aspx

18 ◾ ACCREDITATION AND MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS

The standards are designed to ensure middle level teacher preparation programs are providing coursework addressing middle level philosophy, effective organizational structures for middle schools, young adolescent development, and middle level curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The standards also explicitly require evidence of field experiences with young adolescents and in middle level schools. In order to successfully meet the AMLE standards, programmatic experiences and assessments must make explicit use of the content and language of the AMLE-CAEP-Approved standards. The standards and elements are listed below with a brief explanation of each (AMLE, 2012). PRINCIPLE A: THE LEARNER AND LEARNING Standard 1: Young Adolescent Development Middle level teacher candidates understand, use, and reflect on the major concepts, principles, theories, and research related to young adolescent development and use that knowledge in their practice. They demonstrate their ability to apply this knowledge when making curricular decisions, planning and implementing instruction, participating in middle level programs and practices, and providing healthy and effective learning environments for all young adolescents. The four essential elements of Standard 1 include: A. Knowledge of Young Adolescent Development; B. Knowledge of the Implications of Diversity on Young Adolescent Development; C. Implications of Young Adolescent Development for Middle Level Curriculum and Instruction; and D. Implications of Young Adolescent Development for Middle Level Programs and Practices. Standard one focuses on the importance of middle level teacher preparation programs providing candidates the opportunities to demonstrate their understanding of the diversity of young adolescent development and how it influences every aspect of teaching and learning in the middle grades.

resources to design, implement, and evaluate challenging, developmentally responsive curriculum that results in meaningful learning outcomes. Middle level teacher candidates demonstrate their ability to assist all young adolescents in understanding the interdisciplinary nature of knowledge. They design and teach curriculum that is responsive to all young adolescents’ local, national, and international histories, language/dialects, and individual identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, age, appearance, ability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, family composition). The three essential elements of Standard 2 include: A. Subject Matter Content Knowledge; B. Middle Level Student Standards; and C. Interdisciplinary Nature of Knowledge. Standard two focuses on the importance of programs requiring candidates have a deep understanding of their content area(s) and opportunities to demonstrate their understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of the contents in the middle grades as well as developmentally appropriate instruction and assessment. Standard 3: Middle Level Philosophy and School Organization Middle level teacher candidates understand the major concepts, principles, theories, and research underlying the philosophical foundations of developmentally responsive middle level programs and schools, and they work successfully within middle level organizational components. The two essential elements of Standard 3 include: A. Middle Level Philosophical Foundations; and B. Middle Level Organization and Best Practices. Standard three focuses on the importance of middle level teacher candidates’ ability to articulate the rationale for developmentally responsive programs and practices such as interdisciplinary teaming, common planning time, and advisory programs. It also requires candidates to demonstrate their ability to participate successfully in these best practices and use this knowledge within the context of a range of school settings.

PRINCIPLE B: CONTENT Standard 2: Middle Level Curriculum Middle level teacher candidates understand and use the central concepts, standards, research, and structures of content to plan and implement curriculum that develops all young adolescents’ competence in subject matter. They use their knowledge and available

PRINCIPLE C: INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE Standard 4: Middle Level Instruction and Assessment Middle level teacher candidates understand, use, and reflect on the major concepts, principles, theories, and research related to data-informed instruction and

ACHIEVEMENT GAP ◾ 19

assessment. They employ a variety of developmentally appropriate instructional strategies, information literacy skills, and technologies to meet the learning needs of all young adolescents (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, age, appearance, ability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, family composition). The four essential elements for Standard 4 include: A. Content Pedagogy; B. Middle Level Instructional Strategies; C. Middle Level Assessment and Data-informed Instruction; and D. Young Adolescent Motivation. Standard four focuses on the importance of middle level teacher candidates demonstrating their ability to use their knowledge about young adolescents and their understanding of their content area by employing a wide variety of research-based instructional approaches that are effective with young adolescents and motivate them to learn. PRINCIPLE D: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Standard 5: Middle Level Professional Roles Middle level teacher candidates understand their complex roles as teachers of young adolescents. They engage in practices and behaviors that develop their competence as middle level professionals. They are informed advocates for young adolescents and middle level education, and work successfully with colleagues, families, community agencies, and community members. Middle level teacher candidates demonstrate positive dispositions and engage in ethical professional behaviors. The three essential elements for Standard 5 include: A. Professional Roles of Middle Level Teachers; B. Advocacy for Young Adolescents and Developmentally Responsive Schooling Practices; and C. Working with Family Members and Community Involvement, and Dispositions and Professional Behaviors. Standard five focuses on the importance of middle level teacher candidates demonstrating their understanding of their roles as teachers, leaders, and advocates by performing successfully in these unique roles through collaboration with colleagues, family members, and community stakeholders to advocate for young adolescents, developmentally responsive middle level curriculum, and instructional strategies.

REFERENCES Association for Middle Level Education. (2012). Middle level teacher preparation standards with rubrics and supporting explanations. Westerville, OH: Author. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/portals/0/doc/standards/2012_ AMLE_Standards.doc Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2015a). History of CAEP. Retrieved from http://caepnet .org/about/history/ Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2015b). SPA standards and report forms. Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/ program-review-options/spa-standards-and-report -forms McEwin, C. K., Smith, T. W., & Dickinson, T. S., (2003). Middle level teacher preparation: Status, progress and challenges. In G. Andrews & V. Anfara (Eds.), Leaders for a movement: Professional preparation and development of middle level teachers and administrators (pp. 3–26). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. McEwin, C. K., & Smith, T. W. (2013). The professional preparation of middle grades teachers. In P. G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education (pp. 679–695). Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education.

ACHIEVEMENT GAP Larry G. Daniel The Citadel Achievement gap is a term used to refer to differences in average (i.e., mean or median) performance of demographic subgroups of students on various competency assessments. Although achievement gaps can be discussed across levels any possible demographic variable (e.g., geographic region, school type), the literature has focused primarily of achievement gaps across ethnic and socioeconomic subgroupings. However, comprehensive studies of achievement gaps across gender have also been conducted (e.g., Cheema & Galluzzo, 2013; Doolittle, 1989). Generally speaking, the most noticeable achievement gaps have been found between the scores of White students and their Black/ African American and Hispanic/Latino counterparts. Similar achievement gaps have been found consistently between scores of students from middle income versus poor families (Reardon, 2013). The notion of achievement gap has been around for at least six decades. The term seems to have been coined during the late 1950s in news stories following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) mandating desegregation of public schools (Jones, 2013). By the

20 ◾ ACHIEVEMENT GAP

mid-1960s, achievement gap had replaced earlier labels such as “achievement lag” or “Negro lag” used to describe the tendencies of Black students to achieve lower scores than White students in the same schools or from similar backgrounds. Achievement gap as the primary term for describing score discrepancies has prevailed into the second decade of the 21st century. Achievement gaps have served as a useful tool in conversations about “the equality of educational opportunity,” a concept that goes back to at least the 1940s (Boykin, 1947) and is still discussed and debated (Schmidt, Cogan, Houang, & McKnight, 2009). Often computed in terms of standardized mean differences, achievement gaps have frequently been used to illustrate the lack of equal results across White and Black students despite attempts to equalize opportunity for academic success. These standardized measures of the achievement gap are used by some to criticize the quality of schools, curricula, or teachers and to call for decreasing funding to schools or replacing public schools with privatized alternatives (e.g., charter schools) where, it is argued, more promising results in closing achievement gaps are likely to occur. On the opposite end of the spectrum, many have called for increases in funding and resources to schools serving large pockets of poor and minority students where achievement gaps have been most pronounced (e.g., Grissmer, Flanagan, & Williamson, 1998; Morris, 1954; Reardon, 2013). The landmark report by Coleman and his colleagues (1966) was the first wide scale national study to provide substantive attention to links between resources and the achievement gap. The researchers found systematic differences in standardized achievement test scores across race, with Black students across grade levels scoring approximately one standard deviation lower than White students. Educational quality factors (such as curricula offered), school facilities (such as libraries and science laboratories), and academic characteristics of teachers were found to have a greater impact on the education of Black children than White children. Following the Coleman report, actions taken to better fund schools as well as improvements in instructional practices accounted for narrowing of the gaps during the 1970s and 1980s (Grissmer et al., 1998). Disparities between middle income and poor students’ achievement follow a trend similar to the disparities between White and Black/African American students. In fact, it is becoming commonplace that researchers focus more heavily on the income gap than the ethnic gap when analyzing achievement data (Evans & Rosenbaum, 2008). Reflecting on the literature over a half century, Reardon (2013) noted: Historically, low-income students as a group have performed less well than high-income students on most

measures of academic success—including standardized test scores, grades, high school completion rates, and college enrollment and completion rates. Countless studies have documented these disparities and investigated many underlying reasons for them. (p. 10)

Following a review of 12 nationally representative studies, Reardon (2013) went on to conclude that the income gap in achievement widened during the period from the 1970s through the early years of the 21st century even while the racial gap was narrowing. Hence, at least some of the now growing disparity between White and African American achievement test scores is due to the correlation between ethnicity and income. This disparity is further exacerbated when including gender differences in the mix—poor Black boys often are among the lowest scorers on educational assessments (Ford & Moore, 2013). A number of explanations have been proffered for why the gap in achievement exists between White and Black students. In the 1960s and 1970s, some researchers (e.g., Jensen, 1973; Shuey, 1966) chalked differences up to heredity, an explanation that met with widespread disdain from the research community writ large. A range of social factors, including family income, home language, and level of parental involvement have been linked to gaps in achievement (Williams, 2011). Based on syntheses of extant research, Barton (2003) and Barton and Coley (2009) identified a range of factors that, combined together, account for much of the variation in achievement scores related to the racial achievement gap. Specifically, Barton and Coley (2009) identified 16 factors related to the achievement gap, including seven school factors (academic rigor, teacher preparation, teacher level of experience, teacher attendance and turnover, class size, access to technology, and fear/safety at school), parent participation, and eight “before and beyond school” student factors (mobility, low birth weight, exposure to environmental hazards, hunger/nutrition, preschool exposure to language and reading, excessive television watching, family structure, and summer achievement loss). In recent years, the notion of adequate yearly progress (AYP) has been a central factor in conversations about achievement gaps. Provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (2002) required that all students make annual yearly progress on standardized achievement or end of course assessments, and percentages of students meeting AYP are often tracked across demographic subgroups. Schools are rewarded for achieving AYP and penalized for failing to achieve it. Interestingly, a school can, on the whole, achieve AYP when all student scores are averaged, but could be penalized under NCLB if even one subgroup (e.g., females, Hispanics, English language learners) has failed

ACHIEVEMENT GAP ◾ 21

to reach AYP goals. Anderson, Medrich, and Fowler (2007) have noted that there is a common misperception that as percent of students reaching AYP across subgroups increases, achievement gaps will disappear as well. In reality, this has often not been the case, and achievement gaps have persisted and frequently gotten larger. Further, it is quite possible that the schools most effective at closing the achievement gap may not necessarily be the highest performing schools and may not be schools that achieve AYP (Anderson et al., 2007). School districts’ and policy makers’ preoccupation with AYP has in some instances ignored the larger issue of achievement gaps across ethnic subgroups. In fact, in an extensive national study of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Grade 8 mathematics data across 10 states, Braun, Chapman, and Vezzu (2010) found, as compared to NAEP scores for student before the passage of NCLB, NAEP scores for the seven year period immediately following passage of NCLB continued to show substantial gaps between White and Black students. The researchers concluded, “the introduction of federally mandated high stakes test-based accountability through No Child Left Behind has had a very modest impact on rates of improvement for Black students and on the pace of reductions in the achievement gaps between Black and White students” (p. 1). Likewise, Lee and Reeves (2012), in their study of NAEP data over a 10 year period, found that the reading achievement gap, which had narrowed in the years immediately preceding NCLB actually widened following implementation of NCLB. By contrast, some progress was noted in narrowing the mathematics achievement gap, but gains were relatively small. Nevertheless, achievement gains seem to be tied, at least in part, to gaps in the “opportunity to learn” (Schmidt et al., 2009). The reality of AYP calculations, coupled with the heavy focus on student learning gains as part of “value added” teaching models has brought additional attention to achievement gaps. Like AYP calculations, value added equations are used to determine whether a student has made a year’s worth of academic growth in a school year. Complex predictive formulae are devised that take previous achievement and a variety of other student factors into consideration. Value added estimates derived from these formulae are typically standardized with a mean of zero such that a student who has made less than one-year’s anticipated growth by the end of the school year receives a negative value, and, conversely, a student who has made more than one year’s anticipated growth receives a positive value. Teacher value added scores typically include an average of student scores along with, in some cases, expectations about numbers of students as a whole or within subgroups who have obtained anticipated gains (i.e., AYP).

Advocates of developmentally responsive middle grades education are appropriately concerned about the issue of achievement gaps. More significantly, middle grades educators and researchers are characterized by their desire to see all students be successful, and effective assessment and evaluation strategies for the middle grades tend to be focused on much more than attainment of AYP. For example, This We Believe, a position statement of the National Middle School Association (NMSA, 1995), included “high expectations for all” among its five primary characteristics defining developmentally responsive middle level schools. NMSA, in that statement noted: “All students who make reasonable effort should see their efforts rewarded. Emphasis should be on what the student has accomplished, not on failure to reach some arbitrary uniform standard” (p. 28). Because the eighth grade is frequently a grade in which high stakes assessments are given, eighth grade AYP and achievement gaps among subgroups of students at the eighth grade are frequently focused upon by middle level schools, school districts, and state departments of education. Achievement gaps that have existed during the elementary years may become more pronounced in the middle grades (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2002). One state, for example, found that Hispanic, Black, and Native American eight graders lagged behind other students by approximately one grade level in reading, and that economically disadvantaged eighth graders were at least one grade level behind other students in mathematics (Oregon Audits Division, 2014). Achievement gaps were even more pronounced when breaking down data by those students who were both ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged; and the presence of these achievements were ubiquitous, having existed for at least the previous eight years. Despite these overall disappointing results, the state found a cluster of middle grade schools that were closing achievement gaps. Characteristics of these gap-closing schools included safe and positive school climate, high expectations coupled with high degree of supports to help students learn, teacher collaboration, data-informed instruction, and strong leadership. In a similar study, Balfanz and Byrnes (2002) followed four cohorts of students in three high-poverty middle schools that had been found to do a more effective job at closing the achievement gap than 23 other similar schools in the same school district (i.e., Philadelphia). The three successful schools had implemented a whole-school reform model focused on strong instructional programs, sustained teacher support, stronger teacher-student bonds, and “more caring and daring classroom environments which promote student effort and improve attendance” (p. 17). Other types of achievement gaps (besides those due to ethnicity or family income level) may also be studied in the middle grades. At least one somewhat

22 ◾ ACHIEVEMENT TESTS

controversial study (Rockoff & Lockwood, 2010) focused on possible relationships among grade configuration of the school, numbers of students at a given grade level within a school, and achievement, arguing for the efficacy of a K–8 organizational structure over a separate middle school as a means for reducing achievement gaps. However, a plethora of studies seem to support the importance of focusing on the larger issue of what happens within the school or classroom as opposed to issues such as grade configuration. As Burke (2005) has noted: The achievement gap consists of students who fail; just as important, however, it represents the teachers who themselves stop learning new ways to teach or refuse to develop the necessary knowledge and skills to help students gain access to the curriculum, the school, and ultimately to the better life we all want for ourselves— and our students. (p. 57)

REFERENCES Anderson, S., Medrich, E., & Fowler, D. (2007). Which achievement gap? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7), 547–550. Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2002, April). Closing the mathematics achievement gap in high poverty middle schools: Enablers and constraints. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Baselines for tracking progress. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Barton, P. E., & Coley, R. J. (2009). Parsing the achievement gap II. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Boykin, L. L. (1947). Equality of educational opportunity. School & Society, 57, 25–27. Braun, H., Chapman, L., & Vezzu, S. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap revisited. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21), 1–95. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu. edu/ojs/article/view/772 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Burke, J. (2005). Creating programs that close the achievement gap. Voices from the Middle, 13(1), 56–57. Cheema, J. R., & Galluzzo, G. (2013). Analyzing the gender gap in math achievement: Evidence from a large-scale US sample. Research in Education, 90, 98–112. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Doolittle, A. (1989). Gender difference in performance on mathematics achievement items. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(2), 161–177. Evans, G. W., & Rosenbaum, J. (2008). Self-regulation and the income-achievement gap. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 504–514. Ford, D. Y., & Moore III, J. L. (2013). Understanding and reversing underachievement, low achievement, and

achievement gaps among high-ability African American males in urban school contexts. Urban Review, 45, 399–415. Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., & Williamson, S. (1998). Why did Black test scores rise rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 182–226). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Jensen, A. R. (1973). Educability and group differences. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Jones, L. (2013). Minding the gap: A rhetorical history of the achievement gap (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Lee, J., & Reeves, T. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources: State NAEP 1990–2009 reading and math achievement gaps and trends. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209–231. Morris, J. R. (1954). The equality of educational opportunity. Journal of Negro Education, 23(2), 190–192. National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Oregon Audits Division. (2014). Oregon Department of Education: Efforts to close achievement gaps [Secretary of State Audit report]. Salem, OR: Secretary of State, State of Oregon. Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–16. Rockoff, J. E., & Lockwood, B. B. (2010). Stuck in the middle: How and why middle schools harm student achievement. Education Next, 10(4), 68–75. Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L. S., Houang, R. T., & McKnight, C. C. (2009). Equality of educational opportunity: A myth or reality in U. S. schooling. East Lansing, MI: Education Policy Center, Michigan State University. Shuey, A. (1966). The testing of Negro intelligence (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Social Science Press. Williams, A. (2011). A call for change: Narrowing the achievement gap between White and minority students. Clearing House, 84, 65–71.

ACHIEVEMENT TESTS Shirley Theriot Contributor from 1st edition Horace Mann, secretary of the State Board of Education in Massachusetts, used standardized achievement tests as early as the 1840s to monitor the state’s school systems. In the 1920s interests in the scientific movement brought standardized assessments to the nation’s attention and by the end of the 1960s state and federal testing became a very important accountability measure

ACHIEVEMENT TESTS ◾ 23

(Pearson, Vyas, Sensale, & Kim, 2001). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) required that all states in the nation administer annual tests to students in the third through eighth grades. These achievement tests are accountability measures, which aim at raising standards and student performance. Test results are then distributed to state, district, and local schools and oftentimes have overwhelming influence on students’ placement and promotion. The Achievement Tests 101 accountability influences attached to these tests have raised concerns about this type of measurement and its impact on teaching and learning (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Braun, 2004). NCLB required that all schools administer standardized achievement tests to students in grades three through eight in reading, language arts, and math by the year 2005–2006 and to students in grades three through five in science at least once and then once again in one of the grades six through nine by the year 2007–2008. This included all students, even limited-English-proficient students (LEP), who for the first 3 years will be allowed to have a test in their first language. Also, of important note is that learning disabled students will be included in this testing with possible adaptations and accommodations, such as extra time for testing. Highstakes tests, which determine whether a student will go on to the next grade or even graduate, focus on every child in the school system including students with disabilities. Protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975, students with disabilities by law have access to appropriate accommodations in instruction and assessments. Concurrently, the federal mandates for testing all students provide for access to opportunities without discrimination based on disability (Albrecht & Joles, 2003). TYPES OF ACHIEVEMENT TESTS Norm referenced tests and criterion referenced tests are two types of achievement tests. Norm referenced tests (NRTs) compare a person’s score against the scores of a group of people who have already taken the same exam. Criterion reference tests (CRTs) measure a student’s performance as compared to specifically identified grade-level criteria. This measure allows students, parents, and schools to compare the effectiveness of instruction and learning of the body of intended knowledge and skills. NRT content is based on national standards and curriculum and is usually presented in multiple-choice form, possibly including open-ended, short-answer questions. Some examples of NRTs are the California Achievement Test (CAT), Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), and the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT).

The National Assessment of Educational Practice (NAEP) is a criterion-referenced test. Scores on the NAEP are arranged in three categories: basic, proficient, and advanced. The NAEP was first administered in 1969 and is commonly known as the “The Nation’s Report Card.” NAEP is a federally mandated assessment, which was created by the U.S. Department of Education. It is the only nationally representative achievement test and has continued since 1969. The examination measures academic achievement of 4th, 8th, and 12th grade students in reading, writing, mathematics, science, geography, civics, the arts, and other fields. Tests in math and reading are given more often than those for other subjects. It provides a state or national assessment of skills and knowledge among students of a small random sampling of each state. It also provides a rich database of educational performance and student demographics, as well as state ranking comparisons, but does not allow for comparison across schools. Calkins, Montgomery, and Santman (1998) explain that concern for low NAEP and state testing reading scores often results in a spontaneous reaction by school districts to attempt to provide what are thought to be immediate solutions. SUPPORT FOR TESTS Quality achievement testing can bring about academic success if the following are present: response to instruction and further assessment, distribution and explanation of test results in a timely manner, test data that are in a form that educators can understand and utilize to improve instruction, clear indicators to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses, and the same achievement standards for everyone regardless of ethnic or cultural differences (Gandal & McGiffert, 2003). Achievement tests contain specific tasks and procedures, which measure specific skills and formal learning (Sattler, 2001) and are constructed so that school districts in all locations can discover how their students compare academically with students in other school districts. Standardized achievement tests are relatively inexpensive, can be easily mandated by policy makers, can be rapidly implemented, and the results are usually clearly understood (Barton, 1999). Federal mandates have established yearly measurements of academic achievement in the core subjects with many parents pleased to have academic reports about their childrens’ progress each year (Education Trust, 2003). These annual assessments allow parents and school personnel to tract students’ progress, to give support to students quickly, and to suggest extra instruction in order to strengthen specific weaknesses and to prevent future academic problems. Testing

24 ◾ ACHIEVEMENT TESTS

requirements of NCLB do not include conditions for promotion or graduation (Education Trust, 2003). CHALLENGES TO TESTING It is extremely important that educators follow the curriculum, and ultimately plan, present, and assess educational content based on the standards, where success or failure is determined by multiple assessments and not solely on one measure (Barton, 1999; National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, 2002; Wiggins, 1993). Alternate assessments other than standardized tests may include portfolios, exhibitions, performances, demonstrations, and formative or classroom tests that measure how well students achieve state standards. Some researchers (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Bracey, 2003; National Forum, 2002; Neill, 2003) have suggested that educators should focus on formative assessment practices that encourage quality teaching and higher-level learning, not only measurements that are easy and quick, such as multiple choice. When test scores are used to determine success or failure of schooling, often called high-stakes tests, many understand this to mean that they must teach to the tests (Stake, 2002). Highstakes testing (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Jacob, 2001; Neill, 2003) has not improved academic achievement; is associated with higher dropout rates, because of fear of not graduating or not being promoted; is causing good teachers to leave the profession (Droege, 2004), and is not a reliable measure of individual student achievement (Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Linn, 2000). Some believed that the ones being assessed are the teachers, which sometimes leads to job loss or cuts in salary (Wiggins, 1993). These tests (Barton, 1999) have produced numbers and quantitative data, but do not add to teachers’ and schools’ improvement of student performance. Barton (1999) suggested that a random sampling, such as the NAEP tests, administered every four years, would be just as effective as annual testing of all students. Debate about the influence of these tests on student achievement is ongoing due to the observational nature of student achievement and translating the data from tests into actual measurements of student learning and school ratings (Braun, 2004; Raymond & Hanushek, 2003). Some reported that there has been no improvement on NAEP scores and no measurable improvement in student learning as a result of highstakes testing policies, even with states, which have shown improvement on their own state tests (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Linn, 2000) and others who disagreed with this conclusion and who suggested that these assessments need refining and not exclusion from accountability measures (Braun, 2004; Raymond & Hanushek, 2003).

FACTORS INFLUENCING ACHIEVEMENT TESTS SCORES There are multiple factors which influence academic success in achievement scores in middle school, such as, individual, family, school, and community factors (Mulhall, Flowers, & Mertens, 2002). In addition to understanding that these factors are indeed extremely important to student development and well-being, we know very little about how these factors play into the school environment; specifically, the students’ culture, motivation, interests, and their instructional experiences (Alexander, 2000). Parental involvement has repeatedly demonstrated positive results in achievement test results (Desimone, 1999). Children from middle-class families tend to score higher than lower-socioeconomic class families and also attain higher levels of education (Hanson, 1994). Girls generally score higher than boys on standardized tests (Halpern, 2002). School systems have witnessed the effects of public support and community efforts on student achievement. REFLECTIONS Federal legislation and mandates for high stakes testing have placed added challenges before middle school faculties as they strive to improve student performance. As measures and guidelines are imposed, little direction and support in implementation of achievement strategies is given to those who are closest to the students (Meier, 2002). REFERENCES Albrecht, S. F., & Joles, C. (2003). Accountability and access to opportunity: Mutually exclusive tenets under a highstakes testing mandate. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 86–91. Alexander, P. A. (2000). Toward a model of academic development: Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 4, 28–33. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of highstakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32–38. Barton, P. E. (1999). Too much testing of the wrong kind; Too little of the right kind in K–12 education. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Bracey, G. W. (2003). The 13th Bracey Report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2), 148–164. Braun, H. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v12n1/ Calkins, L., Montgomery, K., & Santman, D. (1998). A teacher’s guide to standardized reading tests: Knowledge is power. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

ADAPTATIONS, ACCOMMODATIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS ◾ 25 Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11–30. Droege, K. L. (2004) Turning accountability on its head: Supporting inspired teaching in today’s classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), 610 Education Trust. (2003). Fact sheet #2. Retrieved from http:// www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/82FA87DD-62D2415E-8426-32FD14CF2EF8/0/factsheetrev4.pdf Gandal, M., & McGiffert, L. (2003). The power of testing. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 39–42. Halpern, D. F. (2002). Sex differences in achievement scores: Can we design assessments that are fair, meaningful, and valid for girls and boys? Issues in Education, 8(1), 2–18. Hanson, S. L. (1994). Lost talent: Unrealized educational aspirations and expectations of U.S. youths. Sociology of Education, 67, 159–183. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Jacob, B. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99–121. Linn, R. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16. Meier, D. (2002). Standardization versus standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 190–198. Mulhall, P. F., Flowers, N., & Mertens, S. (2002). Understanding indicators related to academic performance. Middle School Journal, 34(2), 56–61. National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (2002, July). Position statement of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform. High-stakes testing. Issue 3. Retrieved from http://www.nmsa.org/news/position papers/highstakestesting_nationalforum.htm Neill, M. (2003). The dangers of testing. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 43–46. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Public Law 107110, 107th Cong, Cong. Rec. 1425. (enacted 2002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Web site: www.ed.gov./offices/OESE/esea Pearson, P. D., Vyas, S. , Sensale, L .M., & Kim, Y. (2001). Making our way through the assessment and accountability maze: Where do we go now? The Clearing House, 74(4), 175–182. Raymond, M. E., & Hanushek, E. A. (2003). High-stakes research. Education Next, 3(3), 48–55. Retreived from http://www.educationnext.org Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Author. Stake, R. E. (2002). Teachers conceptualizing student achievement. Teachers & Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 303–372. Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purposes and limits of testing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

ADAPTATIONS, ACCOMMODATIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS Janet Josephson Millersville University ADAPTATIONS Adaptation is a broad term to describe changes made to instruction and curriculum so that all students have equal opportunity to participate and succeed in school. Adaptations include changes to the classroom environment, the curriculum and student achievement goals, the teaching methods and testing procedures, and implementation of assistive technologies (Janney & Snell, 2006). Such adaptations can be classified as accommodations or modifications. An overview of the history of adaptations will be discussed below followed by specific accommodations and modifications that are common in middle school settings. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The implementation of adaptations, accommodations, and modifications in schools has been influenced by several seminal legislative actions. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) (1975), later, reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1997, 2004), and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) have been particularly important in calling for accommodations and modifications for students in schools. Prior to this legislation, students with disabilities had limited access to an education that met their unique needs. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), a law prohibiting the discrimination against individuals with physical or mental disabilities, defined disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. In a school setting, some major life activities can include concentrating, reading, speaking, listening, calculating, and walking. The law provides a non-exhaustive list of the activities considered to be major life activities. Section 504 includes a description of the specific aids and services needed to support students with disabilities in order to provide reasonable accommodation. Section 504 ensures that children with disabilities have equal access to education and other school-related activities. Students who have a disability but do not receive special education services may have a 504 plan that describes the adaptations to be made for the student in order to ensure his success in educational activities.

26 ◾ ADAPTATIONS, ACCOMMODATIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS

In 1975, the United States Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. In 1990, the EHA was reauthorized as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and in 1997 it was reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) (1997, 2004). IDEA included requirements for the provision of supplementary aids and services, defined as accommodations and/or modifications made to the curriculum or the manner in which the curriculum was presented to students with disabilities. IDEA required that students’ accommodations and modifications be recorded in their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). The 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (2002), focused largely on setting high standards with the goal of improving student performance on high-stakes assessments, NCLB held school districts accountable for the academic progress of all students, including those students with disabilities. Students with disabilities were expected to have access to general education curriculum and demonstrate the same level of adequate yearly progress as their peers without disabilities, which caused great concern for families and educators. Several legislative acts have contributed to the protection provided to students with disabilities in today’s classroom. Adaptations, including accommodations and modifications, provide all students access to the general education curriculum while also allowing students to demonstrate their learning as appropriate to their abilities. Accommodations for both classroom and testing situations will be discussed below. ACCOMMODATIONS Accommodations are the changes that teachers can make to instructional approaches or materials to enable students with disabilities to participate more fully in academic tasks. The materials or subject area curriculum can be accommodated, as can the actual teaching methods and strategies. Accommodations don’t lower the expectations for what students learn; rather they allow students to access the content and demonstrate their understanding of the content. Accommodations typically take place during instruction, although there are particular guidelines for allowable accommodations during standardized testing administration. General classroom accommodations are discussed below, followed by those accommodations that are permissible during testing. General Classroom Accommodations Teachers can support students with disabilities by making accommodations to curriculum, class materials,

and teaching methods. It is important to remember that these changes do not make the core content easier for students, nor do they lower the expectations for student outcomes. Accommodations to curriculum. Many students with disabilities have difficulty with reading. One adaptation for students with reading difficulties is allowing them to learn content from audiobooks, movies, or digital print instead of reading text in its traditional format. Other common curricular accommodations include providing review sheets for tests and quizzes, pre-teaching vocabulary necessary for the daily lesson, and explicit opportunities to connect prior knowledge to new content. Accommodations to materials. Teachers can make changes to materials to assist students with disabilities. Students with mobility issues may require specialized seating in the classroom. For example, a student who uses a wheelchair may work more comfortably at a large table rather than a student desk. The placement of the table in the classroom would be an accommodation for that student. Students with writing difficulties may benefit from the use of a laptop for major writing assignments, while other students may be best supported by using a pencil grip, or paper with raised lines or enlarged spacing. Other common material accommodations include the use of a tilted surface to ease the strain of writing, the use of a magnification device for students with visual impairments, and the use of a reading tracker to allow students to read text one line at a time. Accommodations to teaching methods. At times, teachers must alter their teaching methods to meet the needs of students. Providing instruction that includes visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile approaches can benefit students with disabilities. Teachers can record their lessons so that students may review them at a later time. When teachers present material in small increments, students have a longer time to process new information. Other common accommodations to teaching methods include the inclusion of ongoing feedback, rephrasing of new ideas, and the assistance of a peer tutor during lessons. Health and behavioral accommodations. For some students with health concerns, major life activities that need to be accommodated in schools can include eating and breathing. Tube feeding may be monitored and implemented by a trained staff member or personal care assistant. Nebulizer treatments may be administered during the school day for a student with chronic asthma. A trained staff member would monitor such treatments and accommodations would need to be made to determine how the student would learn the material covered during treatment. For students whose health condition necessitates frequent absences, an accommodation can be made to supply them with an additional set of school textbooks and workbooks for the home.

ADAPTATIONS, ACCOMMODATIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS ◾ 27

Many students require behavioral accommodations during daily classroom activities. For example, some students experience difficulty when transitioning from one activity to the next. Teachers can provide advance warning of the upcoming transition or a checklist of tasks to complete in order to transition to the next activity. Students may demonstrate difficulty waiting their turn to share an idea aloud. Teachers can accommodate this behavior by alerting the student to the steps to signal a response, and then following through when the student completes those steps. Table 1 contains several additional behavioral accommodations that can be implemented in a middle school classroom with ease. TABLE 1

Behavioral Accommodations

Accommodation Use of a behavioral contract Ongoing communication with family in the form of a daily/weekly report or a school-to-home communication notebook Use of consistent behavior management plan Post classroom rules and consequences and refer to them often Use of self-monitoring strategies Use of positive praise when the student displays the desired behavior Ignore the undesired behavior Limit distraction for the student by providing a private work space in which to complete class assignments Use of specific corrective feedback. For example, “I would like you to begin your homework when you finish the test, rather than talking to your peer.”

Testing Accommodations The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA required the development of guidelines for the application of testing accommodations during state testing programs. Because of the nature of state testing programs, not all classroom accommodations are permitted in a testing situation. It is important that accommodations do not interfere with TABLE 2

the accuracy or validity of a standardized test. For example, in a test designed to measure reading fluency, the accommodation of a test reader would not be permissible. Testing accommodations are typically grouped into the categories of scheduling, presentation, student response, setting, and equipment or materials. Table 2 contains a list of some of the most common testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Scheduling accommodations. Scheduling refers to a change to the amount of time a student has to complete a task. Some students with disabilities may need additional time to demonstrate their understanding. These students may be given twice the amount of time as their peers to complete a task. Scheduling can also refer to the time of day during which a student completes a task. For example, some students may perform better in the morning. A scheduling accommodation of test taking in the morning may lead to greater student success. Presentation accommodations. Changes to the way that instructions and other related information are presented are called presentation accommodations. For example, students with difficulty reading and following instructions may benefit from the oral presentation of directions. Many students receive accommodations that permit the instructions to be read and re-read as often as the student requests. Student response accommodations. Students demonstrate what they have learned in many ways. Students with mild disabilities may have difficulty coloring in the circle that corresponds with a multiple-choice selection on an answer sheet. For these students, circling their response in the test booklet may be beneficial. Students who demonstrate difficulty in oral communication may indicate their response by pointing. Setting accommodations. The environment in which a student completes an academic task may need to be altered to ensure student success. Students bothered by bright classroom lighting may benefit from the use of a visor to decrease brightness. Students with high levels

Testing Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

Scheduling

Presentation

Student response

Setting

• extended time for task completion • frequent breaks • testing at preferred time of day

• directions repeated as requested • materials read aloud to the student • large print format • braille format

• mark answers in book • use of a scribe/ oral response to test questions • alternative response (eye gaze, point, oral response) • use of computer for extended response

• study carrel • private testing room • preferential seating • special lighting • use of noisecancelling headphones

Equipment or materials • use of a calculator • use of manipulatives • use of an amplification system • use of an audio recorder • use of a magnification device

Other • use of a highlighter • longer tasks broken into smaller increments • use of assistive technology

28 ◾ ADMINISTRATORS: MIDDLE LEVEL PRINCIPALS

of distractibility may benefit from completing academic tasks in a distraction-free location within the school. Equipment or materials accommodations. The use of a calculator or math manipulatives during testing is an accommodation of equipment or materials. The use of a highlighter can also support students with disabilities. Students can locate highlighted information more efficiently, particularly when it appears in a lengthy text.

those supports are required. In some instances, modification of the learning goal, content, or expectation may be the more appropriate solution. The goal is to provide access to the curriculum so that students can engage thoughtfully in their learning while also demonstrating their learning in a way most meaningful for the individual student. REFERENCES

MODIFICATIONS Modifications are adaptations that lower the learning expectation for students with disabilities by either making the content easier or by lessening the expectations of the student. Many modifications reduce the amount of content to be learned or the amount of work to be produced to demonstrate learning. For example, a student who struggles with reading grade-level text may receive a modified reading assignment that is two grade levels below his/her current grade level. In this example, the content has been made easier for the student. Other examples of modifications include allowing students with disabilities to complete fewer problems on an assignment, providing prompts, reminders, or clues while a student completes his or her assignment, and allowing students to complete only the most accessible portions of longer project-based assignments.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 1, 104 Stat. 328 (1990). Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. U.S. Public Law 94-142. U.S. Code. Vol. 20, secs. 1401 et seq. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments 1997. Pub. L. No. 105–117, §1–619, 111 Stats. 3–1047. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) 2004. Pub. L. No. 108–446, § 1–306, 118 Stats. 2647–2808. Janney, R., & Snell, M. (2006). Modifying schoolwork in inclusive classrooms, Theory into Practice, 45(3), 215–223. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 U.S.C., 20 U.S.C., 29 U.S.C., 36 U.S.C., 41 U.S.C., and 42 U.S.C.).

ACCOMMODATE OR MODIFY? Many argue that modifications should only be implemented if appropriate accommodations cannot be made for the student. Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, all students with disabilities who are protected by IDEA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are required to receive appropriate accommodations to ensure participation in state- and district-wide testing programs. Such exams are based on grade-level curriculum; not the modified curriculum that may be used with some students with disabilities. Because modifications lower the learning expectation, there is the possibility that students will not meet grade-level expectations. Additionally, the use of modifications during standardized assessments is typically not permitted, as the content of such exams cannot be modified for individual students. In sum, it is important that teachers of middle school students with disabilities consider the adaptations that will best allow students access to the curriculum. By providing approved accommodations in scheduling, presentation, student response, setting, equipment and materials, test validity is not compromised. Health and behavioral accommodations should be implemented in daily classroom instruction for the students for whom

ADMINISTRATORS: MIDDLE LEVEL PRINCIPALS Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. Contributor from 1st edition Almost all educational reform reports have come to the conclusion that the nation cannot attain excellence in education without effective school leadership. We know that effective school leaders: (a) recognize teaching and learning as the main business of school, (b) communicate the school’s mission and vision clearly and consistently to all constituents, (c) promote an atmosphere of trust and collaboration, and (d) emphasize professional development (see Bauck, 1987; George & Grebing, 1992; Weller, 1999). Despite the consensus that leadership counts, deep philosophical and political disagreements remain about what kind of educational leaders are needed, what knowledge and skills they should possess, and how they should be professionally prepared. Many policymakers criticize the preparation of school administrators in colleges and universities as outmoded and ineffective, unable to address adequately the complexities found in schools.

ADMINISTRATORS: MIDDLE LEVEL PRINCIPALS ◾ 29

As middle level education enters the 21st century new questions need to be asked and old ones revisited. Middle level principals are essential to current school reform initiatives; yet rhetoric about their importance is often unaccompanied by sufficient attention to the new knowledge and skills they need or how they might acquire these through professional development. There is a lack of research focused on the middle level principal. Between 1981 and 1983 the National Association of Secondary School principals (NASSP) conducted a national study of the middle level principalship which resulted in two publications. The Middle Level Principalship, Volume I. A Survey of Middle Level Principals and Programs (Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981) and The Middle Level Principalship, Volume II. The Effective Middle Level Principal (Keefe, Clark, Nickerson, & Valentine, 1983). Analyzing the data from these two studies, Bauck (1987) attempted to determine the difference and similarities between typical and effective middle level principals. He concluded that while effective middle level teachers are teacher oriented and encourage parent and community involvement in the school, they do not feel that formal education or participation in professional organizations have contributed to their success. Following these two publications Valentine and his associates have published three additional studies for the National Association of Secondary School Principals. In 1993 Leadership in Middle Level Education: Volume I. A National Survey of Middle Level Leaders in Schools (Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe, & Melton, 1993) was released. In 2002 A National Study of Leadership in Middle Level Schools: Volume I. National Study of Middle Level Leaders and School Programs (Valentine, Clark, Hackman, & Petzko, 2002) was published. More recently, in 2003 A National Study of Leadership in Middle Level Schools: Volume 2. A National Study of Highly Successful Leaders and Schools (Valentine, Clark, Hackman, Lucas, & Petzko, 2003) was published. Kilcrease (1995), in her study of middle level principals, concluded that administrators performed three broad functions that enabled them to be successful: (a) providing a program especially adapted to diverse student needs, (b) promoting continuity of education, and (c) introducing needed innovations in curriculum and instruction. In addition, middle level administrators must have the skills to ensure that teaming and shared decision making processes work well in the school (George & Grebing, 1992). Not surprisingly, several theorists and researchers assert that middle level principals should be knowledgeable about young adolescents, their development, and their learning styles (Eichhorn, 1966; George, 1990; Schmidt, 1998). The reform literature (i.e., National Middle School’s, 2003, This We Believe: Successful Schools for Young Adolescents) also strongly

advocates that middle level principals possess a special set of skills, knowledge, and dispositions appropriate for middle grades students. The literature about the personal nature of middle level principals is not usually research based; however, it sets forth such expectations as personal confidence (Rubenstein, 1990), trustworthiness (Tarter, 1995), and instructional leadership (Williamson, 1991). Neufeld (1997) asserted that middle level principals, especially those in urban schools, can reform schools if they transform themselves from managers to leaders. Montgomery (1995) concurs that principals working with teachers can make great changes. “If only the principal will grow, the school will grow. To change something, someone has to change first” (Barth, 1985, p. 92). Hipp (1997) extends the idea of principal and teacher collaboration and makes suggestions for principals to reinforce teacher efficacy. These suggestions include, among others (a) modeling behavior, (b) promoting teacher empowerment and decision making, (c) managing student behavior, (d) creating a positive climate for success, and (e) inspiring respectful and caring relationships. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATORS Many professional organizations have developed performance standards that are meant to govern the work of school administrators. These organizations include the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) and the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). ISLLC standards have been widely adopted by states across the nation and successful completion of an examination, the School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA), has become part of the process of obtaining administrative licensure. Of all of the national organizations that focus on school administrators only one has turned its attention on middle schools. In 1986 (revised 1991 and 1997) the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) published Elementary and Middle School Proficiencies for Principals. NAESP recognized that middle level schools are extremely complex organization that requires a wide range of leadership proficiencies. While NAESP notes that it is unrealistic to expect that all principals will possess all of the proficiencies cited in the report, an outstanding principal is characterized by 96 proficiencies. These include: (a) involves the school community in identifying and accomplishing the school’s mission; (b) recognizes the individual needs and contributions of all staff and students; (c) applies effective interpersonal skills; (d) conducts needs assessments; (e) advances the profession through

30 ◾ ADMINISTRATORS: MIDDLE LEVEL PRINCIPALS

participation in professional organizations; (f) uses active listening skills; (g) works to build consensus; (h) understands group dynamics; (i) maintains a visible presence in the classrooms; (j) engages the staff in the study of effective teaching practices; and (k) uses effective strategies to deal with political forces that affect the school (NAESP, 1997, p. 3). In addition to these proficiencies NAESP also identified four prerequisites for success as an elementary and middle level leader. These include: (a) an advanced understanding of the teaching and learning processes; (b) a thorough understanding of child growth and development; (c) a broad base of knowledge, including a solid background in the liberal arts; and (d) a sincere commitment to educational equity and excellence. MIDDLE LEVEL PRINCIPAL PRESERVICE PREPARATION Currently, few middle level principals are specifically prepared to work with young adolescents and most have not received any formal preparation in the instructional and organizational needs of a middle school. In 2002 Gaskill reported only seven states with special certification programs for middle level principals: Alaska, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Oklahoma. Only five of the seven states require the middle level credential. A closer examination of the programs offered in these states reveals a troublesome finding. Many of these states require only that the internship (field experience) is completed in a middle school. A welldesigned program that one would expect and that truly addresses the needs of a middle school principal does not exist. Currently, the trend in administrative preparation at colleges and universities is to offer generic K–12 certification programs. In 1997, Haller, Brent, and McNamara noted that “overall, our reading of the limited literature on this subject suggest that there is little evidence that graduate training increases the effectiveness of school managers” (p. 224). According to the candid remarks of the middle school principals in a study conducted by Anfara, Brown, Mills, Hartman, and Mahar (2000), formal college/university coursework was not perceived to be a major influence in middle level principals’ acquisition of essential skills. Many middle level principals describe their pre-service preparation as inadequate, impractical, and unrealistic. Several principals commented about the disconnection between what they were taught and what they needed to know in the world of practice. Interestingly enough, the middle school principals who participated in the Anfara et al. study were not willing to go as far as calling for specific middle level certification/licensure.

MIDDLE LEVEL PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The primary purpose of professional development for school administrators is to increase professional and personal effectiveness while simultaneously increasing organizational effectiveness. For middle school principals this purpose is even more urgent in light of the context in which they work and the knowledge and skills that are deemed essential for creating effective middle schools. Issues related to the professional development of middle school administrators are rooted in the preparation programs that have been criticized in recent years (Murphy, 1992). Unfortunately, the professional development of middle level administrators is reported to be in even worse shape than the initial preparation (Hallinger & Murphy, 1991). Securing an administrative certification by completing a graduate degree has often been viewed as the end of formal training with subsequent professional development being hit or miss. If today’s middle level principals want to be effective and escape the ever-present danger of professional obsolescence, they must regularly participate in appropriate professional development. Daresh and Playko (1992) admit, “it takes hard work to learn the art, science, and craft of educational administration, and it takes a similar amount of hard work to keep the needed leadership skills well tuned over time” (p. xi). A review of the literature on the professional development of middle level principals reveals descriptors such as “wasteland,” “meager,” “neglected,” “poverty stricken,” and “deplorable.” Based on the interview data in the Brown, Anfara, Hartman, Mahar, and Mill study (2001), middle school principals do not believe that their school districts or professional organizations provide the necessary opportunities for them to learn what they need to know to effectively lead a middle school and implement reform initiative at both school and classroom levels. When asked what they wanted to learn from professional development, middle level principals in the Brown et al. study reported: (a) creating a respectful, collaborative, and collegial school culture; (b) understanding, implementing, and assessing newly proposed approaches to teaching and learning; (c) remaining up-to-date with the legal, financial, and technological issues related to their schools; and (d) understanding the nature of young adolescents and its implications for schooling, and the meaning of the term “developmentally appropriate.” Many of the participants in the Brown et al. (2001) study recognized the importance of conferences, presentations, and a wide variety of opportunities offered by professional associations. They look to professional organizations to help them develop a greater sense of efficacy, a sense that they are capable of learning,

ADVISORY PROGRAMS ◾ 31

improving, and gaining insights. They would like to see national, regional, and state middle level associations consider collaborative efforts in establishing approved programs that would meet both administrative standards (i.e., Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium) while simultaneously addressing relevant and practical learning opportunities. We must continue to explore and discuss issues surrounding the preservice preparation and professional development of middle level principals. The challenges that an administrator faces in a middle school are great. REFERENCES Anfara. V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., Mills, R., Hartman, K. J., & Mahar, R. J. (2000, April). Middle level leadership for the 21st century: Principals’ views on essential skills and knowledge, Implications for successful preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Barth, R. (1985). The leader as learner. Educational Leadership, 42(6), 92–93. Bauck, J. (1987). Characteristics of the effective middle school principal. NASSP Bulletin, 71(500), 90–92. Brown, K. M., Anfara, V. A., Jr., Hartman, K. J., Mahar, R. J., & Mills, R. (2001, April). Professional development of middle level principals: Pushing the reform forward. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Seattle, WA. Daresh, J., & Playko, M. (1992). The professional development of school administrators: Preservice, induction, and inservice applications. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Eichhorn, D. (1966). The middle school. New York, NY: The Center for Applied Research in Education. Gaskill, P. (2002). Progress in certification of middle level personnel. Middle School Journal, 33(5), 33–40. George, P. (1990). From junior high to middle school—Principals’ perspectives. NASSP Bulletin, 74, 86–94. George, P., & Grebing, W. (1992). Seven essential skills of middle level leadership. Schools in the Middle, 1(4), 3–11. Haller, E., Brent, B., & McNamara, J. (1997). Does graduate training in educational administration improve America’s schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 79(3), 222–227. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1991). Developing leaders for tomorrow’s schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 514–520. Hipp, K. (1997). The impact of principals in sustaining middle school change. Middle School Journal, 28(2), 42–45. Keefe, J., Clark, D., Nickerson, N., & Valentine, J. (1983). The middle level principalship: Volume II. The effective middle level principal. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Kilcrease, A. (1995, November). Principals’ perceptions of the functions and characteristics of middle schools in Mississippi. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Montgomery, J. (1995). From K–3 to junior high: A principal’s challenge. Principal, 74, 51–53.

Murphy. J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. National Association of Elementary School Principals. (1997). Elementary & middle school proficiencies for principals (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Neufield, B. (1997). Responding to the expressed needs of urban middle school principals. Urban Education, 31(5), 490–510. Rubenstein, R. (1990). A teacher’s view of the quality principal. Educational Horizons, 66, 151–152. Schmidt, D. (1998). Do squirrely kids need squirrely administrators? Principal, 68, 48–53. Tarter, J. (1995). Middle school climate, faculty trust, and effectiveness: A path analysis. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29, 41–49. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Hackman, D.G., Lucas, S. L., & Petzko, V. N. (2003). A national study of leadership in middle level schools: Vol. 2. A national study of highly successful leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Hackman, D. G., & Petzko, V. N. (2002). A national study of leadership in middle level schools: Vol 1. A national study of middle level leaders and school programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, Clark, D., Irvin, J., Keefe, J., & Melton, G. (1993). Leadership in middle level education: Vol. 1. A national survey of middle level leaders in schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J., Clark, D., Nickerson, N., Jr., & Keefe, J. (1981). The middle level principalship: Vol. 1. A survey of middle level principals and programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Weller, L. (1999). Quality middle school leadership: Eleven central skill areas. Lancaster, PA: Technomic. Williamson, R. (1991). Leadership at the middle level. In J. Capelluti & D. Stokes (Eds.), Middle level education: Program, policies, and practices (pp. 36–41). Alexandria, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

ADVISORY PROGRAMS Amanda Wall Georgia Southern University An advisory program is considered a key element of middle school design and consists of an adult advisor, typically a teacher, and a group of students. The primary purpose of an advisory program, according to Brown and Knowles (2014), is “helping students develop trusting relationships with an adult and close social bonds with a small group of classmates” (p. 91). An advisory

32 ◾ ADVISORY PROGRAMS

program can offer academic and affective support to each student in a small community. SUPPORT FOR ADVISORY PROGRAMS This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School Association, 2010), the vision statement of the Association for Middle Level Education (formerly NMSA), states that an education for young adolescents should be developmentally responsive, challenging, empowering, and equitable. An advisory program can support these ideals and also can link to goals that each young adolescent should “develop his or her strengths, particular skills, talents, or interests and have an emerging understanding of his or her own potential contributions to society and to personal fulfillment” and “develop the interpersonal and social skills needed to learn, work, and play with others harmoniously and confidently” (NMSA, p. 12). Through these values and goals, This We Believe supports advisory programs and affirms that “Academic success and personal growth increase markedly when young adolescents’ affective needs are met. Therefore, every adult in developmentally responsive middle level schools serves as an advocate, advisor, and mentor” (p. 35). Further, “Young adolescents have many concerns about matters that lie outside the parameters of the academic curriculum, and they need opportunities to dialogue about these with one another and with a trusted adult” (p. 35). Every young adolescent, according to This We Believe, needs an adult advocate who can provide support. This adult advocate, often an advisor, may become the primary link between the school and the home. The advisor may make contact with family and may assist the student with parent–teacher conferences, student-led conferences, or other forms of school–home partnerships. In addition to the Association for Middle Level Education, other organizations also offer research-based recommendations and support for advisory programs. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development’s 1989 report Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century presents eight principles for improving middle level education; one of these principles calls on schools to create smaller communities, such as advisory programs. Its successor, Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century (Jackson & Davis, 2000), likewise recommends that schools organize relationships for learning to foster academic and affective development. Similarly, the National Association for Secondary School Principals (NASSP) supports the use of advisory programs in Breaking Ranks in the Middle: Strategies for Leading Middle Level Reform (2006). One of the core ideas of Breaking Ranks in the Middle is personalizing the school environment through programs like

advisories, which can provide students with support and a sense of belonging. Advisory programs can assist social and emotional development as well as academic development. Some of the reasons why middle schools establish and maintain advisory programs include: • Providing each young adolescent meaningful and ongoing chances to meet with an adult advocate to discuss a range of academic and affective concerns (NASSP, 2006); • Creating smaller communities that allow students to feel connected (Anfara & Brown, 2001; Crawford, 2012); • Facilitating positive interactions between students and teachers and administrators, and fostering an overall positive school climate. (Clark & Clark, 1994); and • Supporting students’ social and emotional development. (Clark & Clark, 1994; Crawford, 2012). Advisory programs afford middle schools another way to be responsive to young adolescent’s development and needs. Research has noted that self-esteem, motivation, and achievement can decline during middle grades (Anderman, Maehr, & Midgley, 1999; Eccles & Roeser, 2009; Turner, Christensen, Kackar-Cam, Trucano, & Fulmer, 2014). Eccles and Midgley (1989) and Eccles et al. (1993) used the term stage-environment fit to draw attention to the idea that a school needed to be developmentally responsive to the students in it. They observed that, compared to elementary school, middle school tended to be more formal and less personal, more competitive and comparison-oriented, and more structured with fewer choices. An advisory program by design provides each student with a more personalized and individualized community within the school and thus is developmentally responsive. Meece (2003) advocated for learner-centered principles in middle grades education; among these principles is the idea that teachers are encouraged to take students’ individual and developmental characteristics into account. Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan (1991) have described the self-determination theory of motivation, which states that an individual’s needs for autonomy, belonging, and competence must be met in order for that individual to function optimally. In The Advisory Book, Crawford (2012) drew on self-determination theory in part to articulate a model for middle school advisory programs that provide students with relationships, autonomy, competence, and fun. Wilcox and Angelis (2009) studied high-performing middle schools to determine what the best practices in these schools were. They found that these schools “place relationships at the core” (p. 12) and

ADVISORY PROGRAMS ◾ 33

highlighted the “guide rooms” structure at one focus school. The guide rooms functioned like an advisory program in that topics of discussion included character issues and that most adults in the school were involved, keeping the same 10–14 students in a group over three years of middle school. In this high-performing school, the principal and teachers felt that the guide room was a structure that helped “make the nearly 1,000-student school smaller and more personal” (p. 19). An advisory program can support students’ social and emotional development as well as their motivation, engagement, and needs for autonomy, competence, and belonging. While advisory programs are endorsed by different organizations and considered to be developmentally responsive for young adolescents, ongoing research on the effectiveness of advisory programs is needed. Anfara (2006) summarized research on advisory programs and, echoing Clark and Clark (1994), called for further research. Juvonen, Kaganoff, Augustine, and Constant (2004) also reviewed research on advisory programs and noted studies that showed that young adolescents in various advisory programs reported more positive school climate and greater satisfaction with student-teacher and peer relationships. However, they also noted that it can be difficult to isolate the effectiveness of an advisory program alone if there are other programs and features in place at a school. Thus, they conclude that advisory programs “represent a promising but not proven practice” (p. 25). CHALLENGES WITH ADVISORY PROGRAMS Challenges associated with advisory programs include the need for more research in this area, obstacles to schools implementing advisory programs, teachers’ concerns, and an overall decline in the number of advisory programs nationwide. As Juvonen and colleagues (2004) suggested, it can be difficult to study an advisory program. Likewise, others have noted the challenges in implementing advisory programs (Lounsbury & Clark, 1990). Schools may refrain from implementing an advisory program due to concerns such as the planning time required or the need for teacher training to take on the affective role of advisor (Brown & Knowles, 2014). Anfara and Brown (2001) studied teachers’ and students’ experiences in advisory programs in six schools in two different areas and found challenges and assets with these advisory programs. Some teachers reported challenges related to little administrative support, or a perception that the caring role of an advisor was woman’s work, or an overall sense, in one teacher’s words, of “just not being comfortable with the affective domain” (p. 15). McEwin and Greene (2013) reported that the percentage of schools with advisory programs in place

dropped over a 15-year period, according to national surveys. Since research has reported a decline in the number of advisory programs, this may also mean that middle grades teachers and pre-service teachers may not have had any experience with advisory programs as students or during their teacher education programs. Most of these challenges relate to the potential complexity in researching these programs or to practical concerns associated with advisory programs. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS From their research on advisory programs in different schools, Anfara and Brown (2001) developed nine attributes of a successful advisory program: 1. Develop short-term and long-term goals; 2. Be aware of the needs of students, parents, and teachers; 3. Provide initial and ongoing professional development for school faculty; 4. Provide an orientation for students, parents, and teachers; 5. Value small student-teacher ratios; 6. Be a part of the daily school schedule; 7. Be aware of school culture and climate; 8. Involve students, parents, and faculty in planning; and 9. Respect students’ and teachers’ rights to privacy. (p. 23) These suggestions resulted from their research in schools but also align with other research on advisory programs. These programs are more vibrant when school faculty understand the purpose and role of their advisory program. Having a purpose also can frame ongoing training and professional development for teachers and others involved in advisory. Although teachers most commonly play the role of advisors, Brown and Knowles (2014) stated that librarians, administrators, and other school personnel also can be advisors. Administrative support also is important for the success of an advisory program. Anfara and Brown (2001) found that schools with supportive principals had stronger advisory programs, and they note that the principal’s support “must not only be there in the implementation stages, but must continue for program maintenance and development” (p. 18). Indeed, without maintenance and development, some advisory programs may revert to little more than a homeroom or study hall (Anfara, 2006; Brown & Knowles, 2014). Advisory programs are more successful when students and advisors meet together more frequently. Even if advisory is not part of the daily schedule, it is

34 ◾ ADVISORY PROGRAMS

important that students and advisors meet regularly, preferably at least twice a week and preferably at the beginning of the school day (Brown & Knowles, 2014). From school to school, advisory programs may include students from the same grade or from mixed grades, may be single-gender or not, or may show a form of looping in that students and advisor remain together for two or three years. During advisory time, students and advisors may engage in a range of activities for a range of purposes. Crawford (2012) grounded her model of advisory programs in young adolescents’ needs for relationships, autonomy, competence, and fun; her book contains many specific ideas for advisory meetings. Anfara (2006) also noted several potential areas of emphasis for advisory programs. Some topics for advisory meetings could include: • Goal setting; • Strategies for self-regulation (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990), such as planning strategies, cognitive strategies, and self-monitoring strategies; • Decision making and time management; • Student-advisor or student-led conferences; • Learning styles and learning inventories; • Interest inventories; • Communication and inter-personal skills; • Self-esteem and self-awareness and growth; • Appreciating, cultivating, and sharing talents; • Service learning initiatives; • School-wide topics and concerns; and • Problem-solving, team-building, and other group initiatives (Anfara, 2006; Crawford, 2012). In planning for advisory meetings, advisors should aim for structure and consistency within which they can be responsive to students’ needs. For example, Crawford (2012) encouraged advisors to collect questions and topics from colleagues, friends, magazines, news sources, and other places that may interest their advisees. She also suggested a sample rotation for some topics of discussion: one day for personal reflection and sharing, another for social topics and concerns, another for academic support and review, and another for current events. Such a structure gives advisors and advisees a structure within which they can adapt and be flexible depending on the needs of the advisory and the school. While Anfara (2006) and Crawford (2012) featured specific ideas for advisory, advisors also need more resources for vibrant advisory programs. In sum, advisory programs are considered a core component of a middle grades design. An advisory group generally consists of an adult advisor and advocate and a group of 10–20 young adolescents. Within this setting, the advisor and advisees can engage in topics and

activities that support students’ academic development and be responsive to their social and emotional needs. Advisory programs can provide each student with a small community and sense of group belonging within the larger school and can draw on students’ individual personalities, abilities, and interests to support each student and a general respect for self and others. Advisory programs are endorsed by the Association for Middle Level Education and align well with many tenets of This We Believe, Turning Points (CCAD, 1989), Turning Points 2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000), and Breaking Ranks in the Middle (NASSP, 2006). Advisory programs can offer many supports and advantages to young adolescents. At the same time, however, there are challenges associated with the implementation and maintenance of advisory programs, and there is a need for ongoing research on these programs. REFERENCES Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1999). Declining motivation after the transition to middle school: Schools can make a difference. Journal of Research and Development in Education 32, 131–147. Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2006). Research summary: Advisory programs. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/Portals/0/pdf/ research_summaries/Advisory_Programs.pdf Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Brown, K. M. (2001). Advisor-advisee programs: Community building in a state of affective disorder? In V. A. Anfara, Jr. (Ed.), The handbook of research in middle level education (pp. 3–34). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Brown, D. F., & Knowles, T. (2014). What every middle school teacher should know (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Clark, S., & Clark, D. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Implications for school leaders. Albany: State University of New York Press. Crawford, L. (2012). The advisory book: Building a community of learners grades 5–9 (2nd ed.) Minneapolis, MN: The Origins Program. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinber (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed., pp. 404–434). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional

AFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT ◾ 35 middle school on students’ motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553–574. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Juvonen, J., Le, V-N., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C., & Constant, L. (2004). Focus on the wonder years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Lounsbury, J. H., & Clark, D. C. (1990). Inside grade eight: From apathy to excitement. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. McEwin, C. K., & Greene, M. W. (2013). Programs and practices in America’s middle schools: A status report. In P. G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education (pp. 75–104). Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education. Meece, J. L. (2003). Applying learner-centered principles to middle school education. Theory into Practice, 42, 109–116. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2006). Breaking ranks in the middle: Strategies for leading middle level reform. Reston, VA: Author. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Trucano, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2014). Enhancing students’ engagement: Report of a 3-year intervention with middle school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 1195–1226. Wilcox, K. C., & Angelis, J. I. (2009). Best practices from high-performing middle schools: How successful schools remove obstacles and create pathways to learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

AFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT Michelle E. Boyer-Pennington Middle Tennessee State University Thomas M. Brinthaupt Middle Tennessee State University Richard P. Lipka St. Bonaventure University Affective development refers to the process of how young adolescents learn to experience, identify, and appropriately express a range of both positive and negative emotions and to respond appropriately to the emotional cues of others (Yirmiya & Seidman, 2013). As an aspect of broader social-emotional development, affective development is also related to cognitive and biological

changes during early adolescence. The affective domain includes “physiological, cognitive, and behavioral processes related to emotion, our awareness or discernment of our [own] and other’s emotions, the ability to connect our emotions to those of others, the display of emotion, and the ability to manage or regulate one’s emotions” (Brett, Smith, Price, & Huitt, 2003, p. 1). Middle school is a time when young adolescents face new and additional academic and emotional challenges as well as difficulties in how well they adapt to and handle these challenges (Romero, Masters, Paunesku, Dweck, & Gross, 2014). Thus, it is important for teachers and teachers-to-be to have a solid understanding of “typical” affective development during the middle school years to ensure that young adolescents are positioned to meet successfully the challenges that come with this development. Considerable research has shown that young adolescents experience a number of changes in brain structure and function. Among these changes are those associated with the inhibition of behaviors and emotions (e.g., the ability to stop oneself from acting in a particular way), making judgments about risk, and the regulation of emotion. Biological pubertal changes and developmental changes in the brain in motivation, arousal, and emotion can strongly influence the affective experiences, emotional reactivity, and emotion regulation of middle school young adolescents (Steinberg, 2005). A number of advancements in cognitive abilities during early adolescence also are associated with affect during the middle school years. Research has shown that changes in affect and emotion-related behavior are related to adolescents’ emerging ability to use formal operational thought, as well as to their improvements in operational thinking (Steinberg, 2005). In other words, how young adolescents feel about themselves and their experiences is closely tied to their emerging ability to think logically and abstractly. The transition to middle school and early adolescence is also characterized by an increased demand for emotion regulation and behavioral inhibition; however, this period corresponds to a time of new and discordant development in the brain systems responsible for emotional and cognitive control. According to Gratz and Roemer (2004), emotion regulation involves “the (a) awareness and understanding of emotions; (b) acceptance of emotions; (c) ability to control impulsive behaviors and behave in accordance with desired goals when experiencing negative emotions; and (d) ability to use situationally appropriate emotion regulation strategies flexibly to modulate emotional responses as desired to meet individual goals and situational demands” (p. 42). Compared to older adolescents, research has shown that younger adolescents have greater difficulty regulating their emotional and behavioral responses in

36 ◾ AFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT

social situations than in nonsocial situations. Young adolescents who are highly anxious about possible peer rejection (i.e., are high in rejection sensitivity) have even more difficulty in these situations (Silvers et al., 2012). WHAT SHOULD TEACHERS KNOW Research has identified many factors that are related to affect and affective development in young adolescents and that are likely to be important to middle level educators. Examples of these related factors include motivation, interest in learning, and achievement goals; young adolescents’ self-efficacy; self-concept and self-esteem; feelings of competence; the quality of one’s personal relationships, especially with peers; and the importance of sleep. Motivation In order to experience positive affect, it is important for students to feel confident that they can meet school-related challenges. If a task is perceived as too easy, competent students may quickly become bored; however, if a task is perceived as too difficult, students may experience frustration, feel overwhelmed, and disengage. In fact, research has shown that middle school students report some of the highest rates of school work boredom; this corresponds to research showing decreases in students’ appraisals of the value of learning tasks and their expectations for success (Ahmed, van der Werf, Kuyper, & Minnaert, 2013; Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Boredom (and other kinds of disengagement) is most likely to occur during passive, lecture-type teaching and is more common for some subjects, such as math and the sciences (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Whereas boredom, a negative academic emotion, has been shown to increase during the middle school years, positive academic emotions such as pride and enjoyment decrease, especially compared to that of preadolescents (Ahmed et al., 2013). When young adolescents are interested in what is being taught, find value and personal relevance in this information, and have high perceived competence, they are less likely to be bored and more likely to be engaged in school (Ahmed, van der Werf, & Minnaert, 2010; Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Student motivation is also affected by their achievement goals. Students who adopt learning goals are more likely to pursue challenging tasks and to view learning as being important for its own sake. These young adolescents have a mastery orientation. They are more likely to view success as a function of effort, rather than ability and to experience pride and enjoyment in their work (Ahmed et al., 2013). Students who adopt performance goals, however, are more likely to focus on

task completion and performance, rather than learning (Dweck, 1986). They are less likely to engage in risky or challenging learning tasks if they doubt their ability to succeed; as a consequence, they also are more self-conscious. These young adolescents are more likely to view their ability as fixed, whereas students who adopt a mastery orientation to learning view ability as malleable (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). Therefore, the experience of positive and negative affect in the school context can be affected by the nature of students’ motivations and learning goals. Self-Efficacy Another factor known to be related to affect in young adolescents is self-efficacy—the extent to which students feel in control of their lives and able to accomplish the things they need to accomplish. Students are more likely to exert effort if they feel in control of the outcome; not surprisingly, having a mastery oriented learning goal is positively related to academic self-efficacy (Roeser et al., 1996). Self-efficacy is evident when students willingly attempt challenging assignments rather than disengaging. Research suggests that perceptions of academic competence, academic values, and course grades grow more negative during early adolescence, and that school-related worries and concerns increase. Feelings of competence and self-efficacy, however, are associated with positive affect (Roeser et al., 1996). Thus, teachers need to be sensitive to activities that positively and negatively affect their students’ self-efficacy. Self-Esteem and Self-Concept Positive self-esteem and clear self-concept are essential for young adolescents who find themselves facing numerous changes. Research has shown that during early adolescence, evaluations of the self and others become more negatively biased. However, positive self-esteem and clear self-concept have significant positive relationships with (a) school achievement; (b) social status; (c) participation; (d) school completion; (e) perceptions of others; (f) behavior; and (g) self-direction, all of which are likely to promote positive affect (Lipka & Brinthaupt, 2002). Autonomy. Students who experience autonomy are likely to feel self-directed in their learning and more motivated to learn for intrinsic reasons, rather than being externally directed by teachers or others, such as their parents (Beland, 2014). It is important for students to have rich autonomous experiences so that they can develop a clear sense of self, pursue goals of importance to them, and direct the course of their learning (Eccles & Roeser, 2011).

AFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT ◾ 37

Peer relationships. With the transition to middle school comes a change in the importance of peer groups, social acceptance, and social status within those groups. To be successful, young adolescents must be comfortable interacting with others and must be able to do so appropriately. Young adolescents who have difficulty in their peer relationships are at particular risk for experiencing anxiety (Mallott & Beidel, 2014). Research suggests that girls in particular are likely to experience anxiety and depression as a result of peer victimization at this age (Rueger & Jenkins, 2014). Sleep. A number of problems, including poor emotion regulation, or dysregulation, and poor school performance, are associated with sleep loss or deprivation in adolescents (Buckhalt, Wolfson, & El-Sheikh, 2009). The typical young adolescent still needs approximately nine hours of sleep per night, but many do not get this amount, as biological changes cause a change in the onset of daily night time sleepiness, and many schools have early morning start times (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). As a result of sleep deprivation, young adolescents may also exhibit more moodiness and negativity because sleep deprivation can both intensify negative affect and diminish positive affect during daily events (Talbot, McGlinchey, Kaplan, Harvey, & Dahl, 2010). WHAT CAN TEACHERS DO? In order for middle school teachers to have effective courses of action for addressing the issues associated with affective development, they must be well educated in four literacies. Their pre-service and in-service teacher education programs must stress: (a) affective literacy; (b) environmental literacy; (c) multi-cultural literacy; and (d) technological literacy. We will address affective literacy in some detail, as this information is the most relevant for this piece. Raths’ (1998) seminal work on emotional needs theory discussed in detail eight needs which left unmet would get “in the way of a child’s growth and development, his learning and his maturing” (p. 141). All of these needs have clear ties to affective development. Space precludes going beyond a listing of the needs; however, a detailed treatment of the needs should be undertaken in course work and classroom observations: (a) the need for belonging; (b) the need for achievement; (c) the need for economic security; (d) the need for freedom from fear; (e) the need for love and affection; (f) the need to be free from intense feelings of guilt; (g) the need for sharing and self-respect; and (h) the need for self-concept and understanding. Having an understanding of “typical” affective development during young adolescence can help educators address these needs through student feedback and

encouragement and through classroom opportunities for learning and interaction. We conclude this entry be discussing some ways that teachers can accomplish these goals. It is important for educators to appreciate that feelings and emotions, although less concrete than academic goals, influence how young adolescents learn, the effort they choose to exert on a learning task, and how successful they are. A student’s affective state is influenced by school context factors such as his or her success or failure in school, feedback that is received, and personal relationships, especially those with peers (Lipka, 1997). Middle school educators need to understand that their students are more likely to experience negative affect in response to daily stressful negative events than younger children and that some young adolescents experience heightened negativity, which can place them at risk for anxiety or depression (Schneiders et al., 2006). One change that comes with the transition to middle school is a change in the student-teacher relationship. The middle school student has fewer opportunities to form close relationships because they spend less time with the same teacher. To encourage positive affect and decrease negative affect, it is important for teachers to be responsive to individual student’s needs, to engage students in learning, to challenge students, and to hold high standards for them (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000). These standards should focus on student effort, rather than simple ability (Beland, 2014). Research shows that students who believe that emotions can be controlled feel better about themselves (Romero et al., 2014). Therefore, teachers can help young adolescents appreciate that emotions can be controlled through reappraisal of a situation (Lanteigne, Flynn, Eastabrook, & Hollenstein, 2014; Romero et al., 2014). It is also important for teachers to foster a growth mindset in their students—that effort and hard work are tied to students’ school success and performance (Beland, 2014). Students are less likely to be bored and more likely to be engaged in their learning if tasks are appropriately challenging relative to their perceived cognitive abilities and framed to be relevant and of value to them (Ahmed et al., 2013; Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Educators can address student autonomy and self-efficacy by emphasizing voice and choice, such as through student-centered discussions and student-directed projects and activities that encourage them to engage in intellectual exploration, cooperation, collaborative work, and construction of meaning (Beland, 2014; Eccles & Roeser, 2011). As Lipka (1997) has noted on numerous occasions, “Cognitive learning is hard won by someone whose life is in affective disarray” (p. 31). Piling content upon content does not lead to knowledge acquisition. Knowledge

38 ◾ AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS

acquisition for young adolescents happens when they find themselves in a trust filled teacher-student relationship where each has a voice in framing the authenticity of the tasks to be completed. We should not expect any less from middle educators. REFERENCES Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 150–161. Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Emotional experiences of students in the classroom. A multimethod qualitative study. European Psychologist, 15(2), 142–151. Beland, K. (2014). Easing the transition to middle adolescence: Educational implications. Journal of Character Education, 10(1), 61–67. Brett, A., Smith, M., Price, E., & Huitt, W. (2003). Overview of the affective domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/brilstar/chapters/ affectdev.pdf Buckhalt, J. A., Wolfson, A. R., & El-Sheikh, M. (2009). Children’s sleep and school psychology practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(1), 60–69. Dweck, C. S., (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41–54. Lanteigne, D. M., Flynn, J. J., Eastabrook, J. M., & Hollenstein, T. (2014). Discordant patterns of emotional experience, arousal, and expression in adolescence: Relations with emotion regulation and internalizing problems. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 46(1), 29–39. Lipka, R. P (1997). Enhancing self-concept/self-esteem in young adolescents. In J. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 31–40). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Lipka, R. P., & Brinthaupt, T. M. (Eds.). (2002). Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications and interventions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Mallott, M. A., & Beidel, D. C. (2014). Anxiety disorders in children. In C. A. Alfano & D. C. Beidel (Eds.), Comprehensive evidence based interventions for children and adolescents (pp. 111–127). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Raths, L. E. (1998). Meeting the needs of children: Creating trust and security. Troy, NY: Educator’s International Press. Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 443–471.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408–422. Romero, C., Masters, A., Paunesku, D., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Academic and emotional functioning in middle school: The role of implicit theories/Brief Report. Emotion, 14, 227–234. Rueger, S. Y., & Jenkins, L. N. (2014). Effects of peer victimization on psychological and academic adjustment in early adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 77–88. Schneiders, J., Nicolson, N. A., Berkhof, J., Feron, F. J., van Os, J., & deVries, M. (2006). Mood reactivity to daily negative events in early adolescence: Relationship to risk for psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 543–554. Silvers, J. A., McRae, K., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Gross, J. J., Remy, K. A., & Ochsner, K. N. ( 2012). Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Emotion, 12(6), 1235–1247. Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69–74. Talbot, L. S., McGlinchey, E. L., Kaplan, K. A., Harvey, A. G., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). Sleep deprivation in adolescents and adults: Changes in affect. Emotion, 10(6), 831–841. Yirmiya, N., & Seidman, I. (2013). Affective development. In F. R. Volkmar (Ed.), Encyclopedia of autism spectrum disorders (pp. 75–82). New York, NY: Springer.

AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS Sandra L. Stacki Hofstra University Complementary, community, and comprehensive approaches all promote consciously designed and linked activities for more systemic schooling. As After School Programs (ASPs) have become more popular, research of middle school ASPs demonstrates a wide range of programs for which after school or out-of-school time (OST) is used. The structure, focus, and scope of such programs will differ to address varying goals and needs of a community. With OST, activities may take place at lunch time, before or after school, or on weekends, holidays, and summer; programs can occur within a school or community in varied public and private locations. Federal, state, and local levels often partner with community agencies to keep ASPs running. As a school learning system broadens and expands, educational success, especially for economically and otherwise disadvantaged youth, increases. The Afterschool Alliance calls the afterschool movement, “the great national awakening to the opportunity afterschool offers” (2008, p. 1). ASPs provide activities that

AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS ◾ 39

support academic programs and affective needs, sometimes through teams and clubs. Opportunities and benefits for students can include learning new general or subject-specific academic skills to close the achievement gap and improve grades, learning sports-related skills, preparing for a career, and developing relationships. Hirsch (2011) noted that tensions have existed between goals of positive youth development, academic support, and problem prevention, yet he concluded that overlap often exists in different types of programs and sometimes even in methods. From mathematics and literacy support to physical education and health to drug prevention for at-risk youth, programs help to address the needs and desires of many stakeholders in that school system. Combined with the learning taking place during regular school hours, a wide scope of after-school topics helps to complete a holistic learning environment for children, addressing a plethora of social and emotional needs of middle school students in addition to academic needs (Viadero, 2007). The U.S. public strongly supports ASPs; thus, schools and ASPs should work together to create a learning system that connects the existing stepping stones, especially for those families who may be unknowledgeable in navigating the educational system (Weiss, Little, Bouffard, Deschenes, & Malone, 2009). Gayl (2004) added that social, family, and community benefits can be gained through high-quality ASPs, helping parents to balance work and family-life responsibilities, enhancing learning for struggling students, and promoting equity with additional services for low-performing students. ASPs can lead to increased engagement, social skills development such as more diverse interactions and self-confidence, decreased deviancy and at-risk behaviors, fewer tardies and absences, and more safety. However, the number and kinds of programs available will differ from state to state, suburban to urban, district to district and often depend on available finances. PUBLIC DEMAND AND GOVERNMENT SUPPORT Stronger interest overall and a solid commitment to ASPs from the federal government began in the mid1990s (Gayl, 2004). Community organizations such as the YMCA, YWCA, Boy and Girl Scouts, and 4-H clubs had offered programs, yet increasing numbers of parents entering the workforce created the need for supervised ASPs. Georgia focused an initiative on middle schoolers in 1994, and California established the first state-wide program in 1998. Major cities regularly include ASPs as part of their education and youth services infrastructure.

With 21st century community learning centers (CCLC) introduced into the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), schools could offer public and private supplementary activities in OST including literacy, day care, weekend programs, and expanded library hours. Private sector foundations such as the Mott Foundation added additional support. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) changed the 21st CCLC from a federally administered program to state administered, encouraging partnerships between kindergarten through grade 12 schools and including provisions for community centers that provided academic enrichment opportunities and tutoring for lower performing urban students; an increasingly important initiative with the demands of NCLB and emphasis on improving standardized test scores (Gayl, 2004). The standards movement, expectations to raise standardized test scores, and increased funding have influenced the growth in ASPs and OST. “Parents, educators, and the public were primed to favor and demand more after-school alternatives and programming for youth and these pressures jumpstarted policy makers” (Stephens, 2005, p. 113). Under the Clinton administration, NCLB support reached 2.5 billion in FY 2007. Policy changes provided funding through states’ formulas and their shares of Title I funds but continued focus on improving student achievement (Gayl, 2004). Weiss and colleagues (2009) emphasized that the role of the federal government in complementary learning is to “enable local innovation, show leadership, support accountability and quality, and use other legislative and regulatory tools to ensure that complementary learning occurs locally” (p. 36). Legislation such as the Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2011 enables states and communities to be responsible for implementing suitable complementary learning. In addition, public-private partnerships have played an important but small role, such as the Mott Foundation partnership with the U.S. Department of Education, to provide technical assistance and help develop promising practices policy. THE VALUE FOR MIDDLE SCHOOLERS Middle schoolers express a complex bundle of emotions, needs, and desires as they move through puberty. Students need challenging and rigorous curriculum, yet they also need opportunities for choice through enrichment and exploratory programs, whether during the school day or in OST. The focus of many ASPs is consistent with a middle school philosophy that recognizes the need for continued support of caring, knowledgeable adults throughout the middle school years when students are experiencing major developmental

40 ◾ AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS

changes and making decisions that can affect their life paths (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; National Middle School Association, 2010). Programs can include choices that the cognitively expanding middle school brain desires. ASPs can be “a welcoming, safe, and educational oasis in the barren desert of after-school hours” (Shann, 2001, p. 355). This can be especially true for middle schoolers. After school hours are the peak time for crime, violence, alcohol use, drug use, and sexual experimentation, and middle schoolers are vulnerable to the consequences of these high-risk behaviors (Dryfoos, 1999). Thus, lack of supervision after school is associated with negative outcomes for disadvantaged youth (Vandell, Reisner, & Pierce, 2007). Yet, ASPs can often offer free academic and social enrichment for families. In low socioeconomic districts, homes may lack the structure and support needed for students to complete work and stay out of trouble, especially when parents work during after school hours and are not English native speakers (Stacki, 2012). These programs contribute to young adolescent’s holistic education, affectively and academically, especially as they provide connections and interactions with adults, coaches, club advisors, and other students who will broaden their visions of schooling and enrich their lives. Participating in ASPs may provide a “hook” to motivate middle schoolers to attend school, even when they are not interested in academics and a repetitive “teaching to the test” classroom environment. Middle school can be the last best time to help many students through ASPs. As they grow into high school age, they may need or even want to take part-time jobs after school to provide needed family income or to buy teenage accessories. VARIED APPROACHES AND PROGRAMS A broad scope of ASPs for middle schoolers can achieve many goals; state policy, diverse needs, geography, culture, and funding could all affect implemented programs, for instance, in middle class suburban schools as opposed to poorer urban districts. The Afterschool Alliance’s 2008 evaluation report on behavior, safety, and family life addressed 19 varied programs including Citizen Schools, The Children’s Aid Society of New York in several states, YMCA’s of Greater New York’s Virtual Y Program, Maryland After School Opportunity Fund Program, LA’s BEST in California, and Texas 21st CCLC Programs. The evaluation emphasized academic achievement and increased parental involvement but also gains in safety, discipline, attendance, and avoidance of risky behavior (2008). Citizen’s Schools students improved regular school attendance and decreased

discipline problems; LA’s BEST parents emphasized safety; YMCA’s researchers concluded that improvements included task motivation, frustration tolerance, learning skills, acting out, peer social skills, assertive social skills, and shyness/anxiety. An eight-state study of 35 programs serving 3,000 disadvantaged elementary and middle school students in 14 communities demonstrated the programs’ successes (Mott Foundation, 2005). In these programs, operational at least three years, researchers found that “the more engaged students were in supervised after-school activities, the better they did on a range of academic, social, and behavioral outcomes” (Viadero, 2007, p. 1). Frequent attendees also gained progress in “sound work habits, task persistence, and better social skills, and in reducing negative behaviors, such as skipping school or fighting” (Viadero, 2007, p. 13). Persistence, focus, and engagement were noted as contributing to academic achievement. Popular STEM programs attract diverse middle school students and offer design experiences in projects that can have personal meaning. Activities include constructing robotic inventions to creating animated stories (Hirsch, 2011). While students learn specialized skills, they also learn “soft skills” such as teamwork and communication. One ASP on Long Island, NY, focused on empowering disadvantaged, yet potentially high achieving, middle school students (Stacki, 2012). Attending three afternoons per week, interacting with advisors/teachers and volunteer tutors, students demonstrated gains in knowledge and confidence as learners and as diverse people, connecting lessons to real life, and using technology. This ASP “provided more opportunity for equity, and tried to prevent social and cultural reproduction among the mostly minority students in the program” (Stacki, 2012, p. 77). Using tutors in a reading program for eighth grade, urban middle school students helped students focus on academics by clarifying content, assisting with homework and test preparation, and providing academic counseling (Nelson-Royes & Reglin, 2011). Another ELA program engaged middle schoolers with integrated digital fabrication technology to create pop-up books (Smith, 2013). A study by Public/Private Ventures on the Afterzone program in Providence, R.I. found that middle school students enrolled in a citywide program for two years had 25% fewer absences than non-participating peers. Social skills improved and math scores improved by one-third of a grade (Associated Press, 2011). Comprehensive centers such as Boys and Girls Clubs of America offer a range of activities, including time for academic work and programs such as Smart Girls focusing on socio-emotional issues. Yet, Hirsch (2011) called mentoring the heart and soul of these programs as staff interact with youth, often in high-risk neighborhoods.

AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS ◾ 41

Importantly, these clubs provide a safe environment where children can have fun. The clubs “provide support in becoming comfortable and competent in the non-familial world, a critical developmental task” (Hirsch, 2011, p. 68). Recently, increased funding in New York City has expanded ASP opportunities in middle schools. Longterm need and continuity were recognized with many ASPs operating five days per week and in summer. “The middle school years can be a bridge to lifelong success and must play a central role in supporting young adolescents in building foundational academic skills, successful academic and personal behaviors, and in the identification areas of interest and strength. After-school programs have a vital role to play in the process” (Office of the Mayor et al., 2014, p. 3). CORE FEATURES OF QUALITY PROGRAMS ASPs that include core features will help insure quality student engagement: offering various and aligned complementary services with a range of academic, social and behavioral skills; ensuring access and positive relationships between students and with staff; involving families early; appropriately structuring programs; and recognizing varied learning approaches depending on needs and resources of the community (Weiss et al., 2009). In the Framework for After-School Programs, operational conditions include effective partnerships; strong program management; qualified staff and volunteers; enriching learning opportunities; attention to safety, health, and nutrition issues; strong family involvement; adequate and sustainable funding; evaluation for continuous improvement and effectiveness (Mott Foundation, 2005). Hirsch (2011) included positive aspects of youth culture such as strong relationships, “spontaneity, creativity, expressiveness, engagement with music, knowing how to have fun, and idealism” (p. 68). A strong staff will have the aptitude, skills, experience, and beliefs to provide the needed content knowledge, multiple strategy approaches to meet youth’s needs, understanding of individual needs, and cultural and social sensitivity especially if from similar neighborhoods with understanding of stressors faced outside of school (Hirsch, 2011; Stephens, 2005). Youth should develop the knowledge and skills to cope with stressors and grow into positive adults. While results from studies examining the relationship between after-school participation and academic achievement are mixed, “a variety of studies suggest that positive subjective experience and emotions are integral to the formation of social competence” (Shernoff, 2010, p. 326). Thinking systemically, linkages should exist among school and after-school staff to coordinate and maximize

use of resources and facilities, facilitate project-based learning opportunities, and provide challenging but not overwhelming curriculum (Stephens, 2005). In ASPs, “teachers aren’t bound by formal curriculum requirements and can pursue additional topics or allot more time to them or have relationships with young people in ways that aren’t typical in school” (Hirsch, 2011, p. 69). What is needed is a “deliberate allocation of high-quality adult supervision focused on those who need it most” (Toyama, 2015). While good attendance improves outcomes, tracking youth’s experiences during participation indicated that quality of experiences in ASPs may be more important than quantity of experiences in predicting academic outcomes (Shernoff, 2010). Furthermore, in programs with structure and supervision, students report a higher quality experience. Shernoff suggests that the ASP field should shift focus from average effects of program participation to explaining why some students benefit from participation more than others, determining specific skills and competencies acquired, and studying the contextual, personal, and programmatic factors involved. Gayl (2004) recommended targeting low-achieving children and various at-risk populations yet cautions that ASPs be evaluated for effectiveness on their entire range of benefits to children, families, and communities, not only on academic learning. These programs must be sustained and substantive if evaluations are to judge adequately the program’s success (Gayl, 2004). Research findings should be broadly disseminated so as to continually modify and improve programs. In conclusion, addressing the inequities in OST education must be part of achieving equal educational opportunities (Weiss et al., 2009). OST opportunities should be integrated into reform discussions and funding legislation to enable local agencies to create aligned and systemic efforts with accountability among all parts of the learning system. Access is not enough. What occurs during participation in ASPs holds the key. Thus, well-structured and supervised programs with knowledgeable, caring adults who facilitate engaging participation for middle schoolers are mandated. ASPs must allow some autonomy and choice, yet be structured and facilitated enough so that students are enjoying, learning, and developing relationships with peers and qualified adults. REFERENCES Afterschool Alliance. (2008). Evaluations backgrounder: A summary of formal evaluations of afterschool programs’ impact on behavior, safety and family life. Retrieved from http:// www.afterschoolalliance.org/Evaluations%20Backgrounder%20Behavior_08_FINAL.pdf

42 ◾ ALEXANDER, WILLIAM M. Associated Press. (2011, August 31). After-school programs: Afterzone: Outcomes for youth participating in Providence’s citywide after-school system. Education Week, 31(2), 5. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ articles/2011/08/31/02report-6.h31.html Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Dryfoos, J. G. (1999). The role of the school in children’s outof-school time. The Future of Children: When School is Out, 9(2), 117–134. Gayl, C. L. (2004). After-school programs: Expanding access and ensuring quality. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 491 206). Retrieved from http://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED491206 Hirsch, B. J. (2011). Learning and development in after-school programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 66–69. Mott, C. S., Foundation. (2005). Moving towards success: Framework for after-school programs. Committee on After-School Research and Practice. Washington, DC: Collaborative Communications Group. Retrieved from http://www. statewideafterschoolnetworks.net/moving-towards-success-framework-after-school-programs National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Nelson-Royes, A. M., & Reglin, G. L. (2011). After-school tutoring for reading achievement and urban middle school students. Reading Improvement, 48(3), 105–117. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Office of the Mayor, Department of Youth and Community Development, Department of Education, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, & Office of Management and Budget. (2014). After-school programs for middle school students. New York, NY: Authors. Retrieved from http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/ reports/2014/after_school_programs_white_paper.pdf Shann, M. H. (2001). Students’ use of time outside of school: A case for after school programs for urban middle school youth. The Urban Review, 33(4), 339–356. Shernoff, D. J. (2010). Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence and academic performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 325–337. Smith, S. (2013). Through the teacher’s eyes: Unpacking the TPACK of digital fabrication integration in middle school language arts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 207–227. Stacki, S. L. (2012). Deepening understandings of school life: Action research for preservice teachers. Curriculum and Teaching, 27(1), 67–79. Stephens, C. (2005). After-school programs. In V. A. Anfara, Jr., G. Andrews, & S. B. Mertens (Eds.), The encyclopedia of middle grades education (pp. 112–115). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Toyama, K. (2015, June 3). Why technology alone won’t fix schools. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://

www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/ why-technology-alone-wont-fix-schools/394727/ Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., & Pierce, K. M. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the study of promising afterschool programs. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.newdayforlearning.org/docs/ HIllPPReport.pdf Viadero, D. (2007, November 28). High-quality after-school programs tied to test-score gains. Education Week 27(13), 1 & 13. Retrieved from http://www .edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/28/13afterschool .h27.html?qs=High-quality+after-school+programs +tied+to+test-score+gains Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., Bouffard, S. M., Deschenes, S. N., & Malone, H. J. (2009). The federal role in out-ofschool learning: After-school, summer learning, and family involvement as critical learning supports. Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Voices in Urban Education, 24, 32–45. Retrieved from http://annenberginstitute. org/sites/default/files/product/226/files/VUE24.pdf

ALEXANDER, WILLIAM M. Laurie A. Ramirez Appalachian State University Commonly referred to as the “father of the middle school,” William “Bill” Alexander coined the term middle school in a 1963 speech, “The Junior High School: A Changing View,” given at Cornell University. That speech, addressing school administrators and aimed at examining the current and future directions of the junior high school movement, began a progressive movement in which Alexander called educators of young adolescents to action. Alexander believed the unique nature and developmental needs of 10–15 year olds warranted an educational structure different than elementary or high schools. Alexander’s proposed framework for middle schools stressed a number of important components, including a comprehensive program to address students’ varied needs, a developmentally responsive and flexible curriculum, and teachers specifically prepared to work with young adolescents. COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION Alexander believed schools should provide health and physical education, guidance programs, and an exploratory curriculum that would introduce students to new ideas. He claimed the current emphasis on academics was limiting and would leave students with “less time and energy for the fine arts, for homemaking or industrial arts, and for such special interests such as

ALTERNATIVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS ◾ 43

dramatics, journalism, musical performance, scouting, camping, outside jobs, and general reading” (Smith & McEwin, 2011, p. 9). An exploratory curriculum, contrary to popular assumption, does not equate nonacademic. The authors of This We Believe (National Middle School Association [NMSA], 2010) argued the contrary—a properly designed, rigorous academic experience is inherently exploratory. DEVELOPMENTALLY RESPONSIVE/ FLEXIBLE CURRICULUM Meaningful learning for young adolescents requires educators who understand the nature of adolescents: brain, physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development. Developmental responsiveness and flexible curriculum also acknowledge that no single teaching method will work for all students; each individual has their own cultural, experiential, and personal history as well as unique learning styles, talents, skills, and interests (Caskey et al., 2010). In his 1963 speech, Alexander described a flexible curriculum as “permitting and indeed aiding pupils to progress at different rates and to different depths” (Smith & McEwin, 2011, p. 11). SPECIALIZED TEACHER PREPARATION The theme of specialized teacher preparation runs throughout Alexander’s work in conceptualizing and creating the middle school movement. In a 1982 interview with John Lounsbury, Alexander stated the lack of specialized middle level teacher preparation was a “major blind spot in teacher education” (Smith & McEwin, 2011, p. 5). Further, he stressed the importance of preparing those “who are knowledgeable in this field, who are not resisting reorganization . . . and through the force of their leadership are helping to build up the program of middle schools” (Smith & McEwin, 2011, p. 5). Secondary and/or elementary preparation would simply no longer suffice; a new way of thinking about preparing teachers was needed. William M. Alexander, a decorated scholar, educator, and leader of the middle school movement, died on August 27, 1996 at his home in Gainesville, Florida. He was 84 years old (New York Times, 1996). His legacy has lived on long after his initial call for middle schools and his words carry much weight, even today as we strive to enact fully his vision of effective schools for young adolescents. REFERENCES Caskey, M. M., Andrews, P. G., Bishop, P. A., Capraro, R. M., Roe, M., & Weiss, C. (2010). Research & resources in

support of This We Believe (2nd ed.). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Smith, T. W., & McEwin, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

ALTERNATIVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS L. Mickey Fenzel Loyola University Maryland Dunbar (2001) described alternative middle schools as those that provide learning experiences that differ from those offered at more traditional schools and whose philosophies, goals, and practices differ substantially from those of more traditional schools. Students who attend alternative middle schools have tended to be children and adolescents who either have had little success in regular public or parochial schools or who required, or desired, a type of learning approach that better met their educational needs (Mottaz, 2002). Several kinds of alternative middle schools, both public and private, have appeared over the past 50 years in the United States to meet the needs of diverse young adolescent learners. A recent National Center for Education Statistics report (Carver & Lewis, 2010) identified over 10,000 alternative K–12 educational programs in the United States with over 50% of school districts offering alternative educational programs for students in sixth through eighth grade at risk of academic failure. What might be considered the first alternative middle schools emerged in the 1960s and tended to be either dumping grounds for urban children who did not succeed academically or behaviorally in regular urban middle and junior high schools or schools that provided an alternative curriculum for suburban gifted and talented youth (Mottaz, 2002). Another type of alternative middle school that emerged at this time was the freedom school, a type of school for African American children in the south that emerged from the struggles over civil rights and concerns that African American children understand the realities of racism and social action (Fantini, 1976). Because of the failure of public schools to provide quality education for students of color in desegregated public schools, a number of U.S. cities began to establish schools to address these persistent inequalities. One example of such an approach was the Milwaukee African American Immersion schools (Span, 2002) that included an elementary and middle school with a curriculum that sought to overcome the existing inequalities and provide a culturally

44 ◾ ALTERNATIVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS

relevant pedagogy that researchers (Hale, 2001) contend have contributed to the poor quality education provided urban children of color. Other kinds of alternative middle schools were developed to address the academic and social-emotional challenges of children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral challenges and disorders. For example, The Children’s Guild operates private and charter schools, including a residential facility, in Maryland and the District of Columbia for children with special needs that includes students in middle school grades (www.childrensguild.org). In addition, Utah’s Discovery Academy (www.discoveryacademy.com), which educates troubled youth beginning at 13 years of age, is one of many therapeutic residential schools across the country today. These programs, and others like them, recognize the need to provide services beyond those offered in most schools to ensure a successful educational experience for young adolescents with special needs. With the growth of online education, public and private virtual schools have emerged to provide accredited educational programs to students who seek an alternative to the traditional public school whether they are homebound, have had difficulty succeeding in traditional schools, or prefer a more advanced pace of learning than what other schools can offer. Keystone School (http://landing.keystoneschoolonline.com/) and Connections Academy (www.connectionsacademy. com) are examples of private virtual schools that serve middle school students and others throughout the United States and abroad. ALTERNATIVE URBAN MIDDLE SCHOOLS A number of successful middle schools have appeared in the past 40 years or so that have provided important educational alternatives for underserved urban students of color who were performing at low levels in urban public schools. Among the latter are the Nativity, currently known as NativityMiguel, schools, Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) schools, the Promise Academy charter schools of the Harlem Children’s Zone, and the Seed Schools. This entry will focus primarily on these alternative middle schools that have addressed the persistent inequalities in public education that have left far too many students of color behind. NativityMiguel Schools Named for the first middle school of its kind that opened in 1971 on the lower east side of Manhattan, Nativity Mission Center, NativityMiguel schools number over 60 in the nation today. Nativity Mission Center middle school grew out of a family support and

tutoring program operated by the Jesuits for economically poor Puerto Rican adults and children residing in the neighborhood. The Jesuits, an order of Catholic priests, operated the first three Nativity model schools that became known at NativityMiguel schools in 2006 when the Nativity Educational Centers Network merged with the Lasallian San Miguel schools. These schools, which were operated by the Catholic order of Christian Brothers adopted the model developed by the early Nativity schools (see Fenzel, 2009). NativityMiguel schools are independent organizations that educate children from low income homes and feature an extended day academic program designed to accelerate academic skill development for middle school students who enter the school below grade level on standardized tests yet demonstrate the desire to succeed. Although most of these schools are operated by Catholic religious communities, other religious and non-religiously affiliated groups oversee the operations of other schools. Maintaining a small class and school size, NativityMiguel schools employ many of the characteristics of effective middle schools, including small group advisories, individualized instruction, and additional academic assistance for struggling students, while focusing on meeting the social, emotional, leadership, and spiritual developmental needs of the students in either single sex or coeducational environments (see Fenzel, 2009). NativityMiguel schools also provide summer programs that address continued academic skill development, along with leadership development and an ethos of care for one another. Most of the schools educate students in grades 5–8 or 6–8 with a class size for instruction of 16 or fewer. These schools educate mostly students who are African American or Black (59%) or Latina/o (35%) and more than 90% of the students qualify for the federal free and reduced meals program. Students are selected through an admissions process that includes interviews with applicants and their parents or guardians and a review of family tax returns; one school selects students through a lottery. A staff of full-time certified teachers is supplemented in most schools with intern teachers who are hired through AmeriCorps or other volunteer organizations (Fenzel, 2009; Fenzel, Dean, & Darden, 2014). NativityMiguel schools also provide a graduate support program that begins a year or more before middle school graduation with helping students select high quality public and independent high schools. Graduate support personnel, who are a part of the middle school staff, also follow and support graduates through high school and work with them and their families on college selection and application, an important function for students who continue to face the stressors of living in violent neighborhoods and most of whose parents or

ALTERNATIVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS ◾ 45

guardians did not attend college. Research shows the NativityMiguel schools to be quite successful in accelerating the academic skill development of their students. The high school graduation and college matriculation rates for NativityMiguel graduates are much higher than those of young people from similar backgrounds (Fenzel, 2009; Fenzel & Monteith, 2008; Podsiadlo & Philliber, 2003).

adolescents’ social-emotional and physical development in a supportive and safe environment (http://hcz.org/ our-programs/promise-academy-charter-schools/). As with the other urban educational programs noted above, students in the Promise Academy schools have experienced levels of academic skill development and college success rates greater than those from comparable backgrounds.

Knowledge is Power Program

Seed School

Another type of alternative middle school for historically underserved urban children that incorporates many of the structural elements of the NativityMiguel schools is the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) school; a network of public charter schools that first appeared in the mid-1990s (www.kippschools.com) in Houston. Currently, there are 90 middle schools in the KIPP network, which also serves elementary and high schools (there are 183 KIPP schools in all). The same type of academic rigor and focus on character development that characterizes the NativityMiguel schools is also found in KIPP schools. In addition, like the NativityMiguel school students, children in KIPP schools face a longer school day than is found in regular middle schools, as well as over two hours of homework each night, Saturday attendance, and summer enrichment. Parents’ commitment to their children’s education is also expected. In addition, KIPP classes are larger than those in NativityMiguel schools and some research (e.g., Miron, Urschel, Saxton, 2011) suggests that the schools experience relatively high attrition rates. KIPP schools enroll African American and Latina/o students at levels similar to those of NativityMiguel schools with a comparable percentage of students who qualify for the federal free and reduced-price meals program (77% reported by Miron et al., 2011; 88% reported by KIPP: www.kipp.org/view-report-card). In addition, KIPP schools also support students after graduation through their KIPP Through College program that seeks to ensure that more of its graduates complete both high school and college.

Another important initiative to improve the education of historically underserved urban students is the Seed School, the first public boarding school in the United States, which opened in 1998 in Washington, DC (http://www.seedschooldc.org/15years). Since that time, the Seed Foundation opened similar schools in Baltimore and Miami with students admitted in the sixth grade. At Seed schools, students live at the school from Sunday through the end of the school day on Friday with the opportunity to engage in high quality academics, academic enrichment, and programs that contribute to their social-emotional development. As with other alternative urban initiatives described above, Seed schools aim to disrupt the cycle of poverty in urban communities through an education that includes college graduation. As with the Promise Academy schools, the Seed School admits students through a lottery.

Promise Academy Having begun as a small neighborhood program in the mid-1990s to support families in the underserved area of Harlem in New York City, the Harlem Children’s Zone operates two PreK–12 Promise Academy charter schools that include two middle school programs. In addition to academic advancement and attainment that leads to college success, the Promise Academy middle schools provide a full range of services to address young

SUMMARY Numerous alternative middle schools and middle school programs have appeared over the past several decades with new approaches being considered to provide high quality education to meet the many different needs of young adolescents. This chapter highlights alternative initiatives, both public and private, at the middle school level for historically underserved urban students of color. More initiatives of the sort examined here are needed if true educational equality is to be realized. Although the middle-level charter school programs described here have demonstrated success, many charter schools have failed to deliver the kind of educational quality that was promised. Successful middle schools that work well to help underserved young adolescents achieve academically and grow socially and emotionally are characterized by well-managed classrooms, effective mentoring programs, extended instructional days or weeks or both, targeted tutoring, summer enrichment programs, a caring and dedicated staff, a culturally relevant curriculum, and high expectations of students, parents, and staff.

46 ◾ AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

REFERENCES Carver, P. R., & Lewis, L. (2010). Alternative schools and programs for public school students at risk of educational failure: 2007–08 (NCES 2010–026). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Dunbar, Jr., C. (2001). Alternative schooling for African American youth: Does anyone know we’re here? New York, NY: Peter Lang. Fantini, M. D. (1976). Alternative education: A sourcebook for parents, teachers, students, and administrators. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Fenzel, L. M. (2009). Improving urban middle schools: Lessons from the Nativity schools. Albany: State University of New York Press. Fenzel, L. M., Dean, R. J., & Darden, G. (2014). Effective learning environments and the use of teaching fellows in alternative urban middle schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19, 20–35. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2014.924320 Fenzel, L. M., & Monteith, R. H. (2008). Successful alternative middle schools for urban minority children: A study of Nativity schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 13, 381–401. doi: 10.1080/10824660802427686 Hale, J. E. (2001). Learning while Black: Creating educational excellence for African American children. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Miron, G., Urschel, J. L., & Saxton, N. (2011). What makes KIPP work? A study of student characteristics, attrition, and school finance. Paper published by the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University and the Study Group on Educational Management Organizations at Western Michigan University. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ media/kippstudy.pdf Mottaz, C. (2002). Breaking the cycle of failure: How to build and maintain quality alternative schools. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Podsiadlo, Rev. J. J., S.J., & Philliber, W. W. (2003). The Nativity Mission Center: A successful approach to the education of Latino boys. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(4), 419–428. doi:10.1207/ S15327671ESPR0804_3 Span, C. M. (2002). Black Milwaukee’s challenge to the cycle of urban miseducation: Milwaukee’s African American immersion schools. Urban Education, 37, 610–630. doi: 10.1177/0042085902238676

AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Francine Falk-Ross Pace University The American Educational Research Association (AERA) was founded in 1916 as a national research

organization. Its mission statement explains that the collective organization “strives to advance knowledge about education, to encourage scholarly inquiry related to education, and to promote the use of research to improve education and serve the public good” (www.aera.net). Consisting of over 25,000 members from universities and educational settings internationally, the yearly conference draws researchers, faculty, and students at the graduate and undergraduate level from all disciplines interested in foundational and professional scholarship. The organization is governed by a Council consisting of an Executive Board (present and past presidents, atlarge members, elected special interest group and graduate student representatives), and Council membership elected by AERA members, and follows the rules and policies as set by the Association’s bylaws. Accordingly, there are 12 membership divisions including: Division A: Administration, Organization,  & Leadership; Division B: Curriculum Studies;  Division C: Learning & Instruction;  Division D:  Measurement & Research Methodology; Division E: Counseling & Human Development; Division F: History & Historiography; Division G: Social Context of Education; Division H: Research, Evaluation, & Assessment in Schools; Division I: Education in the Professions; Division J: Postsecondary Education; Division K: Teaching and Teacher Education; and Division L: Educational Policy & Politics. There are also over 150 special interest groups (SIGs) that provide research on more specific research areas, such as the Middle Level Education Research SIG, the Bilingual Education Research SIG, etc. Members may join as many Divisions and SIGs as they choose. The AERA organization disseminates cutting edge research through its annual conference presentations, professional publications, webcasts of events and lectures, policy and advocacy groups, and newsroom updates. The members utilize books, papers, journals and varied publications to discover, explore, pilot, and apply new theories and practical applications of research. AERA’s professional journals include AERA Open, American Educational Research Journal, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Educational Researcher, Review of Educational Research, Review of Research in Education, and the Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. In recent years, several social media outlets have been added to support communication among members and outside interests. Most notably, AERA uses Facebook (facebook. com/AERAEdResearch) and Twitter (twitter.com/aera_ edresearch) to post new information and research ideas. In 1991, a SIG focused on the development and education of young adolescents, ages 10 to 15 years, was established. The charter group included 88 educators from 23 states, including the District of Columbia and Canada. The new group was titled Research in Middle Level Education (RMLE). It was established with

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS ◾ 47

a goal to “improve, promote, and disseminate educational research reflecting early adolescence and middle level education.” The founding Board members were Richard Lipka (president), P. Elizabeth Pate (vice president), and Lynn Wallich (Treasurer). The title of the group has changed, and it is now recognized as the Middle Level Educational Research Special Interest Group (MLER SIG). The MLER SIG maintains a website at www.mlersig.net. Research on young adolescents may be found in other Divisions and SIGS of AERA; however, up-to-date research on topics of middle school education are found in publications of the MLER SIG including The Chronicle of Middle Level Research and The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education.

provide access to early childhood care and education for all families; ensure students have access to affordable and excellent higher education; provide resources and staffing for hospitals and medical centers in order to provide world class patient care; ensure properly funded and dependable public services that meet the needs of the communities they serve; and safeguard the retirement security for all working women and men. AFT believes they will reach their goals by . . .

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

AFT offers a variety of publications, including a quarterly magazine that focuses on PreK–12 Public Education titled American Education, a magazine that focuses on the issues involving higher education called AFT On Campus, a healthcare magazine titled Healthwire, a publication called PSRP Reporter directed at paraprofessionals and school related personnel, and Public Employee Advocate that focuses on public employee issues.

William J. Rodriguez Nieves Illinois State University As its mission, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is a union of professionals that “champions fairness, democracy, economic opportunity, and high quality public education” (AFT, n.d., “Mission”). They also focus on providing healthcare and public services for students, their families, and the communities that surround the schools they serve. The Federation is committed to furthering their principles through community engagement, collective bargaining, and political activism. As of 2014, the Federation had 1.6 million members and staunchly supports human rights including “free and equal education as embodied in the public schools, safe and sanitary work conditions, reasonable hours for reasonable pay, child labor laws, tenure for teachers, collective bargaining, women’s rights, and effective schools and education reforms” (AFT, n.d., “History,” para. 23). Additionally, AFT’s international affairs department has been actively involved in developing free trade unions and democracy curricula for public education systems around the world, including Eastern Europe, Central and South America, and South Africa. One of AFT’s major initiatives is “Reclaim the Promise,” which focuses on the promise of public education for the future. Through Reclaim the Promise, AFT hopes to create public schools that are safer, staffed with well-prepared teachers, have more manageable class sizes and suitable resources, and create engaging curriculum that focuses on teaching and learning (AFT, n.d., “Reclaim the Promise”). Reclaim the Promise has as its vision to: fight for high quality public education for all children that nurtures a joy of teaching and learning;

. . . bringing together everyone who believes in the future of public education and focusing on finding solutions rather than winning arguments. Through collaboration, we can create trust, enable risk-taking and foster shared responsibility to ensure that all children have the opportunity to achieve their dreams. (AFT, n.d., “Reclaim the Promise,” para. 8)

REFERENCES American Federation of Teachers. (n.d.). History. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/about/history American Federation of Teachers. (n.d.). Mission. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/about/mission American Federation of Teachers. (n.d.). Reclaim the promise. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/promise

AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH Daniel M. Frederking Illinois State University Founded in 1946 by John C. Flanagan, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) is a not-for-profit, nonpartisan, behavior and social science research and evaluation organization. AIR focuses on education, health, and international development and is organized into six programs: AIR Assessment; Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research; Education; Health and Social Development; International Development, Evaluation, and Research; and Workforce and Lifelong Learning (American Institutes for Research, n.d.). Flanagan was a central figure in aviation psychology and was responsible for the development of aptitude

48 ◾ AMLE MAGAZINE

tests given to Air Force recruits to identify the most capable individuals for specific missions. He also pioneered the Critical Incident Technique, a set of procedures designed to collect direct observations of human behavior (Flanagan, 1954). Using his expertise in research psychology he formed the AIR as a way to better collect and utilize data. Today, AIR employs nearly 1,800 people and is headquartered in Washington D.C. with various other locations around the United States as well as internationally (American Institutes for Research, n.d.). Though its research extends beyond the realm of education, AIR focuses much of its efforts on various educational initiatives from professional development to early childhood learning. It conducts both qualitative and quantitative studies to promote best practices and identify effective resources and programs. It also provides support to local districts and organizations in identifying reliable evidence to make informed decisions. Among its initiatives is its assessment program, which provides assistance and products for schools and districts as well as developing statewide assessments for several state governments (American Institutes for Research, n.d.). Through this program AIR has become one of the major players in the area of large-scale assessment. AIR is responsible for one of the most ambitious studies in American education known as Project Talent. In 1960, AIR researchers conducted the study, which contained the first large-scale standardized testing in American schools. The study involved 440,000 high school students at 1,063 schools and asked them to answer more than 2,000 questions measuring a variety of aptitudes and knowledge. The same students were involved in data collections 1, 5, and 10 years after their high school graduation (Winkler & Jolly, 2011). In 2010, AIR researchers returned to the study with an attempt to track down many of the former students for another data collection. All of this collected data has been used for years to better understand the factors contributing to various life paths. The effort also provided a basis for much of the large-scale testing present in American education today (Project Talent, n.d.). REFERENCES American Institutes for Research. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/about-us Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327. Project Talent. (n.d.). A history of Project Talent. Retrieved from http://www.projecttalent.org/about/history Winkler, D. L., & Jolly, J. L. (2011). Project TALENT. Gifted Child Today, 34(2), 34–36.

AMLE MAGAZINE April Tibbles Association for Middle Level Education Pat George Association for Middle Level Education The official magazine of the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE), AMLE Magazine, was launched in August 2013 after an extensive rebranding initiative by the association. AMLE Magazine provides teachers and administrators with tools and information to motivate and engage 10- to 15-year-old students in their own learning based on what research tells us is developmentally appropriate. Published nine times annually, the publication is a benefit of membership in AMLE and is delivered in print, online, and in a tablet edition. AMLE, previously known as the National Middle School Association (NMSA), has published the scholarly, peer-reviewed publication, Middle School Journal, since 1973. The journal, a well-respected publication in middle grades education, served—and continues to serve—as a valuable source of information and resources to increase understanding and support of quality education for young adolescents. However, as NMSA membership began to expand rapidly, that growth brought an increased need to communicate news, announcements, and other content relevant to front-line middle grades practitioners. In 1985, Denis Smith, who later served as executive director of NMSA, initiated the newspaper Middle Ground to provide such content. Middle Ground was published on a schedule that complemented that of the Middle School Journal, and over the years evolved from a tabloid-size newsprint publication to a letter-sized 8- to 12-page newsletter. In 1997, NMSA combined Middle Ground and the association’s urban-focused publication, High Strides, into an expanded publication that took the form of a magazine. The increased capacity to offer content brought NMSA members an added value to their membership benefits. Holly Holland, an education writer based in Louisville, Kentucky who had been editing Middle Ground and High Strides, became the official first editor of the expanded Middle Ground magazine. Holland introduced theme issues and regular columns to the publication, including a “One Teacher to Another” column by Rick Wormeli, now an internationally known speaker, author, and consultant, as well as book reviews and curriculum spotlights. Starting with the August 2002 issue, Patricia George, an education editor based in the Washington, D.C., area took the reins as Middle Ground editor. After the name change from NMSA to AMLE in 2011, the association,

ANFARA, VINCENT A., JR. ◾ 49

through a rebranding initiative, established new messaging, a new logo, and concurrently discontinued Middle Ground magazine while launching the new magazine, AMLE Magazine. AMLE Magazine, with George continuing at the helm, provides information and resources about practical and proven practices and insight into middle grades leadership and instruction. The magazine also introduced several new columns that offer member perspectives on key education issues, mentoring ideas for middle grades’ leaders, and strategies to enhance and improve school teams. Recognizing the needs and preferences of a new generation of educators, AMLE offers a tablet edition of each issue of AMLE Magazine—a benefit that continues to grow in popularity.

ANFARA, VINCENT A., JR. Dianne Goldsby Texas A&M University Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. (1953–2013) was a noted educator, professor, author, and researcher of middle grades learners, education, and educational research. He became assistant professor at Temple University immediately following receiving his PhD from the University of New Orleans in Educational Administration in 1995. Subsequently, Anfara accepted a position at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, TN. He served as Professor and Department Head of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in the College of Education for five years. His 23 years of teaching experience in middle and high schools in Louisiana and New Mexico provided a foundation for his scholarly work to improve schooling and schools for middle grade students. Anfara was an advocate for creating an environment to meet the unique needs and interests of middle grade students, 10 to 14 year olds; he viewed the middle school movement as a commitment on which to base school practices. Anfara asserted, “Young adolescents warrant educational experiences and schools that are organized to address their physical, intellectual, emotional/psychological, moral/ethical, spiritual, and social developmental characteristics” (Caskey & Anfara, 2014). He believed, “Understanding and responding to the unique developmental characteristics of young adolescents is central among the tenets of middle level education” (Caskey & Anfara, 2014). Anfara researched issues such as common planning time (Mertens, Anfara, Flowers, & Caskey, 2010), single sex classes and schools (Anfara & Mertens, 2008a), parental involvement in schooling (Anfara & Mertens, 2008b), and characteristics of exemplary schools

(Andrews, Caskey, & Anfara, 2007). He was a staunch supporter of mixed methods research to “offer a more complete picture of what we are studying” (Anfara, 2006, p. 28) and to convince practitioners to invest in what he called the “true” middle school. In a review of school improvement studies, Angelle and Anfara (2006) emphasized the need for planned change focusing on school context, culture, and capacity, the three C’s of school improvement. His dedication to the profession and to middle grades education and reform is evident in his service activities. He served as Chair of the National Middle School Association’s (NMSA) Research Advisory Board, Executive Director, and Chair of the American Educational Research Association’s (AERA) Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group, member of AERA’s SIG Executive Committee and Program Committee, member of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, and ERIC Content Expert in middle grades education. He served on the editorial boards of International Studies in Educational Administration, Research in Middle Level Education Online, Urban Education, and the NASSP Bulletin. A prolific author and scholar, Anfara authored more than 80 publications in journals such as Educational Researcher, Middle School Journal, NASSP Bulletin, Research in Middle Level Education Annual, Middle Grades Research Journal, Education and Urban Society, and The Journal of School Leadership. His books included Research and Resources in Support of This We Believe, From the Desk of the Middle School Principal: Leadership Responsive to the Needs of Young Adolescents, Creating Organizationally Healthy and Effective Middle Schools: Research that Supports the Middle School Concept and Student Achievement, and Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. He served as editor for The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education series and the Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education. REFERENCES Andrews, P. G., Caskey, M. M., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2007). Research summary: Characteristics of exemplary schools for young adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.ncmle. org/docs/Exemplary_Schools.pdf Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2001). Setting the stage: An introduction to middle level education. In V. A., Anfara, Jr. (Ed.), The handbook of research in middle level education (pp. v–xx). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2006). Utilizing mixed methods in middle grades research, Middle Grades Research Journal, 1(2), 15–31. Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Mertens, S. B. (2008a). Do single-sex classes and schools make a difference? Middle School Journal, 40(2), 52–59.

50 ◾ ARNOLD, JOHN Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Mertens, S. B. (2008b). Varieties of parent involvement in schooling. Middle School Journal, 39(3), 58–64. Anfara, V. A., Jr., Andrews, G., & Mertens, S. B. (Eds.). (2005). The encyclopedia of middle grades education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Angelle, P. S., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2006). Courageous, collaborative leaders confront the challenges and complexities of school improvement. Middle School Journal, 37(5), 48–54. Caskey, M. M., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2014). Research summary: Young adolescents’ developmental characteristics. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/WhatsNew/ WNDet.aspx?ArtMID=888&ArticleID=455 Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., Flowers, N., & Caskey, M. M. (2010). Common planning time. Middle School Journal, 41(5), 50–57.

ARNOLD, JOHN Candy Beal North Carolina State University John Arnold, early supporter and crafter of the middle school concept and tireless advocate for young adolescents, was often heard to assert his belief that “the job of education/educators is to develop good people.” Arnold’s leadership has spanned a half-century as teacher, principal, professor, and consultant. His lifelong work with youth is a testament to his view that young adolescents are full of promise and have abilities untapped by American education and society. His passion for middle school students is shared through his writings and workshops, a summer staple for North Carolina middle school teachers and principals for 25 years. Arnold is the winner of many awards, among them the McEwin Distinguished Service Award (1992) given by the North Carolina Middle School Association. Arnold’s history of service to education started as the middle school concept was being formed. In the early 1970s, he served as the first middle level consultant for the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS). As Chair of the NAIS Middle School Task Force, he authored the first of its kind position paper that addressed the needs of young adolescents. He served as a voice for middle schools and young adolescents and worked tirelessly to shed light on the plight of young adolescents in our society. His move to North Carolina in 1979 to become Head of Middle School Education at North Carolina State University began his decades of work with teachers and administrators. He led North Carolina from the junior high format to the middle school concept, all the while helping to build schools and programs responsive to the needs of young adolescents.

As an educational leader in North Carolina, Arnold spearheaded the development of the state’s Middle School Certification and Licensure Program, one of the first in the United States. As president of the North Carolina League of Middle Schools, his platform helped to develop regional programs and open lines of communication among middle school educators from Murphy to Manteo. His legacy is his belief in the value of young adolescents and his ability to further understanding about the need to prepare curriculum and programs that address young adolescents’ needs. His publications are many. Chief among them is the seminal white paper he wrote in 1993 for National Middle School Association, A Curriculum to Empower Young Adolescents. In it, Arnold urged educators to dispel the negative stereotypes attributed to middle school students by implementing a curriculum that views young adolescents in a positive, can-do light, offers opportunities for community service and provides the chance for them to help craft their own learning. His empowering curriculum points out the importance of teaching children about the forces of negativity that seek to use middle school students for commercial gain, such as targeting ads that cause them to think less of themselves if they do not chase and embrace the stereotypical image of the popular teenager. Arnold’s work resonates today because of its universal values. He believed in and still practices humane education, a concept much needed in our society today. REFERENCE Arnold, J. (1993). A curriculum to empower young adolescents. Midpoints Occasional Papers, 4(1), 1–11.

ARTH, ALFRED A. Sara Hartman Ohio University Alfred Arth was a founding father of the middle level education movement and a life-long advocate for middle level education. Born in New Jersey in 1936, Arth earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Paterson State Teacher’s College in Paterson, New Jersey (Lincoln Journal Star, 2013). After teaching sixth grade in Ridgewood, New Jersey, he earned a doctorate in education from Oklahoma University in Norman, Oklahoma. In 1968, Arth accepted a faculty position at the University of Wyoming in Laramie where he pioneered middle level undergraduate and graduate teacher education programs (Association for Middle Level

ARTS EDUCATION ◾ 51

Education [AMLE], 2014) for the next 16 years. Following his years in Wyoming, Arth taught for 18 years at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and developed one of the country’s first doctoral programs in middle level education (Smith & McEwin, 2011). At one point, Arth led one of the only collegiate programs in the nation where students could receive a bachelor’s, master’s, and/or doctoral degree in middle level education. During his career, Arth also taught at the University of Virginia, York College in York, Nebraska, and Southeast Community College in Lincoln, Nebraska (Lincoln Journal Star, 2013). At a time when the idea of the middle school was brand new, Arth was a key leader in the movement and gave voice to middle level philosophy by traveling widely to speak at conferences around the country (Smith & McEwin, 2011). He was also a driving force that led to the publication of the National Middle School Association’s (NMSA) first position paper, This We Believe (NMSA, 1982), and he co-authored more than 100 other middle level education documents, including The Middle School Primer (Arth & Lounsbury, 1981) and Middle Level Teachers: Portraits of Excellence (Arth, Lounsbury, McEwin, & Swaim, 1995). Arth was a founding member of the original National Association of Secondary School Principal’s (NASSP) Middle Level Council and was integrally involved with the National Middle School Association (now AMLE) throughout his career, at one point serving on the board of trustees (AMLE, 2014). In 1997, he was awarded the NASSP Gruhn-Long-Melton Award for distinguished service and leadership in improving middle level education, and in 2007 received the John H. Lounsbury Award for Distinguished Service, the most prestigious award given in the field of middle level education (AMLE, 2014). From early in his career, Arth advocated for the recognition of middle level students as a distinctive age group who learn best in developmentally responsive classrooms, a belief that led him to dedicate his life to preparing teachers to meet the unique needs of middle level students (Smith & McEwin, 2011). Through his commitment to and passion for middle level education, he touched the lives of countless educators and their students. When Arth died in 2013, he left behind a rich and important legacy that continues to inform the field of middle level education.

Reston, VA: National Association for Secondary School Principals. Association for Middle Level Education. (2014). John H. Lounsbury Award. Retrieved from AMLE website: http:// www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/AMLEAwards/John HLounsburyAward.aspx Lincoln Journal Star. (2013). Dr. Alfred A. Arth. Retrieved from http://journalstar.com/lifestyles/announcements/ obituaries/arth-dr-alfreda/article_3f355bd7-67f8-5b699d6f-b940acd24a8b.html National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author. Smith, T. W., & McEwin, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

REFERENCES

Despite this and other support for arts learning, data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012) reported the information found in Table 1 regarding instruction in the arts in elementary and secondary schools throughout the United States.

Arth, A. A., & Lounsbury, J. H. (Eds.). (1981). The middle school primer. Laramie: University of Wyoming Press. Arth, A. A., Lounsbury, J. H., McEwin, C. K., & Swaim, J. H. (1995). Middle level teachers: Portraits of excellence. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association and

ARTS EDUCATION Stephanie Cronenberg University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign The arts, typically defined in schools as dance, music, theatre, and visual art, have a long and complicated history in American schools. The most common art forms in schools, particularly in elementary and middle level schools, are music and visual art. Middle schools and high schools often also have theatre or drama programs, but only rarely do schools have dance programs. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 listed the arts as one of the subjects defined as a “core academic subject,” thus placing the arts, broadly defined, alongside literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, and foreign languages (Arts Education Partnership, 2004). In addition, the arts are recognized in This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School Association, 2010) which stated that young adolescents: . . . need, for instance, the chance to conduct science experiments, though they may never work in a lab, to be a member of a musical group, though never to become a professional musician, to write in multiple formats, though never to publish professionally, to have a part in a play, though never to become a paid actor, to play on a team, though never to become a career athlete, or to create visual images through drawing and painting, though never to become an artist. (p. 20)

52 ◾ ARTS EDUCATION

TABLE 1 Percentage of Public Schools Offering Arts Courses by Arts Discipline Arts Subject

Elementary (2009–10)

Secondary (2008–09)

Dance

3%

12%

Music

94%

91%

Theatre Visual Arts

4%

45%

83%

89%

Note: No data reported specifically for middle grades.

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) previously tested eighth grade students (in 1997 and 2008) in music and visual arts. In 2008, 7,900 students nationally were tested in either music or visual arts. The average score for both arts disciplines was 150 out of 300 possible points (Keiper, Sandene, Persky, & Kuang, 2009). Differences between student scores included lower scores for Black and Hispanic students and lower scores for male students, regardless of race (Keiper et al., 2009). In addition, this study found that only about half of eighth graders nationwide attend schools where music and visual arts instruction are offered three or four times a week (57% for music; 47% for visual art). Since 1997, the percentages have increased slightly for music (from 43%) and decreased slightly for visual art (from 52%) (Keiper et al., 2009). NAEP collects no information on theatre or dance. In order to succeed on this exam, students need quality middle grades instruction in order to develop knowledge and skills gained in elementary school. The next NAEP assessment in music and visual art is currently scheduled for 2016. NATIONAL STANDARDS When the Goals 2000: Educate America Act was signed into law in 1994, it codified arts learning in the United States by stating, “all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, the arts, [emphasis added] history, and geography” (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 1994, Sec 102). This law also expected that national standards in each subject would be established, thus the four arts disciplines collectively published the National Standards for Arts Education: What Every Young American Should Know and be Able to do in the Arts (1994), a document that provided clear academic standards at each grade level for each art form. According to this document:

Standards for arts education are important for two fundamental reasons. First, they help define what a good education in the arts should provide: a thorough grounding in a basic body of knowledge and the skills required both to make sense and to make use of each of the arts disciplines—including the intellectual tools to make qualitative judgments about artistic products and expression. Second, when states and school districts adopt the standards, they are taking a stand for rigor, informed by clear intent. A set of standards for arts education says, in effect, ‘An education in the arts means that students should know what is spelled out here, reach specified levels of attainment, and do both at defined points in their education.’ (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994, p. 12)

Since this publication, state-based arts organizations and arts educators have established state standards derived from the national standards and districts have worked to realign their curricula with these new voluntary standards. According to national statistics from 2001, 35% of states have no arts requirement for graduation (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001); however, 2009 graduates nationwide averaged two fullyear courses in the arts (NCES, 2011). Published in the summer of 2011, the National Core Arts Standards, designed by a coalition of arts organizations, teachers, and school leaders, were designed to align directly with the 2010 Common Core Standards in English and Mathematics (National Coalition for Core Arts Standards, 2014). These updated standards replace those described above. These standards encompass the four major arts disciplines as well as subdivisions in music and an additional discipline, media arts (NCCAS, 2014). A unique feature of these new standards is that all of the arts disciplines are united under four main artistic processes: (a) creating; (b) preforming/presenting/producing; (c) responding; and (d) connecting. In addition, there are 11 anchor standards under these four categories from which more specific standards for individual art forms are drawn (NCCAS, 2014). For nonarts specialists, these 11 anchor standards make it easier to understand the arts standards, how different arts disciplines engage in similar learning processes, and how the arts might be integrated into other subjects. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING Does studying the arts make students smarter in other subjects such as math or literacy? Or are students who study the arts already high academic achievers? Does studying an art form prevent students from dropping out of school or increase a student’s self-confidence? These are important questions asked by arts educators and researchers. Often, arts advocates present positive

ARTS EDUCATION ◾ 53

responses to these questions (Winner & Cooper, 2000). In reality, these questions are difficult to answer and the type of research study conducted often impacts the results (Catterall, Chapleau, & Iwanaga, J., 1999; Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; Stevenson & Deasy, 2005). Summaries of major studies through 2000, examining academic and social outcomes across a variety of grade levels, can be found in Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development (Deasy, 2002). In 2000, The Journal of Aesthetic Education published a special issue of 11 articles focusing on these very questions. Each of these articles presented a meta-analysis (a study reviewing existing literature and statistically calculating and comparing effect sizes) as a way of synthesizing and explaining existing studies (Winner & Hetland, 2000). In this special issue, individual articles focused on visual art, dance, and drama, and several articles focused on various aspects of music. For example, one meta-analysis suggested that there is a significant positive link between the study of theatre and verbal skills, particularly story understanding, reading readiness, and writing (Podlozny, 2000). Another meta-analysis suggested only modest support for the relationship between music study and mathematics achievement (Vaughn, 2000). More recent research has extended these studies using various methods including national data sets (for example, Cremin, Goouch, & Blakemore, 2006; Elpus, 2013; Miksza, 2010). While there is indeed a relationship between studying the arts and positive academic and social outcomes, all claims should be carefully examined (Winner & Hetland, 2000). SEQUENTIAL, EXPLORATORY, OR BOTH? In order to accomplish the National Core Standards for Arts Education from pre-kindergarten through high school graduation, sequential arts learning, taught by highly qualified arts educators must be available to students throughout all years of education (Davis, 2008; Seidel, Tishman, Winner, Hetland & Palmer, 2009). In the middle grades, the continuation of elementary learning in order to prepare students for advanced study in high school is crucial. One method of ensuring sequential arts learning is by providing access to arts courses and by ensuring that teachers build their curriculum around the National Core Arts Standards. One challenge many arts educators see to the importance of sequential arts learning is the prominence of exploratory learning to middle level education philosophy. According to This We Believe (NMSA, 2010), a middle level education should be exploratory so that students have the opportunity “to ascertain their special interests and aptitudes [and] to engage in activities that will broaden their views of the world and themselves”

(p. 20). Many arts educators see this exploration as a threat to sequential arts learning because “exploration” has been interpreted in many middle schools through scheduling that only allows study in a particular arts discipline for six, nine, or 12 week periods in a single school year (Hinckley, 1994; Moore, 1997). In addition, a pervasive belief among many arts educators is that when arts courses are part of “exploratory” courses offered at the middle level, the school community sees these subjects as less important than other subject areas. However, This We Believe (NMSA, 2010) specifically stated, “exploration is an attitude and approach, not a classification of content” (p. 20). Ideally, middle level students would receive sustained and sequential arts learning in all four disciplines. This arts education would be exploratory in that it (a) simulates the work of arts professionals; (b) allows students freedom of choice and expression; and (c) meets the broad purposes of arts education (Seidel et al., 2009). Exploration of an art form and sequential arts learning are not mutually exclusive, but rather partners in successful, appropriate arts learning for young adolescents. ARTS INTEGRATION In This We Believe (NMSA, 2010) integrative learning is encouraged in order to maximize learning and help middle level students make their knowledge and understanding meaningful. Curriculum integration unites two or more disciplines of study in a thoughtful and purposeful way in order to illuminate understanding in both disciplines. Integration enables “early adolescents [to] establish connections among various content areas, making learning more meaningful” (Bailey, 2003, p. 1). Often, this is done so that it is “inquiry-based, tackling complex problems that have social and personalized meaning for participants” (Carlisle, 2011, p. 224). Interdisciplinary teaming at the middle level helps to facilitate this curriculum integration work (George, 2009; NMSA, 2010); however, arts teachers typically do not have planning periods that align with other teachers on a given middle level team (Hamann, 2007). This scheduling issue often prevents arts teachers from collaborating with colleagues who are non-arts specialists. The integration of the arts with non-arts subjects, arts integration, helps students understand the subjects studied, make connections across subjects, and often enlivens the learning experience. Arts integration is defined as the teaching of an arts subject and non-arts subject simultaneously in order to achieve learning objectives in both subject areas (Davis, 2008). One example of this is the theatre and language arts work of Landay and Wooton (2012) who argued that:

54 ◾ ARTS EDUCATION Multisensory learning—theatrical improvisation, visual arts, writing, dancing, and singing in combination with the study of a challenging literary text—provides a developmentally appropriate means of engaging students, especially adolescents, with new ideas, with their own creativity, and with one another. (p. 7)

Arts integration requires learning in the art form as well as in the non-art form; it is much more than just drawing a picture or singing a song (though these might be part of an arts integrated lesson). Arts integration is not intended to supplant learning in the art forms, but rather arts integration is in addition to this learning. Two useful publications feature long-standing arts integration partnerships between schools and external arts organizations as well as helpful tools for arts and nonarts educators alike: Renaissance in the Classroom: Arts Integration and Meaningful Learning (Burnaford, Aprill, & Weiss, 2001) and A Reason to Read: Linking Literacy and the Arts (Landay & Wooton, 2012). REFERENCES Arts Education Partnership. (2004). No subject left behind: A guide to arts education opportunities in the 2001 NCLB Act. Washington, DC: Author. Bailey, L. M. (2003). Meeting standards without sacrificing quality curriculum in the middle school. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 26(2). Retrieved from http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/tabid/101/Default.aspx Burnaford, G., Aprill, A., & Weiss, C. (Eds.). (2001). Renaissance in the classroom: Arts integration and meaningful learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Carlisle, K. (2011). INSPIRE: The quest for coherent curriculum through a performing arts-focused curriculum integration project. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(4), 223–234. Catterall, J., Chapleau, R., & Iwanaga, J. (1999). Involvement in the arts and human development. In E. B. Fiske (Ed.), Champions of change: The impact of the arts on learning (pp. 1–18). Washington, DC: The Arts Education Partnership and the Presidents’ Committee on the Arts and Humanities. Retrieved from http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/champions/pdfs/ChampsReport.pdf Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Cremin, T., Goouch, K., & Blakemore, L. (2006). Connecting drama and writing: Seizing the moment to write. Research in Drama Education, 11(3), 273–291. Davis, J. H. (2008). Why our schools need the arts. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Deasy, R. J. (Ed.). (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

Elpus, K. (2013). Is it the music or is it selection bias? A nationwide analysis of music and non-music students’ SAT scores. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(2), 175–194. George, P. S. (2009). Renewing the middle school: The early success of middle school education. Middle School Journal, 41(1), 4–9. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227, 108 Stat. 125 (1994). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/ legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html Hamann, K. L. (2007). Influence on curriculum choices of middle school choir teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26(1), 64–74. Hinckley, J. (1994). Blocks, wheels, and teams: Building a middle school schedule. In J. Hinckley (Ed.), Music at the middle level: Building strong programs (pp. 19–23). Reston, VA: National Association for Music Education. Landay, E., & Wooton, K. (2012). A reason to read: Linking literacy and the arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Keiper, S., Sandene, B. A., Persky, H. R., & Kuang, M. (2009). The nation’s report card: Arts 2008 music & visual arts (NCES 2009–488). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Mahoney, J. L. & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 241–253. Miksza, P. (2010). Investigating relationships between participation in high school music ensembles and extra-musical outcomes: An analysis of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 using bioecological development model. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 186, 7–25. Moore, J. L. S. (1997). A curriculum guide for “the wheel.” General Music Today, 10, 18–21. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Digest of education statistics: State requirements for high school graduation, in Carnegie units: 2001 (Table 153). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt153.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics: Average number of Carnegie units earned by public high school graduates in various subject fields, by sex and race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1982 through 2009 (Table 177). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces. ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_177.asp National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2014). National core arts standards. Dover, DE: State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education. Retrieved from http:// www.nationalartsstandards.org/ National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 1999–2000 and 2009–10 (NCES 2012–014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Podlozny, A. (2000). Strengthening verbal skills through the use of classroom drama: A clear link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 239–275. Seidel, S., Tishman, S., Winner, E., Hetland, L., & Palmer, P. (2009). The qualities of quality: Understanding excellence in

AS I SEE IT ◾ 55 arts education. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Stevenson, L. M., & Deasy, R. J. (2005). Third space: When learning matters. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership. Vaughn, K. (2000). Music and mathematics: Modest support for the oft-claimed relationship. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 149–166. Winner, E., & Copper, M. (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal link between arts study and academic achievement. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 11–75. Winner, E., & Heatland, L. (2000). The arts in education: Evaluating the evidence for a causal link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 3–10.

AS I SEE IT Amanda Wall Georgia Southern University John H. Lounsbury is considered one of the legacy leaders due to his long advocacy for and involvement in middle grades education. From 1976 to 1990, Lounsbury served as editor for the Middle School Journal, a publication of the National Middle School Association (NMSA), now the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE). As I See It (1991) is a collection of 24 columns Lounsbury wrote for the Middle School Journal (MSJ) between 1984 and 1990; this volume also includes four additional items (two articles and two edited speeches) written by Lounsbury between 1987 and 1990. The collection is titled As I See It because Lounsbury used the phrase “as I see it” in many columns while explaining his views. Lounsbury addressed many themes of middle grades education such as exploratory programs (“If Good Men Do Nothing” and “The Middle School—The Exploratory School”), curriculum (“Call the Psychiatrist” and “The School as Teacher”), interdisciplinary teaming (“Interdisciplinary Teaming—Destination or Way Station?”), student collaboration (“Do Your Own Work?”), student-teacher relationships (“Attitude Adjustment” and “Wayside Teaching”), and the overall middle school concept (“Moving the School in the Middle from the Bottom to the Top”). In “Put It In Writing,” Lounsbury encouraged readers to “wrestle with your set of middle school beliefs, firm up your educational philosophy, and put it in writing” as part of a “basic and necessary step in the process of achieving a truly effective school” (1991, p. 4), and he modeled this process in these columns. Many of the columns align closely with points in This We Believe (National Middle School Association, 1982). In these columns, readers can see Lounsbury’s longstanding and optimistic commitment to middle grades

education. Often, as in “Just What Should Every Early Adolescent Know,” Lounsbury posed questions intended to promote reflection and discussion. This column was written in 1989, at the time of A Nation at Risk (U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and Turning Points: Preparing Youth for Life in the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989), but the issues remain relevant. Lounsbury encouraged teachers, administrators, parents, board members, teacher educators, and other stake holders to “be philosophically ready to engage in dialogue” (1991, p. 42). To this end, he offered a set of questions to guide discussion, including, “Are the cultural literacy and content specific proposals compatible with what we know about human growth and development and the developmental nature of early adolescents?” (1991, p. 44). In other columns, he raised other topics for contemplation and in this way provided what Tom Dickinson, his successor as editor of the Middle School Journal, called “a compass for a movement” (Dickinson, 1991, p. vii). As I See It (1991) followed an earlier collection by Lounsbury titled Middle School Education: As I See It (1984). That collection included 30 of Lounsbury’s editorial columns in Middle School Journal from 1976 to 1983. These pieces continue to be thought-provoking and timely reading for today’s advocates for middle level education. REFERENCES Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Dickinson, T. (1991). Foreword. In J. H. Lounsbury, As I see it. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Lounsbury, J. H. (1991). As I see it. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Lounsbury, J. H. (1984). Middle school education: As I see it. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author. U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.

ASSESSMENT: FORMATIVE EVALUATION Casey D. Gilewski University of Memphis Evaluations are assessment measures that evaluate schools, programs, and students’ mastery of a specific topic, concept, or skill at the beginning, during, or at

56 ◾ ASSESSMENT: FORMATIVE EVALUATION

the end of a learning segment, grading period, or year. There are two basic types of evaluations: formative and summative. Summative evaluations are used to determine how particular programs, schools, or students are doing overall. These evaluations are often administered at the end of a specific period of time to determine the effectiveness of a school, program, curriculum, or learning segment (Armstrong, Henson, & Savage, 2005; Burden & Byrd, 2013). Formative evaluations are different. These evaluations are used for progress monitoring purposes to determine how a specific intervention, program, or learning segment is going (Armstrong et al., 2005; Burden & Byrd, 2013). During these formative evaluations, evaluators can determine if the intervention, program, or learning segment is successful. If successful, the intervention, program, or learning segment can continue. However, if unsuccessful, the evaluator attempts to determine the cause of the issue so the intervention, program, or learning segment can be modified, changed, or adapted. FORMATIVE EVALUATION IN SCHOOLS In schools, formative evaluations take place on many levels, such as: the faculty, school programs, and students. However, no matter the level, formative evaluations have the same goal—to evaluate the situation to determine if it is successful and to provide intervention when deemed unsuccessful. Formative Evaluation of the School Faculty The school faculty is formatively evaluated on many different occasions to determine effectiveness and success. Throughout the school year, the school staff is evaluated via formal and informal classroom observations and parental feedback. Classroom observations. A school administrator typically conducts formal and informal classroom observations periodically throughout the school year. In a formal observation, the school administrator watches an instructor teach for a designated amount of time to see if the instructor is sufficiently instructing students and following school protocol. During these formal observations, the school administrator is typically looking for specific things to occur in the classroom that they will record via anecdotal records, checklist, rubrics, or rating form (Peterson, 2004). However, research has shown that these types of evaluations are faulty because they interrupt these normal classroom environments, are unreliable due to the number of observations, and can be biased due to evaluator’s preference in instruction and teaching style (Peterson, 2004; Scriven, 1981). Typically, in a formal observation, instructors are supposed to be

provided with feedback to improve on their instruction or classroom management. However, many school administrators do not have time to observe teachers for a prolonged period of time or have the time to provide feedback to instructors about their lessons due to other obligations, such as discipline issues, conferences, or emergencies (Peterson, 2004). Whereas, an informal observation is when a school administrator drops by for short periods of time—typically called a drop in or walk by—to ensure that the instructors and students are on task and following school protocol (Downey, Steffy, English, Frase, & Poston, 2004; Peterson, 2004). While school administrators are still looking for effective instruction, informal observations are focused on identifying what is occurring in the lesson and checking for student understanding. After identifying the lesson topic or objective, the administrator leaves to observe another room. According to Peterson (2004) and Keller (1998), informal observations may be more beneficial than formal observations because these allow for more observations to occur throughout the school day, increase administration visibility, and are less disruptive to the learning environment. Formative Evaluations via Parental Feedback In schools, formative evaluations can be conducted via parental feedback. These types of evaluations can be conducted through parental concerns, parental organization meetings, or parental surveys. Most commonly, parental feedback is collected via surveys, which probe parents about a specific topic or issue about the school or curriculum. This information can be used to adapt, change, modify, or reinforce current implementation in the school. However, surveys are not limited to parents, but can be administered to students and instructors as well. Formative Evaluation of School Programs In schools, there are numerous programs (e.g., early intervention programs/groups, Reading Recovery, Read 180, Reading Academy, iStation) that are implemented to improve student performance on skills, objectives, and end-of-the-year summative assessments. Even though most programs are research-based before being implemented into schools, most of these programs are still evaluated throughout the year to demonstrate that students are making progress because issues could arise through implementation and teacher instruction. These formative evaluations typically consist of administrative and program evaluator observations to ensure the program is being implemented correctly and progress monitoring assessments to show student growth.

ASSESSMENT: SUMMATIVE EVALUATION ◾ 57

FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF STUDENTS Formative evaluation of students is conducted via formative assessment measures at the beginning or during a learning segment or grading period. Diagnostic assessments are formative evaluations that are conducted prior to a learning segment to identify students’ knowledge of a skill, to obtain a level for instruction during the learning segment, or when an instructor identifies that there is a problem during instruction and wants to identify the depth of the problem (Armstrong et al., 2005; Gronlund, 1998). Whereas, formative assessments are evaluations that are conducted during the learning segment to monitor students’ progress and are used to guide, modify, and differentiate instruction (Armstrong et al., 2005; Burden & Byrd, 2013; Good, 2011; Gronlund, 1998; Tanner, 2001). Both of these types of formative assessments are beneficial to instructors as both allow the instructor to see if the students are learning the segment’s content or skill and to what extent the students are showing growth. However, an issue arises around formative assessment because its purpose is to show whether or not students are learning the segment’s content or skill. Thus, formative assessments are not supposed to be reflected in grade books but used to provide feedback and intervention to students about their progress with the content or skill. However, this is not always the case in some classrooms. In some classrooms, formative assessments are graded and reflected in the grade book, which skews or inflates students’ grades because it is an average of what they did over time and not their final assessment of the skill (Burden & Byrd, 2013). These types of formative assessments consist of guided practice, independent practice, and homework. However, independent practice can be used as a summative assessment after sufficient practice. Due to this, students who are struggling with a skill or concept may be at a disadvantage even if they show growth on the skill at the end of the learning segment; whereas, students who get the skill easily will be at an advantage during the learning segment. However, many instructors are at the mercy of school administrators who set a number of grades to be recorded in students’ final grades.

Downey, C., Steffy, B., English, F., Frase, L., & Poston, W. (2004). The three-minute classroom walk-through. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Good, R. (2011). Formative use of assessment information: It’s a process so let’s say what we mean. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 16(3), 1–6. Gronlund, N. E. (1998). Assessment of student achievement (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Keller, B. (1998). Principal matters. Education Week, 18(11), 25–27. Peterson, K. (2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 60–79. Scriven, M. (1981). Summative teacher evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 244–271). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Tanner, D. E. (2001). Assessing academic achievement. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

ASSESSMENT: SUMMATIVE EVALUATION Casey D. Gilewski University of Memphis In education, there are two basic types of evaluations that measure school, program, or student performance and mastery of topics, skills, and concepts. These evaluations are defined as summative and formative evaluations. Formative evaluations are used to monitor the progress of a school, a program, or student performance and mastery over a given period of time (Armstrong, Henson, & Savage, 2005; Burden & Byrd, 2013). These assessments are used to determine how successful a specific intervention, program, or learning segment is. If successful, it continues. However, if unsuccessful, it is revised and modified to become successful. Summative evaluations are different. These evaluations are used at the end of an intervention or program to determine its effectiveness or at the end of learning segment, course, or grade to gauge the overall understanding and mastery of a concept, skill, topic, or curriculum (Armstrong et al., 2005; Burden & Byrd, 2013). These evaluations are a summary of the overall program, intervention, learning segment, or educational period (e.g., grade, semester, course).

REFERENCES

SUMMATIVE EVALUATION IN SCHOOLS

Armstrong, D. G., Henson, K. T., & Savage, T. V. (2005). Teaching today: An introduction to education (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M. (2013). Methods for effective teaching: Meeting the needs of all students (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

In schools, summative evaluations, like formative assessments, take place on many levels, such as the faculty, school programs, and students. However, no matter the level, summative evaluations have the same goal—to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of a program, intervention, learning segment, or educational period.

58 ◾ ASSESSMENT: SUMMATIVE EVALUATION

Summative Evaluation of the School Faculty Throughout out the school year, instructors are typically formatively evaluated by school administrators via formal and informal classroom observations where they are given feedback to improve on their classroom instruction or classroom management. However, towards the end of the school year, school administrators summatively evaluate instructors. During these evaluations, the school administrator typically evaluates the instructor by comparing formative evaluations collected to the most recent evaluation. This comparison creates a yearly review that can be used to determine whether or not the instructor will receive a teaching contract for the new school year. However, in the age of accountability, classroom observations are not enough to summatively evaluate an instructor’s classroom performance. In today’s time, instructors are summatively evaluated by their students’ performance on standardized assessments, commonly known as the value-added model (VAM) (Peterson, 2004; Rubin, Stuart, Zanutto, 2004; Sanders & Horn, 1998). Value-added model. According to Viteritti (2012), VAM, a type of evaluation introduced by William Sanders, can distinguish effective instructors from ineffective instructors. VAM was created because of the debate that ineffective instructors were being evaluated as satisfactory instructors; yet, this was deemed untrue because it was not supported by data. Therefore, VAM incorporates students’ performance on standardized assessment to determine the effectiveness of instructors by ranking instructors according to their VAM projection (Peterson, 2004; Rubin et al., 2004; Sanders & Horn, 1998; Viteritti, 2012). This type of evaluation has caused unrest in the education community because it affects instructors and students in negative ways. For example, in an article by Onosko (2011), he explains how these results are displayed to the community. Due to this, many instructors are devastated because the results do not reflect all the hard work they have put forth. In turn, many leave the profession because they are devastated by the negative connotation that these evaluations put on them.

Summative evaluations of these programs show student progress from the beginning of the program until the last day. If these programs show growth, then these often continued to be implemented. However, schools are often focused on annual yearly progress (AYP) and not on if programs are effectively helping students. Therefore, if schools are not obtaining the needed growth to make AYP, then these programs are often discarded and the adoption of a new program is started. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION OF STUDENTS According to Burden and Boyd (2013) and Armstrong and colleagues (2005), summative evaluations are assessment measures that are given at the end of a lesson, unit, or chapter to evaluate what students have learned about the concept taught. However, summative assessments are not to be given as sole assessments. Formative assessments are needed because these assessments indicate whether or not a student is progressing towards the lesson objective or goal. Therefore, summative assessments should show student growth from the diagnostic and formative assessments given throughout the learning segment. Thus, summative assessments have to be planned at the beginning of a unit to ensure students will be assessed on what was taught during the lesson segment (Armstrong et al., 2005; Burden & Boyd, 2013). Summative Assessments and Grades Because summative assessments reflect what students currently know about a concept that has been taught, these assessments are graded and should be reflected in progress reports and report cards so that accurate information can be given about students’ academic progress and performance. However, this is not always the case with grade. Formative assessments often skew students’ grades because it is an average of what students did throughout the learning segment. Yet, summative assessments are measures of what students currently know. Therefore, these assessments are truer measures of mastery than an average that is often used with grading (Armstrong et al., 2005; Burden & Boyd, 2013).

Summative Evaluation of School Programs Summative evaluations are not limited to school faculty, but are used to evaluate school programs as well. Schools implement numerous programs (e.g., early intervention programs/groups, Reading Recovery, Read 180, Reading Academy, iStation) to improve student performance on skills, objectives, and end-of-the-year summative assessments. Therefore, while formative assessments are conducted throughout the year to ensure that the programs are being implemented correctly.

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments Summative assessments are often associated with standardized or high stakes assessments. However, these are not the only forms of summative assessments that students are evaluated with. On the other hand, standardized assessments are often the assessments that weigh the most in evaluating students’ performance. Therefore, these assessments affect students’

ASSOCIATION FOR MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION ◾ 59

educational experiences in numerous ways. The most common way in middle school is through tracking. Tracking Tracking is when students are placed in courses based off of ability, academic levels, or talents. These ability and academic levels are determined based off of standardized assessments scores and sometimes based off of classroom performance. According to Hauser and Heubert (1998), many middle school educators oppose tracking because it is a form of segregation based on ability and talents. However, it still occurs in middle schools today. REFERENCES Armstrong, D. G., Henson, K. T., & Savage, T. V. (2005). Teaching today: An introduction to education (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M. (2013). Methods for effective teaching: Meeting the needs of all students (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hauser, R. M., & Heubert, J. P. (1998). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Onosko, J. (2011). Race to the Top leaves children and future citizens behind: The devastating effects of centralization, standardization, and high stakes accountability. Democracy and Education, 19(2), 1. Peterson, K. (2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 60–79. Rubin, D. B., Stuart, E. A., & Zanutto, E. L. (2004). A potential outcomes view of value-added assessment in education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21(1), 103–116. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personal Evaluations in Education, 12(3), 247–256. Viteritti, J. P. (2012). The federal role in school reform: Obama’s Race to the Top. Notre Dame Law Review, 87(5), 2087–2121.

ASSOCIATION FOR MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION Jennifer Smith Monticello Middle School Monticello Community Unit School District 25 The Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) (www.amle.org) is a professional education association

focused on the advancement of education for all students, ages 10 to 15. Founded in 1973 as the National Middle School Association (NMSA), the organization changed its name in 2011 after a vote by the association’s members (Waidelich, 2011). It is the vision of AMLE to help young adolescent students achieve success as learners and guide them to positively contribute to their communities as well as the world. The organization also seeks to advance middle level education by supporting middle level educators in reaching each of their students and assisting these educators in growing as professionals in order to create great schools. AMLE’s mission is to improve the educational experiences of all students by providing vision, knowledge, and resources to educators and leaders while promoting its core values, including integrity, future thinking, respect, and collaboration. The Association for Middle Level Education boasts over 30,000 members ranging from teachers, principals, and administrators to parents and community members from throughout the United States and Canada as well as over 40 other countries. AMLE has a collegiate branch that focuses on the needs of pre-service educators, in addition to having over 50 affiliate organizations within the United States and internationally. These affiliate organizations offer workshops and conferences, provide online content, and produce publications to inform members and strengthen their abilities to positively contribute to middle level education. In addition to educator support offered by affiliates, AMLE hosts annual conferences and workshops as well as provides onsite professional development, webinars, podcasts, and publications. The Association for Middle Level Education also partners with numerous national organizations to advance education for young adolescents. One such organization is the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). As a constituent member of CAEP, AMLE is responsible for the program review process for institutions of higher education that want to achieve national recognition for their middle level teacher education programs. The Association for Middle Level Education developed as a significant force in the promotion of middle level education during the 1980s and has remained a preeminent voice for adolescents and their educators (Clark & Clark, 1993). The organization is known for its groundbreaking position paper This We Believe, first published in 1982. This research based document outlined key characteristics for successful adolescent education and served as a foundational document for middle level education. This We Believe has been reviewed and revised over the years with the most recent publication in 2010 (NMSA). In addition to this foundational document, AMLE is responsible for several print and

60 ◾ ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

online publications including AMLE Magazine, AMLE Newsletter, Middle School Journal, Research in Middle Level Education Online, and numerous books. REFERENCES Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1993). Middle level school reform: The rhetoric and the reality. The Elementary School Journal 93(5), 447–460. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Waidelich, W. D. (2011). AMLE in action. Middle School Journal 43(1), 53.

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Brandi Wade Worsham The University of Georgia Founded in 1943, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, international organization dedicated to addressing trends and issues of learning, teaching, and leading. More specifically, ASCD is committed to providing innovative solutions for professional development, capacity building, and educational leadership to support the success of each student (ASCD, n.d.). ASCD boasts over 140,000 members comprised of superintendents, teachers, professors, and other advocates; advocates from 138 countries; and 56 affiliate organizations. ASCD is a global leader that empowers educators through annual conferences, program initiatives, publications, and professional development—many of which are dedicated to addressing trends and issues in middle grades education. One major focus of ASCD is the publication of newsletters, articles, and books related to the practical application of research on learning, teaching, and leading. For example: • Newsletters, such as Education Update, Policy Priorities, ASCD Express, and ASCD SmartBrief, provide educators with a wealth of information and resources on a wide-range of topics. • A monthly, themed, professional magazine, Educational Leadership, includes practitioner-oriented articles on professional development, capacity building, and educational leadership. • Book publications, such as Adolescent Literacy: An ASCD Action Tool (Beers, 2008), What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action (Marzano, 2003), and Differentiation in Practice Grades 5–9: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum

(Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003), address a variety of trends and issues associated with ASCD’s mission to support and encourage excellence in learning, teaching, and leading. (ASCD, n.d.) ASCD is dedicated to providing effective professional development. Offering on-site, online, and blended professional development, ASCD advocates for learning solutions that align with and adhere to the needs and wants of educators (ASCD, n.d.). Current professional development content includes Common Core Standards; instructional strategies; curriculum design and lesson planning; the whole child; school improvement and reform; teacher effectiveness and evaluation; and other trends and issues related to professional development, capacity building, and educational leadership. Finally, ASCD hosts several collaborative communities to unite members via common interests and locales. For instance: • Affiliates of ASCD work to influence educational policy by advocating for quality learning, teaching, and leading practices. • ASCD’s Connected Communities offer a self-organized forum for educators to discuss trends and issues within a local community. • Professional Interest Communities are member-initiated, special interest groups focused on exchanging ideas, solving problems, and fostering collaborative relationships among a group of members with common interests. There is a Professional Interest Community dedicated to middle grades education. • Student Chapters provide preservice educators opportunities to connect with other professionals as they begin to transition to their career. • Social Networking, such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest, and Google+ represent ASCD’s commitment to reaching educators globally. (ASCD, n.d.) More information about the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development can be obtained at www.ascd.org. REFERENCES Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ about-ascd.aspx Beers, S. (2008). Adolescent literacy: An ASCD action tool. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT ◾ 61 Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice grades 5–9: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT Sandra L. Stacki Hofstra University Debates over the most developmentally appropriate ways to assess students have reached a crescendo. Most public school systems in the United States use standardized assessments for grades 3–8 and high-stakes exams in high schools as part of the No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top federal policies that most states have adopted. Yet, many school stakeholders promote authentic assessment to determine students’ learning needs and outcomes, discourage “teaching to the test” pedagogy, and encourage parents to “opt out” their children from these standardized tests that critics claim are too long, too stressful, and lacking in validity. Assessment should focus on a wide range of cognitive processes and abilities and guide instruction by helping teachers to determine what should be taught and when (Comer, 2011). “Authentic” assessment conceived broadly should holistically engage the students and help them to form and establish their sense of who they are in the world. With authentic assessment processes, including the many new innovative digital means (Comer, 2011; Schurr, 2012), “students can learn to develop their ways of being and inhabiting the world with other people and things. . . . authentic assessment can prepare students for living and working in a changing world” (Vu & Dall’Alba, 2014, p. 779). Thus, rather than completing isolated tasks or standardized exams, authentic assessment engages students in real-life tasks and situations that have real-life value and requires students to show what they have learned in a context that is congruent with real-life experience (Leon & Elias, 1998). Authenticity is a quality of educational processes “that engage students in becoming more fully human” (Vu & Dall’Alba, 2014, p. 787). This scrutiny of assessment through broader lenses aligned in the late 1970s with a reawakened interest in the theories and research of intelligence. Children’s performance, achievement, and assessment received increasing public attention and research during the latter 1980s and early 1990s (Grace, 1992; Maurer, 1996). The rise of authentic assessment resulted from demands for

higher standards, Workforce 2000 which recognized skills needed to be successful in later life, and cognitive and developmental psychological research (Maurer, 1996). Cognitive psychologist Howard Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences became part of this assessment reform movement, focusing on the many kinds of knowledges, talents, abilities, and skills that exist beyond the two that traditional schooling has emphasized and usually tested: verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical. Standardized testing’s emphasis on linguistic and mathematical abilities fails to reflect students’ ability to think critically and creatively and restricts resources or limits the time available to complete the test. Students’ motivation to learn or their capacity to engage in self-assessment is not reflected (Kulieke et al., 1990). Rather than memorizing, students involved in authentic assessment focus on increased understanding by gathering and synthesizing information and then demonstrating their own thinking, meanings, and mastery. Critical and higher-order thinking skills are stressed through these assessments and often multiple approaches or answers can be correct. Assessment labels under the authentic umbrella typically include performances, products, portfolios, or attitudes and values (Schurr, 2012). Considered an ongoing dynamic process, not a one-time test-only event, students engage in learning strategies more dynamically, moving in and out of different tasks (Kulieke et al., 1990). In her texts on authentic assessment (1999, 2012) Schurr characterizes authentic assessment as general, complex tasks involving interrelated subtasks that assess depth of knowledge. Authentic assessment adapts more to strengths, needs, and choices of unique students; encourages critical and creative thinking in which students have time to arrive at the best of many possible answers; and involves students very actively and cooperatively in productive processes. Kulieke et al. (1990) describe these multidimensional assessments in continuums: from decontextualized, atomistic tests (e.g., short answer, fill-in blank, multiple choice, true/false) to authentic, contextualized tasks such as performances and/ or products; from a single measure of student learning to multiple measures; from simple to complex dimensions of learning; from assessment of few dimensions of intelligence to assessment of many dimensions. These characteristics of authentic assessment complement the developmental characteristics and needs of middle school students. Critical thinking, inquiry, and discovery-oriented assessments such as multidimensional projects and exhibitions complement students’ expanding cognitive abilities, especially for abstract thinking. With the focus on real world knowledge and contexts, students’ growing interests in the larger community and their own self-identity within it

62 ◾ AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT

are nourished. This more qualitative approach to assessment encourages students to self-express, create in many directions, and exhibit various abilities and multiple intelligences. As Alexander, Carr, and McAvoy stated in their text Student Oriented Curriculum, “Young adolescents want desperately to do ‘real’ work, things that have meaning for them and significance in their community” (1995, p. 56). They have legitimate and significant concerns about themselves and the larger social, political world around them (Alexander et al., 1995; Beane, 1993). Thus, authentic assessment “encourages and supports students in challenging routine practices, taking a stand on knowledge and experience, and exploring possibilities in light of who they are becoming” (Vu & Dall’Alba, 2014, p. 788), all practices consistent with young adolescent development and with a critical and social justice pedagogy. CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT LINKED: EMPOWERING TEACHERS AND STUDENTS The middle level movement stresses the interdependent priorities of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Viewing assessment as an equal component, educators, often with the help of students, can establish an agenda, communicate it, and learn the extent to which it has impacted students’ learning (Gross, 2002). Assessments should be tied closely to the instructional process, course standards, and worldly curriculum and can take many forms such as projects, demonstrations, exhibitions, and portfolios. Although summative or formal assessments are perhaps more typical and can enlighten instruction, formative or informal authentic assessments can provide more holistic information throughout instruction on students’ readiness, interest, and learning profile (Comer, 2011). This “assessment for learning” approach (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & William, 2003) helps teachers to adjust instruction day by day to meet students’ learning needs. With increased accountability demands from the federal, state, and community levels, which have often led to “teaching to the test,” the issue of alignment can become difficult. Yet, in an educational environment where instruction and assessment are integrated and where the concept of dynamic assessment is an active process in which students and teachers participate, new assessment techniques can be aligned with a constructivist vision for teaching and learning (Leon & Elias, 1998; Maurer, 1996). Promoting student centered learning and individualized attention can empower teachers and students to maintain closer, more communicative relationships and to find and measure each student’s potential. Using authentic curriculum ensures real-world

learning, content connections, and coherence as in interdisciplinary and integrated approaches and brings forward the student voice for a more democratic, student-centered focus (Beane, 1993; Caskey, 2002). Standards and skills promoted in all subject areas can be planned and integrated into an assessment that reflects the criteria from an interdisciplinary unit. Instructional strategies that are varied, stress cooperative learning, performance, and oral demonstrations, and strategies that incorporate numerous multiple intelligence opportunities, can bring out the strengths in students that probably would not be seen in typical or standardized test situations. Traditional tests can misjudge the abilities of some students and lead to damaging mistakes regarding the curricular and placement decisions. Leon and Elias’ (1998) findings suggested that “authentic assessments may provide a method with which we can ‘save’ those students who have traditionally been regarded as failures and passed through the system until they drop out or graduate from high school without adequate skills or a sense of accomplishment” (p. 31). Those students with higher authentic assessments will thus be allowed to reach their potential, be treated more fairly, not fall through the cracks, and not be held back from challenging courses and opportunities by their low standardized test scores. Therefore, authentic assessments also hold strong potential for increasing students’ motivation levels. Instruction that is relevant, academically challenging, and actively engaging will increase students’ levels of motivation and ultimately is more important to achievement (Bracey, 2001). Actively engaging forms of assessment, as with instruction, are also more fun. Young adolescents often have their best learning experiences when they are also having fun in the process (Alexander et al., 1995; Conklin, 2014; Vars, 1993). Teachers are more empowered with authentic assessment practices as they, not a national test manufacturing company, make decisions about which knowledge tied to their own curriculum and instruction should be assessed and how. A teacher interested in whether a student can transfer and apply knowledge to solve a problem in a different but real context is one who is interested in using an authentic assessment tool (Maurer, 1996). Middle school students are also more empowered as these assessments meet their growing needs as individuals, responsible for their own learning. Alexander and colleagues’ (1995) experience with sixth grade students in a student-oriented curriculum demonstrated that students responded positively to empowerment and that teachers should not fear students making their own choices and decisions. Students can become strategic in their own learning process and teachers can better adapt the instructional process to students and communicate expectations and standards to them. Students will then

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT ◾ 63

know what is valued, set personal goals, internalize the required knowledge and skills, and understand that they can help to control and improve their learning (Kulieke et al., 1990). This improved communication between teachers and students can lead to improved relationships, affective gains, and an overall warmer classroom environment and culture (Grace, 1992). DESIGNING AND MEASURING AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT Maurer (1996) indicated that assessment can originate from four sources: students, peers, parents/community, and teachers. When teachers together develop some common sets of criteria, individual, idiosyncratic criteria will be reduced and the resulting assessment will more likely be valid and reliable. Teachers will also claim ownership, understand the criteria, and adhere to them. Design must also clarify purpose and use of assessments, such as making decisions about diagnosis, placement, guidance and counseling, admissions, or certification. Scoring authentic assessments requires complex and more subjective considerations and adds difficulty when comparing results (Schurr 1999). Thus, rubrics are often used to aid assessment, either holistic or analytic, which provide a more thorough analysis of specific strengths and areas for improvement. When students know standards and rubrics beforehand, they are encouraged to judge their own work and validly self-assess (Maurer, 1996). Authentic assessment moves beyond the concept of measuring student learning using multiple choice and other simple tests as single measures of student learning at one point in time. Judgment about students’ abilities is based on the integration of many different sources of information gathered over time (Maurer, 1996). With the focus on more student-centered learning, authentic measurements should be credible, reliable, valid, generalizable, feasible, and user-friendly (Kulieke et a1., 1990; Maurer, 1996; Wiggins 1989). Reliability means scores are consistent when different assessors rate a student and when rated on the same task over time. Validity refers to the assessment accurately measuring the learning domain. Generalizability means that the tasks involve real life skills that can be transferred to solving real world challenges and problems. A recent study by Ashford-Rowe, Herrington, and Brown (2014) identified numerous criteria from which they created a framework to guide the design, development, and application of authentic assessment, including: assessments must be challenging; have a performance or product outcome; ensure transfer of knowledge; involve metacognition; provide for discussion and feedback; address

needs of real-world environment; and incorporate opportunities for collaboration. Over recent years, more digital forms of assessing authentically have been developed. Teachers and students can ease into technology in authentic assessments; students will lead the way when engaged in projects that have real meaning for them (Schurr, 2012). Examples include cyber hunts, or online scavenger hunts, and twitter retelling in which students succinctly summarize storyline or character viewpoints and can design mock Twitter web pages (Comer, 2011). Portfolios, class wikis which many students contribute to, edited photo and movie clips that create website presentations are other digital ideas (Schurr, 2012). Brader, Luke, Klenowski, Connolly, and Behzadpour (2014) have also found that digital assessments through a network of flexible learning centers can reconnect students who have disengaged from school to earn acceptable credentials. Students often create portfolios of their assessments—their multiple, varied tasks worked on, collected, and measured over time. Some educators value videotaped portfolios to help parents understand their children’s growth. For Schurr (2012), a portfolio is a “systematic, integrated and meaningful collection of a student’s day-to-day work showing that student’s efforts, progress, or achievement in one or more subjects. A portfolio includes evidence of the student’s critical self-reflection and participation in setting the focus of the portfolio, selecting the contents of the portfolio, and judging the portfolio’s merit” (p. 9). Essays, reports, letters, creative writing pieces, poetry, problems and solutions, response logs, reviews, journal entries, interviews, illustrations, maps, photographs, comic strips, dioramas, collaborative works, workbook exercises, quizzes, self-assessment checklists, teacher comments, peer reviews, parental observations and comments, rough drafts and revisions, and pre-tests that assess what a student already knows on a particular topic as in differentiated learning approaches (Grace, 1992) might all be components of a portfolio. This multidimensional exhibition can demonstrate numerous skills related to defined standards such as reading, writing, questioning, expressing, and listening. “Wide use of portfolios can stimulate a shift in classroom practices and education policies toward schooling that more fully meets the range of children’s developmental needs” (Grace,1992, p. 2). REFERENCES Alexander, W. M., Carr, D., & McAvoy, K. (1995). Student-oriented curriculum: Asking the right questions. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Ashford-Rowe, K., Herrington, J., & Brown, C., (2014). Establishing the critical elements that determine authentic

64 ◾ AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 205–222. Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University. Bracey, G. W. (2001). Research—At the beep, pay attention. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 555. Brader, A., Luke, A., Klenowski, V., Connolly, S., & Behzadpour, A. (2014). Designing online assessment tools for disengaged youth. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(7), 698–717. Caskey, M. (2002). Authentic curriculum: Strengthening middle level education. In V. A. Anfara, Jr., & S. L. Stacki (Eds.), Middle school curriculum, instruction, and assessment (pp. 103–117). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Comer, M. (2011). Young adult literature and alternative assessment measures. Theory into Practice, 50, 239–246. Conklin, H. G. (2014). Toward more joyful learning: Integrating play into frameworks of middle grades teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1227–1255. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books. Grace, K. (1992). The portfolio and its use: Developmentally appropriate assessment of young children. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351 150). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED351150.pdf

Gross, S. J. (2002). Introduction: Middle-level curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In V. A. Anfara, Jr. & S. L. Stacki (Eds.), Middle school curriculum, instruction, and assessment (pp. ix–xxxii). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Kulieke, M., Bakker, J., Collins, C., Fennimore, T., Fine, C., Herman, J., . . . Tinzmann, M. B. (1990). Why should assessment be based on a vision of learning? Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Leon S., & Elias, M. (1998). A comparison of portfolio, performance, and traditional assessment in the middle school. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 21(2), 21–37. Maurer, R. E. (1996). Designing alternative assessments for interdisciplinary curriculum in middle and secondary schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Schurr, S. (1999). Authentic assessment: Using product, performance, and portfolio measures. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Schurr, S. (2012). Authentic assessment: Active, engaging product and performance measures. Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education. Vu, T., & Dall’Allba, G. (2014). Authentic assessment for student learning: An ontological conceptualisation. Educational Philosophy and Theory: Incorporating ACCESS, 46(7), 778–791. Vars, G. F. (1993). Interdisciplinary teaching: Why & how. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703–714.

B BEANE, JAMES A. Candy Beal North Carolina State University James Beane, influential leader of the middle school movement, is a guiding force for democratic schools and an architect of the process of teaching and learning through integrative curricula. He is an emeritus university professor, consultant, and well-published author known especially for A Middle School Curriculum: From Rhetoric to Reality (Beane, 1990, 1993), Curriculum Integration: Designing the Core of Democratic Education (Beane, 1997), and A Reason to Teach: Creating Classrooms of Dignity and Hope (Beane, 2005). His numerous articles address crafting and teaching curricula that practice democracy in the classroom and are developmentally responsive to the needs of young adolescents. He has received numerous awards for his teaching and his service including the University Faculty Award for Professional Excellence from St. Bonaventure University in 1987; the Distinguished Alumni Award from the Graduate School of Education, SUNY, Buffalo in 1996; the James E. Stoltenberg Award from Wisconsin Association for Middle Level Education in 1996; and the John H. Lounsbury Distinguished Service Award from National Middle School Association in 1997. Beane’s work began in the formative years of the middle school movement when criticism of American schools was at its height and junior high schools were failing to meet the needs of young adolescents. Lock step teaching and learning, use of teacher-proof lessons, and subscribing to the factory model of education ignored studies that showed the success of using an integrated curriculum. Beane brought new life to The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 65–77 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

curricula and classrooms by inviting the participants in the education process to be part of the conversation, thus providing for the voices of students and teachers and honoring their collaboration. In a world charged with change and turmoil, Beane recognized the need for democratic education. His belief that future voters were prepared to engage in the democratic process only if they practiced and learned democratic ways in their classrooms is the foundation of his concept of an integrative curriculum. Beane’s vision for the curriculum integration process is student driven/teacher guided and enables both to become learners and facilitators, partners in a democratic process. Curriculum integration values students’ examination of personal and social problems and issues of daily living in the context of research, discussion, and collaboration. Subject areas are not studied separately, but are the sources that provide the tools needed to address and answer the students’ big questions. The tenets of Beane’s (1997) curriculum integration process were: 1. Students ask, research, and answer big questions in collaboration with others. 2. Teachers differentiate instruction, assignments, and assessments. 3. Continuous informal assessment is conducted. 4. A public presentation of final projects is the culminating activity. Beane credits outstanding classroom teachers with growing and sustaining the middle school movement over time. He warns that a stalled middle school movement needs new energy and direction. He cites lesson learned in the history of the middle school process as knowing your critics’ agendas and having a clear understanding that the use of standardized testing to measure student

65

66 ◾ BERGMANN, SHERREL

achievement is detrimental to students and against all we know about good teaching and learning. James Beane is a gifted leader for yesterday, today, and tomorrow. REFERENCES Beane, J. A. (1990). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Beane, J. A. (2005). A reason to teach: Creating classrooms of dignity and hope. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

BERGMANN, SHERREL Sheila Rogers Gloer Baylor University Sherrel Bergmann, author, professor, and 1999 recipient of the John H. Lounsbury Distinguished Service Award, spent her career advocating for counseling and strong advisory programs in middle grades schools and writing about the social-emotional wellbeing of young adolescents. She was also co-founder of the Association of Illinois Middle Level Schools and served on the National Middle Schools Association (NMSA, now Association for Middle Level Education) board of trustees (1978). She co-chaired NMSA Research Committee (1980–1982) and was a member of the NMSA Professional Preparation Advisory Board (1981–1984, 1993) (Smith & McEwin, 2011). In 1989, Bergmann conducted a survey of 220 students identified as “at risk,” aged 11 to 16, and their principals in 20 diverse middle level schools. Her findings resulted in 14 recommendations for developing programs for students who repeatedly cause classroom disturbances (Bergmann, 1989). This work is representative of her advocacy for the developmental well-being of young adolescents. Bergmann is known for counseling young adolescents and working with teachers and parents. She noted her concern for parental involvement in students’ education: There are many barriers to effective communication with parents, . . . but none of that will change unless the school designs a comprehensive program to get parents involved early on and keep them involved throughout their child’s entire education. . . . The bottom line is that when parents are positively involved in the schooling of their child or adolescent, that child or adolescent does better in school. (Bergmann, Brough, & Shepard, 2008)

She has authored many books and articles, which suggest ways to help guide parents, teachers and young adolescents through the socio-emotional factors that confront them (Bergmann, 1986, 1989; Bergmann & Baxter, 1983; Bergmann & Creighton, 1987; Bergmann & Rudman 1985; Bergmann, Brough, & Shepard, 2008; and Bergmann & Vars, 1972). Bergmann also contributed to NMSA publications including This We Believe: Developmentally Responsive Middle Level Schools (NMSA, 1995), This We Believe . . . And Now We Must Act, (Bergmann, 2001), and This We Believe in Action (Bergmann, 2005) that describe characteristics of the middle school concept. Bergmann earned her undergraduate degree in secondary education in 1969 from Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant and then taught public school until 1971. She earned her Master’s Degree in Counseling from Kent State University, Kent, Ohio in 1973 and doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction in 1976. While completing both masters and doctoral degrees, she taught on the same interdisciplinary team with Gordon Vars, middle level founder, at the Kent Laboratory School (Arth et al., 2005). After her graduation, Bergmann became chair of the Department of Education at Lake Forest College, Chicago, Illinois from 1976 to 1978. She then became a faculty member at National Louis University, Chicago, where she was also director of the Middle Level Curriculum Center and Associate Dean of the Graduate School. Bergmann officially retired in 1996; however, she has remained active in middle school education as an author and consultant. REFERENCES Arth, A., Bergmann, S., Brazee, E., Burkhardt, R., Gatewood, T., Lounsbury, E., . . . Vars, G. (2005). Middle school pioneer John Lounsbury. Baylor University Institute for Oral History. [Interviewed by Gloer, S. R., pp. 1-28]. Bergmann, S. (1986). Making decisions about the tough topics: A necessary skill for transescents. The Clearing House, 60(1), 24–26. Bergmann, S. (1989). Discipline and guidance: A thin line in the middle level school: What at-risk students say about middle level school discipline and teaching. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Bergmann, S. (2001). Comprehensive guidance and support services. In T. O. Erb (Ed.), This we believe—and now we must act (pp. 108–115) Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Bergmann, S. K. (2005). Multifaceted guidance and support services. In T. O. Erb (Ed.), This we believe in action (pp. 165–172). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Bergmann, S., & Baxter, J. (1983). Building a guidance program and advisory concept for early adolescents. NASSP Bulletin, 67(463), 49–55.

BRAIN DEVELOPMENT ◾ 67 Bergmann, S., Brough, J., & Shepard, D. (2008) Teach my kid I dare you! The educator’s essential guide to parent involvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Bergmann, S., & Creighton, T. (1987). Parent-student communication: A middle level school challenge. Middle School Journal, 19(1), 18–20. Bergmann, S., & Rudman, G. J. (1985) Decision-making skills for middle school students. Washington DC: National Education Association. Bergmann, S., & Vars, G. (1972). The middle school counselor: A teacher-perspective. Middle School Journal, 3(5), 38–39. National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author. Smith, T. W., & McEwin, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

BRAIN DEVELOPMENT Carol Goldfus Levinsky College of Education Anit Karni-Tagger Levinsky College of Education Adolescence is a period characterized by great change, hormonal, physical, psychological and social. This process of transition from childhood to adulthood begins at approximately the onset of puberty and therefore is marked by dramatic noticeable changes in physical appearance that includes rapid physical growth and secondary sexual characteristics (Blakemore, Burnett, & Dahl, 2010); there is a change in behavior, such as separation from family and bonding with peers. This is why for a long period it was thought that adolescent behavior was due to hormonal activity and puberty (Goddings, Heyes, Bird, Viner, & Blakemore, 2012). However, although the timing of puberty and adolescence overlap, the terms are not the same (Spear, 2000). In the last two decades, with the increasing development and use of brain imaging technologies such as fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), there has been an accumulation of findings on the previously hidden structural and functional changes that occur in the developing adolescent brain (Giedd et al., 2010). In the past, it was assumed that brain development was essentially complete by the age of 12. No one anticipated that the brain was still growing (Feinstein, 2011), and reorganizing (Steinberg, 2015). The cumulative analyzed data from longitudinal neuroimaging research revealed that although by the age of six our brain is about 95% of its adult size, maximum brain size does not mean brain maturity. There are still profound structural changes that

take place within the brain during adolescence which continue until our mid-20s (Johnson, Blum, & Giedd, 2009). The main changes revealed in neuroimaging studies of the developing adolescent brain are: over-production of gray matter, synaptic pruning, and myelination. OVER-PRODUCTION OF GRAY MATTER AND SYNAPTIC PRUNING Overproduction of gray matter is the process of nerve cells making new synaptic connections called synaptogenesis, which can last up to several months or years, peaking at about the time of puberty. This peak is followed by a decline, a process of competitive elimination called “pruning,” where the excess connections are eliminated and a stabilization of synaptic density to adult levels is reached (Choudhury, Charman, & Blakemore, 2008). This inverted u-shaped process of thickening and thinning of gray matter (Mills, Lalonde, Clasen, Giedd, & Blakemore, 2014) is not a change in the actual number of brain cells, but the growth in size and complexity of connections with previously existing brain cells (Giedd, 2003). Scientists were aware that this process happened in the womb and during the first four years of life, in the sensory motor associated areas of the brain (Choudhury et al., 2008), but only after individual children were scanned in a longitudinal study was this second wave of overproduction of gray matter at the onset of puberty noted (Giedd, 2003). The extensive pruning of the adolescent brain is greatly influenced by the environment, operating according to the principle of “use it or lose it,” discarding redundant and unused dendrites and synaptic connections and strengthening ones that are active. This process allows for fewer more specialized nerve cells (Hinton, Koji, & Della-Chies, 2008), which enables the brain to perform more efficiently. MYELINATION Myelin is a fatty substance that acts like an insulator, speeding up the transmission of information by electrical impulses from neuron to neuron to a hundred times faster (Giedd, 2003). It appears white in MRI scans and so is usually called white matter. Sensory and motor brain regions are fully myelinated in the first few years of life, but as Yakovlev and Lecours (1967) stated, frontal cortex neurons continue to be myelinated well into adolescence (Blakemore & Firth, 2005). Another area that undergoes substantial changes during adolescence is the left arcuate fasciculus, connecting Wernicke’s area (reception of speech) with Broca’s area (production of speech). Clear connections have been established between sensory and motor functions and the myelination of their neuroanatomical foundations (Giedd, 2003). New imaging

68 ◾ BRAIN DEVELOPMENT

techniques such as diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) which detect myelination of white matter tracts further confirm an increase in white matter arrangement throughout adolescence, which correlates in specific brain regions with cognitive improvements. For example, Nagy, Westerberg, and Klingberg (2004) showed improvements in relation to language; Deutsch et al., (2005) to reading; Liston et al., (2006) to the ability to inhibit a response and Nagy et al. (2004) to memory (Giedd et al., 2010). The activities in which an adolescent participates are the ones that are myelinated, allowing increase in working memory, and an experience of ease and competence with learning (Feinstein, 2011). Whether it is playing sports, a computer game, a musical instrument, reading, or riskier activities such as smoking or using drugs, the neural pathways that are associated with those activities are the ones that will be hard-wired in the adolescent’s brain, which can have a powerful influence on the ultimate physical structure of the brain (Giedd, 2003). This makes adolescence a time in which environmental experiences, including teaching, can mold the brain in a profound way. Given the adolescent brain’s extreme plasticity makes this period a window of opportunity for learning (Blakemore & Mills, 2014). The most profound changes in the adolescent brain take place in the prefrontal cortex (Giedd, 2008) which is associated with sophisticated thinking abilities, executive functioning, response inhibition, attention, organization, long-range planning and is the last to mature (Steinberg, 2011a, Steinberg, 2011b). There is a shifting balance between competing neural systems. This means that various cognitive and emotional networks mature at a different pace (Choudhury et al., 2008). Teens are still learning how to understand; abstract thinking is newly developed. Connecting lesson content to their interests, to what they already know and giving them time to process new information can be advantageous. This is why teachers should provide meaningful learning experiences with clear instructions that enable students at all levels to advance toward mastery of a common set of skills (Hinton, Fischer, & Glenn, 2012). Student-centered approaches to learning require pupils to be self-directed and  responsible for their own learning, which demands executive functioning skills such as goal setting, planning, and monitoring progress (Hinton et al., 2012). It is important to remember that neural connections that are not used will be eliminated (Choudhury et al., 2008). THE SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL BRAIN Adolescents differ from adults in their ability to read and understand emotions in the faces of others. Teens and adults use different brain regions to respond to certain tasks. The insight, reasoning and judgment power of their frontal cortex is not used during the task as it is in

adults, and they respond differently to the outside world (Yurgelun-Todd & Killgore, 2006). Considering teens have less ability to manage or read emotions in others, teachers should make sure that their students understand what they mean, and what they expect. Recent studies have shown that the more complex social processes, such as social emotional processing and negotiating complex interpersonal decisions, continue to develop throughout adolescence (Blakemore & Mills, 2014). STRESS Adolescence can be considered almost by definition as a stressful life stage (Spear, 2000). It is a period characterized by a heightened tendency to experience negative and widely fluctuating mood states (Somerville, Jones, & Casey, 2010). Emotion is extremely relevant to education, especially in the context of stress. Low levels of stress can be positive and may even contribute to motivation; however, elevated levels of frequent or prolonged stress can be toxic to the brain (Hinton et al., 2012). Teachers should take into account the emotional brain, and since teens are sensitive to reward (dopamine) (Spear, 2000), learning should be experiential and challenging (Steinberg, 2015). The reward centers of the adolescent brain are a great deal more active than those of children or adults, making teenagers novelty- and thrill-seekers (Steinberg, 2011a). Adolescents are also more prone to risky, impulsive behaviors (Steinberg, 2011b), especially in the presence of peers, when there is potential for peer approval or a way to avoid social exclusion (Blakemore & Mills, 2014). Teenagers become more emotional and sensitive to other people’s opinions and evaluations especially their peers (Steinberg, 2015), therefore it is important teachers remember that environments that promote positive relationships and a sense of community promote learning (Hinton et al., 2012). The amygdala (part of the emotional brain) is accessed directly for decisions, creating vulnerability to stress (Casey, Jones, & Hare, 2008); hence teachers can create and use social interaction in class through group or pair work encouraging sharing ideas and assignments. Furthermore, providing stimulating, structured, and supervised after-school activities for adolescents can limit the amount of time students are in situations where they are likely to experiment with alcohol, illicit drugs, and sex (Steinberg, 2015). Recent studies emphasize the association between different neural systems as well as on how social context and individual traits affect these behaviors (Willoughby, Good, Adachi, Hamza, & Tavernier, 2013). In some cases, taking a risk may obtain the preferred outcome (Blakemore & Mills, 2014).

BRAIN DEVELOPMENT ◾ 69

TECHNOLOGY In recent years, rapid technological development, especially electronic media, has become an integral part of our lives, has changed our relationship with each other, with ourselves, and the way we receive information (Galon & Cohen, 2014). The extensive changes that the teenage brain undergoes make it particularly susceptible to the influence of the environment, especially the technological world (Feinstein, 2011), which has both positive and negative influences. Instant messaging has a positive influence on the quality of relationships because it encourages and enables self-disclosure and intimacy. It is also a form of self-expression through writing and reading which virtual environments magnify. Wright (2002) stated that in contrast to talking, writing promotes self-focus, self-reflection, organization of thoughts, ideas, and feelings, as well as ventilating and therapeutic effects. These effects usually increase physical and emotional well-being (Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013). Social networking has created new social spaces; the lack of visibility contributes to the sense of autonomy and reduces inhibitions (Galon & Cohen, 2014). On the other hand, some neuroscientists suggest that face to face interaction activates mirror neurons in the brain which help us develop empathy; increase in digitally mediated socializing may result in reduced empathy (Bradley, 2011). Takahashi et al., (2007) claimed that Internet use has a positive effect on the brain and produces high-order thinking (Feinstein, 2011). Research has shown that positive feedback for correct answers releases the neurotransmitter dopamine, which motivates the adolescents to continue learning, but it is important to choose items that do not promote violence or addiction (Feinstein, 2011), especially considering the adolescent’s vulnerability to risk and reward. Rapid information processing demanded by technology no doubt impacts the brain. Speed and switching from activity to activity occur at the expense of executive function and judgment, which is still developing during adolescence and may cause inefficient learning and retention (Choudhury & McKinney, 2013). The overall results of a recent study in young adolescents (ages 11– 15), suggest that media multitasking is negatively related to executive function in everyday life (Baumgartner, Weeda, van der Heijden, & Huizinga, 2014). In conclusion, cutting-edge neuroscience research concerns the developing adolescent brain. Today, it is known that adolescence is a period of intense brain growth and that the prefrontal lobe is not fully myelinated, thus the adolescents’ monitoring ability and control systems are not yet fully developed. This discovery means that from an academic and social point of view, a window of opportunity for learning is available. If this opportunity is missed, it not only results in less learning, but also in a lower future

ability to learn. This failure to learn may impact on both academic and social aspects of the teens’ future life. According to neuroscientist Giedd, “You are hard-wiring your brain in adolescence. Do you want to hard-wire it for sports and playing music and doing math, or for lying on the couch in front of the television?” (ACT for Youth Upstate Center for Excellence, 2002, p. 1). REFERENCES ACT for Youth Upstate Center of Excellence. (2002). Research facts and findings: Adolescent brain development. Retrieved from http://www.actforyouth.net/resources/rf/rf_ brain_0502.pdf Baumgartner, S. E., Weeda, W. D., van der Heijden, L. L., & Huizinga, M. (2014). The relationship between media multitasking and executive function in early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8), 1120–1144. Blakemore, S. J., Burnett, S., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). The role of puberty in the developing adolescent brain. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 926–933. Blakemore, S. J., & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain: Lessons for education. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Blakemore, S. J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? The Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187–207. Bradley, K. (2011). Can teens really do it all? Techno multitasking learning & performance. Independent School, 70, 92–99. Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 111–126. Choudhury, S., Charman, T., & Blakemore, S. J. (2008). Development of the teenage brain. Mind, Brain and Education, 2, 142–147. Choudhury, S., & McKinney, K. A. (2013). Digital media, the developing brain and the interpretive plasticity of neuroplasticity. Transcultural Psychiatry, 50(2), 192–215. Deutsch, G. K., Dougherty, R. F., Bammer, R., Siok, W. T., Gabrieli, J. D., & Wandell, B. (2005). Children’s reading performance is correlated with white matter structure measured by diffusion tensor imaging. Cortex, 41(3), 354–363. Dolev-Cohen, M., & Barak, A. (2013). Adolescents’ use of instant messaging as a means of emotional relief. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 58–63. Feinstein, S. (2011). The teenage brain and technology. Learning Landscapes, 5, 71–84. Galon, E., & Cohen, R. (2014). Parents and parenting in a developing digital reality: The challenge of significant parenting in the internet age. Adult Education in Israel, 13, 160–181. Giedd, J. N. (2003). The anatomy of mentalization: A view from developmental neuroimaging. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 67, 132–142. Giedd, J. N. (2008). The teen brain: Insights from neuroimaging. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 335–343. Giedd, J. N., Stockman, M., Weddle, C., Liverpool, M., Alexander-Bloch, A., & Gregory, L. (2010). Anatomic magnetic resonance imaging of the developing child and

70 ◾ BRAIN GROWTH PERIODIZATION adolescent brain and effects of genetic variation. Neuropsychological Review, 20, 349–361. Goddings, A.-L., Heyes, S. B., Bird, G., Viner, R. M., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2012). The relationship between puberty and social processing. Developmental Science, 15, 801–811. Hinton, C., Fischer, K. W., & Glennon, C. (2012). Mind, brain and education. Students at the Center: Teaching and Learning in the Era of the Common Core. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future. Retrieved from http://www. studentsatthecenter.org/sites/scl.dl-dev.com/files/ Mind%20Brain%20Education.pdf Hinton, C., Koji, M., & Della-Chies, B. (2008). Learning and emotions: Implications for education research, policy and practice. European Journal of Education, 43, 87–103. Johnson, S. B., Blum, R. W., & Giedd, J. N. (2009). Adolescent maturity and the brain: The promise and pitfalls of neuroscience research in adolescent health policy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 216–221. Liston, C., Watts, R., Tottenham, N., Davidson, M. C., Niogi, S., Ulug, A. M., & Casey, B. J. (2006). Frontostriatal microstructure modulates efficient recruitment of cognitive control. Cerebral Cortex, 16(4), 553–560. Mills, K. L., Lalonde, F., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N., & Blakemore, S. J. (2014). Developmental changes in the structure of the social brain in late childhood and adolescence. Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(1), 123–131. Nagy, Z., Westerberg, H., & Klingberg, T. (2004). Maturation of white matter is associated with the development of cognitive functions during childhood. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1227–1233. Somerville, L. H., Jones, R. M., & Casey, B. J. (2010). A time of change: Behavioral and neural correlates of adolescent sensitivity to appetitive and aversive environmental cues. Brain and Cognition, 72, 124–33. Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 417–463. Steinberg, L. (2011a). Adolescence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Steinberg, L. (2011b). Demystifying the adolescent brain. Educational Leadership, 68, 41–46. Steinberg, L. (2015). New foundations of adolescent learning. Independent School, 74, 94–100. Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Hayashi, M., Okubo, Y., Takano, A., Ito, H., & Suhara, T. (2007). Memory and frontal lobe functions: Possible relations with dopamine D2 receptors in the hippocampus. Neuroimage, 34(4), 1643–1649. Willoughby, T., Good, M., Adachi, P. J., Hamza, C., & Tavernier, R. (2013). Examining the link between adolescent brain development and risk-taking from a social-developmental perspective. Brain and Cognition, 83, 315–323. Wright, J. (2002). Online counselling: Learning from writing therapy. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 30, 285–298. Yakovlev, P. A., & Lecours, I. R. (1967). The myelogenetic cycles of regional maturation of the brain. In A. Minkowski (Ed.), Regional development of the brain in early life (pp. 3–70). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Yurgelun-Todd, D. A., & Killgore, W. D. (2006). Fear-related activity in the prefrontal cortex increases with age during adolescence: A preliminary fMRI study. Neuroscience Letters, 406, 194–199.

BRAIN GROWTH PERIODIZATION Micki M. Caskey Portland State University Brain growth periodization or brain periodization was a theory of human brain growth stages developed in the 1970s by Herman T. Epstein, professor of biophysics in the Department of Biology at Brandeis University. Epstein (1978) reported that the human brain undergoes alternating periods of growth spurts and growth plateaus from birth to adolescence. Using multiple data sources, Epstein hypothesized the existence of five major brain growth stages at the ages of 3–10 months, 2–4 years, 6–8 years, 10–12 years, and 14–16 years in about 85% of children. He also hypothesized that virtually no growth occurred during the intervals between these stages. Epstein’s hypotheses generated a flurry of interest in the theory of brain periodization and it implications for middle grades education (Epstein & Toepfer, 1978). However, interest waned by the mid-1980s when others analyzed Epstein’s research methodology and challenged his conclusions (Hutson, 1985; McQueen, 1984; Pellegrini, 1984). Attention and support for the theory of brain growth periodization rose and declined within a few decades. Beginning in the early 1970s, Epstein began disseminating his perspectives regarding mind and brain growth (Epstein, 1974a, 1974b). He coined the term, phrenoblysis, to describe the spurts in the human brain and mind. Epstein (1974a) explained, “phreno” comes from the Greek word meaning skull or mind, while “blysis” indicates a welling-up of matter (p. 207). His research connected increases in brain weight with skull circumference increases, identifying growth spurts at ages 6–8 years, 10–12 years, 14–17 years and possibly 2–years. Subsequently, Epstein analyzed data from 13 independent studies to determine the existence of specific brain growth spurts at 2–4 years, 6–8 years, 10–12 years, and 14–16 years; he noted a clear low growth rate at 12–14 years (Epstein, 1974b). By the end of the 1970s and into the 1980s, Epstein’s theory of brain growth periodization made its way into the literature of the education profession, including Educational Leadership (e.g., Epstein & Toepfer, 1978; McQueen, 1984) and the Middle School Journal (e.g., Brazee, 1983; Strahan, 1985; Strahan & Toepfer, 1984). In 1977, Epstein presented his theory of brain growth periodization at the National Middle School Association’s annual conference. His presentation caught the interest and attention of middle grades educators (Brazee, 1983), who wanted to know more about the learning capacities of young adolescents. In 1978, Epstein and Toepfer called on educators to adjust middle

BRAIN GROWTH PERIODIZATION ◾ 71

grades programs in light of the predicted slow brain growth period of ages 12 to 14. They postulated that during this period the brain did not have the capacity for complex thinking and recommended curricula that avoided the introduction of novel cognitive skills (p. 658). Epstein (1981) hypothesized that the brain growth stages corresponded to Piaget’s cognitive stages of development and suggested altering curricula to match students’ cognitive levels. For a time, the theory of brain growth periodization received attention from middle grades academics. The National Middle School Association’s position paper, This We Believe (1982) mentioned the emergence of brain periodization and other theories for their member’s consideration. A number of middle grades academics (Brazee, 1983; Hester & Hester, 1983; Strahan, 1985; Strahan & Toepfer, 1984) summarized brain periodization theory and suggested implications for middle grades programs. During this period—the late 1970s and early 1980s, psychologists were also exploring the learning capacities of young adolescents. For example, Adelson’s (1983) research of younger and older adolescents led him to conclude that older adolescents had a greater capacity for abstract thinking. Nevertheless, he advised against waiting to present challenging concepts to young adolescent, and instead, advocated for “making education a source of continuous challenge” (p. 162). His cautionary stance reflected his awareness that psychology was just beginning to gain a sense of the way youngsters in early adolescence develop their thinking capacities. In “Improving Instruction in Middle Level Schools: Implications of Neurological Data for Curriculum Development,” Toepfer (1986) cited both Adelson’s findings about young adolescents’ thinking capacities and Epstein’s brain growth periodization theory; he contended that there were educational implications from both. Toepfer and other middle grades academics had a common goal: understanding young adolescents—their thinking, learning capacities, and development. For this reason, they remained open to findings from psychologists (e.g., Adelson) and biologists (e.g., Epstein) In contrast, researchers and other scientists took a more critical stance. In the case of Epstein’s theory, Gould (1981), McQueen (1984), and Pellegrini (1984) thoroughly analyzed and raised questions about his research methodology. Examination of original data sources, led Gould (1981) to find fault with Epstein’s work as reported in The Mismeasure of Man. Later, Pellegrini and McQueen criticized Epstein’s assertions citing the misleading use of data and advised against classroom application of the theory. Epstein (1984) responded to early criticisms of brain periodization, yet support for his theory of brain periodization diminished due to flawed research methods and analyses.

Critiques of Epstein’s work continued into the 1990s (McCall, 1990). Brain periodization theory had a unique and brief appearance in middle grades education. The theory had minimal effect on the curricula or instruction of middle schools (Brazee, 1983). Reference to brain growth periodization disappeared from educational journals and middle school literature in the late 1980s. In about a decade, the theory of brain growth periodization had gained and lost the attention of the educational community. REFERENCES Adelson, J. (1983). The growth of thought in adolescence. Educational Horizons, 61(4), 156–62. Brazee, E. N. (1983). Brain periodization—Challenge not justification. Middle School Journal, 15(1), 8–9, 30. Epstein, H. T. (1974a). Phrenoblysis: Special brain and mind growth periods. I. Human brain and skull development. Developmental Psychobiology, 7(3), 207–216. Epstein, H. T. (1974b). Phrenoblysis: Special brain and mind growth periods. II. Human brain and skull development. Developmental Psychobiology, 7(3), 217–224. Epstein, H. T. (1978). Growth spurts during brain development: Implications for educational policy and practice. In J. S. Chall & A. F. Mirsky (Eds.), Education and the brain (pp. 343–370). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Epstein, H. T. (1981). Learning to learn: Matching instruction to cognitive levels. Principal, 60(5), 25–30. Epstein, H. T. (1984). Brain growth and cognitive development: A response to Richard McQueen. Educational Leadership, 41(5), 72–75. Epstein, H. T., & Toepfer, C. F., Jr. (1978). A neuroscience basis for reorganizing middle grades education. Educational Leadership, 35(8), 656–8, 660. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co. Hester, J. P., & Hester, P. J. (1983). Brain research and the middle school curriculum. Middle School Journal, 15(1) 4–7, 30. Hutson, B. A. (1985). Brain growth spurts—What’s left by the middle school years? Middle School Journal, 16(2), 8–10. McCall, R. B. (1990). The neuroscience of education: More research is needed before application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 885–888. McQueen, R. (1984). Spurts and plateaus in brain growth: A critique of the claims of Herman Epstein. Educational Leadership, 41(5), 66–69, 71. National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author. Pellegrini, A. D. (1984). Some questions about the basic tenets of brain periodization research. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 11, 165–169. Strahan, D. B. (1985). Brain growth spurts and middle grades curriculum: Readiness remains the issue. Middle School Journal, 16(2), 11–13.

72 ◾ BREAKING RANKS FRAMEWORK Strahan, D. B., & Toepfer, C. F., Jr. (1984). Transescent thinking: Renewed rationale for exploratory learning. Middle School Journal, 15(2), 8–11. Toepfer, C. F., Jr. (1986, May). Improving instruction in middle level schools: Implications of neurological data for curriculum development. Paper presented to the New England School Development Council Middle School Workshop Westboro, ME. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED270883).

BREAKING RANKS FRAMEWORK Patti Kinney Educational Consultant In 1996, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) released Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution, a groundbreaking guide to improving and reforming high schools for the 21st century (NASSP, 1996). The 82 recommendations contained in the report were based on the work of many wellknown researchers and practitioners of that era and challenged policy makers and school leaders to make high schools more student-centered through personalized programs, support services, and intellectual challenges for all students. Many of the recommendations mirrored existing practices at middle level schools. Recognizing that many of the 82 recommendations were outside the purview of the principal’s influence, NASSP narrowed the scope of the original report and in 2004 published Breaking Ranks II: Strategies for Leading High School Reform (BRII) (NASSP, 2004). Focusing only on the recommendations over which principals had influence, the original recommendations were combined and reduced to 31 and assigned to one of three core areas: (a) collaborative leadership and professional learning communities; (b) personalization; and (c) curriculum, instruction, and assessment. This publication also articulated seven cornerstone strategies to serve as entry points for school improvement. When combined and implemented with fidelity, the cornerstones were designed to serve as the foundation for improving student performance within the school. Shortly after the release of BRII, NASSP began work on a similar volume that focused on improvement at the middle level, and in 2006 released Breaking Ranks in the Middle: Strategies for Leading Middle Level Reform (BRIM) (NASSP, 2006). Even though it used cornerstone strategies, recommendations, and core areas similar to the ones articulated in BRII, BRIM clearly recognized that reforms at the middle level must be implemented based on the unique developmental and academic needs of young adolescents. The recommendations and

improvement strategies espoused in BRIM were also in close alignment with those found in other middle level reform efforts including Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989), Turning Points 2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000), This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School Association, 2010), and the Schools to Watch criteria (National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, n.d.). This volume also contained numerous middle level school profiles and vignettes that illustrated the successful application of the BRIM strategies; essays on best middle level practices written by well-known experts in the field; and numerous surveys and forms to be used by the school to gather data on their school improvement efforts. It should be noted that BRII and BRIM were not designed as a model of school reform, but rather as a framework to guide improvement efforts. The strength of the Breaking Ranks Framework is that it does not prescribe a specific model or blueprint that the school must follow, but instead recognizes the uniqueness of individual schools and provides them with the tools and strategies necessary to build a customized plan that meets the needs of their students and community. Recognizing the changing educational environment and complexity that school leaders faced, the framework was again updated in 2011 and this time addressed school improvement for all grade levels, K–12. Breaking Ranks: The Comprehensive Framework for School Improvement (NASSP, 2011) incorporated research and practices developed since BRII and BRIM were published as well as elements from supplemental publications in the Breaking Ranks series: Breaking Ranks: A Field Guide for Leading Change (NASSP, 2009) and 10 Skills for Successful School Leaders (NASSP, 2014). Again, taking into account a school’s unique needs is a key factor in the framework and schools are encouraged to use personalizing the school environment as an entry point: “The Breaking Ranks Framework is designed to improve student performance by making learning personal—by helping schools build better relationships within the school, opening the door to learning, and helping students build a more profound and productive relationship with ideas” (NASSP, 2011, p. 2) There are 29 recommendations that are applicable regardless of the school’s grade level structure. However, as the book carefully articulates, implementation of those recommendations must be dependent on the age and needs of the students attending the school. The section directed toward the middle level began with: Those educators who work with middle level students, regardless of the grade configuration of the school, must realize that their school is neither a miniature high school or an elementary school—it must be de-

BRIDGES PROJECT ◾ 73 signed to meet the academic, social, and emotional needs of young adolescents. It’s far too easy to forget that students entering the middle level are only five or six years removed from their teddy bears and those leaving are only a few short years away from the rigors of college. (NASSP, 2011, p. 5)

While BRII and BRIM used cornerstone strategies to serve as entry points for school improvement, the updated framework has replaced them with nine cornerstones for success that serve as a foundation that is woven throughout all improvement efforts. Those cornerstones are leadership, professional development, culture, organization, curriculum, instruction, assessment, relationships, and equity. The recommendations have been categorized under each cornerstone with many recommendations appearing under more than one cornerstone. As in BRII and BRIM, the recommendations have also been clustered under the three core areas of collaborative leadership, personalizing your school environment, and curriculum, instruction, and assessment. These core areas serve as the heart of the framework and are often illustrated as a Venn diagram with three overlapping circles. It is in the center where the three circles overlap that improved student performance happens. Therefore, schools must address all three core areas if improvement is to occur. For example, focusing strictly on curriculum, instruction, and assessment without personalizing the environment or implementing collaborative leadership will not produce long term, sustainable improvement. Additionally, to help school leaders, a suggested list of strategies, benefits, challenges, and progress measures are suggested for each recommendation. Of special interest to middle level leaders, is a matrix that shows how the Breaking Ranks recommendations align with This We Believe (NMSA, 2010) and the Schools to Watch criteria (National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, n.d.) (NASSP, 2011). REFERENCES Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. Reston, VA: Author. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2004). Breaking ranks II: Strategies for leading high school reform. Reston, VA: Author.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2006). Breaking ranks in the middle: Strategies for leading middle level reform. Reston, VA: Author. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2009). Breaking ranks: A field guide for leading change. Reston, VA: Author. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2011). Breaking ranks: The comprehensive framework for school improvement. Reston, VA: Author. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2014). Breaking ranks: 10 skills for successful school leaders. Reston, VA: Author. National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (n.d.). Our criteria STW. Retrieved from http://middlegradesforum.org/our-criteria-stw/ National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH. Author.

BRIDGES PROJECT Leah M. Jorgensen University of North Carolina, Wilmington In 1990, the federally funded Middle Grade School State Policy grant was awarded to the state of North Dakota by the Carnegie Corporation, called the Middle Grade School State Policy Initiative grant in order to fund the BRIDGES project. The purpose of the BRIDGES project was to transform the traditional junior high school model into that of the more modern version of a middle school (Backes & Becker, 1999). The project aimed to explore ways to provide young adolescents stronger “bridges” from childhood to adulthood. The project started with 24 schools across the state that would make the shift recommended by the 1989 publication of Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development., 1989). The BRIDGES project intended to improve and develop a newer curriculum that would better support the middle school model. With BRIDGES, changes would be made in not only the curriculum, but teacher attitudes, classroom management, school organization, as well as changes in school leadership, to become more developmentally appropriate. This project would be funded for nine years. In 1993, six of the original schools were considered lead schools and would officially begin the transition from a junior high school into a middle school. The selection of these six schools was based on three criteria: (a) involvement with BRIDGES since the beginning the project; (b) the schools were economically disadvantaged; and (c) the schools made a commitment to transition from a junior high school into a middle school. During 1993–1995, a BRIDGES task force developed

74 ◾ BRIGGS, THOMAS

eight standards that were similar to the eight essential principals developed by the Carnegie Council’s Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents. These eight standards were goals for all middle school students. Eventually, 24 schools would participate in the project. In 1997, all schools involved in the BRIDGES were required to participate in biannual state conferences, conduct a school improvement plan, and implement groups that would address and resolve challenge areas. The project demonstrated some positive outcomes, including increased student attendance, higher rates of teacher satisfaction, and increased professional development for teachers (Backes, Ralston, & Ingwalson, 1999). Increased parental involvement and decreased student discipline reports were also reported. Funding for the BRIDGES Project ended in 1999. Through the implementation of middle school practices, the project was intended to have long-lasting positive effects on the North Dakota schools. Unfortunately many of the districts involved in the project began to question the ideas of the middle school approach and the work involved in implementing the reform efforts.

of the increasing number of children continuing past elementary school (Clark & Clark, 1994). In The Junior High School, he also explained that he believed that differences between elementary school and high school, such as the change in subjects, school organization and environment led to students dropping out of school after elementary school (Clark & Clark, 1994). In addition, he held that schools focused too narrowly on college preparation and stressed the importance of exploration in the curriculum (Clark & Clark, 1994). REFERENCES Briggs, T. (1920). The junior high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Cattell, J. M. (Ed.). (1932). Leaders in education: A biographical directory. New York, NY: The Science Press. Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Implications for school leaders. Albany: State University of New York Press. Cook, R. C. (Ed.). (1930). Who’s who in American education (Vol. II). New York, NY: The Robert C. Cool Company.

REFERENCES Backes, J., & Becker, G. (1999). 1997–1999 BRIDGES project final report. Grand Forks: University of North Dakota. Backes, J., Ralston, A., & Ingwalson, G. (1999). Middle level reform: The impact on student achievement. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 22(3), 43–57. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

BRIGGS, THOMAS Jennifer S. Goodwin Contributor from 1st edition Thomas Briggs was a leading scholar of junior high school education. He earned an AB degree from Wake Forest College (1896) and a PhD (1914) from Columbia University. From 1912–1942 he was on the faculty of Teachers College, Columbia University (Cattell, 1932; Clark & Clark, 1994; Cook, 1930). In 1920, Brigg’s ideas about junior high school education were published in The Junior High School. In this book, he identified conditions that led to the dissatisfaction with the structure of eight years of elementary school followed by four years of high school. These conditions included the increasing number of high schools, the changes in the social and industrial life, and the need to differentiate the curriculum because

BULLYING Tabitha J. Wurster University of Virginia Bullying can cause psychological distress for those students who are victimized (Vaillancourt, Brittain, McDougal, & Duku, 2013). Bullying has been shown to peak in early adolescence, and almost a third of students have reported being involved in bullying as either a bully, victim, or both (Nansel et al., 2001). Reviewed here are characteristics of bullies and of victims, the damage posed to victims of bullying, how researchers measure and assess bullying, how bullying extends beyond the dyadic roles of bully and victim, how the social climate within a school is related to bullying, and how interventions may help to decrease bullying behavior within schools. Bullying may be conceptualized on the basis of two important characteristics. First, bullying behavior should be repetitive and persistent over time, and second, the act of bullying involves a power differential between the bully and the victim (Olweus, 1993; Olweus & Limber, 2010). These characteristics are what differentiate bullying from individual acts of aggression. The power differential most often observed in bullying is what permits the bullying to continue over time, as the bully experiences the advantage of picking on a target who is not fully capable of fighting back or standing up for his or herself. This power differential may exist in terms of a physical mismatch, in which the bully is

BULLYING ◾ 75

larger, stronger, and more physically powerful than the victim, or it may exist in terms of a status differential, wherein the bully is more popular or has higher social status than the victim (Rodkin & Berger, 2008). It is also possible that both physical and status differentials may occur concurrently, compounding the bully’s power over the victim. As bullies engage in aversive behavior, scholarship has traditionally focused on the assumption that bullies are maladjusted and socially outcast. Indeed, some evidence has indicated that bullies are disliked by peers (Rodkin & Berger, 2008). In addition, it has been suggested that youths that are highly aggressive and bully others may hold hostile attribution biases, leading them to misinterpret hostile intent and inappropriately respond to others with heightened aggression (Dodge & Crick, 1990). However, some research has indicated that not all bullies are socially inept or rejected. Evidence suggests that some bullies aggress proactively and intentionally, in pursuit of gaining social status (Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, & Salmivalli, 2009). Some evidence has shown that bullies are not widely disliked, but instead are disliked largely by peers who are often subject to victimization themselves (Hafen, Laursen, Nurmi, & Salmela-Aro, 2013). In addition, some bullies may even be socially dominant and popular among their peers (Sijtsema et al., 2009). In this way, bullies demonstrate variation in terms of their social functioning and how they are perceived among peers. Distinguishing between types of bullies may be especially important for teachers, administrators, and interventionists, as high-status bullies may be less likely to be identified as aggressive or problematic by authority figures, and subsequently more likely to continue to victimize other students. Victims of bullying are subject to a number of negative impacts and maladaptive outcomes. Bullied children may experience impaired psychological well-being, including heightened internalizing problems, such as anxiety and depression (Nishina, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005; Vaillancourt et al., 2013). The negative impact on victims may extend to their physical health, as well, as manifest by somatic problems (Nishina et al., 2005). Further, the deleterious effects of bullying have been shown to extend to academic functioning and school outcomes (Nishina et al., 2005; Vaillancourt et al., 2013), and those who are victimized are more likely to hold negative attitudes about school and more likely to be absent from school (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). In addition, evidence has shown that victims of bullying are disliked by peers (Rodkin & Berger, 2008). This may be as a consequence of their victim status, or this association may be due to bullies selecting socially rejected youths as targets in hopes that others will not defend these lower status peers. These findings demonstrate

the myriad ways in which targets of bullying endure personal hardship. Determining who is bullying, and who is being bullied, may be assessed based on different forms of measurement. Often, bullies are identified from peer nomination measures, in which students are asked to identify multiple students who fit descriptor items of different bullying behaviors, such as who hits or pushes other children, or who picks on others (Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Students may then be asked to identify which peers each bully typically victimizes, in order to determine specific bully-victim dyads. Peer nominations of bullies are then typically summed and standardized within classrooms in order to determine which students are most highly nominated as bullies (Solberg & Olweus, 2003). However, victims of bullying may also be determined by self-report measures, by asking youths if they have engaged in bullying behaviors, and by asking if they have been bullied by other students (Olweus, 1993; Solberg & Olweus, 2003). It is also important to note that bullying roles are not mutually exclusive; students who are bullies may also be victimized, and victims of bullying may bully other students (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen., 1996). Bullying may take multiple forms. Bullying behaviors may manifest as physical aggression, which involves hitting, pushing, or kicking the victim, or otherwise overpowering them in a corporeal way (Olweus, 1993). Bullying may also occur as verbal aggression, which may include name-calling, or social aggression, which can entail rumor spreading, social exclusion, or other behavior that damages a youth’s reputation or social relations (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). With the continued advance of technology, victimization may also occur through cyber-bullying (Low & Espelage, 2013). Bullying by covert means may be especially problematic for victims, in that bullies are less likely to be observed and subsequently punished by authority figures. While some forms of bullying may be more surreptitious, typically bullying is a social incident, in that it occurs in the presence of peers. Those involved in bullying extend beyond just the bully and victim, and encompass a number of other youths present at the time the incident occurs (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Other roles include assistant bullies, which are youths who assist the bully in their perpetration, reinforcers, those who encourage the bullying event from the sidelines, victim defenders, those who stand up to bullies on behalf of the victim, and outsider audience members, those who observe the bullying event (Salmivalli et al., 1996). In this way, bullying is a social problem, the scope of which extends beyond those who are victimized and those who are doing the victimization. Bullying behavior has also been shown to relate to the school-wide social context. Youths who bully others

76 ◾ BULLYING

have a poorer perception of school climate than other students (Nansel et al., 2001). In addition, school climate has been shown to predict later bullying behavior, and a perceived positive school climate predicts lower levels of engagement in bullying (Gendron, Williams, & Guerra, 2011). In this way, the overall functioning of a school may serve to either promote or reduce bullying behavior. Given the damage that bullying may impose, concerted efforts have been made towards reducing and preventing bullying. Chief among intervention programs is the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), which serves to diminish existing bullying within schools, as well as prevent continued or growing bullying behavior (Olweus & Limber, 2010). The OBPP is implemented at multiple levels, the individual level, classroom level, school level, and community level. The intervention program is based on four principles, which are that adults at school should be warm and positive towards students, that they should set clear limits to behavior that is harmful or unacceptable, that they should be consistent, but not hostile, in implementing consequences when students violate rules or engage in unacceptable behaviors, and that they should be positive role models and authority figures for students (Olweus & Limber, 2010). The OBPP has been evidenced to reduce bullying across a number of schools within the United States, as well as in Norway, where the program was first initiated (Olweus & Limber, 2010). Another school-based anti-bullying program has been implemented by researchers in Finland (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Voeten, 2005). This approach centered on changing bystander attitudes and actions towards bullying, and acknowledged that bullying is a group process in which peers are implicitly involved. The program focused its intervention efforts at the classroom level, and provided a training program for teachers with instruction on understanding and intervening in bullying situations (Salmivalli et al., 2005). This intervention program showed positive effects on the frequency of bullying as well as attitudes about bullying, although the effects were stronger in schools that more thoroughly implemented the intervention program (Salmivalli et al., 2005). In sum, bullying may be problematic within school contexts, and victims may experience damage to social standing, mental health, and academic functioning. However, evidence from intervention programs demonstrates that bullying may be reduced within schools with careful and determined efforts. Further understanding of bullying behavior may help teachers and administrators to reduce bullying within schools and promote positive and safe learning environments.

REFERENCES Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment.  Child Development, 66, 710–722. doi:10.2307/1131945 Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 8–22. doi:10.1177/0146167290161002 Gendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2011). An analysis of bullying among students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate.  Journal of School Violence, 10, 150–164. doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.539166 Hafen, C. A., Laursen, B., Nurmi, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Bullies, victims, and antipathy: The feeling is mutual.  Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,  41, 801–809. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9720-5 Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305–1317. doi:10.2307/1131701 Low, S., & Espelage, D. (2013). Differentiating cyber bullying perpetration from non-physical bullying: Commonalities across race, individual, and family predictors.  Psychology of Violence, 3, 39–52. doi:10.1037/a0030308 Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094 Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will make me feel sick: The psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer harassment.  Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 37–48. doi:10.1207/ s15374424jccp3401_4 Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124–134. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x Rodkin, P. C., & Berger, C. (2008). Who bullies whom? Social status asymmetries by victim gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 473–485. doi:10 .1177/0165025408093667 Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group.  Aggressive Behavior,  22, 1–15. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:13.0.CO;2-T Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology,  75, 465–487. doi:10.1348/000709905X26011 Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 57–67. doi:10.1002/ab.20282

BULLYING ◾ 77 Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268. doi:10.1002/ ab.10047 Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H. L., McDougall, P., & Duku, E. (2013). Longitudinal links between childhood peer

victimization, internalizing and externalizing problems, and academic functioning: Developmental cascades.  Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,  41, 1203– 1215. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9781-5

This page intentionally left blank.

C CARNEGIE COUNCIL ON ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT Nancy Flowers CPRD, University of Illinois The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (CCAD) was formed in 1986 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York to shed national attention on the important, yet often neglected, challenges of early adolescence. The CCAD established the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents in 1987 so that experts in the fields of education, research, government, health, nonprofit, and philanthropic sectors could study the education and healthy development of young adolescents. The result of the work of the CCAD and the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents was the ground-breaking 1989 report, Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). This report focused national attention on the needs of young adolescents. It also made a set of recommendations for the education of young adolescents that included a support system of schools, families, and health and community organizations. This comprehensive approach to educating young adolescents highlighted eight core recommendations for middle grades schools including: creating a community for learning, teaching a core of common knowledge, ensuring success for all students, empowering teachers and administrators, preparing teachers for the middle grades, improving academic performance through better health and fitness, reengaging families in the education of young adolescents, and connecting schools with communities. The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 79–129 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

In the decade that followed the release of Turning Points, hundreds of middle grades schools across the country read about and adopted the principles outlined in the report. In fact, nearly 100,000 copies of the full report and over 200,000 copies of the executive summary were disseminated (Jackson & Davis, 2000). The CCAD continued its work of examining practices and research related to the education of young adolescents and released many reports including its concluding report in 1995 titled Great Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1995). The CCAD indicated that a key lesson from their work was that a long-term view is essential for changes that impact the lives and education of young adolescents. The long-term impact of the CCAD’s work was recognized by the Carnegie Corporation who continued the work by funding a grant program called the Middle Grade School State Policy Initiative (MGSSPI) from 1990 to 1999 to encourage and support the systemic implementation of the Turning Points recommendations. The Carnegie Corporation also lent their support to the research, writing, and publication of Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century (Jackson & Davis, 2000), a follow-up to the 1989 Turning Points report. Turning Points 2000 reflected on the recommendations in the 1989 report, the lessons learned from MGSSPI, and the latest research to further guide educators in their implementation of Turning Points principles. REFERENCES Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

79

80 ◾ CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1995). Great transitions: Preparing adolescents for a new century. Concluding report. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE Jim Miller Contributor from 1st edition Published in 1987, the historic reform document, Caught in the Middle: Educational Reform for Young Adolescents in California’s Public Schools, culminated a year of intense, pioneering work by California’s Middle Grade Task Force (California Department of Education, 1987). The report emphasized the uniqueness of middle grade students and argued for the need to create educational settings specifically organized to meet these unique needs. Caught in the Middle remained available until July 2000 when it was retired from print. It was the largest selling document ever produced by the California Department of Education, selling over 135,000 copies. Organized around 22 “principles for middle grade education,” Caught in the Middle (1987) detailed 102 recommendations for action. The report is divided into five parts: 1. Curriculum and Instruction: Achieving Excellence 2. Student Potential: Realizing the “Highest and Best” Intellectual, Social Emotional, and Physical Development 3. Organization and Structure: Creating New Learning Environments 4. Teaching and Administration: Preparing for Exemplary Performance 5. Leadership and Partnership: Defining the Catalysts for Middle Grade Educational Reform. One of the most enduring features of Caught in the Middle was its appendix, which in five pages distilled the existing research on the developmental characteristics of young adolescents. This distillation became a frequent handout in many university-level courses across the country. A recurring theme throughout the 1987 report was the contrast between what was termed “effective schooling based on the needs of middle grade students” and “junior high school practices.” School practices that were endorsed by Caught in the Middle included:

• Creating unified “humanities” core courses for all students; • Providing extended blocks of uninterrupted instruction time; • Encouraging student involvement and choice in their own learning; • Offering exploratory courses that allow students to extend their base of experience; • Teaching through interdisciplinary teams; • Developing opportunities for teacher collaboration; and • Connecting students to adult mentors through active advisement programs. Practices that were discouraged included: • Fixed-length classes with school-wide “passing periods;” • Tracking, permanent, or semipermanent “ability” grouping; and • Drill and rote instruction using only the available textbook. An important legacy of Caught in the Middle came from its call to create a “partnership of state-of-the-art middle schools” to be the “catalyst for renewal and reform of middle grade education throughout California.” As a follow-up, the California Department of Education formed the California Middle Grades Partnership Networks. California’s middle schools responded eagerly to this call for mutual assistance, networking together to implement the recommendations from Caught in the Middle. Network schools called themselves “schools of un-common commitment” because no support was provided by the Legislature. Networks have been self-funded. Nonetheless, by the end of 2004, California had 30 regional partnership networks, involving almost 400 middle schools. In March 2001, the California Department of Education published Taking Center Stage: A Commitment to Standards-Based Education for California’s Middle Grade Students (California Department of Education, 2001) as a sequel to Caught in the Middle. REFERENCES California Department of Education. (1987). Caught in the middle: Educational reform for young adolescents in California’s public schools. Sacramento, CA: CDE Press. California Department of Education. (2001). Taking center stage: A commitment to standards-based education for California’s middle grades students. Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.

CENTER FOR EARLY ADOLESCENCE ◾ 81

CENTER FOR EARLY ADOLESCENCE P. Gayle Andrews The University of Georgia Created in 1978, the Center for Early Adolescence (CEA) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill worked to “increase the effectiveness of agencies and individuals that have an impact upon the lives of 10- to 15-year-olds” (Dorman, 1985a, p. ii). The Center’s founder, Joan Lipsitz, studied young adolescents as a researcher at The Learning Institute of North Carolina. The result of her research was the landmark book, Growing Up Forgotten: A Review of Research and Programs Concerning Early Adolescence (Lipsitz, 1977). In conducting the research for the book, Lipsitz and her fellow researchers confirmed their original assumption “that young adolescence is the most overlooked age group among minors in America” (Lipsitz, 1977, p. xv). In response to gaping holes in research, services, and advocacy described in the book, Lipsitz founded the Center for Early Adolescence. The Center focused on supporting young adolescents in their homes, schools, and communities by providing training to professionals and volunteers who worked with the age group, offering technical assistance to educators in schools and districts, and responding annually to thousands of requests for information from parents, educators, policymakers, and community members. The Center housed perhaps the only refereed collection of the best resources and research related to young adolescents. The Center’s own groundbreaking publications included 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.: Planning Programs for Young Adolescents (Dorman, 1985a); Middle Grades Assessment Program (Dorman, 1985b); Building Youth Literacy: A Training Curriculum for Community Leaders (Davidson & Pulver, 1991); and A Portrait of Young Adolescents in the 1990s (Scales, 1991). Though the Center closed its doors in 1994, its impact continues through its publications and the continuing work of CEA alumni. Several Center alumni have served or continue to serve as program officers for national and regional foundations that have funded programs related to young adolescents: Joan Lipsitz at the Lilly Endowment, Inc., Leah Meyer Austin (formerly Lefstein) at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Gayle Williams (formerly Dorman) at the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, Tara McKenzie Sandercock at the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro, NC, and M. Hayes Mizell, a former CEA advisory board member, at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Other Center alumni have authored or co-authored significant publications related to young adolescents, for example Gayle Andrews (formerly Davis) co-authored, with Anthony

Jackson, Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century (2000) and Peter Scales wrote Boxed in and Bored: How Middle Schools Continue to Fail Young Adolescents—And What Good Middle Schools Do Right (1996). REFERENCES Davidson, J., & Pulver, R. (1991). Building youth literacy: A training curriculum for community leaders. Carrboro, NC: Center for Early Adolescence. Dorman, G. (1985a). 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.: Planning programs for young adolescents. Carrboro, NC: Center for Early Adolescence. Dorman, G. (1985b). Middle grades assessment program. Carrboro, NC: Center for Early Adolescence. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lipsitz, J. (1977). Growing up forgotten: A review of research and programs concerning early adolescence. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Scales, P. C. (1991). A portrait of young adolescents in the 1990s: Implications for promoting healthy growth and development. Carrboro, NC: Center for Early Adolescence. Scales, P. C. (1996). Boxed in and bored: How middle schools continue to fail young adolescents—and what good middle schools do right. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

CENTER FOR PREVENTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Nancy Flowers CPRD, University of Illinois The Center for Prevention Research and Development (CPRD) at the University of Illinois has been involved in the evaluation of middle-level school reform for over 15 years. In 1990, CPRD developed the School Improvement Self-Study, a comprehensive, cost-effective evaluation and assessment system that has been completed by hundreds of schools across the nation. CPRD’s experience and expertise in the evaluation of middle-level reform is best depicted by the number and types of evaluations they have undertaken. Beginning in 1989, CPRD, in partnership with the Association of Illinois Middle-Level Schools (AIMS), began an intensive evaluation of Project Initiative Middle Level, a network of Illinois middlelevel schools undergoing substantive reform. This seminal work led to the evaluation of the Carnegie Corporation’s Middle Grades Schools State Policy Initiative (MGSSPI), the Lilly Endowment’s Middle Grades Improvement Program, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation’s Middle Start Initiative, the Foundation for

82 ◾ CHARTER SCHOOLS

the Mid South’s Mid South Middle Start Initiative, and the National Turning Points Network. The cornerstone of CPRD’s evaluation of middlegrade schools is the School Improvement Self-Study. The SelfStudy is a data collection system consisting of a set of surveys completed by teachers, principals, students, and parents in a school. The Self-Study provides schools with highly reliable and validated survey measures that provide ongoing opportunities to assess the comprehensive, complex, and multiple levels of reform. The key elements asked about in the confidential and anonymous surveys include classroom practices, instructional, and curricular integration, decision making practices, parent, and community involvement, climate, and attitudes, professional development needs, educational expectations, school safety, student health behaviors, and student socioemotional functioning. After participating in the Self-Study surveys, schools receive a site specific report containing charts, tables, and graphs for use in planning and monitoring school improvement efforts. Thus far, CPRD’s research has focused primarily on middle grades education. As a research and evaluation partner for the initiatives mentioned above, CPRD collected individual teacher, student, principal, and parent survey data for hundreds of schools on an annual basis. CPRD’s analyses of Self-Study data are disseminated in a variety of forums. For more than six years, CPRD has published findings from the Self-Study as part of their twice-a-year research column in the Middle School Journal. CPRD has published over 30 reports and articles focusing on varying aspects of middle grades education and school reform. CPRD has also made over 25 presentations of their research results at regional, state, and national meetings and conferences. These reports, publications, and presentations targeted varying audiences ranging from peer-review to policy to practitioners and advocates (most of CPRD’s publications are available at their website: www.cprd.uiuc.edu). One of CPRD’s primary focus areas has been in establishing the link between the implementation of middle grade programs, practices, and policies and directly measurable outcomes, specifically student learning and achievement.

CHARTER SCHOOLS Larry G. Daniel The Citadel Charter schools are schools that receive public funding but operate under their own independent administrative structure. They have authority to hire, evaluate, discipline, and terminate their own personnel; manage their budgets; and operate free of many state or local

regulations that govern other public schools. Typically, charter schools must answer under broad parameters to local or state school authorities for matters such as fiscal management and compliance with pupil standards and testing. However, unlike traditional public schools, they are not subject to direct authority of public boards of education for decisions such as budget approval, personnel actions, and, in some cases, curricular decisions. A majority of the U.S. states allow charter schools (Brown, 2012), and the number of charter schools nationally has risen to more than 6,400 (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2014/2015). Depending on specific state laws, charters that allow these schools to exist may be issued by a state department of education, a local school district authority, or a college or university (Bierlein, 1997). In some models, charter schools are limited to nonsectarian schooling options; however, in many states currently allowing charters, religious schools are also allowed to receive charter funding. Charter schools may be housed in brick and mortal buildings that look and feel like traditional public schools, or they “can operate practically anywhere—on church property, in strip malls, out of a house, or online” (Berliner, Glass, & Associates, 2014, p. 27). Murphy and Shiffman (2002) reviewed a host of definitions of “charter schools,” noting that conceptions of charter schools are as diverse as the scenarios in which the concept is applied. However, the researchers condensed these definitions into a set of common elements: Core dimensions of charters include: (1) Freedom for parents on the demand side of choice and . . . freedom for potential providers on the supply side of choice; (2) accountability realized by unleashing market forces (i.e., competition) and by fulfilling the charter contract . . . ; and (3) decentralization of control to the local unit of operation (i.e., the individual school). . . . How these key characteristics—choice, deregulation, decentralization, and competition—play out in actual schools depends a good deal on the state and local contexts. (p. 5)

Charter schools may be managed by private companies or non-profit organizations (Brown, 2012). They may be newly created schools or existing schools that are reconstituted under a new government charter (Ravitch & Viteritti, 1997). Charter schools have enjoyed broad bipartisan support at both federal and local levels (Ravitch, 2010). The dialogue between public school and charter school advocates has been far from tranquil (Raymond, 2014). Sarason (1998) noted that “charter schools are seen as a challenge to and a devastating critique of existing school systems” (p. 9). Despite the fact that teacher unions are often viewed as among the chief critics of charter schools, Kahlenberg and Potter (2014, 2014/2015) noted that Albert Shanker, legendary head

CHARTER SCHOOLS ◾ 83

of the American Federation of Teachers from 1964 to 1985, was actually among early advocates; however, his ideas about charter schools were a far cry from what has actually been created. Charter schools are often discussed along with several related concepts, namely choice, free market economy, vouchers, and privatization. CHOICE Many charter school proponents (e.g., Brouillette, 2002; Finn, Manno, & Vanourek, 2000; Hassell, 1999) have viewed charter schools as a means for improving public schools through increased competition—the concept of increasing choice in education. Good and Braden (2000) noted that magnet schools were among the first options established as choice schools. Magnet schools provided for specialized educational curriculum options (e.g., college preparatory, the arts, science and mathematics) and were frequently a means for creating racial balance in schools that had previously been racially segregated. Witte (2000) argued that for children in inner city and poor communities, choice offers particular promise for improving educational options; however, Viteritti (1999) noted that, in actuality, it is the more highly educated, middle class families who are more likely to take advantage of choices in public education. Choice is a two-edged sword: “it has been seen as a way of extending the reach of public education and as a weapon to destroy it” (Ravitch & Viteritti, 1997, pp. 7–8). Nevertheless, choice is a concept that has gained increasing popularity in education, and will likely be around for some time (Chubb & Moe, 1990). FREE MARKET ECONOMY Friedman and Friedman (1980) were among the first to speak out on choice in education within the larger concept of so-called “laissez-faire” economic policies, advancing the notion that creating a free market economy around schools would give all families the choices that are traditionally available only to wealthier families. As Good and Braden (2000) put it, “Ideas supporting the freedom (and desirability) of parents choosing schools for their children are typically associated with competitive economic theories of market behavior” (p. 91). Just as a family would choose food, clothing, medical care and other necessities for their children within a competitive market, advocates for choice in schooling would view the range of schools available in a community as a market of choice for the consumer of educational services. Although the free market concept sounds good in theory, Ravitch and Viteritti (1997) noted that the concept is only as good as the local options that actually exist for a given family, and limited choices may

offer little hope for the students who live in the most disadvantaged communities. Interestingly, among those who advocate the free market concept of schooling are those who have gotten into the business of running schools with the motive of making a profit. Chris Whittle, creator of the Channel One program that brought cable TV and selected advertising to schools in the late 20th century, was among the first to devise a wide-scale project for implementation of for-profit schools via his Edison School project (Brown, 2012). Some states allow educational management organizations (EMOs) to take control over a group of public schools or to create a set of schools which may be operated under a business model that may include a profit motive. For-profit schools are not without their problems; a quest for the bottom line may mean cutting corners on things that really matter. For example, Brown (2012) noted that in some Edison schools there are shortages of textbooks and underqualified teachers. VOUCHERS A voucher is a government credit provided to an individual or family that may be redeemed at a service provider of choice. Vouchers usually have certain pre-specified limits of benefit and operate under the notion that the funding follows the person receiving the service. Government sponsored vouchers for services have been in existence for a long time. Food stamps, WIC programs, and government sponsored health care programs are examples. Higher education has employed voucher-type programs for over half a century as a result of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-346—“GI Bill”) and federal Pell Grants. The concept of vouchers for funding P–12 education is a somewhat newer concept, notwithstanding arguments by Bracey (2002) that some components of vouchers go back as far as the educational ideas of John Stuart Mill and Thomas Jefferson. [Moe (2001) has provided a thoughtful historical review of vouchers in the United States.] Proponents claim that vouchers will empower families to be able to receive the kind of education they truly want for their children (Moe, 2001; Witte, 2000). They argue that vouchers will decrease government regulation over education and allow for more flexible use of taxpayer dollars (Good & Braden, 2000). In an ideal system, a voucher could be redeemed at a public school, a sectarian or non-sectarian private school, or a charter school. Private school tuition might be satisfied by a voucher; a given private school would decide whether to charge the family additional tuition beyond a voucher’s value or provide a scholarship for the remaining amount. In some voucher programs, if private schools agree to participate, they must accept the value of the

84 ◾ CHARTER SCHOOLS

voucher in satisfying the full tuition. Critics of vouchers note that funds may be allowed to go to schools that do not meet state standards and that the value of the voucher may limit choices to the student as some private schools’ tuition might appreciably exceed the value of the voucher (Brown, 2012). PRIVATIZATION Privatization is an organized effort to convert the current public school system to a system of privately owned schools that receive government grants to underwrite their operating costs (Bracey, 2002). Advocates of privatization operate under the premise that education “will be better served through deregulation, and through provision of schooling by free enterprise rather than government” (Ascher, Fruchter, & Berne, 1996, p. 12). Family political and religious beliefs are sometimes an underlying premise for a desire to privatize education. Ascher et al. (1996) provided several examples: Some privatization advocates believe that free enterprise is the best way to run any institution. Others urge increased funding for Catholic, Christian fundamentalist, and other religious schools. Still others want relief for families wishing to avoid public schools because radical libertarian or white separatist ideologies. (p. 13)

Increased efficiency of school operation may also be viewed as a motivator for privatization (Ascher et al., 1996; Bracey, 2002). In the face of taxpayer resistance and perceived failure of schools, a privatized system may create a sense of spending money more efficiently while alternately dismantling a flawed public school system (Murphy & Shiffman, 2002). THE PROMISE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS Charter school advocates have promised to produce schools much more responsive to the needs of students and their families than the cumbersome, one-size-fitsall public system (Brouillette, 2002; Finn et al., 2000; Hassel, 1999). Charter schools have been endorsed and supported by state and national leaders on both ends of the political spectrum, and charter school organizers have ranged from experienced educators to grass roots community organizers with no professional background in education whatsoever (Bracey, 2002). Sarason (1998) pointed out the irony “that historically the conditions to which (the charter school movement) is a response were created by the state’s goal to provide a mandated uniform education for all children regardless of their cultural, social class, or religious background” (p. 9—emphasis in original).

Bracey (2002) observed that charter schools have often overpromised results: “early pronouncements about what charter schools would accomplish fall into the long line of miracle cures and magic bullets people have proposed for what they see as educational ills” (pp. 67–68). Charter schools have often proposed school reform under the assumption that the public school system is so broken that it cannot possibly reform itself (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2014; Sarason, 1998). In particular, proponents have promised better alternatives for the most needy of students (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2014), and anecdotal accounts of success do suggest this goal has been met in some cases (Finn et al., 2000). Charter schools have promised much, but results do not necessarily indicate that these promises are being fulfilled (Berliner et al., 2014). IMPACT OF CHARTER SCHOOLS ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Much has been written about perceived or actual effects of charter schools on public schools. Although a desire to privatize is often linked to support for charter schools, Bracey (2002) has pointed out that not all advocates of charter schools support privatization or necessarily view charters as a replacement for public schools. In many cases, however, limits of funding have created problems for both public schools and the charter schools that pull funding away from those public schools. Limited public dollars may mean that both traditional public and charter schools suffer from being underfunded. Other negative consequences may also follow. Ravitch (2010) bemoaned that the creation of unbridled consumerism within the educational arena has destroyed the sense of community among families in regard to the broad goals of public education. Brown (2012) noted that, in some communities, funding for magnet school programs has been adversely affected by increasing of funding to create charter schools. One commonly expressed concern is that charter schools may very well syphon off the better performing students from struggling public schools. Removing these more capable students may exacerbate performance issues in those public schools supplying students to neighboring charter schools. In one statewide study, Ni (2012) found that charter schools tended to concentrate higher numbers of the most disadvantaged students in the original public schools from which more economically advantaged students left to attend charter schools. Further, funding for public schools could be diluted leading to the inability of the public school district to maintain buildings, update materials, or retain teachers (Bracey, 2002; Brown, 2012).

CHARTER SCHOOLS ◾ 85

EVALUATING CHARTER SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS Hassell (1999) identified four conditions necessary for the hopes of charter school proponents to be realized: autonomy (from strict state control), viability (i.e., financial stability), impact (on the institution of schooling), and accountability (to federal, state, and local learning goals). Charter schools, by virtue of freedom from regulations, may serve as laboratories where new ideas can be tested and then replicated in the public schools (Bierlein, 1997; Brouillette, 2002). Likewise, by competing for students and funding, charter schools might “goad” public schools to more active reform (Bracey, 2002, p. 184). Further, some advocate for complete privatization of schools, stressing the point that charters should, over time, become the rule rather than the exception as to what a typical public school looks like. Early on, there was a lot of concern that charter advocates would not only fall short of accountability in their efforts but would likely avoid accountability efforts altogether (Henig, 1994). In reality, charter schools have varied greatly in their approaches to accountability. Bierlein (1997) identified the bottom line for accountability at any charter school—the school “must both attract students and demonstrate specific results (e.g., test scores)—or go out of business” (p. 39). As with research on any intervention, findings are mixed; however, now that charter schools have been on the scene in large numbers for some two decades, there has been occasion for a substantial amount of research on their effectiveness. The overwhelming finding of the research studies has found that there is virtually no difference in the performance of charter schools over public schools (e.g., Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2009, 2013, 2015; Davis, 2013; Zimmer, Gill, Booker, Lavertu, & Witte, 2012), and, in some cases, there is evidence that charter schools actually have a negative impact on student performance (Brown, 2012; Ravitch, 2010). In light of the consistency of these findings, Brown (2012) concluded: Every education policy approved by any legislative body must positively affect two critical components: the new policy must create an improvement in the act of teaching or cause an improvement in students’ learning. If a policy does neither of those, it has no value to the schooling process. Charter schools and vouchers have no positive effect on teaching or learning. (p. 160)

In sum, it has become apparent that charter schools are collectively no more effective at producing learning gains in students than are other schools: “the charter school movement has attained an acclaim as educational reform that is not sustained by juried research or evidential experience” (Knaak & Knaak, 2013). Further,

Berliner et al. (2014) observed, interestingly that the states of Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Ohio, where charter laws have been most aggressive, rank among the states in which traditional public school students most clearly outperform charter school students. REFERENCES Ascher, C., Fruchter, N., & Berne, R. (1996). Hard lessons: Public schools and privatization. New York, NY: Twentieth Century Fund Press. Berliner, D. C., Glass, G. V., & Associates. (2014). 50 myths and lies that threaten America’s public schools: The real crisis in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bierlein, L. A. (1997). The charter school movement. In D. Ravitch & J. P. Viteritti (Eds.), New schools for a new century (pp. 37–60). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bracey, G. W. (2002). The war against America’s public schools: Privatizing schools, commercializing education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Brouillette, L. (2002). Charter schools: Lessons in school reform. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, D. F. (2012). Why America’s public schools are the best place for kids: Reality vs. negative perceptions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA: Author. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2013). National charter schools study. Stanford, CA: Author. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2015). Urban charter school study report on 41 regions. Stanford, CA: Author. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Davis, T. M. (2013). Charter school competition, organization, and achievement in traditional public schools. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 21(88), 1–29. Finn, Jr., C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to choose: A personal statement. New York, NY: Avon. Good, T. L., & Braden, J. S. (2000). The great school debate: Choice, vouchers, and charters. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hassel, B. C. (1999). The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the promise. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Henig, J. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits to the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kahlenberg, R. D., & Potter, H. (2014). A smarter charter: Finding what works for charter schools and public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kahlenberg, R. D., & Potter, H. (2014/2015). Restoring Shanker’s vision for charter schools. American Educator, 38(4), 4–13, 44. Knaak, W. C., & Knaak, J. T. (2013). Charter schools: Educational reform or failed initiative? Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79(4), 45–53.

86 ◾ CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT Moe, T. M. (2001). Schools, vouchers, and the American public. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Murphy, J., & Shiffman, C. D. (2002). Understanding and assessing the charter school movement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ni, Y. (2012). The sorting effect of charter schools on student composition in traditional public schools. Educational Policy, 26(2), 215–242. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic. Ravitch, D., & Viteritti, J. P. (1997). Introduction. In D. Ravitch & J. P. Viteritti (Eds.), New schools for a new century (pp. 1–16). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Raymond, M. E. (2014). To no avail: A critical look at the charter school debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(5), 8–12. Sarason, S. B. (1998). Charter schools: Another flawed educational reform? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Viteritti, J. P. (1999). Choosing equality: School choice, the Constitution, and civil society. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Witte, J. F. (2000). The market approach to education: An analysis of America’s first voucher program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., & Witte, J. (2012). Examining charter student achievement across seven states. Economics of Education Review, 31, 213–224.

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT Brianna L. Kennedy-Lewis University of Florida Classroom management includes the dispositions and strategies that allow teachers to maximize student learning. It works in conjunction with positive student–teacher relationships and culturally relevant curriculum and instruction to compose effective middle grades teaching. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the three necessary components of good middle grades teaching practice (Kennedy, 2009). DISPOSITIONS AND BELIEFS OF SUCCESSFUL CLASSROOM MANAGERS Implementing these components effectively requires that teachers have certain dispositions. The dispositions of a successful teacher of young adolescents include humility, self-reflection, curiosity, consistency, warmth, humor, and persistence. Young adolescents test boundaries by moving away from adults and toward peers as they grow more independent, and then moving back toward trusted adults when they feel hurt, confused, or unsafe. Successful middle grades classroom managers

Relationships • Student–teacher interactions • Classroom community • Care for students

Classroom Management • Routines • Time management • Interventions • Student grouping

Curriculum and Instruction • Culturally and developmentally relevant content • Instructional materials • Engaging pedagogy • Higher order thinking

Figure 1 Components of effective middle grades teaching

understand that students seek both independence and safety and provide students the freedom to explore new identities and ideas within a structured, predictable environment (Caskey & Anfara, 2014). Successful classroom managers do not respond hastily, use sarcasm, choose battles, or take things personally, but instead view challenging behaviors as messages students are trying to communicate. They understand that the form these messages take might be considered socially inappropriate in some adult contexts, but they view it as their responsibility to validate the messages and emotions behind these behaviors. They take opportunities to teach children new modes of expression rather than react to the behaviors. Their focus is always on the best interest of the child and they strive to keep all students in class and preserve the classroom community even when students demonstrate challenging behaviors. Successful classroom managers believe that all children can learn and that it is the teacher’s job to ensure student success (Corbett, Wilson, & Williams, 2002). STRATEGIES SUCCESSFUL MANAGERS USE Beliefs and dispositions provide a foundation for the strategies necessary to anticipate and prevent situations that disrupt student engagement and learning. Anticipation and prevention are key to good classroom management. Skilled classroom managers know which situations and activities could lead to disruptive behaviors and they prevent them before they happen by creating conditions necessary for avoiding problems. Such conditions include creating classroom routines and using them consistently, providing necessary supplies, using strategic student seating and groupings, and arranging the classroom layout effectively (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008). Routines are

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT ◾ 87

needed for daily tasks, interactions, and transitions (Weinstein & Novodvorsky, 2011). For example, classrooms need routines for how students request to use the restroom, turn in and receive graded assignments, talk to peers and the teacher, and move from one activity to the next. Students need to be explicitly taught the teacher’s expectations, and they need to practice the behaviors expected of them in advance of the situations when these behaviors are expected. Particular nonverbal teacher behaviors also increase student motivation and engagement and prevent disruption (Table 1). To effectively manage a classroom, teachers can intentionally adjust where and how they stand, how loudly they speak, how they use eye contact and touch, and their level of attentiveness to the class (Good & Brophy, 2007; Hunnicut, 1998; Kennedy, 2009; Kounin, 1970; McNally, 2005). Effective managers might move away from a student who is talking to the class in order to motivate the student to speak loudly enough for classmates to hear; they may lower rather than raise their voice to get attention; or they may touch a student’s desk to redirect the student’s behavior rather than embarrassing the student or interrupting the lesson with a verbal redirection. Successful classroom managers know that taking their attention away from the class for any reason will increase student distractions, so they avoid personal and professional disruptions during class time. Their posture conveys both confidence and calm. Because these strategies keep the focus on learning and engagement, they promote intrinsic motivation and students’ internal desires to learn and succeed just for the sake of the task itself. Successful classroom managers increase students’ intrinsic motivation by creating engaging activities, building upon students’ cultural knowledge and communication styles, and providing sufficient scaffolding for learning (Figure 1) (Toth, 2013; Weinstein & Novodvorsky, 2011). These educators also understand that motivation is contextual and shaped by experience and that some students and some circumstances require extrinsic motivators, such as rewards. Developmentally, young adolescents respond best to immediate gratification. While effective teachers TABLE 1 Nonverbal Teacher Behaviors That Engage Students and Prevent Disruption Nonverbal Strategy

Definition

Haptics

Use of touch

Immediacy

Perceived closeness

Kinesics

Body language such as eye contact and facial expressions

Prosody

Tone, rhythm, and volume of voice

Proxemics

Body positioning

Withitness

“Eyes in the back of one’s head” attention

continue to develop students’ intrinsic motivation and tolerance for delayed gratification, they may also use extrinsic motivators (Emmett, 2013; Hayenga & Corpus, 2010). These educators understand that the more failures a student has previously experienced, the more that student will rely on extrinsic motivators to bolster the confidence necessary to reengage with learning. Accomplishing a goal and not receiving the anticipated reward, whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic, decreases motivation (Woolfolk, 2010). Consequently, the most effective rewards are those that all students who meet a particular standard receive, not those that are awarded based on teachers’ subjective judgments, or those received only by some students and not others, such as with lotteries or raffles. Successful classroom managers ensure that students have more chances to succeed and receive rewards than they do to fail and receive sanctions. Rather than viewing students’ prosocial, on-task behaviors as students simply doing what is expected of them, successful classroom managers give positive feedback and praise for such behaviors, and they do so more frequently than they chastise students for antisocial or off-task behaviors. HOW SUCCESSFUL CLASSROOM MANAGERS RESPOND TO STUDENTS’ CHALLENGING BEHAVIORS Successful classroom managers have a clear set of rules and consequences that support their classroom procedures and routines. While they prioritize the development of intrinsic motivation and classroom norms that operate without the use of rewards and sanctions, they know that clear rules and consequences create a safe, predictable environment that young adolescents need (Caskey & Anfara, 2014). Consequences can be either positive or negative, though effective teachers minimize the role of sanctions in their classroom, spending time on instruction rather than behavior. Sanctions that promote student growth and independence include logical consequences to the infractions. For example, if a student were to throw trash or leave a work station dirty for the next class, a teacher might have the student come clean up the room during time that would otherwise be spent socially. Successful classroom managers focus on discipline rather than punishment, using the meting out of sanctions as opportunities to teach students prosocial dispositions and skills. The goal of effective discipline is to restore classroom relationships and help students develop social and emotional competence (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2003; Smith, Fisher, & Frey, 2015). For instance, if a student were to call the teacher a derogatory name, the

88 ◾ CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT

teacher might respond by bringing the student in for a conference during lunch to discuss how that action hurt the teacher’s feelings and to decide together how they will restore the damage the student caused. (It should be noted that this strategy depends on there being a positive student–teacher relationship in place that promotes the student’s feelings of empathy toward the teacher.) The first sanction the student would receive in this case would be missing lunchtime with friends, which is a logical consequence to the action because when people damage relationships, they have to spend time repairing them. The act of discussing the situation and deciding upon next steps promotes positive interactions between student and teacher that restores the relationship and develops the student’s emotional competence and communication skills. Effective educators believe that classroom management dilemmas are best handled by the teacher and try to avoid abdicating their power by calling on an administrator or other faculty member to address issues (Corbett et al., 2002; Shaughnessy, 2004). They remember that young adolescents particularly seek peer acceptance, so they prioritize maintaining students’ dignity by not embarrassing them in front of their peers. When a student persistently challenges them, successful managers respond with curiosity about the root causes of the behavior. They reflect on how their own classroom behaviors and practices might contribute to the problem and they utilize all available resources to address the situation. They understand the role that trauma and adverse life events can play in students’ behavior and they work collaboratively with parents, school counselors, and community-based service providers to support their most struggling students. CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF A POSITIVE MIDDLE GRADES CLASSROOM While these strategies and dispositions are crucial to create and maintain effective contexts for learning, alone they will not ensure student engagement and achievement. These strategies and dispositions must be put into action along with developing positive relationships with students and providing culturally relevant curriculum and instruction (Figure 1). Knowing students well and having warm relationships with them and their families help to develop students’ intrinsic motivation to do well at school and provide the foundation for strategies described above to be used effectively. Similarly, effective instruction plays a critical role in preventing classroom management dilemmas because engaging instructional activities prevent idleness and boredom (Weinstein & Novodvorsky, 2011). In order

for instruction to be effective, students must be able to understand concepts and succeed at activities. Effective middle grades teachers relate curricular content to students’ lives and experiences, provide sufficient scaffolding to support student understanding of academic material, and facilitate instructional activities that engage students’ cultural communication styles. Without these factors in place, classroom management is more likely to be reduced to rules and sanctions with more class time spent on redirections than instruction. Consequently, successful classroom management is implemented along with supportive relationships and effective curriculum and instruction (Kennedy, 2009). REFERENCES Caskey, M. M., & Anfara, Jr., V. A. (2014). Research summary: Developmental characteristics of young adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/ServicesEvents/ResearchSummary/TabId/622/ArtMID/2112/ArticleID/455/ Developmental-Characteristics-of-Young-Adolescents. aspx Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http:// static1.squarespace.com/static/513f79f9e4b05ce7b70 e9673/t/5331c141e4b0fba62007694a/1395769665836/ safe-and-sound-il-edition.pdf Corbett, D., Wilson, B., & Williams, B. (2002). Effort and excellence in urban classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Emmet, J. (2013). Using extrinsic motivation to influence student attitude and behavior toward state assessments at an urban high school. NASSP Bulletin, 97(3), 197–217. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2007). Looking in classrooms (10th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Hayenga, A. O., & Corpus, J. H. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: A person-centered approach to motivation and achievement in middle school. Motivation and Emotion, 34(4), 371–383. Hunnicut, V. A. (1998). Training in the use of selected nonverbal behaviors to reduce student disruptions in the classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA. Kennedy, B. L. (2009). Enacting competing ideologies: How classroom dynamics influence the education of disaffected early adolescents at a community day school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi. com/33/68/3368705.html Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. McNally, J. S. (2005). Teacher–student relationships: The effects of student motives, relationship development, and communication on student learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent State University, Kent, OH.

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT ◾ 89 Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™ (CLASS™) Manual, Pre-K. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). An interview with Anita Woolfolk: The educational psychology of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 153–176. Smith, D., Fisher, D. B., & Frey, N. E. (2015). Better than carrots or sticks: Restorative practices for positive classroom management. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Toth, A. (2013). Leading change in a traditional teaching environment: Establishing positive student behaviors through proactive classroom management (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. Weinstein, C. S., & Novodvorsky, I. (2011). Middle and secondary classroom management (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT Nita A. Paris Kennesaw State University As any middle level teacher can attest, young adolescents demonstrate a wide range of cognitive abilities and skills. And, the skills of any one adolescent appear to vary from day to day, moment to moment, and even within and across content areas. As Powell (2015) reminded us, two key words, becoming and transitioning, provide the context for understanding the cognitive development of middle level students. Young adolescents arrive in middle school having accumulated knowledge, skills, and experiences from a variety of contexts in and out of school. Furthermore, they begin a dramatic and often erratic transition toward becoming more complex thinkers, more self-regulated learners, and more effective problem solvers and decision makers. Our understanding of cognitive development arises from research in several fields, namely, developmental psychology, cognitive science, and more recently, neuroscience. A complete review of the cognitive development of adolescents is beyond the scope of this volume. Therefore, the focus of this entry is to: (a) define cognitive development; (b) provide a brief review of theories of cognitive development that are particularly significant for middle level learners; (c) provide a brief summary of recent brain research and the relationship to information processing theory; (d) describe characteristics of middle level learners’ thinking; and (e) discuss implications for teaching at the middle level which are appropriate for any content area.

Finally, an asset-based rather than a deficit-based perspective (e.g., Scales & Leffert, 2004) frames this entry on cognitive development. In other words, cognitive changes in middle level learners are considered strengths, not weaknesses. The cognitive development and change that occur during this special time is unique and valued as a natural part of early adolescence. WHAT IS COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT? Cognitive development refers to growth, change, or increased ability of people to acquire, modify, and or manipulate knowledge; to think, understand or reason in particular contexts. Cognitive development results in changes in mental structures or processes that occur as young adolescents interact with their environment, take in information, and construct their understandings (Schunk, 2012). Early adolescence is a period during which the brain is malleable or plastic. The cognitive activity which is expressed as thinking, problem solving, and decision-making by young adolescents is a reflection of interactions between biological and developmental differences, emotions, as well as noncognitive factors such as the environment, perception, and cultural influences (Farrington et al., 2012). The cognitive changes, coupled with physical and psychosocial changes which occur during early adolescence, create opportunities for teachers to engage adolescents in authentic learning tasks which draw on their previous experiences and which strengthen their abilities for more complex thought. Understanding cognitive changes which occur during early adolescence is key for creating effective and supportive educational environments that foster young adolescents’ learning and future cognitive development. WHAT THEORIES EXPLAIN HOW COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS? Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky are two preeminent developmental psychologists who viewed learning as a constructive process resulting from the learner’s interactions with the environment or individuals. The learner comes to understand something by building or constructing his or her own understanding through actively relating new information to what is already known. Piaget (1973) is well known for his stage theory of cognitive development. According to Piaget, cognitive development is driven by biological maturation along with the child’s efforts to understand and influence the surrounding environment (Arnett, 2012). Piaget believed that cognitive development precedes learning. That is, students cannot understand or learn a concept if they are not cognitively ready to do so. According to Piaget, all children

90 ◾ COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

progress through four separate, predictable, sequential, and fixed stages of cognitive development; each of which is marked by qualitatively different ways of thinking. Piaget’s four stages of cognitive development are: Sensory-Motor (0–2 years old), Preoperational, (2–7 years old), Concrete Operations (7–11 years old), and Formal Operations (11– adulthood). The ages associated with each stage are fluid and not universal for every child. From this perspective, middle school students are in transition from concrete operations to formal operations. As they progress through the middle school years, students’ thinking becomes more abstract, flexible, rational, and systematic. However, as George and Alexander (2003) noted: (M)ost middle school educators believe that their students are, in fact, far less mature in the stage of intellectual development that they have reached . . . .(M)any students remain in the concrete stage throughout the middle school years and far fewer have advanced to formal operation by their arrival at middle school . . . than was once believed. (p. 11)

Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural theory of cognitive development stresses that interactions between people are the key to cognitive development. These interpersonal or social interactions, along with cultural-historical and individual factors stimulate and foster cognitive growth through the internalization of language (Arnett, 2012). In contrast to Piaget’s position, Vygotsky believed that learning precedes cognitive development. Cognitive development can be maximized when learning tasks are in the zone just beyond what the learner can do on their own but with the support of a more knowledgeable adult or peer. Vygotsky called this zone of maximized learning, the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The support given to the learner in the ZPD is referred to as scaffolding. According to Vygotsky, cognitive development stems from the social interactions which occur within the ZPD where the learner and a more knowledge peer or adult work together on a task that the learner could not perform independently. While in the ZPD, the teacher or peer gradually withdraws the scaffolding until the leaner is able to perform the task or skill alone. From Vygotsky’s perspective, the cognitive development of middle level learners is facilitated each time teachers provide challenging learning experiences while providing the support (scaffolding) necessary until the student is successful alone. HOW DOES BRAIN RESEARCH AND INFORMATION PROCESSING THEORY RELATE TO COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT? In the past two decades, advances in brain research along with our understanding of information processing theory have provided new insights into cognitive

development during early adolescence. Although it is well known that the brains of babies ages birth to three years of age are very malleable, or plastic, “we now know that adolescence is a similarly remarkable period of brain reorganization and plasticity” (Steinberg, 2014, p. 22). Experiences sculpt the young adolescent’s developing brain. Furthermore, cognitive abilities have been associated with a broad network of brain structures (Atkins, Bunting, Bolger & Dougherty, 2012). These cognitive abilities can best be understood by relating them to the information processing theory of learning. According to information processing theory, learning occurs through complex, mental processes used to move information from sensory input into working memory and eventually into long-term memory where the information is stored for future retrieval. Certain processes, such as attention and perception, initiate the flow of information. Other processes called executive functions help the learner regulate and monitor learning. These include, but are not limited to metacognition (thinking about one’s thinking), repeating or rehearsing new information, organizing, task switching, and self-regulation. Other processes such as retrieval and recall help the learner remember information when needed. During early adolescence, developmental changes in brain structures and overall connectivity between structures occur which leads to improvement in the capacity and efficiency of processing new information as described above (Schunk, 2012). The complexity and extent of brain development in adolescence is astounding and certainly cannot be addressed completely or adequately in this section of cognitive development. Nevertheless, a few examples illustrate how development of the brain is reflected in adolescents’ thinking. For example, the frontal lobes of the brain, especially the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for planning, reasoning, judgment, self-regulation, sustaining attention, and risk evaluation, undergoes rapid but prolonged reorganization during adolescence. Consequently, young adolescents can demonstrate more thoughtful, abstract reasoning. Yet, they may exhibit difficulties paying attention, making decisions, planning, or evaluating consequences of their actions. One’s abilities in these areas continue to develop throughout adolescence into adulthood. “There are times when young adolescent intellectual development appears to be at the mercy of emotional development” (Powell, 2015, p. 34). With the onset of puberty, hormonal changes cause the emotional centers of the adolescent brain to become more sensitive and more easily aroused (Steinberg, 2014). These changes may account for young adolescents’ increasing curiosity and wide-ranging interests as well as their overly dramatic responses to events and their tendency to blurt out. Furthermore, researchers have shown that high levels of emotion (i.e., stress or anxiety) can interfere with cognition in the

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT ◾ 91

classroom (Ashcraft & Rudig, 2012). The toxic effects of high levels of stress or anxiety on a student’s ability to process information cannot be underestimated. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUNG ADOLESCENTS’ THINKING? At times, it is difficult to sort out the cognitive developmental changes of young adolescents from those which relate to physical, emotional, or psychosocial factors. Eccles (1999) suggested that the most important cognitive changes to occur during early adolescence relates to their ability to “think abstractly, consider the hypothetical as well as the real, consider multiple dimensions of a problem at the same time, reflect on themselves and on complicated problems” (p. 38). During the middle school years, young adolescents are transitioning from concrete to abstract thinking. They move from understanding the world through touching, manipulating, and interacting with familiar, concrete objects to being able to visualize, hypothesize, analyze, and synthesize information and data. They become more skilled in thinking flexibly, reasoning verbally, and in formulating and arguing a position. However, wide individual differences exist in this ability with some young adolescents displaying limited abilities to recognize and respond to alternative or opposing points of view (Nippold & Ward-Lonergan, TABLE 1

2010). They become more adept at understanding metaphors, verbal analogies and humor. They become more sensitive to sarcasm (Pickhardt, 2013). Young adolescents become increasingly capable of metacognition and self-reflection. They develop increased capacity for mindfulness which enhances executive control processes necessary for learning (Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, Lawlor & Tomson, 2012). Nevertheless, these and other cognitive skills must be taught, practiced and regularly incorporated into learning activities. Becoming more capable of self-reflection, young adolescents develop a keen sense of self-awareness especially of their own strengths and challenges and become increasingly more competent in setting their own goals for learning and assessing their progress toward meeting those goals. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHERS? Effective middle level teachers understand that developmentally appropriate instruction is the foundation upon which all instructional decisions are made (National Middle School Association, 2012). Using a variety of appropriate approaches and materials which address a wide-range of cognitive abilities is the bedrock of success in middle level classrooms. Table 1 provides a sample listing of selected teaching practices which will

Teaching Strategies and Their Effect on Cognition

Strategy

Effect

Maintain supportive and challenging environment.

Reduces stress and anxiety. Facilitates information processing.

Use novel approaches.

Primes attention for information processing.

Use engaging activities.

Holds attention. Facilitates information processing.

Use analogies and have students create their own analogies.

Links new, abstract information to prior, concrete knowledge. Facilitates movement of information into long term memory in a familiar form.

Use visual aids or models and have student create their own visual aids and models.

Provides concrete representations of abstract concepts. Facilitates movement of new information into long term memory in an organized form.

Use graphic organizers, concepts maps for complex information and Facilitates metacognition and organizes information for storage into have students create their own graphic organizers and concept maps. long term memory in an organized form. Provide choices.

Links to personal interests and relevancy. Maintains attention and facilitates self-regulation.

Assist students in making their own timeline and checklists for long term or complex projects.

Assists with decision-making and facilitates self-regulation.

Provide instructions and checklists for learning when students work with partners or groups.

Scaffolds learning.

Provide rubrics or expectations for performance.

Facilitates self-regulation. Supports planning and goal setting.

Provide time and support for students to establish their own expectations for learning.

Facilitates self-regulation. Supports planning and goal setting.

Demonstrate think-alouds when problem-solving or when completing challenging tasks.

Models metacognition.

Have students think-aloud or record their thoughts when solving problems or when reading.

Provides practice doing metacognition. Facilitates self-regulation.

Provide frequent, specific, task-related feedback.

Facilitates self-regulation and goal setting.

92 ◾ COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING

facilitate learning given the unique cognitive changes experienced by middle level learners. Recently scientists have learned that experiences not only change the brain at a given moment, but enhance the potential for future change. “During periods of heightened plasticity, learning something new can make subsequent learning easier” (Steinberg, 2014, p. 36). These findings have profound implications for teachers of young adolescents. The impact of appropriate learning experiences during periods of increased brain plasticity (as occurs in early adolescence) is even more impactful than previously thought. These experiences can prime the brain of the young adolescent to profit from future experiences. As middle level teachers, we are uniquely positioned and qualified to assist students as they transition through dramatic cognitive changes toward becoming more effective thinkers, problem solvers, and decision makers now and for their future. REFERENCES Arnett, J. J. (2012). Human development: A cultural approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Ashcraft, M. H., & Rudig, N. O. (2012). Higher cognition is altered by noncognitive factors: How affect enhances and disrupts mathematics performance in adolescence and young adulthood. In V. F. Reyna, S. B. Chapman, M. R. Dougherty, & J. Confrey (Eds.), The adolescent brain: Learning, reasoning, and decision making (pp. 243–263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Atkins, S. M., Bunting, M. F., Bolger, D. J., & Dougherty, M. R. (2012). Training the adolescent brain: Neural plasticity and the acquisition of cognitive abilities. In V. F. Reyna, S. B. Chapman, M. R. Dougherty, & J. Confrey (Eds.). The adolescent brain: Learning, reasoning, and decision making (pp. 211–241). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6–14. The Future of Children, 9(2), 30–44. Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechaum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. National Middle School Association. (2012). This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools (2nd ed.). Westerville, OH: Author. Nippold, M. A., & Ward-Lonergan, J. M. (2010). Argumentative writing in pre-adolescents: The role of verbal reasoning. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26(3), 238–248. Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Lawlor, M. S., & Thomson, K. C. (2012). Mindfulness and inhibitory control in young adolescence. Journal of Young Adolescence, 32(4), 565–588.

Piaget, J. (1973). Main trends in psychology. London, England: George Allen & Unwin. Powell, S. D. (2015). Introduction to middle level education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Pickhardt, C. E. (2013, October 14). Why so sensitive? Adolescence and embarrassment [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ surviving-your-childs-adolescence/201310/why-so -sensitive-adolescence-and-embarrassment Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (2004). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING Alyssa D. Nucaro University of Memphis The traditional role of principals, teachers, parents, and community members has evolved into an inclusive organizational structure where all members of a school community work together. The need to reform school practices is an issue that has persisted for years. In collaborative environments, all members of a learning community take responsibility for helping students learn (Kohm & Nance, 2009). Prompted by the growing number of low performing schools around the country, a process of including teachers and community stakeholders in the decision-making process has been introduced to bring about systematic change. WHAT IS COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING? The opportunity for all members of a learning community “to be a decision maker and leader if he/she desired,” as well as an equal in respect to “equity of action and respect,” displays the essence of collaborative decision-making (Green & Etheridge, 2001, p. 826). It is the development of inclusive partnerships among leaders, teachers and parents that emphasizes the importance of learning and supporting one another towards a common vision. The idea of collaborative decision-making suggests that an increase in dialogue amongst members in a school community about important issues will foster a productive learning environment for all students. Hence, when there is a shared understanding of individual roles and the

COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING ◾ 93

decision-making processes, there is likely to be support for those processes (Green & Etheridge, 2001). In this way, teachers, parents, administrators, and all other members of the academic community can build strong support systems for one another and successfully implement school improvements. The presence of collaborative decision-making within a school can be displayed in various forms. Lead-teachers, department chairs, advisory groups, master-teachers, and parent advisory committees all represent the common opportunities that are extended to school communities to increase collaboration within a school. The creation of these collaborative roles served the purpose of enhancing productivity by increasing communication, as well as the quality of the work environment (Cranston, 2001). Collaborative decision-making has an expectation of enhanced productivity and effectiveness, since they aim to expand professional culture among teachers and stakeholders. Additionally, collaborative communities aim to provide diverse experiences and expertise with the goal of creating a culture of shared vision and ownership (Cranston, 2001). Collaborative decision-making embraces a process of learning from and supporting one another to create an environment that is helpful for all students. Some common collaborative decision-making issues include: policy development, curriculum, staff development, budget-management, and student achievement. In essence, the traditional role of teachers and guardians has moved towards a more cooperative model where all members of the community are working towards improving students’ educational experiences (Leech & Ray, 2008). However, the process of moving teachers and stakeholders towards greater collaboration and communication has been shown to be slow. Challenges that are faced during the collaborative process include a lack of willingness to give up power or control from an administration perspective. Therefore, collaborative cultures heavily rely on multiple overarching beliefs, including trust, transparency and shared decision-making. In order for collaborative decision-making to be successful, school communities have voiced the importance of trusting administrative teams as a vital component to the decision-making process. Successful collaborative decision-making communities allow others to make high quality decisions and seek genuine communication. All members of the collaborative group must have a stake in the results and experience genuine dialogue amongst each other. Thus, a lack of trust between members in the collaborative group equates to reluctance to work together (Moran, 2000).

LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING With the ever-changing organizational structure of schools and their communities, there are numerous identified challenges and limitations of collaborative decision-making. Many of the challenges observed directly involve the relationship established between administrators and teachers within a school community. There have been challenges in helping teachers and parents balance their professional workload and school commitments, as well as a lack of time available to devote to developing skills. (Cranston, 2001). Building and developing the skills necessary for contributing to the school community is vital for collaborative decision-making. Teachers and parents expressed the importance of their contribution being considered as expertise. Furthermore, despite the attempts to provide increased communication and productivity through collaborative decision-making, there is little known about the effect of collaborative decision-making on student achievement (Cranston, 2001). Although some school districts have seen an increase in school involvement due to their collaborative approaches, there is little evidence supporting the idea that collaborative decision-making increases student achievement rates (Cranston, 2001). IMPLICATIONS As schools continue to improve educational quality and student achievement, the process of collaborative decision-making provides an outlet to do so. In order to successfully implement a collaborative-decision making environment, all members of the school community must extend cooperation and trust in the process. Future research aims at exploring the effect of collaborative decision-making on student achievement, as parent and teacher involvement has yet to establish an increase in educational quality (Moran, 2000). A deeper look into the implications of collaborative decision-making on student achievement has the potential to yield significant results. REFERENCES Cranston, N. (2001) Collaborative decision-making and school based management: Challenges, rhetoric, and reality. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 1–24. Green, R. L., & Etheridge C. P. (2001). Collaborating to establish standards and accountability: Lessons learned about systematic change. Education, 121(4), 821–829. Kohm, B., & Nance, B. (2009). Creating collaborative cultures. Educational Leadership, 67(2), 67–69. Leech, D., & Ray, C. R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared decision-making and the principal’s leadership

94 ◾ COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district. Education 128(4), 630–644. Moran, M. (2000). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration 39(4), 308–331.

COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS Mary Beth Schaefer St. John’s University Lourdes M. Rivera Queens College, City University of New York Concerns about student dropout rates and the preparation of young adults to fill the jobs and careers of the 21st century have led to numerous efforts to reform the K–12 educational process. Initiatives such as “No Child Left Behind” (2001) and “Race to the Top” (2009) were focused on improving students’ academic achievement; both illustrated national efforts to bolster the K–12 educational system in order to ensure that more youth were prepared to engage in the workforce, fill jobs that were in demand, and ultimately strengthen the Unites States’ ability to compete in a global economy. In 2010, President Obama began a shift in the perspective of the reform movement when he clearly articulated the need to tie college and career readiness together (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2010). He urged educators to create a “new vision” that would help students build aptitude for academic achievement and engage in successful career and postsecondary educational opportunities. One overwhelming response to his clarion call came when most states adopted the Common Core State Standards, a set of common learning objectives and expectations for all students regardless of zip code (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). What set the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) apart from other curricula was its college and career focus, evident in its “anchor” standards. The CCSS represented a nation-wide effort to ensure that students were college and career ready upon leaving high school and prepared to participate in postsecondary education and/or employment. But what is college and career readiness? Is it a measure of students’ academic readiness, as described by the CCSS, or is it something more complex and holistic? Is it something that requires that we examine students’ interests, motivations, abilities and needs in order to assist them in becoming active participants in planning for their future—whether their focus is on college or post high school employment? This whole-student focus, so much a part of the vision of the middle

school movement, continues to undergird the philosophy and practice of middle school education; as such, there needs to be a holistic approach to engaging in and understanding college and career readiness in the middle grades. In sum, students’ academic growth and personal development must figure in the way educators conceptualize college and career readiness for middle grades students. The term “College and Career Readiness” was previously associated with high school juniors and seniors. Today, College and Career Readiness (CCR), through the CCSS, spiral down through kindergarten. CCR, however, has a particular significance for the middle grades. These are the years when students begin to make social and academic decisions that significantly impact their future (Arrington, 2000; Osborn & Reardon, 2006; Trusty & Niles, 2003; Trusty, Niles, & Carney, 2005). At this crucial stage in young adolescents’ lives, students’ academic growth and personal and career development are interdependent; these areas of student change, so marked and significant at this time in young people’s lives must be nurtured as a way to promote students’ active engagement and agency in their educational and career pursuits. The middle grades are a critical point in students’ development (National Middle School Association, 2010). Experiences in the middle grades form the foundation for learning in high school and postsecondary educational and work settings. Given the importance of the middle school years in a child’s life, it is essential to identify practices that help foster positive career and college trajectories for all students, describe some of the ways in which readiness activities have been implemented in schools, and identify and describe characteristics of CCR in middle school. A focus on career development, as part of “whole student” development, can be one of the practices that contribute to helping students become college and career ready. WHY CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE GRADES? While much attention has been given to the “college” component of CCR, it is also important to focus on the “career” aspect of students’ development. If we consider, for example, that in many ways pursuing a college education is in effect preparing young people for careers, then how much more impactful might a focus on career development, which can facilitate students’ understanding of themselves in relation to possible future career paths, be in promoting student success? By fostering a focus on students’ personal and academic “self” and helping them explore that self in relation to aspirations, dreams and career paths, we can engage

COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS ◾ 95

students in conversations about their future, help them imagine possibilities for the future, and help them understand how academic achievement is relevant to their goals and aspirations. Through conversations around career development, students can become active participants in the process of learning about themselves. In effect, a focus on career development is a focus on student development. Career development initiatives which are situated in a schools’ academic program offer young people the potential to begin to make connections among self, school, opportunities and dreams. Such activities can foster an environment of college and career readiness and provide students with opportunities to become actively engaged in learning and planning for their future goals and aspirations (Rivera & Schaefer, 2009; Schaefer & Rivera, 2014). Students who are aspirational tend to be more future-focused—a construct that has been identified as helping to keep students engaged and motivated (Bandura, 1977). These and other factors, such as interest and goals, have been related to helping students see the purpose and relevance of school (Mattern et al., 2014). Career development experiences in middle school can help keep students academically and socially engaged in school at a time when they are most vulnerable to disengaging. This disengagement and attendant risk of dropping out of high school impacts a disproportionate number of students from high need areas, including students of color and students for whom English is a second language (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2012; Balfanz, 2009; Balfanz, Bridgeland, Moore, & Fox, 2010). The middle grades are also a time when the decisions students make can have a significant impact on their future. For example, in New York City there are over 700 high school programs from which middle grades students can choose. These programs range from those that prepare students for postsecondary employment to academically rigorous programs specifically geared to prepare students for college. Decisions made at this point in their educational lives can have long lasting implications for what students may be able to pursue in the future, the type of work they may pursue and whether they continue on to postsecondary educational opportunities. FOSTERING CAREER DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES IN SCHOOLS Career development, as a key component of college readiness, can be effectively incorporated into the academic program of schools. A number of studies found that students experienced a positive impact on academic performance and school engagement from participating

in career development interventions (Evans & Burck, 1992; Kenny, Bluestein, Haase, Jackson, & Perry, 2006). There are several ways to foster career development practices in schools. Middle grades students can be encouraged to participate in extra-curricular activities (another construct related to school engagement), work with the school counselor, seek out assistance with course work, and ask to participate in higher-level classes. Additionally, school administrators can help establish collaborations and/or partnerships with universities. Such collaborations can help create opportunities for students to visit colleges, sample college life, and develop a framework for understanding the idea of college and what college might be like (Schaefer, 2014). Through these collaborations, university professors with career development backgrounds may be available to help start developmentally appropriate and relevant career activities in the middle school (Schaefer, Rivera & Ophals, 2010). Such programs and/or interventions can be accomplished with the help of school counselors, administrators, teachers, and parents. Career development interventions can be provided through the school counseling program, imbedded within content areas, and/or through the school’s advisory program. Hosting a school-wide career day in middle school can help students explore possible options for future careers. Inviting many professionals from wide and varied career paths, setting them up in small rooms or at small tables and allowing students to visit with them to ask questions can also foster a sense of possibilities and interest in the future. In choosing the speaker with whom to visit, students may ask questions that facilitate curiosity, awareness, and knowledge. WHAT “READINESS” FOR CAREER AND COLLEGE LOOKS LIKE IN THE MIDDLE GRADES The idea of college readiness has identifiable and describable facets that are explored in Conley’s (2011) work. In his report Redefining College Readiness, Conley presents research-based facets of the behaviors, skills and dispositions that indicate high school upper classmen’s readiness for college. He identified four important facets: (a) key cognitive strategies; (b) key content knowledge; (c) academic behaviors; and (d) contextual skills and awareness and explains that they “interact with and affect one another extensively” (p. 8). These facets also figure in reconceptualizing what college and career readiness might look like among middle school students. While Conley’s facets transcend academic standards and include cultural readiness, in looking at the middle grades student, we see that an idea of readiness must also include social and personal components.

96 ◾ COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS

This broader idea regards “readiness” through the lens of the whole child. Such wide measures mean that the assessments that we use to gauge “readiness” must be more holistic (Mattern et al., 2014). College and career readiness in middle school means engaging students in discussions about themselves and their future plans. It is also important for students to be engaged in discussions about how they feel and think about college. These discussions can be facilitated by questions such as: What would you like to do after high school? Do you see yourself as a college student? How do you feel about college? What do you need to be successful in college? Do you see college as important for achieving your personal goals and career path ideas? In addition, helping students become familiar with concepts such as scholarships, financial aid, credits, and tuition can help students develop contextual knowledge (Conley, 2011) and skills that facilitate more holistic readiness for college and future success. These topics and themes figure deeply in helping students become college and career ready and help students make good choices for their future before, during, and after their high school experiences. CONCLUSION Current descriptions of college readiness, such as those put forth in the Common Core State Standards, are too narrowly conceived to be appropriate and germane for the middle grades student. A growing body of research suggests that readiness for college and career includes other factors such as work ethic, cooperation, listening and self-regulation. A more holistic approach to conceiving college readiness in the middle grades is also needed. These are the years when the developmental needs and interests of children must be addressed in relation to academics, not apart from it. By engaging in career development activities, students participate in the process of thinking, learning and wondering about their futures, encouraging them to set their own goals and standards for achievement and success. Career development and college readiness is something that we need to begin addressing in the middle grades, so that by the time young adolescents reach high school, they are developmentally ready to engage in the process of learning and planning for the challenges of post-secondary education and/or work. REFERENCES Alliance for Excellent Education. (2012). Caught in the crisis: Students of color and native students in U.S. high schools. Retrieved from http://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/caught-in-the

-crisis-students-of-color-and-native-students-in-u-s-highschools/ Arrington, K. (2000). Middle grades career planning programs. Journal of Career Development, 27, 103–109. Balfanz, R. (2009). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path: A policy and practice brief. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Retrieved from https://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/articles/policy_ brief_balfanz.pdf Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J. M., Moore, L. A., & Fox, J. H. (2010). Building a grad nation: Progress and challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic. Retrieved from http://www.americaspromise.org/our-work/grad -nation/building-a-grad-nation.aspx Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Conley, D. T. (2011). Redefining college readiness (Volume 5). Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved from http://www.epiconline.org/ download/36913/ Evans, J. H., Jr., & Burck, H. D. (1992). The effects of career development interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71(1), 63–68. Kenny, M. E., Blustein, D. L., Haase, R. F., Jackson, J., & Perry, J. C. (2006). Setting the stage: Career development and the student engagement process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 272–279. Mattern, K., Burrus, J., Camara, W., O’Connor, R., Hanson, M.A., Gambrell, J., . . . Bobek, B. (2014). Broadening the definition of college and career readiness: A holistic approach. ACT Research Report 2014-5. Retrieved from http:// www.act.org/research/ researchers/reports/pdf/ACT_ RR2014-5.pdf National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors. Osborn, D. S., & Reardon, R. C. (2006). Using the self-directed search: Career Explorer with high-risk middle school students. Career Development Quarterly, 54, p. 269–273. Rivera, L. M., & Schaefer, M. B. (2009). The career institute: A collaborative career development program for traditionally underserved secondary (6–12) school students. Journal of Career Development, 35(4), 406–426. Schaefer, M. B. (2014). Facilitating college readiness through campus life experiences. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 37(7), 1–19. Schaefer, M. B., & Rivera, L. M. (2014). ‘Just chillin’ on the quad:’ Middle grades students in college. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(2), 91–107. Schaefer, M. B., Rivera, L. M., & Ophals, E. (2010). Creating a collaborative career development program for middle school students. Middle School Journal, 42(2), 30–38. Trusty, J., & Niles, S. (2003). High-school math courses and completion of the bachelor’s degree. Professional School Counseling, 7, 99–107.

COLLEGIATE MIDDLE LEVEL ASSOCIATION ◾ 97 Trusty, J., Niles, S., & Carney, J. V. (2005). Education-career planning and middle school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9, 136–143. White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2010). President Obama calls for new steps to prepare American’s children for success in college and careers [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president -obama-calls-new-steps-prepare-america-s-children -success-college-and-care

COLLEGIATE MIDDLE LEVEL ASSOCIATION Nancy B. Mizelle Georgia College & State University Joanne L. Previts Georgia College & State University The Collegiate Middle Level Association (CMLA, formerly the Student Association for Middle Education) began in 1989 under the direction of Dr. John Swaim from the University of Northern Colorado. Through the years, the organization has experienced significant change; it has grown steadily and gained recognition for the potential influence of its members on the future of middle-grades education. In the early 1990s, CMLA was an organization of individual membership and its finances were dependent on those individual memberships and one meeting a year. There were four institutions of higher education with active chapters: the University of Northern Colorado, Northern Iowa University, Appalachian State University, and Illinois State University. When officers were elected they likely represented different institutions. In 1995, significant recognition came to CMLA when the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE, formerly National Middle School Association) Board of Trustees voted to recognize the organization as an official affiliate member, joining the state middle school associations. At the same time, CMLA moved from individual to chapter memberships of AMLE and revised the organization’s governance and financing. An Advisory Board, which includes advisors from all member chapters, was created and now selects National CMLA officers from one campus for a two-year term to be the National Host Site. The colleges and universities selected to serve as National Host Site since the restructuring include: Illinois State University (1995–1997); Missouri Southern University (1997–1999); Central Michigan University (1999–2001); Appalachian State University (2001–2003); Ashland University (2003–2005); University of Dayton (2005–2007); Georgia College & State University (2007–2009); Otterbein University (2009–2011); Morehead State University (2011–2013); Appalachian

State University (2013–2015); and Otterbein University (2015–2017). Chapters were added when colleges and universities developed middle level teacher education programs. Currently, 45 CMLA chapter members exist. Financing was changed to enable the organization to hold two meetings annually—one in the spring and one at the AMLE annual conference in the fall. Under the new structure, in the late 1990s, CMLA grew slowly. Officers and advisors worked together to accomplish significant professional development offerings, a major revision of the National CMLA Constitution and By-laws, and a greater emphasis on advocacy and leadership development for CMLA members. The structure changed to give opportunity for leadership development for officers and greater involvement by the National Officers in planning the different events during their tenure. Officers plan the logistics as well as the program for events and often entertain Chapters and advisors, from across the country, on their campus. The CMLA chapters benefit from the ongoing support and advocacy of AMLE and the National Professors of Middle Level Education (NaPoMLE). AMLE continues recognition of CMLA as a fully functional unit of the organization. The AMLE Foundation fund sponsors a CMLA chapter grant while NaPoMLE selects an Outstanding CMLA Chapter for recognition. These gestures exhibit their continual commitment to CMLA and the development of professional middle level educators.

THE COMMITTEE OF TEN REPORT Shannon Grey West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District In the late 1800s, the United States faced the challenges brought by swift changes impacting the public high school. During a period of about 40 years, institutes of secondary education saw a tremendous rise in the number of students entering the system. This was due in part to increased enrollment owing to the newly established compulsory education laws, and to the continuing influx of immigrant families who sought education for their children. Twenty-seven states had compulsory education laws in 1890; with the remaining states joining suit by 1918 (Sadovnik, Cookson, & Semel, 2006). The population of secondary schools was changing, as were the expectations placed on these establishments by their patrons as well as by institutes of higher education. Without an overarching supervisory body, local schools and districts made individual decisions on what was taught, through what methods and to what standards. These aspects along with determining how coursework

98 ◾ COMMON PLANNING TIME

would coincide with college admission requirements became topics of great debate (Ravitch, 2001). The National Education Association formed a Committee on Secondary School Studies in 1892 in response to the need to address issues related to the high school curriculum. This group known as The Committee of Ten had a primary charge of determining how to prepare students to meet the wide variety of admission requirements held by colleges and universities (Fraser, 2014). Harvard University President, Charles Eliot was appointed to chair the committee whose members included four college presidents, three high school principals, and one college professor, along with U.S. Commissioner of Education William Harris, who like Eliot was a renowned educator and reformer of the time (Ravitch, 2001). While Eliot shared the primary goal of standardizing the high school curriculum in order to establish consistent college entrance requirements, he also used his position as chairperson to address the very nature and purpose of these institutions of secondary education. An advocate of equal access to educational opportunities and critic of the growing tracking system, Eliot championed the cause of one universal high school curriculum for all (Fraser, 2014). The result of the committee’s work was the publication of The Committee of Ten Report (National Education Association, 1894) that has had a lasting impact on secondary education. This significant document drew tremendous attention in the form of both critics and supporters. Each discipline held a conference to discuss the start and duration of their field within the school curriculum charting out expectations from the first to twelfth year of schooling, the findings of which are included in the Report. Recommendations were made regarding courses of study, methods and principles of teaching, examinations, and even teacher preparation and supervision. The Committee called for an emphasis on modern European languages, mathematics, history, geography, and both pure and applied sciences in the high school curriculum (Cremin, 1961). The Report’s most contested recommendation revealed a belief that all students should be provided with a liberal education regardless of whether higher education was part of their aspirations for the future or if their interests were more vocational in nature, an ideal argued to this day. REFERENCES Cremin, L. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1876–1957. New York, NY: Knopf. Fraser, J. (Ed.). (2014). The school in the United States: A documentary history (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school studies with the reports of the

conferences arranged by the committee, New York, NY: American Book Company. Ravitch, D. (2001). Left back: A century of battles over school reform. New York, NY: Touchstone. Sadovnik, A., Cookson, P., Jr., & Semel, S. (2006). Exploring education: An introduction to the foundations of education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

COMMON PLANNING TIME Shawn A. Faulkner Northern Kentucky University Chris M. Cook Appalachian State University There are several signature organizational structures commonly associated with middle grades schools. One such organizational structure is the interdisciplinary team which includes two or more teachers representing different core subjects (i.e., language arts, science, social studies, mathematics) and special education who are typically situated in the same area of the school building and who work with the same group of students. The Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) identifies the interdisciplinary team as a signature organizational structure of the high-performing middle school, and for teams to function effectively, regular, daily common planning time is essential (National Middle School Association, 2010). Kellough and Kellough (2008) defined common planning time (CPT) as “a regularly scheduled time during the school day when teachers who teach the same students meet for joint planning, parent conferences, materials preparation, and student evaluation” (p. 394). Various groups representing different constituencies associated with educating middle level students realize the importance of, and advocate for, middle schools organized as teams with common planning time for teachers. The Association for Middle Level Education, in its position paper titled This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents, states common planning time is essential for teams to “integrate curriculum, analyze assessment data, examine student work, discuss current research, and reflect on the effectiveness of instructional approaches being used” (NMSA, 2010, p. 32). Jackson and Davis (2000) in Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century also emphasized the importance of a team organizational structure for building a collaborative work environment which is common in many professions. For middle school teachers, having common planning time enables them to translate academic standards into engaged learning for students.

COMMON PLANNING TIME ◾ 99

Likewise, the National Association of Secondary School Principals suggested in Breaking Ranks in the Middle: Strategies for Leading Middle Level Reform (NASSP, 2006) that providing teachers with common planning time would enhance interaction between teachers and students and enable teachers to better align the curriculum. TEAM STRUCTURE AND COMMON PLANNING TIME When middle schools were initially conceived, the founders envisioned an interdisciplinary team organizational structure with common planning time. As an organizational structure, common planning time provides teachers on the interdisciplinary team with time to collaboratively design and integrate curriculum, examine student work and assessments, discuss student behavioral and academic issues, correspond with parents, and plan team events and activities. However, in recent years, the definition of team has broadened to include professional learning communities and grade-level teams. Professional learning communities are teams that focus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment issues for a specific content area. For example, a professional learning community might include all of the science teachers for a particular grade level. The teachers meet to discuss discipline-specific pedagogy and assessment and to review student performance in that particular content area. Some middle schools also have grade-level teams that include all of the teachers at a school who teach the same grade level. The purpose of grade-level teams is to attend to business that impacts the entire grade level (e.g., organizing student-led conferences, discussing grading policies, planning field trips). Ideally, middle schools organize the school schedule to allow for all three types of teams. As Faulkner and Cook (2013) discovered in their study of school culture and the use of common planning time, regardless of the structure of the team—interdisciplinary teams, professional learning communities, or grade level teams—common planning time was essential for the team to function effectively. In addition, for common planning time to provide the greatest benefit, it must be situated within a culture of support, communication, trust, and professionalism. Though teams are structured differently in middle schools across the United States, Jackson and Davis (2000) asserted that lack of common planning time is a “key issue” (p. 131) for American middle schools.

students, Warren and Muth (1995) reported students who experience interdisciplinary teams with common planning time have more positive interaction with teachers, have higher self-concepts, and a more positive level of school satisfaction. Pattee (2013) also shared students displayed fewer behavior problems, felt a stronger sense of community, and were able to receive individualized assistance more easily. Further, Mertens, Flowers, and Mulhall (1998) highlighted the positive influence common planning time can have on academic achievement and revealed that students in schools with high levels of common planning time showed greater academic efficacy and were more well-adjusted to the school experience. As for benefits to teachers, Felner and colleagues (1997) indicated common planning time increased the amount of contact between teachers and resource staff, increased the frequency of parent contact, enhanced the coordination of student assignments and assessments, and increased teachers’ overall perceptions on the quality of their teaching. In addition, effectively using common planning time can lead to increased teacher job satisfaction (Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall, 1999), lower turnover among teachers (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004), enhanced collegiality and positive interaction among colleagues (Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall, 2000; Lipsitz, 1984), and greater emphasis on a student-centered approach to teaching (Anfara & Caskey, 2013). Further, Taylor (2013) shared that common planning time allowed teachers to make a stronger commitment to students’ social, emotional, and intellectual development and establish a more positive school environment for students. BARRIERS TO COMMON PLANNING TIME On the other hand, there are several barriers that can impact the effectiveness of common planning time. Franz, Thompson, and Miller (2013) revealed that teacher buy-in, specific school and team structure, offtask behavior among team members, and limited time to engage in planning can make using common planning time challenging. Furthermore, Duffield (2013) identified team dysfunction, team competition and conflict, administrator interference, and navigating a schedule that accommodates both core and encore teachers as barriers to the effective use of common planning time. Finally, Carpenter, Musser, Samek, and Caskey (2013) shared that failing to have a specific plan of action or agenda to lead the meeting were key barriers to effective use of common planning time.

BENEFITS OF COMMON PLANNING TIME There are numerous benefits to students and teachers when common planning time is made available to teachers and used effectively. When it comes to benefits to

REFERENCES Anfara, V., & Caskey, M. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of common planning time: A qualitative analysis of the National

100 ◾ COMMUNITY Middle Grades Research Project. In S. B. Mertens, V. A. Anfara, Jr., M. M. Caskey, & N. Flowers (Eds.), Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s national project (pp. 189–211). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Carpenter, J., Musser, M., Samek, L., & Caskey, M. (2013). Common planning time in Oregon middle schools: An endangered model. In S. B. Mertens, V. A. Anfara, Jr., M. M. Caskey, & N. Flowers (Eds.), Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s national project (pp. 257–285). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Duffield, S. (2013). Common planning time: Benefits and barriers. In S. B. Mertens, V. A. Anfara, Jr., M. M. Caskey, & N. Flowers (Eds.), Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s national project (pp. 27–48). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Faulkner, S. A., & Cook, C. M. (2013). Components of school culture that enhance the effective use of common planning time in two high-performing middle schools. In S. B. Mertens, V. A. Anfara, Jr., M. M. Caskey, & N. Flowers (Eds.), Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s national project (pp. 69– 87). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Felner, R., Jackson, A. W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The Project on High Performance Learning Communities: Applying the land-grant model to school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 520–527. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Muhall, P. (1999). The impact of teaming: Five research-based outcomes of teaming. Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57–60. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. (2000). What makes interdisciplinary teams effective? Middle School Journal, 31(4), 53–56. Franz, D., Thompson, N., & Miller, N. (2013). Comparison of teacher’s perceptions of perceived barriers regarding the implementation of common planning time at two middle schools. In S. B. Mertens, V. A. Anfara, Jr., M. M. Caskey, & N. Flowers (Eds.), Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s national project (pp. 49–67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kellough, R. D., & Kellough, N. G. (2008). Teaching young adolescents: Methods and resources for middle grades teaching (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Lipsitz, J. (1984). Successful schools for young adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., & Mulhall, P. (1998). The Middle Start Initiative, Phase I: A longitudinal analysis of Michigan middle-level schools. Champaign, IL: Center for Prevention Research and Development, University of Illinois. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2006). Breaking ranks in the middle: Strategies for leading middle level reform. Reston, VA: Author. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.

Pattee, D. (2013). Social capital and common planning time. In S. B. Mertens, V. A. Anfara, Jr., M. M. Caskey, & N. Flowers (Eds.), Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s national project (pp. 89–107). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714. Taylor, M. (2013). The benefits and drawbacks of common planning time for interdisciplinary team teachers. In S. B. Mertens, V. A. Anfara, Jr., M. M. Caskey, & N. Flowers (Eds.), Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s national project (pp. 109–130). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Warren, L., & Muth, K. (1995). Common planning time in middle grades schools and its impact on students and teachers. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 18(3), 41–58.

COMMUNITY Meghan E. Barnes The University of Georgia As pre-K–12 U.S. schools continue to become increasingly diverse along racial, ethnic, and cultural lines (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014), it becomes even more important that teachers work to foster a sense of community both through their pedagogical approaches in the classroom and the interpersonal relationships they form with and between themselves, students, and families. The concept of community can take a variety of forms in middle grades education, specifically. Most commonly “community” refers to either the community of the classroom or the relationship built between teachers/schools and the surrounding community and families. There are a variety of benefits and challenges associated with both forms of community in teaching, as well as ways to develop the types of relationships that lead to a greater sense of community and enhanced educational experiences for all involved: students, parents, and teachers. CLASSROOM COMMUNITY Students are more likely to participate in classroom spaces where they feel supported, valued, and safe. By creating a safe space for students to take risks, teachers can encourage greater dialogue among students and can encourage them to interrogate challenging or potentially uncomfortable topics. Dialogue among students, whether in whole-class, small-group, or partner settings, has the potential to foster new and more meaningful relationships between students. As students come

COMMUNITY ◾ 101

to know the classroom space as a place where they are appropriately challenged and supported, a relationship built on trust can begin to develop between the teacher and students. As classrooms are reimagined as places of collaboration and community, the roles of teachers and students can begin to shift. Rather than the teacher assuming the authority position as the sole owner of knowledge, students can begin to feel a sense of ownership over the classroom space as well as their own learning. The community-based classroom has the potential to shift from a banking model (Freire, 1970) of education to one where teachers and students are both positioned to be in dialogue with one another as learners. Challenges There are a number of challenges associated with the fostering of community in the classroom. First, building a classroom community takes time that often leads to the teacher feeling like they have to choose between the prescribed curriculum and incorporating activities that still address the curriculum but require more time than more rote, traditional, direct approaches to teaching. Similarly, the teacher must assume a disposition of reflexivity where they constantly reflect on their practice and student responses to that practice and then make adjustments as necessary. Finally, as with any pedagogical practice, some students may be resistant to the community-building attempts of the teacher. At the middle school level, in particular, teachers must be wary of students who may not want to work with other students and who prefer to work and learn independently. Methods Middle grades teachers in any content area can foster a sense of community in their classroom in a variety of ways. By moving from small- to large-group discussions, the teacher provides a variety of opportunities for students to contribute to discussion and to interact with peers. By changing groups and partners often, students are given the chance to interact with and get to know peers with whom they may not otherwise spend time. Before undertaking any group work, it is important that the teacher recognize that not all students will be comfortable speaking in groups. To alleviate some of the fear that may be associated with speaking out loud, especially at the middle school level, teachers can provide time for students to organize their thoughts in writing before expecting them to contribute to class discussions. Teachers can also incorporate silent discussions into the class by having students respond to one another on paper through a written dialogue.

Opportunities for collaborative work in the classroom can take the form of either break-out groups or cooperative learning groups (Duplass, 2006). Breakout groups are generally less formal and are organized around short-term goals and tasks. Cooperative learning groups are more structured heterogeneous groups who work together over a longer period of time. Cooperative learning groups should be structured in such a way as to foster positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, individual accountability, social skills, group processing, and evaluation (Duplass, 2006). When incorporating any type of group work, teachers should set clear boundaries and expectations for discussions and interactions (Duplass, 2006). Teachers may also choose to involve students in determining these guidelines. Regardless of the structure of the groupings, the incorporation of either challenging or potentially controversial topics and texts can often encourage rich discussions among students and foster a sense of community among students over time (Smagorinsky, 2008). In addition to setting clear guidelines for discussion, the teacher should also work to prepare students for the content that will be discussed. Student choice remains a central feature of fostering a sense of community in and student-ownership over the classroom. In addition to involving students in conversations about classroom procedures, teachers can allow students to have choice in assignments, texts, and activities (Tomlinson, 2001). By inviting students into conversations about what will be taught and how, the teacher is further challenging their own authority-position and reframing the classroom space as a collaborative learning community. SCHOOL–FAMILY COMMUNITIES Parents and teachers are often considered at-odds and have even been termed, somewhat controversially, “natural enemies” (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2003). Conflicting perceptions of parent engagement, academic success, and teacher responsibilities are cited as contributing to the divide that exists between parents and teachers. While parents and teachers may have different opinions about how and what children should be taught, they often share the common goal of wanting children to be successful in school. To encourage collaborative, rather than tense and conflict-ridden, relationships between parents and teachers, teachers can foster more open and regular dialogue between the school and home. Increasingly teaching is being regarded as a “commuter profession” as many teachers do not belong to or live in the communities in which they teach (Singleton & Linton, 2006). For this reason, it is important that teachers must work to learn from and about

102 ◾ COMMUNITY

the communities from which their students come each day. In other words, the teacher “must take into account and give value to the resources that the community provides” (Singleton& Linton, 2006, p. 233). This type of culturally responsive teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002) requires the teacher to be self-reflective about their own schooling experiences and expectations and then to spend time learning about the interests, experiences, and learning styles of their students and families as they develop curriculum and select teaching materials. Challenges There are a number of challenges associated with building a sense of community between schools and families. Perhaps the greatest obstacles to the cultivation of a positive parent–teacher relationship, are misconceptions about the other. For instance, oftentimes teachers and schools are perceived as wanting to impose their own values and ideologies on families and communities. Similarly, many schools and teachers consider involved parents to present a challenge to the professionalism of teaching, and so do not solicit their input or feedback. Further, the work of building relationships with the community is time-consuming and can even be fear-inducing for novice teachers. Similar to the construction of a classroom community, the work that is done to build a relationship between the school and the community can often be viewed as taking valuable time away from the required standards-based curriculum and high-stakes test preparation. Methods Even with the laundry list of challenges presented above, many educators and researchers have found productive and innovative ways to build a sense of community between families and schools. Family Dialogue Journals (Allen, 2010) are one way that teachers can foster regular dialogue between themselves, students, and parents. The back-and-forth discussion between home and school provides an opportunity for teachers to learn more about the home experiences of students while also providing a space for parents to ask questions of the teacher and the students regarding school happenings. As mentioned earlier, culturally responsive pedagogies (Ladson-Billings, 1995) have been recognized as a means for teachers to draw from students’ personal interests, home practices, and families as they design curriculum. To solicit information about students and encourage students and families to set academic and personal goals teachers can invite families and students

to complete inventories, or surveys. Surveys may also be more specifically geared towards learning about the cultural practices of a family. For instance, asking families what language(s) they speak at home and which language(s) they are most comfortable communicating in (Polleck & Shabdin, 2013). The information regarding students’ interests, home languages, and home practices learned from inventories can then be incorporated into the content of the classroom. For instance, if a student expresses an interest in a particular type of music, a culturally responsive teacher might invite that student to bring in song lyrics from that genre that can be analyzed as a piece of poetry. In this way, the student’s personal music interest is recognized as valuable in the classroom and provides an opportunity for the teacher to learn more about their community of students (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Cultivating mutually beneficial partnerships between communities and schools should focus on relationship-building (Goldblatt, 2005), rather than privileging the needs of one group over another. In other words, the relationship between parents and teachers should not be unidirectional where the teacher demands participation, involvement, and information from the parent. Instead, the teacher must also be prepared to share the same types of information with the parent and to maintain a level of transparency about classroom activities and expectations. By incorporating experiential learning opportunities into the curriculum, teachers can provide an opportunity for students to interact with community members and families as they learn required course content. Through service-learning, for instance, students build deeper, more critical understandings of academic content as they work to address a community-identified need (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). This work also has the potential to build stronger ties between the school and the community members. CONCLUSION Building a sense of community both within the classroom space and between the school and families is a challenging undertaking that should not fall to the teacher alone. School administrators play an influential role in this process by supporting teachers who incorporate community-building practices into their classrooms, by inviting families into the school, and by establishing a school presence in the community. When inviting families to the school, administrators should remain wary of parent work schedules and access to transportation that may limit parental access to the school. Rather than attributing a parents’ lack of presence in the school building to a lack of care, administrators

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM ◾ 103

and teachers should challenge common assumptions of what parent involvement “looks like.” More diverse understandings of parent engagement can lead to more diverse opportunities for parents to engage in the school and more positive and mutually beneficial relationships between families and schools. In terms of middle grades education community is a fairly broad and all-encompassing concept that at once recognizes classroom-based teacher practices and the cultivation of positive, mutually beneficial relationships between students, teachers, and parents. REFERENCES Allen, J. (2010). Literacy in the welcoming classroom: Creating family–school partnerships that support student learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 112–122. Duplass, J. A. (2006). Middle and high school teaching: Methods, standards, and best practices. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Goldblatt, E. (2005). Alinsky’s reveille: A community-organizing model for neighborhood-based literacy projects. College English, 67(3), 274–295. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn about each other. New York, NY: Random House. National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The condition of education: Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools (Data File). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp Polleck, J., & Shabdin, S. (2013). Building culturally responsive communities. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 86(4), 142–149. Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Smagorinsky, P. (2008). Teaching English by design: How to create and carry out instructional units. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(20), 20–32.

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM Steven B. Mertens Illinois State University Nancy Flowers CPRD, University of Illinois Monica Martinez Contributor from 1st edition The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Program was established by the 1998 Fiscal Year Appropriations Act for the U.S. Department of Education as Public Law 105-78, commonly known as Obey-Porter. CSRD was designed, in part, to build on and strengthen school wide programs under the Improving America’s Schools Act. CSRD programs were designed to support comprehensive school improvement strategies in a coordinated fashion to help students reach challenging standards (van Heusden Hale, 2000). CSRD was designed to improve the entire school while addressing all key operations of a school. That is, it was supposed to address all aspects of school, from teaching to school structure, and must place focus on improving the learning of all students in all subjects rather than focusing solely on particular populations of students within a school or performance in particular subjects. Under Obey-Porter, schools that sought eligibility for funding were required to develop comprehensive and coherent school wide plans that addressed nine specific areas. These nine components stress that schools incorporate measurable goals; support from staff members; research-based methods; external assistance; parental and community involvement; staff development; coordination of resources; evaluation; and a comprehensive approach into a school wide reform plan. In the 1980s, a number of researchers and practitioners developed whole school models or designs for school reform that included such elements as curriculum, instructional methods, professional development, and restructuring of school organization and governance. CSRD, unlike Title I, placed a special emphasis on working with these expert partners. It allowed for and encouraged schools to implement whole school reform models that have a strong research base and a successful replication record (DeSimone, 2000.) Many of these reform models were already being implemented throughout the United States due to the efforts of programs like the Annenberg Challenge Grant and the New American Schools Break the Mold Schools. The legislation provided states and schools wide autonomy in selecting which, if any, reform models they could implement using CSRD funding. Encouraging them to also develop their own school-wide reform

104 ◾ COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM

programs based on rigorous research, the legislation did not restrict schools to using only those approaches identified by the U.S. Department of Education. Several CSRD programs were specifically developed and/or designed to target reform efforts in the nation’s middle level schools. Some of these programs are still active while others are not. Where possible, information about the programs and their website locations are provided. MIDDLE LEVEL CSRD PROGRAMS AIM at Middle-Grades Results AIM’s goal is that all middle-grades students meet challenging standards and are prepared to succeed at the next stage of learning and growing. AIM uses a set of structures, processes, tools and materials to guide school improvement. A basic tenet is that all schools have the capacity to accelerate student learning and development when they exercise strong and collaborative leadership, create a powerful professional learning community, and build bridges with parents and the community. All of AIM’s professional development and technical assistance activities are based on the following principles: (a) technical assistance must be contextualized; (b) relationships matter; (c) capacity building is the key to long-term sustainability; and (d) continuous school improvement. AIM typically works with schools for three or more years to build the internal capacity for continuous improvement. Website: https://www. edc.org/newsroom/articles/successful_school_reform Different Ways of Knowing Different Ways of Knowing (DWoK) was an inquiry-based, arts-infused, interdisciplinary professional development initiative developed by the Galef Institute. DWoK was based on a curriculum that uses the performing, visual, literary, and media arts to provide students with different ways to understand themselves and their surroundings. It does not appear that the initiative is still active. Making Middle Grades Work Through the Southern Regional Education Board’s middle grades initiative—Making Middle Grades Work (MMGW)—participating states were among the first in the nation to implement strategies that address the crucial middle grades and key transition into high school. MMGW helps states, districts and schools look at what they expect, what they teach, and how they teach young adolescents to prepare for success in further education. MMGW is a network of schools, districts, and states committed to improving school and classroom practices in

the middle grades by implementing a framework of key practices and conditions for continuous improvement. Essential elements of the MMGW design include an aligned academic core, a belief that all students matter, classroom practices that engage students, teachers working together, parental support, qualified teachers, and strong leadership. Website: http://www.sreb.org/ page/1080/making_middle_grades_work.html Middle Start A comprehensive educational reform program for middle grades, FHI 360’s (formerly the Academy for Educational Development) Middle Start has served more than 250 schools in 10 states. The program has aided in creating small learning communities, guiding school self-assessments, aligning curricula and instruction with standards, and building collaborative leadership and community partnerships. Middle Start works to help schools conduct school self-assessment /school quality reviews through anonymous teacher and student attitudes and beliefs about the school. FHI 360 staff developed and promoted school self-assessments in Michigan that gathered data from external peer reviews, using the school’s teaching and student learning goals. Website: http://www.fhi360.org/projects/ middle-start-middle-grades-improvement Schools to Watch Schools to Watch (STW) is an initiative launched by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform in 1999. Through the STW initiative, the National Forum identifies schools across the United States that are well on their way to meeting the Forum’s criteria for high performance. Forum members believe that high-performing middle-grades schools are: (a) academically excellent—these schools challenge all students to use their minds well; (b) developmentally responsive—these schools are sensitive to the unique developmental challenges of early adolescence; (c) socially equitable—these schools are democratic and fair, providing every student with high-quality teachers, resources, and supports; and (d) environments with the norms, structures, and organizational arrangements to support and sustain their trajectory toward excellence. Website: http://middlegradesforum.org/ what-is-school-to-watch/ Success for All Middle School Program The Success for All Middle School Program extends cooperative learning and detailed, effective lessons from the elementary school into the upper grades. Students learn the skills and strategies they need to read,

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM ◾ 105

comprehend, and analyze the complex content area texts they encounter in middle and high school. These programs are also designed to accelerate the academic development of struggling older students until they are achieving at, or above, grade level. Website: http:// www.successforall.org/Middle/Powerful-Instruction/ Talent Development Middle Grades Program The Talent Development Middle Grades Program is a comprehensive reform model that transforms the structure and curriculum of large urban middle schools with the aim of improving student achievement, particularly comprehension for adolescent readers, and raising teacher and student expectations. Key features of the Talent Development Middle Grades Program include small learning communities, an evidence-based curriculum tied to standards, the use of teacher teams, professional development and support for teachers, and school–family–community connections. Website: http://www.tdschools.org/ Turning Points National Turning Points was a network of Turning Points regional centers and schools across the country coordinated by the Center for Collaborative Education. The network worked together to implement the Turning Points model in schools. Turning Points is a comprehensive education reform model that focuses on improving student learning. Recognizing the need to both strengthen the academic core of middle schools and establish caring, supportive environments that value all young adolescents, Turning Points helps middle schools undergo dramatic change. It is Turning Points’ vision that every school and teacher in the network, drawing strength from fellow Turning Points educators, will serve each student with excellence and equity. The network collaborated to create caring, personalized, and academically rigorous learning communities that are responsive to the needs of the young adolescent. Website: http://www.ccebos.org/turningpts.html COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM PROGRAM, TITLE I, PART F The 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Public Law 1-7-110, known commonly as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), signaled important changes for the CSRD program. Under NCLB, CSRD was no longer designated as a “demonstration” program nor governed by language in the appropriations legislation or accompanying conference reports. Rather, the

federal program was now known as the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Program and is regulated by the CSR authority established in ESEA’s Title I, Part F and also the Fund for the Improvement of Education. Regardless of these fiduciary changes, the CSR program remained committed to a school’s need to engage in coherent and comprehensive school-wide reform rather than the adoption and implementation of isolated programs within a school. Although maintaining much of CSRD’s basic formula, the NCLB legislation was pivotal because of its inclusion of an additional two components to the original nine determinates of comprehensive school reform. Incorporating measurable goals; support from staff members; research-based methods; utilizing external assistance; engaging parents, and community members meaningfully; providing staff development; coordinating resources; evaluating the program; and designing a comprehensive approach into a school-wide reform plan were augmented by the addition of an importance of support for teachers, principals, and supplementary staff as well as a new emphasis on scientifically based research rather than the reliable research and effective practices. Although the 11 components of the Comprehensive School Reform Program were to be considered an organizing framework that would help schools create a comprehensive, integrated reform program that affected all of a school’s students, teachers, and subjects, the legislation also encouraged schools to build upon and leverage state and local school initiatives when creating a comprehensive plan for school improvement. Regardless of these local initiatives, however, schools could only employ strategies and methods deemed to be proven through scientifically based research, defined in Section 9101 (37)(A) of the No Child Left Behind Act as “research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs” (NCLB, 2002). Section 1606 (11)(A) of NCLB went so far as to limit programs that schools choose to those that meet one of the following requirements—“the program has been found, through scientifically based research, to significantly improve the academic achievement of participating students; or the program has been found to have strong evidence that it will significantly improve the academic achievement of participating children” (NCLB, 2002). Supporters of the use of scientifically based research believed that education research in general has lacked rigor and that the type of research supported in the legislation would help the field determine what works in education. However, others contended that it is not feasible or appropriate to conduct such research in educational contexts.

106 ◾ COOPERATIVE LEARNING

States received CSR funding based on their Title I formula and could award CSR grants to schools whose CSR reform program addresses and aligns with the 11 components outlined in the Comprehensive School Reform program guidance. For the 2003 fiscal year, $308 million was allocated for schools interested in CSR, twice the amount originally funded in 1998. Through state grants, the federal CSR program awards a minimum of $50,000 per year for three years. REFERENCES DeSimone, L. (2000). Making comprehensive school reform work. New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). van Heusden Hale, S. (2000). Comprehensive school reform: Research-based strategies to achieve high standards. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING Katherine Main Griffith University, Australia Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy where students are placed is small groups to work together on an activity or project. For students to be classified as collaborating, they must be contributing to, and helping others to contribute to the group’s effort by sharing ideas, justifying and explaining ideas, building on each other’s ideas and representations. From the early 1970s there has been a growing interest in, and research around, cooperative learning. Outcomes of this research have highlighted both the social and academic benefits students gain from supporting, encouraging, and facilitating each other’s learning as they work together (for example, Brown, Fenwick, & Klemme, 1971; Gartner, Kholer, & Riesman, 1971; Johnson & Ahlgren, 1976). Over time, a number of meta-analyses have been conducted to examine the effects of cooperative, competitive, and individual learning on a range of variables across students’ academic, social, and personal attributes (Johnson & Johnson, 2002 [111 studies]; Johnson, Maruyma, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981 [122 studies]; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008 [148 Studies]). Each of the meta-analyses have consistently shown the use of cooperative learning strategies resulting in positive effects on students’ achievement, socialization, motivation, positive peer relationships, and personal development. In particular, Johnson and Johnson’s 2002 study found that the strength of the relationship between the dependent and independent variables

for cooperative learning were significant (mean effect size = 0.58 to 0.70). To put these effect sizes into perspective, Hattie (2009) argued that these mean effect sizes have the potential to make a significant difference to students’ outcomes. BENEFITS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING Cooperative learning is a sociological approach to learning (Vygotsky, 1978) that capitalizes on the use of social interaction to engage all students in learning activities associated with comparison, explanation, justification, validation, and creation. In contrast, in a teacher directed lesson, a question is asked and a few hands may offer an answer or opinion. However, it is often the same few students who volunteer to contribute. Randomly asking students to respond can result in students feeling “on the spot,” particularly if they need more “wait time” to formulate an opinion or to remember the answer to the question. Using a range of cooperative learning strategies supports a classroom where all students participate in the learning and can share their ideas and have multiple opportunities to discuss, refine, and contribute ideas and opinions (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Thus, cooperative learning strategies encourages all students to participate in the learning by discussing the topic or problem and gives them the wait time necessary to consider their answer. It also helps reluctant students to be attentive and involved, builds a learning community within the classroom, and sends the message that the teacher’s expectation is that all students contribute to the learning of the collective. In a study examining the relationship between cooperative and competitive learning, Johnson and Algren (1976) found that cooperativeness was linked strongly to intrinsic motivation due to the “fun” and “interesting” aspects of the work, whereas competitiveness was consistently related to extrinsic motivation (individual rewards). With a young adolescent’s social development taking place in the context of all their relationships and peer relationships becoming more important during this time, the use of cooperative learning strategies supports their social development. Opportunities to develop social and emotional skills as part of classroom practice can support an adolescent’s social development during this critical life-stage (American Psychological Association, 2002). EFFECTS OF GROUP CONFIGURATIONS The effects of group composition have also been investigated. Lou and colleagues (1996) found that students’ academic outcomes were highest when they worked in groups of three or four. Groups of five to seven were

COOPERATIVE LEARNING ◾ 107

reported to become unwieldly and the same positive outcomes shown in smaller groups were not realized. Group composition in terms of student ability also has been shown to have an effect on student outcomes. For high-ability students, group composition did not make any difference to their outcomes. Whereas, when students were grouped in heterogeneous groups—groups comprised of a mixture of low, average, and high ability students—low ability students learned more. However, average ability students benefitted most in homogenous ability groups. Thus, using a variety of different cooperative group configurations is necessary to support all students’ learning. Using cooperative learning by grouping students for different activities is a form of differentiation. A range of different group configurations can include pairs, small groups, friendship groups, ability groups, and mixed ability groups. Groupings can also be formal (i.e., students working together over a period of time to complete a specific task or assignment), informal (i.e., students working together in temporary ad hoc groups that can last from a few minutes to a class period), or cooperative based groups (i.e., established through seating plans and where students provide support, help, and encouragement) (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). MAKING COOPERATIVE LEARNING SUCCESSFUL Understanding that cooperative learning strategies have the potential to improve students’ outcomes is clear; however, realising that potential requires careful planning. A “sink or swim” approach or the expectation that friendship groups should be able to get along and get the job done without carefully framing the work or providing explicit training in group skills is unwise. To support the implementation of group work, Johnson and Johnson (2009) developed a list of five key components that should be considered when establishing groups. These include, first, promoting positive interdependence, where everyone in the group recognizes that successful completion of the task can only be achieved if everyone in the group works together to coordinate their efforts. That is, if they work together, everyone succeeds, if they don’t, everyone fails. Achieving this component requires careful construction of the task that requires a positive independence. Inquiry-based or problem-based projects work best where students pool their ideas and resources. Studies have shown where groups do not have a common goal or task that requires interdependence, group members tend to work alone or not at all (Gillies, 2006). The second core component involves implementing individual responsibility and accountability for group

members. The use of recording and reporting mechanisms for individual contributions and effort with a group task ensures that students take their individual responsibility seriously. To be effective, a group task needs to require students to synthesize the ideas and efforts of all group members and then be presented as a whole. This results in group cohesion and engenders student motivation. Shachar and Sharan (1994) found that when small group activities are carefully structured, students communicate more and the duration of sustained conversation is higher per student. To support students’ efforts during longer term projects, students should keep minutes of meetings with action sheets for future tasks as wells as individual reflective journals around their group work experience. The third core component involves the explicit teaching of interpersonal and group work skills. Students need to know not just about how to do the task (task processes), but also how to work as a group (group processes), and how to get along (relationship processes) (Main, 2012). Students have two key responsibilities when working with others, first, to help each other complete the task and, second, to maintain positive working relationships in the group. As such, students need to be explicitly taught skills such as taking turns; communicating through active listening and speaking; making decisions; managing conflict; presenting as a group; and running a meeting. One way to teach cooperative skills is to use a T chart for each skill (i.e., two columns where first column = looks like and second column = sounds like). As a whole class, the teacher leads a discussion around a particular skill (e.g., how to be encouraging). The class discusses and charts how this would look like and sound like in their classroom. The teacher then models the skill and provides students with opportunities to role-play and practice the skill. The chart would be displayed as a reminder of the skill and as a reference point for students. The fourth core component is providing groups with sufficient opportunities for face-to-face substantive interactions. Through substantive interactions students learn to contribute ideas and build upon the ideas of others. They also learn how to criticize/critique the ideas presented and whilst not criticizing others. Through these exchanges student are able to ask questions to clarify ideas, provide feedback to others, as well as helping, assisting, supporting, encouraging, and praising each other’s efforts. Working closely together helps students get to know one another better and builds the foundation for strong relationships with peers. The final core component is group processing. Group processing involves group members evaluating the different aspects of their group including assessing their progress as a group, summarizing ideas and information, and checking that their decision making processes and

108 ◾ COOPERATIVE LEARNING

problem solving strategies are supported by all members of the group. Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, and Garibaldi (1990) reported that groups who worked through group processing (i.e., evaluating progress and processes) had higher achievement scores than groups that did not evaluate their group processes or when students worked independently. This process provides students with an increased understanding of the group process skills that are necessary for getting tasks completed and the reflective nature of the process encourages students’ metacognition and helps them develop an understanding of “what works and what doesn’t” (i.e., social skills and group processes) when working in a group. WHY COOPERATIVE LEARNING SOMETIMES FAILS There are a number of reasons why the benefits of students working in groups are not realized. In many cases, students do not naturally know how to work in groups and must be explicitly taught many of the skills. Other factors can also affect the effectiveness of groups including: • group size (too big or too small for the task); • group configuration (what is the best type of grouping for the activity?); • clarity of task (task is understood by all); • task complexity (needs to be stimulating and challenging); • rules (guidelines when working in groups); • facilitate (need for continual monitoring of groups); and • roles (need to have specific roles for students ) Placing socially unskilled students in a group and expecting them to work together effectively to complete a task is unreasonable. Many students are unaware of the processes that they need to follow to help them work together and teachers need to explicitly teach a number of key skills to facilitate student cooperative learning. TEACHER’S ROLE Setting cooperative learning tasks does not mean that the teacher is not actively teaching. Teachers need to ensure clarity around the task so that students spend their time actively engaging in the task and not on understanding what the task actually is. Setting ground rules and reminding students of the social skills that are important for effective cooperative learning at the beginning of every session helps set high expectations for the work to be completed. Monitoring students is important but be mindful of offering too much support

as one of the key benefits of cooperative learning is that students work together to complete the task. COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES One group size never fits all with some strategies being more suitable to certain tasks than others. There are many and varied cooperative learning strategies that have been developed and it is important for teachers to have a repertoire of strategies to meet the varied needs of the classroom. A few well-known cooperative learning strategies taken from the Productive Pedagogies Strategies Kit (Day, Hazzard, & Locke, 2002) include: • Think–pair–share—a method that allows students to engage in individual and paired thinking before they are asked to answer questions in front of the whole class. It is an easy first step to teaching group work and cooperative learning. It also helps to build the confidence of students who normally may be reluctant to offer answers in class. • Expert jigsaw—a grouping strategy in which the members of the class are organized into ‘jigsaw’ groups. The students are then reorganized into ‘expert’ groups containing one member from each jigsaw group. The members of the expert group work together to learn the material or solve the problem, then return to their ‘jigsaw’ groups to share their learning. In this way, the work of the expert groups is quickly disseminated throughout the class, with each person taking responsibility for sharing a piece of the puzzle. • Academic controversy—a strategy where groups of four students engage in a process that challenges them to justify their beliefs on a specific issue. • 1:2:4—a method that allows students to engage in individual and small-group thinking before they are asked to answer questions in front of the whole class. It builds on the think/pair/ share strategy and helps students to build strong communication skills and the confidence to formulate and express an opinion on a topic/issue. • Group crossover—a strategy where students form into groups of three. Two of them complete the task, and the third provides a support role by observing and feeding back on his/her group’s efforts. There is strong empirical evidence that students’ academic and social outcomes are greater when they are able to work cooperatively as opposed to when they work individually. The role of the teacher is to facilitate effective cooperative learning by explicitly teaching the

COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS ◾ 109

skills necessary for students to be able to communicate effectively and navigate the different processes (task, group, and relationship) required. For young adolescents, the increase in social support and self-esteem derived from working cooperatively supports their social and emotional development at this critical stage. REFERENCES American Psychological Association. (2002). Developing adolescents. Washington, DC: Author. Brown, I., Fenwick, N., & Klemme, H. (1971). Trainable pupils learn to teach each other. Teaching Exceptional Children, 4, 36–49. Day, G., Hazzard, D., & Locke, J. (2002). Productive pedagogies strategies kit. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Education, Queensland, Australia. Gartner, A., Kholer, M., & Riesman, F. (1971). Children teach children: Learning by teaching. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Gillies, R. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge. Johnson, D. W., & Ahlgren, A. (1976). Relationship between student attitudes about cooperation and competition and attitudes toward schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(1), 92–102. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 95–105. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Stanne, M., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 504–516. Johnson, D. W, Maruyama, G., Johnson, R. T., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62. Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458. Main, K. (2012). Effective middle school teacher teams: A ternary model of interdependency rather than a catch phrase. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(1), 75–88. Roseth, C., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223–246. Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and wholeclass instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 223–246. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS Daniel M. Frederking Illinois State University The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization consisting of the heads of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions (CCSSO, n.d.c). These public officials represent the educational interests of local entities and often seek to inform Congress on educational policy issues. Based out of Washington, DC, CCSSO has positioned itself as a powerful and influential group in the educational field. It focuses its efforts on four strategic areas of American education: educator workforce; information systems and research; next generation learners; and standards, assessment, and accountability (CCSSO, n.d.b). Through collective state action, its goal is to improve the American education system and stand for students’ best interests. At times the organization will take a stance on a topic that directly contradicts the views of a state’s leadership and the state will publicly announce their intent to pull their education official from the group and cease the payment of group dues (Cavanagh, 2011). Often, this separation proves to only be temporary as the state will rejoin after a period of time. One of CCSSO’s most prominent programs is its National Teacher of the Year program. The award was first given in 1952 and continues to be presented to a single teacher every April. The top candidate is selected from among each individual state’s Teacher of the Year winner. The National Teacher of the Year is announced by the President of the United States and is based on qualities such as inspiring students; showing respect for students, parents, and colleagues; school and community involvement; and an energetic approach to the teaching profession (CCSSO, n.d.a). REFERENCES Cavanagh, S. (2011, June 22). Texas pulling out of Council of Chief State School Officers [State EdWatch blog post]. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek. org/edweek/state_edwatch/2011/06/post_5.html Council of Chief State School Officers. (n.d.a). National teacher of the year program. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso. org/ntoy.html Council of Chief State School Officers. (n.d.b). What we do. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/What_We_Do.html

110 ◾ COUNSELING Council of Chief State School Officers. (n.d.c). Who we are. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Who_We_Are.html

COUNSELING Patrick Akos The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Kevin Duquette Phillips Middle School, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Counseling has roots in both psychology and education, and the traditional guidance personnel steering talented students into advanced curriculum has given way to contemporary school counselor advocating for the academic, career, and personal/social development of all students. Middle school counselors have the unique task of promoting normal and optimal development with students in the midst of puberty, identity development, school transition, and typical family redefinition. Middle school counselors also seek to ensure that the ecology of the school indeed provides the developmentally appropriate context endorsed by the middle school movement. Clearly, the distinctive development of young adolescents and the developmental focused context of middle school present challenges and opportunities for middle school counselors. HISTORY OF GUIDANCE COUNSELING Guidance counseling historically has been responsive to meeting societal needs. There is evidence of guidance-related programs dating back to the early 1900s. In fact, as early as 1905 teachers provided guidance to students in English classrooms as an extra duty (American School Counselor Association, 2012). Later, school personnel administered intelligence and aptitude tests used to evaluate students’ academic abilities and personal interests as a means of categorizing students. By the middle of the century, directive guidance gave way to the person-centered approach of Carl Rogers with a focus on assisting in the individual’s quest for a satisfying lifestyle and emphasis on the counseling relationship (Sweeney, 2001). Individual counseling became the dominant function for guidance counselors, as Rogers believed clients have the capacity to solve their own problems while in a therapeutic relationship. Around the same time, the launch of the Sputnik program and the subsequent Space Race prompted national attention visible through both legislation (e.g., National Defense Education Act, Perkins Act) and funding that expanded the school counseling profession tenfold. By 1970, a programmatic approach to

school counseling became the dominant approach. A focus on a substantial curriculum and toward measurable student outcomes helped promote school counseling as core to the educational program rather than an auxiliary service. This movement towards a Comprehensive Developmental Guidance Program (CDGP) (ASCA, 2012) provided the framework and tools to align counseling services to the developmentally responsive middle school context. SYNERGY WITH THE MIDDLE SCHOOL MOVEMENT The start of the middle school movement and the school counseling profession matured with similar developmental goals. The National Middle School Association focus on young adolescents and the middle school philosophies articulated in This We Believe (NMSA, 1982) and Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) provided context for school counseling work. Although the reforms were broad and not necessarily focused on school counseling, guidance and advisory are core to this philosophy. Perhaps more than any other level, it is essential for middle school counselors to institute programmatic efforts based on the specifics of young adolescent development. Aside from infancy, no other phase of life is characterized by greater, more rapid, and diverse development than early adolescence (Pruitt, 1999). Traditionalists still view this period of development as “storm and stress,” (Hall, 1904) with universal challenges. Instead, an organized and vibrant school counseling program can help young adolescents thrive in the middle grades. Both the heterogeneity of student development and the complex interplay between the ways in which students are developing are opportunities. There are vast differences in the timelines of students’ physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development, so programming for sixth graders may look very different from that of eighth graders, and may look very different even within the same cohort of sixth graders. Even within one individual, asynchrony of these developmental realms requires developmental expertise. A school counselor with a programmatic approach can capitalize on the middle school philosophy by reframing these developmental phenomena into opportunities. CONTEMPORARY SCHOOL COUNSELING WITH MIDDLE GRADES STUDENTS Although counselors still provide guidance in the school, the role of the guidance counselor has shifted and expanded considerably. In particular, the antiquated title

COUNSELING ◾ 111

of guidance has given way to school counseling to reflect the contemporary role. Perspective shifts have also come in the form of strengths-based programs, which build on student assets to implement programmatic, preventative programs as opposed to reactionary services (Clark, Flower, Walton, & Oakley, 2008; Dixon & Tucker, 2008). Today, the American School Counseling Association National Model (2012) provides a comprehensive framework for role clarity. Four major components make up the model. Foundation The foundation of a school counseling program is the vision, mission and student competencies/standards. Program mission statements align to school and district missions and school improvement plans. Further, while school counselors seek to integrate into the core curriculum (e.g., state standards, Common Core), student mindsets and behaviors (ASCA 2015) provide a framework to guide practice. Mindsets include outcomes such as belonging and self-confidence, while behaviors include outcomes such as social skills (e.g., ethics, teamwork), learning strategies (e.g., goals, self-direction), and self-management (e.g., responsibility, coping, manage transitions, resilience). These mindsets and behaviors are couched in three primary outcome goals, which include academic, development, social/emotional development, and college and career readiness. Academic Development Research suggests that the middle school years are accompanied by declines in student motivation and achievement (Weinberg, Basile, & Albright, 2011). Services to mitigate this may include classroom or small group counseling on study skills, on individual counseling to remove barriers to learning. Additionally, counselors should collaborate with teachers and administrators to create larger programs such as peer tutoring to help students get a better understanding of academic material. In fact, much of the research suggests that adjusting the context (e.g., mastery oriented classrooms) may be the key to academic engagement. Social and Emotional Development The developmental changes in middle school are significant, and include changes in students’ peer relationships, self-esteem, and increased incidents of bullying. At the same time middle school students are gaining autonomy and making independent decisions. School counselors can collaborate with school personnel to better recognize and understand the varying levels of development and ensure that students transition into an inviting

school environment that provides support and positive adult relationships (Galassi & Akos, 2007). Aspects like identity and in particular, multicultural and multiple heritage identity, is one important focus in the foundation (Akos & Ellis, 2008; Baruth & Manning, 2000; Maxwell & Henriksen, 2012; Thorn & Contreras, 2005). College and Career Readiness Career development at the middle school level can take many forms, but remains a critical component of the guidance curriculum. Cognitive development in early adolescence allows students to begin thinking about their futures and understanding how current actions may affect their future. Counselors can collaborate with students, parents, and teachers to ensure that students take the appropriate classes to prepare them for high school, and ultimately, post-secondary education or the workforce. Research has shown that students who take just one additional intensive math course in high school were more than twice as likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree (Trusty & Niles, 2003). Contemporary initiatives like Reach Higher (The White House, 2015) are framing college access and college admissions counseling as the primary issue for school counseling. Middle school course taking and the formation of a college and career identity are prerequisites for future opportunities. Management and delivery systems. Due to the multiple outcome goals and foci, the foundation of a school counseling program is managed through needs assessment, data analysis, and action plans. Data (e.g., grades, attendance, behavior) help with program planning and guide both whom to serve and inform evidence based intervention choices. Concurrent with planning, school counseling services are delivered through guidance curriculum, individual planning, and responsive services. School counselors prioritize direct services (e.g., recommend 80% of their time) to students through classroom, group or individual programming and interventions. Another delivery mechanism includes consultation, where the school counselor serves as a consultant (e.g., behavioral management) to parents, teachers, or administrators in order to benefit a third party (student/child). While this programmatic approach is most desirable, suicide ideation, divorce, violence, and substantive mental health challenges unfortunately keep many school counselors in a responsive mode. Accountability and leadership. Similar to the way the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) and educational reform has impacted the work of administrators and teachers, contemporary school counselors collect results data to gauge the impact of services. With the average school counselor ratios (450 students: 1 counselor) well above recommendations (250:1) (ASCA, 2015), data informed practice and system work become

112 ◾ CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT

more prominent. The American School Counselor Association (2012) highlighted leadership, advocacy, collaboration and systemic work as critical to the contemporary role. Coordination and leadership of programs (e.g., school transition programs, peer mentoring) impact and promote student development by building protective factors into the school environment. Collaboration in teacher teams for scheduling and 504 plans and referral to outside agencies are required for effective practice. Finally, advocacy refers to the important role that counselors play in ensuring a voice for the disenfranchised or in breaking down barriers to open access for all students. CONCLUSION The unique developmental shift in early adolescence holds major implications for school counselor practice at the middle school level. The role of the school counselor continues to expand and become redefined as counselors are charged to create programmatic services integrated with the school and community to facilitate optimum development for all students. This shift towards strategic, systems-level planning based on data optimizes the impact school counselors have on middle grade students. REFERENCES Akos, P., & Ellis, C. M. (2008). Racial identity development in middle school: A case for school counselor individual and systemic intervention. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(1), 26–33. American School Counselor Association. (2012). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. American School Counselor Association. (2015). Studentto-school-counselor ration 2012–2013. Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/ home/Ratios12-13.pdf Baruth, L. G., & Manning, M. L. (2000). A call for multicultural counseling in middle schools. Clearing House, 73(4), 243–246. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation. Clark, M. A., Flower, K., Walton, J., & Oakley, E. (2008). Tackling male underachievement: Enhancing a strengthsbased learning environment for middle school boys. Professional School Counseling, 12(2), 127–132. Dixon, A. L., & Tucker, C. (2008). Every student matters: Enhancing strengths-based school counseling through the application of mattering. Professional School Counseling, 12(2), 123–126.

Galassi, J., & Akos, P. (2007). Strengths-based school counseling: Promoting student development and achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion and education. (Vols. 1–2). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Maxwell, M. J., & Henriksen, R. J. (2012). Counseling multiple heritage adolescents: A phenomenological study of experiences and practices of middle school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 16(1), 18–28. National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Pruitt, D. B. (1999). Your adolescent: Emotional, behavioral and cognitive development from early adolescence through the teen years. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Sweeney, T. (2001). Counseling: Historical origins and philosophical roots. In D. Locke, J. Myers, & E. Herr (Eds.), The handbook of counseling (pp. 3–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thorn, A. R., & Contreras, S. (2005). Counseling Latino immigrants in middle school. Professional School Counseling, 9(2), 167–170. Trusty, J., & Niles, S.G. (2003). High-school math courses and completion of the bachelor’s degree. Professional School Counseling, 7, 99–107. Weinberg, A., Basile, C., & Albright, L. (2011). The effect of an experimental learning program on middle school students’ motivation toward mathematics and science. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 35(3), 1–12. White House [The], Office of the Press Secretary. (2015). Reach higher [Press release]. Retrieved from https:// www.whitehouse.gov/reach-higher

CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT Alicia Wenzel Western Oregon University Supporting middle school students and getting them on the path to graduation is a goal for middle level educators (Balfanz, 2009). Balfanz purported a “critical challenge is finding ways to improve the quality of middle grades coursework and course performance” so students acquire the necessary skills to fully participate in 21st century America (2009, pg. 9). However, this is not an easy task. For decades, educators have explained that the middle grade years are a time of great importance and vulnerability in students’ overall preK–12 experience (Balfanz, 2009; Kieffer, Marinell, & Stephenson, 2011). The transition from elementary to middle school, combined with physical, social, and emotional changes accompanying adolescence, often results in academic, personal, and social declines

CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT ◾ 113

(Schexnaildre, 2012). Further, the transition from middle to high school is also an important time and comes with its own set of challenges. Kieffer, Marinell, and Stephenson’s preliminary findings in The Middle Grades Student Transition Study (2011), showed “students who are performing reasonably well at the beginning of the middle grades can fall off-track during the middle grades, and these declines have consequences for students’ progress towards graduation” (p. 1). These challenges present middle level educators with opportunities to identify practices that help middle school students with transitions into, during, and out of the middle grades (Kieffer et al., 2011; Schielack & Seeley, 2010). One of the most powerful practices for improving student achievement is through curriculum alignment (Edvantia, 2005; Marzano, 2003; Squires, 2009). Smithson and Collares (2007) believed that “[t] eachers are under persistent pressure to raise student scores, and are told over and over that the way to accomplish that is to bring instruction into better alignment with state and national standards” (p. 11). ALIGNMENT Squires (2009) explained that alignment is a match between items or categories. Roach, Niebling, and  Kurz (2008) defined alignment as “the extent to which curricular expectations and assessments are in agreement and work together to provide guidance for educators’ efforts to facilitate students’ progress toward desired academic outcomes” (p. 160). Alignment seeks to reduce discrepancies between what should occur and what actually occurs. The next section discusses several types of alignment including external, internal, vertical, and horizontal. External Alignment Kelly and Melograno (2014) explained “external alignment seeks agreement between curriculum and other types of criteria such as competencies, outcomes, content standards, grade-level benchmarks, proficiencies, subject-matter strands, or performance objectives” (p. 6). For example, persuasive writing may appear in the seventh grade language arts standards. Thus, the teacher’s language arts curriculum should demonstrate that seventh graders have learning opportunities on persuasive writing and the learning opportunities are based on identified and related standards, proficiencies, or benchmarks that emphasize persuasive writing. To increase external alignment, teachers can create test blueprints matching test items to specific learning objectives and standards and make sure coverage of content on the assessment matches coverage of content during the related unit. A test blueprint is “an outline

that matches test items with the learning outcomes they are intended to assess [and] can be used to construct a test or instrument or to evaluate how well an existing “home-grown” instrument assesses key learning outcomes” (Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2007, p. 39). A blueprint serves as evidence of alignment or incongruence between standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Some teachers feel that this form of external alignment is akin to “teaching to the test” but this is more about making sure the test is valid and assessing what was taught (Drake & Burns, 2004; McMillan, 2013). Internal Alignment Internal alignment exists when there is consistency and connection between the language and purpose of the academic standards addressed in students’ learning experiences and in the instruction and classroom assessments that students experience (Drake & Burns, 2004). To achieve internal alignment, teachers must accurately deconstruct, or unpack, academic standards and identify concepts, content, knowledge, skills, and dispositions embedded in them (Ainsworth, 2014, Drake & Burns, 2004; Wenzel & Wenzel, 2014). For example, an eighth grade social studies standard states that students will “[u]se and interpret documents and other relevant primary and secondary sources pertaining to U.S. history from multiple perspectives” (Oregon Department of Education, 2011). The students’ learning activities and assessments must enable students to ‘use’ primary and secondary sources but also demonstrate proficiency in being able to ‘interpret’ these types of documents. Horizontal Alignment Horizontal alignment occurs as teachers work in grade-level groups to plan the content of the curriculum and identify the standards they will address in each unit of study. During horizontal alignment, teachers describe learning activities that show how they teach and explain how they assess students’ knowledge and skills related to the standards (Burns, 2001; McMillan, 2013). This maximizes learning throughout each day and in each course by minimizing unnecessary overlap or redundancy between courses taken during one year as well as the omission of standards, curriculum, and assessment. Vertical Alignment Vertical alignment, one of the most effective strategies to improve student performance in school, is the reasonable order for teaching the standards-based content in a subject area from one grade level or course to the next (Center for Comprehensive School Reform

114 ◾ CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT

and Improvement, 2009). Courses should be aligned vertically to ensure students have the knowledge and skills to be successful in the next course in the sequence. Alignment work includes backwards mapping from pre-K through grade 12 with the goal of a fully aligned school system (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This requires alignment between high school curricula to the college-ready standards but also to the middle school curriculum that precedes the high school educational experience. Just as important is the alignment between middle level and the elementary curriculum. CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT Tyler (1949) explained that in a classroom setting, instructional alignment, or curriculum alignment, is the agreement between a teacher’s objectives, activities, and assessments so they are mutually supportive. La Marca, Redfield, Winter, and Despriet (2000) explained curriculum alignment as: the degree to which assessments yield results that provide accurate information about student performance regarding academic content standards at the desired level of detail, to meet the purposes of the assessment system. . . . The assessment must adequately cover the content standards with the appropriate depth, reflect the emphasis of the content standards, provide scores that cover the range of performance standards, allow all students an opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency, and be reported in a manner that clearly conveys student proficiency as it relates to the content standards. (p. 24)

Alignment of curriculum, assessment, and instruction requires analysis of standards, policies, and practices in states, districts, schools, and classrooms (LaMarca, Redfield, Winter, Bailey, & Despriet, 2000; Martone & Sireci, 2009). Processes for alignment vary in complexity and evidence of effectiveness (Bhola, Impara, & Buchendahl, 2003; Porter, Smithson, Blank, & Zeidner, 2007). For the greatest opportunity to improve student performance, teachers must be involved in the alignment process identifying or creating the explicit connections between curriculum and standards, and therefore improve student performance (Koppang, 2004; Langer, 2001). BENEFITS OF CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT Presently, some grades or classes do not follow the same curriculum, standards, or expectations, even in the same school building. As a result, students may repeat content in different courses that are intended to be part of a series extending or introducing new content. Further, students may complete courses with gaps in their learning as not all required content was covered.

However, aligning curriculum vertically and horizontally minimizes these undesirable outcomes (Burns, 2001). Moreover, learning and cognition research shows that interconnected, sustained learning is beneficial for students making learning experiences clearer, more meaningful, and more motivating and curriculum alignment promotes the integration of learning experiences over time (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001). Curriculum alignment guides educators in what to teach but does not dictate how to teach. Curriculum alignment also encourages innovation, appropriate differentiation, and curriculum integration (Martone & Sireci, 2009). An aligned curriculum can minimize gaps between the written curriculum, instruction, and assessments. Subsequently, this can strengthen a teacher’s understanding about what students know and can do as the data collected accurately represent students’ knowledge and skills related to what is taught. Additionally, when teachers align instruction with learning goals and assessments, student performance typically increases on assessments. Student assessment data becomes a powerful tool to provide relevant guidance when determining allocation of resources, making evidence-based curricular and instructional changes, and cultivating communication across grades and content areas (Bhola et al., 2003; Blank, Porter, & Smithson, 2001; LaMarca et al., 2000). Another benefit that can occur from aligning curriculum is improved communication and collaboration among stakeholders (teachers, students, parents, families, community members) as stakeholders have a clearer understanding of how teachers’ instructional decisions contribute to students’ overall learning (Burns, 2001). CHALLENGES WITH CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT As with most educational practices, there are often challenges or concerns. These include getting teacher buyin to the alignment process as this can be arduous and time consuming. Also, there are so many standards that aligning all standards to a curriculum seems nearly impossible (Squire, 2009). These feelings are often compounded as policies change frequently which require additional time for re-aligning the curriculum including the re-evaluation of curricular and assessment practices and explaining changing curriculum practices to stakeholders. Further, there is the issue of finding time for teachers to collaborate with colleagues across grade levels and content areas. Additionally, there is the belief that aligning curriculum may not assist with learning and concerns if alignment actually contributes to more teaching to the test (CCSRI, 2009; Kurz, Elliott, Wehby, & Smithson, 2010). Lastly, some educators feel there is

CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT ◾ 115

a loss of autonomy with curriculum alignment and perceive the process as forcing them to abandon important programs or practices previously used or adopt less desirable approaches like teaching from a book cover to cover or in a manner that is less familiar (Cawelti & Protheroe, 2003, CCSRI, 2009). SUGGESTED CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT ACTION PRACTICES For states. Encourage and offer support to districts for alignment between state standards and assessments by providing examples of assessments and test items (Bhola et al., 2003; LaMarca et al., 2000). Articulate policy additions or changes to standards, assessments, or educational expectations in a timely manner so districts have ample time to plan, implement, and educate stakeholders. Offer professional development or collaboration opportunities to districts so educators can work together to ensure alignment between districts across states or regions. For Districts Provide support for an alignment process that considers resources, the needs of the local community, and the district’s desired outcomes (Bhola et al., 2003; Porter et al., 2007). Support district schools’ strategic plans to address curricular adjustments (Bhola et al., 2003; LaMarca et al., 2000). For Schools Participate in the curriculum alignment process to identify lack of congruence in school curriculum including across and between grade levels as well as content areas and use findings to make curriculum, assessment, and instructional changes (Burns, 2001; Kurz et al., 2010; Martineau, Paek, Keene, & Hirsch, 2007). Provide resources including time, materials, and professional development to enable teachers to incorporate changes required to align instruction with standards and assessments (Blank et al., 2001; Koppang, 2004). Create structures to monitor and maintain alignment between standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment including use of formative and summative data (Blank et al., 2001; McMillan, 2013). For Middle Level Teams Utilize common planning time so that grade level and interdisciplinary teams can discuss curriculum alignment, monitor and review student work, analyze data, and evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional approaches (Cook & Faulkner, 2009).

CONCLUSION The National Middle School Association’s vision statement, This We Believe (2010), stated that being developmentally responsive is one of four essential attributes of successful educational programs for young adolescents. A part of providing students with developmentally responsive learning includes having cohesion between what is taught, learned, and assessed. It is unfair to students and educators to have assessments not well-aligned to standards or instruction especially if “student achievement tests are to be used for highstakes decisions, such as hiring and firing of teachers, or lower-stakes decisions, such as curriculum revision” (Polikoff, Porter, & Smithson, 2011, p. 29). As Drake and Burns (2004) stated, “alignment is an even stronger predictor of student achievement on standardized tests than are socioeconomic status, gender, race, and teacher effect” (p.  53). Aligning curriculum levels the playing field for all students (Squires, 2009). Curriculum alignment ensures the continuity of preK– 12 curriculum, related learning experiences, and assessments. It is an essential ingredient to help middle level learners have equitable and optimal learning experiences in school and opportunities for success out of school. REFERENCES Ainsworth, L. (2014). Unwrapping the standards: A simple process to make standards manageable. Englewood, CA: Lead+Learn Press. Balfanz, R. (2009).  Putting middle grades students on the graduation path: A policy and practice brief.  Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Retrieved from https://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/articles/policy_ brief_balfanz.pdf Blank, R. K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum, and standards in mathematics & science: Results from survey of enacted curriculum final report. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://jsmithson.wceruw.org/ Reference/SECNewToolsreport01.pdf Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buchendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning tests with states’ content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 21–29 Burns, R. C. (2001). Curriculum handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Cawelti, G., & Protheroe, N. (2003). Supporting school improvement: Lessons from districts successfully meeting the challenge. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2009). Vertical alignment: Ensuring opportunity to learn in a standards-based system (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from http://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED507587.pdf

116 ◾ CURRICULUM: CORE Cook, C. M., & Faulkner, S. A. (2009). The use of common planning time: A case study of two Kentucky Schools to Watch. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 34(2). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ914054.pdf Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Edvantia. (2005). Research brief: Aligned curriculum and student achievement. Charleston, WV: Author. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED489150.pdf Kelly, L. E., & Melograno, V. J. (2014). Developing the physical education curriculum: An achievement-based approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Kieffer, M. J., Marinell, W. H., & Stephenson, N. S. (2011). The middle grades student transitions study: Navigating the middle grades and preparing students for high school graduation. Working Brief. New York, NY: The Research Alliance for New York City Schools. Retrieved from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/jnw216/ RANYCS/WebDocs/MiddleGradesTransitions-WorkingBrief-Final.pdf Koppang, A. (2004). Curriculum mapping: Building collaboration and communication. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(3), 154–161. Kurz, A., Elliott, S., Wehby, J., & Smithson, J. (2010). Alignment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student achievement. Journal of Special Education, 44(3), 131–145. LaMarca, P. M., Redfield, D., Winter, P. C., Bailey, A., & Despriet, L. H. (2000). State standards and state assessment systems: A guide to alignment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED466497/pdf/ERIC-ED466497.pdf Martineau, J., Paek, P., Keene, J., & Hirsch, T. (2007). Integrated, comprehensive alignment as a foundation for measuring student progress. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(1), 28–35. Martone, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1332–1361. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McMillan, J. (2013). Classroom assessment: Practices and principles for effective standard-based instruction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2007). Student learning assessment: Options and resources (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.msche.org/publications/SLA_Book_0808080728 085320.pdf National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges. Chicago IL: Consortium on Chicago School

Research. Retrieved from https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/ sites/default/files/publications/p0d02.pdf Oregon Department of Education. (2011). Oregon social sciences academic content standards. Portland, OR: Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/subjects/social science/standards/oregon-social-sciences-academic -content-standards.pdf Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 965–995. Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. L., Blank, R. K., & Zeidner, T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 27–51. Roach, A. T., Niebling, B. C., & Kurz, A. (2008). Evaluating the alignment  among curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 158–176. Schexnaildre, E. P. (2012). The effect of classroom structure and practice on transition to middle school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1403&context=etd Schielack, J., & Seeley, C. L. (2010). Transitions from elementary to middle school math. Teaching Children Mathematics, 16(6), 358–362. Smithson, J. L., & Collares, A. C. (2007, April). Alignment as a predictor of student achievement gains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,  Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://programs.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/smithsonAERA2007.pdf Squires, D. A. (2009). Curriculum alignment: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wenzel, A., & Wenzel, M. (2014). Deconstructing for understanding: Systematic steps for purposeful planning, teaching, and assessing of social studies standards to provide relevant instruction and assessment. Oregon Journal of the Social Studies, 2(1), 56–69. Retrieved from http://www.oregonsocialstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/OJSS-Journal-0201.pdf Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005).  Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

CURRICULUM: CORE Gary Weilbacher Illinois State University Original meanings of core curriculum are quite different from the commonly used definition of today. The first mention of school programs that were identified

CURRICULUM: CORE ◾ 117

as core appeared in the 1920s, but the actual roots of core curriculum may be found in some of the writings of Spencer and Herbart as far back as the 1800s (Vars, 1969). Curricular innovations in the 1920s and 1930s, such as “the project method, the activity movement, and the experience curriculum” (Vars, 1969, p. 6) at the elementary level, “general education, basic education, block-time, unified studies, and core” (ibid) at the high school level, and “time blocks” (Alberty & Alberty, 1962, p. 205) in the junior highs resulted in a blurring of the lines between school subjects. More specifically, what came to be known as core curriculum involved the use of problems as curricular organizing centers rather than organizing the curriculum by compiling a collection of separate subjects: “True core” courses were characterized by “complete disregard of subject boundaries and the development of problems [for study] without regard to classification according to the traditional subject content.” True core courses embraced “the importance to youth of acquiring skill in democratic living through actually practicing it in the classroom.” (Wraga, 1993, p. 6 citing Wright, 1952)

The root of core curriculum then, was promoting democratic living, not creating a list of subjects that students should master. In order for students to practice democracy, it was necessary for them or at the very least their concerns about living, to become an essential part of the curriculum. Core curriculum became more prevalent during the Eight Year Study (Aikin, 1942) an important, complex endeavor that encouraged secondary schools to develop unique forms of curriculum with the promise that graduates from the experimental schools would be able to attend universities across the country without adhering to the usual entrance requirements. Many of the high schools involved in the Eight Year Study took the idea of student participation seriously and planned curricula that would act as a bridge to connect the concerns of youth and society with the responsibilities and duties of becoming an adult: None of the Thirty Schools would deny that preparation for the responsibilities of adulthood is important and that there certainly should be a long look ahead; but the business of living satisfactorily now at the age of seventeen is equally important, they say. Perhaps the best possible preparation for meeting the demands of adult life is to live successfully now at seventeen. Guided by some such thinking as this, the Thirty Schools were convinced that both present needs of youth and adult social demands should be used as sources of the curriculum. Any attempt to derive the curriculum from only one of these sources, they said, would result in neglect of important values. (Aikin, 1942, p. 73)

Essentially then, early meanings of core curriculum ran counter to today’s version of core where the separation of subject areas implies that certain subjects are required, while others are optional. Rather, the purpose of core curriculum was to use the knowledge found within the subjects to address the present concerns of youth and society, while simultaneously exposing them to the demands of adulthood. DIVISIONS OF CORE As core curriculum developed, two separate divisions became apparent: those who believed that the organizing center of the curriculum is external to the learner; and those who felt that the curriculum should be “internal and controlled by the learner” (Hopkins, 1955, p. 10). Advocates of organizing curriculum externally believed that the curriculum was either located in the subject matter itself, or was to be found in themes selected by the teachers. Often, the themes selected by the teachers were topics that the adults believed would be of interest to the students. In part, these interest-based themes were selected in an effort to reduce negative student reactions to schooling and high drop-out rates that were creating an outcry among citizens during the 1930s (Faunce & Bossing, 1958). While the teachers had good intentions: . . . the core was still outside the learners, the control was with the adults even though they were more benevolent, the resulting behavior of the children was still unsatisfactory because the adult essentials of subjects in whatever form they may be taught are not the living essentials in the emerging self of the child. (Hopkins, 1955, p. 10)

It was also during this time that many high schools created numerous electives and extracurricular activities, in part to make high school more relevant and attractive to disenchanted students. These changes laid the foundation for the separation of subjects into what most schools have today: a core program of math, language arts, science and social studies, with an accompanying array of electives. An additional important influence on distinguishing the kinds of core curriculum was the work of Harold Alberty (1947), who developed a description of five different types of core. Type 1 was a separate subject approach, essentially defining the term core with how it is typically used today. Type 2, or correlated curriculum, is what Vars (1993) would call multidisciplinary, meaning a “curriculum in which content and modes of inquiry from several scholarly disciplines are applied to a common theme, topic, or issue or problem” (p. 18). Fusion, or Type 3 core curriculum, involved a deliberate effort

118 ◾ CURRICULUM: CORE

to make conscious connections among distinct subject areas and show how those disciplines related to a particular theme. Each of these types of core curriculum is external in nature, as the organizing centers of the curriculum lie outside of the learner. While it is important to note that students could make contributions to planning external forms of core curriculum, Types 4 and 5 core are identified as internal planning strategies specifically because the learners are encouraged to make substantive contributions to the creation of the curriculum. According to Bullough (2015): Alberty’s preference was for Type 4, which was developed at the Ohio State University School, where the subject matter was organized around broad units, often chosen in consultation with the students, and reflecting an understanding of the shared interests, common problems, and social issues facing young people. (p. 2)

The fact that students were frequently consulted and their interests, problems, and social issues used as organizing centers is a significant departure from the adult-selected themes that typify Types 2 and 3. Vars (1993) described Type 4 core as structured core, placing an emphasis on the fact that the curriculum plan is “fine-tuned through teacher–student planning” (p. 19). In short, for a core curriculum to be internal, students need to be involved in the planning process, often by posing questions and suggesting topics of study. Type 5 core curriculum, which Vars (1993) referred to as unstructured core, places an even larger emphasis on student involvement and places a great deal of responsibility upon the participants: Learning experiences in an unstructured core are not prescribed in advance, but evolve through negotiation between teacher and students. Of course, the teacher has the final say. And teacher–student planning is guided by agreed-upon criteria, such as: the unit must be worthwhile, it must be of concern to most of the students, it must not be an issue that they have already studied in some depth, and the like. Core teachers and students must keep careful records of the content and learning experiences of the study and forward them to the next year’s teacher as a basis for future teacher–student planning. Horizontal articulation between core class activities and other courses is also desirable. This enables specialists in physical education, art, music, home economics, and industrial technology to correlate their instruction with the core unit. (p. 25)

Arguably, Type 5 core is the most inclusive of the five types of core, as planning considerations are not only given to students, but it can also promote the participation of subject area teachers in the so-called electives or encore classes.

RELEVANCE FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL The different iterations of core received considerable attention from the 1930s until the late 50s and early 60s; however, as calls for more “rigorous instruction in science and math” (Vars, 1969, p. 17) core curriculum became less popular. Middle school advocates like Lounsbury and Vars (1978) continued to promote core curriculum, but it did not regain the popularity it had in previous decades. While Type 1 core, the separate subject approach, was always, and continues to be, the dominant paradigm in curriculum planning, the other types of core have never completely disappeared. During the late 1980s and early 90s, significant numbers of middle school teachers drew upon core programs to provide alternatives to the separate subject approach. In conjunction with a resurgence of attention to schools for young adolescents, publications by Beane (1993), Brodhagen (1995), Springer (1994), Stevenson and Carr (1993), and Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) promoted democratic classrooms in which students and teachers planned, taught, and assessed their units together. Generally speaking, the terms curriculum integration and integrative curriculum were used to describe these efforts that were closely linked to Type 4 and Type 5 core curriculum. Today, elements of Type 4 and Type 5 core curriculum continue to be present in This We Believe (National Middle School Association, 2010), the position statement of the Association for Middle Level Education, formerly the National Middle School Association. This We Believe (2010) indicated that young adolescents should experience a curriculum: . . . that is challenging, exploratory, integrative and relevant. An effective middle grades curriculum is distinguished by learning experiences that address societal expectations while appealing to young adolescents and offering them opportunities to pose and answer questions that are important to them . . . In some exemplary middle level schools, curriculum is often carried out in units or projects that involve complex tasks and focus on major issues. Units are organized around a theme or integrated by a melding of teachers’ goals and students’ questions rather than through separate subjects. (p. 17)

As the word “some” suggests, the actual, visible presence of Types 4 and 5 core curricula within classrooms is relatively rare when compared with the middle school classrooms of two decades ago, as curriculum reform efforts tied to Goals 2000 (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 1994) and No Child Left Behind (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2002) solidified the use of standards tied to standardized testing. While there are middle schools that continue to plan Type 2 and 3 core

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT ◾ 119

curriculum units around unifying themes such as Medieval Times, Crime Scene Investigation, and Global Warming, it is unusual for students to have any say in the content or instruction of these units. The rich and democratic history of core curriculum remains relatively unknown while the predominant understanding of the term core seems to be currently represented by the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

Vars, G. F. (1993). Interdisciplinary teaching: Why and how. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Wraga, W. G. 1993. The interdisciplinary imperative for citizenship education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 21(3), 201–231. Wright, G. S. (1952). Core curriculum development: Problems and practices. Bulletin No. 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education.

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT REFERENCES Aikin, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers. Alberty, H. B. (1947). Reorganizing the high school curriculum. New York, NY: Macmillan. Alberty, H. B., & Alberty, E. J. (1962). Reorganizing the high school curriculum (3rd ed.). New York, NY & London, England: Harper and Brothers. Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Brodhagen, B. L. (1995). The situation made us special. In M. W. Apple & J. A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools (pp. 83–100). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2015). H. B. Alberty (1890–1971). Retrieved from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1745/ Alberty-H-B-1890-1971.html Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie of New York. Faunce, R. C., & Bossing, N. L. (1958). Developing the core curriculum (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227, 108 Stat. 125 (1994). Hopkins, L. T. (1955). The core program: Integration and interaction. New York, NY: Board of Education of the City of New York. Lounsbury, J. H., & Vars, G. F. (1978). A curriculum for the middle school years. New York, NY: Harper and Row. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH. Author. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Springer, M. (1994). Watershed: A successful voyage into integrative learning. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Stevenson, C., & Carr, J. F. (Eds.). (1993). Integrated studies in the middle grades: Dancing through walls. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Vars, G. F. (1969). Common learnings: Core and interdisciplinary team approaches. Scranton, PA: International Textbook Company.

Melanie W. Greene Contributor from 1st edition “Curriculum development” is a comprehensive decision- making process that includes the phases of planning, implementation, and evaluation. The term is often used synonymously with curriculum improvement and ideally results in change and the enhancement of an existing program (Oliva, 2001). The foundation of curriculum development lies primarily in the fields of philosophy, sociology, and psychology. Philosophy outlines one’s views of learners, educational purpose, and the value of what is to be learned. Sociology assists curriculum developers in understanding the relationship between people and their society and helps determine how schools relate to society. Psychology includes insight into the characteristics of the learners and provides the basis for how a curriculum can best be arranged to meet their needs (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). While curriculum specifies what students must learn including concepts, generalizations, relative facts, skills, and habits of mind (Jackson & Davis, 2000) and encompasses every planned component of a school’s program (National Middle School Association, 2003), curriculum development serves as the vehicle for ensuring that these components are delivered to learners. This vehicle is driven by teachers, administrators, curriculum specialists, supervisors, students, parents, and other community members who are involved with the curriculum (Oliva, 2001). HISTORY Spirited debate over the definition and interpretations of middle school curriculum design models has continued for decades. Eichhorn’s (1966) early model for curriculum development was based upon the physical, mental, social, and cultural characteristics of the young adolescent. Alexander’s (1995) vision for the curriculum content initially involved three phases: (a) learning skills such as reading, writing, speaking, listening, computation and research skills; (b) common learnings such as literature,

120 ◾ CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

social studies, languages, mathematics, science, and fine arts; and, (c) personal development skills such as health and physical education, exploratory experiences, special interest courses, and advisor-advisee programs. Hamburg (1993) emphasized the need for curriculum to include knowledge and skills, a spirit of inquiry, respect, a sense of belonging, and a way to assist learners in becoming useful members of their own communities. The position statement of the National Middle School Association (2003) asserted a developmentally responsive curriculum is characterized by learning experiences that are appealing to young adolescents and should provide rich opportunities for posing questions and seeking answers to them. No other aspect of a middle school is perceived to be as important as that of developing a quality curriculum resulting in young adolescents who acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for leading productive lives. An essential programmatic feature in this position statement suggests that curriculum must be relevant, challenging, and exploratory thus providing a worthy challenge for curriculum developers. Similarly, Jackson and Davis (2000) recommended a curriculum grounded in standards, relevant to adolescents’ concerns, and based on how students learn best using a mix of assessment methods. Despite these recommendations, some authorities contend that curriculum development has been largely ignored as the middle school movement progressed (Beane, 1990; Knowles & Brown, 2000). Dickinson (2001) stated that the absence of appropriate curriculum for young adolescents has had a debilitating effect on the reform efforts in the middle school movement. Lipsitz (1984) concurred and stated the “translating philosophy into curriculum is the most difficult feat for schools to accomplish” (p. 188). Lounsbury (1993) challenged curriculum developers to “employ zero-based curriculum development” (p. 53) and create a new curriculum for young adolescents that transcends the core subjects, state curriculum guidelines, spiraling curricula, block scheduling and state mandates. Likewise, curriculum theorists in schools and universities have begun to seek best practices for asking and answering key questions related to curriculum development at the middle school level (Brazee & Capelluti, 1995). Inherent in this work is the concept that traditional curriculum had not been developed by or for the young adolescents that it serves. Resulting was a model that promoted agendas such as improving test scores or “inculcating American culture” (p. 187). Brazee and Capelluti challenged stakeholders to begin to view curriculum development as a “fluid process whereby we move along a scale” (p. 28) and provides a five-point continuum that outlines an approach to curriculum development will ultimately result in implementing a highly sophisticated curriculum for young adolescents.

A CONTINUUM FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT In Dissolving Boundaries: Toward an Integrative Curriculum, Brazee and Capelluti (1995) introduced the idea that curriculum exists as points on a continuum ranging from a totally integrated curriculum that clearly is best suited to the needs of young adolescents to a plan that is best suited for the convenience of teachers. They surmise curriculum development is a fluid process that includes points on a scale ranging from most responsive to least responsive to student needs. This five point scale provides a framework for teachers as well as a reference for self-evaluation and goals for developing curriculum at more sophisticated levels (see Figure 1). Point 1

Point 2

Point 3

Point 4

Point 5

Separate Subjects

Multidisciplinary Approach

Integrate Approach

Integrative Approach

Beyond Integrative

Figure 1 Curriculum continuum scale.

In Brazee and Capelluti’s curriculum continuum, the first point refers to a conventional curriculum that is most widely recognized and utilized today. This conventional form of curriculum development is typically characterized by a teacher-centered classroom where subjects are taught in isolation and textbooks are key sources of information. The role of the teacher is active as information is delivered to students who passively answer worksheets, read textbooks, and complete tests that measure success. Underlying this type of curriculum development is the belief that the teacher knows what is best for learners and application to the lives of students is marginalized. Schools which operate under Point 1 may attempt interdisciplinary planning and give occasional opportunities for themebased projects resulting in a lack of student engagement and boredom. Point 2 in the continuum refers to a multidisciplinary approach that is characterized by the existence of curricular themes determined by teachers and delivered in separate classrooms where subjects are taught in isolation. For example, a novel may be assigned in a language arts classroom while the social studies teacher might study the geography related to the setting of the book. These connections often increase student interest as well as their intellectual and social skills. When students and teachers experience success with the multidisciplinary approach, it often provides encouragement to move to a further point on the continuum of curriculum development. Integrated curriculum, the next step in the curriculum continuum builds upon the previous points and gets further impetus from increased student motivation

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT ◾ 121

and interest. Dissolved subject-area demarcation and flexible scheduling enables young adolescents to investigate broader themes and topics. Other curriculum experts recommend the need for an integrated curriculum that uses broad-based concepts, essential questions and themes drawn from the young adolescents’ interests. They also suggest that teachers should rethink existing paradigms about the curriculum content and instructional techniques. This thinking requires professionals to rely on their expertise. Variations in the development and delivery of this model exist. Integrated curriculum can be used as a total program or can be implemented at various points in an academic day or at the conclusion of a multidisciplinary unit of study (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Point 4 in the continuum refers to integrative curriculum and it minimizes the role of the teacher while maximizing the role of the learner. Students are the “prime curriculum developers” (McDonough, 1991) as they seek to resolve issues related to them and to their world. In the integrative process, the role of the teacher involves identifying key curricular areas and student expectations. Teacher responsibility is not diminished in truly integrative curriculum. While they continue to devote their time to teaching, their responsibility evolves as a facilitator of learning. Vars and Beane (2000) believed that integrative teaching has great potential for producing students who will be successful on mandated assessments as well. Point 5 in the curriculum continuum, referred to as beyond integrative curriculum, places an enormous responsibility on the student to plan, implement, and evaluate the content to be learned. Students would be allowed to pursue their own interests or those predetermined subjects designated by the school. Self directed learners in this model require individual pace and access to information and tools for learning. Learning would extend beyond the classroom and engage the students in service projects and real-world internships. Key aspects of this point have rarely been explored or implemented in schools. Although not reflected in Brazee and Capelluti’s continuum, Knowles and Brown (2000) suggested that an interdisciplinary approach to curriculum development fits between the multidisciplinary approach and the integrated model. This model differs from the multidisciplinary model as the content lines are blurred and themes are based on the interests of the students. Students initially have the opportunity to tell teachers about their interests, and curriculum is developed around these questions and concerns. This type of curriculum empowers young adolescents to make decisions and to experience a more democratic education.

CONCLUSION It is essential that middle level curriculum development retain young adolescent needs and interests as its focal point. The successful implementation of any of these five points outlined by Brazee and Capelluti relies imminently upon the commitment of teachers and their implementation skills. However, proponents of the standards-based reform movement advocating high-stakes testing and accountability have threatened the work of middle level curriculum developers who maintain their commitment to developmentally responsive curriculum for the young adolescent. Their premise is that teachers must become more cognizant of national standards and teach them in a more deliberate manner to ensure student success in school (George & Alexander, 2003). Jackson and Davis (2000) called for middle grades teachers to develop and present a curriculum rooted in standards that outline what students should know and be able to do while maintaining relevance and staying grounded in how young adolescents learn. Vars and Beane (2000) stated teachers can engage students in inviting, student-centered, integrated curriculum while incorporating imposed standards. As curriculum development occurs, the work may be better understood by the following axioms. Change is inevitable, desirable, and a product of its time. Curriculum change occurs over time and may overlap with old or new ideas. It is a cooperative activity that results when participants involved experience the change. Curriculum development is a decision making process that is cyclic and ongoing. The process is most successful when comprehensively done and when it follows a systematic process. Moreover, curriculum development must start at its existing point. Change may be a slow process, yet it is most successful when all stakeholders engage in collaborative efforts towards similar goals (Oliva, 2001). REFERENCES Alexander, W. A. (1995). The junior high school: A changing view. Middle School Journal, 26(3), 24. Beane, J. A. (1990). The middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Beane, J. A., Toepfer, C. F., & Alessi, S. J. (1986). Curriculum planning and development. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Brazee, E. M., & Capelluti, J. (1995). Dissolving boundaries: Toward an integrative curriculum. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Dickinson, T. S. (2001). Reinventing the middle school: A proposal to counter arrested development. In T. Dickinson (Ed.), Reinventing the middle school (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

122 ◾ CURRICULUM INTEGRATION Eichhorn, D. (1966). The junior high school plan, Part III. The fifteenth yearbook of the national society for the study of education. Bloomington, IN: Public School. George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed). Belmont: CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Hamburg, D. A. (1993). The opportunities of early adolescence. Teachers College Record, 94(3), 466–471. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Knowles, T., & Brown, D. F. (2000). What every middle school teacher should know. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lipsitz, J. (1984). Successful schools for young adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Lounsbury, J. H. (1993). A fresh start for the middle school curriculum. In T. Dickinson, (Ed.), Readings in middle school curriculum: A continuing conversation (pp. 53–62). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. McDonough, L. (1991). Middle level curriculum: The search for self and social meaning. Middle School Journal, 23(2), 29–35. National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Oliva, P. F. (2001). Developing the curriculum. New York, NY: Longman. Vars, G., & Beane, J. A. (2000). Integrative curriculum in a standards- based world. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois. (ERIC ED441618)

CURRICULUM INTEGRATION Dave F. Brown West Chester University Few professional educators, legislative policy makers, businesspersons, or pundits ever waver on their personal views of what students should learn or be able to do as a result of K–12 schooling experiences. Simultaneously, there appears to be a great deal of disagreement on what K–12 curricula should emphasize and students should learn. The schooling of successive generations of students has been influenced by political, scientific, and economic events that have altered curricular emphases and thus specific content taught in public schools. Students from the late 1950s and early 60s received an intense dose of science and mathematics due to the launch of Russia’s Sputnik satellite program. Teachers emphasized social relationships, communication processes, and self-identity a decade later during the late 60s and 70s as the nation roiled in civil discontent. The 1980s brought a return to the “basics” as a result of political attacks on

the effectiveness of America’s public education and a weak U.S. economy compared to Japan’s. The 1990s dawned with innovative ideas on how to teach reading, and new research on “teaching for thinking” changed curricular emphases. In the new millennium, the reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA) as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (2002) spurred another return to the basics based on demanding standardized testing. As a multitude of attacks on public education continue publicly and by state and federal legislatures, a new list of what’s critical for students to know, the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) were thrust upon students causing yet another shift in curricular priorities. Educators are seldom asked what should be taught, and the question of what’s best for students from a neuroscience and developmental perspective are frequently ignored in curricular decision-making. Curricular decisions should be based on students’ developmental needs; particularly for young adolescents, who experience unique cognitive, socio-emotional, moral, and identity developmental growth. In light of external factors affecting curricular decisions, and in order to provide meaningful learning opportunities, two essential questions must be answered: (a) what are the most important concepts and principles for students to learn?; and (b) which curricular design should educators use to ensure that students successfully reach prioritized outcomes? INFLUENCES ON PRIORITIZING OUTCOMES Determining what gets taught—curricular decisions— has been, as mentioned, influenced by sociopolitical events as well as by several groups: textbook companies; testing corporations; state and federal legislators; business organizations; and, less commonly by educational researchers and subject-area professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English and of Mathematics. Brown (2006) noted that the business community wants graduates to enter the world of work with the ability for innovative thinking, decision-making, data analysis, leadership, and collaborating as a team player. Many teachers identified similar desired outcomes, including the need for students to have technology skills, an acceptance and understanding of diverse cultures and ethnicities, effective oral and written communication skills, and of course, basic reading and mathematics abilities (Brown, 2006). Kohn (1998) reported that parents of students wanted their children to leave school as “happy, balanced, independent, fulfilled, productive, self-reliant, responsible, thoughtful, and inquisitive” adults (p. 101).

CURRICULUM INTEGRATION ◾ 123

These three groups—business community, teachers, and parents—representative of a cross-section of stakeholders, have identified a common set of practical outcomes. If these principles are indeed significant, and a majority of adults can agree on this list, then strategies must be chosen to ensure that students leave school with these attributes and capabilities. Reaching these common outcomes requires a much more progressive philosophical approach to curricula decisions than merely teaching to ensure better test scores. The testing emphasis over the past 15 years has dominated the types of curricula that are chosen, and how content is delivered—primarily basic skills and facts frequently delivered by teacher-directed instruction to passive learners (Beane, 2004; Brown, 2011; Springer, 2006). Reaching the broad outcomes that many find valuable and necessary to prepare students for successful adult lives requires a return to the past—before the 1960s—to a curricular emphasis dependent on student decisions. GENUINE CURRICULUM INTEGRATION Philosophies and accompanying progressive practices introduced by John Dewey (1902, 1916) influenced a more student-centered curriculum before Sputnik changed curricular emphases. The middle school movement initiated during the late 1960s prompted educators to revive Dewey’s experiential approach to learning in adopting a more student-oriented curricular design labeled as the core curriculum by Lounsbury and Vars (1978). The core eventually became known as curriculum integration as described by Beane (1997): Curriculum integration is a curriculum design that is concerned with enhancing the possibilities for personal and social integration through the organization of curriculum around significant problems and issues collaboratively identified by educators and young people without regard for subject area boundaries. (pp. x–xi)

Curriculum integration (CI) engages students as active learners who make most of the decisions about what they study. Springer (2013) described curriculum integration as containing the following components: 1. Content centered on cross-disciplinary connections; 2. An emphasis on holistic, constructivist, project-based learning and metacognitive thinking processes; 3. Focus on addressing students’ interests, questions, and concerns; and, 4. The importance of personal and social affective development, especially those attributes asso-

ciated with cooperation skills and democratic ideals. (p. 196) Other names have been used to describe organizing the curriculum differently than the traditional separate-subject approach that are similar to curriculum integration; names such as integrated curriculum, multi-disciplinary curriculum, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. Springer (2013) described these other labels as falling along a continuum of opportunities for connections among subjects; but these models fail to fully engage students as active participants in choosing what to study based primarily on their concerns. Students also have much fewer decision-making opportunities in the teacher-directed integrated models mentioned above. Processes of Curriculum Integration Curriculum integration in its purest design is defined as students determining what they will study based on a set of questions they generate that genuinely reflect their curiosity. In CI, neither teachers, school boards, state content standards, businesspersons, legislators, nor textbooks are used to determine specific topics students study during the year—instead students make those decisions with limited teacher assistance. The thematic topics chosen to study emerge from intense and engaging conversations among students in each class at the beginning of the school year as the group narrows a large list of questions into an agreed upon limited set of themes for in-depth study (Brown & Knowles, 2014). Every student in a CI classroom provides input into what the class will study during the year. Once themes are chosen, students choose the topics that they are most interested in, and separate into smaller groups to generate research questions; plan methods for learning about their topics, engage with “experts” in specific fields to learn more; plan presentations to present their learning to classmates and the general public; present their findings; and, evaluate their learning and presentations through self-reflective processes. Democratic Principles: An Essential Component of Curriculum Integration A critical component of CI is its specific emphasis on democratic processes that students engage in each day (Beane, 1993). Almost every decision that students make in CI classrooms are their decisions, affecting all students in the class; thus, they practice acts of democracy long before they become adults, and in the process learn about it firsthand. Students determine class rules, how they will be assessed, strategies for sharing their learning with others, topics they’ll research, and methods of evaluating their growth (Springer, 2006).

124 ◾ CURRICULUM INTEGRATION

The cognitive, social, and moral growth processes of early adolescence create a need for them to be highly involved in decision making during the middle level years; thus, CI provides opportunities for exercising democratic principles that seldom, if ever exist in traditional classrooms. Experiencing these expanded opportunities provide a much better chance for students to comprehend the genuine meaning of democracy. RATIONALE FOR IMPLEMENTING CURRICULUM INTEGRATION Traditional curricular design of separate subject area classes is based on perspectives that curricula are limited, and specific content must be taught to ensure students receive a comprehensive education. These traditional views do not match neuroscience perspectives, advancing technology, or the skill set needed for the future. Neuroscientist Judy Willis (2010) noted: For 21st century success, students will need a skill set far beyond the current subject matter evaluated on standardized tests. The qualifications for success in the world that today’s students will enter will demand the abilities to think critically, communicate clearly, use continually changing technology, be culturally aware and adaptive, and possess the judgment and open-mindedness to make complex decisions based on accurate analysis of information. (p. 63)

Technological advances enable every student instant access to an infinite amount of knowledge every minute of every day. Second, the amount of information to be learned is infinite and always has been; that is, a formal education could never prepare someone for a lifetime of necessary knowledge. Therefore, the nature of learning must be on thinking processes, problem solving, research analysis skills, and communicating effectively rather than limiting curricula to a dated list of items to learn. Young Adolescent Developmental Needs The unique developmental processes of this age create a critical need for curriculum integration. Young adolescents’ intellectual growth includes a much greater aptitude for processing abstract principles; but only with extended opportunities to ask their questions; to tackle new concepts with many concrete examples; to design their own research experiments; to have prolonged periods of time to engage in learning; to take time to make mindful connections among diverse topics; and to share their ideas, opinions, and misconceptions with others—both adults and classmates. These essential cognitive processes don’t occur in short, separate 42-minute periods. Curriculum integration classes

are designed for students to be together from three-six hours a day at school. The topics that CI students choose address their “issues” at this critical juncture of their lives: topics that frequently include personal health concerns, an uncertain future, the effects of future technological discoveries, curiosities about religion, monetary matters, family circumstances, medical advances, and the environmental future of the planet. CI students’ questions often mirror the exact concerns that many adults have on a weekly basis, and the topics they study are as significant as those offered by traditional curricular designs (Brown & Knowles, 2014). Curriculum integration classrooms are highly motivating for students because their curricular choices have great meaning to them. Findings That Support the Use of Curriculum Integration Numerous studies conducted with students in curriculum integration classes have noted several advantages to this curricular design. Students interviewed from separate CI programs believed their critical and creative thinking processes, problem solving abilities, interpersonal skills, research strategies, and metacognitive awareness improved much better than if they had been in traditional classrooms (Brown, 2006). Those same students noted considerable growth in reading, writing, and oral presentation skills above what they would have experienced in a traditional class. Students revealed in interviews with Brinegar and Bishop (2011) that compared to traditional curricular design, in a CI class they were more highly engaged as learners, more motivated, developed better time management skills, and were more self-confident learners. Several researchers (Beane, 1997; Springer, 2006, 2013; Vars, 1997) found that CI students did as well as or better on standardized tests than those not in CI, and Brown and Knowles (2014) reported that two separate groups of CI students had higher grade point averages as ninth graders following a year in CI than those from traditional classes. CONCLUSION George (2011) identified the middle level movement as critical to the implementation of innovative educational practices as reflected in curriculum integration design: Trust, meaningful relationships, freedom, empowerment, equity, optimism, diversity, complexity, tolerance, child-centeredness—these are the core components of the alternative, progressive worldview in education. They are also the core components of the middle level concept, one of today’s clearest manifestations of that worldview. (p. 48)

CURRICULUM: INTERDISCIPLINARY UNIT ◾ 125

Effective middle level schools implement several practices that promote the growth of all the developmental needs of young adolescents. Curriculum integration is one of the most innovative, critical components of effective schools; ensuring developmentally appropriate teaching practices, and that students are academically well prepared for their future lives. REFERENCES Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Beane, J. A. (2004). Creating quality in the middle school curriculum. In S. C. Thompson, (Ed.), Reforming middle level education: Considerations for policymakers (pp. 49–63). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Brinegar, K., & Bishop, P. A. (2011). Student learning and engagement in the context of curriculum integration. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(4), 207–222. Brown, D. F. (2006). It’s the curriculum, stupid: There’s something wrong with it. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 777–783. Brown, D. F. (2011). Curriculum integration: Meaningful learning based on students’ questions. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(4), 193–206. Brown, D. F., & Knowles, T. (2014). What every middle school teacher should know (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: MacMillan. George, P. S. (2011). The American middle school movement: Taking the long view. Middle School Journal, 43(2), 44–52. Kohn, A. (1998). What to look for in a classroom . . . and other essays. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lounsbury, J. H., & Vars, G. F. (1978). A curriculum for middle school years. New York, NY: Harper & Row. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107– 110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Springer, M. A. (2006). Soundings: A democratic student-centered education. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Springer, M. A. (2013). Charting the course of curriculum integration. In P. G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education (pp. 187–215). Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education. Vars, G. F. (1997). Effects of integrative curriculum and instruction. In J. L. Irvin, (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 179–186). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Willis, J. (2010). The current impact of neuroscience on teaching and learning. In D. A. Sousa (Ed.), Mind, brain,

and education: Neuroscience implications for the classroom (pp. 44–66). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

CURRICULUM: INTERDISCIPLINARY UNIT Virginia M. Jagla National Louis University An interdisciplinary unit, often referred to as a thematic unit, is a cross curricular planning tool for integrated teaching and learning. Interdisciplinary units are not unique to middle grades. Many elementary school teachers develop interdisciplinary units routinely to correlate the various disciplines or subject areas for enhanced understanding among their students. Such a unit plan for the self-contained classroom necessitates planning by only one teacher. In a typical middle school setting, interdisciplinary teaching presupposes the existence of interdisciplinary teams, and is facilitated by common planning time (Mertens, Flowers, Anfara, & Caskey, 2010). Interdisciplinary teaching occurs when two or more disciplines or subject areas are linked to deepen student comprehension. Student interest is sparked as they grasp the interconnectedness of concepts and skills shared by the various subject matter areas. The blending of the disciplines more readily mirrors real life, which does not arbitrarily segregate language, math, social studies, and science skills into discreet elements. The interdisciplinary unit draws upon the rigorous knowledge of the disciplines, while helping students make connections for richer, more complete understanding. The theme for an interdisciplinary unit can come from one of the disciplines, an area of interest, the state standards, or almost any other venue. A helpful starting point for ideas to be developed into interdisciplinary units is the curriculum map. Middle level curriculum maps are drafted by interdisciplinary teams of teachers. Through mapping the curriculum for the year, teachers often discover common themes in their teaching. Using such themes as entry points for brainstorming ideas and activities in each of the disciplines is a crucial step in planning an interdisciplinary unit. CURRICULUM MAPPING Curriculum maps are typically drawn up prior to the start of the school year. Curriculum maps can be thought of as longitudinal plans for a specific grade level that spans a school year or as multilayered blueprints which reveal areas taught across the grade level spectrum. The longitudinal, year-long plan is what influences the teaching

126 ◾ CURRICULUM: INTERDISCIPLINARY UNIT

of an interdisciplinary unit. A resource for learning more about curriculum mapping is Mapping the Big Picture by Heidi Hayes Jacobs (1997). According to Jacobs, the main components of a curriculum map are: • the process and skills emphasized; • the content in terms of essential concepts and topics; and • the products and performances that are the assessments of learning. (p. 8) These are all basic elements of a good unit plan. Jacobs suggested that each teacher independently map the upcoming year with what is expected to be taught. At an interdisciplinary team meeting, teachers can share their individual maps to look for “potential areas for integration.” (Jacobs, p. 11). This is the beginning of an interdisciplinary unit. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM While it is certainly possible to plan and implement an interdisciplinary unit as an individual teacher, in a true middle school the more meaningful approach involves an interdisciplinary team. The interdisciplinary team was historically a major breakthrough for the middle school movement. This type of team arrangement typically consists of four teachers each with expertise in language arts, math, science, or social studies. Such a team of teachers is responsible for 80 to 125 students. Occasionally teams are formed with two or three teachers who are endorsed in more than one discipline. The interdisciplinary team arrangement makes the planning of interdisciplinary units more plausible, particularly with the inclusion of common planning time. “[T] eachers would find it very difficult to create an interdisciplinary curriculum in the departmental organizational structure, since that structure does not give them opportunities to coordinate” (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 136). Collaborative planning gives the interdisciplinary unit its depth and richness. THEMES Themes for interdisciplinary units often stem from curricular subject areas. Social studies and science topics are frequently used as themes for units. A particular adolescent novel might serve as the underlying focus. When teams meet to look at their curriculum maps for the year, related topics emerge. A look at state and national standards for the grade level can produce ideas for themes. Students can come up with interest themes from which to plan. Beane (1993) insisted that themes chosen for study should be determined jointly by

students and teachers, with teachers taking a facilitative role in the co-planning of the curriculum. Themes can be thought of as broad or narrow topics. The more expansive the topic is, the richer your plans can be. Tomlinson (1998) made a distinction between content themes and concept themes. Themes based on content can certainly be useful. An interdisciplinary team could come up with a good unit using the Civil War as its theme. Using this social studies content theme could spark interesting language arts, science and math lessons. A broader concept associated with the Civil War is conflict. Using the theme of conflict across the disciplines can include the Civil War, but opens up many more possibilities. Basing an interdisciplinary unit on a conceptual theme such as conflict, independence, change, patterns, justice, or similarly broad ideas, will facilitate the inclusion of discipline based standards in meaningful and genuine ways. A comprehensive conceptual theme is more likely to be relevant to young adolescents. Middle school students can sooner relate to the concept of independence than to the content of the American Revolution. Within an interdisciplinary unit based on the concept of independence, the social studies content of the U.S. Revolution comes alive through the integration of all the disciplines. BRAINSTORMING Selecting a theme can occur through brainstorming. Once the theme is chosen, the process of brainstorming is essential to come up with possible activities and connections to the theme in all the subject areas. For a truly integrated unit, it is important for all faculty team members to have input during all stages of planning. It is equally important to involve students in the brainstorming of ideas. To facilitate creativity and productivity, it is suggested that teachers brainstorm individually with the theme in mind, then interact with each other in group brainstorming sessions (Jacobs, 1989). One way to approach the brainstorming process is to come up with associations to the disciplines based on the chosen theme. This process can be illustrated in the discipline web pictured in Figure 1. Alternately, teachers might brainstorm using a concept web, which often serves to further integrate the ideas produced. Rather than looking at the discreet disciplines for connections with the theme, teachers first brainstorm concepts associated with the theme. Then think of relevant activities to explicate these concepts for enhanced understanding with the students. Such a concept web might be illustrated as seen in Figure 2. Many teachers prefer brainstorming with simple lists. Jacobs (1989, pp. 56–58) suggested spokes on a wheel with the theme as the hub and the disciplines as the spokes.

CURRICULUM: INTERDISCIPLINARY UNIT ◾ 127

geometry

algebra

biology physics

MATH

history

SCIENCE earth science

SOCIAL STUDIES THEME geography

LANGUAGE ARTS RELATED ARTS

writing

home arts

drama dance

reading

visual arts

Figure 1 Discipline-based web. activity

activity

activity activity

CONCEPT

activity

CONCEPT activity

CONCEPT THEME activity CONCEPT

activity

CONCEPT activity

activity activity activity

Figure 2 Concept-based web.

Brainstormed ideas are then listed under each spoke. Whatever method is chosen, a record of the ideas should be kept to be incorporated into the interdisciplinary unit. ELEMENTS OF AN INTERDISCIPLINARY UNIT PLAN Literature depicts a range of basic characteristics which comprise an interdisciplinary unit and how to

go about creating such a plan (Jacobs, 1987, 1989, 2010; Lounsbury, 1992; Vars, 1987, 1993; Wiggins & McTighe 1998, 2013). A variety of internet sources exist with ideas and full unit plans. Once developed, teachers often file these units to be used in subsequent years. Although no template should be thought of as mandatory, a few basic, accepted elements exist across many interdisciplinary unit plans. Some of these elements include essential questions, an overview of the unit, the launch and culminating experiences, daily

128 ◾ CURRICULUM: INTERDISCIPLINARY UNIT

lesson plans, schedule-altering whole team events, assessments, and evaluation. Essential Questions Thoughtful questions to guide the unit are vital to ensure higher-level thinking. Although a variety of pertinent questions may be brainstormed and utilized throughout the unit, the essential questions should be those carefully selected few which frame the unit and serve to organize the planning of learning experiences (Erickson, 2002; Jacobs, 1989, 1997, 2010; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, 2013). When meaningful essential questions are generated, they can “serve as the scope and sequence to the structure of the study.” ( Jacobs, 1997 p. 27). In order to function as the “table of contents” for the unit, the essential or guiding questions must be expansive, conceptual, and analogous to enduring understandings. Such questions are multifaceted with no simple answers. Essential questions naturally lead to further questions throughout the unit. By their nature, essential questions are interdisciplinary. Such questions are relevant across the curriculum. Answers to essential questions can lead students to conceptualize the big ideas or major understandings meant to be garnered through the course of the interdisciplinary unit. Essential questions should be pertinent to the students’ experiences and understandings. They should foster creative and critical thinking. Overview Since a middle level interdisciplinary unit typically involves a few teachers, it is crucial to draw up some form of an outline to coordinate the planned experiences across and within the disciplines. The overview can take the form of a web, a calendar, or a more formal outline. A calendar-based overview can serve the team well as the unit progresses. Teams may find their brainstormed web useful as an initial overview. Those needing more structure might prefer to devise an ordered outline to follow. Launch The beginning activity, or launch, for the unit should be a thoughtfully planned, attention-getting experience which peaks the curiosity and interest of the students. The launch will set the stage for the rest of the unit. For a truly integrated unit, the launch should be interdisciplinary and be experienced by all the students involved across the subject areas. Teams often plan their unit’s beginning and ending lessons first, but these experiences can evolve with the rest of the unit plans.

Daily Plans Thoughtful, relevant daily plans will determine the cohesiveness of an interdisciplinary unit. Many of the ideas for activities and learning experiences come from earlier brainstorming with the team of teachers and students. These ideas are then developed into lesson plans. Typically each subject matter specialist will prepare individual daily lessons for the classes pertaining to that discipline. Coordination with other faculty team members is key to enhance the understanding of the connections related to the theme within and among the other subject areas. Each teacher should share tentative plans with the rest of the faculty team often during the planning stages to ensure relevant and worthwhile experiences for the students. Whole Team Events Some interdisciplinary unit activities will involve the entire team of 80 to 120 students participating together. Whole team events can include field trips, service learning projects, simulations, and guest speakers. Often the launch and culminating activities involve the entire team. Faculty team members can share the responsibilities involved in planning these larger scale events. Assessments Interdisciplinary units provide marvelous opportunities for authentic assessment, merging the various disciplinary standards in projects and activities. Formative assessment throughout the unit can help reshape initial plans for enhanced understanding. Informal teacher observation and questioning of students during the course of the unit can redesign aspects of the plans for more relevance and improved comprehension. Students can be given a selection of summative assessment strategies to demonstrate their grasp of enduring understandings. Summative assessments spanning the subject areas can include performances, research projects, presentations, portfolios, demonstrations, and artistic creations. The teaching team can collectively review student culminating projects with students for authentic assessment. Culminating Experience Often, the beginning and culminating experiences are the first pieces of a unit to be designed. During the initial stages of brainstorming teams can come up with appropriate ways to end the unit with final projects, presentations, dramatic representations, gallery showings, celebrations, service days, field trips, simulations, fairs, and so forth.

CURRICULUM: INTERDISCIPLINARY UNIT ◾ 129

Evaluation All members of the team, faculty and students, should be involved in providing detailed feedback on all aspects of the unit. Some of the evaluation process can be ongoing in conjunction with formative assessments. Feedback forms can be designed for all involved including guest speakers, field trip providers, community participants, and parents. Of course the young adolescents who have just participated in the interdisciplinary unit can provide some of the most valuable feedback. REFERENCES Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Erickson, H. L. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.). (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K–12. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.). (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lounsbury, J. H., (Ed.). (1992). Connecting the curriculum through interdisciplinary instruction. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Caskey, M. M. (2010). Common planning time. Middle School Journal, 41(5), 50–57. Tomlinson, C. A. (1998). For integration and differentiation choose concepts over topics. Middle School Journal, 30(2), 3–8. Vars, G. F. (1987). Interdisciplinary teaching in the middle grades: Why and how. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Vars, G. F. (1993). Interdisciplinary teaching why & how. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2013). Essential questions: Opening doors to student understanding. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

This page intentionally left blank.

D Democratic classrooms are intentionally planned and conducted to help young people live and learn the democratic way of life. No purpose for schools in a democratic society would seem more important that helping young people to learn the values, skills, and practices associated with democratic living. Democracy is not simply a matter of participating in political decisions or other activities. More than that, it is an “associated way of living” (Dewey, 1916), defined by certain values like respect for human dignity, concern for the general welfare or common good, and belief that human beings are capable of intelligent problem solving. From these primary values follow crucial democratic concepts like equity, freedom, cooperation, and the like (Beane, 1990). Given the complexity of those values and concepts, maintaining and extending a democratic society depends heavily on education about them. Because democracy, like most other concepts and skills, is best learned through experience (Apple & Beane, 2007; Dewey, 1938), it is important that policies and practices within the school reflect the democratic way of life. Besides, at the same time young people are students in school they are also citizens in the larger society and thus entitled to enjoy the essential rights of citizenship, to be treated with respect regardless of race, class, gender, religion, and/or sexual orientation, and to be given access to the best opportunities and outcomes the school has to offer. Following these values and concepts of democracy, a number of practices are typically associated with these classrooms.

• Democratic classrooms emphasize opportunities for students to interact with each other in a variety of ways. Group deliberation, cooperative problem solving, and critical discussions about controversial topics are hallmarks of democratic living. In classrooms, this means frequent use of activities like small group projects and group discussions • In democratic classrooms, students are actively involved in creating and sustaining classroom culture and structure through helping create classroom constitutions, serving on committees, making classroom calendar decisions, and so on. • Democratic classrooms emphasize authentic intellectual work in which students take on real world problems, in-depth projects, and service learning inside and outside the school. Not only do such experiences offer experience with democratic problem solving, they also offer a meaningful context in which to learn skills and concepts from various disciplines of knowledge. • In democratic classrooms the curriculum centers on important social issues and concerns whenever possible. This often involves using social issues and concerns as unit themes like “Living in the Future,” “Environmental Sustainability,” “Conflict Near and Far,” “Politics and Money,” and the like. Themes such as these may be approached through integrative units rather than separate subjects, just as they are in democratic problem solving outside the school. However, social issues may also be used in separate subject classes such as selecting literature about them as part of literacy studies, or using them as content for writing, math problems, and science explorations.

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 131–140 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

131

DEMOCRATIC CLASSROOMS James A. Beane

132 ◾ DEMOCRATIC CLASSROOMS

• In democratic classrooms students are involved wherever possible in helping to plan the curriculum, from selecting possible themes or topics to be studied to identifying possible activities, resources, and assessment method (Beane, Brodhagen, & Weilbacher, 2005). Authentic student voice should not be confused with leading students toward or simply voting on a pre-conceived teacher plan. Rather, it is a genuine attempt to bring their experiences, cultures, and ideas to the curriculum. • In democratic classrooms, assessment is tied as much as possible to authentic activities and may include devices such as exhibitions, presentations, and research reports (Brodhagen, 1994). In a democratic society, knowledge and skill are not simply something to be displayed. Rather, they are used and demonstrated as part of problem solving. • Democratic classrooms are intentionally inclusive and accepting, reflecting the diversity of the entire school in which they are located. As such, heterogeneity is prized as a means to bring many voices and experiences to discussions, projects, and other activities. • As part of the democratic learning experience, teachers and students often reflect together about how well they are doing in relation to maintaining a democratic culture (Beane, 2007; Noar, 1963). In doing so they may be guided by a number of relevant questions: Did students have an adequate and appropriate voice in classroom planning? Was the content we focused on of some social significance? Were students involved in rigorous and authentic activity? Did we consult a variety of sources and viewpoints in our research? Did we critically examine information and viewpoints? How could our work extend more often into community service? Did we use a variety of ways to reflect upon and evaluate our work and our group? Did students have an adequate and appropriate say in creating our evaluation? Did students have an adequate voice in evaluating their own work? Were our expectations for our work high enough? Was there enough variety in activities and materials so that all students had an equitable chance to access the curriculum? Does our classroom function as a collaborative community or simply a collection of individuals? Creating a democratic classroom is not a simple task. More than just subject knowledge and general teaching skills, teachers must believe in the values and concepts of democracy, commit to bring those to life in

the classroom, possess themselves skills associated with democratic living, have knowledge of current issues and events in the larger world, and be able to explain the ideas and practices of democratic classrooms to parents, colleagues, and others. The idea of creating democratic classrooms has long been a part of middle level theory and practice (Commission on the Relation of School and College, 1942; Mursell, 1955; Noar, 1963; Vars, 1991, Zapf, 1959). Most notably, it was the centerpiece of efforts beginning in the 1930s to promote a core curriculum emphasizing democratic living and learning (Commission on the Relation of School and College, 1942; Faunce & Bossing, 1951; Hopkins, 1941). Most recently, it gained some popularity in the 1990s as part of the push for more integrative curriculum experiences in middle level schools (Alexander, Carr, & McAvoy, 1995; Brodhagen, 1995; Smith , Kenney, & O’Donnell, 1996; Springer, 2006). In these and other cases over the intervening years, reports from democratically oriented middle level classrooms featured issue-oriented themes, large and small group discussions, group research, critical analysis, community service projects, and student involvement in planning themes, activities, and assessment. They also emphasized applying integrated general content and skills from various disciplines to work on pressing social issues, offering a real-life context for learning more meaningful to young people than the separate subject approach many students find remote and abstract (Beane, 1997; Vars, 1991). Even as the idea of democratic classrooms has enjoyed some popularity at the middle level over time, it has also been challenged by misunderstanding and confusion. For example, the use of integrative units to organize the curriculum rather than separate subject teaching does not mean that the disciplines of knowledge are ignored. Instead, it means that knowledge from the disciplines is taught in the context of themes where it is immediately applied to issues and problems. There is considerable evidence that students learn content and skills at least as well or better through such contextual teaching that in separate subject classes (Beane, 1997, Vars, 1991). Student involvement in planning does not mean that the teacher has no say. While planning in democratic classrooms is intended to be collaborative, the teacher maintains the role of professional adult who is responsible for seeing that school and community expectations are met. The emphasis on collaboration does not mean that students all do the same thing all of the time. Many general education experiences are, in fact, intended for all students but others may involve varying degrees of differentiated instruction and roles. Like democracy itself, the goal of democratic classrooms is not homogeneity, but to encourage creative individuality within the context of the larger group goals and

DEVELOPMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS ◾ 133

projects. Finally, democratic classrooms are always a work in progress as teachers and students live and learn together. The values and related concepts of democracy serve as guides and may look very different as they are brought to life from classroom to classroom. Though democratic classrooms have long had a place in middle level theory and practice, their presence in schools has always been subject to misunderstanding of the concept and the apparent preference by some educators for authoritarian classrooms. In this way, the place and extent of democracy in middle level schools reflects its place in the larger society where it is often thought to be less efficient or too risky than top-down decision-making. Should democracy itself become more prevalent outside the school, it may well become more common within. Regardless, helping young people learn the values, skills, and practices associated with democratic living is a major responsibility of all schools in a democratic society, including those at the middle level. REFERENCES Alexander, W. with Carr, D., & McAvoy, K. (1995). Student-oriented curriculum: Asking the right questions. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 783). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED418783.pdf Apple, M., & Beane, J. (Eds.). (2007). Democratic schools (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Beane, J. (1990). Affect in the curriculum: Toward democracy, dignity, and diversity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Beane, J. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Beane J. (2007). A reason to teach: Creating classrooms of dignity and hope. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Beane J., Brodhagen, B., & Weilbacher, G. (2005). Show me the money. In H. Daniels & M. Bizar (Eds.), Teaching the best practice way: Methods that matter. (pp. 291–296). Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Brodhagen, B. (1994). Assessing and reporting student progress in an integrative curriculum. Teaching and Change, 1, 238–254. Brodhagen, B. (1995). The situation made us special. In M. W. Apple & J. A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools (pp. 83– 100). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Commission on the Relation of School and College. (1942). Thirty schools tell their story. New York, NY: Harper. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Bloomington, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. Faunce, R., & Bossing, N. (1951). Developing the core curriculum. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. Mursell, J. (1955). Principles of democratic education. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Noar, G. (1963). Teaching and learning the democratic way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Smith, C., Kenny, M., & O’Donnell, M. (1996). Student-directed theme planning. In K. Gutloff (Ed.), Integrated thematic teaching (pp. 61–67). Washington, DC: National Education Association. Springer, M. (2006). Soundings: A democratic student-centered education. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Vars, G. F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership, 49(1), 14–15. Zapf, R. (1959). Democratic processes in the secondary classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

DEVELOPMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS Cheryl R. Ellerbrock University of South Florida Classified in the literature as both a transitional period to adulthood and a distinctive developmental stage, early adolescence is a period of human development signified by multiple significant developmental changes. Early adolescence (ages 10–15) overlaps with the time when many American students experience middle school. The need for middle level schooling to revolve around young adolescent learners’ developmental characteristics is foundational to the middle school concept. As stated by Nesin and Brazee (2013), “Meeting the needs of young adolescents has always been a rallying cry for the middle school movement” (p. 471). However, over the course of the past few decades it appears that middle level schools have struggled to keep the focus of school on supporting the developmental needs of young adolescents. Young adolescents have unique physical, cognitive, moral, psychological, social-emotional, and spiritual/ religious development (Brighton, 2007; Caskey & Anfara, 2014; Scales, 2010) that separates this stage of development from other stages of development. Physically, young adolescents experiencing multiple changes in their body, including periods of rapid growth, enhanced gross and fine motor skills, and biological maturity, including puberty (Kellough & Kellough, 2008). Cognitively, young adolescents vary greatly on individual intellectual development, including their ability to exhibit independent thought and think metacognitively (Scales, 2010). Young adolescents prefer active learning that involves working with their peers (Kellough & Kellough, 2008; NMSA, 2010) on topics of high interest that are personally relevant to their lives (Brighton, 2007; NMSA, 2010). Morally, young adolescents are making the transition into what Kohlberg (1983) called the interpersonal conformity stage of moral development where they begin to formulate their own moral

134 ◾ DEVELOPMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS

judgments based on the peer group or society. Many may struggle as they are often lacking the skills to make sound moral decisions (Kellough & Kellough, 2008). Psychologically, young adolescents seek independence and a sense of identity. During the middle level years, they undergo what Erikson (1968) classified as industry versus inferiority (approximately 6–11 years of age) where young adolescents’ performance on various tasks and skills define who they are and identity versus identity/ role confusion (approximately 12–18 years of age) where exploration, experimentation, and identification of a sense of self become paramount. Social-emotionally, young adolescents desire to belong to a peer group and obtain acceptance from the group (Scales, 2010). Last, Caskey and Anfara (2014) reminded middle level educators to remain cognizant of young adolescents’ spiritual development, defined as the way humans make sense out of the purpose of their life. Remember, early adolescence is a time of growth where there is much variability among children, even within each developmental characteristic (Stevenson, 2002). It is important that middle level educators understand these characteristics are interconnected and influence one another (Kellough & Kellough, 2008) and that middle level schools must be responsive to students’ unique developmental needs during this timeframe (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). What does the term developmental responsiveness really mean? Unfortunately, developmental responsiveness is very difficult to define as it means different things to different people, resulting in much confusion and misinterpretation as to its true definition and intent. One reason for this misconception is because most definitions are rather inclusive and broad. Another reason for confusion and misinterpretation is that many middle schools never fully implemented the middle school concept in totality. For others, the implementation of the term has overemphasized the necessity to support students’ self-esteem and lacked rigor and commitment to students’ academic success (Nesin & Bazee, 2013). What is clear is that developmental responsiveness requires that educators possess both an understanding of the characteristics of young adolescent development and the characteristics of middle level schooling designed to meet these needs (George & Alexander, 2003). In a landmark 2010 position statement titled, This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents, the National Middle School Association, now referred to as the Association for Middle Level Education, articulated that developmental responsiveness is one of the four essential attributes for educating young adolescents in today’s 21st century middle school. In this document, AMLE defined developmental responsiveness as “using the distinctive nature of young adolescents as the foundation on which all decisions about organization,

policies, curriculum, instruction, and assessment are made” (NMSA, 2010, p. 14). In Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century, Jackson and Davis (2000) called for responsive middle level schools that: • Teach a curriculum grounded in rigorous, public academic standards for what should students should know and be able to do, relevant to the concerns of adolescents and based on how students learn best; • Use instructional methods designed to prepare all students to achieve higher standards and become lifelong learners; • Staff middle grades schools with teachers who are expert at teaching young adolescents and engage teachers in ongoing, targeted professional development opportunities; • Organize relationships for learning to create a climate of intellectual development and a caring community of shared educational purpose; • Govern democratically, through direct or representative participation by all school staff members, the adults who know the students best; • Provide a safe and healthy school environment as part of improving academic performance and developing caring and ethical citizens; and • Involve parents and communities in supporting student learning and healthy development. (cited directly from Jackson & Davis, 2000, pp. 23–24) Nesin and Brazee (2013) synthesis of Turning Points 2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000) and This We believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (NMSA, 2010) suggested that both documents have the following elements in common: • A meaningful and relevant standards-based curriculum; • Multiple assessments that foster high-quality learning; • School environments that are safe and supportive; • School organizational structures that foster high-quality relationships and student learning; • Educators specially trained to work with young adolescents; and • School, parent, and community collaboration. (p. 479) The National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (2015) evaluated the developmental responsiveness of a middle school based on the following criteria:

DEVELOPMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS ◾ 135

• The staff creates a personalized environment that supports each student’s intellectual, ethical, social, and physical development; • The school provides access to comprehensive services to foster healthy physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development; • Teachers foster curiosity, creativity and the development of social skills in a structured and supportive environment; • The curriculum is both socially significant and relevant to the personal and career interests of young adolescents; • Teachers use an interdisciplinary approach to reinforce important concepts, skills, and address real-world problems; • Students are provided multiple opportunities to explore a rich variety of topics and interests in order to develop their identity, learn about their strengths, discover and demonstrate their own competence, and plan for their future; • All students have opportunities for voice—posing questions, reflecting on experiences, and participating in decisions and leadership activities; • The school staff members develop alliances with families to enhance and support the well-being of the children; • Staff members provide all students with opportunities to develop citizenship skills, to use the community as a classroom, and to engage the community in providing resources and support; and • The school provides age-appropriate, co-curricular activities to foster social skills and character, and to develop interests beyond the classroom environment. (cited directly from the National Forum website http://middlegradesforum.org/ our-criteria/) It is also clear that developmental responsiveness is the cornerstone of effective middle level schooling. Given this, how can a middle level school become more developmentally responsive? The answer is both simple and complex—all decisions, including school organization and policies, curriculum, instruction, and assessment must center on supporting the needs and developmental characteristics of young adolescents. Further, educators and leaders must understand and have the training necessary to teach this age group well. A short synthesis to each point is provided below. SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND POLICIES It is essential that middle schools are organized in a way that responds to young adolescents’ developmental needs (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; George, & Alexander,

2000; Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 2010), including structures of people, place, and time (Powell, 2011). The middle school concept itself was intended to meet this aim. Jackson and Davis (2000) stated, “just as middle grades teachers need to know how, specifically, young adolescents are different from young children and older adolescents, they also need to understand that middle grades schools are different from elementary and high schools” (p. 100). Organizational structures such as interdisciplinary teaming, block scheduling, and common planning time for teachers, to name a few, are noted to be responsive structures that support student needs, promote learning, and foster positive relationships (George & Alexander, 2000; NMSA, 2010). Policies must also support the development of young learners within the school. CURRICULUM All curricular aspects of middle level educational programs must be challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant to adolescents’ career interests, individual concerns, and ways students learn best (Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, 2015; NMSA, 2010). Rigorous standards must be used to guide all curricular decisions (Jackson & Davis, 2000). INSTRUCTION Developmental responsiveness requires that the unique developmental characteristics of young adolescents determine the types of instruction employed. Responsive teachers should use an interdisciplinary approach to teach and reinforce important concepts, skills, and address real-world problems (NMSA, 2010). Teaching methods should help students become lifelong learners (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Instruction must be age appropriate, individually appropriate, and culturally and socially appropriate. Age appropriate practices necessitates that the teacher consider the age range of the child and align practices according to what one can expect developmentally of children in that range. Individually appropriate requires that the teacher see each child as an individual—unique and whole—and use what they know about the child to scaffold instruction to his/her level or zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Culturally and socially appropriate practices take into consideration each student’s cultural and social background and implement practices that are relevant to and affirming of the lives of children.

136 ◾ DEVELOPMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS

ASSESSMENT It is essential that authentic and appropriate assessments are used on a consistent basis to determine growth in student understanding. Both formative and summative assessments must be utilized. Goal setting and student involvement in goal setting and reflection on their growth is paramount (NMSA, 2010).

Jackson and Davis (2000), “Let us be clear. The main purpose of middle grades education is to promote young adolescents’ intellectual development” (p. 10). However, fostering intellectual development does not have to happen at the cost of attending to other developmental characteristics. All are necessary. REFERENCES

EDUCATORS AND LEADERS This We Believe and Turning Points 2000 both stated the importance of specialized middle level teacher preparation programs that focus on a strong understanding of an academic discipline, quality instruction based on how individuals learn, and a comprehensive understanding of the developmental characteristics and needs of young adolescents (Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 2010). As Jackson and Davis (2000) stated, “middle grades teachers must be well grounded in the development needs of young adolescents if they are to be successful” (p. 100). The 2012 AMLE’s Teacher Preparation Standards for Middle Level Education highlights the need to prepare teachers with an understanding of young adolescent development and developmentally responsive teaching. Further, there is a need for specially trained middle level leaders and quality professional development for practicing educators. CONCLUSION Today, middle level educators find themselves in a new era of schooling where developmental responsiveness has been redefined to narrowly focus on academic achievement on high stakes standardized tests often at the exclusion of all other aspects of adolescent development (Nesin & Brazee, 2013). What is clear is that middle level educators are in a battle to strike a balanced and comprehensive definition of developmental responsiveness—one that aligns with young adolescents’ developmental characteristics and takes into consideration all aspects of middle level schooling, including school organization and policies, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and the selection of faculty. As middle level educators, we must remind ourselves that advancing the intellectual development of young adolescents is but one part of our duty. Our role also includes honoring and nurturing young adolescents’ physical, moral, psychological, social-emotional, and spiritual needs. Advocating for a more comprehensive definition of developmental responsiveness does not, in any way, diminish the importance of, or focus on intellectual development (Dickinson, 2001; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Nesin & Brazee, 2013; NMSA, 2000). As stated by

Association for Middle Level Education. (2012). Association for middle level education middle level teacher preparation standards with rubrics and supporting explanations. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/ProfessionalPreparation/AMLEStandards.aspx Brighton, K. L. (2007). Coming of age: The education and development of young adolescents. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Caskey, M., & Anfara, V. A. Jr. (2014). Research summary: Developmental characteristics of young adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/WhatsNew/ WNDet.aspx?ArtMID= 888&ArticleID=455 Dickinson, T. S. (Ed.). (2001). Reinventing the middle school. New York, NY: Routledge-Falmer. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). New York, NY: Academic Press. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kellough, R. D., & Kellough, N. G. (2008). Teaching young adolescents: Methods and resources for middle grades teaching (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Kohlberg, L. (1983). The psychology of moral development. New York, NY: Harper & Row. National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (2015). Our criteria. Retrieved from http://middlegradesforum .org/our-criteria National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Nesin, G., & Brazee, E. (2013). Developmentally responsive middle grades schools: Needed now more than ever. In P. G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education (pp. 469–493). Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education. Powell, S. D. (2011). Introduction to middle school (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Scales, P. C. (2010). Characteristics of young adolescents. In This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents (pp. 63–62). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Stevenson, C. (2002). Teaching ten to fourteen year olds (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

DEWEY, JOHN ◾ 137 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

DEWEY, JOHN Molly Mee Towson University John Dewey (1859–1952) was an American psychologist, philosopher, and educator, at the helm of the progressive movement who believed in appealing to the emotional and creative aspects of teaching that put the child at the center of learning. He is often referred to as the father of the Progressive Movement and is associated with Charles Sanders Peirce and William James as the founders of American Pragmatism. Born in Burlington, Vermont in 1859, Dewey attended Vermont public schools and then the University of Vermont where he expressed interest in natural science and moral philosophy (Westbrook, 1991). After graduating, he worked as a teacher for several years before attending John Hopkin’s University to earn his PhD in 1884. He taught at the University of Michigan until 1894 with a one-year stint at the University of Minnesota in 1888–1889. Following his tenure in Michigan he went on to the University of Chicago where he became notable for his Laboratory School that emphasized that life itself should provide the foundation of education of children, and for his work as Department Chair of Philosophy, Psychology, and Pedagogy. Following disagreements with the University Administration over the workings of the Laboratory School, he resigned as Chair and moved to the Department of Philosophy at Columbia University in 1905 at which time he was also elected President of the American Psychological Association (APA). He remained at Columbia University for the remainder of his career and died in 1952 at the age of 92. During his career, Dewey traveled the world and solidified his place in history as America’s progressive educator. He authored numerous essays and books including My Pedagogic Creed (1897), The School and Society (1899), The Child and the Curriculum (1919), Experience and Education (1938), Democracy and Education (1916) in which he positioned education at the center of the democratic process and contrasted active learning and community life in “new” education to authoritarian rote learning in the “old” education. He summed up his belief of school as a representation of community life in this notable quote from My Pedagogic Creed, “I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living” (Dewey, 1897, p. 78). He was instrumental in education as the means

to maintaining a democratic society by putting the child at the center of learning. He rejected the notion of the more traditional methods of the time and maintained that methods of instruction and content should be based on the child’s natural curiosity and interests. His emphasis on educating the whole child is particularly relevant to current middle grades education philosophies. Further, Dewey’s progressive-oriented ideals of the mid-1900s directly correlate to middle level ideals of student-centered, developmentally appropriate teaching. REFERENCES Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54(3), 77–80. Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: MacMillan. Dewey, J. (1919). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education (Kappa Delta Pi lecture series). New York, NY: Macmillan. Westbrook, R. B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

DICKINSON, THOMAS S. Tracy W. Smith Appalachian State University C. Kenneth McEwin Appalachian State University A former editor of National Middle School Association’s (NMSA) Middle School Journal (1990–1993), Thomas “Tom” S. Dickinson is widely recognized as a distinguished editor and accomplished author. He is author or co-author of more than 60 middle school publications including journal articles, book chapters, books, and research reports as well as a co-researcher for three national studies that assessed the status and progress of middle level education. Previously, he served as the editor of the influential Reinventing the Middle School: A Proposal to Counter Arrested Development (2001). Dickinson was also co-editor, with Tom Erb, of We Gain More Than We Give: Teaming in Middle Schools (1997), one of the most comprehensive and authoritative elucidations of middle school teaming in the history of middle school education. Dickinson played a key role in the establishment of middle level teacher preparation programs at three universities and has written widely on the topic

138 ◾ DODA, NANCY M.

of middle level teacher preparation and certification/ licensure. He has cited the lack of widespread specialized middle level teacher preparation as a shortcoming in the history of middle level education. “I don’t think you can underestimate the problems and difficulties that have been visited upon this movement,” Dickinson stated, “by the lack of across-the-board, across the 50 states, separate and distinct teacher preparation and teacher licensure standards. You cannot create and sustain any educational endeavor without appropriate preparation” (Smith & McEwin, 2011, p. 175). Dickinson was the founding editor of The Journal of the Association of Illinois Middle Schools (1986–1988), Midpoints: Occasional Papers in Middle Level Education, NMSA (1990–1993), and founding co-editor of Becoming: The Journal of the Georgia Middle School Association (1989– 1990). He was a member of NMSA’s Professional Preparation Task Force that wrote the first set of national standards for middle level teacher preparation in 1988. Together with Ken McEwin, he co-edited one of the first publications on the professional preparation of middle level teachers (McEwin & Dickinson, 1995). Dickinson received his undergraduate degree in history from Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in 1969. After serving in the United States Army, he began his teaching career as a junior high school social studies teacher in 1971 in Hampton, Virginia. He earned a master’s degree in social studies education (1976) and a doctorate in social studies education and supervision of instruction from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville (1980). Dickinson was assistant professor at Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky (1980–1982), and visiting professor at North Carolina Wesleyan College, Rocky Mount, North Carolina (1983–1984), before accepting a position on the faculty of Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, in 1987. He then became associate professor of education at Georgia Southern University in Statesville, Georgia (1988), where he remained until he became editor of the Middle School Journal in 1990. After serving as the editor of Middle School Journal, he was Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at Indiana State University, Terre Haute, from 1993 to 2002. Dickinson retired from his position as professor of education studies at DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana, in May 2013. REFERENCES Dickinson, T. S. (Ed.). (2001). Reinventing the middle school: A proposal to counter arrested development. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Dickinson, T. S., & Erb, T. O. (Eds.). (1997). We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

McEwin, C. K., & Dickinson, T. S. (Eds.). (1995). The professional preparation of middle level teachers: Profiles of successful programs. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Smith, T. W., & McEwin, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

DODA, NANCY M. Michelle Schwartze Illinois State University Nancy Doda has always been passionate about the middle school concept. Her career began in 1974 as a middle school Language Arts teacher at Lincoln Middle School in Gainesville, Florida. Next, she completed her Master’s degree and PhD at the University of Florida, both in Middle School Teacher Education (Teacher to Teacher, 2013). Doda wanted to share her passion, so in 1977, she delivered a keynote address at the North Carolina Middle School Association annual state conference. Since her first keynote address, Doda has spoken at middle school conferences in every U.S. state, every Canadian province, Europe, and the Far East (Teacher to Teacher, 2013). Her current work focuses on advocating for middle school students through being a workshop leader, author, and keynote speaker. In 1988, Doda began writing a column in the Middle School Journal titled “Teacher to Teacher.” With this column, she sought to support middle level educators and share her experience with middle level students. “Teacher to Teacher” continues today although the focus has changed to middle level and high school education. Doda also co-founded the Alliance for Powerful Learning (2013). Much of Doda’s work focuses on the idea of powerful learning, which is the use of practices in the classroom to create independent learners who feel safe and frequently collaborate about meaningful curriculum (Alliance for Powerful Learning, 2013). Doda continuously advocates for this idea of powerful learning within the middle school classroom. To give middle school students the best learning environment, she suggests offering choices and inviting students to collaborate on the curriculum to help them increase critical-thinking skills and make them feel more in control of their own learning (Doda, 2011). Doda is aware of the many changes in education, but she still advocates for educators to keep their focus on the needs of the student. She stated, “As we plow through the new demands of the Common Core, and associated accountability measures, I believe it is

DOUGLASS, HARL R. ◾ 139

important to take stock, reflect, assess, and claim anew the solid ground of the middle school concept” (Doda, 2014, para 2). To Doda, it is important that middle grades educators do not fail to remember the middle school concept centers on young adolescents and gives them learning that is meaningful and engaging. Doda received the National Middle School Association’s distinguished John Lounsbury Award in 2001, the New England League of Middle Schools Distinguished Service Award, and the Virginia Middle School Association Distinguished Service Award. She has several publications including Teacher to Teacher (2013), Treasure Chest: A Resource for Advisory (Hoversten, Lounsbury, & Doda, 1991), and Transforming Ourselves, Transforming Schools: Middle School Change (Doda & Thompson, 2002). Her passion for middle school education can be seen in all of her publications and her numerous keynote addresses. REFERENCES Alliance for Powerful Learning. (2013). Dimensions of powerful learning. Retrieved from http://www.allianceforpowerfullearning.com/index.php/powerful-learning/ dimensionss-of-powerful-learning Doda, N. (2011). The power of empowerment: Having faith in students. Middle Ground, 14(4), 8–10. Doda, N. (2014, February 15). Powerful learning for the middle years: Four tenacious truths. Middle Grades Collaborative. Retrieved from http://middlegradescollaborative .org/blog/2014/02/15/powerful-learning-for-the-middle -years-four-tenacioustruths-by-nancy-m.-doda-ph.d/ Doda, N., & Thompson, S. C. (2002). Transforming ourselves; transforming schools: Middle school change. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Hoversten, C., Lounsbury, J. H., & Doda, N. (1991). Treasure chest: A teacher advisory source book with 120 classroom-ready activities. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Teacher to Teacher. (2013). Nancy M. Doda, PhD. Retrieved from http://www.teacher-to teacher.com/about.html

DOUGLASS, HARL R. Barbara L. Whinery Contributor from 1st edition Throughout his life and career Harl R. Douglass made numerous contributions to the field of education through his scholarship, consultation with school districts, and service in several administrative and leadership roles. According to Dr. Douglass, his major interests were “teaching mathematics in secondary school, examining factors (of success) at the college and university level, secondary school methods, curriculum,

administration and supervision especially at the junior high school level” (Douglass Personal Papers, Autobiography, n.d.). Harl R. Douglass was the only child born to Joseph and Anna Douglass in Richmond, Missouri on June 22, 1892. After graduating from high school, his education included a Bachelor of Science (1915) and Master of Arts degrees (1921) from the University of Missouri and he later earned a Doctor of Philosophy from Stanford (1927) (Harte & Riley, 1969; Ohles, 1978). During the early phase of his career, Dr. Douglass was as a high school mathematics teacher (1913) and as a superintendent in several school districts (1914–1919) followed by a directorship of the University of Oregon High School (1919–1928). As a beginning professor he taught at the University of Pennsylvania (1928–1929) and University of Minnesota (1929–1938) before moving to the University of North Carolina. There he became chairman of the division of teaching and was recognized as the Kenan Professor of Secondary Education (1938). During summer sessions, he would serve as a guest professor at other universities that included the University of Southern Illinois, Arizona University, Southern California University and Yale University. In 1940 he moved to the University of Colorado at Boulder where he served as dean of the college of education until 1958. He retired from the university in 1968 (Harte & Riley, 1969; Ohles, 1978). Dr. Douglass served as vice president of American Educational Research Association and was a board member of the National Society for the Study of Education. From 1937–1938, he was president of the National Society of College Teachers of Education. He also was editor of the Journal of Education Research and the Journal of Experimental Research (Harte & Riley, 1969; Ohles, 1978). Over 430 publications, including books, monographs and reports were authored or coauthored by Harl Douglass (Douglass Personal Papers, n.d.). Topics for his articles and books addressed a variety of topics from secondary school curriculum, instructional methods, classroom management, administration and supervision to testing and measurement. He was well known for his Douglass Series on Education (1947–1952) for which he was editor and authored three of the 31 volumes (Douglass Personal Papers, 1972; Ohles, 1978). His special interest in junior high school education was demonstrated when coauthored The Modern Junior High School with William T. Gruhn in 1971 (Gruhn & Douglass, 1971). This book provided information about junior high school philosophy and curriculum for educators preparing to be junior high school teachers, administrators or supervisors in junior high schools. In honor of his work Douglass Junior High School in the Boulder Valley School District, Boulder, Colorado was

140 ◾ DOUGLASS, HARL R.

named after him (Douglass Personal Papers, n.d., Douglass Personal Papers, 1972). In addition to his many innovative ideas about teaching, curriculum, administration, and advocacy for junior high school, he stated “his major interest was bringing peace and fraternal feeling among the peoples of the world regardless of their race, religion, sex or level of cultures” (Douglass Personal Papers, Autobiography, n.d.). REFERENCES Douglass, H. R. (n.d.). Personal papers folder, archives, University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries.

Douglass, H. R. Personal Papers. (1972). School & University Review, 2(4), Boulder, CO: Archives, University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Douglass, H. R. Personal Papers, Autobiography, (n.d.), Box 1, folder 10. Boulder, CO: Archives, University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Gruhn, W., & Douglass, H. R. (1971). The modern junior high school (3d ed.). New York, NY: Ronald Press. Harte, B., & Riley, C. (1969). Contemporary authors: A bio-bibliographical guide to current authors and their works, Vols. 5–8. Detroit, MI: Gale Research. Ohles, J. F. (Ed.). (1978). Biographical dictionary of American educators, Vol. 1. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

E EARLY AWARENESS Maud Abeel Contributor from 1st edition

students are more likely to attend college, have higher grades, and participate in more college prep activities (National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators and The Education Resources Institute, 2005). THE MIDDLE-GRADES AND COLLEGE READINESS

According to the U.S. Department of Education, early awareness programs and activities introduce middlegrades students to college and career goals and help them and their families understand the connection between education and career paths. Such programs also help middle-grades schools provide students with the academic and developmental opportunities they need to enter and complete high school as college-bound students (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Unlike college-prep programs, which tend to focus on high school students, early awareness programs usually focus on the middle grades, in line with the growing recognition that these are “pivotal years” that can establish the “habits and mind-set that will help students excel in high school and position them for college or the work force” (Kasak, 2004, p. 44). Most students think about attending college by early adolescence (Noeth & Wimberly, 2002) and those who get support during the middle grades are “far more successful at actually attending college despite other challenges” (Cabrera et al., 2001 cited in Camblin, 2003, p. 2). Early awareness programs most often target lowincome, minority, and first-generation students and usually provide an array of services, including academic preparation and enrichment, test-taking preparation, mentoring and tutoring, academic and career counseling, study and life skills development, college trips, and assistance with the financial aid process. While research on the success of early awareness programs is still limited, existing studies have found that participating

Much research has determined that it is the middlegrades experience that influences “whether students see themselves as smart and worthy of taking challenging courses in high school” (Camblin, 2003, p. 2). Conversely, research indicates that the middle grades is where an alarming number of students drop out: one in four eighth graders never goes to high school (Jonsson, 2004), and many who do are unprepared and fail to graduate, especially if they repeat ninth grade (Trejos, 2004). Of the 20% to 30% of students who drop out by, or during high school, a disproportionate number are Black and Latino, foreignborn Latinos being the highest (Greene & Forster, 2003). Further, of the approximately 75–80% of students who do complete high school, only 32% leave qualified to attend 4-year colleges. Of this 32%, only 9% are Black and another 9% are Latino. In short, Black and Latino graduates are disproportionately dropping out or exiting high school not “college ready” compared with their white and Asian peers (Greene & Forster, 2003). It is therefore essential that students, families, and educators realize that “preparing for college doesn’t begin during a student’s junior or senior year of high school—it begins even before a student first sets foot in school, and it continues through middle school and high school” (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 141–164 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

141

142 ◾ EARLY AWARENESS

ACADEMIC RIGOR FROM THE BEGINNING Researchers and educators agree that a rigorous academic program is essential for preparing students for college and the world of work. According to the Pathways to College Network, such a curriculum “predicts college success better than high grades or test scores” (2004, p. 13). Most experts also concur that academic rigor must begin early to help alleviate the overwhelming number of students entering high school not prepared academically and already predisposed to dropping out, especially those students who have been retained in middle school (Woelfel, 2003) or grade nine as mentioned earlier. Lack of college readiness usually means both low literacy skills and lack of preparation in math and science. While the connection between reading skills and student outcomes is a given, the extent of illiteracy is shocking, with “hundreds of thousands of high school students” barely able to read “on the eve of their high school graduation” (Joftus, 2002). Also disturbing is the extent to which these problems start early: Approximately 75% of students with reading problems in Grade  3 still have trouble reading in Grade 9 (Joftus, 2002). Once in college, students who enroll in remedial courses are less likely to obtain a degree or certificate, with a need for remedial reading acting as the most serious barrier to degree completion. Not surprisingly, these literacy problems are greater for minority students: 24.1% of African Americans and 20.3% of Latinos require remediation in reading, compared to only 7% of Whites (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). CHALLENGING MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE COURSES MATTER BIG TIME While the importance of literacy has long been acknowledged in terms of student’s academic and postacademic success, the vital importance of achievement in advanced mathematics and science course has emerged in the past decade. Simply put, algebra has come to be seen as a “gateway” course, an essential prerequisite for students to enroll in rigorous high school mathematics and science classes (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Students who do not take courses covering algebraic concepts early in their schooling risk closing the door on many important opportunities, including opportunities to take courses outside of mathematics and science. According to the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), a longitudinal survey of students who were in the Grade 8 in 1988, approximately 60% of students taking calculus in high school took algebra in Grade 8. NELS data also revealed that 93% of students taking algebra I and geometry entered college while only 36% of students not taking these courses did so.

The typical high school sequence of rigorous science courses (biology, chemistry, and physics) also necessitates a background in algebra and geometry (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). However, despite recent increases in the proportion of students taking algebra I in Grade 8, in 1996, most students––especially minority and low-income students––were not enrolled in this course. The 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data revealed that minority and low-income students are less likely to report being enrolled in algebra in Grade 8 and therefore continue to be underrepresented in high-level math courses. While about two-thirds of Whites and Asians take algebra II, for example, only about half of Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans take this course. Differences are even larger for precalculus (Haycock, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Further, research indicated that many students do not understand the importance of algebra and other math and science courses in terms of their educational futures. A nationally representative survey of public school students and parents commissioned by the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME), found that large proportions of students wanted to stop taking mathematics and science. Distressingly, middle-grades minority students were more likely to indicate that they planned on dropping mathematics and science as soon as they could (61% planned to drop mathematics, and 58% planned on dropping science). Minority students of all ages were more likely than other students to say that they would like to stop taking mathematics and science as soon as they could (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). However, the same students indicated that they would be interested in going to college, and taking college-level mathematics courses and other advanced placement courses. These contrasts signal that many students do not understand the importance of, and requirements for, taking rigorous mathematics and science courses in high school, including the need to take algebra by Grade 8. In fact, only 25% of minority and 42% of nonminority students in Grades 5–8 recognized that algebra was a requirement for future upper-level mathematics classes (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). This is especially unfortunate, given the connection between taking rigorous mathematics and science courses and college enrollment. NELS data (1988) revealed that 83% of students who took algebra I and geometry enrolled in college within 2 years of their scheduled high school graduation, and “students who take algebra in eighth grade are very likely to apply to a four-year college, controlling for other high school course taking” (Atanda, 1999 cited in Noeth & Wimberly, 2002, p. 17). In summary, students of all income levels who take rigorous mathematics and science courses, beginning

EARLY AWARENESS ◾ 143

with algebra in Grade 8 or 9 at the latest, are more likely to go to college, and among low-income students (students in the bottom third of the income distribution), the difference is particularly dramatic (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Students from lowincome families who took algebra I and geometry were almost three times as likely to attend college as those who did not. While 71% of low-income students who took algebra I and geometry went to college, only 27% of low-income students who did not take algebra I and geometry went on to college (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). BEYOND ACADEMICS Other important components of early awareness programs are discussed briefly below. • Advisory. Some of the benefits of advisory are that it can be used to help students set personal goals, and make decisions and solve problems concerning academic and personal matters. Advisory can also bolster early awareness efforts by helping students develop a personal responsibility for learning (Arth et al., 2004). • Independent Reading and Study. Independent reading and study help students develop interests, expand knowledge, and improve the vocabulary and reading comprehension skills needed for high school, college, and standardized exams such as 8th-grade exit exams as well as the PSAT, SAT I or ACT. • Extracurricular Activities. Many activities such as school clubs, the student newspaper, athletics, musical activities, arts, and drama school enable middle-grades and high school students to explore their interests and talents; such activities also enhance a student’s college application. • Work Experience and Community Service/Service Learning. Work experience—paid or volunteer— can teach students discipline, responsibility, and teamwork, and help them identify their career interests and goals. Some schools offer academic credit for volunteer work through service-learning, a teaching method integrating hands-on learning based in the community into the school curriculum. • Career Awareness. Helping students think early about the world of work will help them succeed in life (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Growing in popularity are career academies based on themes such as international studies, biosciences, sports medicine, and media, with the overall goal of helping students see school as relevant to their lives (Jonsson, 2003). Other

career awareness activities in many middle-grades schools include mentoring, trips to worksites, and presentations by individuals about their work. • Family Engagement. Given the importance of family guidance in terms of student decisions about courses and school in general, early awareness must involve families in helping students prepare for college. For example, analysis of the course-taking patterns of the NELS students in grade 8 in 1988 revealed that higher levels of parental involvement were consistently associated with higher likelihoods of taking rigorous mathematics courses. (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Families also need to be involved in discussions of financial aid. Above all, they need to understand that, while much financial aid is available, some sort of precollege savings on the part of the family and the student will also probably be necessary. While it may be unrealistic for many families to set aside significant amounts of money on a monthly or yearly basis, just the expectation of college savings—from a summer job, for example—may be important in terms of preparing a young person for college. In conclusion, a range of early awareness programs and activities can help prepare middle-grades students for college––in terms of their aspirations and their readiness to successfully take a rigorous collegeprep curriculum in high school. Middle-grades educators and all who work with young adolescents clearly have important roles to play in supporting future high school students in setting and meeting high standards for themselves to prepare for the challenges of college and the world of work. Just as with effective college prep programs, school-based early awareness programs are most successful when early awareness is a central part of the school’s mission, carefully aligned with the school’s academic and extracurricular programs and strongly supported by the administration, staff, families, and community members. REFERENCES Arth, A., Ashford, A. Jenkins, J., Burns, J., Kane, T., Mitchell, K., . . . Wheeler, K. (2004). Present imperfect. Principal Leadership, 4(8), 37–42. Camblin, S. (2003). The middle grades: Putting all students on track for college. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Greene, J. P., & Forster, G. (2003). Public high school graduation and college readiness rates in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_ 03.htm Haycock, K. (2002). Still at risk. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

144 ◾ EARLY INDICATOR SYSTEMS Joftus, S. (2002). Every child a graduate. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Jonsson, P. (2004, May 16). Ninth grade: A school year to be reckoned with. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0316/ p01s02-ussc.html Kasak, D. (2004). What middle grades need: A five-point prescription for better middle-level education. American School Board Journal, 191(5), 44–45. National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators and The Education Resources Institute. (2005). The abc’s of early awareness: A resource guide and toolkit for helping students achieve a higher education. Retrieved from http://www.nasfaa.org/subhomes/abcs/index.html National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The condition of education 2004. Retrieved from http:// nces.ed.gov/ pubs2004/2004077.pdf Noeth, R. J., & Wimberly, G. L. (2002). Creating seamless educational transitions for urban African American and Hispanic students. Retrieved from http://www.act .org/path/policy/pdf/2181.pdf#search=‘Creating%20 seamless%20educational%20transitions%20for%20 urban%20African%20American%20and%20Hispanic% 20students Pathways to College Network. (2004). A shared agenda: A leadership challenge to improve college access and success. Retrieved from http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/pdf/ sharedagenda.pdf Trejos, N. (2004, May 12). The lost freshmen: Many students in area have to repeat 9th grade. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost .com/wp-dyn/articles/A19034-2004May11.html U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Mathematics equals opportunity. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ math/index.html U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Getting ready for college early, A handbook for parents of students in the middle and junior high school years. Retrieved from http://www .ed.gov/pubs/GettingReadyCollegeEarly/index.html Woelfel, K. (2003). Back on track. Principal Leadership, 3(9), 45–48.

disparities is to implement an early warning system, or early warning indicator system (EWS). An EWS is a conceptual framework for dropout prevention with highly predictive data indicators that identify students who are at risk of leaving school before high school graduation. An EWS can serve as a powerful tool to flag students who are at risk for dropping out, match students with strategies and interventions to help keep them on track, monitor interventions that have been assigned to particular students, make modifications as needed, and systematically assesses the outcomes of specific interventions for students. By creating structures and protocols to identify and intervene with students when they first begin to struggle, an EWS can be an effective school, district, or state-wide approach to minimizing dropouts.

EARLY INDICATOR SYSTEMS

Balfanz and his colleagues found that when high-poverty middle school students demonstrate any of the four indicators—now commonly referred to as the ABC’s (attendance, behavior, course grades)—they have about a 75% chance of dropping out of high school, with the likelihood increasing when students are off track in multiple indicators. The researchers concluded that these distress signals are symptomatic of deeper academic problems, behavior issues, and/or responses to the home or school environment that the school must help to identify and address if a student is to successfully graduate high school. The EWS approach has three key advantages. First, the predictors are factors that schools can directly

Risa Sackman FHI 360 Adria Gallup-Black FHI 360 In February 2015, the U.S. Department of Education announced that the national high school graduation rate reached a new record high of 81%. Despite the positive news, significant disparities in graduate rates among students in high-poverty areas still remain (Balfanz et al., 2014). One solution for continuing to eliminate these

BACKGROUND ON EWS EWS grew out of the research of Dr. Robert Balfanz and his colleagues at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) and the Philadelphia Educational Fund. Their longitudinal study, which initially ran from 1996 to 2004, used administrative data to track 13,000 Philadelphia public school students from grade six through one year past their expected high school graduation date (Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver, 2007; Nield, Balfanz, & Herzog, 2007). The findings revealed that the majority of students who don’t graduate from high school show distress signals long before they drop out, often as early as sixth grade. These signals were categorized into four early warning indicators: • attending school less than 80% of the time; • poor behavior/conduct (with a focus on low level infractions); • failing math; and • failing language arts/literacy (Balfanz et al., 2007; Mac Iver & Mac Iver, 2009; Neild, Balfanz, & Herzog, 2007).

EARLY INDICATOR SYSTEMS ◾ 145

address and support through targeted interventions and close performance monitoring (Neild et al., 2007). Second, since the critical data are already being captured by schools, data collection is seamless, accountability can be distributed among various faculty/staff teams (subject teams, grade level teams, data teams, etc.), and schools can engage in strategic data dialogue that supports students (Frazelle & Barton, 2013). Finally, EWS is most successful when it is viewed as a framework for aligning and evaluating supports, rather than a program in its own right (Gallup-Black & Sackman, 2015). Instead of adding one more thing to the growing list of school staff responsibilities and deliverables, EWS can streamline the work by helping to synthesize the various programs and initiatives going on in a school. To date, most of the research on EWS has focused on the process of developing and validating early indicators (Allensworth & Easton, 2007; Balfanz et al., 2007). Organizations that have been early leaders in EWS in the middle grades—including the Everyone Graduates Center, Diplomas Now, the American Institutes for Research (AIR), the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research, FHI 360, and Education Northwest— have produced reports on their experiences developing early warning system tools and establishing systems, structures, and protocols for supporting EWS in authentic school and classroom settings (Bruce, Bridgeland, Fox, & Balfanz, 2011; Frazelle & Nagel, 2015; Gallup-Black & Sackman, 2015; Johns Hopkins University, 2012; Therriault et al., 2013). With the help of these organizations, as well as school, district, and state leaders, middle schools have applied EWS research in the design of strategies and protocols to help keep their own students on the path to high school graduation. COMPONENTS OF EWS An EWS organizes student data around potential predictors of dropouts, correlates and tracks graduation status with these predictors, and determines the threshold of each predictor to define the level at which a student is most at risk for dropping out of school (Johns Hopkins University, 2012). Most EWS include a multi-phase data-driven inquiry process that includes, at minimum, identifying students who are off track, matching them with tiered supports and interventions, and tracking ongoing progress. For example, FHI 360’s Indicators for Success model featured five components (Gallup-Black & Sackman, 2015): 1. Strengthen school structures necessary for addressing student needs.

2. Implement data systems that collect and analyze indicator data and flag students in need of supports/interventions. 3. Design tiered supports and interventions for each of the four indicator areas. 4. Assign students with appropriate interventions (through root cause analysis). 5. Ensure continual improvement by monitoring progress and making necessary adjustments. While other models may differ slightly, they each outline steps that identify a set of distinct processes that guide schools to make informed decisions on the basis of these indicators and other relevant information. This is ongoing. The process of reviewing early warning data and identifying appropriate support strategies and interventions is timely and responsive to individual student needs as well as more systemic improvement in supports and interventions (Therriault et al., 2013). School Structures School structures and systems that greatly facilitate the EWS process include teacher teams/professional learning communities (PLCs), extended day supports, small learning communities, advisory programs, and targeted intervention programs. Not surprisingly, these are all best practices for middle schools, especially in schools with high needs populations. The existence of a dedicated EWS team who work together to identify offtrack students, assign interventions, and monitor progress is critical (Frazelle & Nagel, 2015). Rather than create new teams, interdisciplinary and grade-level teams can be highly effective EWS teams (Frazelle & Barton, 2013; Gallup-Black & Sackman, 2015; George Washington University, 2012; Herzog, Davis, & Legters, 2012). Data Systems Schools use local data systems to compile student data reports that track which students are off track and in need of supports and interventions in any given indicator (Johns Hopkins University, 2012). Aggregate data reports highlight which indicators are a strength for the school, and where more effective supports and interventions are needed. These aggregate snapshots also highlight where teachers may benefit from professional development and where new supports and interventions are needed for students. Tiered Supports and Interventions EWS promotes the implementation of a three-tiered model of supports and interventions based on the

146 ◾ EARLY INDICATOR SYSTEMS

Response to Intervention (RTI) public health approach (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006) that includes: • Tier 1: universal whole school/grade supports to keep approximately 70–80% of middle grades students on track to high school graduation. • Tier 2: targeted interventions for approximately 10–20% of students who require more specific or customized supports. • Tier 3: intensive interventions for approximately 5–10% of students who need more concentrated, individualized supports. Schools organize interventions and supports around these three tiers, assessing, over time, which interventions and supports are effective with which subgroups of students, which are not demonstrating a return on investment, and where additional interventions are necessary to fill gaps. A successful Tier 1 strategy should keep about 70–80% of students on track, However, when schools in high poverty communities with limited human and financial resources are first implementing EWS, they can be overwhelmed by the high number of students who are off-track and in need of interventions. For example, they may find that 70-–0% of student are initially off-track, which is a clear indication that the existing Tier 1 universal supports need to be reimagined, retooled, and strengthened. The most effective Tier 1 supports often address all indicators and help improve instruction, school culture, and students’ development of non-cognitive and social emotional skills. Yet, no matter how effective Tier 1 supports are, schools must assume that about 10–20% of students will still need targeted, small group interventions (Tier 2), and about 5–10% of students will need more intensive, one-on-one interventions (Tier 3). Existing school staff can typically provide Tier 2 interventions, however, because Tier 3 is more intensive and may require time and expertise that the regular school staff lack, schools should identify and form partnerships with outside agencies to provide individualized supports for students with the greatest needs (Neild et al., 2007). Assigning Interventions A critical step in the process is matching off track students with appropriate supports and interventions. As there are no one-size-fits-all interventions for students, this can be particularly challenging. The adults in a school must be committed to knowing their students well, since this is critical to selecting appropriate supports and interventions based on their interests, strengths, and areas to be developed. This can be accomplished through student surveys, mentors, advisory and other student-centered practices. In addition, because

students can be off track for a range of reasons, successful teacher teams use a root cause analysis approach to explore possible underlying reasons that a student is off track (e.g., academic, social/emotional, school environment, etc.) and then use that data to match him/her with the most appropriate supports and interventions (Gallup-Black & Sackman, 2015). For example, students may be failing mathematics for a range of reasons: one student may have difficulties with a particular teacher, another may be struggling to keep up with the complexity of the work; another may be dealing with a death in the family, while another may be bored because the work is too easy. Each of these causes requires its own intervention. Using the lens of root causes, the outward behavior becomes a mere symptom of the underlying difficulty, and it is the role of the school to uncover the root cause and help students develop strengths, address challenges, and remove barriers. Continual Improvement Schools must continually evaluate the data and monitor progress to determine both if the interventions and supports are effective on the individual level (in moving a student back on track), as well as on a systemic level (successfully supporting the needs of all students) (Therriault et al., 2013). This data monitoring and evaluation must happen often, so that the school can be responsive to necessary changes and improvements. This is a living process. Different students may move on and off track throughout the year and EWS provides a real-time solution for quickly identifying and responding as needed. EWS has the potential to serve as a catalyst for schools to rethink the way they do business by using data strategically to address each student holistically, and by promoting new types of relationships and supports among students, educators, and families. Researchers and practitioners are finding that EWS in the middle grades is most successful when it is embedded within a larger school reform initiative, especially one that aims to address the needs and characteristics of young adolescents and students’ healthy development (Gallup-Black & Sackman, 2015; Robertson & Koughan, 2012). In addition, an emerging best practice is to approach EWS using a positive youth development frame, rather than a deficit frame (Gallup-Black & Sackman, 2015). In this way, the goal of EWS is defined as helping all middle grades students build the strengths and assets that will ensure a smooth transition to high school, and successful, on-time graduation, rather than just assigning interventions to off-track students. When supports and interventions that are designed to keep all students on track to graduation also nurture the development of academic skills, social emotional competencies,

EARLY INDICATOR SYSTEMS ◾ 147

developmental assets, and non-cognitive factors, middle schools will see marked improvements in school climate, student achievement, daily attendance, and student conduct (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Farrington et al., 2012; Scales & Leffert, 2004; Starkman, Scales, & Roberts, 2006). All of which are behaviors that will eventually result in significant reductions in the number of students dropping out of high school. REFERENCES Allensworth, E. M., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago public high schools: A close look at course grades, failures, and attendance in the freshman year. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED498350 Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J. M., Fox, J. H., DePaoli, J. L, Ingram, E. S., & Maushard, M. (2014). Building a grad nation: Progress and challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic. Washington, DC: America’s Promise Alliance. Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223–235. Bruce, M., Bridgeland, J. M., Fox, J. H., & Balfanz, R. (2011). On track for success: The use of early warning indicator and intervention systems to build a grad nation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, School of Education, Everyone Graduates Center. Retrieved from http://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED526421 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http:// ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ Noncognitive%20Report.pdf Frazelle, S., & Barton, R. (2013). Implementing early warning systems. Principal’s Research Review, 8(4), 1–7. Frazelle, S., & Nagel, A. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to implementing early warning systems (REL 2015–056). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from http:// ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northwest/pdf/ REL_2015056.pdf

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 93–99. Gallup-Black, A., & Sackman R. (2015). From data to success: Using early warning indicators to shape interventions for students in the middle grades. New York, NY: FHI 360. George Washington University, Center for Equity & Excellence in Education. (2012). Evidence-based resources for keeping students on track to graduation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/school_improvement/title1/1003_g/resources/ evidence_based_resources.pdf Herzog, L., Davis, M., & Legters, N. (2012). Learning what it takes: An initial look at how schools are using early warning indicator data and collaborative response teams to keep all students on track to success. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, School of Education, Everyone Graduates Center. Retrieved from http://new.every1graduates. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Learning_what_it_ Takes.pdf Johns Hopkins University. (2012). Using data to keep all students on track to graduation: Team playbook. Baltimore, MD: School of Education, Center for Social Organization of Schools. Retrieved from http://new.every1graduates. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Team_Playbook.pdf Mac Iver, M. A., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2009). Beyond the indicators: An integrated school-level approach to dropout prevention. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, Mid-Atlantic Equity Center. Retrieved from http://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED543512 Neild, R. C., Balfanz, R., & Herzog, L. (2007). An early warning system. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 28–33. Robertson, M. (Producer), & Koughan, F. (Writer). (July 17, 2012). Frontline: Middle school moment [Television broadcast]. Boston, MA: WGBH Educational Foundation. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://video.pbs.org/ video/2257751072/ Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (2004). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Starkman, N., Scales, P., & Roberts, C. (2006). Great places to learn: Creating asset-building schools that help students succeed. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Therriault, S. B., O’Cummings, M., Heppen, J., Yerhot, L., Scala, J., & Perry, M. (2013). Middle grades early warning intervention: Monitoring system implementation guide. National High School Center, American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.earlywarningsystems.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/EWSMGImplementationguide.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2015). U.S. high school graduation rate hits new record high [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/ us-high-school-graduation-rate-hits-new-record-high

148 ◾ EDNA MCCONNELL CLARK FOUNDATION

EDNA MCCONNELL CLARK FOUNDATION Leah M. Jorgensen University of North Carolina, Wilmington Currently led by President Nancy Roob, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF) in New York, New York aims to help low-income and disadvantaged students succeed in school as well as preparing them for life after high school graduation (EMCF, n.d., “About Us”). The Foundation, with the help of investors, provides grants to public and private nonprofit organizations that serve youth, ages 9 to 24 and their communities. Currently, EMCF has 19 grantees in 49 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico, and serves 153,210 young people (EMCF, n.d., “About Us”). The EMCF produces an annual report that documents the performance of the Foundation and its grantees. In order for a nonprofit to become a grantee, the nonprofit must meet EMCF’s eligibility requirements. The EMCF requires that potential grantees having a budget greater than $1,000,000 and be stand-alone nonprofits with a history of service to young people with low income backgrounds (EMCF, n.d., “For Grantseekers”). Eligibility requirements also state that grantees serve young people that have or might drop out of school, are out of school and do not have jobs, are involved in the juvenile justice system, in foster care and/or are involved in risky behaviors. Nonprofit organizations must also go through a rigorous selection and review process. The EMCF is advised by two expert panels (EMCF, n.d., “For Grantseekers”). One panel is the Evaluation Advisory Committee that reviews and evaluates candidates as well as current recipients of program grants. The other is the Communications Advisory Committee which provides strategies in how to promote the foundation and its causes. The EMCF sees funding these youth oriented organizations as a means to improve youth employment. It also aims to minimize the increasing prison population and other issues that can be a result of youth dropping out of school, not finding jobs, in foster care and in the juvenile justice system (EMCF, n.d., “For Grantseekers”). The EMCF was started in 1969 by Edna McConnell Clark and her husband Van Alan Clark. The foundation originally made grants for four groups of nonprofits: the poor, children, the developing world, and the elderly (EMCF, n.d., “Our History”). In the 1980s and 1990s, the Foundation had five main priorities: justice, children, a project called the Program for New York Neighborhoods, student achievement, and tropical disease research. Since then, all of those programs have been completed and are no longer in use. In the late 1990s, the EMCF moved towards awarding only nonprofits that supported economically disadvantaged youth organizations (EMCF, n.d., “Our History”).

In 2011, the EMCF began a new fund within their foundation called The True North Fund. This endowment is an effort to grow the current programs that EMCF supports as well as expand programs aided by the federal Social Innovation Fund which matches the award money of private intermediaries (EMCF, n.d., “Capital Aggregation”). The True North Fund stems from the Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot of EMCF that was launched in 2007, which aimed to help high-performing youth organizations. Investors of The True North Fund have the option of putting their investments into three different areas or a combination of areas (EMCF, n.d., “True North Fund”). These areas are a general fund, a regional focus fund or a targeted fund. REFERENCES Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.emcf.org/about-us/ Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. (n.d.). Capital Aggregation. Retrieved from http://www.emcf.org/co-investors/ capital-aggregation/ Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. (n.d.). For Grantseekers. Retrieved from http://www.emcf.org/grantees/ for-grantseekers/ Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. (n.d.). Our History. Retrieved from http://www.emcf.org/about-us/our-history/ Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. (n.d.). True North Fund. Retrieved from http://www.emcf.org/co-investors/ true-north-fund/

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS Donna Davenport Price Contributor from 1st edition Hersh C. Waxman Contributor from 1st edition The goal of every school is to be an “effective” school. In the U.S., for example, federal state legislation has specifically mandated that every school report annual progress data on students’ academic achievement and that schools specifically report on the performance of certain groups of historically underachieving students (e.g., ethnic minorities and students from low socioeconomic status). In many instances, a school that outperforms other schools with similar student demographics is recognized and receives both monetary and other tangible rewards. These types of schools are typically called “effective,” although various synonyms like high performing, exemplary, and unusually successful are also used to describe these schools.

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ◾ 149

Research on effective schools has been both praised and criticized for its contributions to education. On the one hand, the research has provided educators with a knowledge base that has identified several salient characteristics, components, or processes of effective schools. Levine and Lezotte (1995), for example, described several variables that have been found to correlate with schools that have unusually high achievement: “a safe and orderly environment, a shared faculty commitment to improve achievement, orientation focused on identifying and solving problems, high faculty cohesion, collaboration, and collegiality, high faculty input in decision making, and schoolwide emphasis on recognizing positive performance” (pp. 525–526). Other studies and reviews of the research have developed similar lists of effective factors or schooling practices that are related to students’ academic achievement (Cotton, 2000). On the other hand, school effectiveness research has been criticized for a number of methodological, technical, theoretical, and conceptual reasons (Levine, 1990; Scheerens, 1992; Scheerens & Creemers, 1990; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993). Some of these concerns focus on the lack of theoretical models that explain the relations between school-level and classroomlevel factors, while other criticisms have addressed how studies typically (a) focus on low-level basic skills achievement, (b) do not examine classroom processes, and (c) ignore important school context variables. In addition, other educators have been critical of the generalized findings from effective schools research because they maintain that each school must “construct” the knowledge and processes to become successful schools on their own rather than apply these lessons learned from other schools (Darling-Hammond, 1997). This chapter briefly highlights some of the common characteristics of effective middle level schools, and it also discusses some of the limitations and criticisms of this work. Finally, we address how this research could be applied in more productive ways. EFFECTIVE MIDDLE LEVEL SCHOOLS Research on effective schools has primarily focused on identifying factors or processes in elementary schools that have been found to have a positive impact on students’ outcomes (Cotton, 2000; Reynolds, Teddlie, Creemers, Scheerens, & Townsend, 2000). Although most of the research on effective schools has been conducted at the elementary school level, there are a few studies that have been conducted at the secondary school level and specifically in middle level schools. There also are a number of theoretical/conceptual articles that have summarized the characteristics of effective middle level schools. The National Middle School

Association, for example, has defined 14 characteristics crucial for effective middle level schools (NMSA, 1995). They include eight cultural qualities that should exist in the school setting: (a) educators who value working with this age group and are prepared to do so, (b) courageous, collaborative leadership, (c) a shared vision that guides decisions, (d) an inviting, supportive, and safe environment, (e) high expectations for every member of the learning community, (f) students and teachers engaged in active learning, (g) an adult advocate for every student, and (h) school-initiated family and community partnerships. They also include six critical program characteristics: (a) curriculum that is challenging, integrative, and exploratory, (b) varied teaching and learning approaches, (c) assessment and evaluation that promote learning, (d) flexible organizational structure, (e) programs and policies that foster health, wellness, and safety, and (f) comprehensive guidance and support services. We categorized the findings from several effective middle level schools studies that have been published in recent years into the following seven areas: (a) school culture and expectations, (b) effective instructional strategies, (c) teacher/staff professional development, (d) parent and community involvement, (e) continuous student improvement, (f) strong school leadership, and (g) valuing student’s needs and culture. These recent research-based characteristics or practices are very similar to the general lists of variables previously described. One of the key components of effective schools in these studies is the prevailing culture of high expectations maintained by all stakeholders in the school community. In their study of effective middle level schools for English Language Learners, for example, Minicucci, Berman, McLaughlin, McLeod, and Wooodworth (2002) found that the effective schools in their sample maintained the expectation that all students will achieve literacy in English and then built their programs around that expectation. Other studies have also found that the level of expectation must be aligned to national, state, and district standards as well as the specific goals of the local school community. In other words, the work of the school is to reach the lofty goals and expectations established by the school community (Anderson & Pellicer, 1998; Cotton, 1995; Crispeels, 2002; Minicucci, et. al., 1995). These high expectations must be communicated directly as well as through the school’s culture and climate. More than anything, the culture exudes a sense of determination, collaboration, and aspiration to doing whatever is required to make student learning and development the central focus of the entire school community. In the area of effective instructional strategies, several practices were found to be effective. Teacher collaboration on interdisciplinary/thematic units, grade

150 ◾ EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

level planning, and vertical alignment, for example, were found to be effective (Anderson & Pellicer, 1998; Cotton 1995; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Miramontes, Nadeau, & Commins, 1997; Short, 1994). Further, middle school students’ academic success was increased when they were allowed to collaborate with peers, work on open-ended projects, long term assignments, and focus on skill development with a transition into higher level, critical thinking requirements (Anderson & Pellicer, 1998; Cotton, 1995; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992). It is important to be responsive to students’ status as adolescent learners by allowing them the opportunity to use their developing minds in a safe and stimulating learning environment. Movement from traditional modes of instructional delivery, such as whole group lecture and multiple selection tests at the end of a “unit”; and into collaborative classroom inquiry requires a lot of professional development. Ongoing professional development; therefore, is another feature of effective middle level schools (Anderson & Pellicer, 1998; Chrispeels, 2002; Cotton, 1995; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Mora, 2000). Vertically aligning curriculum, designing, and implementing interdisciplinary units, and building a strong school culture with high expectations requires time and commitment, so it stands to reason that continuous professional development (PD) is a feature of effective schools. Chrispeels (2002) found that it is particularly effective for the PD to first build leadership capacity among key teachers and then move into developing literacy in the areas of curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Next, grade levels must be given the time to work on production and implementation of their units as well as reflect teaching practice. Building excellent teaching practices, instructional literacy, and leadership capacity is often the starting point of PD. Just as teachers and administrators work to build effectiveness capacity in their schools, time and effort must also go into building community commitment through parental involvement. Parental involvement decreases as students grow older, this is evident on open house nights when kindergarten rooms are bursting at the seems with parents while fifth grade classes are glad to get more than a hand full; the same goes for middle school. Middle school stands out in this because kids are starting to push their parents away and gain more control in their own lives. Effective schools, however, have repeatedly been found to go to great lengths to involve parents in their child’s learning, school programs, and shared governance structures (Anderson & Pellicer, 1998; Cotton, 1995; Minicucci et. al., 1995; Miramontes et. al., 1997; Reyes, Scribner, & Scribner, 1999). School effectiveness research studies address the need for continuous assessment of student progress towards learning goals. According to Cotton (1995),

effective schools use assessments to monitor student progress, modify curriculum, and adjust teaching practices. Just as teachers have ongoing development and reflection, the assessments, used for student growth and learning, are also continuous. All of these effective practices can only take place with a strong instructional leader as principal. Principals in effective schools have been found to support innovative teaching, foster ongoing professional development, practice collaborative government structures, and provide the grand vision to which the entire school community aspires (Anderson & Pellicer, 1998; Chrispeels, 2002; Cotton, 1995; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Minicucci et. al., 1995; Reyes et. al., 1999). The last common category of effective middle level schools’ characteristics is valuing students’ needs and culture. For many adolescent learners, valuing their unique instructional needs and culture has been repeatedly revealed in school effectiveness studies. This may mean instruction in their primary language, a structured immersion program, and/or diversity imbedded in the curriculum so that contributions of various ethnic groups are acknowledged and cultural differences are incorporated (Cotton, 1995; Minicucci et. al., 1995 ; Miramontes et. al. 1997; Mora, 2000; Reyes et. al., 1999; Short, 1994). CRITICISMS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS RESEARCH For all its promise to educational practitioners, school effectiveness research has a number of critics among educational researchers. Nuthall (2004) challenged this type of research because the correlational relationship between teaching and learning is presumed to be causal, when in fact few studies actually make a direct link between teaching and learning. Nuthall explained that just because something is taught does not mean that learning occurs as a direct result of the act of teaching and that school effectiveness research is, “plagued by ambiguity” (2004, p. 282). Other critics of effective schools research were concerned because they felt that the research has produced no sustainable, significant improvement in students’ learning. Schools and school-level variables have been found to have a very small effect on student outcomes and they may account for less than 10% of the variance in student achievement (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993; Wyatt, 1996). Another specific criticism aimed at researchers in this field is that they have not investigated classroom processes as extensively (Good & Brophy, 1986), especially because there is some evidence that suggests that instructional and classroom processes account for

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ◾ 151

differences between schools (Teddlie, Kirby, & Stringfield, 1989; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993). A final limitation of effective schools research is that the majority of the studies are merely descriptive or correlational studies. There have not been many experimental studies that have investigated the impact of effective school practices on teachers’ and students’ educational outcomes. Similarly, there have been very few naturalistic, longitudinal studies that have examined the success of effective schools on middle level students’ long-term academic achievement and educational success. Mixed methods approaches that use systematic classroom observation, teacher self-report data, along with teacher, administrator, and student interview data supplement the survey data could also help us understand, from different perspectives, the complexity of issues surrounding the educational improvement of middle level students. Finally, ethnographic studies also are needed in order to help us uncover “grounded theoretical” explanations of factors that impact schools for middle level students. SUMMARY Effective schools research is helpful because this is a starting point for schools who are having difficulties serving their students. The research summarized in this synthesis are based on real schools who had similar problems to other schools serving middle level students, but they managed to overcome their difficulties and obtain real success. The critical question, however, is how do researchers reconcile the gap between empirical studies on effective schools for middle level students, while maintaining this practical significance? The present entry described some of the research-based components from effective middle level schools that have been found to be successful in improving the education of students. Several key elements or components that have been successful in middle level schools are discussed, but these are only suggestions, not “recipes” for improving schools. No program, however well implemented, will prove a panacea for all the educational problems of students. For the most part, each school must concern itself with the resolution of its own specific problems (Schubert, 1980). In that sense, every school should be considered unique, and educators should choose among research-based practices and programs according to the needs of the middle school students that they serve. Furthermore, critical out-of-school factors that affect the outcomes of schooling for students must also be addressed. If we only focus on school factors and ignore the importance of family, community, and societal influences on the education of students, we will clearly fail in our endeavors.

REFERENCES Anderson, L. W., & Pellicer, L. O. (1988). Toward and understanding unusually successful programs for economically disadvantaged students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 237–263. Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis 1995 update. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/ esp/esp95.html Cotton, K. (2000). The schooling practices that matter most. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Crispeels, J. H. (2002). Effective schools—The California Center for Effective Schools: The Oxnard district partnership. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 382. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1986). School effects. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 570–602). New York, NY: Macmillan. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Levine, D. U. (1990). Update on effective schools: Findings and implications from research and practice. Journal of Negro Education, 59, 577–584. Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1995). Effective schools research. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 525–547). New York, NY: Macmillan. Minicucci, C., Berman, P., McLaughlin, B., McLeod, B., Nelson, & Woodworth, K. (1995). School reform and student diversity. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 77. Miramontes, O. B., Nadeau, A., & Commins, N. L. (1997). Restructuring schools for linguistic diversity: Linking decision making to effective programs. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Mora, J. K. (2000). Policy shifts in language-minority education: A mismatch between politics and pedagogy. The Educational Forum, 64(3), 204–214. National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle schools. Columbus, OH: Author. Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review, 74, 273–306. Reyes, P., Scribner, J., & Scribner, A. P. (1999). Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Creemers, B., Scheerens, J., & Townsend, T. (2000). An introduction to school effectiveness research. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 3–25). London, England: Falmer Press. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61–94.

152 ◾ EICHHORN, DONALD H. Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling: Research, theory, and practice. London, England: Cassell. Scheerens, J., & Creemers, B. (1990). Conceptualizing school effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 691–706. Schubert, W. H. (1980). Recalibrating educational research: Toward a focus on practice. Educational Researcher, 9(1), 17–24. Short, D. J. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 581–608. Teddlie, C., Kirby, P. C., & Stringfield, S. (1989). Effective versus ineffective schools: Observable differences in the classroom. American Journal of Education, 97, 221–236. Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249–294. Wyatt, T. (1996). School effectiveness research: Dead end, damp squib or smoldering fuse? Issues in Educational Research, 6(1), 79–112.

EICHHORN, DONALD H. Sheila Rogers Gloer Baylor University There is no better description of Donald “Don” Eichhorn, one of the middle school founders, than these words penned by Judith Allen Brough (1994), “With his passion holding hands with his intellect, Donald Eichhorn has led an expedition of children and adults to ideas and places uncharted, unimagined” (p. 18). Eichhorn (1966) coined the term “transesence,” which he used in his groundbreaking work, The Middle School, to describe the level of “development which begins prior to the onset of puberty and extends through the early stages of adolescence” (p. 3). He also established what many considered as the first true middle schools, schools, which were developmentally responsive to the needs of young adolescents (Smith & McEwin, 2011, pp. 17–18). As Assistant Superintendent of Upper St. Clair Township School District (1962–1979) in Upper St. Clair, Pennsylvania, Eichhorn envisioned schools that grouped students by developmental stage rather than the traditional birthdate groupings. To supply research to support his idea and its implementation, he joined with Allan L. Drash of Pittsburgh Children’s Hospital to complete the Boyce Medical Study (Eichhorn, 1973). A team of doctors, nurses, and technicians completed comprehensive medical exams of 487 students in Boyce Middle School, Upper St. Clair, on September

26, 1969. The analyses of these exams were used to determine biological development. In the words of Eichhorn (1973), “Unquestionably, the data compiled in this study has considerable implications for educational programs; . . . the variance between chronological age and biological warrants serious consideration” (p. 27). Superintendent Donna Milanovich (2002) stated, “This landmark study has stood the test of time and still serves as the middle level practitioner’s guide to the identification of the middle level learners’ unique characteristics” (p. 59). Eichhorn became superintendent of the Lewisburg Area School District, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979 and remained there until his retirement. The Don H. Eichhorn Middle School in Lewisburg School District is a standing monument to his progressive ideas and his dedication to the middle school. He characterized the middle school as: . . . a learning laboratory where curiosity is the cornerstone; where students are able to pursue learning in their style, not our style, where creativity and divergent thinking are admired at least as much as convergent thinking, where students respect and admire learning rather than only the grades they receive, and where students can learn that youngsters of different races, religions, sex and ethnic backgrounds can begin to understand and appreciate their differences. (Eichhorn & Eichhorn, 1977, p. 19)

Eichhorn received his Bachelor of Science in Health Education from Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA. He earned his master’s and doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh. His dissertation resulted in the publication, The Middle School (1966), a foundational treatise that was reprinted by the National Middle School Association (NMSA) and National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) in 1987. In 1988, Eichhorn became the third recipient of the John H. Lounsbury Distinguished Service Award. Then, in honor of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of The Middle School, the 1991 NMSA annual conference was dedicated to Eichhorn (Lounsbury, 2002). REFERENCES Brough, J. A. (1994). Donald H. Eichhorn: Pioneer in inventing schools for transescents. Middle School Journal, 25(4), 18–22. Eichhorn, D. H. (1966). The middle school. New York, NY: The Center for Applied Research in Education. Eichhorn, D. H. (1973). The Boyce medical study. In N. Atkins & P. Pumerantz (Eds.), Educational dimensions of the emerging adolescent learner (pp. 19–23). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

THE EIGHT-YEAR STUDY ◾ 153 Eichhorn, D. H., & Eichhorn, D. A. (1977). The middle school: The beauty of diversity. Middle School Journal, 8(1), 3, 18–19. Lounsbury, J. H. (2002, October 26) Remarks on the Occasion of the Dedication of the Donald H. Eichhorn Middle School. Lewisburg, PA. Milanovich, D. K. (2002). Donald H. Eichhorn: Founding father of middle level education 1932-2001. Middle School Journal, 33(3), 59. Smith, T. W., & McEwin, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

THE EIGHT-YEAR STUDY Courtney Lewis University of North Carolina, Wilmington The Eight-Year Study was an experimental educational study conducted in 30 high schools from 1930 until 1942 (Aiken, 1942). It examined secondary school curriculum and addressed how high schools could serve their students more effectively, as defined by college academic achievement. The study began with a 1930 investigation by a commission of the Progressive Education Association which found that secondary schools were facing a number of deficiencies including lack of a central purpose, no comprehensive way to evaluate their methods for effectiveness, and students finishing school unprepared for the future, whether it was college or the workforce. In order to work towards a solution to these problems, the commission sought to suspend the college preparatory curriculum in a number of schools and have them develop and integrate a new curriculum. The 30 schools involved in the study were given complete autonomy in redesigning their curriculum but were offered guidance from the commission and asked to follow two guiding principles. The two principles for the new curriculum were that it had to be based on current knowledge about how humans learn and grow and that it had to focus on the chief reason for the existence of high schools. Each individual high school was responsible for rediscovering its purpose. The study followed 1,475 students from high school into college to evaluate whether the redesigned curriculum had an effect on college achievement. The results from the Eight-Year Study demonstrated that college success could be reached using many different forms of secondary curriculum, not just a college preparatory curriculum. It also indicated that students from experimental, nonstandard schools reached higher academic achievement rates than those from the traditional secondary school model. Members of the National Middle School Association reexamined the results of the Eight-Year Study in 1998

in the book The Eight-Year Study Revisited: Lessons from the Past for the Present (Lipka et al., 1998). It distinguishes the most important aspects of the original study and explains the implications of the findings regarding middle school practices. Reexamining the original evaluation by the commission in 1930, it finds that all of the 16 shortcomings are applicable to contemporary schools. It focuses on the broader areas of need, including initiating educational change, educational research, and evaluation, and how they relate to middle-level education-reform. The reexamination draws similar conclusions as the original study. The two guiding principles from 1930 still apply: new curriculum must be based on current knowledge about how humans learn; and secondary schools must rediscover their reason for existence. It concludes that schools are struggling with preparing the students of today for the challenges of tomorrow and they need to be able to develop the best methods for reaching students as individuals with their own individual levels of ability. REFERENCES Aiken, W. M. (1942). The story of the Eight-Year Study. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Lipka, R. P., Lounsbury, J. H., Toepfer, C. F., Jr., Vars, G. F., Alessi, S. P., Jr., & Kridel, C. (1998). The Eight-Year Study revisited: Lessons from the past for the present. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

THE EIGHT-YEAR STUDY REVISITED: LESSONS FROM THE PAST FOR THE PRESENT John H. Lounsbury Georgia College & State University In 1934, the Progressive Education Association, frustrated by the hold of college entrance requirements on the curriculum, began what came to be known as the Eight Year Study. It is still the most comprehensive, long-range experimental research study ever conducted. Although dealing with high schools, the study’s work on curriculum and instruction is completely germane to the middle school. The study’s findings were published in 1942 in a series of five books beginning with Volume 1, The Story of the Eight-Year Study (Aikin, 1942). Unfortunately, America was then at war and so the significant results never received the attention their importance warranted. The work of the 31 experimental schools that participated in the study advanced collaborative student-centered teaching based on what was known

154 ◾ ELIOT, CHARLES W.

about learning and the democratic way of life. The core curriculum, resource units, and summer institutes were among developments that grew out of this project. The Eight-Year Study Revisited: Lessons from the Past for the Present, published by the National Middle School Association, reported on the study’s findings, relating them more specifically to the middle school and integrated curriculum (Lipka et al., 1998)). This text re-focused the on-going conversations concerning middle level curriculum with its still relevant and valuable research findings. Volume II, Exploring the Curriculum is extremely valuable, while Volume IV, Did They Succeed in College has been the one most cited. Summaries of these volumes are included in The Eight-Year Study Revisited as is the groundbreaking work on assessment. REFERENCES Aiken, W. M. (1942). The story of the Eight-Year Study. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Lipka, R. P., Lounsbury, J. H., Toepfer, C. F., Jr., Vars, G. F., Alessi, S. P., Jr., & Kridel, C. (1998). The Eight-Year Study revisited: Lessons from the past for the present. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

ELIOT, CHARLES W. Peter J. Boedeker Texas A&M University Charles William Eliot (1834–1926) was president of Harvard University from 1869 to 1909. Eliot graduated from Harvard in 1853. He remained at Harvard tutoring mathematics and in 1858 became an assistant professor of mathematics and chemistry. After being denied tenure at Harvard, Eliot was one of the first to teach at a newly opened university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He also traveled in Europe studying old world education systems. After his experiences abroad, he authored a two-part article on “The New Education,” which was published in The Atlantic Monthly in 1869. These articles earned him public notoriety and contributed to his selection as the 22nd president of Harvard University (Cotton, 1926). During Eliot’s 40 years as president, he changed the dynamics of the university. He instituted an elective system in which students were allowed to choose part of their total coursework. Students in the freshmen class of 1884–1885 were required to take seven courses, leaving the remaining nine largely to be selected by preference. Prior to this, all students took a prescribed set of courses. Eliot’s liberal arts approach to education was one of the first of its kind and epitomized his view that a cultivated individual required

a multifaceted education (Harvard University, 2015). Eliot was instrumental in reorganizing Harvard’s programs into the college system—an organizational system that has been mimicked by many institutions. Not only did he change the curricular direction of Harvard during his tenure, but he also saw the construction of many buildings, such as Memorial Hall, Sever Hall, Austin Hall, Harvard Stadium, and the Medical School Quadrangle. In 1892, the National Education Association (NEA) selected Eliot to be chairman of the Committee of Ten. This group predominantly comprised of college presidents sought to unify and standardize the many different approaches to education within the United States. It recommended that students attend a minimum of 12 years of schooling, consisting of eight years of elementary school and four years of high school. At the time, students were placed into certain courses in high school depending on their plans to attend college or not. The Committee recommended that this practice cease and that all students be exposed to the same courses with the same high standards (NEA, 1894). They also expressed that mathematics and foreign languages should be taught earlier in the curriculum, starting in the seventh year of schooling. This recommendation was a step toward the creation of what is now known as the junior high or middle school. Eliot’s life was devoted to education. He was named president of the National Education Association in 1903, received the first gold medal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1915, was an honorary president of the Progressive Education Association in 1919, and received the Roosevelt Medal for distinguished service in 1924. His fingerprints are found not only in the halls of Harvard, but also in the very fabric of the American education system. REFERENCES Cotton, E. H. (1926). The life of Charles W. Eliot. Boston, MA: Small, Maynard & Company. Harvard University. (2015). Charles William Eliot. Retrieved from http://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard -glance/history-presidency/charles-william-eliot National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school studies with the reports of the conferences arranged by the committee. New York, NY: Author.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS Betsy Rymes Contributor from 1st edition By the year 2010, all middle grades teachers in the United States are likely to have English Language Learners

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS ◾ 155

(ELLs) in their classrooms. Between 1990 and 2000, the numbers of ELLs in the United States increased by 95%, and in several states (including Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Iowa), the ELL population has grown by over 200% (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2002). Today’s middle grades teachers, no matter where they teach, will need new resources to understand and educate this increasingly linguistically diverse student body (Gebhard, Austin, & Nieto, 2002; Nieto, 2000). This entry addresses how educators, families, and communities can best support the learning of ELLs in the middle grades (Grades 4–8), discussing issues of diversity among the ELL population, methodology and program, family involvement in ELLs’ education, and multilingualism as a resource for all middle grades children and their communities. THE DIVERSITY OF ELLs While it is undeniable that the numbers of ELLs is increasing, this broad label includes many different groups of people. ELLs come from myriad countries, language backgrounds, economic backgrounds, and levels of former schooling; some are from urban areas; some from remote rural villages; and some were born in the United States. All of these distinctions mean that ELLs have varied resources that they bring to the classroom, varied support systems at home, and varied concerns that might influence their school performance. An Example Julio Aceves came to Los Angeles in the summer of 2001, at age 12, and that fall was placed in Ms. Carter’s seventh grade English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) class. As an introductory diagnostic activity, Ms. Carter had her students write postcards to someone they knew who spoke English. Ms. Carter assured the students they would be able to write simple messages if they wanted to, but Julio did not feel capable of writing in English. He had just arrived from Mexico a month ago, after all. Ms. Carter suggested he write his postcard in Spanish. At the end of the activity, Ms. Carter collected the postcards to review and send. She was surprised when she looked at Julio’s card. The words all flowed together like supercalifragilisticexpialidocious—in a roughly spelled Spanish. Now it was clear that Julio had minimal writing experience in any language. At the same time, others in the class had written entire letters to former English teachers. For Ms. Carter, supporting the language and academic development of all her ELLs this year was going to be a challenge.

COUNTRY AND LANGUAGE OF ORIGIN Julio fits neatly into the statistics—he is one of the growing numbers of ELLs who have come to the United States from Mexico, appearing in school having just arrived, knowing little English, and speaking Spanish among their friends and family. In the Los Angeles Unified School District in 2001, over 40% of the student body was placed in classes for ELLs (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005). And this Los Angeles number is echoed across the country. In 2001, over 10% of the entire U.S. population spoke Spanish at home, and another 7% spoke languages other than English or Spanish at home (Modern Language Association, 2004). These numbers represent continuing, exponential increases (Asia Society, 2005). In many school districts, over 100 different home languages are represented. Rural Versus Urban While Julio represents the large numbers of ELLs who have arrived in the United States from Mexico for economic reasons, leaving rural farms or small towns in Mexico where minimal schooling is available (Valdez, 1996; Valenzuela, 1999), many ELLs come from urban areas, and their families have left their countries for political reasons, to pursue international careers or advanced degrees. Even a classroom that superficially seems to be full of recently arrived Mexicans from rural areas may also include an El Salvadoran son of a political refugee, or a Columbian whose parents are former University Professors (Bachtel, Bohon, & Atiles, 2005). Level of Education Rural and urban backgrounds also can provide very different educational opportunities. Children in rural Mexico, for example, often leave school by the time they reach the middle grades. Girls are often encouraged to stay home and help with household chores rather than attend school. Boys may miss school during harvest times or other periods of increased work requirements (Valdez, 1996). Also, refugees, from Somalia or Cambodia, for example, may have had their educations cut short due to political instability or civil war (Friedman, 2002; Quan, 2004). Even in the middle grades, these students may arrive in the United States still preliterate in their home languages. As such, middle grades curriculum, particularly if provided exclusively in English, is minimally accessible to these students. Other ELLs arrive in ESOL classrooms highly educated, and may even come to the United States having had many years of instruction in English in their home countries. Some refugees may have received English classes in camps before

156 ◾ ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

arrival in the U.S. (Friedman, 2002). So, while Ms. Carter’s class was full of recently arrived immigrants, some composed full-length letters in English, while Julio struggled to write a short postcard in Spanish. Peer Group Affiliation In the middle grades, peer group affiliation strongly influences development and academic achievement; and, both for ELLs who have just arrived, and for those who have been in the states for many years (including those ELLs who were born in the U.S.), negotiating peer group affiliation and ethnic and linguistic identity is complicated and can have lasting ramifications for school performance (Harklau, 1994; Meador, 2005; Mehan, Hubbard, & Villanueva, 1994). Rural-origin, recently arrived ELLs, like Julio, may join together as a peer group with few collective resources to access school success (Valenzuela, 1999), while ELLs who have been in the U.S. long enough to be familiar with schools and their norms may actively resist school success or “acting white” (Noguera, 2003) to avoid sacrificing ethnic identity (Meador, 2005). Both these groups are at increased risk of dropping out of school (Valenzuela, 1999). Socioeconomic Status Just as ELLs differ in home language, country of origin, the rural or urban nature of their upbringing, and the peer group affiliations they form, ELLs range widely in terms of socioeconomic (SES) background. Still, the majority of ELLs are from low SES families and, SES remains the single most influential factor predicting dropout rate. Many ELLs live in households in which all the adults must work multiple lowwage jobs. This means ELLs may not have support for homework at home, have minimal ability to provide snacks and materials for school, and, in some cases, must stay home from school to, for example, take care of a sick sibling while the mother and father are working (Valdez, 1998; The Center for Education Research and Policy at MassINC, 2003). Forms of Support Neglect of ELLs’ education became an official legal issue in 1974, when, in the Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols, it was ruled that, “Students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education” (Lau v. Nichols, 1974). (For an extended chronology of court cases leading to Lau v. Nichols, see Santa Ana, 2004, pp. 87–106.) Partly as a result, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974) was passed, ruling that, “No state shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his

or her race, color, sex, or national origin, by the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome languages barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.” This means, effectively, that schools are legally bound to serve ELLs’ educational needs and that denying them their first language obstructs this responsibility. Any school with second language learners that does not have an educational program in place for them is considered out of compliance with federal law. This leaves open, however, what might count as effective programming for ELLs. PROGRAMS FOR ELLs Often the discussion of effective educational programs for ELLs is framed as a debate between bilingual education and total English immersion. This is especially true after California and Arizona passed legislation prohibiting bilingual education (Propositions 227 and 207, respectively). However, despite the tendency to polarize the debate as for or against bilingual education, in reality, there are as many programs for ELLs as there are school contexts. Still, research investigating program efficacy generally categorizes programs according to (a) where children go for instruction (do they stay in the mainstream classroom or go to a separate room?); and (b) what languages are used as the medium of instruction and in what proportion (Piper, 2001). Program types range along a continuum from dual language bilingual—in which the goal is for students to learn to function academically in two languages, (e.g., Spanish and English)—to an English to Speakers of other languages pull-out program—in which the ELLs are taken from the mainstream classroom to be taught English traditionally, and returned to the grade level classroom for content area instruction in English. Between these two extremes there are a range of combination approaches. The question remains: Which program type is most effective? To date, the largest available long-term research study conducted indicates that ELLs’ longterm achievement on standardized reading and other achievement tests is significantly augmented when ELLs participate in programs that lean toward the bilingual end of the spectrum (Thomas & Collier, 1997). This finding has been supported by smaller studies of individual programs (Krashen & Biber, 1988; Rosier & Holm, 1980) and school ethnographies (Olsen, 1997). While there are cases that provide evidence counter to the Thomas and Collier research (Gerston & Woodward, 1995; Porter, 1990), these do not refute the growing numbers of studies showing that bilingual programs that are carefully designed and competently implemented are successful (Adamson, 2005).

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS ◾ 157

FORMS OF SUPPORT BEYOND PROGRAM AND METHOD An Example, at Home Two days after Ms. Carter had read Julio’s Spanish postcard, she made a courtesy visit to Julio’s home. Julio was setting the table. His mother, Maria Serrano, was preparing comida, the afternoon meal. Ms. Carter was surprised to find another of her students, Juan Maldonado sitting in the living room. Juan, she soon learned, was Julio’s cousin. Thirty minutes later, Ms. Serrano left the home having made connections that would help her to reach both Julio and Juan throughout the year. Parents and Siblings as a Resource This was the beginning of a peer network developing within the Aceves/Maldonado/Serrano household. Throughout the year, Ms. Carter knew she could answer questions about Julio by talking to Juan and vice versa. These are the kinds of networks that Luis Moll and his colleagues began to encourage teachers to develop in their studies investigating students’ homes and communities as “Funds of Knowledge.” (Moll & Vellez-Ibanez, 1992). As mentioned above, ELL’s often come from low SES households—but if teachers, counselors, and administrators learn about the nonmonetary funds and personal connections that exist in those households, they can draw on those resources to help children be accountable to school, finish homework, bring their materials, and share books and other school necessities. Home Language/Heritage Language as a Resource Making these connections with homes not only provides teachers with an understanding of the resources available to ELLs, it encourages students to draw more on their home language and culture in classroom interactions. Recognizing home language as a resource in the classroom can also highlight the multiple languages spoken in a middle grades classroom, building important relationships across peer and language groups (Rymes & Anderson, 2004). “Home languages,” defined broadly, include not only official languages spoken within national borders like Spanish or Chinese, but also the multiple varieties of English spoken by all students in any middle grades classroom. Building on the variety all students have in their linguistic repertoire can build a recognition and appreciation for language as a tool that we draw on very differently in different contexts (Heath, 1983; Rymes & Anderson, 2004; Tatum, 1997).

Paraprofessionals as a Resource Teachers can also draw on paraprofessional teaching assistants to make connections with ELL homes. Paraprofessionals (parapros) who work with ELLs often live within the same community, speak multiple languages, have been at the school for many years, and know the tensions and connections between and among students and other students, staff, and family (Haselkorn & Fideler, 1996; Rymes, 2004). Out of politeness or respect, students and families of ELLs may be resistant to approaching a teacher with their concerns (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Parapros, however, may in some cases be more approachable. When parents, teachers, and paraprofessionals working with ELLs work closely and communicate well, school achievement improves (Rueda & DeNeve, 1998). Multilingual Students as a Resource Like paraprofessionals, students who are multilingual often function as mediators between households and teachers, and other novice English-speaking students and teachers (Orellana, 2001; Orellana, Reynolds, Dorner, & Meza, 2003). The range of levels of Spanish and English literacy and fluency present in ESOL classes like Ms. Carter’s, for example, while daunting, also provides student assistants who can help novice ELLs access the curriculum and prevent them from drifting to the silent margins. This use of Spanish-speaking students as resources in the classroom potentially lessens the social distance between English-speaking teachers and Spanish-speaking students, while illustrating to ELLs in the classroom that learning English need not entail first language loss. REFLECTIONS: FROM SILENCE TO SUCCESS Throughout the literature on immigrant experience, there are narratives of children silenced by their lack of voice in their new home (Hart, 1999; Hoffman, 1990; Rodriguez, 1983). As these stories testify, when students grow up feeling that their home language silences them at school, they may come to view their home language as inferior or useless (Rodriguez, 1983). And, many children then grow up, in turn, neglecting their home language and the relationships cultivated through that language. These individual narratives are consistent with language statistics indicating that the majority of ELLs learn English—but also lose their first language (Tse, 2001). Approaches to ELLs that treat home languages other than English as a deficit can lead to “subtractive schooling” in which schools, rather than adding English to the students’ linguistic repertoire, subtract the first

158 ◾ ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

language foundation these students bring to school with them (Cummins, 1989; Piper, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999). This devaluing of the first language can be reinforced with forms of high-stakes tests that, while important for identifying and providing services for ELLs, potentially frame home languages not as a resource to build on but as a deficit. There are not yet standardized, high-stakes ways of counting multilingualism as an asset within a school or district test results profile (Coltrane, 2002). Nevertheless, ELLs’ growing numbers are necessarily changing what counts as knowledge in classrooms, and increasingly, multilingualism is seen as an asset for individuals joining the U.S. labor force (Humphreys, 2004). Students who grow up multilingual and attend schools that recognize multilingualism as a resource, not a deficit, can achieve high degrees of academic success and social mobility (August & Hakuta, 1997; Brisk, 1998). In a society and economy that are becoming more bilingual, leaving school speaking two languages rather than only one is valuable, and ELLs in the middle grades are potentially already more than halfway there. REFERENCES August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Educating language minority children. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Adamson, H. D. (2005). Language minority students in American schools: An education in English. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Asia Society. (2005). World languages spoken at home in the U.S.: 1990 and 2000 compared. Retrieved from www.internationaled.org/BriefingBook/6.Building/ 6.j%20world%20 lang.xls Bachtel, D. C., Bohon, S. A., & Atiles, J. H. (2005). Profiling America’s growing Hispanic population. [Informational poster]. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Venture Fund. Brisk, M. E. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. The Center for Education Research and Policy at MassINC. (2003). Head of the class: Characteristics of higher performing urban high schools in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: MassINC. Coltrane, B. (2002). English language learners and high-stakes tests: An overview of the issues. Retrieved from Center for Applied Linguistics Web site: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0207coltrane.html Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering language minority students. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Equal Educational Opportunities Act. (1974). Title 20, Chapter 39, Subchapter I, Part 2, United States Court, Section 1703(f). Retrieved from http:// www.usdoj.gov/ crt/cor/byagency/ed1703.htm Friedman, A. A. (2002). Agents of literacy change: Working with Somali students in an urban middle school. In Z. F. Beykont (Ed.), The power of culture: Teaching across language difference (pp. 121–145). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education. Gebhard, M., Austin, T., & Nieto, S. (2002). “You can’t step on someone else’s words;” Preparing all teachers to teach

language minority students. In Z. F. Beykont (Ed.), The power of culture: Teaching across language difference (pp. 167–191). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education. Gerston, R., & Woodward, J. (1995). A longitudinal study of transitional and immersion bilingual education programs in one district. Elementary School Journal, 95(1), 223–239. Harklau, L. (1994). Jumping track: How language-minority students negotiate evaluations of ability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(3), 347–363. Hart, E. T. (1999). Barefoot heart: Stories of a migrant child. Tucson, AZ: Bilingual Press. Haselkorn, D., & Fideler, E. (1996). Breaking the class ceiling: Paraeducator pathways to teaching. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers. Hoffman, E. (1990). Lost in translation: A life in a new language. New York, NY: Penguin. Humphreys, J. (2004). The multicultural economy 2004: America’s minority buying power. Georgia Business and Economic Conditions, 64, 3. Krashen, S., & Biber, D. (1988). On course: Bilingual education’s successes in California. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education. Lau v. Nichols (1974). 94 Supreme Court, 786. Mehan, H., Hubbard, L., & Villanueva, I. (1994). Forming academia identities: Accommodation without assimilation among involuntary minorities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(2), 91–117. Meador, E. (2005). The making of marginality. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(2), 149–164. Modern Language Association. (2005). Census data language map. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/census_main Moll, L. C., & Vellez-Ibanez, C. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes to classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 2001–2002. Retrieved from http:// nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/100_largest/table_20_1.asp National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2002). The growing number of limited English proficient students, 2000–2001. Retrieved from http://www.ncela. gwu.edu/policy/states/stateposter.pdf Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 180–187. Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York, NY: The New Press. Orellana, M. F. (2001). The work kids do: Mexican and Central American immigrant children’s contributions to households and schools in California. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 366–389. Orellana M. F., Reynolds, J., Dorner, L., & Meza, M. (2003). In other words: Translating or “para-phrasing” as a family literacy practice in immigrant households. The Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 12–34. Piper, T. (2001). And then there were two: Children and second-language learning. Toronto, Canada: Pippin.

ERB, THOMAS O. ◾ 159 Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics of bilingual education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Quan, K. Y. (2004). The girl who couldn’t sing. In O. Santa Ana (Ed.), Tongue-tied: The lives of multilingual children in public education (pp. 13–21). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Rodriguez, R. (1983). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez. New York, NY: Bantam. Rosier, P., & Holm, W. (1980). The Rock Point experience: A longitudinal study of a Navajo school program. (Bilingual Education Series No. 8). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Rueda, R., & DeNeve, C. (1998). How paraeducators build cultural bridges in diverse classrooms. Community Circle of Caring Journal 3(2), 53–55. Rymes, B. (2004, Winter). Bilingualism as a resource: Finding and training teachers for Georgia’s schools. The Georgia Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Reporter, 36–37. Rymes, B., & Anderson, K. (2004). Second language acquisition for all: Understanding the interactional dynamics of classrooms in which Spanish and AAE are spoken. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(2), 107–135. Santa Ana, O. (Ed.) (2004). Tongue-tied: The lives of multilingual children in public education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of ethnic minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–39. Tatum, B. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books. Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Council for Bilingual Education. Tse, L. (2001). Why don’t they learn English: Separating fact from fallacy in the U.S. language debate. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Valdez, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools: An ethnographic portrait. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Valdez, G. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4–18. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.–Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

ERB, THOMAS O. Gail Anderson Canby School District Thomas “Tom” O. Erb (1945–2015) was a scholar, researcher, teacher, and middle level advocate who focused his work on the advantages of collaborative

planning time for middle grades teachers and middle grades curriculum reform. His dedication to the field of middle grades education was evident through his many professional publications as well as his presentations at national and international conferences and his consulting work with school districts, policy-making groups, and others. Erb was also a longtime editor of the Middle School Journal, a publication of the National Middle School Association (currently the Association for Middle Level Education) for middle grades educators. He was able to expand and improve the journal during his tenure as editor from 1994 to 2009. Erb was a graduate of DePauw University where he majored in history. He graduated with distinction and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Following graduation, he entered a Masters of Arts in Teaching program at Northwestern University with the goal of becoming a high school history teacher. However, Erb’s first teaching job was as an eighth-grade social studies and English teacher in a junior high school outside of Chicago. He spent the first four years of his teaching career in the junior high and credited a veteran teacher with whom he shared a common planning period for turning him into a middle school teacher. He recalled: It finally dawned on me that this was a very unique time in life, this transition from 11 to 14 years old, when kids are leaving childhood behind and becoming more self-aware and learning to think in new, more abstract ways, not to mention dealing with pubertal changes. It is a time of tremendous growth and excitement. I really came to love that group. After that third year in teaching, I never, ever regretted not getting a high school job. (Willhite, 2010, p. 13)

Erb continued as a classroom teacher for several years, serving at the University of Chicago Laboratory School from 1971 to 1974, and then in a small middle grades program in Angola, West Africa from 1972 to 1974. Upon his return from West Africa, Erb began work on his doctorate in curriculum and instruction at the University of Florida where he worked with legendary middle school advocates Paul George and William Alexander. In 1978, Erb completed his degree and accepted a job at the University of Kansas in the School of Education. He began his work by helping the university to develop a program for middle grades education. During his tenure at Kansas, Erb was also active with the Kansas Association for Middle Level Education (KAMLE), serving as executive director and editor of the KAMLE Journal. Erb has received several awards during his career, including the John H. Lounsbury Award for Distinguished Service which is given to those who have made significant contributions not only to the theory of middle

160 ◾ ERIKSON, ERIK

grades education but also in practice and service to the middle grades. REFERENCE Willhite, J. (2010). An interview with Thomas Erb. Retrieved from http://www.kuonlinedirectory.org/endacott/data/ OralHistoryTranscripts/THOMAS%20E RB.pdf

Initiative Versus Guilt (four to five years) Children are curious and want to ask questions. Consequently, if children are encouraged and if their questions are addressed they become confident. On the other hand, if they feel that their curiosity and questions are not important, they become less confident (Erikson, 1963; Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Industry Versus Stagnation (6 to 11 years)

ERIKSON, ERIK Casey D. Gilewski University of Memphis Erik Erikson (1902–1994) was an American developmental psychologist and psychoanalyst who theorized about psychological growth of individuals from infancy to old age (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). According to Erikson (1963, 1968), individual development is dependent on the interaction of people and their environment (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Thus, a person’s personality is based on the epigenetic principle—a process that is developed over time. Therefore, personalities are shifting and changing due to crises—feeling obligated to adapt to societal norms. However, everyone’s development is different because each person has unique experiences that shape his or her development (Erikson, 1968; Snowman & Biehler, 2003). STAGES OF PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Based on Erikson’s theory (1963), people experience eight stages of psychosocial development (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Trust Versus Mistrust (birth to one) Children are learning to trust their world and environment. Children whose needs are being met are learning to trust in the world. While children whose needs are not being met, learn to be fearful of the world (Erikson, 1963; Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Autonomy Versus Shame and Doubt (two to three years) Children are learning independence. Therefore, they are learning to explore and interact with their world. Thus, children who are allowed to explore and learn at their own pace are successful. However, children who are pushed, develop self-doubt (Erikson, 1963; Snowman & Biehler, 2003).

Children are learning to be productive and showing what they know and can do. When they are praised for their accomplishments and allowed to try, they become self-confident in their abilities. Yet, if they are criticized and not allowed to try, children develop a feeling of inferiority (Erikson, 1963; Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Identity Versus Role Confusion (12 to 18 years) Individuals are trying to determine their place in society. As a result, these individuals are learning to see where they fit in, but if they cannot fit in, they become confused about their role and are unclear of their purpose (Erikson, 1963; Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Adulthood In adulthood, there are three psychosocial development stages: intimacy versus isolation, generativity versus stagnation, and ego integrity versus despair. Young adults are in the stage of intimacy versus isolation when they are developing intimate relationships with others. However, if these relationships are not established, the young adult may end up in isolation (Erikson, 1963; Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Middle age adults are in the stage of generativity versus stagnation when they are focused on the next generation (Erikson, 1963; Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Older adults are at the stage of integrity versus despair when they are reflecting about their life (Erikson, 1963; Snowman & Biehler, 2003). STAGES AND SCHOOLS In schools, Erikson’s stages of development are important because students experience five major development processes. Accordingly, it is imperative that practitioners are aware of how their interactions with students will affect their overall development. REFERENCES Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

THE EXEMPLARY MIDDLE SCHOOL ◾ 161 Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton. Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2003). Psychology applied to teaching (10th ed.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

THE EXEMPLARY MIDDLE SCHOOL Michele Jean Sims Contributor from 1st edition It is no surprise that Paul S. George and the late William M. Alexander’s The Exemplary Middle School (George & Alexander, 2003) is a comprehensive, accessible text particularly useful for students in the field of middle school education, but also informative for middle school practitioners who may seek further edification about the middle school concept, as well as researchers interested in this unique age group. As was true in their first edition of The Exemplary Middle School in 1981 (Alexander & George), the characteristics of the middle school concept and its implementation are illustrated in the practice of 1,100 actual middle schools around the United States. George and Alexander, giants in the field of middle school education, have dedicated their careers searching for the enhancement of a developmentally appropriate education model for young adolescents. The authors have come to consensus on what is representative of exemplary practices in middle school education by utilizing their considerable expertise, including the recommendations of other middle school educators, and the literature on middle school education. This most recent text version critically examines the tenets of middle school philosophy and organization, attempting to bridge the gap between the theoretical underpinnings with the practices reported in schools. There are 10 chapters in this textbook along with references, a roster of exemplary middle schools, and an author and subject index. The chapter titles include: The Middle School Students (Chaper 1), the Middle School Movement and Concept (Chapter 2), the Middle School Curriculum (Chapter 3), Instruction (Chapter 4), Managing and Mentoring Middle Schoolers (Chapter 5), Interdisciplinary Team Organization (Chapter 6), Grouping Students in the Middle School (Chapter 7), Organizing Time and Space in the Middle School (Chapter 8), Planning and Evaluating the Exemplary Middle School (Chapter 9), and Middle School Leadership (Chapter 10). These topics remain fairly consistent with the organization of the first edition over 20 years ago, albeit the insertion of the middle school student as Chapter 1. This change is significant as it denotes the critical importance of understanding this unique developmental period of young adolescence and the student population often identified as “at-risk.”

Chapter 5 in the latest edition encompasses teacher guidance and infuses the preventive and supportive rationale of classroom management. The authors allude that the middle school organization itself can mitigate excessive discipline problems. It is evident that this edition’s reorganization incorporates research knowledge on content area reading and text organization and in addition provides extensive up-to-date illustrative materials. A text ‘hook’ introduces the chapter whereas the reader is usually introduced to an exemplary school, or in the case of Chapter 1, “The Middle School Student,” information from the New York Times Magazine section illustrates the rise is early puberty in girls. Chapter 1 also provides a summary of the remaining chapters I the textbook. Next, a chapter preview alerts the reader as to the chapter’s content and the remainder of the chapter content is organized by headings and subheadings. Beginning with Chapter 2, each chapter has a conclusion, a content summary, a connections to other chapters, questions for discussion, and action steps. The final chapter section suggestions for further study includes books, periodicals, ERIC sources, and dissertations and dissertation abstracts (Chapters 9 & 10), as did the first edition. In addition, this section lists, videotapes, and appropriate annotated Web sites along with the comprehensive reference section at the end of the text are especially useful for further study and exploration. The reference section includes supplemental middle school sources that are a part of the end of chapter references. This third edition is an excellent text resource for all those interested in middle school education. REFERENCE Alexander, W., & George, P. S. (1981). The exemplary middle school. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed). Belmont: CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

EXPLORATORY CURRICULUM Heather Rogers Haverback Towson University Molly Mee Towson University The main question about the process of concept formation—or about any goal-directed activity—is the question of the means by which the operation is accomplished. Work, for instance, is not sufficiently explained by saying that it is prompted by human needs. We must consider as

162 ◾ EXPLORATORY CURRICULUM well the use of tools, the mobilization of the appropriate means without which work could not be performed. To explain the higher forms of human behavior, we must uncover the means by which man learns to organize and direct his behavior. (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 102)

Middle school curriculum consists of both core and exploratory courses. While some middle schools have incorporated an exploratory curriculum into all of the core courses, most middle schools offer exploratory courses separately. Core courses include mathematics, social studies, science, and language arts. Exploratory courses can include the arts, foreign language and culture, life skills, and technology. While both core and exploratory courses are important for young adolescent development, the exploratory courses allow for students to expand upon their knowledge and skills within an academic area that motivates them. HISTORY Exploratory learning stems from the seminal works of many famous educational theorists including: Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget, and Rogoff. For example, John Dewey (1915) believed that learning should center on children by providing activities and direction, and Piaget (1964) stated that children learn through hands-on experiences within the constructivist approach. Rogoff (1990) believes in guided participation, or that children actively learn with the guidance of a more skilled partner. Thus, exploratory curriculum has long been considered to be a vital component of education and middle school students’ learning. It was described in 1947 as students’ “specialized interests, aptitudes, and abilities as a basis for decisions regarding educational opportunities” (Gruhn & Douglass, 1947, pp. 31–32). Currently, the position statement of the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE, formerly National Middle School Association), This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School Association, 2010) states that one of the 16 characteristics of middle grades schools is that “curriculum is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant.” Creating curriculum that contains relevant experiences is still important within the era of accountability (Caskey, 2006). In fact, college and career readiness are core components of the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Thus, exploratory learning involves an experience wherein students are exposed to material that lends itself to an exploration of that information. This exploration allows students to use real world skills to enhance their learning.

DEFINITION In the National Middle School Association (NMSA) position paper (1995, pp. 23–24), an exploratory program was identified as having three earmarks. First, students involved in an exploratory program are able to realize their individual abilities, gifts, interests, ideals, and preferences. This realization allows middle school students to prepare for adulthood with regard to vocation and civic responsibility. Second, in exploratory courses, pedagogical practices revolve around the offering of experiences that contribute to society and civic life. Third, exploratory experiences introduce middle school students to enriching, advantageous extra-curricular pursuits. For example, a life-long interest in the arts, languages, culture, or service work can grow from an exploratory learning experience. In his literature review, Dowden (2007) found that there is a large body of research confirming the efficacy of middle school programs that employ a student-centered integrative curriculum. Through the use of exploratory curriculum, students are able to learn new skills and new ways in which to think (Brazee, 2000). The purpose of exploratory courses is to give children new opportunities and experiences. For example, a teacher who has a great interest in Japanese culture may create an exploratory learning course for their middle school students. During this course, the teacher could lead the students in the exploration of Japanese culture, including dance, music, art, flower arranging, tea ceremonies, karate, and karaoke. During this program, students would have the freedom to investigate the Japanese culture while honing in on their particular strengths and interests. While one student may grow in their ability to cook Japanese food, another student may excel in the craft of flower arranging. Not only will the middle school students be exposed to the Japanese culture, they will have the individual ability to pick and choose what they particularly want to have as their foci. BEST PRACTICES AND BENEFITS Manning (2003) stated that exploratory curricular programs are thought to be an essential component of a good middle school. He states that such programs allow the middle school student to take a six-week, eightweek or semester-long course wherein they have the potential to discover their unique interests and abilities. Simultaneously, these exploratory programs consider the individual students’ developmental needs. These needs include: middle school students’ attention span, quickly evolving interests and various motivational levels (Manning, 2003). Exploratory programs also build interest and motivation. To begin, many of the courses allow for students

EXPLORATORY CURRICULUM ◾ 163

to have autonomy in choosing the topic in which they would like to explore. Also, these programs can be offered in a variety of ways and focus on interesting topics, such as drama, foreign language, music, art, health, life skills, and technology (Brazee, 2000). Additionally, the teachers are intrinsically motivated to teach the course and feel efficacious about their ability to teach the course. The autonomous nature of the course, teacher, and topics will be motivating for the student. In the middle school classroom, teachers and technology should only be guides to learning (Kuo Hung, 2011), thus, it is essential for students to have the ability to use these guides as tools within their learning but not be too dependent on them. Exploratory learning programs align with this notion, as the teacher acts as a guide or more knowledgeable other in the learning process, however, the middle school student is responsible for creating their own knowledge and pathway during the experience. In other words, the student has the freedom to choose the aspects of the exploratory program in which they are interested and therefore will guide their own learning by expanding upon that interest. Moreover, in 21st century classrooms, technology can act as a key component of exploratory learning. By using technology as a guide, middle school students have access to an innumerable amount of resources in which they can expand their learning. Using the aforementioned example of an exploratory program that focuses on Japanese culture, a student who is particularly interested in Japanese architecture would be able to virtually visit different cities in Japan while appreciating the architecture. Similarly, other students in the same class could virtually visit the Tokyo National Museum, watch videos on flower arranging while creating their own arrangement, or listen to modern Japanese music by various artists. Thus, technology lends itself to expanding exploratory learning within the classroom. When conducting exploratory lessons, pre-research on a topic can help the student understand what their knowledge base is. This allows the student to test various solution approaches or conceptual perspectives on the topic which gives them a deeper understanding of the topic (Decaro, Decaro, & Rittle-Johnson, 2015). However, doing research on a topic before knowing what the assignment is can be beneficial or detrimental. It can either motivate the individual by making them more interested in the topic or it can discourage them by appearing challenging. VARYING VIEWS There are varying points of view on the ways in which exploratory learning should take place. Some educators and schools use exploratory learning as a separate

entity from the core courses. On one hand, this creates an experience for the students wherein they are able to learn about a topic in-depth and in a concentrated way. On the other hand, some teachers and educators ask whether or not creating exploratory experiences separate from the core curriculum creates a disconnect for the learner. Thus, exploratory experience should not be seen as a simple “add-on” to the core curriculum. Other educators and schools have integrated exploratory learning into the core courses. In fact, some schools have created in-depth courses that complement a school’s regular curriculum (Wayne, 2000). This approach allows middle school students to learn about a different aspect of life within their regular coursework. However, this approach can also lead to having the exploratory piece of the program being lost within the core content. Another issue within exploratory curriculum is whether or not to grade the courses. Thus, teachers are concerned with how these courses are graded and how such grades could impact the motivational factors of exploratory learning. The breadth and depth of such courses has also been raised as a concern. While some exploratory learning experiences are short courses outside of the core content, it is thought that this can lead to a simplistic understanding of the material and subject. CONCLUSION Dewey (1915) stated that school work “is somewhat remote and shadowy compared with the training of attention and of judgement that is acquired in having to do things with a real motive behind and a real outcome ahead” (p. 12). In 21st century middle schools, exploratory learning removes the remoteness of school work and creates an opportunity for students to learn additional topics that can lead to life-long interests. Whether incorporated into the core curriculum or organized as a separate experience, exploratory curriculum opportunities can be interesting, motivating, and edifying for students and teachers alike. REFERENCES Brazee, E. (2000). Exploratory curriculum in the middle school. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Retrieved from http:// ericae.net/edo/ed447970.htm Caskey, M. M. (2006). What research says: The evidence for the core curriculum—past and present. Middle School Journal, 37(3), 48–54. Decaro, D., Decaro, M., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2015). Achievement motivation and knowledge development during exploratory learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 13–26.

164 ◾ EXPLORATORY CURRICULUM Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society: And the child and the curriculum. Mineola, NY: Dover. Dowden, T. (2007). Relevant, challenging, integrative and exploratory curriculum design: Perspectives from theory and practice for middle level schooling in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(2), 51–71. Gruhn, W. T., & Douglass, H. R. (1947). The modern junior high school. New York, NY: Ronald Press. Kuo Hung, H. (2011). A GIS-Interface web site: Exploratory learning for geography curriculum. Journal of Geography, 110(4), 158–165. Manning, M. L. (2003). Today’s middle schools combining education with life experiences. Quest, 6(1). Retrieved from http://ww2.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/TodaysMS .html National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.

National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author. National Middle School Association (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, Ohio: Author. Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. E. Ripple & V. N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered: A report on the conference of cognitive studies and curriculum development (pp. 7–20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wayne, B. (2000). Spotlight on exploratory courses. Middle Ground, 3(5), 33–37.

F The term “family involvement” refers to family member support of their child’s academic and social development. Family involvement generally includes voluntary engagement in the school and at home and/or participation in planned programs that involve partnerships between families, schools, and community groups. In this entry, “family involvement” will refer to voluntary family involvement at school or home. The term “partnerships” will be used to describe planned, organized, goal driven, and purposeful programs that encourage family participation in school, family and community partnerships. Many policy statements and reports call for increased family and community involvement at the middle level. Significant reports including Turning Points 2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000), three reports by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989, 1992, 1995) and This We Believe . . . and Now We Must Act (Erb, 2001) identified family and community support of children as paramount to increasing academic achievement and sustaining their healthy development. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) continued an emphasis on family involvement that has been federal policy and law since the 1988 Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments to P.L. 100297. NCLB required that schools develop a written policy for parent involvement in consultation with parents. Numerous researchers have identified ways that family involvement benefits children. Yap and Enoki (1995) found a significant relationship between homebased

parental involvement activities and student achievement. Henderson and Mapp’s (2002) examination of 51 studies found that the more families are involved with their children’s education, the more successful their children are in school (see Bickel, 1995; Connors & Epstein, 1995; Flaxman & Inger, 1992; Hidalso, Siu, Bright, Swap, & Epstein, 1995; Hoover- Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; Moore, 1991; Riley, 1994; Rutherford, Billig, & Kettering, 1993). Much of the research regarding family involvement and partnerships has been done at the elementary level. A smaller body of research examined family involvement at the middle level. Programs involving educators and parents which modify what Walberg (1984) identified as the alterable curriculum of the home (including such factors as informed conversations, leisure reading, regulating television viewing, and peer activities) have an effect of twice that of socioeconomic status in children’s achievement. Clark (1983) found that “linguistic capital” (the family members as teachers providing instruction in language skills) and what Coleman (1989) identified as “social capital” (family interest, intimacy and involvement with children over time) influence the school achievement of children. Epstein (1995) developed a typology to provide a framework to identify ways that families are involved in their child’s education. The typology includes six types of involvement—parenting, communicating, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community. All six types of involvement are multidirectional. Each group (families, schools, and community resources and services) interacts with the others in a mutually supportive way. For example, involvement in parenting includes the school assisting families with parenting skills, the families assisting schools in understanding their backgrounds and cultures, and the

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 165–169 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

165

FAMILY INVOLVEMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS P. Maureen Musser Contributor from 1st edition

166 ◾ FAMILY INVOLVEMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS

community providing social services to support parenting (Epstein & Jansom, 2004). The findings on the effectiveness of family involvement on achievement are mixed. The National Middle School Association (NMSA) research summary, Parent Involvement and Student Achievement at the Middle Level, indicates that although some studies find a relationship between family involvement and student achievement other studies do not support such findings (NMSA, 2000). The large number of variables that influence student achievement challenge researchers’ ability to isolate single factors that influence student success in school and in life. The educational level of the parents, socioeconomic status, the culture or racial/ethnic groups involved, and the efforts of the school to invite family participation all contribute to family involvement. One finding is clear, family involvement decreases when children reach the middle level (Epstein, 1996). FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE FAMILY INVOLVEMENT AT THE MIDDLE LEVEL Families’ ability to respond to opportunities to interact with the school and with their children at home is influenced by social class, family structure, employment obligations, the need for child care, transportation difficulties, inconvenient meeting time, and limited financial resources to provide materials for their children (Moles, 1993). One factor that shapes the way families are involved in their children’s education is the family’s perception of what their role should be (HooverDempsey & Sandler, 1995). Many families, especially recent immigrant and minority families, may view their role in their children’s education differently than the school views their role. Hispanic and Southeast Asian immigrants often come from countries where family involvement is viewed as interference. From this perspective, questioning the actions of the school or teachers would be inappropriate (Moles, 1993; Yap & Enoki, 1995). A family’s belief in their ability to help their children is also influenced by their social class, how a family member’s parents were involved with their education, and how a family’s friends are involved in schools. Family involvement in the school decreases when students reach the middle school for several reasons. The transition from elementary school to the middle school can be unsettling for families and children and present challenges to family involvement. If the school is departmentalized by content areas students often have several teachers and it is difficult for both families and teachers to build relationships (Epstein & Connors, 1993; Musser, 1998). Young adolescent development in itself can be an obstacle to family involvement. The physical, mental, and social changes in

young adolescent development result in children wanting more independence from their families but also needing support and reassurance. The middle school curriculum also may intimidate some families. Family members may lack the skills to assist children with homework. Families and children may also be confused regarding the role families should play in assisting with homework at the middle level. The challenges faced by families in the transition from elementary school to middle school are often compounded by a lack of outreach by the school to welcome family involvement and provide assistance to families (Juvonen, Le, Kaganoff, Augustine, & Constant, 2004). PARTNERSHIPS The term “partnerships” refers to planned, organized, goal driven, and purposeful programs developed over time that encourage family, school, and community members to work together to support children. The partners work toward shared goals, contributing strengths and assists, sharing information, and supporting each other (Swap, 1993). The concepts of partnerships are based on a child-centered model of human development formulated by Bronfenbrenner (1979) and applied by Connors and Epstein (1995) in the overlapping spheres of influence model. The overlapping spheres of influence model recognizes that schools, family, community, and peers all contribute to a child’s academic achievement and social development in different ways at different times. There are some times when the spheres of influence (family, school, community, and peers) operate separately and other times when they overlap and interact with each other. The times when the spheres overlap and families, schools, and community forces work together to support children are theoretically the most effective in influencing children. Administrators, policy makers, and teachers are key players in the implementation of partnerships. Rutherford et al. (1993) and Chavkin (1993) have identified elements that are critical factors to the implementation of partnerships. These are: (a) communication; (b) the involvement of key players; (c) the allocation of resources sufficient to provide training, implementation, and coordination of programs; and (d) formal written policies and goals. Epstein (2004) emphasized that an action plan for partnerships developed with input from all families can help focus partnerships to provide a welcoming environment where educators, students, families, and community partners work together to meet school goals for student achievement and success. The oneyear action plan used by the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) meets the NCLB requirements for a comprehensive partnership program.

FAMILY INVOLVEMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS ◾ 167

Well-developed partnership programs that include outreach to families by teachers can overcome many of the challenges faced by families in meeting the expectations of family involvement mentioned above. When teachers encourage family members and provide opportunities to be involved their participation increases. An inclusive partnership program includes community interactions that involve children participating in community-based programs, extracurricular activities, and services provided by community agencies. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1992) reported that there are more than 17,000 youth-serving organizations operating in the United States. They include national organizations such as the Boy Scouts and 4-H Clubs and many small local organizations such as religious youth groups and parks and recreation programs. Joekel (1985) reported that when examining influences on future achievement, participation in extracurricular activities was more indicative of success than high grades in high school, high grades in college, or high scores on the ACT. Clear communication and interactions between family, school, and community organizations can help all three groups coordinate efforts to give all children opportunities to participate in valuable community activities (Musser, 1998). CHALLENGES TO THE FORMATION OF PARTNERSHIPS Despite the indications from research of the benefits of school, family, and community partnerships, there are numerous obstacles to the formation of these partnerships. Perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs regarding partnerships may differ dramatically between and among the family, school, and community members. This is true regardless of the participants’ class, ethnicity, or cultural background. However, the obstacles presented by differing perceptions, attitudes, values, and beliefs are exacerbated when teachers and parents come from different cultures, races, or class backgrounds, or when they view themselves as different from other groups because of memberships in a different culture, race, or class (Chavkin, 1993; Epstein & Dauber, 1989; Musser, 2004). Much of the research regarding partnerships has been from the school’s perspective. As Ginn (1994) pointed out, research on family involvement focuses on the perspective of educators, and that families are “Somewhat depersonalized; they are ‘objectified’; it is difficult to think of parents as living, breathing humans or know what involvement means for them” (p. 39). Frequently family members are viewed as deficient. Partnerships depend on cooperation and mutual respect. Overcoming an assumption of deficiency and the negotiation of value differences are necessary for

partnerships to build a culture of support and care that benefits children. Teachers face some of the same obstacles to participating in partnerships as families. Teachers are human beings who also have roles as family members and community members. Frequently teachers do not have training regarding how to communicate and interact with parents and community members (Kirschenbaum, 2001). Teachers may have difficulty communicating with all families but especially with families from cultures and socioeconomic groups that are different from the teachers’. This results in frustration and misconceptions on the parts of all involved. Teachers also may feel threatened by family and community involvement in the school. Ryan and Freidlaender (1996) found that tensions develop if teachers perceive that families are overstepping their bounds and that parent scrutiny is viewed as a threat or as questioning their expert status as educators. There is also some evidence to suggest that teacher beliefs and misconception of family attitudes contribute to barriers developing between teachers and families. Some teachers blame families for their children’s problems and see family attitudes as obstacles to developing partnerships (Leitch & Tangri, 1988). The formation of partnerships that provide training for teachers and provide the opportunity for teachers and families to build relationships can overcome these obstacles (Musser, 2004). The obstacles to the development of partnerships can be overcome by establishing culture where the education of children is viewed as a joint effort between family, school and community members. To establish a context where this goal can be met, participants in a partnership need to recognize the importance of the contributions of all of the people who support the child’s healthy development and academic achievement. LINKS TO INFORMATION ABOUT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS The value of partnerships in supporting children’s’ academic achievement and social development is demonstrated by the number of partnership models in place to help families, schools, and community members develop partnerships. The following are a few: • The National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University (http:// www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/) • The Family Involvement Network of Educators, Harvard Graduate School of Education (http:// www.finenetwork.org)

168 ◾ FAMILY INVOLVEMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS

• The Partnership for Family Involvement in Education (http://www.ed.gov/pubs/whoweare/ intro.html#partership) • In the August 2004 issue of Middle Ground, Brenda Dyck (2004) provides internet links to 13 organizations that provide information regarding school, family, and community partnerships. REFERENCES Bickel, A. S. (1995). Family involvement: Strategies for comprehensive alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use prevention programs. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the nonschool hours. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1995). Great transitions: Preparing adolescents for a new century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Chavkin, N. F. (Ed.). (1993). Families and schools in a pluralistic society. Albany: State University of New York Press. Clark, R. M. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor black children succeed or fail. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Coleman, J. S. (1989). The family, the community, and the future of education. In W. J. Weston (Ed.), Education and the American family: A research synthesis (pp. 169–185). New York, NY: New York University Press. Connors, L. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1995). Parent and school partnerships. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, volume 4: Applied and practical parenting (pp.  437– 458). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dyck, B. A. (2004). Hot links. Middle Ground, 8(1), 13. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712. Epstein, J. L. (1996). Improving school-family-community partnerships in the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 28(2), 43–48. Epstein, J. L. (2004). Meeting NCLB requirements for family involvement. Middle Ground, 8(1) 14–16. Epstein, J. L., & Connors, L. J. (1993). School and family partnerships in the middle grades. In RMC Research Corporation (Ed.), Parent and community involvement in the middle grades: Evaluating education reform (pp. 81–122). Denver, CO: RMC Research. Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1989). Teacher attitudes and practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools (Report No. 32). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, The Johns Hopkins University. (ERIC ED314 151)

Epstein, J. L., & Jansom, N. R. (2004). School, family, and community partnerships link the plan. Education Digest, 69(6) 19–23. Retrieved from http:// search.epnet. com/direct.asp?an=12233064&db=aph Erb, T. (Ed.). (2001). This we believe . . . and now we must act. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Flaxman, E., & Inger, M. (1992). Parents and schooling in the 1990s. Principal, 72(7), 16–18. Ginn, L. W. (1994). Understanding people one at a time: A portrait of parental involvement. The School Community Journal, 4(2), 39–51. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school family ad community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. Hidalso, N. M., Siu, S., Bright, J. A., Swap, S. M., & Epstein, J. L. (1995). Research on families, schools, and communities: A multicultural perspective. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 498– 524). New York, NY: Macmillan. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Joekel, R. G. (1985). Student activities and academic eligibility requirements. NASSP Bulletin, 69(483), 3–9. Juvonen, J., Le, V., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C., & Constant, L. (2004). Focus on the wonder years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Kirschenbaum, H. (2001). Educating professionals for school, family and community partnerships. In D. B. Hiatt-Michael (Ed.), Promising practices for family involvement in schools (pp. 185–208). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Leitch, M. L., & Tangri, S. S. (1988). Barriers to home-school collaboration. Educational Horizons, 66(2), 70–74. Moles, O. C. (1993). Collaboration between schools and disadvantaged parents: Obstacles and openings. In N. R. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 21–49). Albany: State University of New York Press. Moore, E. K. (1991). Improving schools through parental involvement. Principal, 71(1), 17–20. Musser, P. M. (1998). Partnerships at the middle level: Perception of family members, community members, and teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services. Musser, P. M. (2004). Listening to the voices of family members, teachers, and community members. Research in Middle Level Education Online 27(2). Retrieved from http://www.nmsa.org/research/rmle/spring04/ article_2.htm National Middle School Association. (2000). Research summary #18: Parent involvement and student achievement at the middle level. Retrieved from http:// www.nmsa.org/research/ressum18.htm No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

THE FORGOTTEN MIDDLE: ENSURING THAT ALL STUDENTS ARE ON TARGET FOR COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS ◾ 169 Riley, R. W. (1994). Strong families, strong schools: Building community partnerships for learning. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC ED371909) Rutherford, B., Billig, S. H., & Kettering, J. F. (1993). Parent and community involvement in the middle grades: Evaluating educational reform. Denver, CO: RMC Research. Ryan, S., & Freidlaender, D. (1996). Strengthening relationships to create caring school communities. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 20(1), 41–68. Swap, S. M. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships: From concepts to practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Walberg, J. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 19–27. Yap, K. O., & Enoki, D. Y. (1995). In search of the elusive magic bullet: Parental involvement and student outcomes. The School Community Journal, 5(2), 97–106.

THE FORGOTTEN MIDDLE: ENSURING THAT ALL STUDENTS ARE ON TARGET FOR COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS Kristina Falbe Georgia College & State University Published in 2008, The Forgotten Middle: Ensuring that All Students are on Target for College and Career Readiness, is a study conducted by ACT, a not-for-profit assessment and research organization. The organization is probably most recognized for their College Readiness System which includes assessments such as the EXPLORE®, PLAN®, and the ACT® test. The Forgotten Middle is an extension of other research conducted by the ACT, Crisis at the Core (ACT, 2004), Reading Between the Lines (ACT, 2006), and Rigor at Risk (ACT, 2007). As the subtitle suggest, this particular report takes a look at the college and career readiness of students in high school, and how it links with academic achievement in the middle grades. Recognizing that less than 20% of students meet college and career readiness benchmarks on the ACT, this report aimed to identify the importance of academic achievement in eighth grade, and its ability to predict college and career readiness. The report tried to determine academic behaviors that support college and career readiness. Using a sample of all students in 2005 and 2006 that completed the battery of assessments in the ACT’s College Readiness System the researchers created hierarchical predictive models that considered the impact of background characteristics, eighth-grade achievement, standard high school coursework, advanced/honors high school coursework, high school grade point average (GPA), and student testing behavior. The models were clear that eighth grade

achievement was the most influential factor on future achievement on the ACT. The impact of eighth-grade achievement was over two-and-a-half times as strong as any of the other factors for every subject area: English, reading, math, and science. For phase two of the study, the team looked more deeply into psychosocial factors that can impact future academic success. Using 24 middle schools in the United States, the researchers looked specifically at course failure in eighth grade, and grade point average in the ninth grade. These were compared with 10 factors that are thought to impact course failure and GPA. Findings from this portion of the study found that academic discipline and orderly conduct were top behaviors that could be linked to considerable impact on course failure in the eighth grade and GPA in the ninth grade. Researchers concluded that if students are to be prepared for college and career beyond high school, special attention must be made to teaching and learning in the crucial middle grades years (4–8). ACT suggested monitoring progress towards non-negotiable benchmark standards that align with standards used for the content of the ACT tests, monitoring and intervening students who are not meeting benchmarks, improving the academic behaviors of students, and increasing state and federal intervention programs (ACT, 2008). In 2014, the report was revisited using the same methodology, but with more recent data sets (ACT, 2014). These results remained the same, with no significant change in the findings from the 2008 report to the 2014 report. For middle grades educators, administrators, and researchers, this report confirmed the need for challenging, exploratory, and relevant curriculum in the middle grades. REFERENCES ACT. (2004). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work. Retrieved from https://www.act.org/research/ policymakers/pdf/crisis_report.pdf ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Retrieved from https:// www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/reading_ report.pdf ACT. (2007). Rigor at risk: Reaffirming quality in the high school core curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.act.org/ research/policymakers/pdf/rigor_report.pdf ACT. (2008). The forgotten middle: Ensuring that all students are on target for college and career readiness before high school. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/ ForgottenMiddle.pdf ACT. (2014). Research study: The forgotten middle. Retrieved from https://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/ ForgottenMiddle-ResearchStudy2014.pdf

This page intentionally left blank.

G Following years of high school reform and emphasis on preparing students to be career and college ready, renewed focus on the middle grades as the gateway for high school finally emerged. Success in middle school was identified as a key predictor for high school success, particularly in key subjects such as mathematics. Furthermore, the middle grades were considered to be “the last best chance to identify students at risk of academic failure and get them back on track in time to succeed in high school” (Williams et al., 2010, p. 2). However, very little middle level research has included student achievement or linked practices and policies to improved outcomes. After years of being “forgotten,” middle schools and their students were the focus of Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades (Williams et al., 2010, p. 2), a large-scale study seeking to identify characteristics of successful middle schools. Conducted by researchers in California, the study sought to identify the specific and practical school and district practices that, given similar student populations, led to higher performing schools. The study included 303 schools in common middle level grade configurations: 50% were grades 6–8; 26% were grades 7–8; and 24% were grades K–8. Surveys covering ten domains of effective middle school practice were collected from school principals, math and English-language arts teachers, and district superintendents. The unit of analysis for the study was the school with the

goal of identifying school and district practices leading to student achievement “gains beyond predicted levels” (p. 5). Gaining Ground reported that several domain-specific practices led to improved student achievement, including the implementation of curricula and instructional practice that aligns with state standards. Researchers found that student success in middle school is a team effort, requiring all teachers and administrators to be actively engaged in creating a school culture for success. Higher performing schools have school and district leaders who set high expectations for instruction and student learning and use assessment and other student data to inform and improve instruction. School principals in higher performing schools act as facilitators, providing teachers with necessary supports to meet district goals, supports such as common planning time to develop intervention plans and monitor student performance regularly. Gaining Ground did not report any one of the three grade configurations in the study to be more highly associated with increased student achievement on standards-based assessments. The findings from Gaining Ground have wide-reaching implications for school and district leaders and policy makers. Given the significant role superintendents, principals, and teachers play in creating and maintaining a culture of high expectations in middle schools, schools and districts should examine the flexibility they provide administrators to lead dialogue and allocate resources in support of that culture. Implications for state and federal policy are broader, suggesting that policymakers assess the extent to which current policies support school and district leaders’ ability to enact the positive practices and policies highlighted in the study.

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 171–186 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

171

GAINING GROUND IN THE MIDDLE GRADES: WHY SOME SCHOOLS DO BETTER Diana B. Lys East Carolina University

172 ◾ GARVIN, JAMES P.

REFERENCE Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., Rosin, M., Perry, M., Webman, B., & Woodward, K. M. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades: Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Retrieved from http://www.acsa.org/ FunctionalMenuCategories/AboutACSA/Councils/ MiddleGradesEducation/Agendas/2009-10-Agenda -Minutes/test/EdSource-Report-Executive-Summary. aspx

GARVIN, JAMES P. Janis D. Flint-Ferguson Gordon College James P. Garvin began his teaching career in the middle grades—teaching in grades 7, 8 and 9. After completing a PhD in Early Adolescent Studies, Garvin moved into college teaching (Association for Middle Level Education, n.d.). He taught secondary education at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts. His work included developing a teacher preparation program that employed area high school teachers as adjuncts for the secondary education coursework. The expertise of the teachers along with the theories and research of academia helped to prepare teacher candidates for their practicums in local high schools. Although working with high school teacher candidates, his studies and experience made him keenly aware of the changes going on at the junior high school level and the educational restructuring for this age group. He organized a major in middle school education at the college and helped to organize the New England League of Middle Schools (NELMS) in a garage and car trunk. Working with his friend Principal Henry A. Christ, he drew on the middle school philosophy to develop the new Rupert A. Nock Middle School (1970) into an exemplary middle school. Focusing on the development of young adolescents, the new school was designed specifically for young adolescents; the teachers were chosen for their interest and expertise with the age group. The school became known as one of the best middle schools in the country. At the state level, he chaired the Massachusetts Advisory Committee and helped to establish the state’s middle school standards. Garvin’s first book, Learning How to Kiss a Frog: Advice for Those Who Work with Pre- and Early Adolescents (Garvin, 1988) was published by NELMS. Drawing on his own experiences and research in development, Garvin used the metaphor of the frog as a way to think about the awkward, gawky stages of early adolescence. He helped educators and others who work with young adolescents

to think about the myriad of ways that 10-to-14 year olds benefit from adults who know and understand the transitions they are undergoing. Garvin quickly became known as the New England middle school guru and traveled extensively helping schools to make the transition from the junior high to the middle school model. Recognized nationally, he was elected president of the National Middle School Association (NMSA, now Association for Middle Level Education). In 1989, the Carnegie Foundation invited Garvin to join their research team to study the transition students make going into the high school. He left his college position and became the executive director of the growing NELMS organization. Under his tutelage, NELMS continued to grow. For example, the NELMS Annual Conference became the premier middle school conference in the country, growing from a 1-day conference for 33 people to a 3-day conference for more than 1,500 participants. In 1991, Garvin was awarded NMSAs highest award, the John H. Lounsbury Award for Distinguished Service. When he retired from the regional NELMS organization, they renamed their prestigious Distinguished Service Award to the James P. Garvin Distinguished Service Award, which is given to those whose record of service reflects a high level of dedication and commitment to the cause of quality education for young adolescents (NELMS, 2015). REFERENCES Association for Middle Level Education. (n.d.). John H. Lounsbury Award. Retrieved from https://www.amle.org/ AboutAMLE/AMLEAwards/JohnHLounsburyAward .aspx Garvin, J. P. (1988). Learning how to kiss a frog: Advice for those who work with pre- and early adolescents. Rowley, MA: New England League of Middle Schools. New England League of Middle Schools. (2015). Distinguished Service Award. Retrieved from http://www.nelms.org/ pages/awards/service.html

GATEWOOD, THOMAS E. Sheila Rogers Gloer Baylor University As the first editor of the Midwest Middle School Journal, Thomas “Tom” E. Gatewood oversaw its rise to national prominence and ultimately become the Middle School Journal. Through his many articles and editorials (1971–1976), he advocated for developmentally appropriate curriculum for young adolescents. At the same

GEORGE, PAUL S. ◾ 173

time, the Midwest Middle School Association expanded into the National Middle School Association (NMSA, now Association for Middle Level Education [AMLE]). Gatewood was elected as the fifth president of NMSA (1975–1976) and then recruited John H. Lounsbury to become the new editor of the journal (Arth et al., 2005). Gatewood received the NMSA Presidential Award for Excellence in 1979 (Smith & McEwin, 2011). Like many others, Gatewood, had advocated for quality middle level education from his position in numerous organizations. While a member of Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development’s working group on the Emerging Adolescent Learner, he co-authored a report, The Middle School We Need (Gatewood & Dilg, 1975), in which they concluded: It appears many middle schools have adopted the educational programs and practices of junior highs, thus not successfully achieving the middle school concept. The junior high school . . . has long been criticized... [for having] characteristics of the senior high [which] have “contaminated” the junior high—a departmentalized subject-matter curriculum, interscholastic athletics, [and] early socialization . . . (p. 3)

This pragmatic report was a call to refocus on the middle school vision. In this same report, Gatewood and Dilg called for better middle level teacher preparation; they asserted, “Teachers make the difference. . . . If the middle school is to fulfill its function of providing a transescent-oriented program, teacher education must be aimed at the specific competencies needed by middle school teachers” (p. 19). Gatewood (1976) reiterated this recurrent call for quality teacher preparation frequently through his president’s page in the Middle School Journal, “. . . the vast majority of middle school instructors are still victimized by preparation which causes them to perform in the classroom with methods more appropriate for high school students. Middle School education needs a systematic nationwide approach” (p. 16). Although many middle level leaders were proponents, Gatewood (1998) challenged the necessity for what some advocates called “integrated curriculum:” The development of constructivist models of instruction in middle school classrooms should be our number one priority, and this can occur within a discipline based multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary approach . . . the model proposed by advocates of integrated curriculum presents intellectual, practical, and accountability problems. Precious time and resources could be better concentrated on improving basic classroom instruction. (p. 40)

Gatewood received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Illinois State University, Carbondale, and a doctorate in secondary education from Indiana University,

Bloomington, in 1970. After serving as an Illinois public school teacher from 1964 to 1970, he joined the faculty of Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant. In 1980, he moved to Virginia Polytechnic Institute, where he taught until his retirement in 2006 (Smith & McEwin, 2011). In recognition for his distinguished service, Virginia Polytechnic Institute conferred upon Gatewood the title of Associate Professor Emeritus of Secondary Education (Virginia Tech Board of Visitors, 2006). REFERENCES Arth, A., Bergmann, S., Brazee, E., Burkhardt, R., Gatewood, T., Lounsbury, E., . . . Vars, G. (2005). Middle school pioneer John Lounsbury. Baylor University Institute for Oral History. [Interviewed by Gloer, S. R., pp. 1–28] Gatewood, T. E., & Dilg, C. A. (1975). The middle school we need: A report from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development working group on the emerging adolescent learner. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gatewood, T. E. (1976). The president’s page. Middle School Journal, 7(2), 16. Gatewood, T. (1998). How valid is integrated curriculum in today’s middle schools? Middle School Journal, 29(4), 38–41. Smith, T. W., & McEwin, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Virginia Tech Board of Visitors. (2006). Resolution for Emeritus status. Retrieved from http://www.bov.vt.edu/minutes/ 06-08-28minutes/attach_x_060828.pdf

GEORGE, PAUL S. Cheryl R. Ellerbrock University of South Florida Paul S. George is a nationally and internationally renowned expert on middle level education who has been described by many as the foremost expert on middle grades education. His research and teaching primarily focuses on school organization and management as well as instructional grouping. In addition, since 1982, he gained expertise in Japanese schooling. George received his undergraduate degree in history from Westminster College, a master’s degree in history from Kent State University, a second master’s degree in human resource development from the Corporate Learning Center at Vanderbilt University, and his doctorate degree in curriculum and instruction from Peabody College at Vanderbilt University. Prior to teaching at the college level, George spent nearly 10 years teaching ninth grade social studies in

174 ◾ GIFTED STUDENTS/PROGRAMS

Ohio and Tennessee. Then, he served as instructor at Belmont College in Tennessee and assistant professor at Monmouth College in Illinois before accepting an assistant professor position at the University of Florida in 1971. In 1976, he was awarded status of Doctoral Research Faculty and, in 1981, he became Professor of Education. George continued teaching and researching at the University of Florida until his retirement in 2007. He currently holds the position of Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Florida. Committed to public school education, George volunteered as a public school teacher for one week each semester throughout his entire college career. George spent his career conducting research on middle grades education and translating his research into more than 150 book chapters, monographs, and journal articles along with 20 professional development multimedia materials. He is author or co-author of 10 books, including The Theory Z School: Beyond Effectiveness (George, 1983), Handbook for Middle School Teaching (George, Lawrence, & Bushnell, 1998), Making Big Schools Feel Small: Multiage Grouping, Looping, and Schoolswithin-a-school (George & Lounsbury, 2000), and The Exemplary Middle School (George & Alexander, 2003) considered to be a foundational text in the field. George has also engaged in extensive consultation work with schools, school districts, policy makers, and other stakeholders in all U.S. states along with 15 other countries, including Bermuda, Japan, Greece, Germany, France, India, Canada, Mexico, and Kenya. In addition, George has served as a consultant to 50 of the 150 largest school districts in the United States. George founded the Florida League of Middle Schools in 1972. In 1995, the Florida League of Middle Schools honored him as the first executive director. He was also the recipient of the Middle School Educator of the Year Award from the Florida League. George was a leader in the first European Conference on Middle Level Education that was held in Brussels in January 1986. His influence played a key role in the formation of the European League for Middle Level Education, the first overseas affiliate of National Middle School Association, in 1987. In 1998, George received the John H. Lounsbury Distinguished Service Award from National Middle School Association—the highest honor bestowed on middle grades educators. When asked about what he believes is his most important contribution to middle grades education, George stated, “I’d say it was the realization of the critical influence of school organization on teaching and learning outcomes” (personal communication, March 24, 2015). George, now retired, lives in Gainesville, Florida with his wife of nearly 50 years. He has three children and five grandchildren. He enjoys traveling, reading, golf, poker, and fishing.

REFERENCES George, P. (1983). The theory Z school: Beyond effectiveness. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. George, P., & Alexander, W. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. George, P. S., Lawrence, G., & Bushnell, D. (1998). Handbook for middle school teaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman. George, P. S., & Lounsbury, J. H. (2000). Making big schools feel small: Multiage grouping, looping, and schools-within-a-school. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

GIFTED STUDENTS/PROGRAMS Carol Ann Tomlinson Contributor from 1st edition WHAT IS GIFTEDNESS? Definitions of giftedness vary, but in general, gifted learners are those who, by virtue of their abilities, exhibit advanced performance or advanced potential in one or more areas (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). Advanced performance is evident through indicators such as standardized achievement scores at very high levels in one or more areas; consistently high grades in one or more areas; or precocity in application of skills in areas such as music, art, technology, and so forth. Advanced potential in the absence of high consistently outstanding performance is more difficult to recognize, but equally as important an indicator of potential giftedness. Students with high potential but not high performance may show remarkable insight or skill in some areas or at some times with weakness in other areas or contexts, inconsistent performance, high standardized test scores in the absence of high grades, and so on. In the last century, conceptions of intelligence have broadened as our knowledge of psychology, human development, and the brain have increased. As a result, our conceptions of giftedness have steadily become more generous as well. Prior to the early 20th century, giftedness was assumed to be “global”—or evident in most or all areas of functioning and was generally thought of as manifesting through a very high score on an intelligence test. At that point, fewer than 5% of individuals were thought of as gifted. In the first third of the 20th century, psychologists concluded that giftedness could manifest itself in specific academic areas (such as math, science, language arts) as well as generally or globally (Tannenbaum, 1983, 2000). Still largely conceived in terms of test scores, the percentage of potentially gifted learners expanded somewhat because of the

GIFTED STUDENTS/PROGRAMS ◾ 175

expanded conception of giftedness as domain specific. In the last quarter century, our understanding of intelligence has continued to broaden because of the work of psychologists like Howard Gardner (1993) and Robert Sternberg (1988) have extended areas of intelligence (and therefore giftedness) to include domains such as logical, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, practical, analytic, and creative. WHO ARE GIFTED LEARNERS? Gifted learners exist in all subpopulations—including students from low economic backgrounds, English language learners, and students with handicaps. We often fail to see students from such groups as having high potential because they exhibit weakness in one or more facets of school performance, lack experiences that spur development of ability in more privileged students, or manifest cultural differences from the dominant group which those in the dominant group may interpret as deficiencies. In addition to school performances that may appear less than extraordinary, students from such groups may make artificially low scores on achievement and/or aptitude measures because of limited experiences, test bias, or handicaps that make it difficult to perform well on standardized measures (Ford & Harris, 1999; Tomlinson, Ford, Reis, Briggs, & Strickland, 2004). In general, however, there are traits of giftedness often manifest across groups of students with high performance and/or potential. Among those are: verbal strength, retentiveness for information and ideas, high levels of curiosity, keen sense of humor, ability to make connections among ideas, generating pertinent and probing questions, and so on (Callahan & Tomlinson, 1997). When teachers see evidence of these traits in a student, it is wise to work with that student in ways that develop and extend advanced abilities. Effective curriculum and instruction for high ability learners will inevitably be a response to their traits. In addition, it is prudent to look for evidence of what students with these traits can or might do rather than to focus solely or predominately on what they cannot do or are not currently doing. WHAT ISSUES ARISE FOR GIFTED STUDENTS DURING EARLY ADOLESCENCE? Because gifted young adolescents are a diverse group, and because they are young adolescents, they are likely to experience the developmental challenges and milestones typical of most young adolescents. Nonetheless, the intersection of high ability and young adolescent development can “put a different spin” on the school experiences of high ability middle schoolers. Following

are some potential challenges for high ability young adolescents and their teachers. THE NEED TO BALANCE BELONGING AND ACHIEVING A major developmental need of early adolescence is affiliating with peers and moving away from childlike dependence on adults. A vehicle for separating from adults during this developmental stage can be group disidentification with or rejection of things sanctioned by adults—such as buying into school and making good grades. While rejection of school as important is problematic for many young adolescents, it can be particularly so for young adolescents whose great strength is academics. For these young people, early adolescence can present an uncomfortable and unfortunate sense that they must choose a peer group over achievement or achievement over a peer group. For their continuing intellectual growth as well as their emotional and social development, it is important that highly able young adolescents have access to other students who value achievement and with whom they can also find a peer group. This need may be particularly potent for high ability young adolescents from low economic and/or minority groups who sometimes feel it necessary during this period to reject achievement in order to maintain status with cultural peers (Tatum, 1997). THE NEED TO EMBRACE CHALLENGE It is a paradox for many bright learners that they both hunger for genuine challenge and resist it. Many very bright students feel consistently under-challenged by school curriculum that does not extend their ability to think and to learn. Nonetheless, when presented with challenge appropriate to their ability, such learners will often balk at accepting the challenge. There are at least two reasons this is the case. First, after years of high grades with little or modest effort, students learn to like “easy success.” In fact, they can begin to see high grades as an entitlement which ought not to have to be earned. Second, bright students often fail to develop the coping skills necessary to succeed with personally appropriate challenge. When they encounter such challenges, they feel inadequate, and sometime question their ability. In these instances, it becomes safer to reject the challenge than to take the chance of failure (Tomlinson, 1998). During the middle school years, highly able learners—like other learners—will solidify habits of mind and work that will serve them well, or poorly, in shaping their futures. Research suggests (e.g., Bloom, 1985) that young adolescents may be a particularly important

176 ◾ GIFTED STUDENTS/PROGRAMS

period for highly able learners to experience challenge, learn to tolerate challenge, and come to embrace challenge. Further, research suggests (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993) that highly able students who find satisfaction in and commitment to challenge during this time span are likely to emerge from adolescence in better academic and emotional condition than will young adolescents who do not find satisfaction in and commitment to challenge. THE NEED TO BALANCE JOY AND RIGOR Young adolescents generally learn more effectively when learning experiences are engaging or pleasurable. In other words, they respond well to learning opportunities that see fresh, pique curiosity, allow interaction with peers, have real audiences, provide choice, are personally relevant, enable them to make a difference in the world, and so on. As is the case with other young adolescents, highly able middle schoolers also generally learn better in such settings. At the same time, they need assistance in consistently developing knowledge, understanding, skill, attitudes, and habits of mind that push forward their capacity to “grow into” their possibilities. It is important for students at this age to find pursuit of their talent areas to be joyful, or at least satisfying, without sacrificing the stretching necessary to grow—and vice versa. Middle grades curriculum that is flat in either engagement or level of demand often causes students of this age to become disillusioned with the process of learning at a time when identification of self as a learner is particularly critical (Tomlinson, 1998). WHAT IS APPROPRIATE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR GIFTED MIDDLE SCHOOLERS? Curriculum and instruction that are drill-based, right-answer oriented, teacher-centered, lock-step, concrete, test-driven, and low level will serve gifted middle schoolers poorly (Callahan & Tomlinson, 1997). It is likely that such curriculum will serve most middle schoolers poorly. Good curriculum and instruction for gifted middle school students begins with good curriculum and instruction (Tomlinson, 2004). In other words, to ensure that highly able learners develop the potential, it is important for them consistently to work with curriculum that is concept-based and principle driven so that they make sense of subjects in ways that experts make sense of them. They need consistently to work at high levels of thought, to apply what they learn to solving authentic problems, to develop meaningful products for meaningful audiences. They need guidance in becoming

increasingly independent and selfaware as learners, and they need to work in learning environments that are safe, affirming, support affiliation, and provide a balance of challenge and support. These are descriptors of high quality curriculum for the vast majority of learners. That is not, to say, however, that “good” curriculum and instruction addresses the spectrum of learning needs of high performance and/or high potential learners. In order to make “good curriculum and instruction” become “good curriculum and instruction for gifted learners,” teachers need to modify or differentiated how students experience the curriculum and instruction to ensure that it is appropriately challenging to stretch advanced learners, that it addresses the particular strengths, talents, and interests of the student (or that it is designed in ways that support students in pursuing their own strengths, talents, and interests), and so that it attends to students’ learning preferences. This is likely to imply varied and advanced materials and flexible use of time (so that students can move ahead more rapidly at times, and work more slowly to achieve depth of understanding at times). It is likely to imply some degree of supported independent inquiry, and it is likely to imply work at higher levels of abstraction, complexity, ambiguity, and open-endedness than may be appropriate for many agemates. Further, learners with advanced performance benefit from teachers who continually extend the challenges they encounter as well as support systems necessary to succeed at progressively greater levels of challenge (Tomlinson, 2004). Learners with advanced potential but not advanced performance benefit from teachers who hold performance standards high for them and provide ways to fill knowledge and skills gaps even as students move forward at advanced levels—and teachers who enact consistent messages of belief in the students’ potential to work at advanced levels. WHAT ARE APPROPRIATE PROGRAMMING OPTIONS FOR GIFTED MIDDLE SCHOOLERS? It can be argued that how and what we teach advanced middle level learners matters more than where we teach them. Given the middle school emphasis on heterogeneity, it would seem desirable to ensure carefully planned and appropriately challenging learning experiences in the context of heterogeneous classrooms. When teachers lack the skill and/or will to provide such learning opportunities, arguments for separate learning opportunities for high ability learners become more compelling. In addition to providing classroom experiences designed to ensure consistent growth for high achievement and/or high potential young adolescents, it is important for middle schools to provide for the affective development

GRADE CONFIGURATION: K–8 VERSUS MIDDLE GRADES ◾ 177

of advanced learners as well. This may include special counseling opportunities designed with these students in mind—recalling always that students from many different backgrounds, with many different learning profiles, and with varied talents and dreams fall under the heading of “gifted middle school students.” Just as they will need flexible curriculum and instruction based on a teacher’s growing knowledge about the students, so will they need affective support that is responsive to their particular talent and developmental profiles. For some students, such services will focus on general issues of young adolescent development, for some it will focus on planning for on-going advanced learning options within and beyond the school day and beyond the middle school years. For some it will focus on special issues related to being “different” at a time when differences may be perceived to be distinctly negative. The goal of identifying, teaching, and providing affective support for highly able middle school students is meeting the obligation of schools to maximize the capacities of the students they serve. REFERENCES Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballentine. Callahan, C., & Tomlinson, C. (1997). The gifted and talented learner: Myths and realities. In ASCD Yearbook (pp. 309– 332). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ford, D., & Harris, J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books. Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Penguin. Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York, NY: Macmillan. Tannenbaum, A. (2000). A history of giftedness in school and society. In K. Heller, F., Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 23–52). Oxford, England: Elsevier. Tatum, B. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” And other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books. Tomlinson, C. (1998). Curriculum and instruction for gifted learners in the middle grades: What would it take? In R. Williamson & J. H. Johnston (Eds.), Able learners in the middle level school: Identifying talent and maximizing potential (pp. 21–34). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Tomlinson, C. (2004). Teaching gifted learners well: A general guide to quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 14(3), 105–116.

Tomlinson, C., Ford, D., Reis, S., Briggs, C., & Strickland, C. (2004). In search of the dream: Designing schools and classrooms that work for high potential students from diverse cultural backgrounds. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1994). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Author.

GRADE CONFIGURATION: K–8 VERSUS MIDDLE GRADES Stephanie Cronenberg University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Research has shown that the years of early adolescence are critical to future academic success (ACT, 2008; Balfanz, 2009). How and where students are taught during the years between approximately 10 and 15 is a major debate in the field of middle level education, causing many educators to wonder whether middle grades schools or K–8 schools are best for young adolescents (McEwin, Dickinson, & Jacobson, 2005). Both middle grades buildings and those serving students from kindergarten through eighth grade have held prominent places in the history of American education. This debate extends beyond the school building configuration where it begins to a host of other issues surrounding the education of young adolescents. SCHOOL BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS In the United States, young adolescents have historically attended school buildings housing a variety of grade configurations. Although there are many variations, two major building configurations figure most prominently in the modern debate over middle level education. K–8 Schools Just after the Civil War, a popular grade configuration was 8–4, an elementary building with grades 1–8 (prior to the advent of public kindergarten), complemented by a high school building for grades 9–12 (McEwin, 1983). In the mid-20th century, while K/1–8 schools became less common, they did not entirely disappear. Beginning in the late 1990s, K–8 schools became more common as some large public school districts, particularly in urban areas, began to move away from middle grades schools and back to a K–8 model. Districts selecting this path include Baltimore, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Oklahoma City (George, 2005; Gewertz, 2004). Decisions to return to a K–8 structure were

178 ◾ GRADE CONFIGURATION: K–8 VERSUS MIDDLE GRADES

affected by a variety of factors including, but not limited to, funding, student population decline, urban neighborhood changes, and education research. According to a 2009 survey, 5,200 public schools served grades K–8 in 2009, an increase of over 200 schools since 2007 (McEwin & Greene, 2011). For example, the Philadelphia City School District’s decision to transform the existing middle and junior high schools into K–8 schools is well documented. A variety of research studies (Byrnes & Ruby, 2007; Offenberg, 2001; Weiss & Kipnes, 2006) have examined this transition that occurred over the course of several school years. This reconfiguration allowed researchers to examine student outcomes and compare existing K–8 schools to existing middle schools as well as to newly formed K–8 schools (Byrnes & Ruby, 2007). Middle Grades Schools In 1909, the first schools devoted to the grades between elementary and high school were formed. Established in Columbus, Ohio, these schools were called junior high schools (Manning, 2000). In the 1940s, separate school buildings serving young adolescents became common throughout the country, typically serving students in grades 7–9 (McEwin, 1983). Thus, American public school buildings became structured in a 6–3–3 pattern. In the 1960s, many educators argued that the junior high school was not meeting the cognitive, social, and emotional needs of young adolescents, what was then described as the period of transescence between childhood and full adolescence (Eichhorn, 1966). These educators argued that the junior high school curriculum and pedagogy was simply a copy of the high school approach and thus served only as a high school preparatory school, not as a school specifically designed to meet the needs of young adolescents (McEwin & Greene, 2011). In a presentation made at Cornell University in the summer of 1963, William M. Alexander first used the term “middle school” and described his vision for developmentally appropriate middle grades education, a vision he contrasted with the existing junior high school (1998). Thus, by the 1980s, many junior high buildings were modified to serve sixth through eighth grade and the predominant grade configuration throughout the United States became 5–3–4. According to McEwin and Greene, in the same 2009 survey mentioned above, 13,227 schools reported serving “grades 5–8, 6–8, or 7–8, with grades 6–8 schools being the dominant organizational plan” (2011, p. 6). Pertinent Issues While building configuration is often the primary issue discussed in the middle grades versus K–8 grade

configuration debate, many other issues are factors. These issues include the social and emotional needs of young adolescents, the school size, teacher preparation, the number of students per grade level, parental involvement, student dropout rates, elective courses, after school activities, and building infrastructure. However, most of these issues are not yet well documented in the research literature and it is difficult, given the current data available, to determine which issue is most relevant. Below, three prominent issues are discussed. School Building Transition The most visible issue in this debate is the transfer of students from one physical building to another. Students who attend a middle grades school undergo two transitions: one in fifth, sixth, or seventh grade, and a second in ninth or tenth grade (Epstein, 1990; Paglin & Fager, 1997). In contrast, students who attend a K–8 building only experience one transition in ninth grade when they move to the high school. The transition from an elementary to a middle grades building occurs concurrently with the rapid physical and cognitive growth of young adolescents. This transition is more than first day of school jitters. Even for the most competent and prepared student, any move to a new school building involves a variety of factors including navigation of a new building, the potential for a diminished sense of safety, increased academic expectations from multiple teachers, and additional social and emotional pressures from peers (Epstein, 1990; George, 2005). At a time when young adolescents are already experiencing a host of other personal changes, the move from an elementary to a middle grades building raises the potential of disrupting students’ ability to succeed academically (Juvonen, Kaganoff, Augustine, & Constant, 2004; West & Schwerdt, 2012). In contrast, those who remain in the small community of a K–8 building undergo a dramatic transition to a high school building in ninth grade. While many of these students will have completed the most dramatic changes of young adolescent development, some educators suggest that the transition to high school, without the intermediary experience of a middle grades building, leaves these students unprepared for the rigor and pressures of high school (George, 2005). Standardized Test Scores In the current era of accountability, one of the major ways that many educators judge a school’s success is through the standardized test scores of its students. Because standardized test scores are readily available to researchers, many researchers choose to examine this measure in order to compare the success of K–8 and middle grades schools. In part, this is due to the assumption, mentioned previously, that the transition to a new

GRADE CONFIGURATION: K–8 VERSUS MIDDLE GRADES ◾ 179

school building can harm a students’ academic success and to the claim put forward by some (Yecke, 2005) that academic rigor is not the focus of middle grades school buildings. Some studies indicate that students in K–8 schools score better on standardized tests, while other studies indicate little or no difference between K–8 and middle grades student outcomes. Most recently, two major studies have examined these questions. Rockoff and Lockwood (2010) utilized standardized test scores in literacy and math of those students attending New York City public schools between 1998 and 2008. In their analysis, Rockoff and Lockwood (2010) determined that the test scores in both subjects, while beginning equally in fourth grade, dropped in fifth through eighth grade for students attending a middle school as compared with students attending a K–8 school. In another study, West and Schwerdt (2012) examined achievement of students in Florida who were in grades 3 through 10 between 2000 and 2009. These researchers examined both the transition into and out of middle school to determine whether a drop in academic achievement occurred as compared with those who remained in a K–8 building until the ninth grade transition (West & Schwerdt, 2012). By examining standardized test scores for reading and math, these researchers found a drop in academic achievement for those who attend middle grades schools, a drop which also appears to lead to larger dropout rates (West & Schwerdt, 2012). These two studies, among others, (Clark, Slate, Combs, & Moore, 2013; Keegan, 2010) have recently raised the profile of the middle grades/K–8 debate. In contrast, the two Philadelphia City School District studies mentioned earlier (Byrnes & Ruby, 2007; Weiss & Kipnes, 2006) examined the test scores of students in eighth grade as they were transitioning into high school buildings. Weiss and Kipnes (2006) found no statistically significant differences between K–8 and middle grades eighth grade students in terms of academic achievement; however, they did find that those attending middle grades had lower self-esteem and a higher likelihood of threat. Byrnes and Ruby (2007) examined data from 1999 through 2003 and attempted to control statistically for a variety of school and student related factors (for example, the number of students in a grade or student race and socio-economic status) and found that while students attending long-existing K–8 schools had higher test scores than those attending middle grades schools, those students who attended newer K–8 schools did not perform statistically different from those attending middle grades buildings. The researchers concluded that student demographics and neighborhood are the reasons for the discrepancy between old and new K–8 schools and suggest that districts will not achieve success in changing to a K–8

model if student demographics remain unchanged (Byrnes & Ruby, 2007). Philosophy Philosophically, the middle level movement is grounded in the work of progressive and democratic education (Alexander et al., 1968; Beane, 1990; Eichhorn, 1966) and intended to provide developmentally appropriate learning for young adolescents. In 1989, Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century recommended a host of reforms designed to improve the academics and dropout rates and ensure the health and safety of young adolescents in the United States (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). These recommendations, along with the work of early middle level educators, formed the basis for the philosophical grounding of middle level education, most prominently articulated in This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School Association, 2010). In a series of school-level surveys extending from 1968 to the most recent in 2009 (McEwin & Greene, 2011), the middle level movement has documented its progress toward education for young adolescents aligned with the ideas of the middle level movement. One example of the enacting of the middle level philosophy is the elemiddle, a K–8 school that is not only restructured to include grades K–8, but recultured in order to ensure middle level philosophy is implemented (George, 2005; Hough, 1995). Just as every 6–8 school is not a bona fide middle school, not every K–8 is an elemiddle. Only those schools configured with continuous grade spans that begin with kindergarten or pre-kindergarten and end after the 8th grade in which the upper grade spans are implementing middle-level best practices should be labeled elemiddles. (Hough, 2005)

According to Hough (2005), the philosophical approach utilized by the school is the key to the success of a school for young adolescents, configured either as a K–8 or middle grades building. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The question of which grade configuration best provides developmentally appropriate learning that allows young adolescents to succeed academically is an ongoing debate fueled by recent research. However, answers can differ based on the way in which the question is asked. While standardized test scores are one measure of academic ability given high priority in today’s high stakes education environment, they are not the only measure of success, nor do they measure all forms of middle level learning. New research must examine the

180 ◾ GRADE CONFIGURATION: K–8 VERSUS MIDDLE GRADES

curriculum, implementation, and philosophical orientation of K–8 and middle grades school programs as well as the specific student populations served. Research studies focused on these aspects are beginning to emerge (Byrnes & Ruby, 2007; Hough, 2009; Ruppert, 2010). Moving forward, questions about grade configuration should not focus on which grade configuration best serves young adolescents nationwide, but rather whether an individual school implements best practices for young adolescents and therefore provides for the health, safety, development, and academic success of the particular group of young adolescents served. REFERENCES ACT. (2008). The forgotten middle: Ensuring that all students are on target for college and career readiness before high school. Iowa City: IA: Author. Alexander, W. M. (1998). The junior high school: A changing view. In R. David, (Ed.), Moving forward from the past: Early writings and current reflections of middle school founders (pp. 3–13). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Alexander, W. M., Williams, E. L., Compton, M., Hines, V. A., Prescott, D., & Kealy, R. (1968). The emergent middle school (2nd, enlarged ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Balfanz, R. (2009). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path: A policy and practice brief. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Beane, J. A. (1990). Rethinking the middle school: Curriculum. Middle School Journal, 21(5), 1–5. Byrnes, V., & Ruby, A. (2007). Comparing achievement between K–8 and middle schools: A large-scale empirical study. Journal of Education, 114(1), 101–135. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Clark, D. M., Slate, J. R., Combs, J. P., & Moore, G. W. (2013). Math and reading differences between 6–8 and K–8 grade span configurations: A multiyear, statewide analysis. Current Issues in Education, 16(2). Retrieved from http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/wp-content/uploads/Clark-D-2013-Current-Issues-in-Education-2.pdf Eichhorn, D. H. (1966). The middle school. New York, NY: The Center for Applied Research in Education. Epstein, J. L. (1990). What matters in the middle grades: Grade span or practices? Phi Delta Kappan, 71(6), 438–444. George, P. S. (2005). K–8 or not? Reconfiguring the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 37(1), 6–13. Gewertz, C. (2004, May 19). City districts embracing K–8 schools. Education Week, 23(37), pp. 1, 20. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/05/19/37k -8.h23.html Hough, D. L. (1995). “Elemiddle schools” for middle-grades reform. Education Digest, 60, 9–12. Hough, D. L. (2005). The rise of the “Elemiddle” school: Not every K–8 school truly applies best middle-level

practices and deserves the designation. School Administrator, 62(3). Hough, D. L. (2009). Findings from the first & only national data base on elemiddle and middle schools (executive summary). Middle Grades Research Journal, 4(3), 81–96. Juvonen, J., Le, V., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C., & Constant, L. (2004). Focus on the wonder years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Keegan, E. W. (2010). The influence of grade-span configuration in student performance in K–8 schools and middle schools in New Jersey (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University Microfilms International. (UMI number 3431910) Manning, M. L. (2000). A brief history of the middle school. Clearing House, 73(4), 192. McEwin, C. K. (1983). Schools for early adolescents. Theory into Practice, 22(2), 119–124. McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Jacobson, M. G. (2005). How effective are K–8 schools for young adolescents? Middle School Journal, 37(1), 24–28. McEwin, C. K., & Greene, M. W. (2011). The status of programs and practices in America’s middle schools: Results from two national studies. Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Offenberg, R. M. (2001). The efficacy of Philadelphia’s K-to8 schools compared to middle grades schools. Middle School Journal, 32(4), 23–29. Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Grade configuration: Who goes where? Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. Rockoff, J. E., & Lockwood, B. B. (2010). Stuck in the middle: How and why middle schools harm student achievement. Education Next, 10(4), 68–75. Ruppert, N. B. (2010). Can a K–8 school address the needs of adolescents? In K. F. Malu (Ed.), Voices from the middle: Narrative inquiry by, for, and about the middle level community (pp. 259–286). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. West, M. R., & Schwerdt, G. (2012). The middle school plunge. Education Next, 12(2), 62–68. Weiss, C. C., & Kipnes, L. (2006). Reexamining middle school effects: A comparison of middle grades students in middle schools and K–8 schools. Journal of Education, 112(2), 239–272. Yecke, C. P. (2005). Mayhem in the middle: How middle schools have failed America—And how to make them work. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

GRADE CONFIGURATIONS AT THE MIDDLE LEVEL ◾ 181

GRADE CONFIGURATIONS AT THE MIDDLE LEVEL Jerry Valentine University of Missouri, Columbia Matthew D. Goodman Contributor from 1st edition HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The initial iteration of middle level education, the junior high school, had its origins in a series of national committees commissioned in the final years of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century charged. The national commissions were asked to analyze secondary education of the era and recommend changes that would lead to the enhanced preparation of students for postsecondary education. In 1894, the Committee of Ten (National Education Association, 1894) recommended a shift from an 8-year elementary program and a 4-year secondary program to two 6-year programs. Subsequent reports at the turn of the century supported the idea of a 6–6 grade organization but it was not until the Report of the Committee on the Economy of Time in Education (Committee on the Economy of Time in Education, 1913) discussed a 3–3 structure at the secondary level that the junior high grade configuration concept was articulated. The report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education (1918) then encouraged districts to establish a 3–3 structure at the secondary level with distinct “junior” and “senior” high schools. In 1920, 80% of high school graduates in the United States were educated in district organizational grade structures of eight elementary years and four high school years (Alexander & George, 1981). The junior high, however, grew steadily in popularity as an alternative, purposeful structure for addressing the needs of young adolescents. By 1965, 67% of the middle level schools in the United States were 7–8–9 junior high grade structures (Rock & Hemphill, 1966). Throughout the middle decades of the 20th century, junior high schools were criticized for failing to accomplish their mission of effectively addressing the developmental needs of young adolescents. By the late 1960s manuscripts endorsing a “middle school” philosophy and associated grade structures of 6–7–8 and 5–6–7–8 appeared with increasing regularity (Lawton, 1989). The emergence of the middle school grade organizational patterns were well chronicled by Cuff (1967) and Alexander, Williams, Compton, Hines, and Prescott (1968). Using a definition that a middle school included at least Grades 6 and 7 and with no grade below fourth or above eighth, Cuff (1967) found fewer

than 500 schools nationwide in 1965. Alexander et al. (1968) reported the existence of 1,101 middle schools in 1967 using the grade structure definition that a middle school included at least three grades and not more than five and included Grades 6 and 7. Using Alexander’s early definition as a basis for identifying middle level schools, in 2004 the number had exceeded 10,600 (Middle Level Leadership Center, 2004a). As the middle school grew in popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, debates between proponents of the “middle school” and the “junior high school” escalated. In 1980, a research team sponsored by the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation and the National Association of Secondary School Principals selected the descriptive phrase “middle level” as the term to describe what was to become a comprehensive study of middle schools, intermediate schools, junior high schools, and all other schools of single or multiple grades designed specifically to serve the needs of young adolescents (Clark & Clark, 1994; Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981). The purposeful use of the term was an effort to capture under one educational roof the outspoken supporters of both the “junior high school” and the “middle school.” The hope was to shift the debate of the era away from “which grade configurations were best” to a collaborative analysis of the most appropriate programs for the students the school served, regardless of the grade configuration or the name of the school. A second, and perhaps over the long-term just as important, purpose was to emphasize the fact that serving the unique educational needs of young adolescents was worthy of reference as a “level” of educational thought, not just a transitional period of education between the elementary level and the high school level. The term middle level was defined in 1980 by Valentine and his Dodge/NASSP research team colleagues as a school with an organizational structure “encompassing any grade or grade combinations from grades five through nine (Valentine et al., 1981, p. xv). The grade configuration data presented in the remaining sections of this manuscript reflect that comprehensive “middle level” definition. As is evident from this introductory discussion, grade configurations of middle level schools across the United States have been changing since the inception of the junior high school in the early years of the 20th century. In the early decades of the century the shift was away from the 8-year elementary and 4- year secondary configuration to the 3-year junior high configuration. In the latter half of the century the change was away from the junior high configuration to the middle school configuration. By 1990, the 6–7–8 grade configuration had become the predominant pattern (Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, 2002). Even junior high principals of the 1980s and 1990s believed the 6–7–8 grade configuration was the most appropriate for young

182 ◾ GRADE CONFIGURATIONS AT THE MIDDLE LEVEL

adolescents (Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe, & Melton, 1993; Valentine et al., 2002). WHY HAVE MIDDLE LEVEL GRADE CONFIGURATIONS CHANGED? Though the junior high schools of the 19th century were publicly criticized for failing to effectively respond to the developmental needs of young adolescents, the actual reasons for the dramatic shifts from 7–8–9 to the 6–7–8 and 5–6–7–8 grade configurations could be characterized as pedagogical as well as nonpedagogical. Pedagogical reasons reflected a significant shift in the overall philosophy and specific programs designed to meet the needs of young adolescents. Writers characterized the middle school concept as promoting a more student-centered approach when contrasted to the realities of the junior high approach that tended to focus more on the content to be covered (Clark & Clark, 1994). Hough (1997, p. 290) noted: “As higher grades are included . . . programs, policies, and practices tend to be more subject-centered. As lower grades are included . . . programs, policies, and practices tend to be more student-centered.” Several researchers believed that after the 1960s a change occurred in the realization about the relative importance that programmatic characteristics and developmentally appropriate programs can have on students in middle-level schools (Clark & Clark, 1994; DeJong & Craig, 2002; Ecker, 2002; Hough, 1997; Lucas & Valentine, 2001; Valentine et al., 2002). Valentine and his colleagues (2002) examined reasons given by school leaders for the adoption of the grade configurations 5–6–7–8 or 6–7–8. “Reasons identified in 1980 and 1992 to implement 5–6–7–8 or 6–7–8 were identified again in 2000: to provide programs best suited to the needs of young adolescents (89%) and to offer better transitions from elementary school to high school (84%)” (p. 4). The report confirmed earlier research (Valentine et al., 1993) that principals favored the 6–7–8 pattern and that many schools made configuration changes for pedagogical reasons. George and Alexander (1993) provided convincing arguments that numerous nonpedagogical reasons or conditions significantly influenced the shift of grade organizations from the junior high pattern (7–8–9) to the middle school patterns (5–6–7–8 and 6–7–8). They noted the flexibility provided by rearranging grade patterns to create middle schools that would meet court-ordered desegregation plans and the efficiency of adapting facilities to increasing and decreasing enrollment demographics. The findings presented in Table 1 from NASSP’s National Study of Leadership in Middle Level Schools (Valentine et al., 2002) bring specificity to both the pedagogical

and nonpedagogical reasons for grade configuration changes during the decades of the 1970s–1990s. The rank-order of the reasons and the percentage of respondents selecting that option are provided. As evident from the top four responses, school leaders have consistently indicated that grade configuration changes were made to support the implementation of better pedagogical practices for young adolescents. However, school systems across the nation have also changed grade configurations as to adapt to shifting enrollment demographics often coupled with construction of new buildings or rearrangement of grades within existing buildings to meet the enrollment changes. The findings continue to support the contention that schools make changes for both pedagogical and nonpedagogical reasons and the combinations of those reasons accelerated the demise of the junior high and the rise of the middle school grade configurations. TABLE 1 Reasons for Changing to 5–6–7–8 or 6–7–8 Grade Configuration in Prior Decades Reason

2000

1992

1980

Provide a program best suited to the needs of early adolescents

1 (89)

1 (86)

1 (61)

Provide better transition from elementary to high school

2 (84)

2 (82)

2 (57)

Employ a new curriculum or instructional innovation

3 (64)

3 (60)

4 (31)

Solve concerns about junior high program

4 (58)

5 (47)

7 (24)

Adjust to enrollment trends

5 (49)

6 (33)

3 (46)

Employ programs successfully implemented in other schools

6 (48)

4 (48)

9 (17)

Utilize a new facility

7 (32)

9 (20)

5 (28)

Provide fifth and sixth graders with a more specialized curriculum

8 (31)

7 (31)

6 (26)

Move ninth grade to the high school

9 (23)

8 (29)

8 (19)

Source: Valentine et al. (2002, p. 4).

HOW HAVE MIDDLE LEVEL GRADE CONFIGURATIONS CHANGED? In examining the trends of grade level organization Lucas and Valentine (2001) wrote that, “Trends over the past two decades indicate a shift from junior high schools to middle schools” (p. 1). Reporting detailed data from a 2000 national study, Valentine and his colleagues (Valentine et al., 2002) noted: The 2000 data represent a very significant decline of the 7–8–9 middle level pattern with the percentage of responding schools in grades 7–8–9 dropping from 67% in 1965 to 6% in 2000. In the same time frame, the 6–7–8 pattern had grown from 5% to 59%. With evidence documented in each of the decade studies that developmen-

GRADE CONFIGURATIONS AT THE MIDDLE LEVEL ◾ 183

Number of Schools

10,000

9,181 8,371

6–7–8 7–8–9

8,000

6,000

4,838

4,711 4,004

4,000

3,070

2,000

2,298

1,662

680

536

2000

2004

0 1971

1981

1991

Year

Figure 1 Trends in the 6–7–8 pattern and 7–8–9 patter, 1971–2004. tally appropriate practices were more likely to be present in 6–7–8 schools than in 7–8–9 schools, the shifting grade organizational patterns are favorable trends for middle level education. (Valentine et al., 2002, p. 137)

The authors concluded, “The 7–8–9 pattern has nearly disappeared, while the 6–7–8 grade pattern has emerged as the predominant pattern at the turn of the century” (Valentine et al., 2002, p. 142). The data presented in Table 2 provide insight into those major shifts and other less dramatic changes in middle level grade configurations. In 1971 there were 10,445 middle level schools in the United States. By 2004 there were 14,956, an overall increase of 43%. The greatest increases in total number of middle level schools occurred in the 1970s and 1990s. There was a small decline in the 1980s and a relatively small increase for the early years of the 21st century. In 1971 the 5–6–7–8 middle schools comprised 7% of all middle level schools and increased slightly to 10% at the turn of the century. The greatest increase in numbers and percentages were for the 6–7–8 grade configuration schools. In 1971 16% of all middle level schools had grade 6–7–8 patterns. That percentage rose significantly for 3 decades, reaching 61% in 2004. Over TABLE 2

Middle Level Grade Configurations 1971–2004 1971

Grade Configurations 5–6–7–8

the 33-year period that represented a 452% growth. The 7–8 grade configuration was in moderate decline from 1971 at 24% to 16% in 2004 of the middle level schools in those respective timeframes. The 2% decline in total number of 7–8 schools from 1971 to 2004 paled in comparison to the decrease in the total number of 7–8–9 schools in that timeframe. In 1971 there were 4,711 schools with 7–8–9 configurations; by 2004 there were only 536, an 89% decrease. When compared to the total of middle level schools in each respective era, the 7–8–9 schools were 45% of the population in 1971, then 33% in 1981, 19% in 1991, and 5% in 2000. The 7–8–9 schools were declining at a rate of greater than 13% a decade. In Table 2, the schools in the “other” category included all of the other sequential grade configurations such as 5–6, 5–6–7, 6–7, 7–8, and so forth and the single-grade schools of 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. During the 33-year period, the number of “other” grade configurations rose from 850 to 1,334, an increase of 484 schools and 57%. The data presented in Table 3 provide specific insight into those grade patterns in 2000 and 2004. From 2000 to 2004 the 5–6 grade configuration had an 86% increase. Except for the slight increase in the 6–7–8–9 configuration, the “other” nontypical multigrade configurations declined during that era. Most of the single grade schools (Figure 2) also experienced a slight decline during that same era. Fifth grade schools decreased from 47 in 2000 to 34 in 2004; sixth grade from 116 to 107; seventh grade from 28 to 21; and, eighth grade from 29 to 25. The notable exception was the ninth grade school, with an increase of 53% from 117 schools in 2000 to 170 in 2004. Data from Andrews (1993) documented 57 ninth grade schools, establishing a growth percentage of 198% during the 1993–2004 period. The most appropriate location of the ninth grade has been a issue of discussion since the noticeable growth spurt of the middle school in the 1970s. With the significant decline of the 7–8–9 schools, most ninth grades have shifted to the 9–10–11–12 high school configuration.

# ML Schools

1981 % of Total

# ML Schools

1991 % of Total

2000

2004

# ML Schools

% of Total

# ML Schools

% of Total

# ML Schools

% of Total

1971– 2004 Change

1971– 2004 % Change

772

7%

1,024

8%

1,330

11%

1,379

10%

1,506

10%

734

95%

6–7–8

1,662

16%

3,070

25%

4,838

40%

8,371

59%

9,181

61%

7,519

452%

7–8

2,450

24%

2,628

22%

2,902

24%

2,390

17%

2,399

16%

−51

−2%

7–8–9

4,711

45%

4,004

33%

2,298

19%

689

5%

536

4%

−4,175

−89%

Other

850

8%

1,500

12%

727

6%

1,278

9%

1,334

9%

484

57%

10,445

100%

12,226

100%

12,095

100%

14,107

100%

14,956

100%

4,511

43%

Total

Source: Middle Level Leadership Center (2004a).

184 ◾ GRADE CONFIGURATIONS AT THE MIDDLE LEVEL

TABLE 3

All Middle Level Grade Pattern Combinations 2000–2004 2000

Grade Configurations

# ML Schools

5 5–6 5–6–7

2004

% of Total

# ML Schools

2000–2004

% of Total

# of ML Change

% of Change

47

0.33%

34

0.23%

−13

−27.66%

475

3.37%

561

3.75%

86

18.11%

81

0.57%

73

0.49%

−8

−9.88%

1,379

9.78%

1,506

10.07%

127

9.21%

12

0.09%

13

0.09%

1

8.33%

6

116

0.82%

107

0.72%

−9

−7.76%

6–7

166

1.18%

134

0.90%

−32

−19.28%

5–6–7–8 5–6–7–8–9

6–7–8

8,371

59.34%

9,181

61.39%

810

9.68%

6–7–8–9

79

0.56%

84

0.56%

5

6.33%

7

28

0.20%

21

0.14%

−7

−25.00%

2,390

16.94%

2,399

16.04%

9

0.38%

689

4.88%

536

3.58%

−153

−22.21%

29

0.21%

25

0.17%

–4

−13.79%

8–9

128

0.91%

112

0.75%

−16

−12.50%

9

117

0.83%

170

1.14%

53

45.30%

14,107

100.00%

14,956

100.00%

849

6.02%

7–8 7–8–9 8

Total

Source: Middle Level Leadership Center (2004b). 200 170

Number of Schools

2000 2004

150

116

117

107

CONCLUSIONS

100

50

0

47 34

5

28

6

outcomes” (p. 25). Such conclusions clearly imply that single-grade schools are not as appropriate as multigrade configurations.

21

7

29

25

8

9

Grade Level

Figure 2 Single grade school trends 2000–2004.

Most researchers tend to agree with Andrews (1993) about the value of single-grade ninth grade centers: “ninth grade schools appear to be less desirable than junior high schools or senior high schools for the placement of ninth grade students” (p. 127). But the more significant issue may be the concerns about the single-grade school, regardless of the grade. Researchers (Alspaugh, 2001; Alspaugh & Harting, 1995) have documented that achievement declines each time a student transitions from one school building (grade configuration) to another. In most school districts the use of single grade schools increases the number of transitions. Alspaugh (2001) concluded that “students placed in relatively small cohort groups for long spans of time tend to experience more desirable educational

Middle level grade configurations changed significantly throughout the 20th century. Early data from the 21st  century support continuing patterns of change toward middle school configurations. The grade configuration changes have been driven by pedagogical and nonpedagogical reasons and paralleled the evolving beliefs of school principals about the best grade configurations for young adolescents. With continuing evidence since 1980 confirming that “developmentally appropriate practices are more likely to be present in 6–7–8 schools than in 7–8–9 schools” (Valentine et al., 2002, p. 137), the direction of this shifting pattern holds promise for the continued evolution of more effective programs and practices throughout middle level education. REFERENCES Alexander, W. M., & George, P. S. (1981). The exemplary middle school. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Alexander, W., Williams, E., Compton, M., Hines, V., & Prescott, D. (1968). The emergent middle school. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

GROWING UP FORGOTTEN: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND PROGRAMS CONCERNING EARLY ADOLESCENCE ◾ 185 Alspaugh, J. W. (2001). Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school and high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 20–25. Alspaugh, J. W., & Harting, R. D. (1995). Transition effects of school grade-level organization on student achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28(3), 145–149. Andrews, D. R. (1993). Grade organization patterns and ninth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia. Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Implications for school leaders. Albany: State University of New York Press. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education (Bulletin 1918, No. 35). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Education. Committee on the Economy of Time in Education. (1913). Report of the Committee of the National Council of Education on economy of time in education (Bulleting 1913, No. 38, United States Bureau of Education, pp. 10–19). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Cuff, W. (1967). Middle schools on the march. NASSP Bulletin, 51, 83–86. DeJong, W. S., & Craig, J. (2002). How should schools be organized. School Planning and Management, 41(6), 26–32. Ecker, M. (2002). Middle schools still matter: As new configurations grow, unique needs of young adolescents deserve attention. School Administrator, 59(3), 30–33. George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (1993). The exemplary middle school (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace. Hough, D. (1997). A bona fide middle school: Programs, policy, practice, and grade span configurations. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.) What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 285–294). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Lawton, E. J. (1989). A journey through time: A chronology of middle level education resources. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association and Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Lucas, S. E., & Valentine, J. W. (2001). NMSA research summary #1: Grade configuration. Retrieved from http://www. nmsa.org/research/ressum1.htm Middle Level Leadership Center. (2004a). Middle level grade configurations (1971–2004). Retrieved from http://www.mllc. org/uploads/docs/mlgc71_04.pdf Middle Level Leadership Center. (2004b). Middle level grade configurations (2000–2004). Retrieved from http://www.mllc. org/uploads/docs/mlgc00_04.pdf National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school studies. New York, NY: American Book. Rock, D. A., & Hemphill, J. K. (1966). The junior high school principalship. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. S., Nickerson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981). The middle level principalship: Vol. 1. A survey of middle level principals and programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Irvin, J. L., Keefe, J. W., & Melton G. (1993). Leadership in middle level education: Vol. I. A national study of middle level leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Hackmann, D. G., & Petzko, V. N. (2002). A national study of leadership in middle level schools: Vol. I: A national study of middle level leaders and school programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

GROWING UP FORGOTTEN: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND PROGRAMS CONCERNING EARLY ADOLESCENCE Nicole L. Thompson University of Memphis When Lispitz published Growing Up Forgotten: A Review of Research and Programs Concerning Early Adolescence in 1977 (first edition), she answered the question, “Who is doing what and where for people between the ages of twelve and fifteen?” In this landmark study, Lipsitz found that people in the stage of their life known as early adolescence are often overlooked by educational researchers, policymakers, and public service providers. The concept of early adolescence was virtually unknown and totally misunderstood. Lipsitz even contended, “as a society we have no coherent concept of adolescence” (p. 3) which has greatly impacted the support given to the biological, socioemotional, and cognitive development of adolescents. Lipsitz’s publication, funded by the Ford Foundation, was instrumental in bringing attention to this distinctive stage in human development. In addition to spotlighting issues related to early adolescence, Lipsitz confronted some of society’s myths surrounding early adolescence. For example, society believes that adolescence is a time of turmoil for young people and the best approach to take when interacting with young people is to simply not interact, but to segregate. On the contrary, Lipsitz’s research showed that for most adolescents, this stage of their life is quite stable and serene—not the tumultuous picture presented by mass media. Lipsitz acknowledged other myths as well, but did not focus her attention on society’s misconceptions related to early adolescence. Nonetheless, these misconceptions have negatively influenced society’s perceptions of adolescents. Divided into two primary sections, the book explored general research on early adolescence and research about the young adolescent and social institutions. The social institutions examined were (a) the school; (b) service institutions and the handicapped young adolescents; (c) the family; (d) voluntary youth-serving

186 ◾ GRUHN, WILLIAM T.

agencies; and (e) the juvenile justice system. Lipsitz’s research negated the popular opinion that the years between childhood and adulthood were not important. In fact, Lipsitz noted, “early adolescence is a time of growth and change second only to infancy in velocity” (p. xvi). In conclusion, Lipsitz stated, “Society’s present grasp of early adolescence is inadequate” (p. 207). Her study documented the limited amount research conducted focusing on early adolescence, the random attention paid to early adolescents with regard to social institutions, and the few advocates young adolescents have. Essentially, what Lipsitz found was that research then revealed precious little about the lives of young adolescents and which researchers failed to recognize the importance of the stage of life. REFERENCE Lipsitz, J. (1977). Growing up forgotten: A review of research and programs concerning early adolescence. Lexington, MA: Heath.

GRUHN, WILLIAM T. Peter J. Boedeker Texas A&M University William T. Gruhn was an influential contributor to the advancement of the junior high school. His times as an educator and his written works have made a lasting impact on the field of education. Gruhn was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut on November 11, 1904. He grew up in Aberdeen, South Dakota and earned his bachelor’s degree in 1926 from Northern State College. In 1933, Gruhn earned his master’s degree from the University of Minnesota and, in 1940, earned his doctorate at the University of North Carolina. Gruhn worked as an educator in different capacities for 46 years. After earning his bachelor’s degree, he began his career as a teacher and eventually became a principal. Upon completing a doctorate of philosophy in 1940, Gruhn began working as an assistant professor in education at the University of Connecticut. During his time at the University of Connecticut, he served as acting dean of the Neag School of Education from 1948 to 1949 and director of teacher education from 1949 to 1958. Gruhn retired from the University of Connecticut in 1973. During his tenure as a professor, he also taught summer sessions at New York University,

the University of Colorado, and the University of North Texas. These appointments and his lengthy service at the University of Connecticut earned him the title Professor Emeritus of Education. In his lifetime, Gruhn authored or co-authored seven books and more than 50 journal articles. He was concerned with both the theory and practice behind education. Gruhn co-authored one of his most influential books with Harl R. Douglass in 1947: The Modern Junior High School (Gruhn & Douglass, 1956). In its pages, the book outlined the historical development, current state, and future challenges of the junior high school. Many recommendations were included to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the junior high school. This text was useful for college students, inservice teachers, and administrators in defining and understanding the unique challenges and opportunities within the junior high school. Gruhn and Douglass cited their survey administered in 519 junior high schools across the country, which reported current practices, at the time, within the schools. The influence of Gruhn on junior high education has been recognized in many ways. For his efforts in this area, the National Association of Secondary School Principals named him “Mr. Junior High School.” In addition to this title, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, since 1985, has recognized an individual who has rendered distinguished service and leadership in improving middle level education with the Gruhn-Long-Melton Award (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2015). Gruhn’s legacy, as evident in the criteria for selection of the GruhnLong-Melton Award, was his example as a leader in the development of the institution of middle grades education as well as an educator with a genuine concern for the education, welfare, and health of young people. Gruhn passed away on August 13, 2000, leaving behind two grandchildren. In his 96 years of life, he influenced the field of education, and specifically junior high education (Gruhn, 2000). His work helped to shape and defined middle grades education for years to come. REFERENCES Gruhn, W. T. (2000, August 10). The Hartford Courant, p. B 4. Gruhn, W. T., & Douglass, H. R. (1956). The modern junior high school (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Ronald Press. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2015). Gruhn-Long-Melton award. Retrieved from http://www .nassp.org/awards-and-recognition/gruhn-long-melton -award

H HALL, G. STANLEY Lisa M. Harrison Ohio University Arguably, no one person has contributed to mainstreaming adolescence more than G. Stanley Hall (1846–1924). It was with the publishing of Hall’s (1904a, 1904b) two-volume groundbreaking book Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education that the developmental stage of adolescence became popularized. Hall’s psychology of adolescence was largely influenced by Darwin’s biological theory of evolution and recapitulation theory. While Hall was not the first person of his era to use recapitulation theory, the manner in which he applied it to adolescent development was groundbreaking. According to Hall (1923), recapitulation theory posited that “every child, from the moment of conception to maturity, recapitulates, very rapidly at first, and then more slowly, every stage of development through which the human race from its lowest animal beginnings has passed” (p. 380). Hall believed that as a human developed from infancy to adulthood they psychologically reenacted human evolutionary stages. Within recapitulation theory Hall focused mostly on adolescence because he believed that adolescence was the stage between primitive and civilized beings and therefore the most significant of the developmental stages. Hall (1904a) asserted, “In some respects, early adolescence is the infancy of man’s higher nature, when he receives from the great all-mother his last capital of energy and evolutionary momentum. Thus the child is father of the man” ( p. 71). Following this logic, Hall believed that focusing on adolescence and tapping into The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 187–198 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

adolescents’ savage state was necessary for the advancement of society. It is important to note that the psychology behind Hall’s ideas is currently obsolete (Fine & Mechling, 1993), was built on “bad science” (Saltman, 2005), and much of Hall’s work was rooted in racist and sexist ideology. Nonetheless, current views of adolescence can be traced to Hall’s work such as the view that adolescence is defined by a period of storm and stress. It was Hall’s belief that this turbulent stage between the savage and civilized created this internal conflict within adolescents. Today’s construct of adolescent storm and stress is largely influenced by the belief that adolescents are hormonally raging beings, which contributes to their irrational behavior. This is a depiction that Kimmel and Weiner (1995) argued is largely an inaccurate myth. Another characteristic rooted in Hall’s work is adolescents’ need for individuality (Gallatin, 1975). Hall (1906) stated, “The years from about 8 to 12 constitute a unique period of human life. . . . The child develops a life of its own outside the home circle, and its natural interests are never so independent of adult influence” (p. 1). While Hall’s description of adolescence characterized by a period of storm and stress with a need for individuality from adults has had an important influence on defining the nature of adolescence, it is situating adolescence within a developmental framework that has had the greatest impact on how adolescence is viewed today. This developmental view of adolescence has dominated the research on adolescence and continues to be the prevailing view used to make meaning of adolescence (Lesko, 2001). REFERENCES Fine, G. A., & Mechling, J. (1993). Child saving and children’s cultures at century’s end. In S. B. Heath &

187

188 ◾ THE HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Identity & inner-city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender (pp. 120–146). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gallatin, J. E. (1975). Adolescence and individuality: A conceptual approach to adolescent psychology. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Hall, G. S. (1904a). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion and education (Vol. I). New York, NY: D. Appleton & Company. Hall, G. S. (1904b). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vol. II). New York, NY: D. Appleton & Company. Hall, G. S. (1906). Youth: Its education, regimen, and hygiene. New York, NY: D. Appleton & Company. Hall, G. S. (1923). Life and confessions of a psychologist. New York, NY: D. Appleton & Company. Kimmel, D. C., & Weiner, I. B. (1995). Adolescence: A developmental transition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age: A cultural construction of adolescence. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Saltman, K. J. (2005). The construction of identity. In, E. R. Brown & K. J. Saltman (Eds.), The critical middle school reader (pp. 237–234). New York, NY: Routledge.

THE HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION Nancy Flowers CPRD, University of Illinois Steven B. Mertens Illinois State University The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education is a series of volumes containing articles on important research in the field of middle level education. Each volume of the handbook is focused on a specific topic related to the middle grades including curriculum, professional development, and policy issues. These are an invaluable source of the essential best practices and lessons learned based on research that provide both inspiration and support for middle level practitioners, scholars, and policymakers. The series, published by Information Age Publishing, was introduced in 2001 by Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., who served as the series editor for volumes 1–9. After Vince Anfara’s death in 2013, Steven B. Mertens and Micki M. Caskey became the series co-editors starting with volume 10. Volume 1 of the Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education (Anfara, 2001) begins with a history of the middle level concept. Volume 1 is then organized into two parts. Part 1 contains five chapters that focus on current research (1980s to present) regarding the middle school concept, including topics such as advisory

programs, teaming, effective middle school teaching, and flexible scheduling. Part 2 provides a framework for moving middle level reform into the 21st century with four chapters on school staffing, teacher preparation, leadership, and an excellent discussion of the future of middle grades education from a Turning Points 2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000) author. Middle School Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (Anfara & Stacki, 2002) is the title of volume 2 of the handbook. This volume is dedicated to linking the middle school concept to student achievement by focusing on what is taught and how it is taught. Volume 2 contains 11 chapters on middle school curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Chapter topics include curriculum integration, exploratory education, developmental appropriateness, authentic curriculum, and portfolios. Volume 3 in the handbook series is titled Leaders for a Movement: Professional Preparation and Development of Middle Level Teachers and Administrators (Andrews & Anfara, 2003). This volume highlights issues around the education, training, and professional development of middle level teachers and administrators. Part 1 focuses on middle level teachers with eight articles on the history of teacher preparation, current challenges, and future potential. Part 2 addresses the preparation of middle level administrators with eight articles on topics that range from pre-service preparation to models that support new and experienced principals. The final section of this volume contains resources including teacher interview protocols, policy statements, and course syllabi. Reforming Middle Level Education: Considerations for Policymakers (Thompson, 2004) is the fourth volume in the handbook series. In this volume, middle level scholars highlight the most important issues about middle level education and their impact on state and national policy. The 12 articles in this volume address issues including professional development, teacher preparation, recommendations for high-performing middle schools, and lessons from comprehensive school reform models. Volume 5 in the handbook series is titled Making a Difference: Action Research in Middle Level Education (Caskey, 2005). This volume highlights action research in the middle grades and presents the many ways that educators and researchers use action research. The chapters in this volume focus on action research that is used to examine middle grades issues like classroom practices, peer evaluation, professional development, and teaming. The Young Adolescent and the Middle School (Mertens, Anfara, & Caskey, 2007), the sixth volume, focuses on issues related to the nature of young adolescence and the intersection of young adolescence with middle level schooling. The contributing authors in this volume address one of three developmental areas critical to young adolescents—physical development, intellectual/cognitive

THE HANDBOOK OF RESOURCES IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION ◾ 189

development, or social and personal development—and how these developmental characteristics affect the educational environment and the organization of middle schools. An International Look at Educating Young Adolescents (Mertens, Anfara, & Roney, 2009) marks the seventh volume in the series. This volume broadens the understanding of middle grade schooling by critically examining the education of young adolescents through an international lens. In addition to examining how schooling and students are organized for teaching and learning, the 15 chapters in this volume focus on the successes and failures that are evident in a wide variety of nations, presents the indictments and praises that have been offered by supporters and critics alike, and reviews the research that has been generated about educating young adolescents in an effort to cross national boundaries. The eighth volume in the series, Voices from the Middle: Narrative Inquiry by, for and about the Middle Level Community (Malu, 2010), includes 18 chapters which focus qualitatively on narrative inquiry. This volume gives voice to and broadens our understanding of the wide variety of participants and stakeholders who weave through the middle level. Such participants and stakeholders include middle level teachers, school psychologists and counselors, students, parents, administrators, middle level researchers, research foundations, and community groups. In addition to hearing directly from these groups, the chapters in this volume focus on the connections and questions that these narratives hold and frame them within current middle level research, theory, and practice. In 2012, the ninth volume, Common Planning Time in Middle Level Schools: Research Studies from the MLER SIG’s National Project (Mertens, Anfara, Caskey, & Flowers, 2013) was published. This volume is a compilation of 14 research studies focusing on the use and implementation of common planning time (CPT) in middle level schools. All of the studies were part of the Middle Level Education Research SIG’s National Middle Grades Research Project on Common Planning Time, which provides additional evidence about teachers’ understandings, experiences, benefits, and barriers about CPT. Within the chapters of this volume, a variety of relevant and meaningful research questions are examined utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The most recent volume of the series, Research on Teaching and Learning with the Literacies of Young Adolescents (Malu & Schaefer) was published in 2015. The 13 chapters include research that identifies how to best teach and learn with our increasingly diverse students, including topics as: digital literacies (e.g., social networking media, games); English language learners; high stakes literacy tests and middle level learners, specifically boys; and literacy teaching and learning in

middle level teacher education programs. A wide range of research methods and modes are used in these chapters including case studies, teacher research, narrative inquiry, survey research, and action research. REFERENCES Anfara, V. A., Jr. (Ed.). (2001). The handbook of research in middle level education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Stacki, S. L. (Eds.). (2002). Middle school curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Andrews, P. G., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (Eds.). (2003). Leaders for a movement: Professional preparation and development of middle level teachers and administrators. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Caskey, M. M. (Ed.). (2005). Making a difference: Action research in middle level education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Malu, K. F. (Ed.). (2010). Voices from the middle: Narrative inquiry by, for and about the middle level community. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Malu, K. F., & Schaefer, M. B. (Eds.). (2015). Research on teaching and learning with the literacies of young adolescents. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Caskey, M. (Eds.). (2007). The young adolescent and the middle school. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., Caskey, M. M., & Flowers, N. (Eds.). (2013). Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s National Project. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Roney, K. (Eds.). (2009). An international look at educating young adolescents. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Thompson, S. C. (Ed.). (2004). Reforming middle level education: Considerations for policymakers. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

THE HANDBOOK OF RESOURCES IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION Steven B. Mertens Illinois State University Micki M. Caskey Portland State University The Handbook of Resources in Middle Level Education is a companion series to The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education. In 2010, it was determined that a companion series to the original handbook series containing varying resources for middle level education would

190 ◾ HEALTH: COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PROGRAMS

be beneficial to the field. The series co-editors for the first volume were Steven B. Mertens and Vincent A. Anfara, Jr.; beginning in 2013, Micki M. Caskey and Steven B. Mertens became the series co-editors. The inaugural volume in the new book series, The Legacy of Middle School Leaders: In Their Own Words (Smith & McEwin, 2011), focuses on the contributions and influence of the leaders of the modern middle school movement. Within this volume are the edited transcripts from 20 extensive interviews, conducted by Tracy Smith and Ken McEwin, of the most influential leaders of the middle level movement, including such notable figures as William Alexander, Donald Eichhorn, John Lounsbury, Conrad Toepfer, and Gordon Vars. This historic volume is an invaluable resource to proponents, advocates, and students of the middle school concept and developmentally appropriate education for young adolescents. The second volume, Clinical Preparation at the Middle Level: Practices and Possibilities (Howell, Carpenter, & Jones, 2015) describes the different ways of developing partnerships and how universities and schools/districts have established and sustained partnerships over time. This volume also documents the tensions inherent in the process of developing, implementing and sustaining an effective, viable partnership. The 16 chapters offer insights into how issues are addressed at various stages of partnership and what benefits, challenges, successes, and differing perspectives exist in clinical preparation work. REFERENCES Howell, P. B., Carpenter, J., & Jones, J. (Eds.). (2015). Clinical preparation at the middle level: Practices and possibilities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Smith, T. W., & McEwin, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

HEALTH: COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PROGRAMS Peter Mulhall CPRD, University of Illinois The middle grades are both an opportune and critical time for educating and supporting school-based health promotion programs, policies and practices. Research shows the entry into the middle grades years as a time when a large percentage of youth are exposed to and initiate an array of health compromising behaviors. These behaviors, along with declines in

academic motivation and achievement, may set a life course trajectory that is difficult to change (Furlong, Sharkey, Quirk, & Dowdy, 2011). School health professionals have long advocated the Coordinated School Health Program (CSHP) for creating health-promoting schools (Basch, 2011). However, the degree to which schools adopt and fully implement the eight CSHP components is highly uncertain (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2012). It has been difficult to determine exactly which components have been implemented, how well they are implemented, and what impacts they have on health and academic outcomes (Brener, Weshler, & Kann, 2014). By contrast, there is considerable evidence for the effectiveness of the individual components of the CSHP—health education and prevention programs, staff health promotion, food service policies, health services, physical education (Allensworth, 2014; Bradley & Greene, 2013;). The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) model expands on the eight elements of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) coordinated school health approach and is combined with the whole child framework (Figure 1) (CDC, 2015). The WSCC now includes 10 protective strategies and factors (e.g., school climate, engagement) that further delineate the fundamental need to integrate health and learning. The complexity of integrating health and learning requires researchers, practitioners, and parents to examine deeper school processes and practices for the underlying beliefs, values, norms, competencies, and culture that have the potential to create health promoting, high-performing schools (HP2) (Mulhall, 2007; Resnick et al., 1997). Substantial research demonstrates the interrelatedness of health and learning by comparing student risk and protective factors studies that include both health behaviors and academic outcomes (Arthur et al., 2015). For example, a recent study reported students with higher numbers of health assets met school achievement goals, and students with the highest number of health assets were more than twice as likely to meet achievement goals compared to students with fewer assets (Ickovics et al., 2014). An HP2 school culture requires jointly making health and academic success an absolute priority. This means changing deep cultures of health and learning at the middle grade levels to create multiple pathways for maximizing opportunities for students to become healthy, productive, and engaged citizens (Lavizzo-Mourey, 2014). Deep cultural change goes beyond surface factors of achievement scores and health habits; it needs to address school structures, systems, staff and student beliefs and practices that create a HP2 school (Plough, 2015). HP2 schools must first be health promoting, as it is inconceivable that parents and professionals would

HEALTH: COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PROGRAMS ◾ 191

Figure 1 Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) model. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/ wscc/index.htm

send students to an unsafe, dangerous or harmful school environment. Simultaneously, schools must be high performing, as parents expect the highest quality of education possible to prepare their children academically for college, career, and citizenship. Moreover, health promoting schools need to go beyond dangerous or toxic places, (e.g., crime ridden neighborhood, pollution, unsafe playground), which is evident; but must also address subtle and pernicious school practices and policies such as gender, race and class discrimination, bullying and intimidation, differential student tracking and academic expectations or lack of student of engagement (Francis & Mills, 2012). These deeper cultural hazards are most evident in schools that serve poor and disadvantaged students and families (Komoro, Flay, & Biglan, 2011). It should also be noted that students attending affluent, high performing schools are not immune from hazards of schooling as these students often report high competition and pressure to achieve, duel career parents, affluence, rigid peer groups and low teacher support, and also report high rates of alcohol and drug use, high risk sexual behaviors, physical health conditions, and suicide (Luthar & Barkin, 2012).

Despite the myriad of challenges of middle grade schools and students, emerging research and professional practice continues to expand understanding of the intersection and overlap of health and learning. Reviewing 10 areas of research and practice can help create, shape, or link HP2 schools. 1. Neurosciences—Research is clear that the brains of children and adolescents are different from the brains of adults. Young adolescent brains are still developing and interacting with worlds often resulting in impulsive actions and poor decision making, as they cannot fully understand the consequences of their actions (Casey, Jones, & Somerville, 2011). Young adolescents undergo dramatic changes that require educators and health professionals to understand and be attuned to the cognitive, biological, and social-emotional impact of those changes. It also means that young adolescent brains have significant plasticity; the power to change and expand. In fact, neuroscience demonstrates that increased exposure to concepts, ideas, and

192 ◾ HEALTH: COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PROGRAMS

2.

3.

4.

5.

experiences through rich cultural, educational, social, and physical activities can promote improved cognitive, social-emotional, and physical development (Diamond, 2014). Exercise, Physical Fitness, and Physical Activity—The benefits of physical activity and exercise continue to demonstrate positive effects on the body and brain functioning (Howie & Pate, 2012). In fact, research finds that physical activity in children and youth and across life span results in improved executive and cognitive functioning, with active students attaining better grades at school (Castelli & Hillman, 2012). Although causal factors are not completely understood at this time; the evidence is compelling enough for middle grade schools to implement high quality physical education and active health practices that can be enjoyed for a lifetime. Positive School Climate—Students reporting a sense of safety, belonging, and engagement in schools where they are known, respected, and challenged in rigorous and relevant ways are more likely to be both academically successful and healthy (Furlong et al., 2011). Sense of student belonging has repeatedly found to be inversely related to negative health practices (e.g., tobacco, violence, delinquency) and academic behaviors (e.g., absenteeism, failed course, dropping out). Most student disinterest begins in the middle grade years, and often results in problem behaviors, school failure, and ultimately may lead to students disengaging and dropping out (Allensworth & Easton, 2005). Social-emotional learning (SEL)—Social emotional skills are often the best predictors of academic success, completion of high school and college, and workforce success (Farrington et al., 2012). That is, students with higher SEL skills have personal, academic, and career advantages over students who lack SEL skills (Farrington, et al. 2012). SEL programs have received national attention focusing on creating a positive school climate, and teaching intra and interpersonal skills that have demonstrated improvements in academic achievement, building protective factors, and reducing problem behaviors (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Developmentally appropriate instructional practices—Regardless of any or all factors that contribute to the success of middle grade students, high quality, developmentally appropriate instruction is foundational for academic, health, and personal success (Darling-Hammond, Jaquith, & Hamilton, 2012). Young

adolescents learn best from teachers who are content experts and have knowledge and skills to work with young adolescents. Evidence-based instructional practices include personalization, engagement, active learning, project and peer based learning, cooperative and mastery learning, and teacher-student interactions in an environment that has high expectations and support for all (Edwards, 2015). 6. Age appropriate health education and health literacy—Research-based comprehensive health education programs with a focus on age appropriate knowledge and skills such as health and human development, sexuality, HIV education, bullying, alcohol, tobacco and drug use must be part of every middle grades health education program. Most states have health education requirements; however, the comprehensiveness, quality, and effectiveness are mostly unknown (CDC, 2012). As mentioned, well-designed evidence-based approaches that target a specific health issues have been successful in addressing specific health issues, but these behavior changes are not often sustained over time (Bradley & Greene, 2013). 7. Promoting and altering student motivational beliefs, goals, and aspirations (e.g., growth mindsets, self-determination)—Research has demonstrated that student beliefs about themselves, their abilities, and peers have a significant impact on their willingness to try, persevere, and succeed at educational and health related tasks (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Student attributions employing a growth mindset (e.g., I can learn math if I try harder, I can get healthier if I eat well) versus a fixed mindset (e.g., I’m no good at math, I hate exercise) demonstrate improved results with a task. Growth mindset interventions have been used successfully to improve both health and educational behaviors and outcomes (Romero, Master, Paunesku, Dweck, & Gross, 2014). 8. Public health practice—Public health practice is a continuum of care from primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. In recent years, education has adopted a three-tiered approach known as Response to Intervention (RtI) or Early Warning and Intervention Programs (EWIP) to identify and provide academic resources across these three levels (Hughes & Dexter 2011). These tiered programs target common risk factors and antecedents for both academic and health issues by linking services at school, and reaching out to family and community services (Campaign for Educational Equity, 2015).

HEALTH: COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PROGRAMS ◾ 193

9. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)—For the last 20 years, a growing body of literature has identified causal and contributing factors between adverse childhood experiences and short- and long-term physical and mental health problems. This relationship has prompted researchers to examine the effects of ACEs on child outcomes. A recent longitudinal study of children who report cumulative ACE scores (3 or more) and followed into the middle grades (age 14) reported poor health and somatic complaints (Flaherty et al., 2013). Flaherty et al. (2013) also recommended children reporting high ACE scores receive treatment similar to children with chronic health conditions such as asthma or Type I diabetes. 10. Health and education policy and laws—State and local governments, including school districts, have become propagators or implementers of laws and policies that shape and influence educational and health practices. Policies can provide rules, processes, procedures, and norms for improving health and learning. Illustratively, the well-established dangers of secondhand smoke resulted in schools no longer allowing smoking in schools. School health policies such as lunch programs, reducing high caloric foods, anti-bullying, walkable streets, and later school starting times report positive health benefits (Chriqui et al., 2013). Similarly, educational policies such as small schools and classrooms, rigorous and relevant curriculum, and teacher certifications also report improved learning outcomes (Levine, 2011). The Health in All Policies approach was originally proposed by community health professionals, but it can be equally applied to HP2 schools (Rudolph, Caplan, BenMoshe, & Dillon, 2013). The aforementioned 10 issues reflect new and continuing research that provides theory, knowledge, processes, and outcomes that can build and support HP2 schools. Integrating cultures for health and academic success through a HP2 school approach has not been widely attempted, but singular whole school, evidence-based examples for health and/academics exist (Durlak et al., 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2013). To that end, research with HP2 school reforms need to be combined and tested to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of integrating health and learning cultures that could maximize student well-being and academic success. Finally, HP2 schools require the same level of accountability and transparency targeting health and well-being as focused on academic achievement. However, academic success must go beyond standardized

achievement scores to capture whole student success for the short term and a lifetime for health and continuous learning. This new knowledge and skills, along with emerging computer technology, create extraordinary opportunities to identify, monitor, and respond to key academic and health issues for young adolescents and middle grade schools. REFERENCES Allensworth, D. D. (2014). Strategies to improve adolescent health; Lessons learned. Health Promotion Practice, 15(1), 72–78. Allensworth, E. M., & Easton, J. Q. (2005). The on-track indicator as a predictor of high school graduation. University of Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Arthur, M. W., Brown, E. C., Briney, J. S., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., . . . Mueller, M. T. (2015). Examination of substance use, risk factors, and protective factors on student academic test score performance. Journal of School Health, 85(8), 497–507. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2012). Making the case for educating the whole child. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.wholechildeducation.org/assets/content/mx-resources/ WholeChild-MakingTheCase.pdf Basch, C. E. (2011). Healthier, students are better learners: High quality, strategically planned and effectively coordination school health programs must be a fundamental mission of schools to help close the achievement gap. Journal of School Health, 81(10), 650–662. Bradley, B. J., & Greene, A. C. (2013). Do health and education agencies in the United States share responsibility for academic achievement and health? A review of 25 years of evidence about the relationship of adolescents’ academic achievement and health behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(5), 523–532. Brener, N. D., Weshler, H., & Kann, L. (2014). Challenges in and strategies for surveillance of school health policy and practices: A commentary. Journal of School Health, 84(11), 687–689. Campaign for Educational Equity. (2015). Supporting learning through better health: A strategy to ensure adequate and stable funding for school-based health centers in New York state. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from http:// equitycampaign.org/i/a/document/35754_SBHC.pdf Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Somerville, L. H. (2011). Braking and accelerating of the adolescent brain. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 21–33 Castelli, D. M., & Hillman, C. H. (2012). Physical activity, cognition, and school performance: From neurons to neighborhoods. In A. L. Meyer & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Physical activity across the lifespan: Prevention and treatment for health and well-being (pp. 41–63). New York, NY: Springer. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). School health policies and practices study. Retrieved from http://www. cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/shpps/pdf/fs_overview _shpps2012.pdf

194 ◾ HEALTH: MENTAL HEALTH AND YOUNG ADOLESCENTS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Whole school, whole community, whole child (WSCC). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/wscc/index.htm Chriqui, J. F., Resnick, E. A., Schneider, L., Schermbeck, R., Adcock, T., Carrion, V., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2013). School district wellness policies: Evaluating progress and potential for improving children’s health five years after the federal mandate. School years 2006–07 through 2010–11 (vol 3). Chicago: Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago. Diamond, A. (2014). Want to optimize executive functions and academic outcome? Simple, just nourish the human spirit. Minnesota Symposium Child Psychology Developing Cognitive Control Processes: Mechanisms, Implications, and Interventions, 37, 205–232. Darling-Hammond, L., Cook, C., Jaquith, A., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Policy in Education. Retrieved from https:// edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ creating-comprehensive-system-evaluating-and-supporting -effective-teaching.pdf Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. Edwards, S. (2015). Active learning in the middle grades. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(1), 65–81 Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learner. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/ default/files/publications/Noncognitive%20Report .pdf Flaherty, E. G., Thompson, R., Dubowitz, H., Harvey, E. M., English, D. J., Proctor, L. J., & Runyan, D. K. (2013). Adverse childhood experiences and child health in early adolescence. Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics, 167(7), 622–629. Francis, B., & Mills, M. (2012). Schools as damaging organisations: Instigating a dialogue concerning alternative models of schooling. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(2), 251–271. Furlong, M., Sharkey, J., Quirk, M., & Dowdy, E. (2011). Exploring the protective and promotive effects of schools connectedness on the relation between psychological health risk and problem behaviors/experiences. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 18–34. Howie, E. K., & Pate, R. R. (2012). Physical activity and academic achievement in children: A historical perspective. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 1(3), 160–169. Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary.  Theory into Practice, 50(1), 4–11. Ickovics, J. R., Carroll-Scott, A. C., Peters, S. M., Schwartz, M., Gilstand-Hayden, K., & McCaslin, C. (2014). Health and academic achievement: Cumulative effects of health

assets on standardized test scores among urban youth in the United States. Journal of School Health, 84(1), 40–48. Komoro, K. A., Flay, B. R., & Biglan, A. (2011). Creating nurturing environments: A science-based framework for promoting child health and development within high-poverty neighborhoods. Clinical Child Family and Psychology Review, 14(2), 111–134. Lavizzo-Mourey, R. (2014). Building a culture of health. Retrieved from http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/ reports/annual_reports/2014/rwjf410767 Levine, T. (2011). Comparing approaches to converting large high schools into smaller units. Improving Schools, 14(2), 172–186. Luthar, S., & Barkin, S. (2012). Are affluent youth truly “at risk?” Vulnerability and resilience across three diverse samples. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 429–449. Mulhall, P. F. (2007). Health promoting, high performing middle level schools. In V. A. Anfara, Jr., S. B. Mertens, & M. M. Caskey (Eds.) The young adolescent and the middle school (pp. 1–26). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Plough, A. L. (2015). Building a culture of health: A critical role for public health services and systems research. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), 150–152. Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., . . . Udry, J.R. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of American Medical Association, 278(10), 823–832. Romero, C., Master, A., Paunesku, D., Dweck, C., & Gross, J. (2014). Academic and emotional functioning in middle school: The role of implicit theories. Emotion, 14(2), 227–234. Rudolph, L., Caplan, J., Ben-Moshe, K., & Dillon, L. (2013). Health in all policies: A guide for state and local governments. Washington, DC and Oakland, CA: American Public Health Association and Public Health Institute. Retrieved from http://www.phi.org/resources/ ?resource=hiapguide U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Talent Development Middle Grades program. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_ reports/wwc_tdmg_011513.pdf Yeager, D., & Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314.

HEALTH: MENTAL HEALTH AND YOUNG ADOLESCENTS Sejal Parikh Foxx University of North Carolina, Charlotte The developmental stage of early adolescence is a time that is comprised of numerous daily struggles. During

HISTORICAL AND INFLUENTIAL PUBLICATIONS IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION ◾ 195

this stage, young adolescents experience normal emotional shifts that are connected to peer relationships, social acceptance, school transitioning, and academic anxiety. Additionally, changes in cognition and the onset of puberty are significant to this population (Vernon, 2008). While these struggles are a normal aspect of young adolescent development, there can be some serious consequences when these issues are coupled with mental health concerns. Furthermore, issues related to mental health can also have a significant impact on students’ performance in the classroom. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) noted that 22% of adolescents are affected by mental disorders which, in turn, impact functioning into adulthood. The types of mental health disorders that may be present in young adolescents include: depression, autism, bipolar, eating, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity (National Institute of Mental Health, 2009). The National Institute of Mental Health (2009) reported that depressive disorders are present in close to 11% of adolescents by the age of 18. The presence of symptoms appears to be different of those than adults. For example, children and adolescents may refuse to attend school, engage is self-destructive behavior, have discipline issues at school, or seem irritable. Although educators can look for typical signs and symptoms of mental health concerns, it is important to first consider whether behaviors are part of normal young adolescent development. For example, Elkind (1967) noted that egocentrism is intensified during this time. In particular, young adolescents may experience the constructs defined as the imaginary audience and personal fable. The imaginary audience denotes that young adolescents are preoccupied with their personal appearance and that level of focus is shared by an audience of their peers, thus making them the center of attention. Similarly, Elkind and Bowen (1979) defined the personal fable as a belief that is held by young adolescents which notes that one is completely special and unique. A significant consequence of this belief is that it assumes one is so special that he or she is immune from harm; thereby, increasing the likelihood of young adolescents engaging in at risk behaviors. As a result, educators must be able to distinguish between typical adolescent egocentrism and mental health issues (Spooner & Martinovich, 2014). Signs and symptoms that could indicate issues related to mental health include feelings of deep sadness, irritability, hopelessness, helplessness, low self-esteem, isolation, inability to concentrate or stay focused on one task, and physical aggression. Educators are positioned to monitor student behaviors and look for typical signs and symptoms related to negative mental health; however, a diagnosis can only be made by mental health professionals and physicians. Thus, educators should consult with the school

counselor who will collaborate with community agencies that can offer support both in and out of the school setting. While medication may be a form of treatment for some mental health disorders, other forms of interventions may include counseling utilizing cognitive behavior therapies, social skills training, parent support programs, self-esteem building, and anxiety reduction strategies. REFERENCES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School health programs: Improving the health of our nation’s youth. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/pdf/dash.pdf Elkind, D. (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 38(4) 1025–1034. Elkind, D., & Bowen, (1979). Imaginary audience behavior in children and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 38–44. National Institute of Mental Health (2009). Treatment of children with mental illness. Retrieved from http://www.nimh. nih.gov/health/publications/treatment-of-children -with-mental-illness-fact-sheet/NIMH-Treatment -Children-Mental-Illness-FAQ_34669.pdf Spooner, M., & Martinovich, Z. (2014). Shifting the odds of lifelong mental illness through an understanding of the profiles of adolescents and young adults with serious mental health conditions. Community Mental Health Journal, 50(2), 216–220. Vernon, A. (2008). Counseling children and adolescents (4th ed). Denver, CO: Love.

HISTORICAL AND INFLUENTIAL PUBLICATIONS IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION John Lounsbury Georgia College & State University Micki M. Caskey Portland State University Steven B. Mertens Illinois State University Over the past century, there have been many noteworthy publications that have focused on the importance of recognizing the unique developmental phase of early adolescence and the need to design and implement educational practices and schools appropriate for this age group. The 16 historical books and reports listed and described below in chronological order were published prior to 1970 and cover a span of 65 years. The earliest works centered on adolescent development and

196 ◾ HISTORICAL AND INFLUENTIAL PUBLICATIONS IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION

its unique physical, psychological, social, and emotional characteristics. Other early publications dealt with issues of recognizing the need for a more defined and articulated secondary school curriculum and educational system. In the 1920s, there were a number of publications that focused specifically on the need for junior high schools, an educational experience to ease the transition from childhood to adolescence. By the middle of the century, a consensus was growing among scholars that the junior high school educational approach was not adequately addressing the unique characteristics and needs of young adolescents. With the advent of the 1960s, several publications focused on the need for a new type of school to better meet the needs of young adolescents more effectively—the middle school. We consider the following list of books and reports to be the most important and influential historical publications dealing with young adolescents and the concept and implementation of the middle school. Adolescence (1904a, 1904b). G. Stanley Hall’s two-volume, Adolescence, published in 1904, was the first major work on adolescence and emphasized the extent of changes adolescents undergo and the difficulties they face. Hall used the term “storm and stress,” a phrase that came to be commonly associated with adolescence. His ideas supported making changes in the schools when young people experience what Hall called, “a psychological second birth.” Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education (1918). The Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education were issued in 1918 by the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. The charge of this commission was to form objectives for secondary education. The Commission determined that segmented subjects and their subject matter were a way to achieve the decided goals but that they were not the one and only way. The Commission was also instrumental in starting a standard of forming goals before reforming schools. Reorganization of secondary school education would need to take into account individual differences, goals, attitudes, and abilities. The Commission decided that the concept of democracy would guide education in America. Work on the Cardinal Principles began in 1915 and ended in 1918. When completed, the seven Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education included health, command of fundamental processes, worthy home membership, vocation, civic education, worthy use of leisure, and ethical character. While the Commission did not specifically address middle grades education, its seven principles can be found in the recommendations of the modern middle school movement. The Junior High School (1920). In The Junior High School, Thomas H. Briggs defined the fledgling institution— the junior high school and described its organization. To succeed, he noted that the junior high movement must have the recognition of educators and the pub-

lic alike. Then, the movement would need to establish the educational practices of this new institution. Early on, Briggs acknowledged that conceptions of the junior high school varied widely, not unlike today’s middle school concept. The Junior High School (1920). In The Junior High School, Leonard V. Koos described the divergent functions and features in junior high schools in the United States. He based the book on his investigations of the theoretical and practical functions of the junior high school. His findings revealed disparate purposes and features, leading Koos to call for reform and the development of a reorganization plan for implementing the junior high model. The Junior High School Curriculum (1927). In The Junior High School Curriculum, the National Education Association (NEA) described the junior high model including its history, its purpose, and current status as well as the curricula of 10 content areas. The volume also raised questions regarding the role of the junior high school in college preparation—a debate that influenced the reorganization movement. Hundreds of educators contributed to the development of this volume, the fifth yearbook of the Department of the Superintendence, NEA. The Eight Year Study (1942). Begun in 1933 by Ralph Tyler at the Ohio State University, The Eight Year Study (Aiken, 1942) sought to determine if students completing alternative high school curricula could succeed in college. Thus an eight-year study was required for the students to complete both the four years of high school and the four years of college. Thirty public and private secondary schools developed alternative curricula as part of the research. The Eight Year Study is important for two reasons. First, the study served to refine the procedures for writing instructional objectives. The study confirmed that objectives could be clarified if written in terms of student behaviors, hence the current name, behavioral objectives. Second, it was essential to ensure that the alternative curricula were implemented as planned. The objectives and their assessment were used to revise and refine the new curricula until they produced appropriate levels of achievement. This process has come to be known as “formative assessment.” Adolescence (1944). The National Society for the Study of Education published Adolescence in 1944. In this edited volume, Nelson Henry compiled an extensive set of research studies about adolescence. The contributing authors reported on key topics including adolescence as a transition period, physiological development, mental growth, adolescent problems, adolescents in a technological society, socialization, peer culture, adolescents in the family, and vocational interests. In the final chapters, the authors articulated implications for administrators, teachers, and counselors as well as preparing adolescents to be adults. The Modern Junior High School (1947). In The Modern Junior High School, William Gruhn and Harl Douglass

HISTORICAL AND INFLUENTIAL PUBLICATIONS IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION ◾ 197 articulated a contemporary view of the junior high school. They identified the six functions of the junior high school: (a) integration of learning; (b) exploration opportunities; (c) guidance for students’ educational, vocational, and personal choices; (d) differentiation to accommodate students’ backgrounds and needs, (e) socialization experiences; and (f) articulation of programs to support the transition from early adolescence to adolescence. Many of the functions described in this classic book are evident in today’s middle grades schools. The Junior High School: Today and Tomorrow (1953). In The Junior High School: Today and Tomorrow, Gertrude Noar made a compelling case for moving away from a traditional school to a modern junior high school. She built on the functions of the junior high identified by Gruhn and Douglass and stressed the importance of human relationships in the junior high. She also described the role of the teacher, principal, and community in building a successful school. Further, Noar recommended content and techniques including democratic education, teacher-learning experiences, and common learnings (core curriculum). A Memorandum to School Boards: Recommendations for Education in the Junior High School Years (1960). Harvard President James B. Conant wrote this memorandum to school boards based on a study of 125 schools in 60 communities in 17 states. Conant and his research team also collected 300 survey questionnaires from 200 communities in 30 states. They observed wide variation in educational conditions and practices, specifically in the areas of curricular offerings, time schedules, student classification, reading abilities, guidance/advisory practices, and home-school relations. Recommendations in this brief treatise were supportive of conservative subject-centered programs, specifically the departmentalization of eighth grade and specific subject requirements for seventh and eighth grade with students grouped by ability. Additional recommendations called for special attention to be given to the development of reading, science, and extracurricular activities and homework appropriate to the field and student. Thomas Briggs’ (1960) interesting and somewhat critical analysis of Conant’s Memorandum was published in the special issue of NASSP Bulletin. The Junior High School We Need (1961). Authored by Grambs, Noyce, Patterson, and Robertson, and published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), The Junior High School We Need identified several areas for improvement in junior high schools. The recommendations included higher levels of community involvement, planning for change must be based on extensive and continuing local study, educators must accept their leadership responsibility in the change process, and the school leadership must assist teachers and staff members to understand and accept the need for change. The report highlighted the gap between theory and practice that existed in junior high schools and called for the redesign of the junior high school.

Modern Education for the Junior High School Years (1961). William Van Til, Gordon Vars, and John Lounsbury summarized 50 years of junior high school education in this volume. They provided a thorough description of what they believed to be the best educational practices for young adolescents. The authors pointed out that young adolescents have special school needs which make them particularly difficult to teach if inappropriate methods are applied. After noting the phenomenal development of junior high schools in the United States, the authors focused on the marked differences in maturity, talents, interests, social class, religious orientation, and promise for advanced education found among students grouped together for their schooling. They argued that the “structured core” curriculum, which combines social studies, English, and certain homeroom functions, is best able to serve the diverse needs of these students. A revised edition of this work was published in 1967. The Junior High School We Saw: One Day in the Eighth Grade (1964). In this Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development’s (ASCD) report, John Lounsbury and Jean Marani described the first of what ultimately turned out to be five national shadow studies that revealed what a school day was like for middle level students. Volunteers from across the country spent the same school day following randomly selected students and recording what each student was doing. The results of this study were perhaps more revealing than encouraging. The shadow study technique became a frequently used and highly effective activity in preservice education and in professional development. The central lesson in these shadow studies was that the teacher makes the difference. The Middle School (1966). The Middle School by Donald Eichhorn was a significant publication as it addressed the importance of the child when considering the development of an appropriate learning environment. To describe and discuss this stage of development more clearly, now commonly referred to as “early adolescence,” Eichhorn introduced two terms: transescent—young people, ages 10–14, that are in transition from childhood to adolescence; and transescence—a transitional stage of development during which young adolescents differ from younger children in elementary school and from older adolescents in high school. Eichhorn presented a socio-psychological model to explain the rationale for the establishment of the middle school and how the six domains of the model—physical, emotional, intellectual, economical, political, and sociological—influence transescents. The Emergent Middle School (1968). In The Emergent Middle School, William Alexander and his colleagues (Alexander, Williams, Compton, Hynes, & Prescott, 1968) presented a comprehensive overview of research for the establishment of a new type of school, the middle school, and offered recommendations concerning the curriculum, instruction, and organization of this type of school. In defining how this new middle school was different

198 ◾ HISTORICAL AND INFLUENTIAL PUBLICATIONS IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION from junior high schools, Alexander and his colleagues argued that the middle schools would bridge the gap between younger children in elementary schools to fullfledged adolescents in high schools. They asserted, the middle school “builds upon the elementary school program for earlier childhood and in turn is built upon by the high school’s program for adolescence” (Alexander et al., 1968, p.5). Common Learnings: Core and Interdisciplinary Team Approaches. (1969). In this edited volume, Gordon Vars and colleagues advanced the importance of common learnings for students in the middle grades. Common learnings included the skills, attitudes, and knowledge that educators considered essential for real-life situations. After Vars articulated his contemporary view of core curriculum, contributing authors described the core teacher and how common learnings connected to middle grades practices such as team teaching.

REFERENCES Aiken, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers. Alexander, W. M., Williams, E., Compton, M., Hynes, V., & Prescott, D. (1968). The emergent middle school. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Briggs, T. H. (1920). The junior high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Briggs, T. H. (1960). The Conant report on junior high schools: Education in the junior high school years. NASSP Bulletin, 44(259), 13–20. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education. Bulletin, 1918, No. 35. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Education. Conant, J. B. (1960). A memorandum to school boards: Recommendations for education in the junior high school years. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Eichhorn, D. H. (1966). The middle school. New York, NY: Center for Applied Research in Education. Grambs, J. D., Noyce, C. G., Patterson, F., & Robertson, J. C. (1961). The junior high school we need. A report from the ASCD Commission on Secondary Curriculum. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gruhn, W., & Douglass, H. (1947). The modern junior high school. New York, NY: The Ronald Press. Hall, G. S. (1904a). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion and education (Vol. I). New York, NY: D. Appleton & Company. Hall, G. S. (1904b). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vol. II). New York, NY: D. Appleton & Company. Henry, N. (1944). The forty-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education part I: Adolescence. Chicago, IL: The Department of Education, the University of Chicago. Koos, L. V. (1920). The junior high school. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & Howe. Lounsbury, J. H., & Marani, J. (1964). The junior high school we saw: One day in the eighth grade. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. National Education Association. (1927). The junior high school curriculum (Fifth yearbook). Washington, DC: Department of Superintendence. Noar, G. (1953) The junior high school: Today and tomorrow. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. Van Til, W., Vars, G. F., & Lounsbury, J. H. (1961). Modern education for the junior high school years. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company. Van Til, W., Vars, G. F., & Lounsbury, J. H. (1967). Modern education for the junior high school years (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company. Vars, G. F. (Ed.). (1969). Common learnings: Core and interdisciplinary team approaches. Scranton, PA: International Textbook.

I IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT Dave F. Brown West Chester University Young adolescents experience intense developmental growth processes, including noticeable physical changes and the hidden, less explicit, social, emotional, and cognitive changes. Young adolescents’ most challenging developmental changes may be their frequent struggle in choosing who they want to be, how they want to act, and what persona they want to adopt and project to those around them—collectively known as components of identity development. Identity includes self-perceptions of who one is sexually, ethnically, physically (body image), relationally (friendships/cliques), and spiritually (possibly religion); while also developing and recognizing gender identification, an academic persona, and a socioeconomic identity (Santrock, 2014). Teens may also be challenged by the search for a cyber-identity (finding a way to fit in to their electronic world in which adolescents also judge each other). Some of these identities are known or fixed due to physical traits or family circumstances, but most identity developmental processes involve decision-making opportunities with which young adolescents constantly experiment (Damon, 2008). Finding identity is a life-long process; but one that is frequently examined during young adolescence—from the ages of 10 to 15—as teens try out different personas to see how they fit and how others react to their behaviors. Brain growth during young adolescence provides students with a heightened sensitivity of self, and realization of the opportunity to choose among personality traits and behaviors (Erikson, 1968). Novel experiences and opportunities present challenges to adolescents’ The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 199–217 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

existing identities at the time. These “opportunities” often drive young adolescents to attempt new behaviors, some of which may be humorous, others irritating, and a few, dangerous. Middle level teachers must be cognizant of their students’ hidden searches for identity so as to respond appropriately and provide support during these experimental periods. GENERAL STAGES OF ADOLESCENT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT Marcia (1980) elaborated on Erikson’s (1968) theories of identity development in describing four basic identity stages for adolescents: • diffusion—no exploration or commitment of identity in any realm—common in elementary schoolaged students who may not have yet matured cognitively to the stage of questioning their identities; • foreclosure—commitment without exploration— identity choices made for young adolescents without their input or questioning (e.g., athletically talented or musically inclined youth). These are students who reach mastery of their strengths early in life, therefore don’t explore other personas because they are comfortable with who they are; • moratorium—exploration but no commitment— students search and explore different personas in diverse realms of identity, but do not commit permanently to any specific identity; and, • achievement—exploration of roles followed by a commitment—a permanency to a particular identity in some component of the many identities (e.g., choosing a sexual identity of heterosexual or homosexual).

199

200 ◾ IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

Most young adolescents move fluidly back and forth between these four stages in choosing identity statuses; but few, if any develop a permanent identity (achievement stage) during their middle level years. These are general stages of identity that adolescents experience, but these four labels do not describe the angst or challenges that emanate from middle level students’ identity searches. Many adolescents often choose behaviors that involve dangerous sexual, drug, and alcohol experimentation or gang activity in searching for identity. THE VALUE OF EXPLORING IDENTITIES Adolescents should and often do experiment with several identities in an effort to find a persona and interests that fit. They may ask for a guitar, and start lessons, but suddenly stop playing forever three months later; try out for the cheerleading squad as a seventh grader, but switch instead to basketball the next year; join the band as a fifth grader, but completely abandon it once they get to ninth grade. These are mild behavioral fluctuations that cause no harm to students as they seek personal interests and identities. Middle level educators can encourage these adolescent forays into “finding” themselves by permitting unlimited participation in musical, theater, technology, and athletic extracurricular activities—that is, no one is “cut” from the team or prevented from participating in band, chorus, the technology club, or the play. As Brown and Knowles (2014) proclaimed, “these ‘Walter Mitty’ moments are critical to the identity development of young adolescents” (p. 47). Discouraging these behaviors or adopting traditional policies of limited participation deny the very opportunities that students need to search for identity. Parents, too, must accept what appear to be teens’ fickle decision making in order to help adolescents explore their world on their terms—not their parents’. Identity development is much more complex, however than merely choosing an extracurricular activity in which to excel and focus on throughout a schooling career. Middle level students often behave differently based on their ultimate search for a new persona. They dress as a child one week, then as a provocative adult the next. Some teens maintain a natural hair color for two years then suddenly color their hair green or red for months. Adolescents may have a polite demeanor; but suddenly begin spouting newfound obscenities when confronted by an adult or while engaging in conversations with friends. Students may skip a class to be with friends, fail to report money found on a classroom floor and spend it, or join a peer group that dresses in a completely unacceptable manner to parents and teachers—all attempts to try different personalities. When behaviors are

negative and reach a point of affecting others, young adolescents need guidance and advice, rather than being subjected to zero tolerance punishment. A SEARCH FOR MULTIPLE IDENTITIES The most significant of young adolescents’ identity searches include attempts to find their gender, relational, academic, sexual, and ethnic identities. Many factors affect the identity choices teens make from family, peers, local community mores, religious influences, popular culture, and adult role models such as teachers and coaches. What may seem like “simple” choices for adults are not as clear for young adolescents due their age and immaturity as they act on impulses in searching for identity. Gender Gender identity is defined as an understanding of the roles that males and females play throughout their lives. An increase in gender stereotyping via attitudes and behaviors occurs during young adolescence that Berk (2012) referred to as gender intensification. Parents and other family members, model for their children, expected behaviors assigned to a specific gender. It is common in many households during early adolescence for parents to generally encourage their daughters to be dependent, affectionate, and gentle, while encouraging their sons to be assertive, competitive, and independent (Finkenauer, Engels, Meeus, & Oosterwegel, 2002). Some of these messages may be explicit, but others instead are modeled by parental behaviors or by the way other influential adults respond to teens’ behaviors. Traditional gender roles are easily challenged when students notice males and females acting differently than what they initially perceive in popular culture through news accounts, movies, sitcoms, favorite musicians, or adults with whom they interact. Many current events provide the impetus for adolescents to notice diverse gender roles, and young adolescents may personally experience gender identity issues while at school. Educators should use these events as teachable moments to help students clarify their perspectives and options as they experience challenges in defining their gender identity. Relational As students enter middle schools, they begin to place a greater emphasis on friendships as they turn to classmates rather than family members for close relationships, self-disclosure, companionship, and loyalty. Young adolescents’ perceived social standing is a critical component of their healthy socio-emotional growth.

IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT ◾ 201

Brinthaupt and Lipka (2002) noted that, “Early adolescents often form cliques. Those students who don’t fit into one of these cliques form a ‘wannabe’ group who experience strong status insecurity, low self-esteem, and lack of identity clarity” (p. 5). Many students experience frustration and anxiety in developing social relationships, and teens’ perceptions of their social “place” weighs on them heavily affecting academic performance and general attitude. Academic Students’ initial middle level academic performances are generally much poorer than their previous successes. The transition to a new school, heightened cognitive awareness, and changing social milieu create many distractions that prevent students from having confidence in their scholastic abilities (Finkenauer et al., 2002). Middle level teachers place greater academic demands on students, emphasize evaluation, and students begin comparing their abilities to one another more frequently than in elementary grades. These factors often lead to a loss in confidence in their abilities leading to a diminished academic identity. Improving these low perceptions of scholastic ability require many successes and continued confidence as students progress through their middle level years. A poor academic identity has the potential to negatively affect students’ attitudes and efforts as they confront future educational challenges. Sexual Sexual identity for adolescents is an adopted image that defines and demonstrates to others how they want to be perceived sexually. Although most adolescents identify as heterosexual, other sexual identities include gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Geneticists believe that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual, originates prior to birth and is determined by a combination of genes affecting sex hormones in the formation of the brain. Sexual identity may be demonstrated by actions such as flirting, choosing specific clothing to appeal to others, or wearing perfume or cologne. Berk (2012) noted that there are three phases of homosexual identity: (a) gays and lesbians feeling different from others of the same gender between the ages of 6–12; (b) confusion in which adolescents begin to recognize their attraction for the same sex between 14–15; and (c) self-acceptance which generally occurs in late adolescence. Adolescents that identify as gays, lesbians, or transgender frequently experience social and physical attacks during their adolescent years and struggle with informing parents of their sexual identity. These students suffer severe socio-emotional angst and acceptance. Young adolescents should be aware that it is

normal for them to have questions about their sexuality and should be encouraged to ask about and have their concerns addressed by adults. Ethnic Ethnic identity is defined as a recognition of one’s family heritage including cultural background, skin tone, language, family geographic history, as well as, possibly, religion. Brown and Knowles (2014) noted, “many First Nation Peoples, African, Hispanic, and Asian American as well as recent immigrant students experience an additional challenge during adolescence in developing a personal identity that recognizes they are not White European Americans whose primary language is English” (p. 47). Young adolescence brings an acute awareness to ethnically diverse youth of the differences in their heritage versus that of Whites, and the implications of these differences. Gay (1994) identified four cultural identity development stages for ethnically diverse youth that mirror Marcia’s (1980) general identity stages: (a) identity diffusion involves a minimal exploration of ethnicity; (b) foreclosure—no exploration of cultural differences; (c) moratorium—active exploration of ethnic differences; and, (d) achievement—an understanding of and contentment with one’s cultural persona. Traveling through these stages is not a linear path, as ethnically diverse adolescents find ways to adjust to a majority White environment in most United States’ communities. Students whose parents are from two distinct ethnicities, such as an adolescent whose mother is Mexican and father Caucasian; or having a father who identifies as Hmong and mother as Chinese must find ways to fit in, too. Biracial (such as African American and Caucasian) youth also face distinct identity challenges. Berk (2012) reported that a “healthy ethnic identity is associated with higher self-esteem, optimism, a sense of mastery over the environment, and more positive attitudes toward one’s ethnicity” (p. 607). CONCLUSION Early adolescence is a period of unprecedented growth, much of which is hidden from classmates, teachers, and families—particularly identity development. None of these growth processes occurs in a vacuum, and all occur simultaneously creating confusion for adolescents with numerous possibilities for frustration and possibly dangerous behaviors. The development of healthy gender, relational, sexual, and ethnic identities leads to better opportunities for securing a successful academic identity. Young adolescents are much more likely to successfully maneuver through these growth processes

202 ◾ INCLUSION

when educators and other influential adults explicitly plan opportunities for students to ask questions about, examine through school curricula, safely experiment with, and receive guidance toward developing all their identities. REFERENCES Berk, L. E. (2012). Infants, children, and adolescents (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Brinthaupt, T. M., & Lipka, R. P. (2002). Understanding early adolescent self and identity: An introduction. In T. M. Brinthaupt, & R. P. Lipka, (Eds.), Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications and interventions (pp. 1–21). Albany, NY: University of New York Press. Brown, D. F., & Knowles, T. (2014). What every middle school teacher should know (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose. New York, NY: The Free Press. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Meeus, W., & Oosterwegel, A. (2002). Self and identity in early adolescence: The pains and gains of knowing who and what you are. In T. M. Brinthaupt, & R. P. Lipka, (Eds.), Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications and interventions (pp. 25–56). Albany, NY: University of New York Press. Gay, G. (1994). Coming of age ethnically: Teaching young adolescents of color. Theory into Practice, 33(3), 149–155. Marcia, J. (1980). Ego identity development. In J. Adelson (Ed.), The handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159– 187). New York, NY: Wiley. Santrock, J. W. (2014). Child development (14th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.

INCLUSION Ann Bullock East Carolina University Students with special needs have been served in education through various ways over the past four decades. While once placed in separate settings or placed in a regular classroom part of the day, many students with special needs are now being served in full inclusive settings. Katzman (2007) defined inclusion as “an educational philosophy that calls for schools to educate all learners—including students with disabilities and other special needs—together in high quality, age-appropriate general education classrooms in their neighborhood schools (p. 129).” Stainback and Stainback (1990) defined an inclusive school as one that educates students in the mainstream...providing appropriate educational

programs that are challenging yet geared to their capabilities and needs as well as any support and assistance they and/or their teachers may need to be successful in the mainstream. In an inclusive setting, students with special learning and/or behavioral needs are educated full time in the general education program. Essentially, inclusion means that the students with special education needs attend their home school and are enrolled in age appropriate classes 100% of the school day (Idol, 1997). Each special needs student has an Individual Education Plan (IEP). This is a federal document that must be agreed to and signed by every party that is at the IEP meeting. The IEP states the goals and objectives for the student and the services that will meet his or her goals whether it is in the general or special education setting. Any related services the student may need are provided in the general education setting. “Inclusion implies that students will be taught outside the regular education classroom only when all available methods have been tried and failed to meet their needs” (Bateman & Bateman, 2002, p. 2). A BRIEF LEGAL HISTORY LEADING TO INCLUSION In 1975, Public Law 94-142 provided Federal funds to assist states and schools districts to provide a free, appropriate public education to students with specific disabilities beginning at a student’s third birthday and possibly lasting to a student’s twenty-second birthday, depending on State law and practice. In the 1980s, this law was retitled the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1991 (Irmsher, 1995). This legislation provides the policies and procedures that govern the education of students with disabilities. IDEA does not use the term “inclusion.” However, IDEA does require school districts to place students in the least restrictive environment (LRE). LRE means that, to the maximum extent appropriate, school districts must educate students with disabilities in the regular classroom with appropriate aids and supports, referred to as “supplementary aids and services,” along with their nondisabled peers in the school they would attend if not disabled, unless a student’s individualized education program (IEP) requires some other arrangement. The LRE component of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, 2004) is the primary legal impetus for establishing inclusive schools that meet the needs of students with disabilities.

INCLUSION ◾ 203

HOW MANY SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS ARE EDUCATED IN AN INCLUSIVE SETTING? The Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP) annual report to the U.S. Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 2008) indicated that the national percentage of students with disabilities educated in general education classes for most of the day (outside of the general education classroom for less than 21% of the day) had increased from 46.5% in 1997 to 53.7% in 2006, whereas the percentage of students with disabilities educated outside the regular class from 21% to 60% of the day decreased from 20.4% in 1997 to 17.6% 2008 (p. xxi). In 2010, the national percentage of students with disabilities educated in general education classes for 80% or more of the day increased to 60.5% (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Statistics, 2013). HOW IS FULL INCLUSION DIFFERENT THAN OTHER SETTINGS? There are many different placements for students with special needs. They range from most restrictive (residential setting or separate school) to the least restrictive environment of a general education classroom. Inclusion occurs in the general education classroom. What Is the Difference Between Full Inclusion and Mainstreaming? Inclusion is when students with special needs receive their entire academic curriculum in the general education program. Inclusion began as a practice of integration or mainstreaming (Muñoz, 2007). It is different from mainstreaming, which is when students with disabilities spend a portion of their school day in the general education program and a portion in a separate special education program (Idol, 2006). Both inclusion and mainstreaming are ways to educate students with disabilities in the LRE. What Is the Difference Between Inclusion and Services in a Resource Room? Wiederholt and Chamberlain (1989) defined the resource room approach as any school setting where students receive specific instruction on a regularly scheduled basis, while receiving the majority of their education elsewhere (usually in a general school program). The resource room is a supportive supplemental educational classroom where students can receive support on their coursework from other classes (i.e., typically math, science, social studies, language arts) or receive instruction in the classroom for a specific course. For example, a high school student may receive instruction

for math in the resource classroom that counts for math credit or a student might be enrolled in a math class then have a resource class later in the day where he/ she would get curriculum support for their math class. ADVANTAGES OF INCLUSION There are many advantages of inclusion. The student with special needs is able to make more friends in the general education setting and interact with their student peers at a much higher level (Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995). This allows for the student with special needs to have role models for correct behavior. The general education student also benefits from understanding people with disabilities. “Academic benefits for general education students include having additional special education staff in the classroom, providing small-group, individualized instruction, and assisting in the development of academic adaptations for all students who need them” (Hines, 2001, p. 3). Irmsher (1995) proclaimed, “it appears that special-needs students in regular classes do better academically and socially than comparable students in non-inclusive classes” (p. 6). If an inclusive classroom has co-teachers, both a regular and special education teacher, all students can benefit from this arrangement. Financially, inclusion is beneficial. Based on data from the U.S. 2005 Special Education Expenditures Program (SEEP), it costs 1.6 times more to educate a student with disabilities than it does to educate a student with no disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). The yearly cost to educate a student with disabilities ranged from $10,558 to $20,095, while the cost for a regular education student was $6,556. Nevertheless, in general, the costs of inclusion are lower than keeping the student in a separate, special education classroom. DISADVANTAGES OF INCLUSION “Full inclusion is not the best placement for all students. The general education classroom is typically not individualized” (Bateman & Bateman, 2002, p. 3). Many special educators feel that all students with special needs should be fully integrated in the general education setting even if that student may be disruptive to the other students. A drawback in this scenario is that if a student is so disruptive that the teacher cannot teach, it is not good for the students in the general setting because learning is being interrupted. Educators and parents of children in general education worry that full inclusion will lower the standard of learning for the class and make it less of a priority than socializing (Irmsher, 1995). An additional criticism of inclusion is that general education teachers do not possess the necessary training to teach disabled students effectively (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995).

204 ◾ INCLUSION: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

RESEARCH RELATED TO INCLUSION Scholars have long debated the benefits of including students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Some research indicates inclusion of students with disabilities is socially and academically beneficial to all students, whereas others argue that full inclusion regardless of circumstances is harmful to students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers (Kauffman, 2002; Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995; Sailor & Rodger, 2005). Bateman and Bateman (2002) affirmed when teachers had more practice with inclusion, their acceptance and tolerance of students with disabilities in their classrooms improved. They also found that teachers became more skilled in delivering lessons that accommodate students at various levels of learning and performance. Based on their survey, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) declared half or more of teachers feel that inclusion could provide some benefits, but only one third or less of teachers believe they had sufficient time, skills, training or resources necessary for mainstreaming/inclusion. FINAL THOUGHTS Inclusion is a common practice in classrooms, many where special education and regular education teachers co-teach the class. The practice of inclusion will likely continue with the pressure of IDEA and the national focus on testing. More research is needed on the benefits of inclusion and the resulting achievement and growth of all students involved in the inclusive setting. REFERENCES Bateman, D., & Bateman, C. F. (2002). What does a principal need to know about inclusion? ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED473828) Fryxell, D., & Kennedy, C. H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students’ social relationships. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(4), 259–269. Hines, R. A. (2001). Inclusion in middle schools. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED459000) Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) 2004. Pub. L. No. 108–446, §1–306, 118 Stats. 2647–2808. Idol, L. (1997). Creating collaborative and inclusive schools. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77–94. Irmsher, K. (1995). Inclusive education in practice: The lessons of pioneering school districts (Report No. ISSN-0095-6694). Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council, University

of Oregon. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380913) Katzman, L. (2007). High-stakes testing. In A. Bursztyn (Ed.), The Praeger handbook of special education (pp. 127–129). Wesport, CT: Praeger. Kauffman, J. M. (2002). Education deform: Bright people sometimes say stupid things about education. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Muñoz, V. (2007). The right to education of persons with disabilities. Report of the special rapporteur on the right to education. United Nations Human Rights Council, 4th Session, Item 2 of the agenda. Retrieved from http:// www.inclusive-education.org/system/files/publications-documents/A.HRC_.4.29_Education%20PwD.pdf Sailor, W., & Roger, B. (2005). Rethinking inclusion: School wide applications. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 503–509. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion. Learning Disabilities and Research and Practice, 10, 169–179. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59–74. Stainback, W., & Stainback. S. (1990). Support networks for inclusive schools: Interdependent integrated education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Special education expenditures program report. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics, 2012 (NCES 2014-015). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo. asp?pubid=2014015 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2008). OSEP’s 30th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/ 2008/parts-b-c/30th-idea-arc.pdf Wiederholt, J. L., & Chamberlain, S. P. (1989). A critical analysis of resource programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 15–37.

INCLUSION: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Tammy J. Graham The Citadel Inclusion is the process of educating students with disabilities with their nondisabled peers and bringing special education services and support to them in the general education classroom, as opposed to removing them from the general education environment and placing them in a special education classroom for instruction. The topic of inclusion has had its share of controversy. Some

INCLUSION: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ◾ 205

have argued that inclusion is a type of service “delivery model,” while others have suggested that it is a “frame of mind” (Kilanowski-Press, Foote, & Rinaldo, 2010, p. 45) or “belief system” (Friend & Pope, 2005, p. 57). Additionally, there has been some confusion and debate over the definition of inclusion. Some have interchanged the terms inclusion and mainstreaming. However, mainstreaming is often considered to be the process of educating students with disabilities in some general education courses without much thought given to extra support that the students may need. In the earlier days of special education, mainstreaming typically occurred in nonacademic classes. INCLUSION AND IDEA There has also been some confusion regarding whether or not special education law mandates inclusion. Interestingly, inclusion is not defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the current law governing special education in K–12 schools. Instead, IDEA mandates that students with disabilities be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment appropriate for them, meaning that they should be educated with their non-disabled peers as much as possible. IDEA indicates that a continuum of services for students with disabilities must be available in school systems. Since this continuum of services includes instruction in the general education classroom, this option should be considered for students with disabilities when appropriate (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). It is important to remember that inclusion is a placement decision determined by the Individualized Education Program team. While some special educators have pushed for a policy of full inclusion, the process of educating all students with disabilities in the general education classroom for all courses, and the elimination of a continuum of services, the majority do not appear to support this view (Heward, 2013). INCLUSION AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS The Council for Exceptional Children, the prominent professional organization in the field of special education, stresses the importance of inclusion and indicates that students with disabilities should be educated in general education classrooms when appropriate. However, the organization also reiterates that a continuum of placements should exist and decisions of placement should be based on personal needs of each student (Council for Exceptional Children, 2010). Furthermore, the Learning Disabilities Association of America,

a prominent professional organization supporting students with learning disabilities and their families, indicates that while general education classes are appropriate for some students with learning disabilities, placement decisions should be based on each student’s individual needs (Learning Disabilities Association of America, 2012). INCLUSION AND CO-TEACHING Inclusion does not mean that students with disabilities must be educated in general education classes for every subject. In fact, some students may attend general education classes for certain subjects and attend special education classes for other subjects. However, according to the Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 36th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in 2012, 61.5% of students with disabilities, age 6 to 21, were educated in the general education classroom for 80% or more of the school day (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2014). While inclusion is implemented differently in various school systems, it is often achieved through co-teaching (Barrett, 2013). Co-teaching happens when a general education teacher and a special education teacher or other type of specialist plan and teach lessons together (Friend, 2008). Six-types of co-teaching arrangements are often utilized, including one teach/one observe, one teach/one assist, parallel teaching, station teaching, alternative teaching, and teaming (Friend & Cook, 2013). In the one teach/one observe method, one teacher delivers instruction while the other observes students and/or the instructor in order to collect data. When the one teach/one assist method is implemented, one teacher typically delivers instruction to the entire class while the other teacher walks around the room to assist students as needed. In parallel teaching, the two teachers divide students into two groups, and one teacher teaches one group while the other teacher teaches another group at the same time. Both teachers utilize the same teaching materials and information. In station teaching, each teacher teaches different content to one group, and then the teachers switch groups. In alternative teaching, one teacher typically works with a small group on remedial or enrichment activities, while the other teacher works with the remainder of the class. When co-teachers team teach, both teachers blend their expertise as they plan a lesson and instruct the students (Friend & Cook, 2013).

206 ◾ INCLUSION: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF INCLUSION In order for inclusion to happen successfully, several things need to be considered. In some instances, teachers have been instructed to participate in co-teaching with little thought of each teacher’s personality and with little to no preparation on how inclusion should be implemented. Research indicates that consideration of personalities is important when implementing inclusion (Leader-Janssen, Swain, Delkamiller, & Ritzman, 2012). Furthermore, it is important for preservice teachers to be strongly prepared for inclusion while participating in their college teacher education programs (Keefe & Moore, 2004). Other important considerations for successful implementation of inclusion include positive relationships between co-teachers, establishment of appropriate roles in the co-taught classroom, (Friend, 2008; Keefe & Moore, 2004), co-planning time (Friend, 2008; Leader-Janssen, Swain, Delkamiller, & Ritzman, 2012), and support from administrators (Friend, 2008). INCLUSION IN MIDDLE GRADES Initially, inclusion was more often practiced in elementary schools than secondary schools due to scheduling issues, teacher collaboration issues, and standardized testing concerns (Kovik, Cooney, Vinciguerra, Gradel, & Black, 2009). However, because No Child Left Behind indicates that students must be educated by highly qualified teachers (No Child Left Behind, 2002), inclusion has increased in middle and high school levels due to the fact that it is extremely difficult for special education teachers to be highly qualified in all content areas that students are required to take (Kilanowski-Press et al., 2010). As a result, many school systems have placed general education teachers and special education teachers in co-teaching environments at the middle school level. The special education teachers are typically highly qualified in an area of special education, while the general education teachers are highly qualified in their content area. Inclusion can play an important part in middle grades. Peers become increasingly important to students during adolescence, and their self-esteem is often impacted by what their peers think of them. While research on the implementation of inclusion in middle schools is limited, evidence suggests that participation in an environment where inclusion is properly implemented can increase self-esteem of some middle school students with disabilities (Conderman, 2011; Patterson, Connolly, & Ritter, 2009; Ritter, Michel, & Irby, 1999). Furthermore, inclusion can contribute to positive relationships between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers (Ritter et al., 1999). Additionally, teachers may have higher

expectations for students with disabilities in inclusion settings (Ritter et al., 1999.) Finally, academic levels of students with disabilities in middle grades may be positively impacted (Patterson et al., 2009; Ritter et al., 1999). REFERENCES Barrett, L. (2013). Seamless teaching: Navigating the inclusion spectrum. Teaching Tolerance, 53(43), 53–55. Conderman, G. (2011). Middle school co-teaching: Effective practices and student reflections. Middle School Journal, 42(4), 24–31. Council for Exceptional Children. (2010). Policy manual, section three, part 1. Reston, VA: Author. Friend, M. (2008). Co-teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(2), 9–19. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2013). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Friend, M., & Pope, K. L. (2005). Creating schools in which all students can succeed. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(2), 56–61. Heward, W. L. (2013). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) 2004. Pub. L. No. 108–446, §1–306, 118 Stats. 2647–2808. Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 77–88. Kilanowski-Press, L. Foote C. J., & Rinaldo, V. J. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and teachers: A survey of current practices. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 43–56. Kozik, P. L., Cooney, B., Vinciguerra, S., Gradel, K., & Black, J. (2009). Promoting inclusion in secondary schools through appreciative inquiry. American Secondary Education, 38(1), 77–91. Leader-Janssen, E., Swain, K. D., Delkamiller, J., & Ritzman, M. J. (2012). Collaborative relationships for general education teachers working with students with disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(2), 112–118. Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2012). Full inclusion of all students with learning disabilities in the regular education classroom. Retrieved from http://ldaamerica.org/ advocacy/lda-position-papers/full-inclusion-of-all-students-with-learning-disabilities-in-the-regular-education-classroom/ No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, §115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Patterson, J. L., Connolly, M. C., & Ritter, S. A. (2009). Restructuring the inclusion classroom to facilitate differentiated instruction. Middle School Journal, 41(1), 46–52. Ritter, C. L., Michel, C. S., & Irby, B. (1999). Concerning inclusion: Perceptions of middle school students, their parents, and teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(2), 10–16.

INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES ◾ 207 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs (2014). 36th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014. Washington, DC: Author.

INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES Brittany L. Hott Texas A&M University, Commerce The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) aims to provide resources to support rigorous research while simultaneously informing policy and practice (USDE, 2015). IES spearheads four centers (a) the National Center for Education Research (NCER); (b) the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); (c) the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE); and (d) the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER). These four centers carry out the IES’ mission. The NCER oversees 21 active and completed research and development centers (IES, n.d.a.). Grants are available to support the (a) development; (b) efficacy and replication; (c) exploration; and (d) measurement of interventions and programs addressing critical areas of need. Some of the focus areas include teacher preparation, rural education, post-secondary education, and gifted education (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/RandD/). The NCES is responsible for collecting and analyzing education-related data (IES, n.d.b.). Reports titled the (a) condition of education; (b) digest of education statistics; (c) high school dropout and completion rates; (d) indicators of crime and safety; and (e) predictors of education statistics are drafted annually and made publically available (see http://nces.ed.gov/annuals/). The NCEE is responsible for conducting unbiased large-scale assessments and evaluations, providing technical assistance, and supporting the dissemination of research (IES, n.d.c.). Additionally, the NCEE oversees several instrumental projects including: (a) What Works Clearinghouse; (b) Regional Educational Laboratory Program; (c) Evaluation Studies; (d) Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); and (e) National Library of Education (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/). The NCSER, the newest IES center, is charged with sponsoring special education research aimed to improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities (IES, n.d.d.). NCSER oversees six research and development centers focusing on improving outcomes for students with, or at-risk for, disabilities. Additionally, NCSER oversees 17 research programs focusing on a variety of special education initiatives.

In addition to the four resources centers, IES conducts and supports peer-reviewed scientific studies. One major responsibility is to carry out an evaluation on the status of education in the United States. IES accomplishes this responsibility by conducting longitudinal studies and surveys, completing statistical analyses, and supporting international assessments. Results are summarized in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, The Nation’s Report Card, and a variety of reports, guides, brochures, and briefs (see http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/). IES also provides training and resources to enable researches to conduct quality studies. IES projects aim to address critical education challenges including preschool to post-secondary education and special education interventions. Methodological resources and training for researchers and university faculty responsible for teaching research methods courses are also available through IES. These tools help to teach and explain statistical concepts, research design, and implementation science. Additionally, a variety of useful resources are available for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. These resources include webinars, brochures, quick fact documents, and training materials. Many are publically available for download through the IES website (see http://ies.ed.gov/). REFERENCES Institute for Education Sciences. (n.d.a.). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ Institute for Education Sciences. (n.d.b.). National Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/ Institute for Education Sciences. (n.d.c.). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ Institute for Education Sciences. (n.d.d.). National Center for Special Education Research. Retrieved from http://ies. ed.gov/ncser/ United States Department of Education. (2015). Institute for Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/

INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS: DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION Katherine Main Griffith University, Australia STUDENT DIVERSITY In the middle years (Years 6–9), there are a number of factors that have combined to increase the student diversity within these classrooms. First, differences in

208 ◾ INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS: DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION

ability, cultural and linguistic variation, family structures, socio-economic background, as well as racial and religious backgrounds means there is wide heterogeneity in any student population. Second, as young adolescents transition into a “new” educational setting, they are also experiencing a time of significant physical, emotional, social, and cognitive change with dissimilar rates of growth being experienced by each individual in all areas of development. Finally, changes to educational initiatives mandated through national policies, such as inclusion, have also added to the heterogeneity of classes by increasing the numbers of students with special needs who are educated within general or mainstream classrooms (Haager & Klingner, 2005). The combination of these factors has resulted in significant diversity and a range of instructional levels within general classrooms that has been estimated to be, on average, 5.4 grade equivalents (Jenkins et al., 1994). The increasing diversity in student populations now means that one of the biggest challenges for middle school teachers is to provide a developmentally appropriate curriculum that meets the educational needs of all students within their classroom (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2011). Recognition of the diversity within middle years’ classrooms has been echoed in the Association for Middle Level Association’s position statement on effective practices when teaching young adolescents (Andrews, Caskey, & Anfara, 2007). To effectively meet the needs of all students, a teacher needs to go beyond a “one size fits all” approach and utilise a wider range of curricula and pedagogical approaches. This position paper argues that successful schools for young adolescents need to provide a curriculum that has multiple learning and teaching approaches that respond to the diversity within middle years’ classrooms (Andrews et al., 1995; Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, 2003). As such, teachers must differentiate their instruction. DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION Differentiated instruction is a philosophy of teaching, not a set of hard and fast rules and, by its very nature, is a dynamic process within every lesson in every classroom. Differentiated instruction is where a teacher changes the pace, level, or kind of instruction to provide students with a range of different ways to access or learn the required curriculum. It is an instructional model that supports teachers’ efforts to improve student outcomes by addressing variations in students’ readiness, interest, and in their learning profiles (Tomlinson, 2004, 2014; Tomlinson & Inbeau, 2010). A student’s “readiness” refers to their preparedness to learn which consists of their innate ability which is also influenced

positively or negatively by many factors including their life experience, language skills, and socio-economic status. For example, Voltz and Fore (2006) noted that the high poverty rates that exist in urban school districts has increased the readiness gap among children. A student’s “interest” is highly personal and variable and includes topics, subjects, and models of learning that they find interesting and motivating and are prepared to invest time and energy into. Tapping into a student’s interests creates the connectedness necessary between the curriculum and their world to make their learning more meaningful. A student’s learning profile is developed over time and comprises the individual characteristics for each student around how they learn best. An individual’s learning profile can include their learning style (for example, Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences or Fleming’s VARK model) or can be shaped by other factors such as gender, culture, or cognitive ability (Fleming & Mills, 1992; Gardner, 1993). Thus, a teacher’s overarching aims are to increase the academic and social success of all students and to decrease student disengagement, alienation, and marginalization. The challenge for teachers is to understand and attempt to respond to the diverse range of interests and abilities within a classroom to ensure opportunities are provided for all students that enable them to reach their potential. MODELS OF DIFFERENTIATION Universal Design for Learning, REACH (Reach Every Student through Differentiated Instruction), and Response to Intervention are a few examples of curriculum models of differentiation. These models advocate that students do not just gain a specific set of knowledge and/or skills, but rather become “learners”. The overarching goal for such “learners” is to develop three general learning characteristics, namely to be, (a) goal oriented; (b) knowledgeable; and (c) self-directed and motivated to learn more: In effect, a life-long learner. Designing and delivering curricula through such models provide the means whereby teachers remove many of the would-be barriers to learning that students must overcome. These models of instruction use differentiation as the lens that is looked through when using any materials, program or instructional strategy. Thus, differentiation is the key element in the curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment triad within the classroom environment where high quality curriculum and materials are selected. As such, it is not so much what is used but, rather, how it is used to meet the varying readiness, interests and learning profiles of students that creates an effective learning environment.

INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS: DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ◾ 209

EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES THAT SUPPORT DIFFERENTIATION In a meta-analysis of over 900 studies that examined effective curricula and instructional practices for diverse student populations, Kline (1995) synthesized the results into a list of 13 instructional strategies. These strategies were: (a) co-operative and collaborative activities; (b) real life or life-like (reality) based learning; (c) the inclusion of thematic, interdisciplinary or integrated curriculum that integrates knowledge and skills across subject areas; (d) a constructivist approach that includes active learning; (e) awareness of each students’ literacy levels; (f) the teacher modelling appropriate cognitive and affective behaviours; (g) the promotion of critical and creative thinking skills; (h) a multicultural approach to teaching that recognized and celebrated difference within the classroom; (i) alternative assessment opportunities; (j) strong home/school partnerships; (k) accelerated learning techniques; (l) questioning techniques that promote exploration and elaboration; and (m) multifaceted teaching that considers brain-compatible instruction. All students benefit from a variety of instructional methods and these evidence-based strategies provide a foundation framework for differentiating instruction to cater for the diversity within a middle years’ classroom. Traditional instruction has meant that teachers have taught to the “middle” which has resulted in a large number of students’ educational needs not being met. However, even when attempting to differentiate, teachers may become discouraged or disillusioned where they have found their efforts to be ineffective. In many cases, teachers have been ill prepared and untrained in how to differentiate (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). Key to being able to differentiate is knowing each student’s learning needs and to ensure each student is appropriately challenged. In short, differentiation is a teachers’ response to learners’ needs which is guided by general principles at the instructional level which can be achieved by (a) adjusting the content or curriculum (what students should know); (b) the processes or skills (what students should be able to do); (c) products or assessment tasks (how students demonstrate their learning); and (d) the learning environment including both the physical and affective domains of a classroom (Tomlinson, 2004, 2014). Teachers can differentiate the content the process and the product according to students’ readiness, interest and learning through a range of instructional strategies (Lewis & Batts, 2005). DIFFERENTIATION IN PRACTICE To differentiate, teachers must consider the knowledge, interests, and abilities of the students together with the

key or necessary knowledge and skills of the content area, the most effective way to organize the students for learning (i.e., different types of grouping), and how the content will be assessed (Anderson, 2007; Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008). DIFFERENTIATING CONTENT Differentiating content does not mean that the teacher is varying the objectives or lowering the standards or expectations of student achievement. Content differentiation can be achieved through tiered instruction which requires varying either what (the content) we teach or how (the process) students are able to access the content (Anderson, 2007). Tiered instruction is one way to teach a concept or piece of content and meet the different learning needs within a class. There are five (5) main steps when tiering instruction: 1. Selecting content or a concept from the curriculum that students should know or understand. At this point, the teacher should make decisions around how to tier for the students in their class (i.e., readiness, interest, or learning profile); 2. Assess students’ readiness, interest, or learning profile; 3. Create an “at level” activity that is focused on the content or concept; 4. Adjust the activity to provide different levels of difficulty (i.e., through process, product, resources, or outcome); 5. Match students to an appropriate tiered activity. Through tiered instruction each student can be appropriately challenged as the focus is on the content or concept and not on the learning differences. In tiered instruction, pre-assessment is used to correctly match students with an appropriate activity. Post-testing is then used to ensure students have achieved the required standard. When differentiating the content through tiered activities, it is important to note that the actual content itself not changed or modified but rather the content is represented in multiple ways. Changing or modifying the content would only be considered where there is a large gap in a student’s readiness compared to the majority of the class (e.g., students with disabilities). When differentiating the process, a range of strategies can be used. Tomlinson (2014) identified eight points of differentiation that can be applied to a range of learning tasks which include moving from (a) simple to complex tasks; (b) concrete to abstract thinking; (c) straightforward to transformational; (d) single or few facets to multifaceted; (e) small increments to larger increments; (f) very structured to open-ended;

210 ◾ INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS: DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION

(g) dependent to independent; and (h) slow to rapid. The key is to design tasks that have multiple entry points along the process continuum to ensure the content is accessible to all students and still enable all students to be appropriately challenged. DIFFERENTIATING THROUGH STUDENT GROUPING No one way of grouping students is best for every situation. The overuse of any one grouping pattern can have negative consequences for some students. However, teachers can differentiate through flexible grouping arrangements where students are given opportunities to work with a variety of students through whole group activities or a number of different configurations of small groups. If teachers do not use flexible grouping within their classroom, it is almost impossible to differentiate instruction for all learners. Radencich and McKay (1995) also argued that the grouping arrangements, including group membership, within a classroom needed to change frequently. The key to differentiating through student grouping is to be flexible. Students are placed or choose to work in different groups depending on the activity. Prior to instruction, the teacher needs to match the appropriate grouping strategy to the instructional objectives and students’ needs. For example, a whole class group would be appropriate for sharing common information and instructions with all students and small teacher facilitated groups would be suitable when there is a need to focus on specific skills or content for particular students. Other grouping configurations range from independent learning centres, pairs, small same ability, mixed ability or interest groups. All different groupings have value but must be linked to the goals of the instruction and students’ needs for their value to be realised. Groups should be fluid in both composition and membership. It should be noted that ability groupings without differentiation has been shown to have little or no influence on student outcomes (Tieso, 2005). DIFFERENTIATING THROUGH ASSESSMENT Assessment is the lynchpin of differentiated instruction. Effective instruction relies of the use of assessment for learning (formative and diagnostic assessments), assessment of learning (the use of a task or an activity to measure, record and report on the level of achievement), and assessment as learning (use of a task or an activity to allow students the opportunity to use assessment to further their own learning) to determine the effect of instruction. To differentiate

effectively, teachers must use multiple methods of pre-testing as well as formative and summative assessment before, during, and after instruction. Pre-testing or pre-assessment is used as a diagnostic tool to gauge students’ levels of readiness or interest for the content and skills. On-going informal and formal assessment ensures that the teacher is constantly aware of students’ progress and when and how to adjust instructional strategies to support or extend students’ learning (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). CONCLUSION Students are different and quality teaching is key to supporting their academic growth. Targeted efforts are needed to meet their differing needs. The teacher must be flexible and adjust the content and the process to fit the student rather than expecting the student to adjust to the curriculum. Differentiated instruction takes into consideration all students’ levels of readiness, interests, and learning profiles and acknowledges all students’ preferences as equally valid. Teachers can effectively differentiate for students in their classrooms by using a range of instructional and assessment strategies and through flexible grouping strategies. REFERENCES Anderson, K. M. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49–54. Andrews, P. G., Caskey, M. M., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2007). Research summary: Characteristics of exemplary schools for young adolescents. Retrieved from http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1007&context=ci_fac Differentiation Central. (n.d.). Welcome to the home of UVA’s Institutes on Academic Diversity. Retrieved from http:// www.diffcentral.com/index.html Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137–145. Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, L. M., & Troutner, M. N. (1994). Accommodations for individual differences without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school restructuring. Exceptional Children, 60, 344–368. Haager, D., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction in inclusive classrooms. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Lewis, S., & Batts, K. (2005). How to implement differentiated instruction? Adjust, adjust, adjust. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 26–31. McTighe, J., & O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 10–17. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2011). Building a high-quality teaching profession: Lessons from around the world. Paris, France: Authors. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264113046-en

INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS/STRATEGIES ◾ 211 Radencich, M. C., & McKay, L. J. (1995). Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Rock, M., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31–47. Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Meaningful professional development in accommodating students with disabilities; Lesson learned. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 344–353. Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 60–89. Tomlinson, C. (2004). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C., & Inbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Valentine, J., Clark, D., Hackmann, D., & Petzko, V. (2003). A national study of leadership in middle level schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Voltz, D., & Fore, C. (2006). Urban special education in the context of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 329–336.

INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS/STRATEGIES Donna Pendergast Griffith University, Australia ENGAGING MIDDLE LEVEL LEARNERS There are a range of instructional techniques and strategies teachers can utilise in teaching and learning that are developmentally appropriate for young adolescent learners. When teachers favour these pedagogical approaches, they are more likely to enhance student engagement in the learning process and hence students are more likely to achieve positive learning outcomes. The Middle Years of Schooling Association (MYSA) of Australia advocates for an intentional approach to teaching and learning that is responsive and appropriate to the full range of needs, interests and achievements of middle years students in formal and informal schooling contexts, and provides a list of instructional strategies to achieve this intention (MYSA, 2008). Likewise, the Association for Middle Level Education (formerly National Middle School Association) identifies particular instructional, assessment and curriculum approaches that are encouraged in order to optimise learning opportunities

for young adolescents (NMSA, 2010). In this topic, we consider what constitutes quality teaching instruction in middle grades education and point to the evidence base that provides assurance that these instructional approaches are most aligned to the needs of young adolescents and hence more likely to engage them to learn. The importance of identifying and building an evidence base around the effectiveness of particular instructional techniques is one of the major challenges to the sustainability of middle grades education as there continues to be a lack of universal acceptance as to what constitutes best practice for effectively educating middle school students. DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS OF YOUNG ADOLESCENTS Quality teaching brings together the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment approaches that consider the developmental needs of young adolescents alongside an understanding of the changes that are occurring more broadly in society so that learning can prepare young people to be effective members of the community. The developmental needs of young adolescents are well documented and typically frame young adolescence as a distinct, significant and unique period of life characterized by the physical and sexual changes of puberty, and psychosocial and cognitive changes, including: psychological—acquiring independence and autonomy; social—dealing with changing family and peer group relationships; emotional—shifting from narcissistic to mutually caring relationships; cognitive—moving from concrete to abstract thought (supported by brain development); and moral—developing a set of moral beliefs and standards (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2012). These developmental needs characterise a predictable stage that is shared by young people but that occurs for each in a unique and individual way. NATURE OF SOCIETY Young people also experience the world around them in individual ways as they make the shift from childhood through to adulthood (Pendergast & Garvis, 2014). Today’s society is one characterised by an acceleration of the rate of change and which is strongly influenced by digital culture. Students are digital natives who have been immersed from birth in the digital age with the ever increasing range of devices part of their world within and outside of formal and informal learning situations. In addition, they have been born into an era of uncertainty with regards to personal and global safety. This is manifest in local and global contexts,

212 ◾ INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS/STRATEGIES

with insecurity a feature of this age of terrorism (Bahr & Pendergast, 2007). Collectively, these changes mean that young adolescents are experiencing diverse cultures and rapidly changing technologies in a far more complex and uncertain world. It is in this context, featuring acceleration and change, that instructional methods employed by teachers must bring together a means to connect the changes that occur during young adolescence and prepare young people to be members of a global world where change and unfamiliarity are predictable. Hence, employing instructional techniques that build resilience and the skills to be expert novices—that is, good at learning new things—is an important goal of education. However, in terms of changes that are occurring more broadly in society, it is clear that at all levels of education, the historical paradigms of teaching and learning are being challenged as they adjust incrementally while society is changing at a more accelerated pace. FEATURES OF QUALITY TEACHING According to Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER, 2012), with respect to quality teaching, middle level teachers need both the generic qualities associated with effective teaching and the specific attributes relevant to teaching adolescents. These are identified as: • the ability to design an integrated curriculum; • skills in working collaboratively within a small learning community for team planning and team teaching; • an in-depth understanding of the concerns and needs of adolescents; • a willingness to develop positive relationships with students, families and the community; and • a capacity to sustain middle level reform. Importantly, young adolescents must be engaged as active participants in their learning as opposed to passive recipients of schooling. This view has been advocated for several decades with, for example, in their seminal work Cumming and Cormack (1996) clearly argued that many young adolescents are marginalised in the learning environment as a direct consequence of unsuitable pedagogies. New ways of doing include holistic approaches to curriculum through flexible school structures and programming and through teachers working in teams as opposed to working within the isolation of their own classroom. Furthermore, effective teacher collaboration underpins a number of practices and teachers require specific skills such as team decision making, conflict resolution, and strong communication strategies to effectively work in a middle level environment

(Main, 2010). Other themes to emerge from these early reports and papers concur with experiences in the United States and the United Kingdom by advocating for an integrated curriculum that is delivered in a challenging and engaging manner and is assessed in an authentic context (ACER, 2012). There are a number of pedagogical approaches that promote and support student engagement for improved learning and achievement. Teachers can have a significant impact on student engagement and learning for young adolescents if they favour instructional practices that incorporate some or all of the following features: nurturing trusting relationships; engaging students in fun learning activities; and making learning meaningful (Willms & Friesen, 2012). Nurturing trusting relationships enables young adolescents to achieve a sense of belonging and the opportunity to demonstrate competence and autonomy in a safe environment. The instructional approaches that facilitate the development of trust include: caring about students; knowing students well; and being fair with students. Engaging students in fun learning activities facilitates students to be more actively engaged when learning is perceived to be fun, inspiring and challenging. The instructional approaches that facilitate fun learning include: encouraging discussion; cooperative learning; peer tutoring; problem-based learning; hands-on work; demonstrations; and incorporation of games and technology. To make learning meaningful for students, teachers can employ instructional techniques that highlight why learning is important and relate the content to students’ lives, making it relevant for them. In this way, teachers enable students to help them take responsibility for their own learning. The pursuit of student engagement is the ultimate goal of teachers making choices about instructional approaches. In the context of middle level education, this highlights the need for relevance, relatedness, and the development of resilience within a framework of high expectations. The Middle Years of Schooling Association of Australia (MYSA, 2008) urges teachers of middle level education to employ a comprehensive range of signature practices to engage young adolescents in relevant, meaningful and challenging learning, along with organisational initiatives to facilitate their implementation. The following signature practices are specified: higher order thinking strategies; integrated and disciplinary curricula that are negotiated, relevant and challenging; heterogeneous and flexible student groupings; cooperative learning and collaborative teaching; small learning communities that provide students with sustained individual attention in a safe and healthy school environment; emphasis on strong teacher–student relationships through extended contact with a small number of teachers and a consistent student cohort; authentic and reflective assessment with

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ORGANIZATION ◾ 213

high expectations; democratic governance and shared leadership; and, parental and community involvement in student learning. This list of intentional instructional practices echoes those advocated by the Association for Middle Level Education (NMSA, 2010), which has recently moved to a more holistic notion of instructional approaches that ensure: educators value young adolescents and are prepared to teach them; students and teachers are engaged in active, purposeful learning; curriculum is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant; educators use multiple learning and teaching approaches; and, varied and ongoing assessments advance learning as well as measure it. With respect to multiple learning and teaching approaches, the overall goal is to engage young people in learning informed by the distinctive developmental characteristics of young adolescents which provide the foundation for selecting learning and teaching strategies. TEACHER EFFICACY Student engagement sits squarely within the ambit of quality teaching, and importantly quality instruction that meets the needs of students where they are currently located in their learning. In summary, the relationship between student engagement and teacher quality is strong. A teacher’s sense of efficacy is their belief or perception of their capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated. Teacher self-efficacy forms within the beginning years of teaching and according to theory, once developed, is resistant to change. Teacher efficacy can be categorised into two types: general teacher efficacy—teachers’ beliefs in the ability of teachers in general to influence student outcomes, and personal teacher efficacy—teachers’ beliefs about their own ability to affect student outcomes. The self-efficacy beliefs teachers hold about their ability to teach in ways that are most suited to middle level students shapes their competence in teaching. A teacher’s sense of efficacy or their belief that they have the capacity to affect student performance is directly linked to their enacted practices. A growing body of literature reveals that where teachers have stated a high level of self-efficacy, improved student outcomes have been reported. This causal link has been attributed to a range of behaviours linked to classroom practice, including the level of teacher effort invested in planning and organisation, goals and aspirations, risk taking with new pedagogies to meet the needs of students as well as persistence and resilience when things go awry (Bandura, 2006). For teachers to operate in self efficacious ways to deliver quality teaching, they must develop mastery of the skill sets required. This requires development of both competence and confidence, and hence a focus on effective

instructional techniques requires a focus on teacher professional learning, such that teacher self-efficacy can be enhanced and student achievement levels will parallel these improvements. Perhaps this is part of the key to effective teaching and learning in middle level education, in addition to signature instructional practices. REFERENCES Australian Council for Educational Research. (2012). Junior secondary—theory and practice. Queensland, Australia: Queensland Government, Department of Education and Training. Bahr, N., & Pendergast, D. (2007). The millennial adolescent. Canberra, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1–44). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Cumming, J., & Cormack, P. (1996). From alienation to engagement: Opportunities for reform in the middle years of schooling (Vols. 1–3). Canberra, Australia: Australian Curriculum Studies Association. Main, K. (2010). Teams and teaming practices. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 301– 316). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Middle Years of Schooling Association of Australia. (2008). MYSA Position Paper: Middle schooling: People, practices and places. Brisbane, Australia: MYSA. Retrieved from http://www.adolescentsuccess.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MYSA-Position-Paper.pdf National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Pendergast, D., & Garvis, S. (2014). Early and middle years of schooling. In A. Ashman (Ed), Education for inclusion and diversity (pp. 300–331). Melbourne, Australia: Pearson. Willms, J., & Friesen, S. (2012). What did you do in school today? Research Series Report 2: The relationship between instructional challenge and student engagement. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Education Association.

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ORGANIZATION Elsa Andreasen Glover Kaneland Harter Middle School Kaneland Community Unit School District 302 Bryan D. Zwemke Rotolo Middle School, Batavia Public School District 101 To create a developmentally responsive environment, middle schools can divide staff and students into

214 ◾ INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ORGANIZATION

interdisciplinary teams, grouping students and teachers into small cohesive and supportive units. Interdisciplinary teaming provides students and teachers with the opportunity to “create small learning communities of adults and students in which stable, close, and mutually respectful relationships support all students’ intellectual, ethical, and social growth” (National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, Vision and Mission, n.d.). As an organizational structure, interdisciplinary teaching offers middle grades students a small community in which to foster a sense of belonging. It provides teachers with more opportunities to collaborate about curriculum and classroom practices. According to the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, a “truly high-performing middle-level school embodies the intersection of academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, social equity, and organizational structure” (National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, Our Criteria STW, n.d.). Interdisciplinary teaming also provides multiple ways for teachers to meet students’ academic and social emotional needs throughout their middle school years. TEAM CONFIGURATION As students move from elementary school self-contained classrooms to the middle school, their educational and social needs change. Middle schools often organize students and teachers in interdisciplinary teams that typically consist of three to five teachers who share the same students, responsibility for creating and evaluating curriculum and instruction, the same schedule, and the same area in the school (George & Alexander, 2003). Smaller teams work well for sixth grade students by making the transition from elementary school smoother. “The two-teacher team is used increasingly in sixth grade as a sound transition from a single teacher, self-contained classroom in the elementary school to the four- or five-teacher team commonly found in grade seven and eight” (Wallace, 2007, p. 5). Although there is no one way to create teams, typically, teams are structured by grade level and include the four core disciplines of English/language arts, social science, mathematics, and science. In larger teams, special education, physical education, and arts teachers may also be included. PREVALENCE OF INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMING Since its inception, a growing number of U.S. schools have implemented the middle school concept. “The number of middle schools was 462 percent higher in 2000–01 than in 1970–71 (11,700 vs. 2,100)” (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2013). As the middle school concept expanded, interdisciplinary teaming also spread. Nearly 80% of middle schools currently implement teaming. Teaming was most commonly implemented in grade 6 (79% of schools), followed closely by grade 7 (76%), and grade 8 (69%) (Hackmann et al., 2002). EFFECTIVE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMING Successful middle grades schools share several commonalities, including interdisciplinary teaming. “Teaming remains one of the hallmarks of the middle school movement. The presence of teaming in a school is among the first organizational steps toward increasing student achievement through students’ enhanced sense of belonging (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Jackson & Davis, 2000)” (Wallace, 2007, p. 1). This organizational structure supports autonomy for teachers, who in turn, can create relationships and differentiate the learning experience for all their students. According to the National Middle School Association (2003), “Effective teams lead to improved student achievement, increased parental contacts, an enhanced school climate, and positive student attitudes” (p. 29). When organized effectively, interdisciplinary teams can truly enhance student learning. Principles for organizing effective teams include: 1. Keep teams small in terms of number of teachers and students. 2. Provide sufficient individual and team planning time for teachers. 3. Allow teams to design their students’ daily schedule. 4. Assign teams to their own area of the building. 5. Allow teams to work together for multiple years. (Erb & Stevenson, 1999) TEAM STRUCTURE Effective interdisciplinary teams typically have 100 to 120 students, 3–4 teachers, and common planning time (Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall, 2000a). The purpose of any common planning meeting is to focus on kids, curriculum, and professional development (Berckemeyer, 2012). A team leader must balance the need for all three components to maximize common planning time. It should be noted that bringing these practices to a high functioning level takes time. Allowing teams multiple years to work together will enhance the team’s abilities to meet the needs of students. It may take teams three to five years to make progress (Berckemeyer, 2012). Forming teams is relatively simple, but fully incorporating interdisciplinary teaming practices that promote

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ORGANIZATION ◾ 215

student achievement is an extensive and time-intensive process (Hackmann et al., 2002). COMMON PLANNING TIME Rogers (2002) stated that common planning time is the “single most significant factor in determining the level of implementation and the academic achievement gains shown by teams” (para. 6). Teachers need a regular time to meet to plan curriculum, discuss student needs and communicate with parents, and engage in professional development. According to Flowers, Mertens, and Mulhall (1999), the most effective teams meet for at least 30 minutes, four times a week. Common plan time can provide teachers with extensive professional growth, finding the best ways to engage student learning. Similarly, Flowers, Mertens, and Mulhall (2000b) found that “Schools that are teaming with high levels of common planning time are integrating instruction in the classroom more frequently as compared to schools that are either teaming with low levels or no common planning time, or that are not engaged in teaming” (p. 56). The more an interdisciplinary team can meet, the more likely they can integrate instruction. In a recent national study, teachers reported (a) that when they had common planning time it was most often used for discussing student learning and behavior problems and less frequently for planning and integrating curriculum; (b) that they had little to no preparation in how to effectively use common planning time and had received little professional development; (c) that they had insufficient common planning time; and (d) that common planning time improved communication and collaboration with colleagues and improved instruction and their ability to monitor student progress (Mertens, Anfara, Caskey, & Flowers, 2012). SCHEDULING To suit students’ learning, interdisciplinary teams can best support them with a flexible schedule. Hackmann et al. (2002) found that “schools should incorporate flexible interdisciplinary scheduling models that permit team teachers to continually group and regroup learners, allowing them to fashion instructional time frames in the manner that best meets instructional and learning needs” (p. 44). The flexibility provides opportunity to meet students where they are at any given time. It is advantageous to schedule common departmental planning time as well. Creating departmental common planning time allows for stronger curriculum and professional development.

Characteristics of highly effective teams include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Student-centered focus. Strong commitment to academic achievement. Collaborative policies and accountability systems. Strong sense of team community. Regular communication with parents. A proactive approach. Teachers who work professionally and collaboratively. (George & Alexander, 2003) A STUDENT-CENTERED APPROACH

Interdisciplinary teaming can build a sense of security and team community. As students and teachers work within smaller groups, they create stronger bonds. These bonds help students feel safe and learn better. Effective interdisciplinary teams also advocate for their students. Berckemeyer (2012) stated, “If teams spend time talking about all of the students on their teams, student achievement will rise” (p. 13). A dedicated group of teachers who communicates students’ strengths and weaknesses can more easily differentiate instruction so that the kids get what they need. Additionally, interdisciplinary teams create opportunities for teachers to support the whole child by sharing student concerns and in turn taking steps to support each student’s social emotional growth. Interdisciplinary teams’ student-centered approach strives to meet students where they are in terms of academic, behavioral, and social emotional growth. The unique middle school student is progressing through various stages of social emotional development. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2015) defined social and emotional learning (SEL) as the process through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions. COLLABORATIVE POLICIES AND TEAM COMMUNITY Often associated with the middle level concept and interdisciplinary teams, team leaders have many responsibilities critical to the academic and social emotional organization of a productive school. In This We Believe, the National Middle School Association (NMSA) (2010) stated, “Team leaders help set direction, provide feedback, and advances school improvement efforts. Effective interdisciplinary teams lead to improved student achievement, increased parental contacts, an enhanced

216 ◾ INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ORGANIZATION

school climate, and positive student attitude” (p. 42). To foster the collaboration and sense of community, team leaders must advocate that middle school concept remain the priority. As team leaders work to meet their students’ academic and social emotional needs in a developmentally responsive way, their interdisciplinary teams expand their effectiveness. COMMITMENT TO ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Middle school teaming parallels the concept of professional learning communities. If middle school teams are meant to be small learning communities, the concept of a professional learning community (PLC) can certainly apply and enhance teams. According to Ruebel (2011), “a strong connection exists between the dimensions of implementing a PLC and the tenets of This We Believe.” Caskey et al. (2010) reported, “Credible research on middle grades leadership and organization documents the importance of a shared vision among the stakeholders” (p. 26). Furthermore, just as a common vision is a key component of a PLC, the same is true of a middle school (Caskey et al., 2010). PLCs can provide interdisciplinary teams the structures needed to effectively support student growth. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Successful middle grades schools actively involve parents, connecting home and school, when typically a middle school child communicates less with parents about education. Mo and Singh (2008) found that regular “parental involvement during middle school years will have positive effects on students’ school engagement as well as on their school performance. [ . . . ] Students whose parents stay connected to their children and schools are likely to have higher school engagement and better performance” (p. 9). Ensuring student success, interdisciplinary teams contact parents beyond simple problems in the classroom. Flowers, Mertens, and Mulhall (1999) found that “teaming schools have more frequent contact with parents” (p. 58). Effective interdisciplinary teams contact parents frequently to communicate curriculum, student performance, volunteering opportunities and community collaboration. CHALLENGES AND REFORM Early middle school teams served different purposes. “Teaming was really more a method of organizing teachers and learners than it was a curriculum plan or an instructional strategy” (George, 2009, p. 3). Principals

and teachers must move beyond the simple formation of teams to the creation of an infrastructure that supports high-performing teams and thereby promotes improved student achievement (Hackmann et al., 2002). As middle schools organize themselves using interdisciplinary teams, challenges arise as to how to use these teams effectively to ensure student success. If interdisciplinary teams are simply organizational structures, they can lack focus on students, curriculum, and professional development. By providing professional development, common plan time, and strong leadership, interdisciplinary teams promote student achievement. REFLECTIONS Teacher collaboration is an absolute for effective professional development and meeting middle school students’ academic and social emotional needs. Although there are numerous methods to organize staff, interdisciplinary teaming is a critical function of a highly effective middle school. “Virtually every model or set of recommendations for the reform of middle school or high school education includes some version of teacher teamwork (Wilcox & Angelis, 2007)” (George, 2009, p. 6). Initially, middle school interdisciplinary teaming served as an organization structure; it continues to grow to not only meet students’ academic and social emotional needs, but staff professional development and growth. REFERENCES Berckemeyer, J. (2012). Taming of the team: How great teams work together. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Caskey, M. M., Andrews, P. G., Bishop, P. A., Capraro, R. M., Roe, M., & Weiss, C. (2010). Research and resources in support of This We Believe (2nd ed.). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2015). What is social and emotional learning? Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/ social-and-emotional-learning/ Erb, T. O., & Stevenson, C. (1999). From faith to facts: Turning Points in action—What difference does teaming make? Middle School Journal, 30(3), 47–50. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (1999). The impact of teaming: Five research-based outcomes. Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57–60. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000a). What makes interdisciplinary teams effective? Middle School Journal, 31(4), 53–56.

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ORGANIZATION ◾ 217 Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000b). How teaming influences classroom practices. Middle School Journal, 32(2), 52–59. George, P. S. (2009). Renewing the middle school: The early success of middle school education. Middle School Journal, 41(1), 1–6. George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Hackmann, D. G., Petzko, V. N., Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nori, J. R., & Lucas, S. E. (2002). Beyond interdisciplinary teaming: Findings and implications of the NASSP National Middle Level Study. NASSP Bulletin, 86(32), 33–47. Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., Caskey, M. M., & Flowers, N. (Eds.). (2012). Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s National Project. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Mo, Y., & Singh, K. (2008). Parents’ relationships and involvement: Effects on students’ school engagement and performance. Retrieved from https://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/ rmle/rmle_vol31_no10.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics, 2012 (NCES 2014-015), Chapter 2:

Elementary and secondary education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/ch_2.asp National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (n.d.). Our criteria STW. Retrieved from http://middlegradesforum.org/our-criteria-stw/ National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (n.d.). Vision and mission. Retrieved from http://middlegradesforum.org/vision-mission/ National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH. Author. Rogers, A. L. (2002). Teaming with purpose: Unleashing the potential. Retrieved from http://education.jhu.edu/PD/ newhorizons/lifelonglearning/adolescence/articles/ teamingwithpurposeunleashingthepotential/ Ruebel, K. (2011). Research summary: Professional learning communities. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/ BrowsebyTopic/WhatsNew/WNDet.aspx?ArtMID=888 &ArticleID=310 Wallace, J. J. (2007). Effects of interdisciplinary teaching team configuration upon the social bonding of middle school students. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 30(5), 1–18. Wilcox, K., & Angelis, J. (2007). What makes middle schools work? Albany: State University of New York, Institute for Research in Education.

This page intentionally left blank.

J J. Howard Johnston is a leading expert on effective schooling practices for middle grades students. His research interests include school achievement and the productive behavior of adolescents, diversity in American education, school structuring for student success, and effective technology use in challenging school environments. Johnston earned his undergraduate degree in secondary education, English, and anthropology and his master’s degree in English and social studies education at the State University of New York at New Paltz. He earned his doctorate degree in Curriculum and Instruction with emphasis in American Studies at the University of Wyoming. Johnston’s teaching career began in 1969 when he taught junior and senior high school English and social studies in New York and Wyoming. He also served as a demonstration teacher for two years. At the college level, he served as faculty at the University of Cincinnati for 16 years as professor, chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research. In 1990, Johnston accepted a position as full professor of Social Studies Education and chair of the Department of Secondary Education at the University of South Florida; he retired in spring 2015. Currently, he holds the position of Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of South Florida. Johnston has been deeply committed to research and the dissemination of information to improve middle grades education for young adolescents. In 1979,

he started a special column in National Middle School Association’s (NMSA) Middle School Journal titled “What Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner,” which continued for many years. He was also the lead author of An Agenda for Excellence at the Middle Level (National Association of Secondary School Principals Council on Middle Level Education, 1984) published by the Middle Level Council of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). Johnston has authored (or co-authored) more than 100 journal articles, reports, book chapters, books, and other works on middle grades education. His book publications include The New American Family and the Schools (Johnston, 1990), Effective Schooling for Economically Disadvantaged Students: SchoolBased Strategies for Diverse Student Populations (Johnston & Borman, 1992), and What Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner (Johnston & Markel, 1986). Johnston’s articles have appeared in various noteworthy journals such as NASSP Bulletin, Middle School Journal, Phi Delta Kappan, School Administrator, and American School Boards Journal. Johnston has also continued his work as a wellknown speaker and consultant, working in all 50 states, Asia, Europe, and South America. Johnston has a strong, collaborative relationship with multiple educational and reform organizations, including his service as member of the NMSA Board of Trustees and the NASSP Council on Middle Level Education. He has served as a charter member of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform and a Team Leader for the High School Principals’ Partnership sponsored by Union Pacific. Johnston has received numerous accolades for his commitment to middle grades education, including the NMSA Presidential Award for Excellence, NASSP William Gruhn-Forrest Long Award for Distinguished Service

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 219–222 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

219

JOHNSTON, J. HOWARD Cheryl R. Ellerbrock University of South Florida

220 ◾ JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH

and Leadership in Middle Level Education, and the John H. Lounsbury Distinguished Service Award from NMSA. REFERENCES Johnston, J. H. (1990). The new American family and the school. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Johnston, J. H., & Borman, K. M. (1992). Effective schooling for economically disadvantaged students: School-based strategies for diverse student populations. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Johnston, J. H., & Markel, G. C. (1986). What research says to the middle level practitioner. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. National Association of Secondary School Principals Council on Middle Level Education. (1984). An agenda for excellence at the middle level. Reston, VA: Author.

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH Alison Buehler Contributor from 1st edition The Journal of Adolescent Research (http://www.sagepub. com/journal.aspx?pid=135) is a bimonthly source for current analysis on how adolescents develop, behave, and are influenced by societal and cultural factors. It uses an interdisciplinary approach to present peer-reviewed articles on topics from diverse fields, including: psychology, sociology, education, public health, family studies, criminology, social work, communication, counseling, and health care. Members of the editorial board represent over 30 different disciplines and bring a broad perspective to this publication. Articles in the Journal of Adolescent Research present empirical, theoretical, and social policy research. They include topics concerning adolescents such as: sexual behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, affect and emotion, adolescent pregnancy, adolescent medicine, delinquency, identity formation, rites of passage, and parenting styles. These articles aspire to increase understanding of individuals in adolescents and in transition of adulthood.

JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE Alison Buehler Contributor from 1st edition The Journal of Early Adolescence publishes articles designed to increase understanding of individuals in early adolescence. It provides information on the

development of young adolescents to researchers and practitioners in areas such as criminology, developmental psychology, education, human development and family studies, psychology, psychiatry, public health, and sociology. The journal, published 4 times each year, features the developmental period of children aged 10 to 14 in empirical studies, literature reviews, and theoretical writings. These articles and reviews, which are peer-reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts, explain, and examine: significant advances and issues from diverse developmental contexts (peer, family, and community), such as education motivation and achievement, identity development (self-esteem and self-concept), problem behaviors (health risks, reactions to stress), sexuality, the importance of culture, as well as in-depth discussions on research design and methodology. (http:// www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=125, ¶2)

Features of the Journal of Early Adolescence include articles, reviews, guest editorials, and themed issues on a variety of current topics. Subjects covered in the journal include: academic competence, depression, delinquency, ethnic and racial issues, gender issues, program evaluations, parenting and family processes, self-esteem and worth, and prosocial behaviors. These topics cover the care, development, and education particular to young adolescents.

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL John H. Lounsbury Georgia College and State University Educators cannot fully understand the current middle school movement without an understanding of the junior high school movement; for the two are inexorably bound together, and in fact, may really be one. The movement to reorder secondary education from which both the junior high and later the middle school were created began in 1888 when Harvard President Charles W. Eliot, concerned over the increasing age of college freshmen, addressed a meeting of the National Education Association (NEA) on the subject of “Can School Programmes Be Shortened and Enriched?”(1888). This was a concern he had previously expressed to his own faculty, and which he voiced now at the important national meeting of school superintendents. So, the school reorganization movement began and would soon give birth to the junior high school. The original impetus for reorganization was simply earlier and better college preparation, “the economy of time” argument.

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ◾ 221

The separate junior high school had not yet even been suggested. Considerable interest was soon displayed in the proposed downward extension of secondary education, which consisted in most states at that time of four years—grades 9 through 12. From 1892 to 1918, several major national committees and commissions studied the idea of reorganization. In general, they supported the proposal to add two years to secondary education at the expense of elementary education. They contended that the seventh and eighth grades were last and most famous of the largely repetitious of earlier grades, primarily a review in preparation for high school. The last and most famous of the many committees that dealt with the reorganization issue was the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, perhaps best remembered for its listing of the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education (1918). This report contained a clear and strong recommendation for the junior high school: We, therefore, recommend a reorganization of the school system whereby the first six years shall be devoted to elementary education designed to meet the needs of pupils approximately 6 to 12 years of age; and the second six years to secondary education designed to meet the needs of pupils approximately 12 to 18 years of age. The six years to be devoted to secondary education may well be divided into two periods which may be designated as the junior and senior periods. (p. 18)

While a separate junior high school was advocated, the proposed division was intended as part of the secondary level and was neither viewed by this Commission nor by any other earlier advocates of reorganization as an intermediate or middle level institution. Even during this initial period, some shifting could be noted in the philosophy underlying the various committee reports and discussions. At first reorganization was supported along the lines of Eliot’s thinking—teach college preparatory subjects earlier. As more public school educators became involved, reorganization was supported for different reasons—reasons having more to do with the best here-and-now education of young adolescents. The economy of time notion, though the original source of impetus, soon went by the boards. When studies revealed the high rates of dropouts, the junior high school was seen as a way to keep pupils in school. In addition, this new school unit was thought of as a way to “bridge the gap” between self-contained elementary school and departmentalized high schools. Two books, both with the same simple title, The Junior High School, were published in 1920 by the movement’s most noted advocates, Leonard V. Koos, a professor of education at the University of Minnesota, and Thomas H. Briggs, of Teachers College Columbus University. Both volumes sought to define the fledgling institution

as developmentally responsive. While these books had considerable influence, they failed to curb the dominance of high school organizational structures and practices as early junior high schools were made operational. The junior high school, as advocated by early leaders, was very similar to what was later advocated for the middle school. This is a reality seldom recognized (Davis, 1996). Two developments in psychology also made definite contributions to the advancement of the movement. The first was the psychological theory advanced by the influential G. Stanley Hall. According to Hall’s (1904) recapitulation or “culture-epoch” theory, the age of adolescence was of prime concern. In his writings Hall referred to adolescence as “a psychological second birth” and to the adolescent as “a new kind of being.” Those who accepted Hall’s proposals, and there were many, quickly perceived the merits in a new school unit especially designed for these unique beings who were going through the physical, mental, and emotional revolution. The second development in psychology that furthered the cause of the junior high school was the new focus on individual differences. Although everyone knew that individuals differed, early schools operated largely on the assumption that people were more or less alike mentally. Many seemed to believe that differences in achievement were more the result of application, motivation, and effort than native ability. However, such notions about the uniformity of schoolchildren could not stand up when psychologists like Thorndike (1904) and Cattell (1957) began measuring and testing. The results were surprising, almost startling, for individuals of the same chronological age differed more than suspected. Differences within individuals were likewise extensive. Nowhere were the individual differences greater than at the seventh, eighth, and ninth grade levels, the junior high school years. It seemed quite sensible to organize a junior high school to work more effectively with this very diverse adolescent group. The typical self-contained elementary classroom, it was believed, would not permit the grouping or the special experiences deemed necessary to meet these vast individual differences. These two developments, though contradictory at some points, helped to give the junior high school movement another byword—“meet the needs of young adolescents.” This byword has prevailed after other tag lines faded away. Happily for advocates of reorganization, whether they espoused earlier college preparation, more relevant studies for this age, or any other preference, the times in which all of these developments occurred were times of change. Neither national committee reports nor research studies would likely have had the effect they did if the culture had not been ripe for change. These were days of experimentation in politics, home life, religion,

222 ◾ JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

economics, and in education. Other contributing factors were immigration, a rising birth rate, and laws relating to child labor and compulsory school attendance. Proposals for reorganization thus fell on fertile soil. It was the propitious chronological coincidence of these several factors and events, both within and without the realm of education, which made such remarkable growth possible. Though, at some points, the bases which supported the advent of the junior high school were not philosophically compatible, they were concomitant in time, and hence mutually supportive of reorganization. So the new junior high school grew rapidly and rather quickly became ingrained in America’s educational system. The growth of the junior high school was rather phenomenal. By the 1940s, the 6–3–3 plan with the grades 6–8 of the junior high school in the middle became the predominant or majority practice throughout the United States. However, criticism of the junior high school was becoming widespread. It had become too much like the senior high school, with departmentalization and other high school practices taking hold while the developmental needs of the students were by-passed. Some attempts to revise the junior high school along the lines of its founders were put forth by practicing principals and by professional organizations, particularly the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). Two contemporary leaders, William Gruhn and Harl Douglass published The Modern Junior High School in 1947. Their book became something of a classic and helped to keep the junior high school as originally intended, alive. Its listing of the six functions of the junior high school have been widely quoted and have remained valid as the functions of any middle level institution. Revised editions of the book were published in 1956 and 1971, as the middle school movement was underway. In 1960, William VanTil, Gordon Vars, and John Lounsbury published Modern Education for the Junior High School Years. Their book provided a thorough examination of the history, philosophy, and status of this intermediate institution. A revised edition, published in 1967, recognized the just-introduced middle school. The book’s listing of 23 characteristics of a successful program for these years is compatible with National Middle School Association’s (NMSA) position paper, This We Believe (1995, 2003), which appeared several years later. This alignment is another indication of the similarity of the junior high and the middle school. In 1967, Samuel Popper, argued vehemently that “the junior high school is America’s middle school” (p. 9). The die was cast; the junior high school, as it had become, was beyond repair. Thus, the middle school idea, which was advanced in 1963 by William Alexander, was greeted with open arms. By 1946, just 37 years after its introduction, the 6–3–3 pattern of school organization became the predominant pattern in the United States,

replacing the 8-4 plan that had become almost universal (Alexander, 1968). The growth of middle schools was even more phenomenal than the growth of the junior high school. By 1983, the 5–3–4 plan of organization had become the dominant pattern of school organization (Alexander & McEwin, 1989). Nevertheless, the boom days of the middle school were brought to a halt by the accountability movement that emphasized test scores. Before long, the middle school came under criticism for its undue attention to academic achievement as measured by test scores. REFERENCES Alexander, W. M. (1963). The junior high school: A changing view. In R. David (Ed.), Moving forward from the past: Early writings and current reflections of middle school founders (pp. 3–13). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Alexander, W. M. (1968). A survey of organizational patterns of reorganized middle schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1989). Schools in the middle: Status and progress. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Briggs, T. H. (1920). The junior high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. New York, NY: World Book. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education. Bulletin 1918, No. 35. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Education. Davis, G. A. (1996).  Is everything old new again? Influences on the evolution of the junior high school and the middle school (Order No. 9708117). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304263072). Eliot, C. W. (1888, August). Can school programmes be shortened and enriched? The Atlantic Monthly, 250–257. Gruhn, W., & Douglass, H. (1947). The modern junior high school. New York, NY: Ronald Press. Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education. New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company. Koos, L. V. (1920). The junior high school. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & Howe. National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author. National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Popper, S. H. (1967). The American middle school: An organizational analysis. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell. Thorndike, E. L. (1904). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. New York, NY: The Science Press. Van Til, W., Vars, G. F., & Lounsbury, J. H. (1960, 1967). Modern education for the junior high school years. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company.

K William Heard Kilpatrick, next to John Dewey, was the most renowned of the progressive educational philosophers in the first half of the 20th century. In many respects, Kilpatrick was more influential than Dewey was, for he was a superior teacher directly affecting thousands upon thousands of classroom teachers through his classes and lectures at home and abroad. He has been called the Dean of American Education, America’s greatest teacher, the million-dollar professor, and, to critics, a liberal, social activist. Kilpatrick was active nationally and participated in the committee that issued the famous “Seven Cardinal Principles” report. He has been credited with including “worthy use of leisure time” as one of the seven. Kilpatrick’s educational philosophy parallels perfectly the middle school concept and his “project method” became a mainstay of the middle school advocacy. The son of a Baptist minister, Kilpatrick entered Mercer University in 1888. He showed his brilliance early in mathematics. Following graduation, he went to Johns Hopkins, intending to return to Mercer University to assist an old professor. Much stimulated by the intellectual life at this mecca, he decided he wanted to teach. When the assistantship at Mercer did not materialize, he accepted a teaching position in Blakely, Georgia, serving as co-principal and teacher in Grades 7 through 10. He immersed himself in the literature of education reading Spencer, Froebel, Pestalozzi, and others and began implementing newer educational practices. Kilpatrick had a genuine interest in his students, and people

appreciated his personal charm and penetrating mind. As one historian would later comment, “In the summer of 1892, Kilpatrick arrived in Blakely as a college mathematician, and three years later he departed as a progressive educator” (Beineke, 1998, p. 21). He returned to Johns Hopkins; however, his study in mathematics was disappointing, and he returned to Georgia. He accepted a principalship of an elementary school in Savannah, where in addition to supervising nine teachers and more than 400 students, he taught seventh grade. Kilpatrick eliminated report cards and corporal punishment and introduced group work to assist with classes of more than 50 students. Out of a sense of duty and family tradition, Kilpatrick returned to Mercer University as a professor of mathematics. His personality and openness to ideas made him especially attractive in Mercer’s rather staid and closed environment. Although only 29, he was elected Mercer’s vice president. During his years at Mercer, Kilpatrick’s views and educational philosophy crystallized. He rejected the theory of formal discipline, which held that the study of math trained the mind much as the exercise of the body produces greater muscles. In 1898 at a summer school, one of his professors was John Dewey. Kilpatrick turned his back on mathematics—education, as a new calling, beckoned him. In 1907, he accepted a graduate assistantship at Teachers College. Dewey would later claim that Kilpatrick was “the best student I ever had.” Upon completing his doctorate in January 1911, he was appointed an assistant professor. Word of Kilpatrick’s excellence as a teacher spread, and he became a much sought after teacher and lecturer, gaining a national platform from which to share his maturing ideas about student-centered, democratic education. This charismatic

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 223–225 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

223

KILPATRICK, WILLIAM H. John H. Lounsbury Georgia College & State University

224 ◾ KOOS, LEONARD V.

southerner’s meteoric rise was due in part to his ability to communicate the often hard to grasp ideas of Dewey and his ability to enthrall classes that often numbered in the hundreds. Kilpatrick, Dewey, Thorndike, and others at Teachers College were challenging conventional schooling practices as the progressive education movement got underway. In 1918, Kilpatrick published an 18-page article, “The Project Method: The Use of the Purposeful Act in the Educational Process,” which applied his educational philosophy to classroom teaching (Kilpatrick, 1919). Extremely well received, it brought Kilpatrick enduring fame. The key to the significance of the project was its purpose. In the case where no purpose is present, there the weak and foolish teacher has often in times past cajoled, promised and sugar coated, and this we all despise. Purpose, then—its presence or its absence—exactly distinguishes the desirable interest from the mushy type of anything-to-keep-the-dear-things-interested or amused. It is purpose then that we want, worthy purposes urgently sought; get these, and the interest will take care of itself. (Beineke, 1998, p. 102)

Kilpatrick believed that education should stress the development of character and personality, not just the acquisition of bookish information. He wanted children to interact with peers, parents, and society at large and saw the inculcation of self-reliance, initiative, cooperation, and even joy as important concomitants in the learning process. He argued for the “extended acquaintance” between teacher and student, against the compartmentalized-by-subject curriculum, and supported the 6-3-3 proposal. Kilpatrick’s broad view of education is apparent in his statement: Education must aim at developing in the individual the best possible insight into life’s problems as they successfully present themselves before him; at helping him to make ever finer distinctions in what he does, to take more and more considerations ever better into account, and finally to bring the best social-moral attitudes to bear on each decisions as made and enacted. For the only proper aim of education is fullness of living through fully developed character. (Beineke, 1998, p. 314)

The central educational concept that came to be associated with Kilpatrick was his statement, “We learn what we live,” He often elaborated on this idea in such ways as: “We learn what we live and then live what we learn.” Kilpatrick retired in 1937, yet remained very active until a few years before his death in 1975 at age 93. Kilpatrick’s views and other progressives parallel the middle school concept; many have viewed the middle school movement as the rebirth of progressive education.

REFERENCES Beineke, J. (1998). And there were giants in the land: The life of William Heard Kilpatrick. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kilpatrick, W. (1919). The project method, the use of the purposeful act in the educative process (Teachers College Bulletin, 10th ser., no. 3, October 12, 1918). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

KOOS, LEONARD V. Alicia Wenzel Western Oregon University Leonard V. Koos (1881–1976) was a professor of secondary education, a scholar, and an advocate for developmentally appropriate learning experiences for students. Koos’ academic appointments included the University of Chicago, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Washington, Seattle. He also served as the Director of Research for the American Association of Junior Colleges and Editor for the Junior College Journal. He published more than 80 works in 216 publications. His diverse scholarly work include a range of topics: exploration of junior and community colleges, comparison of private and public school education, adjustment of university teaching loads, floor plans for elementary schools, graduate standards and practices in college of educations, secondary education, and the junior high school. Though much of Koos’ research focused on junior colleges, his seminal books, The Junior High School (1920) and The American Secondary School (1927), were central to the rise and support of the junior high school movement—and contemporary middle schools. These publications helped to identify structures, practices, and requirements that most effectively support the growth of young adolescents. In tandem with other early junior high school leaders including Hall (1904), Briggs (1920), and Smith (1925), Koos (1927) advocated for a child-centered approach. He believed equitable educational opportunities were achievable if the school experience was modified to meet young adolescents’ individual differences. Koos wrote The Junior High School (1920) with this purpose: . . . to contribute to the clarification of thought which is imperative in this chaotic situation towards this end effort is first made to establish out of current educational thought and by the assistance of such findings of educational science as are available a tentative working statement of the familiar purposes of this new institution. (pp. 11–12)

KOOS, LEONARD V. ◾ 225

While many factors contributed to the creation of the junior high school, Koos identified three particular elements: overcrowding, momentum, and wanting to be part of the progressive movement (Clark & Clark, 1994). Koos’ (1920) attention to the particular functions of the junior high school (e.g., aims of education, retention of students, economizing time, exploration, vocational education, recognizing the individual needs of young adolescents, better conditions for teaching, improving disciplinary and socialization opportunities); the necessary programs of study (e.g., constant academic subjects, extra-curricular activities, ability grouping); and other salient organizational features of the reorganized school (e.g., advisory systems, promotion by subject, innovative teaching methods, the type of teachers and principals needed for junior high school students) provided the groundwork for current middle grades education and

the preparation of teachers aspiring to work with young adolescents and their families. REFERENCES Briggs, T. H. (1920). The junior high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Implications for school leaders. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion and education (Vol. I). New York, NY: D. Appleton & Company. Koos, L. V. (1920). The junior high school. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & Howe. Koos, L. V. (1927). The American secondary school. Boston, MA: Ginn & Company. Smith, W. (1925). The junior high school. New York, NY: Macmillan.

This page intentionally left blank.

L LEADERSHIP Dana L. Bickmore University of Nevada, Las Vegas Leadership is a complex concept not easily defined or measured, yet critical to student success and positive school change (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Sebring, Allensworth, Byrk, Easton, & Lubbescu, 2006). As Williamson and Johnston (2005) stated, “We know it when we experience it. We recognize when it is absent. . . . yet we find it difficult to define” (p. 45). Adding to the complexity of describing effective leadership are the variations in context in which leadership may be exercised. Advocates of middle grades education have emphasized that because of the unique needs of young adolescents, leaders in middle grades should support a specific set of structures and practices conducive to meeting these student needs (Brown & Anfara, 2002; Clark & Clark, 2004; Jackson & Davis, 2000). Meeting these needs is perceived as critical to assure positive student outcomes (Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2010). Often labeled the middle school movement (George & Alexander, 2003), this vision of schooling for young adolescents is grounded in a progressive view of education (George, 2011). From a middle grades progressive perspective, leaders should be democratic and collaborative (Clark & Clark, 2008; Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2010), valuing individuals and “promoting respect, competency, integrity and personal regard for others” (George, 2011, p. 48). Jackson and Davis (2000) stressed that democratic school governance is “vital to the functioning of an effective middle school” (p. 145) and recommend leadership be shared among The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 227–247 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

students, staff, and parents. This type of leadership is “systematically inclusive, collaborative, and focused on the improvement of student learning” (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 146). The school community collectively must build positive relationships and trust for collaborative and democratic leadership structures and practices to be effectively implemented (Jackson & Davis, 2000). The Association for Middle Level Education (formerly National Middle School Association) outlined five tenets of effective leadership aligned with the concepts of collaborative, democratic leadership: (a) stakeholder development of a shared school vision; (b)  leaders knowledgeable about young adolescents, educational research, and best practices; (c) leaders who demonstrate collaboration; (d) leadership support for ongoing professional development; and (e) leadership that organizes structures that foster learning and meaningful relationships (NMSA, 2010). Yet, the research supporting a specific type of middle grades leadership is limited, necessitating situating middle grades leadership within the general leadership literature. LEADERSHIP TRAITS, SKILLS, AND STYLES Early leadership studies attempted to find a universal theory of effective leadership. These early theories and research of leadership attempted to generate lists of inherent traits within high profile formal organizational leaders and suggested leaders were born not made (Northouse, 2013). Moore (1928) defined this conceptualization of leadership as, “the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led and induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and cooperation” (p. 124). This ‘Great Man’ theory gave way to the concept that leaders might develop certain skills that lead to effective leadership. As

227

228 ◾ LEADERSHIP

an example, Katz (1955) suggested leaders need three skills sets to be effective. Leaders must understand the technical skills of the organization, such as classroom teaching in middle grades schools. Leaders must have human skills; the ability to work with people. Those in leadership positions also needed to have skills in developing and articulating conceptual ideas, such as a school vision. To be effective, individuals must change which of these skills they emphasized based on where they were situated in the management rung, low level supervisor to top management. In alignment with the middle grades movement, Katz determined human skills remained high and equally important at all levels of leadership. Being attuned to the needs of young adolescents and adhering to democratic principles would suggest attentiveness to human skills in middle grades leadership. Rather than define lists of skills needed to influence subordinates, researchers began examining general sets of leadership styles (Yukl, 2013). Style theories of leadership suggested leaders engage in two sets of general behaviors, task behaviors or relationship behaviors. High task oriented leaders were focused on getting things done. High relationship leaders were concerned about developing relationship with subordinates. The Blake and Moutin Management Grid (2001) identified nine sets of leader styles from those with low task behaviors to high task behaviors and their intersection with low to high relationship behaviors. In one style leaders would have both high task and high interpersonal behaviors, which Blake and Moutin labeled team management. Although Blake and Moutin suggested leaders should tailor their style to the needs of those they wish to lead, the team management style is the most compatible with middle grades leadership. This style is thought to stimulate individual and group participation in an organization, a more democratic perspective, yet also focus on outcomes. As Jackson and Davis (2000) pointed out, the purpose of leading democratically is to assure success for every student. Concern for relationship is important in meeting young adolescent needs, which also leads to achieving the task of positive student outcomes. Examining leadership traits and skills gave way to more multifaceted views of leadership that investigated leadership in specific situations and organizational contexts (Northouse, 2013). Generally described as the situational approach (Northouse, 2013), the leadership literature suggests there are multiple situational variables that can affect how leaders may impact others (Yukl, 2013). Attention to contextual factors remains high in in the literature, suggesting that variations in student needs might require variations in how leadership is enacted in middle grade schools. More recent definitions of leadership have also expanded to include the concept of influence. Leadership is influence, and that influence can occur as a result of individual or

groups of individuals’ actions in formal and informal organizational positions (Northouse, 2013). THE COMPLEXITY OF LEADERSHIP AND LEADERSHIP MODELS Theorists and researchers have yet to find a universal theory or comprehensive list of leadership skills, styles, and behaviors that apply to all situations or contexts. Instead, those studying leadership have developed models and frameworks that provide sets of guide posts to understand effective leadership (Leithwood & Duke, 1999). These models examine how leadership affects outcomes, rather than focusing on how followers or leader’s perceive leadership skills and styles. Although these models still tend to focus on the formal leader of a group or organization, as these models have developed, there is a greater focus on more collaborative leadership practices and distribution of leadership across organizations like schools (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). Currently, two models of leadership are most prevalent as guides for leadership practices in schools, the transformational and instructional leadership models (Hallinger, 2003). Transformational leadership suggests leaders improve outcomes by “increasing the commitment and effort of organizational members toward the achievement of organizational goals” (Leithwood & Sun, 2012, p. 388). Examining this model in schools, Leithwood and Duke (1999) suggested seven elements of transformational leadership. Transformational leaders build school vision, establish school goals, stimulate people by supporting individuals, model organizational values, demonstrate high performance expectations, create a productive school culture, and foster participation in school decisions. From a middle grades perspective, transformational leaders collaboratively set the direction of the school to meet young adolescent needs and create a culture of high expectation that lead to positive student outcomes. Middle grades leaders work to accomplish these overarching goals by motivating others and developing collaborative structures such as those outlined in the middle grades literature—teaming and common planning time, professional learning communities, school leadership teams, student led parent conferences, and community engagement (National Middle School Association, 2003, 2010). Based on the effective school research of the 1970s and 1980s, the instructional leadership model is one of the few models developed specifically to guide school leadership (Hallinger, 2003). In this model, a school leader’s major focus is on teaching and learning with an emphasis on professional development for school staff (Hallinger, 2003; Marks & Printy, 2003). Initially, this model was centered on the principal’s actions, with the

LEADERSHIP ◾ 229

most prominent conceptualization of the model containing three elements—defining the school mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive student learning climate (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Duke, 1999). In early conceptualizations, principals took a direct hands-on role in developing the school mission around improved curriculum and instruction, enhancing teaching through observations and feedback, and focusing school culture around teaching and learning. More recent concepts of instructional leadership suggest that the focus on teaching and learning must involve more than the principal in developing a shared mission, increasing teacher capacity, and developing a climate conducive to student learning (Hallinger, 2003; Marks & Printy, 2003). Shared instructional leadership assures faculty involvement in the development of best curricular and instructional practices, including an understanding of young adolescent development and needs. As such, shared instructional leadership is aligned with the five tenets of leadership outlined by NMSA (2010): Development of a shared vision, commitment to young adolescents through best practices, collaboration, professional development, and purposeful relationships. There are a number of other leadership models tangentially aligned with the concepts outline by middle grades advocates (Anfara, Roney, Smarkola, DuCette, & Gross, 2006). However, the concept of participatory leadership, such as distributive and teacher leadership, is particularly pertinent to the discussion of middle grades. Smylie, Mayrowetz, Murphy, and Louis, (2007) define distributive leadership as “the sharing, the spreading, and the distributing of leadership work across individuals and across the school organization” (p. 470). Distributive leadership entails engaging all members of the school community to take on leadership tasks and become involved in school wide decisions. The development of collaboration, shared decision making, and democratic practices are more likely to occur when trust and relationships are built and both the tasks and decision making processes are shared across the organization (Angelle, 2010). Teacher leadership, a form of participatory leadership, has developed to engage teachers in important leadership activities within their role as teacher. The Teacher Leader Model Standards outline the teacher’s role in fostering a collaborative culture, including engaging parents and community, improving personal capacity to lead teaching and learning, and supporting others in capacity building (Teacher Leader Exploratory Consotium, 2011).

at other school levels and most of this research specifically examines principal leadership (Anfara et al. , 2006; Bickmore, 2012; Brown & Anfara, 2002; Gale & Bishop, 2014; Sanzo, Sherman, & Clayton, 2011; Valentine, Clark, Hackman, & Petzko, 2004). These studies do, however, confirm effective leadership is associated with the principles and practices advocated in the middle school movement—attention to the developmental needs of young adolescents, developing relationships, building trust, democratic and collaborative shared leadership, and a focus on student learning. The general school leadership research, not specific to middle grades, also confirms that leadership focused on the following are more likely to lead to positive student outcomes (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010): • Building collaboration for improved teaching and learning (shared instructional leadership). • Promoting a collectively developed school vision and goals (transformational leadership). • Involving the community in developing a collaborative culture where governance, responsibilities, and leadership are shared (distributive leadership). The leadership research also suggests that leaders must build trusting relationships in order to develop the kind of school culture that supports shared, democratic leadership and student outcomes (Byrk & Schneider, 2003; Louis et al., 2010). CONCLUDING THOUGHTS There is a growing body of evidence to support the progressive traditions of collaborative, democratic leadership for positive school and student outcomes. Advocates for young adolescents have long suggested that middle grades schools should be characterized by leadership that builds trusting relationships and shares decision making and responsibilities across the school community. In so doing, leaders build the capacity of students, teachers, and families and in general promote a collaborative culture. Although there is not definitive evidence that effective leadership in the middle grades is substantially different than at other levels of schooling, it appears that the leadership concepts outlined by middle grades advocates are gaining support as effective school leadership. REFERENCES

RESEARCH There is limited evidence suggesting effective leadership at the middle grades level is substantially different than

Anfara, V. A., Roney, K., Smarkola, C., DuCette, J. P., & Gross, S. J. (2006). The developmentally responsive middle level principal: A leadership model and measurement instrument. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

230 ◾ LEARNING FORWARD Angelle, P. S. (2010). An organizational perspective of distributed leadership: A portrait of a middle school. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 33(5), 1–16. Bickmore, D. L. (2012). Professional learning experiences and administrator practice: Is there a connection? Professional Development in Education, 38(1), 95–112. doi: 10. 1080/19415257.2011.579004 Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (2001). Grid organizational development. In W. E. Natemeyer & J. T. McMahon (Eds.), Classics of organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 436–463). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Brown, K. M., & Anfara, V. A. (2002). From the desk of the middle school principal: Leadership responsive to the needs of young adolescents. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Byrk, A., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource of improvement. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40–45. Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (2004). Middle school leadership: Principal leadership for developing and sustaining highly successful middle level schools. Middle School Journal, 36(2), 49–55. doi: 10. 2307/23044254 Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (2008). Leadership that makes a difference: Revitalizing middle schools. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Associations. Gale, J. J., & Bishop, P. A. (2014). The work of effective middle grades principals: Responsiveness and relationships. Research in Middle Level Educaton Online, 37(4), 1–23. George, P. S. (2011). The American middle school movement: Taking the long view. Middle School Journal, 43(2), 44–52. George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329– 351. doi: 10. 1080/0305764032000122005 Jackson, A., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of a effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33–42. Leithwood, K. A., & Duke, D. L. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In K. S. Louis & J. Murphy (Eds. ), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 45–72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center of Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Toronto, ON: University of Toronto, Institute for Studies in Education. Retreived from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/ school-leadership/key-research/documents/how-leadership-influences-student-learning.pdf Leithwood, K. A., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423. doi: 10. 1177/ 0013161x11436268 Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota, Center of Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Toronto, ON: University of Toronto, Institute for Studies in Education. Retreived from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/ knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/ Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397. doi: 10. 1177/0013161X03253412 Moore, B. V. (1928). The May conference on leadership. The Personnel Journal, 6, 124–128. National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and pracitice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sanzo, K. L., Sherman, W. H., & Clayton, J. (2011). Leadership practices of successful middle school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 31–45. doi: 10. 1108/09578231111102045 Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Byrk, A., Easton, J. Q., & Lubbescu, S. (2006). The esssential supports for school improvement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Smylie, M., Mayrowetz, D., Murphy, J., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Trust and the development of distributed leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 469–503. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. Teacher Leader Exploratory Consotium. (2011). Teacher leader model standards. Retrieved from http://www.teacherleaderstandards.org/downloads/TLS_Brochure.pdf Valentine, J., Clark, D. C., Hackman, D. G., & Petzko, V. N. (2004). Leadership for highly successful middle level schools: A national study of highly successful leaders and schools volume II. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Williamson, R., & Johnston, J. H. (2005). Leadership in middle level school. In V. A. Anfara, P. G. Andrews, & S. B. Mertens (Eds.), The encyclopedia of middle grades education (pp. 45–57). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

LEARNING FORWARD Brandi Wade Worsham The University of Georgia Formerly known as the National Staff Development Council (NSDC), Learning Forward is a non-profit, international organization dedicated to advancing the

LEARNING STYLES ◾ 231

professional learning of educators while underscoring the importance of student success. Members of Learning Forward include policymakers, administrators, consultants, and teachers. Learning Forward has affiliates from 41 states in the United States; alliances with the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, Learning First Alliance, Data Quality Campaign, and Nike School Innovation Fund; and partnerships with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Wallace Foundation, Corwin, and School Improvement Network. Learning Forward hosts several conferences and institutes annually, most of which include presentations on professional learning in the middle school. Renamed in 2010, Learning Forward (n.d.) is committed to building the “capacity of leaders to establish and sustain highly effective professional learning.” Learning Forward is characterized by the following beliefs: 1. Effective professional learning is fundamental to student learning. 2. All educators have an obligation to improve their practice. 3. More students achieve when educators assume collective responsibility for student learning. 4. Successful leaders create and sustain a culture of learning. 5. Improving student learning and professional practice requires ongoing systematic and organizational change. (Learning Forward, n.d.) To support their mission and beliefs, Learning Forward has defined three areas of priority for the next seven years, including Impact and Accountability, Leadership and Practice, and Advocacy and Policy. Each of these areas emphasizes the relationships between practice, professional learning, policy, and student success. Learning Forward is credited with establishing a standardized definition of professional development (NSDC, 2009) and publishing a list of aligned professional learning standards (Learning Forward, 2011). Additionally, NSDC and Learning Forward have published several ground-breaking research reports. In 1999, NSDC published What Works in the Middle: Results-Based Staff Development (Killion, 1999). This report was the result of a two-year study on staff development programs in the core content areas of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies to identify programs with credible, empirical evidence that the program improved student achievement. In 2008, NSDC, in conjunction with researchers from the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE), began a four-phase study to examine the status of professional development in the United States. In the first phase, researchers set out to examine the literature on professional development in the United States

in comparison to other high-performing countries. In the second phase, results from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) were analyzed to assess the quality of each state’s professional development (Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010). In the third phase, Jaquith, Mindich, and Wei (2010) conducted case studies of four “professionally active” (p. 3) states—Colorado, Missouri, New Jersey, and Vermont—to examine how policy supports effective professional development. The final phase of the four-part study examined the elements of effective professional learning communities in two New Jersey middle schools (Mindich & Lieberman, 2012). More information about Learning Forward can be found at www.learningforward.org. REFERENCES Jaquith, A., Mindich, D., & Wei, R. C. (2010). Pockets of excellence: Study explores how policy affects professional learning in 4 high-performing states. Journal of Staff Development, 31(5), 52–57. Killion J. (1999). What works in the middle: Results-based staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning. Oxford, OH: Author. Learning Forward. (n.d.). Vision, mission, beliefs, priorities. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/who-we-are/ purpose-beliefs-priorities#.VRipMhZmrXo Mindich, D., & Lieberman, A. (2012). Building a learning community: A tale of two schools. Standford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/ publications/building-learning-community-tale-two -schools.pdf National Staff Development Council. (2009). NSDC’s definition of professional development. Retrieved from http://www. aypf.org/documents/62609NSDCDefinitionofProfessionalDevelopment908.pdf Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

LEARNING STYLES Casey D. Gilewski University of Memphis People comprehend and learn information in different ways. Therefore, each person’s learning style or learning preference varies as they learn content and skills. In schools, students come to the classroom with various learning styles that instructors must become aware of so that the students will learn and grow throughout

232 ◾ LEARNING STYLES

instruction. Thus, it is beneficial for instructors to learn about diverse learning styles and to diagnose students to see what styles are most useful to their individual students. By becoming aware of students’ learning styles, these instructors can create a welcoming environment that values students as individuals. However, students may not be aware of their personal learning style. Therefore, it is imperative that instructors interact with their students in various ways to determine how their students learn best because these styles are their prominent means for learning content and skills (Pritchard, 2009). By definition, learning styles are described in many different ways, such as: the way a person learns, the way a person processes and demonstrates understanding, and a person’s individual preference for learning new concepts and skills (Armstrong, Henson, & Savage, 2005; Felder, 2010; Pritchard, 2009). However, “learning styles are not fixed traits” but are adaptable as students learn new content or skills (Pritchard, 2009, p. 42). Therefore, in addressing the types of learning styles, many scholars have tried to identity the ways in which people learn. HONEY AND MUMFORD In 1986, Honey and Mumford suggested that learners learn one of four ways: as activists, reflectors, theorists, or pragmatists (Pritchard, 2009). According to Honey and Mumford (1986), activists are learners who learn by doing. These learners learn by experience. Reflective learners learn by observing. These learners want to know exactly what is happening and learn from others. Theorist learners like to take what they know and apply it to new situations or contexts. They are interested in the relationship amongst concepts, whereas pragmatist learners are trying to solve problems and create solutions (Pritchard, 2009). To Honey and Mumford (1986), these four categories describe learning styles. However, they do mention that all learners possess all four traits, but that one trait is typically strongest. To help individuals determine their learning styles, Honey and Mumford (1986) created a learning style inventory that consisted of 80 yes or no statements. Of these 80 statements, each category consisted of 20 statements. The scores were added up and plotted on a four-way axis with each point a specific type. The type with the highest score was deemed the dominant category for learning (Pritchard, 2009). NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING Another type of learning styles was developed by Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). NLP examined the way in which individuals learn through the means

of communication. With this focus, NLP determined three learning styles: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (Pritchard, 2009). Visual learners are defined as learners who learn by seeing. Thus, these learners learn better when information is presented through visual representation, such as graphics and displays (Pritchard, 2009). Auditory learners are defined as learners who learn by listening. These learners learn best though auditory means, such as discussions and lectures (Pritchard, 2009). Kinesthetic learners learn by doing. These learners learn best through hands-on activities and application of concepts and skills (Pritchard, 2009). To NLP, these three learning styles describe how students learn through means of communication. However, just like Honey and Mumford (1986), learners possess all three learning styles, but they prefer to learn in one more than all three. FLEMING The work of Fleming (2001) extended upon the learning styles of NLP. To Fleming, learners obtain information in multiple ways. To him, these ways consisted of visual, auditory, reading, and kinesthetic (VARK). The main difference between his work and NLP is that he added reading to the learning styles where learners learn by reading and processing information through reading (Pritchard, 2009). MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a measure that determines a learner’s personality profile by evaluating their individual preferences (Felder, 2010; Pritchard, 2009). The learning styles of the MBTI consist of eight personality styles: extroverts, introverts, sensors, intuitors, thinkers, feelers, judgers, and perceivers (Pritchard, 2009). According to the MBTI: • extroverts are individuals who enjoy being around people and trying new things; • introverts are thinkers and are more likely to keep to themselves; • sensors are individuals who are practical and focus on facts; • intuitors are interested in discovering meaning and are imaginative; • thinkers are individuals who are apprehensive to believe just anything and make sound decisions based on logic; • feelers are individuals who make decisions based on personal reasons;

LILLY ENDOWMENT, INC. ◾ 233

• judgers are individuals who are organized and goal driven; and • perceivers are individuals who are adaptive to challenges. However, just like all the other learning styles, the MBTI can indicate that an individual is a mixture of these personalities, but that an individual is typically strongest in a specific one and weaker in another (Pritchard, 2009). GARDNER AND HATCH Another form of learning style was described by Gardner and Hatch (1990), which they termed multiple intelligences. According to Armstrong, Henson, and Savage (2005), “Intelligence is not a unitary trait but rather consists of a number of separate categories” (p. 16). Thus, there are multiple intelligences that make up a person’s intelligence, such as: linguistic/verbal, logical mathematical, spatial/visual, bodily/kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist (Gardner 1993, 1999). According to Gardner (1993, 1999), • linguistic/verbal learners are good with language and writing; • logical mathematical learners are good with abstract and analytical mathematics; • spatial/visual learners are good with creating and visualizing through art mediums and design; • bodily/kinesthetic learners are good with movement and hands-on activities; • musical learners are good with sounds and rhythm; • interpersonal learners are good with people and building relationships with others; • intrapersonal learners are good with self-awareness; and • naturalists are good with the physical environment. Similarly to the other learning styles mentioned above, individuals are a mixture of intelligences, but there is a dominant style that they prefer to learn with (Pritchard, 2009). DEBATE ABOUT LEARNING STYLES Learning styles has been debated in the educational community. Reynolds (1997) critiqued learning styles stating that it raises issues about discrimination amongst race, gender, and class. For instance, in classrooms, boys are typically deemed to be energetic and could be identified as kinesthetic learners. However, girls could be identified as kinesthetic as well. Thus, assumptions based on gender, class, and race are possible causes for an instructor to teach a specific group or type

of students a specific way when the student’s dominant learning style does not coincide with that style. Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2009) also critiqued learning styles. In their study, they explored the validity of using students’ learning styles during instruction. When reviewing the literature, they determined that there were no studies that supported the use of learning styles during instruction. On the other hand, other research has supported that students learn in different ways and that student performance increases when learning styles are addressed and used during instruction (Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, & Zenhausern, 1982; Felder, 2010; Lemmon, 1985; Pritchard, 2009). REFERENCES Armstrong, D. G., Henson, K. T., & Savage, T. V. (2005). Teaching today: An introduction to education (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson. Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D., Eberle, B., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). Hemispheric preference: The newest element of learning style, The American Biology Teacher, 44(5), 291–294. Felder, R. M. (2010). Are learning styles invalid? (Hint: No!). OnCourse Newsletter, 1–7. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu. edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/ LS_Validity(On-Course).pdf Fleming, N. D. (2001) Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. Honolulu, HI: VARK-Learn. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1990). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences, Center for Children and Technology Technical Report, Issue 4. Retrieved from www.edc.org/cct/ ccthome/reports/tr4.html Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). Manual of learning styles (2nd ed.). London, England: P. Honey. Lemmon, P. (1985). A school where learning styles make a difference. Principal, 64(4), 26–29. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. Pritchard, (2009). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28(2), 115–133.

LILLY ENDOWMENT, INC. Gretchen Wolfram Contributor from 1st edition Lilly Endowment, Inc. is an Indianapolis-based private philanthropic foundation created in 1937 by three

234 ◾ LILLY ENDOWMENT, INC.

members of the Lilly family—J. K. Lilly Sr. and sons J. K. Jr. and Eli—through gifts of stock in their pharmaceutical business. In keeping with the wishes of the three founders, Lilly Endowment exists to support the causes of education, community development, and religion. The Lilly family’s foremost priority was to help the people of their city and state build a better life, and the Endowment remains primarily committed to the Lilly family’s hometown, Indianapolis, and home state, Indiana. In 1986, Lilly Endowment chose to concentrate a substantial portion of its K–12 education efforts on developing more effective and responsive middlegrades schools. By targeting this age, when young adolescents are forming their sense of self and aspirations for the future, the Endowment hoped to make a positive impact on the number of students who graduate from high school and enroll in college. The first major initiative, the Middle-Grades School Recognition Project, publicly recognized and rewarded with $1,000 recognition grants the selfimprovement efforts of 30 middle-grades schools. Awards were based on demonstrated improvements in their instructional programs in the prior 5 years. The Endowment then invited the 30 recognized schools to submit proposals for $20,000 grants to extend their improvement efforts, and 15 grants subsequently were awarded. This program was administered by the Academy for Educational Development. It planned and conducted a statewide conference on middle-grades school improvement. In 1987, the Endowment issued an invitation to Indiana’s major urban school districts to participate in the Middle Grades Improvement Program (MGIP), resulting in grants to 16 Indiana school districts. The Endowment also worked to strengthen the state’s affiliate of the National Middle School Association, known at that time as the Indiana Middle School Association (IMSA). In 1988, IMSA had a membership of about 40. Through rejuvenated leadership and vision of the organization and with the help of targeted Endowment grants to encourage especially rural schools to participate in IMSA’s annual conferences, the membership grew to more than 500 by 1991, and it changed its name to the Indiana Middle- Level Education Association (IMLEA). In 1992, nearly $450,000 was awarded to IMLEA to support a two-tier program of staff development for middle-grades educators, including graduate-level seminars, workshops and summer institutes. The Endowment also began in 1988 to work with the Education Development Center (EDC) in Newton, MA, when EDC coordinated technical assistance efforts for MGIP. EDC, a nonprofit research and development firm with 30 years of experience in school reform work, helped improve curriculum and instruction in the MGIP sites. Between 1988 and 1995, the Endowment awarded grants to EDC to coordinate technical

assistance, strengthen curriculum and instruction, and to support a book by Nancy Ames and Edward Miller that presented four portraits of MGIP schools, Changing Middle Schools (Ames & Miller, 1994). In 1989, a grant was made to Education Writers Association (Washington, DC) to underwrite an Indiana middle-grades newsletter for distribution to MGIP teams, community-based youth-serving agencies, education reporters and policy-makers. This grant also resulted in a monograph relating to middle-grades improvement (Mancini, 1993). The Endowment was an early contributor (1990) to the efforts of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, underwriting the development of certification standards for middle-grades teachers (Early Adolescence Generalist and Early Adolescence English and/Language Arts). This effort was significant because it centered attention on teachers in middle- level schools, which served students who presented a distinct, but usually unacknowledged, teaching challenge. Lilly Endowment also directed resources to support programs that encouraged students to enhance their reading skills and, at the same time, acquire a lifelong love of books. Beginning in 1987, the Endowment began its work in reading improvement by providing funding for Reading Excitement and Paperbacks (REAP), administered by the Indiana Department of Education. Students in 40 public schools, Grades 4 to 6, served on selections teams that chose a collection of recreational books from more than 500 that were brought in the school by caravan. By 1990, the Endowment funded an “explosion” of reading grants, “seeding” school and community reading programs for students, teachers, and parents. Grants included an expansion of REAP, student-run bookshops, teacher reading groups, school and public librarian partnerships, programs to encourage parents’ reading habits, access to recreational reading materials, curriculum (Developmental Studies Center, Oakland, CA), and assessments. The Middle Grades Reading Network, an umbrella program for these broad-based, middle-grades reading efforts, was established in 1992 at the University of Evansville. Its central goal is to make the entire state of Indiana a Community of Readers. More information about the Network is available at http://www2.evansville.edu/mgrnweb, including the Reading Bill of Rights for Indiana’s Young Adolescents, Reading Blueprint for the State of Indiana, and articles from its newsletter, NetWords. The Middle Grades Reading Network remains at the University of Evansville and operates with Lilly Endowment funding. The Endowment’s emphasis on middle-grades education culminated in 1995, capped by the publication of an article in Kappan, “Speaking with One Voice” (Lipsitz, Mizell, Jackson, & Austin, 1997). Spurred by that publication, and by a series of what was termed

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY ◾ 235

“Continuing Conversations” (for which the Endowment and other foundations provided modest support) among the Endowment and other foundations, intermediary organizations, and researchers, the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform (www.mgforum.org) was formed in 1997. While the Endowment no longer specifically targets middle-grades school-improvement efforts, it continues to recognize the importance of middle grades as an important stage at which to encourage students to consider and prepare for higher education. An example of its work is the career and guidance counseling project called “C3,” administered by the Indiana Youth Institute (IYI) (www.iyi.org). C3 is a new webbased project that initially will target Indiana middle school students and their parents by providing information and encouragement about college and career opportunities. The genesis for C3 was the 1994 Lilly Endowment-funded study, “High Hopes, Long Odds,” that was disseminated by IYI. Among that study’s findings was that Indiana middle school students had bold aspirations, including college, but many lacked the information about what they had to do to prepare to achieve their dreams. More recently, Endowment education efforts have encouraged Indiana colleges and universities to make connections with K–12 schools across the state to raise the level of educational attainment of Indiana residents. Finally, through many of Indiana’s community foundations, the Endowment’s CAPE (Community Alliances to Promote Education) initiative has touched, directly, and indirectly, many middle-grades students in the state. REFERENCES Ames, N. L., & Miller, E. (1994). Changing middle schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lipsitz, J., Mizell, M. H., Jackson, A. W., & Austin, L. M. (1997). Speaking with one voice. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 533–540. Mancini, G. H. (1993). Gentle ambitions: Indiana’s thoughtful middle grades movement. Washington, DC: Education Writers Association.

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY Cynthia C. Reyes University of Vermont The words “limited English proficient” (LEP) are a federally established term that refers to persons whose primary language is not English, and who have a limited ability to speak, read, write, or understand in English (Limited English Proficiency, n.d.). These individuals

may be entitled to federal services or federally funded assistance. The term English Language Learner (ELL) has also been used interchangeably with this term in an effort to label these learners more positively, and to focus on their learning rather than on non-native English-speaking students as deficient (Crawford, 1996). Nevertheless, the terms LEP and ELL are both recognized and used synonymously by the Office for Civil Rights (U.S. Department of Education, 2014), as well as the term English Learners (ELs). It is important to note that when schools and districts alternate the use of ELL student for LEP student, it technically does not always mean the same thing, because the term ELL can encompass a wide range of language skills from fluent to emergent, whereas, the term LEP generally indicates a student is eligible for English as a second language/bilingual education services. In general, English language learners do not have the English-language ability needed to participate fully in American society or to achieve their full academic potential in the school. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The term LEP became prominent in the 1974 ruling of Lau v. Nichols, a class action suit that was brought against officials who were responsible for representing the San Francisco Unified School District by the non-English speaking Chinese students who did not receive additional instruction (Crawford, 1996). The students alleged that they were not receiving equal opportunities and therefore not being afforded their Fourteenth Amendment rights. With Lau v. Nichols, the U.S. Supreme Court guaranteed that all children receive a meaningful education and that “no longer would limited-English-proficient (LEP) students be left to sink or swim” (Crawford, 1996, para 1). For the first time, school districts would be deemed responsible for providing instruction for limited English proficient students that would be commensurate with instruction for native speakers of English. This legal event prompted states to further authorize and use specific instruction such as bilingual instruction for non-English speaking students. In 1975, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued the Lau Remedies, a set of guidelines that translated the legal responsibilities of schools into instructional directives. The Lau Remedies led to other precedents such as Castañeda vs. Picard (Reuters, 2014), which prescribed a legal mandate for “appropriate action” by schools: programs for LEP students must be sound in theory, provided with sufficient resources in practice, and monitored for effectiveness (Reuters, 2014). Two decades later in 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the Executive Order 13166 Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency

236 ◾ LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY

requiring Federal agencies to identify, examine, and improve upon the services they provide to non-English speaking students. CHARACTERISTICS OF MIDDLE GRADES LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT/ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS During 2011–12, the percentage of public school students in the United States who were non-English speaking was higher (9.1%, or an estimated 4.4 million) than in 2002–2003 (8.7%, or an estimated 4.1 million students) (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). The eight states with the highest percentage of non-English speaking students are mostly in the West and include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas. Of these states, 10% or more of public school students were English language learners. ELL students constitute 23.3% of public school enrollment in California. States that followed with an ELL public school enrollment increase between 6 and 9% included the District of Columbia, Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Illinois, North Carolina, and Rhode Island (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Limited English proficient students/English language learners come to school with a variety of experiences ranging from background knowledge to language, and literacy skills. The schooling experience of these learners can be influenced by internal factors, such as personality traits, age, motivation, attitude, level of proficiency in the native language or external factors including quality of the language program, the educator’s expectations of the learner, ELL pedagogical practice, and the societal attitudes toward the ELL sociolinguistic group (Soltero, 2011). Upon entering school, these students are assessed for English proficiency and are placed in the appropriate program. English proficiency may range from advanced to emergent, and schools will provide the additional assistance, intensive or individualized, as needed. By far, the most challenging literacy interventions are for non-English speaking students in the middle grades (Colorín Colorado, 2007). Students who come to the United States for the very first time at this age have great difficulty catching up without concentrated focus on vocabulary and reading instruction in addition to content instruction. This stage of learning for middle grades non-English speaking students is further exacerbated by the high stakes standardized testing in English and academic content that typically occur between grades 3 and 8. Intensive and effective English and content instruction is particularly needed in the middle grades.

TYPES OF LANGUAGE PROGRAMS Most language programs, some of which still exist today, that were developed for non-English speaking students are grouped into five broad categories (August & Hakuta, 1997). Several factors may influence what program a school might use, including the language concentration of students in the school district, student characteristics, and available resources. The more commonly used programs of the five include English as a second language and transitional bilingual programs. English as a Second Language (ESL) A specified period of time is focused on developing students’ English-language skills, targeting communication, grammar, and vocabulary. Content instruction is addressed in English mainstream classes. Students in these classes may come from the same linguistic group or from different language backgrounds. Sometimes, native language may be used if a multilingual paraprofessional is available. Sheltered Instruction/Structured Immersion Instruction is mostly carried out in English, including a modified version of content in English. Students are mostly grouped according to English-language proficiency, and the classroom consists of students coming from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Typically, there is little to no use of native language, especially in a linguistically mixed classroom. Transitional/Early-Exit Bilingual Education Students in this classroom receive academic instruction in their native language while making a gradual transition to English-language instruction. The goal is to shift instruction from native language to English as quickly as possible (two to four years). Maintenance/Late-Exit Bilingual Education Students in this classroom receive academic instruction in their native language while making a gradual transition to English-language instruction. The goal is to develop academic proficiency in both English and the native language, with some native language instruction extended for a longer period of time (seven or more years). Two-Way Bilingual/Dual-Language Immersion In the classroom, half of the students are native English speakers and the other half consist of non-English

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY ◾ 237

speaking students who speak a target language. The goal is for all students to develop academic proficiency in both languages. This kind of language program is typically offered as a magnet school option. PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES Despite the legal precedents, there has been much debate concerning the appropriate methods for educating limited English proficient students or English language learners. Overall, there are conflicting philosophical viewpoints that fall into three different doctrines. The first viewpoint represents the proponents of bilingual education (some academic instruction in the native language), who argue the importance of gaining content knowledge during the earliest possible acquisition of English. They see the ability to read and write in more than one language as a benefit for living and working in a global society. They also view bilingual education as forming a bridge between the school, the home, and the community of its English language learners. On the opposite side, critics of bilingual education believe that this approach perpetuates cultural and linguistic isolation for non-English language speakers, impeding their ability to assimilate into the American mainstream. While they acknowledge the importance of family grounding their children in the native language and culture, they point out that many students must depend on schools to teach them to become successful in an English-speaking world; therefore, they argue for early immersion in English. A third train of thought, identified somewhere between the two, is likely to describe a balance of either supporting English as a second language (ESL) instruction or transitional bilingual education, depending on the child’s circumstance. LEARNING STRATEGIES FOR MIDDLE GRADES LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT/ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS Classroom teachers are positioned to work more intensively with their non-English speaking students or with the ELL teacher/paraprofessional who works regularly with these students. In focusing on the particular linguistic, cultural, and social development of middle grades learners, teachers can become more familiar with the role of learning strategies on second language acquisition. Learning strategies are defined as the “thoughts and actions that individuals use to accomplish a learning goal” (Chamot, 2005, p. 14), and are found to be effective with language learners in improving their English (Chamot, 2001; Chamot & O’Malley, 1990). Different learning models have been used to teach non-English speaking students in both

first and second language contexts; and, the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) is a model that is based on cognitive theory that describes how individuals “process” information and how these thoughts then engage an activity referred to as “mental processes.” In essence, learning strategies aid with processing how language is stored in memory, which can result in enhanced “comprehension, learning, or retention of the information” (Chamot & O’Malley, 1990, p. 1). The following is a general outline of the CALLA model: (a) Preparation—Teacher identifies students’ current learning strategies for familiar tasks and prior knowledge; (b) Presentation—Teacher models, demonstrates and uses visuals; names, explains new strategy; asks students if and how they have used it; (c) Practice—Students practice new strategy through collaboration, inquiry, or problem-solving; in subsequent strategy practice, teacher encourages independent strategy use; (d) Self-evaluation—Students evaluate their own strategy use immediately after practice; (e) Expansion—Students apply the strategy they have learned to other content instruction settings; and (f) Assessment—Teacher assesses students’ use of strategies and impact on performance (Chamot, 2005, p. 22). The CALLA model has been found to be particularly useful for language learners as it posits a recursive rather than linear model of learning strategies that gives the teacher and students the opportunity to revisit previous strategies. It also emphasizes a self-evaluation stage for students to reflect on the usefulness of the strategies that they used before they move on to transfer these strategies to new tasks. REFERENCES August, D., & Haukta, K. (1997). Improving school for language-minority students: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Chamot, A. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research, (pp. 25–43). Harlow, England: Longman. Chamot, A. (2005). Issues in language learning and strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14–26. Chamot, A., & O’Malley, J. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Colorín Colorado (2007). The diversity of English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado. org/educators/reachingout/diversity/ Crawford, J. (1996). Summing up the Lau decision: Justice is never simple. Retrieved from http://www.languagepolicy.net/ articles/summing.htm Limited English Proficiency (LEP) (n.d.), Limited English proficiency: A federal interagency website. Retrieved from http://www.lep.gov/

238 ◾ LIPSITZ, JOAN S. Reuters, T. (2014). Castañeda v. Pickard. Westlaw 648 F.2d 989. (Texas, 1981). Soltero, S. (2011). Schoolwide approaches to educating English language learners: Creating culturally and linguistically responsive K–12 schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2014). English language learners. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

LIPSITZ, JOAN S. Ann Bullock East Carolina University Joan S. Lipsitz is a researcher who devoted her career to the educational needs of young adolescent development and the improvement of middle schools for their education. Upon receiving her doctorate at the University of North Carolina, she founded the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Center for Early Adolescence in 1976. This was the first national center to conduct cross-disciplinary research, provide training and technical assistance, and serve as an information resource for people who worked with 10-to-15-year-olds (UNC-Chapel Hill School of Education, 2006). While at the center, Lipsitz published Growing Up Forgotten (1977), a landmark research study that was instrumental in bringing recognition to early adolescence as a distinct stage of human development (Lounsbury, 2000). She also authored, Successful Schools for Young Adolescents (1984), another classic text that detailed effective schooling focused on young adolescents. The center flourished for two decades, providing research that influenced schools, districts and policies related to the middle school movement and influenced middle schools across the country. From 1986 to 1995, Lipsitz served as program director for elementary and secondary education at Lilly Endowment, where she researched young adolescent development and middle school reform initiatives. Focusing on middle school reform at the national level, she was instrumental in founding the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform—an alliance of more than 60 middle grades stakeholders dedicated to improving schools for young adolescents across the country (National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, 2014a). From this movement, the National Schools to Watch program was created in 1999. The Schools to Watch program identifies middle schools that promote academic excellence, developmentally responsiveness and social equity on a national stage (National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, 2014b). In

2006, Lipsitz was among the first group of Americans to be named as a Purpose Prize Fellow (Encore.org, 2006). REFERENCES Encore.org (2006). Joan Lipsitz. Retrieve from https://encore. org/purpose-prize/joan-lipsitz/ Lipsitz, J. (1977). Growing up forgotten. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. Lipsitz, J. (1984). Successful schools for young adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Lounsbury, J. H. (2000). Understanding and appreciating the wonder years. Retrieved from https://www.amle.org/ portals/0/pdf/mlem/wonder_years.pdf National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (2014a). About the forum. Retrieved from http://middlegradesforum.org/about-the-forum/ National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (2014b). History: The first Schools to Watch schools. Retrieved from http://middlegradesforum.org/history/ UNC-Chapel Hill School of Education. (2006). Alumni news. Retrieved from http://soe.unc.edu/news_events/alumni _news/2006/lipsitz_joan.php

LITERACY Francine Falk-Ross Pace University BASIC DEFINITIONS The basic definition of literacy has changed as contexts for its use have evolved over time; however, the term literacy still refers to ways that meaning is composed, viewed, and shared with others. No longer only printbased for education in books and writing journals, the current expanded view of literacy acknowledges that students create and derive meaning from and through several types of text, such as in print, or visual or auditory formats (e.g., New London Group, 2000). We recognize the receptive elements of literacy to be listening, reading, and viewing; the expressive elements are talking, writing, and composing. The National Reading Panel (2000) specified five core elements for reading, in general: comprehension, vocabulary, word identification, phonemic awareness, and fluency. Writing and composing are focused on conventions and purposes. In all cases, students need to learn to self-monitor their literacy processes and completion of literacy products. The development of new literacies expands communication through electronic environments such as of desktop and laptop computers, tablet computers, smart phones, video programs, and classroom digital display

LITERACY ◾ 239

boards (Gee 2007; New London Group, 2000); these are also referred to as digital literacies. As we add visual arts, symbols (such as numeracy and language), and dramatic arts to our ‘reading the word and the world’ (Freire & Macedo, 1987), we need to consider media literacy as literate competencies, as well. Media literacy includes ‘reading’/listening to online books, films, television programs and commercials, neon signage, video, and audiotapes. The composing aspect of media literacy includes construction of text/meaning using computer software, scanners, hypertext, clip art/photos, and art center materials. There is often a higher motivation for engagement with literacy products using media and digital products (Leu, 2000). Media provides instructional alternatives and learning opportunities for students including those with special needs (e.g., learning difficulties, second language acquisition (Kamil, Intrator, & Kim, 2000). By allowing for coding of information in two modes (verbal and visual), information may be retained longer (Paivio, 1986). Multimodal approaches to content area instruction follow these research findings. LITERACY’S ELEMENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS Literacy competencies gain importance in the intraand interpersonal significance they carry. For young adolescents, these literacy competencies serve as a bridge for self-reflection, communication, collaboration, presentation, and content area knowledge development, all of which align with the characteristics of excellence in middle grades programs, as articulated by the Association for Middle Level Education. In this guiding professional organization’s publication, Research and Resources in Support of This We Believe (Caskey et al., 2010), researchers explained that the curriculum needs to be tailored to students’ academic needs and personal development with purposeful learning and meaningful relationships (Atwell, 2014). Literacy opportunities to promote positive identities for young adolescents include using a critical lens (Lewison, Flint, & Van Sluys, 2002), promoting social agency through literacy activities and preparing students for an increased demand for media knowledge in the workplace (Smith, 2000). Guided by national standards for students’ learning (National Governors Association, Common Core Learning Initiatives, 2010) and international standards for middle level teachers’ coaching (International Literacy Association/International Reading Association, 2005), literacy development requires integrative approaches to instruction and assessment. Reading comprehension in all formats is an active and socially constructed process which involves intentional thinking (RAND Reading Group, 2002) and strategic

applications, and is dependent on a transaction between reader and text (Rosenblatt, 2004). Teachers need to develop both aesthetic and efferent understandings to young adolescent students’ reading and viewing. Influences on comprehension include students’ prior knowledge of content topics; the structure of the text, which refers to whether the information is organized as narrative or informational text; and format such as whether the content information is paper-based versus electronic text. To address these elements, strategies need to be balanced into four areas of development for reading: preparation, organization, elaboration, and metacognitive (Gunning, 2011). As examples, Anticipation Guides (Kozen, Murray, & Windell, 2006), help prepare students for reading content. The use of graphic organizers, such as Story Grammar (Stein & Glenn, 1979) for narrative text and KWL (Ogle, 1986) for informational text, allow for multimodal organization of ideas for all text. Questioning strategies such as Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) (Raphael & Au, 2005) and Questioning the Author (QtA) (Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997), are also supportive of reading comprehension, as they support students’ understanding of speakers’/characters’ power and position, and authors’ perspectives and purposes. Reciprocal Teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984) combines the use of several strategies (i.e., questioning, clarifying, summarizing, and predicting) for a well-rounded approach, and can be combined with QtA for a new approach, Video Viewing Task (Kucan, Palincsar, Khasnabis, & Chang, 2009). Vocabulary development aligns with comprehension since the words that authors use for reading and students’ use for writing can slant meaning and affect intent. Vocabulary knowledge has been shown to be a strong predictor of success through intellectual growth and school achievement (Hart & Risley, 1995). Students need to develop a wide variety of vocabulary to function in their variety of environments. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) developed a model of tiers to describe writing samples: Tier one words are common or basic words which require little or no instruction; Tier two words are more frequent along disciplinary lines; and Tier three are discipline-specific word uses and academic literacy (Lewis, 2007). Vocabulary development occurs most naturally through experiential learning (i.e., social and community situations, most often culturally related) and wide reading (i.e., of many levels and from different sources); however, specific instruction as a part of content area class instruction is the key to developing appropriate levels of academic literacy necessary for school achievement. Strategies that develop young adolescents’ vocabulary development target categorization and schema elaboration such as List-Group-Label (Tierney & Readance, 2000) and self-monitoring, such as Vocabulary Self-Selection Strategy (Ruddell & Shearer, 2002).

240 ◾ LITERACY

The individual elements of reading development build together for young adolescents. Word identification and fluency strategies support reading growth and contribute to other element growth, as well. For example, a strategy that supports vocabulary development and overlaps with word identification and orthographic knowledge is instruction in the recognition and application of morphemes (i.e., meaningful parts, such as affixes, plurals, and root words) and word parts (such as smaller words in larger words or rimes/word families). The use of wide reading and frequent reading naturally builds young adolescents’ recognition of high frequency words, supporting both vocabulary and word identification competencies, and improves fluency and comprehension, and writing competencies. CRITICAL LITERACY AND CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY Using print and media for reflective purposes allows students to find paths through which to express themselves and evaluate their understanding of resources. Development of young adolescents’ critical literacy and critical media literacy (CML) both of which extend the depth of vocabulary and comprehension as students’ attention is focused on close and careful personal readings of text (Fisher & Frey, 2014) and media (Alvermann & Xu, 2003). Critical literacy activities involve thoughtful consideration during text analysis and of authors’ purposes for text. Teachers often use text-to-text comparisons, referred to as intertexuality (Stuart-Faris & Bloome, 2004) or intermediality (Pailliotet, Semali, Ridenberg, Giles, & Macaul, 2000) to discover themes, similarities, and differences in language and content for learning and interdisciplinary instruction (Karchmer, 2000). Wider reflection may include text-to-self and text-to-world connections, as described by Keene and Zimmerman (2007). A focus on effective writing instruction for young adolescents targets authentic purposes consistent with content areas, such as writing for information, describing science experiments, collecting data, and to research meaningful topics. English language arts instruction is now focused on formalizing expressions for professional level papers. Composition of non-print products to represent ideas and personal responses are modeled and/or performed. For optimal learning, extended time periods are provided to allow for the writing process to develop. Writing in steps such as brainstorming or planning, drafting, revising, editing, and formalizing drafts support focused thinking at each stage and enriched products. To provide the extra time and to manage conferencing opportunities in the process, a Reading or Writing Workshop (Atwell, 2014) literacy block organization is useful. To acknowledge the use of digital literacies in this

process, Leu (2002) recommended Internet Workshop, which replicates the setup: read-aloud/introduction, mini-lesson, work time (individual conferencing, flexible reading grouping, literacy center work), and closure. Graphic organizers to guide writing, such as for cause/ effect, time sequencing, and compare/contrast, and writing frames, to transition into formats, are popular instructional supports. Other approaches to writing and composing include integration of the Arts, including visual arts, dramatic arts, and poetry (Goldberg & Stowell, 2014). The use of poetry builds fluency, word-recognition abilities, and confidence for struggling readers (Wilfong, 2008). Podlozny’s (2000) research was among the first to show a relationship between drama and the strengthening of verbal skills. A consideration for young adolescents’ literacy development is the critical role that language (discourse) plays in mediating learning and concept development (Falk-Ross, 2007; Fecho & Botzakis, 2007). Teachers’ use of expanded forms of discourse to include collaborative responses and open questions (Cazden, 2011), support deeper learning and a more inclusive process. Teachers’ clear explanations of the importance of questioning and talking are also integral parts of effective instruction and assessment. Providing authentic discussions about literature and biographies is often optimized through Literature Circles (Wilfong, 2009), during which students discuss and critique the plot, vocabulary, and purposes within the reading they completed. Content area learning is embedded in vocabulary-rich instruction which may pose difficulties for students marginalized by cultural or linguistic difference (Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007) or disabilities (Tam, Heward, & Heng, 2006). To address this diversity, Mohr, Flory, and Knezek (2014) posed questions that educators might consider: “What should middle school teachers know about English language learner’s (ELL) engagement and motivation to develop English as an academic language in an English language arts course, or how can a middle school science teacher support student achievement when ELL students are reading well below grade level?” (p. 145). Issues focused on the role of language for literacy instruction gain importance as educators communicate, teach, evaluate, and socialize in classrooms (Adger, Snow, & Christian, 2002). LITERACY IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL Young adolescents’ development of literacy competencies is not limited to their learning in schools. Students use literacy activities in and out of schools, and both contribute to their learning. Their reading in the various settings differ considerably. For example,

LITERACY ◾ 241

research studies have indicated that middle level students engage in approximately 17 minutes per day in school reading and approximately 40 minutes per day reading out of school, and often with family members, whose influence also needs to be considered (Shumow, Schmidt, & Kacker, 2008). Students generally use more new literacies, or digital literacies, outside of school than in school, and have an increased number of options to self-direct their literacy activities out of school. For example, students have more access to computers and computer time to research information for school and for recreational purposes. They may have more time and use of cell phones to text and email for communication and socialization. This extra and rich use of literacy activities away from the classroom require educators to acknowledge and value the importance of out-of-school literacy activities. Many have attempted to mediate literacy development by drawing on the outside, digital activities (Burns, 2008). Teachers can develop more authentic uses of literacy activities that are used for out-of-school investigations for in school applications such as searching for geographic locations, researching scientific phenomena, and how-to directions for construction of products. There is accumulating evidence that the digital literacies are more engaging for struggling readers and writers than conventional literacy (Hagood, Provost, Skinner, & Egelson, 2008). REFERENCES Adger, C. T., Snow, C. E., & Christian, D. (2002). What teachers need to know about language (Language in Education). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems. Alvermann, D. E., & Xu, S. H. (2003). Children’s everyday literacies: Intersections of popular culture and language arts instruction. Language Arts, 81(2), 145–154. Atwell, N. (2014). In the middle: A lifetime of learning about writing, reading, and adolescents (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, ME: Heinemann. Beck, L. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association/International Literacy Association. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Burns, L. D. (2008). Relevance, new literacies, & pragmatic research for middle grades education, Middle Grades Research Journal, 3(3), 1–28. Caskey, M. M., Andrews, P. G., Bishop, P. A., Capraro, R. M., Roe, M., & Weiss, C. (2010). Research and resources in support of This We Believe (2nd ed.). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Cazden, C. (2011). Classroom discourse (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Falk-Ross, F. C. (2007). Language factors in literacy achievement of young adolescents. In S. B. Mertens, V. A. Anfara, Jr., & M. M. Caskey (Eds.), The young adolescent and the middle school (pp. 73–89). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Fecho, B., & Botzakis, S. (2007). Feasts of becoming: Imagining a literacy classroom based on dialogic beliefs, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(4), 548–558. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Close reading as an intervention for struggling middle school readers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Learning, 57(5), 367–376. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning literacy (2nd ed.). Hamshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Goldberg, M., & Stowell, L. (2014). Literacy and the arts: How artistic perspectives enhance literacy learning. In F. Falk-Ross (Ed.), Language-based approaches to support reading comprehension (pp. 113–142). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Gunning, T. G. (2011). Creating literacy for all students in grades 4–8 (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson. Hagood, M., Provost, M. C., Skinner, E. N., & Egelson, P. E. (2008). Teachers’ and students’ literacy performance and engagement with new literacies strategies in underperforming middle schools. Middle Grades Research Journal 3(3), 57–95. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. International Literacy Association/International Reading Association. (2005). Standards for middle and secondary school coaches. Newark, NJ: Author. Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S. M., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 771– 788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Karchmer, R. (2000). Using the internet and children’s literature to support interdisciplinary instruction, The Reading Teacher, 54(1), 100–104. Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kozen, A. A., Murray, R. K., & Windell, I. (2006). Increasing all students’ chance to achieve: Using and adapting anticipation guides with middle school learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 195–200. Kucan, L., Palincsar, A. S., Khasnabis, D., & Chang, C-I. (2009). The video viewing task: A source of information for assessing and addressing teacher understanding of textbased discussion, Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 25(3), 415–423. Leu, D. J., Jr. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.) Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 743– 770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Leu, D. J., Jr. (2002). Internet workshop: Making time for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 55(5), 466–472.

242 ◾ LOOPING Lewis, J. (2007). Academic literacy: Principles and learning opportunities for adolescent readers. In J. Lewis & G. Moorman (Eds.), Adolescent literacy instruction: Policies and promising practices (pp. 143–166). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Lewison, M., Flint, A. S., & Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers and novices. Language Arts, 79(5), 382–392. Mohr, K. A., Flory, M., & Knezek, L. A. (2014) Promoting agency, access, and acquisition among adolescent English language learners. In F. Falk-Ross (Ed.), Language-based approaches to support reading comprehension (pp. 143–166). Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield. New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9–37). London, England: Routledge Falmer. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www .corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1 .pdf National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/ documents/report.pdf Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570. Pailliotet, A., Semali, L., Rodenberg, R., Giles, J., & Macaul, S. (2000). Intermediality: Bridge to critical media literacy, The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 208–219. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities, Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. Podlozny, A. (2000). Strengthening verbal skills through the use of classroom drama: A clear link, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 239–275. Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71–93. RAND Reading Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59, 206–221. Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (5th ed.,

pp. 1363–1398). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ruddell, M. R., & Shearer, B. A. (2002). “Extraordinary,” “tremendous,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent”: Middle school at-risk students become avid word learners with the vocabulary self-collection strategy (VSS). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 352–363. Shumow, L, Schmidt, J., & Kackar, H. (2008). Reading in class and out: An experience sampling method study. Middle Grades Research Journal, 3(3), 97–120. Smith, E. A. (2000). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace, Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311–321. Stein, N., & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. D. Freedle (Ed.), Advances in discourse processes: New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53–119). Norwood, NJ: Albex. Stuart-Faris, N., & Bloome, D. (2004). Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Tam, K. Y., Heward, W. L., & Heng, M. A. (2006). A reading instruction intervention program for English-language learners who are struggling readers. Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 79–93. Tierney, R. J., & Readence, J. E. (2000). Reading strategies and practices: A compendium (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Wilfong, L. (2008). Building fluency, word-recognition ability, and confidence in struggling readers: The poetry academy. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 4–13. Wilfong, L. G. (2009). Textmasters: Bringing literature circles to textbook reading across the curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(2), 164–171.

LOOPING Nicole C. Miller Mississippi State University Nicole L. Thompson University Memphis Dana Pomykal Franz Mississippi State University Looping is the practice of keeping students and teachers together over the course of two or more consecutive years. Looping is known by other names including multi-year grouping, clustering, family grouping (Nichols & Nichols, 1999), continuous learning, continuous progress persisting groups, teacher/student progression (Northeast and Islands Regional Education Laboratory at Brown University, 1997), teacher retention (Forsten, Grant, Johnson, & Richardson, 1997), and teacher rotation (Forsten et al., 1997; McLaughlin & Doda, 1997). Looping is not new in the United States, but rather, has

LOOPING ◾ 243

been practiced since the early 1900s (Lounsbury, Carson, & Andrews, 2013). It has its foundations in the one room schoolhouse as well as in the German Waldorf approach which places a great deal of importance on relationship building, as well as a longitudinal understanding of student development that often led to keeping students and teachers together for more than one year (Barnes, 1991; Nichols & Nichols, 1999). Looping in the middle grades can be characterized by various organizational structures in that it is not implemented in the same way in all contexts (Lounsbury et al., 2013, p. 649). Often, looping is characterized by keeping students and teachers together over a three-year period of time (Lounsbury & Andrews, 2014). How this is implemented within a school setting can also vary with regard to the extent to which this structure is practiced. In some cases, only a certain group of teachers and students participate in the practice (see Franz et al., 2010), while in others, all teachers and students participate in the looping process (see other examples in Lounsbury et al., 2013). RATIONALE Looping is an organizational structure thought to be beneficial for the education and development of young adolescents and is thus a recommended practice of the Association for Middle Level Education (NMSA, 2010). The goals of middle level education are for students to develop into “lifelong learners, ethical and democratic citizens, and increasingly competent, self-sufficient individuals who are optimistic about the future and prepared to succeed in our ever-changing world” (p. 3). It has been argued that in order to achieve these goals, we must foster positive student-teacher relationships and purposeful learning, both of which can be supported through the looping structure. Based on the foundation of stage-environment fit, as well as an ecological view of schools (Eccles, 2004), looping, as a support for the human needs of relatedness and belonging could support students with regard to their motivation, academic achievement, as well as social and emotional development. STATUS OF RESEARCH ON LOOPING Research on looping at the middle level is somewhat limited, especially regarding academic achievement (Franz et al., 2010; George & Lounsbury, 2000; McAteer, 2001; McLaughlin & Doda, 1997; Nichols & Nichols, 1999; Thompson, Franz, & Miller, 2009). The majority of research tends to be qualitative in nature focus on affective outcomes that can potentially create a context for improved academic performance, and be set in elementary rather than middle schools (Cistone & Shneyderman, 2004). However, one study of note focused on the impact

of looping in the middle level on mathematics achievement. Franz et al. (2010) found that students who looped demonstrated greater growth on their state standardized math exam than their non-looping peers between sixth and eighth grades. There were also beneficial outcomes for those students typically unengaged in school such as those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR LOOPING Benefits of looping include limiting and supporting transitions, gaining additional instructional time, enhanced teacher, student, parent relationships and satisfaction, an improved ability of teachers to diagnose and address academic and social needs, and a variety of other more anecdotal benefits. Clearly, the goal of looping is to positively support student academic and developmental outcomes. As such, there are many reported benefits of looping. However, each benefit has varying degrees of support in the research. Also, by no means is the following an exhaustive list of possible benefits from implementing looping. 1. Improved teacher–student relationships. More highly developed relationships, as can occur through looping, provide the teacher with the opportunity to better diagnose and address the academic and social needs of students. Teachers and students profit through the opportunity for teachers to better get to know their students’ strengths and weaknesses (Crosby, 1998; Elliot, 1998; Forsten, Grant, & Richardson, 1999) allowing the teachers to take advantage of those strengths and build up areas of weakness (Crosby, 1998). George and Lounsbury (2000) and George and Shewey (1997) found that participants, in school structures such as looping that support long-term relationships, agreed that a greater sense of community developed as a result of these long-term relationships. Jackson and Davis (2000) noted that looping provides the time needed to create strong teacher–student relationships yielding positive emotional attachments that are important for successful learning. 2. Improved instructional planning. A better understanding of students can allow for improved instructional planning based on the learned strengths and weakness of each student (George & Lounsbury, 2000; George & Shewey, 1997). The long-term relationships also facilitate the development of effective instructional approaches to curriculum to meet the specific needs of students (George & Shewey, 1997; McLaughlin

244 ◾ LOOPING

3.

4.

5.

6.

& Doda, 1997). George and Lounsbury (2000) found that long-term teacher–student relationships can help better address the needs of less successful students. Others have a better ability to prepare for the coming school year given that they are already knowledgeable about their students (Simel, 1998). Additional time. Looping can save valuable instructional time, especially in the second or subsequent years of looping. Time normally dedicated to building relationships is reduced in the second or other consecutive years of participation in looping and is gained at the end of the year as well when students know and understand that they are returning to the same classroom the following year (Elliot & Capp, 2003; Forsten et al., 1999; Lounsbury et al., 2013). Further, time is saved by already knowing what the students know and do not know (Crosby, 1998). Continuity. By looping, teachers can better provide continuity for young adolescents. Adolescents experience a complex period of development that requires consistency, which can be provided by maintaining the same group of teachers over an extended period of time (George & Lounsbury, 2000). McAteer (2001) found that students were happier in the fall of the second year of a loop than their non-looping peers. They did not have to go through the adjustment period that occurs normally each school year. McLaughlin and Doda (1997) noted that the novelty of a new school year requires a time consuming transition to develop a new learning context that can be avoided through looping. By looping, continuity is maintained, thereby creating greater stability and consistency for young adolescents. Family involvement. Better rapport between parents and teachers can result in the looping classroom. In addition, more active parent involvement is also a hallmark of looping classrooms (California Department of Education, n.d.; Lounsbury et al., 2013; Simel, 1998). Forsten et al. (1999) and Nichols and Nichols (2002) documented better relationships between teachers and families in looping contexts. Attendance. Students who loop tend to have better attendance (Forsten et al. 1997; Grant, 2000). In a study of students in grades two through five, students who looped had statistically better attendance than their non-looping peers (Cistone & Shneyderman, 2004). Although this example is not exclusive to middle

7.

8.

9.

10.

level, it does demonstrate that looping can have positive outcomes for students. Retention. Students who loop are less likely to be retained or referred for special education services (Forsten et al. 1997). Much like with attendance, Cistone and Shneyderman (2004) found that students in grades 2 through 5 had less likelihood of being retained. Classroom management. Teachers are more likely to invest additional time in behavior interventions, rather than giving up on more difficult students, if they know they will be with that student for a two-year (or greater) period of time (George, 1987, George & Lounsbury, 2000). This potentially creates a more positive classroom environment (Forsten et al., 1997). Supportive environments. Looping has also been promoted as a possible method of creating positive environments for students with greater needs. It is thought that looping could be potentially beneficial for students who have special needs, are second language learners, or just require more attention (McAteer, 2001). Increased satisfaction. The context of looping results in improved relationships between teachers, students and parents yielding increased satisfaction for teachers, students, and parents regarding the educational experience (Forsten et al., 1999; George & Shewey, 1997). Lounsbury et al. (2013) explained that despite the added demands of teaching within the looping environment, teacher satisfaction often increased.

POTENTIAL CONCERNS AND IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS Although there are many reported, both researched and anecdotal, benefits to looping, there are some drawbacks to the practice for students, parents and teachers. Therefore, looping must be implemented with great planning. Several concerns and resulting recommendations for implementation are as follows: 1. Options to remove students from a looping group. Students and parents should have the opportunity to pull out of a looping group. Some parents fear that their child may be “stuck” with an ineffective teacher for two or more years. Teachers also should have the option, within reason, to remove students from the looping group. In either case, if the relationship between the student and teacher is no longer beneficial to the student and the looping group, their continu-

LOOPING ◾ 245

2.

3.

4.

5.

ing inclusion within the loop should be reconsidered (Simel, 1998). Teacher content and pedagogical knowledge. Given increasingly complex national and state standards for education, teacher content knowledge is a valid concern. Teacher content knowledge will need to span the content for multiple grade levels (California Department of Education, n.d.). Similarly, teacher pedagogical knowledge spanning the looping years must be addressed. Therefore, when considering looping, professional development and resources need to be provided to support teachers during the implementation of this school structure. Classroom management. It can be a challenge to maintain effective classroom management over the course of two years. While positive teacher student relationships can support effective classroom management, it can also challenge a teacher’s repertoire of management tactics over the course of an extended period of time (Simel, 1998). Demographics. Looping student groups should be representative of school demographics. The looping students should not over represent any one population of students (e.g., race, ability) (Forsten et al., 1997; McAteer, 2001). New students. Adding a student to a looping group should be considered very carefully. It is possible that new students can negatively impact classroom cohesiveness and possibly feel left out of the family atmosphere that is often created within looping classrooms (Simel, 1998). IMPLICATIONS FOR MIDDLE SCHOOLS

Looping has the potential to support young adolescents, academically, motivationally, and developmentally, during a significant transition in their lives. As seen above, the advantages of looping tend to outweigh the disadvantages; however, as with any structure employed to support young adolescents, careful consideration and thoughtful planning must occur in order for it to be effective. During the middle level years, young adolescents are at a critical juncture in their lives and in their development. Looping could be a strategy used to safeguard them as well as foster a positive and productive learning environment where familiarity and consistency yield great reward.

REFERENCES Barnes, H. (1991). Learning that grows with the learner: An introduction to Waldorf education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 52–54. California Department of Education. (n.d.). Looping. Taking Center Stage—Act II (TCSII). Retrieved from http:// pubs.cde.ca.gov/tcsii/ch5/looping.aspx Cistone, P. J., & Shneyderman, A. (2004). Looping: An empirical evaluation. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 5(1), 47–61. Crosby, P. (1998). Looping in the middle school: Why do it? Teaching PreK–8, 29(3), 46–47. Eccles, J. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook on adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 125–153). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Elliot, I. (1998). When two years are better than one. Teaching PreK–8, November/December, 38–41. Elliot, D. C., & Capp, R. (2003). The gift of time: Multi-age teaching and curriculum design, or looping, work to provide a continuum that maximizes learning. Leadership, 33(2), 34–36. Forsten, C., Grant, J., Johnson, B., & Richardson, I. (1997). Looping Q&A: 72 practical answers to your most pressing questions. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books. Forsten, C., Grant, J., & Richardson, I. (1999). The looping evaluation handbook. Peterborough NH: Crystal Springs Books. Franz, D. P., Thompson, N. L., Fuller, B., Hare, R. D., Miller, N. C., & Walker, J. (2010). Evaluating mathematics achievement of middle school students in a looping environment. School Science and Mathematics, 110(6), 298–308. George, P. (1987). Long-term teacher–student relationships: A middle school case study. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. George, P., & Lounsbury, J. (2000). Making big schools feel small: Multiage grouping, looping, and schools-within-a-school. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. George, P., & Shewey, K. (1997). What does research say? Maintaining long-term teacher student relationships. Schools in the Middle, 7(2), 18–21. Grant, J. (2000). In the loop. School Administrator, 57(1), 30–33. Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lounsbury, J. H., & Andrews, G. (2014). Looping—Making a case for a best practice. AMLE Magazine, 2(1), 32–34. Lounsbury, J. H., Carson, S. T., & Andrews, P. G. (2013). Looping and multiage grouping: Providing long-term student-teacher relationships—and time. In P. G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education (pp. 633–675). Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education. McAteer, M. (2001). In the loop. Teacher Magazine, 13(1). McLaughlin, H., & Doda, N. (1997). Teaching with time on your side: Developing long-term relationships in schools. In J. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 57–72). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

246 ◾ LOUNSBURY, JOHN H. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Nichols, G. W., & Nichols, J. D. (1999). Looping: The Impact on parental attitudes in the educational environment. International Journal of Educational Reform, 8(3), 274–279. Nichols, J. D., & Nichols, G. W. (2002). The impact of looping classroom environments on parental attitudes. Preventing School Failure, 47(1), 18–25. Northeast and Islands Regional Education Laboratory at Brown University (1997). Looping: Supporting student learning through long-term relationships. Retrieved from http://www.brown.edu/academics/education-alliance/sites/brown.edu.academics.education-alliance/ files/publications/looping.pdf Simel, D. (1998). Education for ‘Bildung’: Teacher attitudes toward looping. International Journal of Educational Reform, 7(4), 330–37. Thompson, N. L., Franz, D. P., & Miller, N. C. (2009). Research summary: Looping. Retrieved from http://www.amle .org/BrowsebyTopic/WhatsNew/WNDet.aspx?ArtMID =888&ArticleID=311

LOUNSBURY, JOHN H. P. Gayle Andrews The University of Georgia John Lounsbury has been the patron saint whose gentle spirit, kind heart, intellect, perseverance, friendship, and just basic goodness have inspired everyone. He has been the heart of the middle school movement.” John R. Arnold (2011, p. 103)

Described as the “moral compass” of the middle school (Doda, 2011, p. 189), John H. Lounsbury found his way to his true North of middle grades education in a roundabout fashion. After serving in the United States Army in World War II, Lounsbury started as a biology major before earning a bachelor’s degree in social studies education in 1947 from John B. Stetson University and then a master’s degree in secondary education in 1948. Early in his teaching career, Lounsbury was asked to take the lead in “converting” two elementary schools into junior high schools. Admittedly, he did not know much about junior high schools at the time, so he made it his mission to learn more. He ended up centering his doctoral research at George Peabody College (Nashville, TN) on education for young adolescents, resulting in his 1954 dissertation, The Role and Function of the Junior High School. Two of his professors and mentors at Peabody, Louis Armstrong and William Van Til, helped him discover the literature on democracy in education and a student-centered approach to schooling and realize the alignment between his own values and the ideas that

would eventually form the foundation of the middle school movement. Lounsbury ultimately plunged into the arena of middle grades education in support of a new school structure, the middle school, which would replace the junior (read: “miniature”) high school and offer opportunities to implement the progressive ideals that resonated with his passion for supporting the learning and development of young adolescents. As Lounsbury (2011) noted: I genuinely love these kids, this age level; it’s just a pleasure to be around them. And I hate to see them get the short end of it, as they often do, in schools that really don’t recognize what wonderful learners they are. How energetic and creative, and how ready to go they are, if you just give them a chance. (p. 34)

Lounsbury served on the faculty at Berry College (1954– 1956) and the University of Florida (1956–1960). In 1960, he became Professor of Education and Director of Graduate Studies at Georgia College and State University (GCSU) in Milledgeville, Georgia, and was later named the first dean of the GCSU School of Education, which was renamed the John H. Lounsbury School of Education in 1997. Van Til introduced Lounsbury to writing and editing as tasks to be mastered and as opportunities to contribute to the literature and the narrative that supports student-centered and democratic teaching and learning in the middle grades. Lounsbury has authored or co-authored more than 150 publications and edited hundreds more in his role as editor of National Middle School Association’s (NMSA) Middle School Journal (1976–1990), Chair of NMSA’s Publications Committee (1985–2002), and Professional Publications Editor for NMSA/AMLE (Association for Middle Level Education) (2002–2013). He has conducted speeches and presentations at more than 100 conferences, institutes, conventions, and workshops. He has worked with thousands of teacher candidates who have benefited from his dedication to specialized preparation for middle grades educators and graduate students who have found inspiration for their own research in his work (e.g., Andrews, 2013; Davis, 1996; Gloer, 2007). In recognition of the standard he set for advocacy, teaching, research, and service to the field of middle grades education, in 1978 NMSA created and named its highest award in his honor: the John H. Lounsbury Award for Distinguished Achievement in Middle Level Education. J. Howard Johnston (2011), the 2003 recipient of the Lounsbury Award, commented on Lounsbury’s contributions to the field: John provides something that’s intangible but essential. He provides a sense of soul and continuity. There’s something about him that brings a level of wholesomeness to

LOUNSBURY, JOHN H. ◾ 247 this enterprise. It’s a good thing to be associated with a movement that has a John Lounsbury in it. (p. 260)

Lounsbury ostensibly retired from GCSU in 1983 with the status of Dean Emeritus and a commitment to devote his considerable energies to middle grades education. Anyone who knows Lounsbury would be hard pressed to define his busy schedule in support of improving schools for young adolescents as “retirement.” He retains an office in the John H. Lounsbury College of Education, where he interacts with young adolescents involved in the GCSU Early College program, teacher candidates, and graduate students on an almost daily basis. He corresponds with stakeholders in the field of middle grades education from across the country and the world, and continues to contribute both publications and presentations. Since that roundabout beginning to his career in middle grades education, Lounsbury has been at the heart of efforts to improve schooling for young adolescents for more than 60 years. He has been described as both the conscience of the middle school and one of the founding fathers of the middle school movement (Smith & McEwin, 2011). Tom Erb (2011), the 2008 Lounsbury award recipient, captured the essence of Lounsbury’s long-lasting and ongoing influence: “John Lounsbury, the energizer bunny of middle grades education, is incredible” (p. 205).

REFERENCES Andrews, P. G. (2013). Past as prologue in middle grades education. In P. G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education (pp. 51–74). Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education. Arnold, J. R. (2011). John R. Arnold. In T. W. Smith & C. K. McEwin (Eds.), The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words (pp. 93–107). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Davis, G. A. (1996).  Is everything old new again? Influences on the evolution of the junior high school and the middle school (Order No. 9708117). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304263072). Doda, N. M. (2011). Nancy M. Doda. In T. W. Smith & C. K. McEwin (Eds.), The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words (pp. 179–194). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Erb, T. O. (2011). Thomas “Tom” O. Erb. In T. W. Smith & C. K. McEwin (Eds.), The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words (pp. 195–211). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Gloer, S. R. (2007). The contribution of John Lounsbury to the development of the middle school movement in American education: An oral history. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Waco, TX: Baylor University. Lounsbury, J. H. (2011). John H. Lounsbury. In T. W. Smith & C. K. McEwin (Eds.), The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words (pp. 27–51). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Smith, T. W., & McEwin, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

This page intentionally left blank.

M McEWIN, C. KENNETH Sheila Rogers Gloer Baylor University

Educators [AMLE]) Professional Preparation Advisory Committee and served on the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educators (NCATE), developing the guidelines for middle level licensure. Later, he served as Program Review Coordinator for AMLE-NCATE. In 1989, he became the sixth recipient of the John H. Lounsbury Distinguished Service Award. McEwin was also the president of NMSA in 1983 (NMSA, 1998). He was a charter member of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, authored more than 150 professional publications, and received numerous awards. In addition to his interest and expertise in the area of middle level teacher preparation, McEwin has also authored articles on young adolescents and sports (Swaim, McEwin, & Irvin, 1998). C. Kenneth McEwin, a native of Texas, received his BS and MEd degrees from Texas A&M University, Commerce, Texas, and his EdD from North Texas State University, Denton, Texas. He began his career in public schools, but soon moved to higher education at Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas. In 1973, McEwin moved to North Carolina to begin as an Associate Professor at Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina where he remained for the remainder of his career. The C. Kenneth McEwin Middle Grades Teacher Preparation Scholarship was established at Appalachian State to commemorate his retirement and acknowledge his long and successful tenure at the institution (ASU News, 2011; Smith & Greene, 2010).

C. Kenneth McEwin began his career as a sixth grade teacher and later became an elementary principal. He is, however, best known for his advocacy of quality teacher preparation designed specifically for middle grades teachers. As a member of the faculty of Appalachian State University (ASU), Boone, North Carolina, McEwin created the first middle level specific teacher preparation program in North Carolina. While advocating for middle level licensure in North Carolina, he used every forum available to argue for the same in all states (Dickinson & McEwin, 1997; McEwin, 1992). Dickinson and McEwin (1997) noted that middle grades teachers themselves have responsibility for developmentally appropriate middle schools. He stated, they “have [an] . . . often unarticulated mission. [T]he continuation of the middle school movement and creation of a sustainable future for the education of young adolescents” (p. 277). After completing a third national survey in 2009, McEwin and Greene (2010) reported that the results “help document and lend credibility to the reality that middle schools can implement effective programs without abandoning developmental responsiveness as a guiding principle” (p. 61). McEwin was one of the founding members of the North Carolina Middle School Association; he was the first executive director and editor of its journal. In 1988, he received the first award for outstanding service in middle grades education in North Carolina, the Kenneth McEwin Distinguished Service Award (ASU News, 2011). McEwin was the chair of National Middle School Association’s (NMSA, now Association for Middle Level

Appalachian State University News. (2011). Scholarship named in honor of Dr. Ken McEwin. University News: Appalachian State University. Retrieved from http://www

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 249–271 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

249

REFERENCES

250 ◾ MELTON, GEORGE E. .news.appstate.edu/2011/07/19/scholarship-named -in-honor-of-dr-ken-mcewin/ Dickinson, T., & McEwin, C. K. (1997). Perspectives and profiles: The professional preparation of middle level teachers. Childhood Education, 73(5), 272–277. McEwin, C. K. (1992). Middle level teacher preparation and certification. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp. 369–380). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. McEwin, C. K., & Greene, M. W. (2010). Results and recommendations from the 2009 national surveys of randomly selected and highly successful middle level schools. Middle School Journal, 42(1), 49–63. National Middle School Association. (1998). Because we believed: A quarter-century of service to young adolescents. Columbus, OH: Author. Smith, T. W., & Greene, M. (2010). C. Kenneth McEwin: North Carolina middle grades education groundbreaker, trailblazer, and caretaker. North Carolina Middle School Association Journal, 25(2). Retrieved from http://www.ncmle. org/journal/PDF/Oct10/Ken_McEwin.pdf Swaim, J. H., McEwin, C. K., & Irvin, J. L. (1998). What research says: Responsive middle level sports programs. Middle School Journal, 30(2), 72–74.

MELTON, GEORGE E. John H. Lounsbury Georgia College & State University George E. Melton was an Illinois farm boy who grew up close to the land and nature, and went on to distinguish himself as an outstanding American educator. He spent 30 years in the public schools, all at the middle level, first as a classroom teacher, then for 25 years as a junior high school principal in Illinois and Ohio. As a junior high school principal, he put into practice the middle school concept before it had been identified as such. His evident leadership led to his being selected President of the State Principal’s Association in both Ohio and Illinois, and then to his being elected as President of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). In 1980, he was appointed the Deputy Executive Director of NASSP. Under his leadership, he brought the influence of this the most powerful of professional associations to bear on the middle level in a most dramatic way. He stirred the thinking of the nation’s middle level principals regarding the middle school concept as no one ever had. His travel itinerary over a decade was staggering and would have exhausted someone half his age. Among middle level principals, George Melton was not just well known, but beloved. He created the Middle Level Council and directed the work of that active group, which sponsored institutes and conferences, conducted research studies, and

produced many influential publications including An Agenda for Excellence at the Middle Level (NASSP Council on Middle Level Education, 1985). The term “middle level” has come into wide usage thanks to George Melton who first proposed it and who fostered its use, gradually making obsolete the invalid notion of junior high school versus middle school. George Melton had the idea to celebrate National Middle Level Education Week. He initiated it in 1987 and subsequently invited NMSA to share in the sponsorship of this annual event, which has been so successful in filling the understanding gap relative to middle schools that has handicapped implementation efforts. George Melton received the first William Gruhn-Forrest Long Award from the National Council of Junior High/Middle School Administrators, the President’s Award, the John H. Lounsbury Award for Distinguished Service from National Middle School Association (NMSA, now Association for Middle Level Education), and distinguished service awards from many state association of administrators and educators. His powerful platform presence carried his kid-centered message to thousands and thousands of teachers, principals, and parents. George Melton was always unpretentious. He walked with kings—in the White House and on Capitol Hill— but he did not lose the common touch. He was a family man who, together with his talented wife Mary, raised five children; he loved good music, good food, good books, and pleasant conversation. He represented the best of American ideals in his personal life as well as in his professional life as he played a particularly critical role in the middle school movement. REFERENCE National Association of Secondary School Principals Council on Middle Level Education. (1985). An agenda for excellence at the middle level. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

MENTORING AND INDUCTION Gail Ingwalson University of North Dakota Teaching is a noble profession; we have all heard that. We have been told that teachers make all other professions possible. It is also true that no other career path has the power to directly influence every individual like teaching does. Teachers make a difference; they inspire, they empower, they equip our future generations! But, they also feel isolated and struggle with the

MENTORING AND INDUCTION ◾ 251

demands of the profession, especially our beginning teachers. “New teachers are left to sink or swim, often given the heaviest teaching loads and the worst-prepared students” (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p.106). Yet, it is still shocking to learn that 30 to 50% of our new teachers leave the profession within the first five years of their career (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Ingersoll, 2012; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). We need to understand why these talented individuals who have spent several years preparing for this profession, leave! Beginning teachers report isolation, lack of support, unclear expectations, low wages, poor preparation, difficulty dealing with student discipline problems, lack of resources, and a sense of being overwhelmed, as major reasons for leaving the profession (Ingwalson, 2006). New teachers are told about and also witness a teaching profession that is challenging and unpredictable. In today’s education system, a teacher can walk into her/ his first classroom and face 35 students who come from tremendously different backgrounds. Seven who do not speak English, seven who require special services, seven who do not know if they will get an evening meal or have a place to sleep, and seven who are in a state of affective disorder because they are experiencing conflict at school or at home. That leaves seven students who have a myriad of cultural and personal experiences that can positively or negatively influence their learning. This has led critics of education to state that “teaching is an occupation that “cannibalizes its young” and in which the initiation of new teachers is akin to a “sink or swim,” “trial by fire,” or “boot camp” experience” (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004, p.  28). Carroll and Fulton (2004) gave credence to this by adding that the teaching profession has four times the turnover rate of any other profession. To add one additional twist to this increasingly difficult situation, large numbers of retirements in the early 2000s, resulted in changing demographics as a quarter of our teaching staff had five years or less of teaching experience. Our nation’s teaching staff has gone from “gray to green” (Ingersoll, 2012). THE EFFECT OF ATTRITION ON YOUNG ADOLESCENTS When a middle school teacher initially tells another individual what they do for a living, they hear such comments as “bless you for taking on that responsibility” or “wow—you chose to work at that level?” Many beginning middle school teachers deal with the typical struggles of planning and being overwhelmed but the unique nature of the young adolescent can further exacerbate the first year teachers’ woes. Fortunately, the middle school concept has a built-in mentoring component with interdisciplinary teaming, but that does not

preclude the fact that induction programs are needed in middle schools as well. Building relationships and being advocates for young adolescents are essential components of a middle school teacher’s job. This takes time and effort above and beyond the assumed day-to-day teaching responsibilities. “High teacher turnover jeopardizes student learning because essential attachments between teachers and adolescents are interrupted” (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 106). Behavioral problems can also escalate if students know that the teacher intends to leave. The trust and sense of security that young adolescents seek turns to disillusionment and feelings of abandonment when teachers struggle with the demands of the job, especially if it ends in departure. Actually, attrition greatly affects teams and their success as well. Teams that experience turnover oftentimes struggle with cohesion that can influence the quality of their experience together and, thus, student outcomes both academically and personally. Teams that worked together for five or more years had higher frequencies of desirable instructional practices and team interactions (Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall, 2000). Whereas bringing new teachers onto a team can add stress and conflict that can lead to storming. THE CALL FOR INDUCTION PROGRAMS The key to the education dilemma of teacher attrition is not found by implementing more active recruitment policies. It will not be resolved with alternative licensure. It may not improve by increasing requirements for teacher education programs. The approach that has ensured the best results is the incorporation of teacher induction programs, better known as mentoring programs. Teacher induction is different than teacher preparation or in-service teacher training programs. Induction programs are not additional training but rather act as a “bridge” from student of teaching to teacher of students (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Comprehensive induction programs are defined as opportunities to collaborate in small learning communities, observe experienced colleagues’ classrooms, be observed by expert mentors, analyze their own practice, and network with other novice teachers (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Successful programs help teachers understand their roles and guide them to be effective practitioners, which affects teachers’ decisions to stay in their schools and the profession altogether (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). In contrast, teachers leave schools where they are not supported, feel ill equipped to meet students’ needs, and ultimately, feel ineffective. Nationally, almost two-thirds of teachers reported participating in an induction program during their

252 ◾ MENTORING AND INDUCTION

first year, and 71% had a mentor (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). The truth is that induction programs have very different looks, which address very diverse purposes. The type of support and guidance provided to these beginning teachers is as varied as the students that they teach. The more informal approach may involve occasional meetings with an experienced teacher or administrator who provides information about the school, its culture, and is available to answer questions the new teacher may have. Most schools assign a veteran teacher to a new hire to “show them the ropes.” Although beneficial, this unofficial approach can lack the trusting, collaborative relationship that lends to the level of communication, support, and guidance that the new teacher needs. Some districts offer a formal induction program that is specifically designed to address the various needs of the first year teachers. This typically involves an assigned mentor, who may or may not be in the mentee’s teaching field, but provides consistent support and guidance (e.g., collaboration, school procedures, orientations, workshops). Through regularly scheduled collaboration meetings, the beginning teacher receives personal and professional support, curricular planning, classroom assistance (e.g., pedagogical ideas, management skills, assessment approaches), professional development, decision-making and problem solving skills, and opportunities to observe veteran teachers, etc. Beyond local programs, some states offer a statewide mentoring system. As of the 2010–11 school year, 27 states required some kind of induction program for new teachers (Goldrick, Osta, Barlin, & Burn, 2012). Although these systems vary tremendously from state to state, these programs usually involve one-on-one conferencing time between mentors and first-year teachers. Mentors observe the mentee, offer suggestions, and encourage reflection by the mentee. First year teachers also observe accomplished teachers within their content area and have the opportunity to participate in online classes that address their varied needs and allows them to earn continuing education credits (North Dakota Teacher Support System, 2015). Even though the type and intensity of induction programs vary, the message and the desired outcome remain similar. It requires a solid relationship between the mentor and mentee so the needed support and guidance can be provided to help the beginning teacher succeed. This is why it is important to formally prepare the mentor teacher. Mentor teachers should participate in specific training, attend mentoring seminars and online continuous training. It is also important that the mentors are compensated for their efforts (e.g., salary supplement or a reduction in teaching load).

MIDDLE SCHOOL RESIDENT TEACHER PROGRAM A unique induction program that grew out of the Professional Developmental School model is known as the Resident Teacher Program. This collaborative partnership between the public schools and the university has four main goals: 1. To improve teaching performance of teachers; 2. To promote a personal and professional attitude that supports excellence in teaching; 3. To support the retention of good teachers by building early career success; and 4. To develop a love for and commitment to continued learning (Johnson & Gates, 1998). The program consists of a one-year experience for a first year teacher in which the “resident” has full responsibility for a middle school classroom, is mentored by a seasoned master level teacher, and is pursuing a master’s degree. The cost and responsibility for the program is shared between the public schools and the university. Each year, the middle level committee (i.e., principals, on-site mentor, middle school teachers, and the university mentor) hires four resident teachers from a pool of candidates. Two professionals, the mentor teacher and the university mentor support this cohort. The mentor teacher provides the primary support as she is in the school where the residents teach. She is released from her public school teaching responsibilities, as her job is to mentor the residents on a daily basis. The mentor’s role varies according to the needs of the individual resident but generally involves assisting the residents by orienting them to the climate of the school, assisting with planning, observing and reflecting with the resident (both during weekly collaboration meetings and in journal writing), establishing and addressing goals, dealing with classroom management issues, providing ideas for assessing and grading, suggesting instructional strategies, aligning opportunities for observations of expert teachers, locating resources, establishing expectations for both the resident teacher and their students, and providing emotional support (Ingwalson, 2006; Johnson & Gates, 1998). This can be likened to Wormeli’s (2001) support for the mentoring approach that identifies relationships as the key. The four basic interactions are: (a) telling—the mentor provides direction and monitors the new teachers work; (b) selling—the mentor shares ideas and seeks suggestions from the new teacher; (c) collaborating—the mentor and new teacher work together to complete goals; and (d) delegating— the new teacher takes responsibility for decisions and actions. The mentor teacher is the backbone to this program; this individual supports and guides the residents

MIDDLE GRADES RESEARCH JOURNAL ◾ 253

on a daily basis as they face the challenges of a first-year teacher. She not only supports the residents as teachers but also as individuals, giving a pat on the back for good work or a pep talk when the day does not go as planned. The university mentor also focuses on supporting the resident teachers. The university mentor is the program coordinator and provides academic assistance as an advisor, instructor, and facilitator. The university mentor promotes the residents’ research agendas and supports their continuous learning. She also observes the residents’ lessons, especially those projects that are devised through the university coursework. The two mentors work hand-in-hand to ensure the best possible experience for the resident teachers. Does the Resident Teacher Program work? Does this mentoring program support these beginning teachers so they stay in the profession and thrive? The Middle School Resident Teacher Program began in 1999 and has mentored 64 first year teachers. According to unpublished program records, after 16 years, 95% of the resident teachers (61 of 64) are still in the teaching profession. These teachers quickly rise to leadership positions (e.g., team leaders, instructional coaches, curriculum directors, principals), complete their national board licensure, and ironically, become mentors. INDUCTION PROGRAMS AND SUCCESS Ingersoll’s (2012) research indicated that, “induction has a positive effect. Most of the studies that looked at the effect on teachers’ job satisfaction, commitment, and retention found positive effects on beginning teachers who participated in some kind of induction” (p. 51). Beginning teachers were better able to develop workable lessons, keep students on task, adjust activities to meet students’ interests, maintain a positive classroom environment, and demonstrate successful classroom management. In addition, new teachers who were mentored had students who had higher scores on achievement tests (Ingersoll, 2012). It is vital for beginner teachers to have systematic, intense mentoring in the first year. Having weekly support and in-classroom coaching for fine-tuning skills, planning lessons, and problem solving about things that come up in the classroom ensures that someone experienced is there during the critical moments of the beginning teacher’s first year (Darling-Hammond, 1994). REFERENCES Carroll, T., & Fulton, K. (2004). The true cost of teacher turnover. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2012/01/Tom-Carroll-Kathleen-Fulton-True-Cost-ofTeacher-Turnover-graphic-Threshhold-Spring-2004.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000). What makes interdisciplinary teams effective? Middle School Journal, 31(6), 53–56. Goldrick, L., Osta, D., Barlin, D., & Burn, J. (2012). Review of state policies on teacher induction. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center. Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction: What the data tells us. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 47–51. Ingwalson, G. (2006). A mentoring success story: The resident teacher program. Teaching and Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry and Reflective Practice, 21(1), 84–106. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617. Johnson, S., & Gates, S. (1998). The resident teacher program. In M. Harris (Ed.), Under construction: Excellence in education (pp. 75–82). Unpublished document for the Knight Foundation’s Excellence in Education. North Dakota Teacher Support System. (2015). North Dakota education standards and practices board. Retrieved from http://www.nd.gov/espb// Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 681–715. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Wormeli, R. (2001). Meet me in the middle: Becoming an accomplished middle-level teacher. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers and Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

MIDDLE GRADES RESEARCH JOURNAL Frances R. Spielhagen Mount Saint Mary College David Hough Missouri State University In 2015, the Middle Grades Research Journal (MGRJ) completed 10 years of publication of rigorously reviewed and relevant articles pertaining to middle grades education. Evolving from early research initiatives in the field of middle grades education, MGRJ is a refereed, peer-reviewed journal that publishes original studies with empirical and theoretical frameworks that focus

254 ◾ MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION— ORIGIN OF THE TERM

on middle grades education. MGRJ publishes a variety of articles in June, September, and December of each volume year. From 1999 to 2003, during the fall National Middle School Association (NMSA) conferences, the American Educational Research Association’s (AERA) Middle Level Education Research (MLER) Special Interest Group (SIG) engaged in lengthy discussion of the need for a print research journal for dissemination of middle grades research. During these meetings, David Hough, NMSA’s research editor, agreed to examine the feasibility of starting a new print journal as a companion to the National Middle School Association’s Research in Middle Level Education Online. In the summer of 2004, Dr. Hough founded the Middle Grades Research Journal, funded by the Institute for School Improvement at Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri. The first issue of MGRJ was published in fall 2005, starting with two issues annually; two years later, in fall 2007, MGRJ became a quarterly publication. David Hough served as editor-in-chief of MGRJ from August 2005 to December 2009. Fred Groves, Missouri State University served as assistant editor during this same time and Vicki Schmitt, who had served as MGRJ managing editor from 2005 through 2009, became the editor-in-chief in January 2009. Beginning with volume 5, in spring 2010, Information Age Publishing acquired MGRJ and became the publisher. Vicki Schmitt continued as the editor-in-chief, Fred Groves continued as the associate editor, and David Hough continued as the founding and managing editor. This editorial team remained through winter 2011 with the publication of the last issue of volume 6. Beginning in spring 2012, Frances Spielhagen assumed the post of editor, supported by associate editors, Robert Capraro, Mary Margaret Capraro, and Gerald Golden. From 2012 through 2015, this editorial team strived to build on the legacy of quality and integrity that characterized the journal from its inception. During this period, the quantity of manuscripts submitted increased and the rigorous review process assured that high quality manuscripts were published under the banner of the journal. In 2014, the journal began a cycle of three issues per year, maintaining a stringent review process. In 2015, the editorial team announced that it would not seek renewal of its term. In spring 2015, the editorial board of MGRJ conducted a search for a new editorial team. Starting with the spring 2016 issue (volume 11), the new editorial team will consist of Larry G. Daniel as editor and associate editors, Renée Jefferson and Aaron Oberman, action editors, Stephenie Hewett and Tammy Graham, and style editor, Mary Margaret Capraro. Frances Spielhagen will remain as editor emerita and advisor to the new team.

MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION— ORIGIN OF THE TERM Jerry W. Valentine University of Missouri Donald C. Clark University of Arizona Sally N. Clark University of Arizona During the decade of the 1960s, increased criticism of junior high education led to the exploration of new ways to organize schools to be more developmentally responsive to the needs of young adolescents. Junior high school education, which was often characterized as mimicking high schools in program and policies, motivated educators and scholars such as Donald Eichhorn (1966) and William Alexander (Alexander, Williams, Compton, Hynes, & Prescott, 1968) to call for new models for educating young adolescents. Eichhorn’s and Alexander’s ideas, as presented in their books The Middle School (1966) and The Emergent Middle School (1968), emphasized the importance of creating environments that were developmentally responsive to the needs of young adolescents. While Eichhorn’s, The Middle School (1966), provided the rationale and suggested structural organizations for middle schools, some of the most powerful arguments for the middle school were provided in The Emergent Middle School (Alexander et al., 1968). Described as a text for students preparing for middle school positions and for in-service professional development, the authors presented a scholarly view of the how and the why of middle school education. In the second edition of The Emergent Middle School (1969), published but a year later, Alexander provided a list of 46 recommended readings which he characterized as the rationale and status of the middle school movement. An analysis of the readings by publication year, sorting them by publication dates from 1960 to 1964 and from 1965 to 1969, lead to an interesting observation. Ten of the recommended manuscripts were published in the first half of the decade; 36 in the last half. The “middle school movement” was obviously gaining traction and clearly attracting the attention of educators across the United States as the 1960s came to a close. The fast-growing middle school movement triggered a multi-decade debate as to whether the long-established junior high school or the emerging middle school provided the most appropriate educational setting for students in those in-between years from elementary school to high school.

MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION—ORIGIN OF THE TERM ◾ 255

ORIGIN OF THE TERMS MIDDLE LEVEL SCHOOLS AND MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION In 1977, Jerry Valentine, University of Missouri, drafted a proposal for a “decade” study of junior high schools and middle schools. In 1978, he presented the proposal to James Keefe, Director of Research for the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). The leadership of the Association endorsed the research plan, and Keefe secured funding from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation for what would become the first of three decade studies of middle level education sponsored by NASSP. The initial NASSP middle level study, while providing important baseline data on junior high schools and middle schools and their leaders, also led to the introduction of the terms “middle level schools” and “middle level education.” The term “middle level” was first used as a descriptor of schools for young adolescents in the title of the initial volume of the NASSP national study middle level study. The opening paragraph of The Middle Level Principalship—Volume I: A National Study of Middle Level Leaders and Schools read: Many educators in America believe that middle level education has progressed through an interesting and significant period in the past decade. Some would say we have witnessed a “rebirth” of interest in the middle level—a rebirth that has been healthy for educators, for communities, and most importantly, for students. (Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981, p. xiii)

The use of the term “middle level” was proposed to the research study team by Valentine in 1979 as the team discussed the working titles for the national survey and the Volume I mentioned above. It was embraced by the team and by NASSP as an appropriate descriptor to define the body of schools and educators to be studied. Immediately upon acceptance by the research team, research team members Jerry Valentine and Donald Clark met with George Melton, NASSP Deputy Executive Director, to ensure that the use of the term “middle level” to describe the study met with his approval. He embraced the term and championed it. POPULARIZATION OF THE TERM MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION The term middle level was popularized during the 1980s and gained even more traction in the post-1980 decades as a modifier for the era of education between the elementary school level and the high school level. The early growth of the term was due in no small part to the efforts of George Melton. Through his role as Deputy Executive Director of NASSP, George Melton wove

his passion for middle level education into the fabric of his work at NASSP and created national visibility for middle level education. He began his crusade with the development of the NASSP Council on Middle Level Education in the early 1980s. The Council was a small, hand-picked group of well-respected, who’s who in middle level education. Initial members included noted middle level leaders John Lounsbury, Conrad Toepfer, Jr., J. Howard Johnston, and Al Arth. Along with other middle level leaders and with the support of NASSP, the Council traveled the country conducting seminars and conferences, sharing with principals the important concepts of quality middle level schools in an era when school leaders knew relatively little about the important tenets of effectively serving young adolescents. Among the many publications produced by the Council was An Agenda for Excellence at the Middle Level (NASSP Council on Middle Level Education, 1985), an influential document that established the vision and characteristics of developmentally responsive middle level schools. Middle level educators will forever be indebted to Melton’s ability to champion the term and the key concepts throughout the eighties and into the nineties. His energy and his wisdom made key differences in the growth and the vitality of middle level education, and the influence of his efforts made a difference in the lives of countless middle level students. Don and Sally Clark wrote admirably of Melton’s tireless efforts: These terms (middle level schools and middle level education) gained general acceptance among junior high and middle school educators largely through the energetic efforts of George Melton, Deputy Executive Director of NASSP, who popularized the terms through presentations at state, regional, and national conferences and conventions. (Clark & Clark, 1994, p. 6)

Melton continued his crusade until his death in 2001. Further evidence of the acceptance of the terms middle level schools and middle level education came from Donald Eichhorn, one of the founding fathers of the middle school movement, who in the re-publication in 1987 of his seminal book The Middle School used the term “middle level” 21 times in his three-page preface to the reprinting of his 1966 book (Eichhorn, 1987, pp. vii– ix). As noted by John Lounsbury (1991) and reported by Clark and Clark (1994), by the end of the 1980s the terms middle level school and middle level education had gained wide acceptance and were the terms used by middle level educators to describe their schools in the middle level hierarchy. The terms “middle level schools” and “middle level education” continued to gain traction and by the beginning of the 21st century were widely used by researchers, scholars, and practitioners to describe middle schools, intermediate schools, and junior high

256 ◾ MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION RESEARCH SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP

schools. The acceptance and use of the term was evident in scholarly publications such as The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education (Anfara, Andrews, & Mertens, 2005) and numerous practitioner publications. Further evidence of the terms’ wide acceptance was the recent acknowledgement of the members of one of America’s premier middle level associations, the National Middle School Association, who voted to change the Association’s long-standing name to the more inclusive Association for Middle Level Education. From its inception in the late 1970s, the term “middle level” continues to be valued as an appropriate term for describing schools for young adolescents. SUMMARY The desire on the part of the NASSP research team in 1979 to use a term that would encompass all grade levels serving young adolescents, and perhaps move the arguments from the merits of the junior high vs. the middle school to the merits of the educational programs and practices most appropriate for young adolescents, appears to have been realized. Educators serving young adolescents must, however, still remember the hardlearned lessons from the junior high era of the first half of the last century to the middle school era which encompassed much of the second half of the last century. Even if we are today in a “middle level era,” as noted in a discussion of historical perspective in A National Study of Leadership in Middle Level Schools—Volume I: A National Study of Middle Level Leaders and School Programs (Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, 2002), it is important not to lose focus on the programs and practices that are best for young adolescents. Whether we do or do not refer to our state and national organizations as middle level associations, to ourselves as middle level educators, or to our schools as middle level schools, the fact remains that the critical issues are found in our ability “to be developmentally responsive to the special needs of the early adolescent learner” (Clark & Clark, 1994, p. 4). REFERENCES Alexander, W. M., Williams, E., Compton, M., Hynes, V., & Prescott, D. (1968). The emergent middle school. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Alexander, W. M., (1969). The emergent middle school (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Anfara, V. A., Jr., Andrews, G., & Mertens, S. B. (Eds.). (2005). The encyclopedia of middle grades education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Implications for school leaders. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Eichhorn, D. H. (1966). The middle school. New York, NY: Center for Applied Research in Education. (Special Printing, 1987, National Association of Secondary School Principals/National Middle School Association) Eichhorn, D. H. (1987). The middle school. Reston, VA/Columbus, OH: National Association of Secondary School Principals/National Middle School Association. Lounsbury, J. (1991). As I see it. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. NASSP Council on Middle Level Education. (1985). An agenda for excellence at the middle level. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981). The middle level principalship—Volume I: A national study of middle level leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Hackmann, D. G., & Petzko, V. (2002). A national study of leadership in middle level schools—Volume I: A national study of middle level leaders and school programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION RESEARCH SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP Chris M. Cook Appalachian State University Shawn A. Faulkner Northern Kentucky University The Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group (MLER SIG) is an affiliate of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). The group was officially approved by AERA in 1991. The primary purpose of the MLER SIG is to improve, promote, and disseminate educational research reflecting early adolescence and middle level education. The methods used to achieve the purpose of the SIG include publishing research in various books, newsletters, and journals; presenting research at annual conferences; and participating in other professional activities established by the SIG (e.g., National Common Planning Time Project, Revisiting the 21st Century Research Agenda). In addition, the MLER SIG publishes The Chronicle of Middle Level Education Research three times a year in the spring, summer, and fall. The Chronicle offers regular updates from the SIG chair and executive advisor, provides reports on the business of the SIG, shares SIG research and advocacy initiatives, highlights calls for manuscripts for upcoming publications and proposals for upcoming conferences, and presents the latest pertinent research presented at the American Education Research Association and Association for Middle Level Education

MIDDLE LEVEL LEADERSHIP CENTER ◾ 257

Conferences. The MLER SIG maintains a website at www.mlersig.net. Membership in the SIG is open to any AERA member who supports the purpose of the SIG and pays the specified SIG dues. Any member in good standing is entitled to vote in elections and is eligible to run as a candidate for election as a SIG officer or council member. Officers of the SIG include the immediate past chair, chair, program chair, vice chair, secretary, and treasurer. Terms for each of these officers are two years. In addition to the officers, the MLER SIG leadership also includes seven council members (six regular members and a graduate student), the Chronicle editor, Webmaster, and executive advisor. The MLER SIG has approximately 175 members. The MLER SIG hosts two business meetings a year, one in the spring during the American Educational Research Association’s Annual Meeting and the other in the fall during the Association for Middle Level Education’s Annual Conference. In addition, the MLER SIG sponsors three awards—Graduate Student Award, Vincent A. Anfara Jr. Outstanding Middle Level Education Research Award, and Richard “Dick” Lipka Lifetime Achievement Award. The Graduate Student Award is intended to promote and recognize outstanding research in middle level education and is presented annually to a graduate student or recent graduate of a masters, specialist, or doctoral program. The Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. Outstanding Middle Level Education Research Award recognizes SIG members who make significant contributions to middle level education research through the publication of an article, book chapter, monograph, book, or book series. The Richard “Dick” Lipka Lifetime Achievement Award is the highest honor that can be awarded by the MLER SIG. The award is given only when an individual has demonstrated a level of service and leadership in middle grades education that warrants this special recognition.

MIDDLE LEVEL LEADERSHIP CENTER Jerry Valentine University of Missouri The Middle Level Leadership Center (MLLC) was established in the fall of 1997 as a research and service center in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, College of Education, University of Missouri-Columbia. The overall mission of the center is to positively impact the quality of school leadership and thus the quality of schooling for middle school students. To impact middle level leadership, the MLLC director and staff develop and disseminate knowledge

about effective leadership and educational practices at the middle level. The specific goals of the center are to (a) identify, design, and conduct research about critical issues in middle level leadership, (b) disseminate current knowledge about middle level leadership to practicing school-site leaders, university faculty, and leaders of professional organizations and educational agencies, (c) work with middle level leaders and school faculty to translate existing knowledge into effective school practices, and (d) collaborate with other professional organizations committed to middle level education. MLLC staff develop and implement research projects designed to add to the knowledge about best practices in school leadership and educational programs at the middle level. Grants and contracts with professional organizations and agencies support the Center’s research and service projects. One noteworthy grant/ contract was the design and implementation of the National Association of Secondary School Principals’ “decade” study of middle level leaders and program, a national study from 2000-2003 that resulted in two books distributed to more than 10,000 middle level principals. Another contract with NASSP prepared a series of monographs for the National Alliance of Middle Level Schools professional development project. Another contract was for the coordination and preparation of “Research Summaries” for the National Middle School Association’s Web site. In addition to contracts with external agencies, the center’s Web-based research capabilities are used regularly to implement studies pertinent to middle level leadership. Doctoral students employed by the center develop research, writing, service, and presentation skills, thus the center contributes to current research and the development of future middle level researchers. The center’s Web site (www.mllc.org) is the primary tool for disseminating the work of the center. The site provides research reports and copies of presentations made by center staff at national and international professional meetings. The primary service project of the center is Project ASSIST. ASSIST stands for Achieving Success through School Improvement Site Teams. ASSIST is a comprehensive, systemic school improvement process designed by the center’s director in 1996. The multiyear process is based on the concept of developing the capacity to lead change among a nucleus of faculty leaders. Center staff members work with the ASSIST team of teachers and the principal on a monthly basis. They study best practices in (a) change processes, (b) middle level education, (c) curriculum, instruction, and assessment, (d) leadership, and (e) organizational structures. School culture, climate, empowerment, leadership, curriculum alignment and articulation, instructional practices, assessment methods, student achievement, and student

258 ◾ MIDDLE LEVEL LITERATURE

achievement are assessed and analyzed for formative and summative decision making. The MLLC Web site provides detailed information about the ASSIST process and examples of the evaluation tools used in the project.

MIDDLE LEVEL LITERATURE Linda Haling Illinois State University While scholars do not agree on the first adolescent novel (e.g., The Pigman, Catcher in the Rye, or The Outsiders), the emergence of young adult (YA) literature “was understood to be a distinct literary genre by the end of the 1960s” (Trites, 2000, p. 9). Although now widely accepted as its own genre, YA literature was often viewed as children’s literature or as a sub-division within children’s literature (Daniels, 2006). Scholars such as Trites (2000) and Appleyard (1990) were instrumental in defining the differences between children’s and YA literature. For Trites (2000), the primary characteristic that separates children’s literature and adolescent literature is social power and how it is positioned during the narrative. For children’s literature, “the action focuses on one child who learns to feel more secure” in his or her environment, “represented by family and home” (pp. 3–4). In adolescent literature, however, “protagonists must learn about the social forces that have made them what they are” (p. 4). Appleyard (1990), on the other hand, posited that the primary difference between children’s and adolescent literature rests in the treatment of innocence. That is, “books for children deal with an innocent world, where evil is externalized and finally powerless, where endings are happy” (p. 100), but books for adolescents “deal with sex, death, sin, and prejudice, and good and evil are not neatly separated but mixed up in the confused and often turbulent emotions of the central characters themselves” (p. 100). At least as far back as 1981, teachers, librarians, scholars, and publishers have struggled with terms to describe adolescent literature, likely due to the recency of its existence, but also due to the age ranges designated within this genre. For example, Nilsen (1981) used adolescent literature, junior (or teen) novel, juvenile fiction, and young adult literature in her classification study. Although, Trites (2000) explained that young adult literature is specifically marketed to an adolescent audience and is a subset of the broader genre of adolescent literature, more recent literature suggests that young adult literature has become the favored term. Bradford (2008) brought to the forefront that young adult literature as a classification system is problematic in that the audience for whom it is written has little

voice. A disclaimer should accompany this entry as a way to acknowledge that defining a middle level genre may not encompass the experiences of all readers, and that particular groups of readers may find other types of texts engaging on a personal or political level (Enciso, Wolf, Coats, & Jenkins, 2010). To solve this issue, Bradford (2008) argued that YA literature should move from “a classification system (a body of literature targeting, in this case, a specific demographic group) to a genre (a body of literature concerned with a general theme)” (p. 510). Hayn, Kaplan, and Nolen (2011) also referred to young adult literature as a genre. Scholars, like Bradford, believe that viewing literature in classification systems rather than genres prevent critics from giving serious consideration and respect to the quality of the literature. Additionally, “seeing adolescent literature as a genre and not as a classification allows it to cross the age boundary in which it is currently entrenched” (Bradford, 2008, p. 510). However, the persistence of ratings and classification systems suggests that we need a way to talk about books that is more descriptive than the genre of YA literature. Categorizing genres is not the same thing as rating books. Nevertheless, YA literature has long been under fire for some of its themes, such as sexual conduct, language, and violence. This is likely due to the fact that YA literature is currently categorized as targeting ages 10–18. Parent groups have led the pushback on YA literature for their young adolescents, creating websites with book ratings, such as The Literate Mother, Common Sense Media, Compass Book Ratings, and Story Snoops (Hill, 2013). However, recently researchers have suggested using content ratings for young adult literature based on a study of the number of profane words used in a sample of 40 YA novels (Coyne, Callister, Stockdale, Nelson, & Wells, 2012). Results of this study “revealed that some novels did not contain a single instance of profanity, whereas others contained hundreds of often very strong profanity” (p. 360). While most literary scholars would agree that placing a content warning on books simply based on the number of profane words is inappropriate, Coyne and her colleagues’ (2012) study did support the notion that the continuum of YA literature is vast. Thus, the literature for young adolescents evolves from children’s literature to young adult literature, but at times, this transition may happen too quickly for some students (Crumpler & Wedwick, 2010). While lingering uneasiness with the vast array of treatment of some themes in young adult literature is likely the catalyst for ratings and grade level designations, having a way for teachers, librarians, parents, and students to describe books in the middle of children’s literature and adolescent literature could be beneficial and have educational value. At the very least, defining a genre that reflects our knowledge of the developmental

MIDDLE LEVEL LITERATURE ◾ 259

aspects of young adolescence aligns with principles of This We Believe (National Middle School Association, 2010). Specifically, defining a middle level genre addresses the essential attributes of developmental responsiveness (using the nature of young adolescents as the foundation on which all decisions are made) and empowerment (providing all students with the knowledge and skills they need to take control of their lives). Additionally, a description of middle level literature as a genre supports the position that families should be involved in the education of their children. The age range that publishers typically designate as YA literature (10–18) is problematic for many reasons. Researchers of adolescent development clearly mark differences in development as young early adolescence (ages 9–11), early adolescence (ages 12–14), middle adolescence (ages 15–17) and late adolescence (ages 18– 19). Meschke, Peter, and Bartholomae’s (2012) review of the research on adolescent development suggested that these distinctions are evident in biological, cognitive, and social differences. Therefore, one genre of literature that ranges from 10–18 could not be considered a developmentally appropriate practice. Literacy experts have traditionally avoided labeling texts in grade level bands, simply because they recognize the vast differences in readers. Many researchers, such as Wilhelm (2013) have argued that we need for our students to engage in free choice reading, learning how to find the books that they need, learning how to create reading agendas, and discovering how to forge rich reading lives for themselves” (p. 58). Nevertheless, distinctions and labeling persists. The American Library Association (2010), for example, who has long advocated for unrestricted access to books, designates grade levels on books reviewed for Booklist. Ilene Cooper, Senior Editor of Books for Youth at Booklist, explained that books are grouped as young (PreK-3rd), middle, (4–8), and older (6–12). According to Cooper, reviewers use their “professional expertise to decide, within those groupings, if a book is, for instance, Gr. 4–6 or 5–8; 6–9 or 7–12 or 9–12” and further explained that “placing books in age/grade ranges is an art rather than a science.  I think our audience understands these age groupings are general guidelines, not hard and firm rules” (personal communication, February 27, 2015). The ALA’s position on labels and ratings systems is that they can be convenient for finding desired materials but “rating systems should be examined in light of intellectual freedom principles” (ALA, 2010). Therefore, it is likely that Booklist will continue its practice to designate grade levels for young adolescent literature. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) pose another consideration into what constitutes middle level literature. Appendix B of the standards provides a list of text

exemplars for specific grade level bands. Criticisms of this list abound, mostly because “librarians, teachers, and literacy experts fear that the text exemplars will become a new canon for literacy instruction, a kind of national reading list” (Moss, 2013, p. 48). Like the American Library Association’s Booklist (2010), the texts for Appendix B were subjectively categorized by a work group who specified grade levels based on book quality, breadth, and text complexity (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). These subjective categories, however, do not provide adequate explanations about the differences between books for the middle grades and books for older adolescents. Crumpler and Wedwick (2010) provided the most comprehensive discussion of what constitutes the genre of middle level literature. Using the scholarship of Appleyard (1990) and Trites (2000), they theorized that books for the young adolescent fall just beyond the innocent world of children’s literature but do not position the reader in explicit situational contexts reflective of some young adolescent literature. “In children’s literature, the protagonist experiences personal power. In the adolescent novel, protagonists struggle on more of an institutional level and they discover that they are more likely to be disempowered by the social institutions. The middle level novel propels young adolescents forward on their identity quests and empowers them to continue that exploration” (Crumpler & Wedwick, 2010, p. 68). Trites’ (2000) distinction between the Entwicklungsroman “which is a broad category of novels in which an adolescent character grows, and the Bildungsroman, which is a related type of novel in which the adolescent matures to adulthood” (p. 9) helped to shape this understanding of the protagonist’s identity quest. Although Trites was suggesting that the distinction between the two is the difference between children’s and adolescent literature, Crumpler and Wedwick (2010) argued that middle level novels are Entwicklungsromane, and young adult novels are Bildungsromane. Growth novels are not punctuated with graphic language and sexual how to, although there may be a sense of sexual awakening within the protagonist (Crumpler & Wedwick, 2010). Gradations of growth (Trites, 2000) can help us distinguish the nuances of YA literature as a whole, but more specifically in identifying middle level literature. Backes (2014) posited that while age of the main character and novel length are rough guides, “middle grade novels are [better] characterized by the conflict encountered by the main character” (para. 1). The character development in a middle grade novel focuses on internal changes and reflect the inner turmoil during identity formation of young adolescents. Clearly, this description is based on the developmental aspects of young adolescents. The pushback on some young adult

260 ◾ MIDDLE SCHOOL JOURNAL

literature prompted “many publishers [to create] a new young adult category for ages 10–14, for books that bridge the gap between middle grade and young adult, and have designated novels with older themes as ages 15 and up” (Backes, 2014, para. 4). Perhaps, “age-level designators can become just that without being forced to carry the extra baggage of value-laden connotations” (Nilsen, 1981, p. 27). Even identifying a common set of texts for middle grades is difficult. Wilson and Koss (2013) analyzed the survey responses of 548 English/Language Arts teachers in grades 4–9 to determine whether there are common texts used across these grade levels. Their findings indicate that “no one text was identified by a majority of the respondents and that there was no apparent middle grades canon; however, The Giver and The Outsiders took the top two spots, 20% and 17%, respectively. The argument for middle level literature as a genre is in its infancy. Despite the efforts of scholars to make distinctions (Appleyard, 1990; Crumpler & Wedwick, 2010; & Trites, 2000), the waters are murky. However, teachers, scholars and theorists are encouraged to join this conversation. Although, research on YA literature abounds, in this field of middle level literature “there awaits an opportunity to not only expand our knowledge of the young adult genre, but also to expand our knowledge of literature as a whole” (Daniels, 2006, p. 81). REFERENCES American Library Association. (2010). Questions and answers on labeling and rating systems. Retrieved from http:// www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librar ybill/ interpretations/qa-labeling Appleyard, J. A. (1990). Becoming a reader: The experience of fiction from childhood to adulthood. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Backes, L. (2014). The difference between middle grade & young adult. Children’s Book Insider. Retrieved from http://writeforkids.org/2014/01/the-difference -between-middle-grade-young-adult/ Bradford, A. (2008). Adolescent literature in a class by itself? Voice Youth Advocates, 30(6), 508–510. Coyne, S. M., Callister, M. Stockdale, L. A., Nelson, D. A., & Wells, B. M. (2012). A helluva read: Profanity in adolescent literature. Mass Communication and Society, 15(3), 360–383. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2011.638431. Crumpler, T. P., & Wedwick, L. (2010). Readers, texts, and contexts in the middle: Re-imagining literature education for young adolescents. In S. Wolf, K. Coats, P. Enciso, & C. Jenkins (Eds.), Handbook of research on children’s and young adult literature (pp. 63–75). New York, NY: Routledge. Daniels, C. L. (2006). Literary theory and young adult literature: The open frontier in critical studies. The ALAN Review, 33(2), 78–82.

Enciso, P., Wolf, S., Coats, K., & Jenkins, C. (2010). Children’s literature: Standing in the shadow of adults. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 254–265. Hayn, J. A., Kaplan, J. S., & Nolen, A. (2011). Young adult literature in the 21st century. Theory into Practice, 50, 176–181. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2011.584026 Hill, R. (2013). Content without context: Content ratings for young adult books. School Library Monthly, 29(5), 35–37. Meschke, L. L., Peter, C. R., & Bartholomae, S. (2012). Developmentally appropriate practice to promote healthy adolescent development: Integrating research and practice. Child Youth Care Forum, 41, 89–108. doi: 10.1007/ s10577-011-9153-7 Moss, B. (2013). The common core text exemplars—A worthy new canon or not? Voices from the Middle, 21(1), 48–52. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Nilsen, A. P. (1981). Rating, ranking, labeling adolescent literature. School Library Journal, 28(4), 24–27. Trites, R. S. (2000). Disturbing the universe: Power and repression in adolescent literature. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Wilhelm, J. D. (2013). The power of pleasure: What about helping students forge their own reading lives. Voices from the Middle, 21(1), 56–58. Wilson, N. S., & Koss, M. D. (2013). Is there a middle grades canon? A survey methodology. American Reading Forum Annual yearbook, 33. Retrieved from http://americanreadingforum.org/yearbook/13_yearbook/volume13.htm

CHILDREN’S LITERATURE REFERENCES Hinton, S. E. (1967). The outsiders. New York, NY: Viking Press. Lowry, L. (1993). The giver. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Salinger, J. D. (1951). Catcher in the rye. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co. Zindel, P. (1968). The pigman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

MIDDLE SCHOOL JOURNAL Dan Bauer Georgia Southern University Joanne L. Previts Georgia College & State University First published as the Midwest Middle School Journal in 1970, the Middle School Journal (MSJ) is one of two scholarly publications of the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE). The journal is accessible in print and online to nearly 30,000 members of the association.

MINDSET: THE NEW PSYCHOLOGY OF SUCCESS ◾ 261

Beginning in October of 2015, the actual publication of the journal will transfer from AMLE headquarters to Taylor & Francis, the publisher of some 700 peer-reviewed journals in the United States alone and more than 2,100 worldwide. All editorial decisions have been, and will continue to be, determined entirely by the AMLE-appointed editor(s) and a blind peer review process of experts in the field. Currently, the journal has an acceptance rate of approximately 20–25%. The journal was created and grew steadily under the leadership of its 11 editors: Tom Gatewood, Ron Maertens, Glenn Maynard, Gordon Vars, John Lounsbury, Tom Dickinson, Tom Erb, Ed Brazee, David Virtue, Dan Bauer, and Joanne Previts. The time and efforts of each editor was instrumental to the advancement of its reputation and sustainability. Under the longstanding direction of John Lounsbury (1976–1990) and later Tom Erb (1993–2009), MSJ increased most significantly in circulation, length, and visibility. The journal began with a national scope at the founding of the National Association in 1973, when Glenn Maynard and Gordon Vars undertook to reedit the three volumes of the Midwest Journal (originally edited by Tom Gatewood and Ron Maertens during its three year existence from 1970 to 1972) into the first three volumes bearing the name Middle School Journal. Since its inception in the early 1970s, MSJ had been both the scholarly journal and the news magazine for the association. Beginning in 1997, the journal assumed a clearer role as the scholarly journal of record for middle level education in the United States and worldwide, with the publication of Middle Ground (renamed AMLE Magazine and published monthly beginning in 2013) taking on the role as the news magazine for middle level education. Many transformations occurred throughout the journal’s history in order to enhance the content of the publication as well as the production process. For example, during the 14 years of John Lounsbury’s editorship of the journal, printing on a “hot lead” linotype machine began in 1976, while he simultaneously expanded and developed NMSA’s publication of monographs. Under the direction of Tom Dickinson as editor from 1990 to 1993, MSJ became an 80-page journal that included new features including the Founder’s Series that commemorated the work of William Alexander, John Lounsbury, Don Eichhorn, Conrad Toepfer, and Gordon Vars as significant professionals in the establishment of the middle school movement. Edited from 1994 until spring 2009 by Tom Erb, MSJ was a 64-page publication with about 30 unsolicited articles published each year along with regular edited columns managed by A. Anfara, Jr., J. Howard Johnston, Glenn Markle, Judith Irvin, Karen Wood, Steven B. Mertens, Nancy Flowers, Peter Mulhall, and Sally and Don Clark.

The journal’s primary emphasis is on actual practice and professional development as the articles published inform and seek to advance the teaching, learning, and development of young adolescent lives. Authors’ Note: Much of the information in this article came directly from back issues of the Middle School Journal and the first edition Encyclopedia entry written by Tom Erb. REFERENCES National Middle School Association. (Ed.). (1998). From hotlead to zip disk: The story of our publications. In Because we believed: A quarter-century of service to young adolescents (pp. 23–24). Columbus, OH: Author.

MINDSET: THE NEW PSYCHOLOGY OF SUCCESS Temple A. Walkowiak North Carolina State University In 2006, Carol Dweck, a psychologist at Stanford University, released her book entitled Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. In this New York Times best seller, Dweck presented the key findings from her research on the nature and implications of varying mindsets. Dweck outlined two types of mindsets that exist among humans, fixed mindset and growth mindset. Those with a fixed mindset believe that intelligence and other qualities are not malleable. When they make a mistake or fail at a task, they believe that they are not smart or talented, and therefore easily give up. In contrast, those with a growth mindset believe that intelligence and other qualities can be cultivated through effort, and consequently tend to persevere at tasks. Dweck’s research has indicated that 40% of U.S. students have a growth mindset, and 40% have a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2006). The remaining 20% show mixed mindsets, typically dependent upon the task at hand. As outlined in her book, Dweck’s research has implications for educators including those working in middle grades education, two of which are presented below. First, Dweck (2006) pointed out that the practice of tracking or ability grouping as one that accentuates a fixed mindset. By placing students in tracks or ability groups, an implicit message is sent to students and parents that a student’s ability in a discipline is one that cannot be changed. Boaler (2013), one of Dweck’s colleagues at Stanford, has given particular attention to ability grouping in mathematics and the dangers of assuming mathematical ability is a genetic

262 ◾ MOTIVATION

trait (e.g., “I’m not good at math so my child will not be good at math”). Dweck described the malleability of intelligence in her book and has continued this idea in subsequent work. Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007) found differences in mathematics outcomes for 373 students who entered seventh grade with equal prior mathematics achievement. By the end of the first semester of seventh grade, students with a growth mindset were outperforming their peers with a fixed mindset in mathematics. This performance gap continued to grow over the next two years through the end of eighth grade. A second implication results from Dweck’s discussion of how certain types of praise communicate a fixed mindset. Dweck (2006) elaborated on the dangers of telling students that “you are smart.” Dweck and her colleagues conducted studies with hundreds of mostly young adolescents. They gave students a non-verbal IQ test after which they offered praise about the number of questions they had answered correctly. For one group, the researchers gave praise about how smart they were. For the other group, the researchers praised their efforts. For subsequent tasks, the group receiving the “you are smart” praise moved into a fixed mindset and shut down quickly on difficult tasks. In contrast, the group receiving the “great effort” praise demonstrated a growth mindset; 90% welcomed subsequent challenging tasks. Dweck’s work on mindsets has implications for the types of grouping practices and praise that are used in classrooms in the middle grades. REFERENCES Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping education. FORUM, 55(1), 143–152. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

MOTIVATION Erika Daniels California State University, San Marcos Motivation is a term cited frequently when describing young adolescents and their academic achievement or lack thereof. Psychologists and educators have explored both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation through academic research, and practitioners recognize that

their students must be engaged in the learning process if they are to exert the effort necessary for academic success. It is therefore important to recognize that there is a distinction between motivation (a psychological term) and engagement (an educational term) and a further difference between the effects of physical and cognitive engagement. Motivation generally refers to the reasons that an individual takes any given action. While the reasons might be intrinsic (come from an internal personal desire) or extrinsic (be compelled by outside factors), motivation is considered to be a psychological construct. Conversely, engagement is a term often used by educators to describe students’ choices (academic and behavioral) within the learning environment (Fredericks, Blumenthal, & Paris, 2004). When teachers, administrators, and parents understand these differences as well as the powerful influence that context has on motivation and engagement, middle school learning environments become more productive and effective. A review of research on engagement suggests that engagement, both physical and cognitive, has long been considered in terms of its effect on student motivation. There are many factors that contribute to cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement. By differentiating between and among different aspects of engagement and motivation, researchers are able to identify what supports and hinders these personal feelings. Recent studies have found that the contexts or environments in which students learn and teachers teach have a profound influence on whether and how motivation is supported (Crosnoe, 2011; Cushman & Rogers, 2008; Daniels, 2010; Daniels & Pirayoff, 2015). It is these contextual elements that this entry describes. DOMINANT THEORIES ABOUT MOTIVATION The last century of psychological and educational research has produced a deep understanding of what motivation is, how it influences engagement, and why it matters in terms of teaching and learning. Academic studies and anecdotal stories reveal similar strategies and approaches that affect both teachers’ motivation to teach and students’ motivation to learn. Because motivation means “moved to act,” it is essential to understand some of the dominant theories that undergird work in this field although a thorough review is beyond the scope of this piece. Expectancy-Value Theory Eccles and Wigfield (2002) explained that people are “moved to act” when they expect that the action they undertake has some larger value or meaning. The

MOTIVATION ◾ 263

value might be immediate or delayed in that the action generates a positive feeling—reading a good book on the beach or stopping at a red light and therefore avoiding a traffic ticket. The value might be internal or external—getting good enough grades to earn a scholarship to college, which can lead to a fulfilling, well-paying job. As explained by expectancy-value theory, motivation occurs when people believe that there is both value in the task itself and in the likely outcome of successful task completion. This translates into schooling because teachers feel more motivated to become and remain effective when they see the value in the curricular and pedagogical mandates and responsiveness in the students they teach. Students feel more motivated to participate in class when they see value in what they are being asked to learn. Self-Determination Theory Developed by two psychologists at the University of Rochester (Ryan & Deci, 2000), Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posits that all humans have three basic psychological needs that must be met in order to feel motivated. Those needs are autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy means that individuals feel some degree of control over their actions and environment. While it is not reasonable nor desirable to have complete freedom at all times or to have the ability to act with impunity, feelings of autonomy also come when individuals recognize that they may not be able to control what happens to them, but they can always control their reactions—both physical and emotional. Individuals feel competent not only when they are good at and experience success with a task or outcome but also when they feel that their skill sets match the challenges at hand. In this way, SDT mirrors Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) findings, which posit that a balance between skills and challenge is essential for becoming deeply engaged in a task or experience. By conceptualizing challenges in this way, SDT reminds educators that difficult tasks do not necessarily mean a decrease in motivation. Instead, SDT asserts that individuals will not be daunted by a challenge if they feel that they have both the cognitive ability and external support to learn the skills necessary. Finally, individuals are more engaged in a task or experience if and when they feel connected to others in their environment. Whether feeling that an adult or supervisor understands them or that a peer respects and enjoys their company, individuals need to feel as if they relate to others in some way. Humans are social beings, and this need can be operationalized in a variety of ways.

Growth Versus Fixed Mindsets Based upon decades of work with children, adolescents, and young adults, Carol Dweck (1986, 2007) explains that the notion of fixed versus growth mindsets is useful when encouraging others to exert the effort necessary for success. When individuals feel their intelligence is a fixed entity that they can do little or nothing to change, they are more likely to view failure at a task as a personal shortcoming and therefore do everything possible to avoid similar challenges in the future. Individuals who view intelligence as a malleable entity that increases or decreases depending upon their efforts tend to view challenges in a more positive light. They are more willing to view setbacks as normal parts of learning and are therefore better equipped to persevere through challenges. FACTORS AFFECTING TEACHER MOTIVATION Teachers have a significant impact on students’ academic success. The way that they perceive students’ abilities and the relationships they build influence whether and how students will engage with learning the content (Ahmed, Minnaert, van der Werf, & Kuyper, 2010). It follows, therefore, that nurturing and supporting teachers’ motivation can have a powerful impact on how well they create motivating learning environments. Teachers report that relational, curricular, and logistical factors affect how motivated they are to become and remain effective (Daniels & Pirayoff, 2015). The relationships teachers build with students and with their colleagues play a dominant role in whether their motivation is sustainable over the years because seeing their students succeed provides the desire to persevere through challenging professional times. Expectancy-value theory suggests an explanation because teachers who expect the time and effort invested in building relationships with colleagues and in earning their students’ trust will lead to more productive work environments and more successful student learning experiences. The drive to continually improve their practice is sustained when they see students improve and hear about the successes their former students experience later in life. In this way, Self-Determination Theory’s emphasis on relatedness is informative because it reminds practitioners that establishing connections keeps the focus on learners, which ensures that content is not taught in a vacuum. In terms of curricular factors, teachers find their motivation waxes when they have the autonomy to decide how they will teach as they advance their students measurable progress toward standards and instructional goals. Motivation wanes when they are asked to teach in a way that they feel is damaging to their students or that

264 ◾ MOTIVATION

does not show students the value of developing a growth mindset. Dweck’s work (1986, 2007) reminds teachers to show their students how to learn from failure and to use mistakes as information that leads to improvement. Finally the logistical factors with which teachers contend on a daily basis either nurture or hinder their motivation and the way in which they engage with students. Whether it is the timing and length of their prep period, the number of students compared to the number of chairs in any given class, or the amount of time they have to confer with students and collaborate with colleagues, myriad issues that frequently go unconsidered do impact teacher motivation. When administrators recognize that the master schedule, availability of resources, and allotment of time for planning, grading, and collaboration all influence whether and how teachers feel motivated, they are better equipped to make decisions that support teacher motivation. Knowing that relational, curricular, and logistical factors play a role in whether and how teachers are motivated is useful for administrators seeking to develop and sustain motivating teaching environments. Teachers are motivated when they see the value in what they are asked to do (expectancy-value theory), have their three basic psychological needs met (self-determination theory), and are provided with support to continually improve their practice (growth mindset). This intrinsic motivation leads to extrinsic engagement in collaborative planning efforts, relationships with students, and the creation of motivating learning environments.

Because middle school students must balance homework from as many as six different teachers with a variety of extracurricular activities and family expectations, anxiety is a constant companion. Their motivation to work diligently in school is often affected by non-academic stressors such as parental/guardian expectations that they care for younger siblings or engage in numerous sports and club experiences. Self-Determination Theory is again useful in reminding educators that young adolescents must feel connected to at least some adults at their middle school, recognize that they have control over how they react to high-stress situations, and know that they have, or will learn, the skills necessary to meet any given challenge. When these three basic psychological needs are not met, however, they are frequently unwilling to participate in class activities or to submit academic assignments. Dweck’s work on mindset (1986, 2007) is also instructive when exploring student motivation. Middle school poses significant academic challenges as the coursework becomes more intense, and teachers often have 150+ students about whom to be concerned as opposed to the 25–30 that an elementary school teacher traditionally serves. Young adolescents who recognize their intelligence is not fixed but rather malleable and influenced by their own choices are much more likely to remain or become motivated learners. The contexts in which young adolescents learn have a significant impact on their internal motivation. CONCLUSION

FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT MOTIVATION Research on and with middle school students repeatedly shows that they do care about learning, that they appreciate opportunities to take on increased responsibilities, and that they are able to balance myriad tasks, challenges, and stresses (Bishop & Pflaum, 2005; Cook-Sather, 2006; Daniels, 2010). While recognizing their increasingly complex cognitive abilities, however, effective practitioners also know that young adolescents need support in navigating middle school expectations because the context is so different from what they became accustomed to in elementary school. Although study skills and time management strategies are not considered part of the core (or even elective) curriculum, students need to be explicitly taught how to manage conflicting expectations and to balance the competing demands on their time. When they are too stressed about meeting all of their commitments and requirements, their motivation suffers so teachers who create motivating learning environments recognize that taking time to teach non-curricular skills is essential.

To increase feelings of autonomy, administrators should present district, state, and federal directives in a way that invites discussion about the best way to implement them. Instead of mandating exactly how a teacher will teach required curriculum, motivating administrators rely on their teachers’ professional judgment and provide flexibility so that teachers choose the most appropriate strategies from their repertoire as they move students toward mastery of content standards. In turn, teachers help their students recognize that while they cannot control everything that happens to them, they can control their reactions. If they do not like their English teacher or have a challenging home situation, they can still exercise autonomy by choosing the most productive reaction. Controlling reactions to uncontrollable situations is an essential characteristic of highly motivated individuals and must be explicitly taught to young adolescents. Teachers and students must feel competent—that they either already possess the necessary skills to meet academic and professional expectations or that they will be able to develop what is required with the help

MOTIVATION ◾ 265

of existing supports. Administrators might conduct a needs-analysis among site teachers to identify what the practitioners themselves view as strengths and needs. If they do this and then act upon the results by providing a menu of professional development opportunities or hiring consultants specifically to meet identified needs, teachers will feel more supported as they work to increase their competence and therefore their effectiveness with students. Teachers can then engage in the same process with their students by teaching them to self-assess work products based on clear, measurable criteria. When students learn to view their performance as information that will eventually lead to greater success, they feel more competent and therefore more motivated. In terms of relatedness, teachers and students both benefit when they have the time to learn about each other as more than the deliverer or recipient of knowledge. For example, teachers who stand at their doors to greet students upon entering demonstrate that they are aware of and care about the individuals in each class period. The gains made when a teacher comments on a student’s return after an absence, notices a new haircut, or asks about an ailing family member far outweigh the loss of last minute prep time in between class periods. Young adolescents appreciate the time teachers take to get to know them and that appreciation frequently manifests itself in a stronger work ethic and a more attentive demeanor. Teachers’ motivation also benefits from stronger, closer relationships with students. When they know which student is unable to do homework because she is required to care for her little sister after school or which student may be surly because his father was recently deployed, they create a class community that is healthy, nurturing, and productive. This, in turn, increases their motivation to persevere through the numerous challenges facing today’s educators. Increasing connectedness comes through simple actions like greeting at the door, chatting briefly with students during the daily homework check, and taking time each week to appreciate the quirkiness unique to young adolescence. Middle school educators (both teachers and administrators) who work effectively with young adolescents operationalize tenets of motivation theories through their class policies, pedagogical strategies, and school expectations. The three psychological needs identified in Self-Determination Theory—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are closely related to best educational practices and already exist in the pedagogical strategies of many high-impact teachers. Similarly, effective administrators work to nurture autonomy, competence, and relatedness for the teachers in their schools so that motivating teaching environments lead to motivating learning environments. When teachers and students expect their actions have value, they feel more autonomous. When teachers and students possess a growth mindset, they feel

more competent and prepared to face challenges. When teachers and students feel connected to others in their environment they work together to engage in tasks that may be challenging or frustrating in the moment. FINAL THOUGHTS The research is clear that motivation comes from within but is heavily influenced by contextual factors. Psychological research describes motivation while much educational research describes engagement, but the two phenomena are really two sides of the same concept. Engagement is the physical and cognitive manifestations of an internal drive or desire. It is possible to create motivational teaching and learning environments by remembering what researchers like Eccles and Wigfield (2002), Ryan and Deci (2002), and Dweck (1986) assert. While no magic solutions exist to “cure” all motivation challenges, research and experience provide educators with a useful, tangible framework for consideration. REFERENCES Ahmed, W., Minnaert, A., van der Werf, G., & Kuyper, H. (2010). Perceived social support and early adolescents’ achievement: The meditational roles of motivational beliefs and emotions. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39, 36–46. Bishop, P., & Pflaum, S. (2005). Middle school students’ perceptions of social dimensions as influences of academic engagement. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 29(2), 1–14. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum and Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390. Crosnoe, R. (2011). Fitting in, standing out: Navigating the social challenges of high school to get an education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. Cushman, K., & Rogers, L. (2008). Middle school students talk about social forces in the classroom. Middle School Journal, 39(3), 14–24. Daniels, E. (2010). Creating motivating learning environments: What we can learn from researchers and students. English Journal, 100(1), 25–29. Daniels, E., & Pirayoff, R. (2015). Relationships matter: Fostering motivation through interactions. Voices from the Middle, 23(1), 19–23. Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. Fredericks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

266 ◾ MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION Kathleen Brinegar Johnson State College Multicultural Education is a term that has taken on many meanings since it emerged in the 1960s as an outgrowth of the Civil Rights Movement. It denotes both a reform movement (Sleeter & Grant, 1987) and a perspective with the purpose of combating racism and other forms of discrimination in educational systems. Lee explained that it does so by dealing “equitably with all the cultural and racial differences that you find in the human family” (Au, 2009, p. 10). Multicultural education is more than just teaching about cultural differences; it frames inequality in terms of institutionalized oppression (Sleeter & McLaren, 2009). Gollnick (1980) summarized multicultural education as promoting five things: the value of cultural diversity, human rights, alternative life choices, social justice, and equitable distribution of power. Although many terms are used synonymously with multicultural education, not all are created equal. Au (2009) described “global education,” “diversity education,” and “cultural pluralism” as terms, that when used, often ignore the issues of power and privilege that lay at the core of the multicultural education movement. He outlined 13 characteristics of true multicultural education: (a) It is grounded in students’ experiences; (b) It draws on the voices of those being studied; (c) It teaches through dialogue; (d) It supports students’ identities; (e) It values home language; (f) It critiques the predominant Eurocentric curriculum; (g) It promotes student involvement in real social and political issues; (h) It promotes an environment of meaningful social engagement; (i) It is rigorous; (j) It connects to the entire curriculum; (k) It is rooted in anti-racism; (l) It celebrates social movements; and (m) It explores how inequality is institutionalized. The Civil Rights Movement, the challenging of curricular materials, and racist assumptions about learning potential are often credited for the rise of multicultural education (Grant & Sleeter, 2011). During the 1960s, inequality in schools became a visible symbol of African American oppression. As such, the battle for equality in educational access for African Americans began and later expanded into a struggle for representation in school curriculums. Subsequently, other ethnic groups sought the same desire for inclusion in curriculums and ethnic

studies was born as the first phase of the multicultural education movement. Parallel to this, during the 1960s and 1970s, the cultural deprivation paradigm emerged. (Bloom, David, & Hess, 1965; Riessman, 1962). In essence, this paradigm centered on the notion that a person’s community and family situation could lead to cultural deprivation and cognitive deficits. Thus, the prevailing idea was that schools could and should save them. It was believed that students would succeed if schools compensated for gaps created by their home lives. In essence, the “problem” was with the culture of the students, not the culture of the school (Banks, 2013). Ultimately, such beliefs were criticized in the ’60s and ’70s, but re-emerged in the 1990s with the work of Ruby Payne (1996). Cultural difference theory emerged during the 1980s to challenge cultural deprivation theory. It rejected the racist notion that students from non-mainstream backgrounds have cultural deficits and urged schools not to ignore and/or alienate the rich cultures that students do have. Through cultural difference theory, an understanding emerged that cultural conflicts, not deficits, would lead to improved achievement for all. Banks (2013) described how critics at this time also began to recognize ethnic studies as an add-on, a reform relegated to a “heroes and holidays” approach to multiculturalism. Since safe choices were made in who and what “ethnic” history was studied, mainstream curriculum was not transformed. The desire for a more transformational approach to diversity studies led to the development of multiethnic studies. In the 1980s educational reformers such as DeCosta (1984) and McCormick (1984) stated that educational diversity reform needed to look beyond the curriculum and expand into other dimensions of school life. These dimensions began to be identified in the 1990s and included: school policy, school culture, hidden curriculum, learning styles, school language, community involvement, assessment procedures, instructional strategies and materials, and teacher perceptions and attitudes (Banks & Banks, 1995; Delpit, 1992; Gay, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995). As the conversation about educational equity expanded to include gender and social-class in the 1990s, multiethnic education became multicultural education. Equity pedagogy (Banks & Banks, 1995), culturally relevant teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1995), and culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 1994) all emerged as constructs stemming from this phenomenon in the 1990s. Research to support the belief that multicultural teaching practices lead to increased achievement (Au, 2011; Gonzales, Moll, Amanti, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1995) emerged and in a 1994 summary of multicultural education research findings, Ladson-Billings translated multicultural education from theory into practice by outlining five variables that impact teachers’ work with

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION ◾ 267

diverse student populations. The first is that teacher beliefs about students matter. The second is that curricular materials must include a range of perspectives that realistically portray diverse groups. Third, instructional strategies must also be selected to meet the needs of diverse learners. Fourth, the settings in which learning takes place must be equitable regardless of factors such as race, ethnicity, social class, or learning differences. And finally, teacher education programs must explicitly prepare educators to understand and apply a multicultural perspective. Theoretical models of multicultural education emerged that focused on a call to action as a critical component of multicultural education. For example, Nieto (2002) described four levels of multicultural practices in schools: tolerance; acceptance; respect; and affirmation, solidarity, and critique. On one end of the spectrum was tolerance, where cultural awareness is promoted but the end goal is still assimilation. On the other was affirmation, solidarity, and critique, where students are taught to question assumptions, and reflect upon their experiences and those of others. Through this process they develop new understandings and construct a multicultural view of the world. Similarly, Sleeter and Grant (1987, 2007) outlined five approaches to multicultural education: teaching the exceptional and culturally different (assimilation); human relations (get along and appreciate); single groups studies (cultural pluralism); multicultural education (reform); and multicultural and social justice education (challenge and change) and Banks (2008) described four levels of approaches to multicultural education: a contributions approach; additive approach; transformative approach; and social action approach. Again, this model described a beginning approach to multicultural education that explores holidays and other surface aspects of cultures, and ends with a more sophisticated implementation whereby students tackle real social and political problems. In addition to an expanded understanding of the various ways that multicultural education is understood and implemented in educational environments, more recent scholarship on multicultural education has expanded its focus to include religion, exceptionality, and sexuality. Other recent research trajectories include an exploration of the important intersection among different variables such as race, class, and gender, also termed intersectionality, as well as a focus on global multicultural education (Banks, 2009; Grant & Portera, 2011). According to Banks (2013), “[Multicultural education’s] major focus in the future will be to describe the ways in which cultural, racial, ethnic, language, and religious diversity is manifested in nations across the world and to develop powerful concepts and theories that can explain teaching and learning related

to diversity across nations” (p. 80). It is also important to note that the accountability movement of the 2000s has led some to question whether multicultural education can coexist with national standards and highstakes testing. Multicultural scholars such as Bohn and Sleeter (2001) urged supporters to continue to organize and press for change. Given that both the multicultural and middle grades education movements evolved in the 1960s from a desire to advocate for populations whose voices were traditionally excluded and that identity development is of the utmost importance to young adolescents, multiculturalism and middle grades reform go hand in hand. Although a comprehensive review of multicultural middle grades research has yet to be published, an examination of middle grades research points to three ways that middle grades literature has utilized a multicultural framework. The first is through an ethnic or identity studies approach, where researchers use multicultural frameworks to explore the experiences and needs of single subsets of the young adolescent population (Brinegar, 2010; Hurd, 2012; Strickland, 2012). The second focuses on bringing international voices and perspectives into the middle grades conversation (Mertens, Anfara, & Roney, 2009), and the third involves using multiculturalism to help create middle school communities that engage in critical dialogue around issues related to important topics such as race, class, and power (Brandwein & Donoghue, 2011; Flynn 2012). While some work has been done to better understand and embrace the diverse world of the young adolescent, a continued and more intentional examination of this critical time of life from a multicultural lens will help to ensure that every young adolescent confidently develops into a respectful and respected global citizen. REFERENCES Au, W. (Ed.). (2009). Rethinking multicultural education: Teaching for racial and cultural justice. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Au, K. H. (2011). Literacy achievement and diversity: Keys to success for students, teachers, and schools. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Banks, C. A. M., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory into Practice, 21, 155–161. Banks, J. A. (2008). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies. (8th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge international companion to multicultural education. New York, NY: Routledge. Banks, J. A. (2013). The construction and historical development of multicultural education, 1962–2012. Theory into Practice, 52, 73–82. Bloom, B. S., David, A., & Hess, R. (1965). Compensatory education for cultural deprivation. New York, NY: Holt.

268 ◾ MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES Bohn, A. P., & Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Will multicultural education survive the standards movement? Phi Delta Kappan, 82(2), 156–159. Brandwein, D., & Donoghue, C. (2011). A multicultural grassroots effort to reduce ethnic & racial social distance among middle school students. Multicultural Education, 19(1), 38–43. Brinegar, K. (2010). “I feel like I’m safe again:” A discussion of middle grades organizational structures from the perspective of immigrant youth and their teachers. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 33(9), 1–14. DeCosta, S. B. (1984). Not all children are Anglo and middle class. Theory into Practice, 23, 155–163. Delpit, L. (1992). Acquisition of literate discourse: Bowing before the master? Theory into Practice, 31, 296–302. Flynn, J. (2012). Critical pedagogy with the oppressed and the oppressors: Middle school students discuss racism and white privilege. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(2), 95–110. Gay, G. (1994). Coming of age ethnically: Teaching young adolescents of color. Theory into Practice, 33, 149–155. Gollnick, D. M. (1980). Multicultural education. Viewpoints in Teaching and Learning, 56, 1–17. Gonzales, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Grant, C. A., & Portera, A. (Eds.). (2011). Intercultural and multicultural education: Enhancing global interconnectedness. New York, NY: Routledge. Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (2011). Doing multicultural education for achievement and equity. New York, NY: Routledge. Hurd, E. (2012). A framework for understanding multicultural identities: An investigation of a middle level student’s French-Canadian Honduran-American (Mestizo) identity. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(2), 111–127. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). What we can learn from multicultural education research. Educational Leadership, 51(8), 22–26. McCormick, T. E. (1984). Multiculturalism: Some principles and issues. Theory into Practice, 23, 93–97. Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Roney, K. (Eds.). (2009). An international look at educating young adolescents. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum. Payne, R. K. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty. (4th ed.). Highlands, TX: aha! Process. Riessman, F. (1962). The culturally derived child. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the United States. Harvard Educational Review, 57(4), 421–444. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Sleeter, C., & McLaren, P. (2009). Origins of multiculturalism. In W. Au. (Ed.), Rethinking multicultural education (pp. 17–20). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Strickland, M. J. (2012). Storylines: Listening to immigrant students, teachers, and cultural-bridge persons making sense of classroom interactions. Middle Grades Research Journal. 7(2), 77–93.

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES Emily S. Lin University of Nevada, Las Vegas MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE THEORY In what ways are students smart? In the early 1900s, many traditional psychologists defined intelligence solely based on how well students performed on verbal-language and/or mathematical, and sometimes spatial tasks. An individual’s general intelligence was typically defined by results on mental tests or IQ (Intelligence Quotient) scores. This view assumed that all human problem solving is regulated by a single underlying mental ability or general intelligence. However, in his 1983 book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, (Gardner, 1983), Harvard psychologist Howard Earl Gardner challenged this unitary concept of general intelligence by proposing that intelligence should be viewed as individuals’ abilities to solve problems in real life, create new problems to solve, or offer something valuable in a culture or community (Gardner, 1999). Gardner explained that unlike traditional views of intelligence in which there is only a “single intelligence” [analogous to believing that humans possess only “one central, all-purpose computer—and it determines how well they perform in every sector of life”] (Gardner, 2013), multiple intelligences assume that there are between seven to ten, discrete and autonomous intelligences that are interconnected. Based on his research in the arts, developmental psychology, and neuropsychology at Project Zero (the research group at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education), Gardner (1983) presented his theory of multiple intelligence (MI) revealing that rather than explaining all human intelligence narrowly in terms of a general score on a standardized test, intelligence comes in a variety of forms, may be localized to certain areas of the brain, and is developed and expressed in differing social and cultural contexts. In 1983, Gardner initially formulated seven types of intelligences. However, after conducting further research and reflection, Gardner (1999) proposed that most students possess at least eight distinct types of intelligences but to varying degrees, adding naturalistic intelligence to the original seven intelligences. In order for something to be categorized as an “intelligence,” it had to satisfy a range of criteria that Gardner established after reviewing a diverse range of literature that varied from developmental psychology and neuropsychology to anthropology and evolutionary biology. The criteria included the following:

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES ◾ 269

• The intelligence could potentially be isolated in brain-damaged individuals. • It could be seen in idiots-savants, prodigies and other exceptional people. • It should demonstrate an identifiable core, information-processing operation meaning that there is almost an automatic mental process that handles information related to the intelligence. • There exists a distinctive developmental history. For instance, growing from infancy to adulthood, different intelligences develop at different rates and can be defined by a set of observable and measurable performances. • It should exhibit a plausible evolutionary history that can be seen in other mammals and that has helped human ancestors survive. • It is supported by experimental psychological tasks. • It is supported by traditional psychometric tests of intelligence. • It could be captured by a symbolic system. For example, information that draws on the intelligence may be transmitted through music, notations in mathematics, language, spatial relations, and the like (Gardner, 1983, pp. 62–69). DESCRIPTION OF THE INTELLIGENCES Gardner (Checkley, 1997) identified the following eight intelligences: Linguistic intelligence (“word smart”) refers to the capacity to communicate, think and use language to express ideas and understand other people. People possessing this strong language sense in both written and spoken form include authors, poets, writers, journalists, public speakers, lawyers, and newscasters. Logical-mathematical intelligence (“number/reasoning smart”) allows individuals to use, calculate, quantify, analyze abstract relationships, and to solve complex mathematical operations. Often seen in mathematical reasoning and science experimentation, individuals who demonstrate this include scientists, accountants, mathematicians, engineers, computer programmers and logicians. Spatial intelligence (“picture smart”) is evident in individuals who have the ability to think in three-dimensional ways that allow them to transform information from the visual world to their minds. Individuals such as chess champion players, sculptors, pilots, surgeons, architects, sailors and artists are able to perceive external and internal images, to recreate images from memory, transform or manipulate images, to navigate themselves and objects through space and to skillfully decode or develop graphic information.

Musical intelligence (“music smart”) enables individuals to create, communicate, and understand through sound. These people are sensitive to pitch, melody, rhythm, tone and have the ability to think in musical terms. Musicians, composers, acoustic engineers, music critics, and conductors can recognize and hear patterns and are able to remember and manipulate music. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”) consists of the capacity to use parts of or their entire bodies to manipulate and create objects and solve problems. Kinesthetically-gifted people demonstrate keen physical skills and are able to coordinate bodily movements and conduct advanced forms of problem solving and creativity. These abilities are seen in athletes, rock climbers, surgeons, dancers, choreographers, and jewelers. Interpersonal intelligence (“people smart”) refers to the capacity to interact and understand people and relationships. Individuals with this ability are able to recognize, connect and understand other people’s feelings, desires, and intentions and are able use these in problem solving. It allows individuals to work effectively with others. For example, successful politicians, actors, teachers, therapists, salespeople, religious leaders, and social workers exhibit strong interpersonal intelligence. Intrapersonal intelligence (“self smart”) allows individuals to possess and construct accurate self-knowledge. They are able to use this knowledge to plan and direct their decision-making and behavior. Because individuals high in this ability have a strong understanding of their feelings, fears and motivations, they tend to make sound choices in their lives and know what they can and can’t do or know where to seek help if needed. Examples include psychologists, philosophers, theologians, and autobiographers. Naturalist intelligence (“nature smart”) enables people to discriminate among, identify, classify and use features of the natural world to solve problems. They are able to understand natural and human-made systems and can categorize different kinds of plants and animals and are keenly sensitive to the other features of the natural world such as weather, clouds, rock configurations, etc. Architects, archeologists, and hunters make keen observations about natural changes, interconnections, and patterns. ADDITIONAL INTELLIGENCES? Rather than viewing intelligence as a general ability, Gardner argued that each individual possesses at least eight relatively independent intelligences and that each individual has a unique blend of these intelligences. However, Gardner also explained that with more investigations, many more types of intelligences may be potentially identified in the future. In Intelligence Reframed

270 ◾ MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

(1999), Gardner discussed potential inclusion of new intelligences such as existential intelligence, moral intelligence, and spiritual intelligence. Each of these intelligences is complex and requires additional empirical evidence to substantiate its clear existence. For instance, existential intelligence allows individuals to philosophize about the meaning of life and death but since Gardner is not able to detect its brain origins, it cannot be defined as an intelligence yet. Similarly, moral intelligence entails making value judgments and since intelligence is considered value-free, this capacity is not yet established as an intelligence. Likewise, spiritual intelligence is the ability to construe cosmic and transcendent truths but it is heavily dependent on ill-defined realms of attitudes, emotions and values. As noted, Gardner has broadened our view of human intelligence and with more research, other types of intelligence may be established in the future. APPLICATION IN THE CLASSROOM Although not all academic psychologists readily accept Gardner’s theory, it has changed the perception and understanding of human intelligences among many educators. In general, all individuals possess all of the intelligences but each intelligence appears to emerge at different rates and different times in life and with its own developmental sequence. Because of this, students differ in the relative degree of strengths and weaknesses for each intelligence. For instance, even though Einstein was gifted in mathematics and science, he did not demonstrate equal giftedness in linguistic, kinesthetic and interpersonal capacities. Typically, students are able to show strengths in one or two intelligence areas. Because each student combines and uses these types of “smartness” in highly personal ways, limiting educational experiences only to the traditional academic ways of learning that focuses primarily on linguistic and mathematical intelligences really lessens the importance of others ways of learning and knowing for students. Consequently, Gardner’s theory has been embraced by many educational theorists, teachers, and administrators and has generated countless new ideas and practices in the education field (Adcock, 2014; Chen, Krechevsky, & Viens, 1998; Chen, Moran, & Gardner, 2009; Ghamrawi, 2014; Hanafin, 2014; Kornhaber, 1999; Menevis & Ozad, 2014; Nordlund, 2003). Numerous schools worldwide have adopted a MIbased curricula that encompass a broad range of disciplines which not only attend to reading, writing, and mathematics but also go beyond these areas. The explosive influence of the use of multi-media and technology in education has fostered the application and popularity of MI use in school curricula. Additionally, Gardner designed the Entry Points Framework (a tool

for curriculum development) to help teachers that complemented MI (a tool for understanding students’ cognitive abilities). Entry Points Framework offered teachers different instructional approaches by providing students with multiple entry points to study topics and allowed students to express their understanding through diverse methods such as writing, dramatizations, and music. Research studies (Adcock, 2014; Ghamrawi, 2014; Hanafin, 2014; Kornhaber, 1994; Kornhaber & Krechevsky, 1995; Menevis & Ozad, 2014; Nordlund, 2003) reported that educators adopted MI for several distinct reasons: . . . the theory validates educator’s everyday experience: students think and learn in many different ways. It also provides educators with a conceptual framework for organizing and reflecting on curriculum assessment and pedagogical practices. In turn, this reflection has led many educators to develop new approaches that might better meet the needs of the range of learners in their classrooms. (Kornhaber, 2001, p. 276)

Although the MI theory has stimulated alternative ways to think and teach, critics have pointed to the shortcomings and problems around how Gardner conceptualized multiple intelligences (Barnett, Ceci, & Williams, 2006; Brody, 2006; Jensen, 1998; White, 2006). These issues include questions about the adequacy surrounding Gardner’s individual criteria for the qualification and establishment of an “intelligence.” For instance, how were the criteria applied and why are these criteria especially relevant? (White, 1998, 2006). Other issues relate to the problems in substantiating and validating the theory as a whole (Chen, 2004). For instance, rather than using traditional scientific educational research methods to generate the theory, Gardner conceived the theory based more on his own intuitions and reasoning. Although the specific aspects of the MI theory are left open for debate and further investigations, current available research on brain functions tend to generally support the existence of multiple intelligences. In addition, although there are still serious unanswered questions and issues about the MI theory, many published articles are readily available that focus on the impact of MI theory in classrooms internationally. Moreover, classroom teachers have attested to the benefits and usefulness of the theory in producing positive student and school outcomes, especially at the elementary and middle school levels (Chen et al., 2009). Kornhaber and her colleagues, who also worked in Project Zero, conducted a study called Project SUMIT (Schools Using Multiple Intelligences Theory) and identified positive MI implementation outcomes that included increased standardized tests scores, improved student behavior, increased parental participation and increased

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES ◾ 271

learning, effort, motivation and social adjustments among students with learning disabilities (Kornhaber, Fierros, & Veenema, 2004). Moreover, these researchers identified six organization practices called “Compass Point Practices” that helped guide teacher practice and track MI implementation progress. These were derived and characterized from schools successful in MI implementation: • Culture: schools supported diverse learners and hard work among teachers and students. • Readiness: schools gradually prepared and introduced teachers and staff to MI reform teaching practices over 12 to 18 months. • Collaboration: teachers collaborated informally and formally to share and exchange ideas that provided richer student learning experiences. • Choice: students were offered choices in how they wanted to attain and display their knowledge and skills. • Tool: MI was used as a tool to support and promote high quality student learning rather than using the theory as an end in and of itself. • Arts: integration of the arts played a critical role in developing students’ skills and knowledge within and across disciplines. REFERENCES Adcock, P. K. (2014). The longevity of multiple intelligence theory in education. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(4), 50. Barnett, S., M., Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2006). Is the ability to make a bacon sandwich a mark of intelligence? And other issues: Some reflections on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. In J. A. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 95–114). Chicago, IL: Open Court. Brody, N. (2006). Geocentric theory: A valid alternative to Gardner’s theory of intelligence. In J. A. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 73–94), Chicago, IL: Open Court. Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven and the eighth. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 8–13. Chen, J. Q. (2004). Theory of multiple intelligences: Is it a scientific theory? Teachers College Record, 106(1), 17–23. Chen, J., Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2009). Multiple intelligences around the world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chen, J. Q., Krechevsky, M., & Viens, J. (1998). Building on children’s strengths: The experience of Project Spectrum. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2013). Multiple intelligences are not learning styles. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/16/howard-gardner -multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles Ghamrawi, N. (2014). Multiple intelligences and ESL teaching and learning: An investigation in KGII classrooms in one private school in Beirut, Lebanon. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(1), 25–46. Hanafin, J. (2014). Multiple intelligences theory, action research, and teacher professional development: The Irish MI project. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 25–141. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. Kornhaber, M. L. (1994). The theory of multiple intelligences: Why and how schools use it. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA. Kornhaber, M. L. (1999). Multiple intelligences theory in practice. In J. H. Block, S. T. Everson, & T. R. Guskey (Eds.), Comprehensive school reform: A program perspective (pp. 179–191). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Kornhaber, M. L. (2001). Howard Gardner. In J. A. Palmer (Ed.), Fifty modern thinkers on education. From Piaget to the present (pp. 272–279). London, England: Routledge. Kornhaber, M. L., Fierros, & E., Veenema, S. (2004). Multiple intelligences: Best ideas from research and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kornhaber, M. L., & Krechevsky, M. (1995). Expanding definitions of teaching and learning: Notes from the MI underground. In P. Cookson & B. Schneider (Eds.), Transforming schools (pp. 181–208). New York, NY: Garland Press. Menevis, I., & Ozad, B. E. (2014). Do age and gender influence multiple intelligences? Social Behavior and Personality, 42, 9–20. Nordlund, M. (2003). Differentiated instruction: Meeting the educational needs of all students in your classroom. Lantham, MD: Scarecrow Press. White, J. (1998). Do Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences add up? London, England: Institute of Education, University of London. White, J. (2006). Multiple invalidities. In J. A. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 45–71). Chicago, IL: Open Court.

This page intentionally left blank.

N NATIONAL ADOLESCENT LITERACY COALITION Stephanie M. Bennett Mississippi State University Created in 2004, the National Adolescent Literacy Coalition’s (NALC) steering committee is comprised of a variety of organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), the International Literacy Association (ILA, formerly the International Reading Association), and the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE, formerly the National Middle School Association) (AdLit.org, n.d.a.). The NALC’s goal is to provide an open dialogue for individuals and organizations that have an interest in adolescent literacy policy, research, reform, and practice (NACL, 2007). Its mission is to make available “a collective voice for national leadership and a national perspective to all issues related to adolescent literacy” (AdLit.org, n.d.b.). As a way to give interested parties access, NALC maintains a website on best practices in adolescent literacy (see www.adlit.org). The website is funded by the Thomas L. Friedman Family Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and is “an educational initiative of WETA, the flagship public television and radio station in Washington, DC” (AdLit.org, n.d.a.). It houses information on research-based reading comprehension, vocabulary, and writing strategies as well as recent reports on topics such as content-area literacy, technology, and writing. Furthermore, the website provides access to professional development videos and webcasts. Moreover, NALC has an extensive presence on social media. They maintain a twitter account (@AdLit), a Facebook page, and a YouTube account. Additionally, NALC has The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 273–289 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

a Ning network which allows members to communicate in a discussion board setting (see http://adolescentliteracy.ning.com). Interested parties can also subscribe to the AdLit newsletter. The NALC released a report in 2007 entitled Foundational and Emergent Questions: Smart People Talk about Adolescent Literacy, which was a synthesis from an NALC summit in fall 2006. The report detailed the three themes that emerged from discussion around the topic: Consensus and Conflict about Adolescent Literacy Reform. In the open dialogue, prominent adolescent literacy researchers and representatives from organizations with an interest in adolescent literacy had conversations focused on issues such as teaching advanced literacy skills versus helping struggling readers become proficient, the notion of disciplinary versus content-area literacy reading, and the lack of empirical research on reading interventions and practices in the 4–12 classroom, which is a sharp contrast to the extensive research base on early reading instruction in grades K–3 (NALC, 2007). The report concluded with four questions: 1. Do schools have sufficient resources to invest in programs for struggling readers and to improve content-area literacy instruction? 2. To what extent do reading and writing skills transfer across the academic content areas and to what extent are they discipline specific? 3. Is it wise to assign a single literacy coach to work with teachers across multiple content areas? 4. And how should educators reconcile the imperative to help kids now with the need to develop a stronger research base in adolescent literacy? (NALC, 2007, p. 14)

273

274 ◾ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

The report did not offer any definitive answers to these questions, however the NALC hoped the conversation around these issues would continue in the adolescent literacy community. REFERENCES AdLit.org. (n.d.a.). About AdLit.org. Retrieved from http:// www.adlit.org/about_us/ AdLit.org. (n.d.b.). National Adolescent Literacy Coalition. Retrieved from http://www.adlit.org/xarpages/nalc/ National Adolescent Literacy Coalition. (2007). Foundational and emergent questions: Smart people talk about adolescent literacy. A report by the steering committee of the National Adolescent Literacy Coalition. Washington, DC: Author.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS William J. Rodriguez Nieves Illinois State University The National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) was founded in 1921 and is a professional organization that serves elementary and middle school principals, as well as other educational leaders throughout the United States, Canada, and worldwide. NAESP advocates for the support that principals need to be successful 21st century leaders (NAESP, n.d.a., “About”), as well as provide the support necessary for the achievement of the highest results from children, their families, and the communities that surround the schools. NAESP believes that every child should be the focus of the planning and operations in all elementary and middle schools and as such the principals in each school should be the primary catalyst for creating a foundation of learning, school and student performance, and should shape the long term impact of school improvement. NAESP seeks to serve as an advocate for children by ensuring their access to an excellent education by sustaining and promoting high professional standards and leadership among principals. The Association also looks to heighten public awareness of elementary and middle school education as the foundation for all future academic achievement by serving as a national representative for elementary and middle school education to Congress, the Executive Branch, state and federal agencies, the news media, researchers, educators, and other education and child advocacy groups. NAESP also seeks to serve as an advocate for the professional tenets and priorities of elementary and middle school principals, but above all NAESP seeks to ensure that

education continues to be recognized as a matter of national priority. NAESP has several publications available to its membership, including Principal, a magazine aimed towards principals in K–8 schools, Communicator, which focuses on important trends in education and educational news, and Before the Bell, a twice weekly news brief that provides information on curriculum changes, federal and state policies, and school leadership trends (NAESP, n.d.c., “Publications”). NAESP recognizes individuals and schools that make a difference in education through three prestigious awards (NAESP, n.d.b., “Honoring Principals”). The National Distinguished Principals program honors outstanding elementary and middle school principals or administrators who ensure that America’s children acquire a sound foundation for lifelong learning and achievement. The National Outstanding Assistant Principal Award is given to assistant principals who promote educational excellence in PK–8 schools. The Blue Ribbon Schools program identifies public and private K–12 schools that are academically superior in their state or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement. NAESP also honors those who have made contributions to elementary or middle level education outside of the principalship by honoring them in the NAESP Hall of Fame. REFERENCES National Association of Elementary School Principals. (n.d.a.). About. Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/about National Association of Elementary School Principals. (n.d.b.). Honoring principals. Retrieved from http:// www.naesp.org/honoring-principals National Association of Elementary School Principals. (n.d.c.). Publications. Retrieved from http://www.naesp. org/publications-0

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSORS OF MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION Stephanie M. Bennett Mississippi State University In 1997, the National Association of Professors of Middle Level Education (NAPOMLE) was established as an affiliate of the National Middle School Association (NMSA, now Association for Middle Level Education) (Myers & Blackburn, n.d.). Charter institutional members included institutions in Georgia, Ohio, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Illinois, and Missouri. The organization has four purposes: (a) to provide a professional network to help facilitate the exchange of

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ◾ 275

information regarding university and college preparation in middle level education; (b) to contribute to the research base and provide a way to share current research in the field; (c) to advocate for the middle school movement; and (d) to support the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) in advocating for the middle school movement (Myers & Blackburn, n.d.). At the national Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) conference held each fall, NAPOMLE has a Best Practices roundtable session where middle level professors share their work on middle level education. In addition, the organization also publishes Current Issues in Middle Level Education, which focuses on “best teaching practices in colleges and universities, school-university partnerships, and other topics of interest to faculty” (Myers & Blackburn, n.d.). Current Issues in Middle Level Education is a peer-reviewed electronic journal that is published twice a year (spring and fall) and is available on the NAPOMLE website (Myers & Blackburn, n.d.). On the NAPOMLE website (see http://www.napomle. org/), the organization provides information about national and state middle level conferences and meetings. They also provide links to other middle level organizations including AMLE, the Association of Teacher Education Middle Level Educators SIG (ATE MLE SIG), the American Educational Research Association Middle Level Education SIG (AERA MLER SIG), the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. Further, they provide contact information for NAPOMLE state affiliates. NAPOMLE also honors outstanding middle level teacher education programs, outstanding faculty (both current and retired), CMLA chapters, and teaching candidates enrolled in an accredited middle level teacher preparation program (NAPOMLE, n.d.). REFERENCES Myers, J., & Blackburn, B. R. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://napomle.org/aboutus.html National Association of Professors of Middle Level Education. (n.d.). Look at some of our programs. Retrieved from http://www.napomle.org/memberprofiles.html

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS William J. Rodriguez Nieves Illinois State University The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) is the leading organization of middle level and

high school principals across the United States and 35 countries around the world. NASSP was founded in 1916 and as a mission it focuses on connecting and engaging school leaders through advocacy, research, education, and student programs. NASSP provides its members with “practical tools and materials, such as research based and peer tested resources, in order to serve as visionary school leaders” (NASSP, n.d.a., “About”). They promote middle and high school education through publications, professional development opportunities, providing access to relevant research, and persistence in advocating on behalf of school leaders. NASSP also focuses on promoting high professional standards, providing attention to school leader’s challenges, providing a national voice for school leaders, and publicizing the issues and interests of members in the media. They are the founding association of the National Honor Society, National Junior Honor Society, National Elementary Honor Society, and National Association of Student Councils. NASSP created the Breaking Ranks Framework, a set of recommendations that seek to make schools more student-centered by personalizing programs and support systems to meet the intellectual challenges of each student (NASSP, n.d.c., “School Improvement”). According to NASSP, the framework does not prescribe a specific model that a school must follow, but rather it builds upon an individual school’s data to assess their strengths and identify their needs in order to develop a customized plan for the school’s success. NASSP offers several publications on the Breaking Ranks framework, each book focusing on different areas such as improving the math curriculum and guides to implementing the Breaking Ranks recommendations. NASSP also recognizes its members through various awards such as the Principal of the Year, Assistant Principal of the Year, Breakthrough Schools, the Gruhn-LongMelton Award recognizing distinguished service and leadership in improving middle level education, the Digital Principal Award honoring principals who implement new technologies to further learning goals, as well as student awards such as the American Citizenship Award and the President’s Education Award (NASSP, n.d.b., “Awards and Recognition”). NASSP has a strong presence in social media though a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a LinkedIn community and profile, a YouTube channel with speeches and lectures, an online community for principals and school leaders in edWeb.net, and a dedicated resource site in Scoop.it. REFERENCES National Association of Secondary School Principals. (n.d.a.). About. Retrieved from http://www.nassp.org/about-us

276 ◾ NASSP NATIONAL MIDDLE LEVEL STUDIES National Association of Secondary School Principals. (n.d.b.). Awards and recognition. Retrieved from http://www. nassp.org/Awards-and-Recognition National Association of Secondary School Principals. (n.d.c.). School improvement. Retrieved from http://www.nassp. org/school-improvement

NASSP NATIONAL MIDDLE LEVEL STUDIES Jerry W. Valentine University of Missouri Donald C. Clark University of Arizona Sally N. Clark University of Arizona Recognizing the need for a comprehensive description of the status of education for young adolescents, a proposal for a national study of what has today become known as “middle level education” was written in 1978 by Jerry Valentine at the University of Missouri-Columbia with university-based seed money for junior professors. The proposal was to conduct a comprehensive study of the leaders and programs of all schools dedicated specifically to serving students in grades five through nine or any combination thereof. In other words, the proposal was designed to encompass schools typically serving the “junior high years,” which at that time usually meant grades 7–8–9, grades 7–8, or grades 8–9 and the “middle school years,” which usually meant grades 6–7–8 or grades 5–6–7–8. The proposal was presented to the National Association of Secondary School Principals’ (NASSP) Director of Research, Dr. James Keefe, in February 1979. Dr. Keefe and the association embraced the notion of the comprehensive study as a step in their continued efforts to periodically study secondary education. In 1966, NASSP had sponsored and published a national survey of junior high school leaders and programs (NASSP, 1966) and in 1978 they had completed a national study of high school leadership and programs (NASSP, 1978). The obvious next study for the organization was to again study the junior high school, along with the emerging middle school. The proposal for a more comprehensive study of middle level education was a natural next focus given the on-going debates of junior high versus middle school. The four-year study was funded by NASSP with support from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation and implemented in two phases. The first phase was a national survey of middle level education’s principals, programs, and practices; the second phase was a study of principals and programs of highly successful middle level schools. Two books, one for each

phase, were published and distributed to the several thousand middle level principals who were members of the Association (Keefe, Clark, Nickerson, & Valentine, 1983; Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981). NASSP would continue its commitment to the study of middle level education, sponsoring a second decade study of principals and programs from 1991 to 1994 (Keefe, Valentine, Clark, & Irvin, 1994; Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe, & Melton, 1993). In 1999, NASSP contracted with the Middle Level Leadership Center at the University of Missouri-Columbia to conduct a third “decade study” of middle level education from 2000 to 2004 (Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, 2002, 2004). The three NASSP decade studies, with their extensive examination of middle level schools and principals, provided a comprehensive overview of the evolution of middle level education during the latter part of the 20th century. The studies examined and reported the use of organizational structures that modified traditional grade level configurations and schedules and provided more instructional flexibility, opportunities for teacher collaboration, and curricular integration. They also chronicled the transitions to more developmentally appropriate programs and practices such as teaming, teacher advisories, exploratory experiences, and intramural sports and highlighted the processes used by principals to successfully facilitate those transitions. By informing both research and practice, the decade studies provided a valuable source of information to middle level educators, middle level scholars, educational policy makers, and the public about middle level schools and their leaders. REFERENCES Keefe, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Valentine, J. W. (1983). The middle level principalship—volume II: The effective middle level principal. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Keefe, J. W., Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., & Irvin, J. L. (1994). Leadership in middle level education—volume II: Leadership in successfully restructuring middle level schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1966). Report of the junior high-school principalship. Reston, VA: Author. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1978). The senior high school principalship. Reston, VA: Author. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Hackmann, D. G., & Petzko, V. (2002). A national study of leadership in middle level schools—volume I: A national study of middle level leaders and school programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Hackmann, D. G., & Petzko, V. (2004). A national study of leadership in middle level schools—volume II: Leadership for highly successful middle

NATIONAL BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS ◾ 277 level schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Irvin, J. L., Keefe, J. W., & Melton, G. (1993). Leadership in middle level education—volume I: A national survey of middle level leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981). The middle level principalship—volume I: A national study of middle level leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

NATIONAL BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS Richard L. Mehrenberg Millersville University The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) is an independent non-profit organization dedicated to the recognition and promotion of accomplished teachers (NBPTS, n.d.). Founded in 1987, NBPTS developed in response to a series of criticisms on the perceived status of the American education system, such as the highly contentious, 1983 publication, A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education). Over 110,000 teachers have earned National Board Certification (NBC). According to the organization’s website, the mission of the NBPTS is threefold: (a) to maintain high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do; (b) to provide a national voluntary system certifying teachers who meet these standards; and (c) to advocate related education reforms to integrate National Board Certification in American education and to capitalize on the expertise of National Board Certified Teachers. Prerequisites for a teacher to apply for NBC are straightforward. They must have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university, three years successful teaching experience, and remit an application fee. Candidates are then sent detailed instructions and materials designed to enable them to demonstrate mastery in one of the 25 areas of teaching expertise. Middle school teachers may choose to pursue a generalist certification, or may focus on a particular area of emphasis such as science or exceptional needs specialist. Candidates prove advanced pedagogical skill and knowledge through the successful completion of both a rigorous content exam and portfolio submissions that highlight quality student work, videotaped lessons, documentation of community impact, and substantial self-reflection. All submitted work is assessed and scored

by a double-blind team of trained reviewers. Candidates have the option of resubmitting portions of the portfolio that do not meet the minimum standards. Regardless of the specific content area, National Board Certification is aligned with a series of established beliefs and competencies attributed to accomplished educators. They are known as the five core propositions and serve as the backbone of the assessment process. The propositions are: 1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning. 2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. 3. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. 4. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience. 5. Teachers are members of learning communities. Teachers who earn National Board Certification are often recognized for their accomplishments. Various school boards, cities and states provide financial incentives to attract and retain these master teachers. Furthermore, through programs such as Teach to Lead , individuals are given opportunities to develop teacher leadership on a national level without abandoning their classrooms in the process (Teach to Lead, n.d.). There are currently mixed research results regarding the impact of the Nationally Board Certified Teacher on student learning. Some studies suggest a significant increase (Hakel, Koenig, & Elliott, 2008), while others report mixed results, or no appreciable difference (Compensation Technical Working Group, 2012). REFERENCES Compensation Technical Working Group. (2012). National Board Certification Research Brief. Retrieved from http://www .k12.wa.us/compensation/pubdocs/WSIPPresearch.pdf Hakel, M., Koenig, J. A, & Elliott, S. W. (Eds.). (2008). Assessing accomplished teaching: Advanced-level certification programs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/who -we-are National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to the nation and the secretary of education of the United States Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html Teach to Lead. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://teach tolead.org/about-us/

278 ◾ NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS (NCES) MIDDLE LEVEL STUDIES

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS (NCES) MIDDLE LEVEL STUDIES Carolyn Grim Fidelman National Center for Education Statistics U.S. Department of Education The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has regularly collected data about students in the middle grades. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) regularly captures assessment data for students in grade 8 (in addition to assessments for students in grades 4 and 12) since 1990. Beginning in 1995, NCES has also fielded the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which collects internationally comparable math and science assessment data for students in grade 8. The National Household Education Study (NHES), first fielded in 1991, is another example of a repeating cross-sectional study fielded by NCES that includes information about middle grade students. The NHES collects data on parent and family involvement in education for students in kindergarten through grade 12, and has collected data on after school activities of students in kindergarten through grade 8. NCES also collects information about middle grade students through several longitudinal studies. The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) followed a cohort of students from their eighth grade year in 1987–88 through 2000. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K) followed the progress of a cohort of kindergartners from the 1998–99 school year with follow-up collections in grades 1, 3, 5, and 8. The ECLS-K:2011 began a new cohort of kindergarteners and is planned to end with grade 5 in 2016. As NCES has successfully carried out elementary and high school longitudinal studies, it has become clear that a sequence of longitudinal studies that explicitly includes the middle grades and that aligns over one K–12 time span, would permit the linking of achievement results across cohorts. With this in mind, NCES is designing and implementing a new Middle Grades Longitudinal Study (MGLS). For this study, base year (BY) data is planned to be collected for a nationally representative sample of sixth graders in either the 2017–18 school year. Data collection is planned to take place starting in January, and student participants will be assessed annually for three years. This means that most students will take assessments and complete questionnaires in grades 6, 7, and 8. Assessments will focus on mathematics, reading, and executive function and will be conducted in the students’ schools. While NCES studies are generally inclusive of students with disabilities, the study has an

additional special focus on a sample of students identified through their individual education plan (IEP) as having a specific learning disability, emotional disturbance, or autism. All assessable students with disabilities will be offered a wide array of accommodations in order to collect data comparable to those collected from nonIEP students. English language learner (ELL) students will likewise be included to the greatest extent possible with study materials translated into Spanish. Contextual variables will be created through annual surveys of the sampled student’s parents, mathematics teachers, special education teachers (where applicable), and school administrator. There will be a specific emphasis on measuring the prevalence of various classroom practices experienced by the students. For more information about NCES and their surveys visit https://nces.ed.gov/

NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM Monica Martinez Contributor from 1st edition The mission of National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform (NCCSR) is to collect and disseminate information that builds the capacity of schools to raise the academic achievement of all students. The expansion of schoolwide reform programs during the last decade created a need for a central source of information on planning, implementing, and evaluating reform programs. Understanding that practitioners need information on assessing needs, developing reform programs, and documenting the impact of reforms, the U.S. Department of Education established the National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform (NCCSR) in 1999 to disseminate information through a web site, reference and retrieval services, outreach, and publications. The clearinghouse is a partnership of The George Washington University and the Institute for Educational Leadership. Together, these organizations have expertise in school reform, providing technical assistance, and preparing educational leaders at the local, state, and national levels. NCCSR draws on the expertise and wisdom of its partners as well as Technical Working Group (TWG), a diverse group of education professionals who represent practitioners, researchers, policymakers, clearinghouse experts, and academics. The TWG provides NCCSR with guidance stemming from their varied perspectives. NCCSR provides a variety of products and services designed to ensure easy access to the best resources for planning, implementing, and evaluating CSR. NCCSR’s

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ◾ 279

Web site (www.csrclearinghouse.org/) is the gateway to good information on CSR. Web resources include, the CSR library, Step by Step, The Catalog of School Reform Models, Issue and Research Briefs, Newsletters, Reference and Referrals, and a resource directory. NCCSR makes efforts to ensure that research on school reform is disseminated to practitioners and that researchers are aware of the concerns of schoolbased practitioners. One way in which NCCSR keeps apprised of current CSR research is by maintaining contacts with researchers in the field. NCCSR has developed a Network of CSR Researchers to foster discussion among education researchers around the topic of school improvement and to build the knowledge base of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. The network includes national and districtlevel researchers engaged in large-scale CSR studies and representatives of national organizations. NCCSR engages in proactive outreach activities are to raise awareness of comprehensive school reform (CSR), introduce NCCSR resources, and connect practitioners and policymakers with the tools they need for successful implementation and support of schoolwide improvement. NCCSR works to fulfill these goals by making presentations and conducting workshops at national and regional meetings; sponsoring an annual conference; building relationships and networks, and disseminating publications and information to targeted audiences.

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Janet K. Stramel Fort Hays State University The National Education Association (NEA) was founded in 1857 by 43 educators who wanted to unite as one voice in the cause of public education. At that time, learning to read and write was a luxury afforded only to the wealthy. Throughout its history, the National Education Association has been a major force, advocating for the rights of all children and educators. In addition, the NEA welcomed Black members in 1857, four years before the Civil War, and elected a woman as president ten years before Congress granted women the right to vote. Before NEA, the main requirements for teaching were the ability to read, write, and stay out of trouble. Many teachers worked in one-room schoolhouses with little if any teaching materials, little public support, and salaries of less than $100 a year (Holcomb, 2006). In 1966, the NEA joined with the predominately Black American Teachers Association which represented teachers in schools in the South for people of color

and “promoted human and civil rights of educators and students of all ethnicities” (Holcomb, 2006). In 1998, the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) formed an NEA-AFT partnership in order to work together for members. Although the NEA and AFT are separate organizations, some states and local associations are merged. Through the “NEAFT Partnership” each organization is separate and independent, although the two organizations collaborate at each level. The National Education Association (NEA) is “the voice of education professionals” (NEA, 2006). The work of the NEA is “fundamental to the nation, and we accept the profound trust placed in us” (NEA, 2006). The vision is a “great public school for every student” and the mission is to “advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world” (NEA, 2006). The Core Values of the NEA are (a) Equal Opportunity; (b) A Just Society; (c) Democracy; (d) Professionalism; (e) Partnership; and (f) Collective Action. The NEA also believes that “every child in America, regardless of income or place of residence, deserves a quality education” (NEA, 2006). Through an annual Representative Assembly (RA), NEA members nationwide set policy. Approximately 9,000 RA delegates elect NEA officers, debate issues, and set NEA policy. Officers include president, vice president, secretary-treasurer, and a nine-member executive committee. A board of directors (at least one from each state) as well as retired, Education Support Professionals (ESP) and student members are elected by local and state leaders. At the state and local level, NEA affiliates perform a variety of activities which may include scholarship programs, professional workshops, contract bargaining for school district employees, and legal representation in employment disputes. Currently, the NEA has approximately 3.2 million members which includes teachers, education support professionals, higher education faculty and staff, retired, students, substitute educators, and administrators. The NEA publishes the NEA Today and Tomorrow’s Teachers four times a year. REFERENCES Holcomb, S. (2006). Answering the call. Retrieved from http:// www.nea.org/home/11608.htm National Education Association. (2006). NEA’s vision, mission, and values. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/ home/19583.htm

280 ◾ NATIONAL FORUM TO ACCELERATE MIDDLE-GRADES REFORM

NATIONAL FORUM TO ACCELERATE MIDDLE-GRADES REFORM Deborah Kasak National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform The National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (the Forum) was established in 1997 to advance a common goal: accelerating the academic performance and healthy development of every young adolescent in the nation. The Forum unites over 45 of the most prominent leaders in middle-grades reform, and its members believe that students in the middle grades are capable of learning and achieving at high levels. They share a sense of urgency that high-performing schools with middle grades become the norm, not the exception. The Forum’s vision statement and a set of criteria focus on the interrelated areas of academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, social equity, and needed organizational structures and supports (National Forum, 2014a). The Forum’s members work together and mobilize others to improve students’ academic and developmental outcomes. The Forum functions in two-ways: • It convenes the best minds in the field to explore critical issues and emerging themes affecting middle-grades education and strives for consensus to speak with one voice about their shared point-of-view; and • As a collective committed to working in the field to make its vision a reality. Members identify priority areas then develop and carry-out high-leverage strategies that produce results. The Forum adds value to the ongoing work by targeting two primary goals: 1. Improve school and classroom practice to help educators accelerate their students’ learning and healthy development. The Forum initiated the Schools to Watch (STW) Program in 1999. Since 2001, states replicate the STW program identifying schools that meet the Forum’s rigorous, research-based criteria. These schools serve as beacons of excellence and assist others as they work to implement improved practices (National Forum, 2014b). As of June 2015, there are 18 states and nearly 400 schools designated as STW. The Forum deepened its efforts to improve school and classroom practice through several important grants. In 2006, the Forum received a Comprehensive School Reform Quality Initiative Grant to build resources and materials for a mathematics toolkit with an emphasis on En-

glish language learners, special education, and rural student populations. Then in 2010, the Forum received a highly competitive Investing in Innovation Development Grant through the U.S. Department of Education. The Schools to Watch: School Transformation Network provides on-theground services and interventions to 18 schools in Illinois, California, and North Carolina. In 2013, the Forum was awarded a second Development Grant for work in Michigan and Kentucky on Middle Grades Leadership Development. Each grant includes a rigorous evaluation component providing data on the implementation of Schools to Watch middle-grades practices. 2. Advocate and engage key stakeholders. The Forum speaks with a unified voice and informs key stakeholders at the federal, state and local levels about appropriate policies, research, programs and instructional practices that support middle-grades education. It develops and disseminates policy statements and communicates its position through multiple media outlets. The Forum collaborates with its partners to conduct an annual Hill Briefing during the National Forum’s STW Conference in Washington, DC. Additionally, all STW designees for the year conduct congressional visits to educate policymakers about middle-grades best practices and success. To learn more about the National Forum and its mission to improve middle-grades education, visit www. middlegradesforum.org. REFERENCES National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (2014a). Vision and mission. Retrieved from http://middlegrades forum.org/vision-mission/ National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (2014b). What is Schools to Watch? Retrieved from http://middle gradesforum.org/what-is-school-to-watch/

NATIONAL MIDDLE GRADES RESEARCH PROJECT ON COMMON PLANNING TIME Heather Rogers Haverback Towson University Molly Mee Towson University Common planning time (CPT) is widely accepted by middle school educators as an essential component of

NATIONAL MIDDLE GRADES RESEARCH PROJECT ON COMMON PLANNING TIME ◾ 281

middle grades education. CPT is defined as “a regularly scheduled time during the school day when teachers who teach the same students meet for joint planning, parent conferences, materials preparation, and student evaluation” (Kellough & Kellough, 2008, p. 394). Thus, the Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group (MLER SIG) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) developed a white paper that described a plan to expand the research on common planning time and interdisciplinary teaming in middle level schools across the nation (Mertens, 2006). The aim of this project was for researchers from different areas in the country to investigate teachers’ understanding, use, and perceptions of CPT (Mertens, Anfara, Flowers, & Caskey, 2011). Specifically, the driving force behind the project was the need for a greater amount of middle grades’ studies to “expand the existing research and knowledge on common planning time and serve to fill the gaps in our research base” (Mertens, Flowers, Anfara, & Caskey, 2010, p. 5). Past research supports CPT as an important and viable model to support students (Mertens & Flowers, 2003; Mertens et al., 2010). For example, common planning time and interdisciplinary teaming have been related to a positive impact on academic efficacy, fewer behavior problems, and higher student achievement (Dickinson & Erb, 1997; Erb & Stevenson, 1999; Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall, 1999; Warren & Payne, 1997). Moreover, teachers who participated in CPT perceived the benefits to be their ability to work with others, the open lines of communication with the team leader, and the teachers’ high expectations for student achievement (Haverback & Mee, 2013). Furthermore, the position statement of the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE), This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (2010), noted that interdisciplinary teaming and CPT are essential elements of organizational structure at the middle grade level. While it is known that CPT is a vital component of the middle level school structure, prior to the initiation of the project, little was known with regard to teachers’ perceptions and use of the practice. Filling this gap in the research was the primary purpose of the National Middle Grades Research Project on Common Planning Time. Members of the Middle Level Education Research (MLER) Special Interest Group (SIG) of the American Educational Research Association were invited to participate in the project which was comprised of two phases. Phase I focused on qualitative research methods, wherein researchers collected and analyzed observation and interview data using shared data collection protocols (Mertens, Anfara, Caskey, & Flowers, 2012a). Phase II was the quantitative research portion, wherein researchers were trained to collect data using an online teacher survey. The survey, developed by the

Center for Prevention Research and Development at the University of Illinois, contained items that enabled teachers to report their perceptions of the practices, impact, benefits and outcomes of CPT. Phase II, included 15 researchers who collected data from 510 teachers in 23 schools (Mertens et al., 2012a). MLER SIG members who participated in the project were afforded opportunities to present at national conferences. Results of the national CPT study were published in a volume of the Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education, Common Planning Time: Research Studies from the MLER SIG’s National Middle Grades Research Project (Mertens, Anfara, Caskey, & Flowers, 2012b). While past studies have explored CPT in the middle school classroom, the National Middle Grades Research Project continues to be the most comprehensive, nationwide study to date. REFERENCES Dickinson, T. S., & Erb, T. O. (1997). We gain more than we give: Teaming in the middle school. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Erb, T. O., & Stevenson, C. (1999). What difference does teaming make? Middle School Journal, 30(3), 47–50. Flowers, N., Mertens, S., & Mulhall, P. (1999). The impact of teaming: Five research-based outcomes of teaming. Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57–60. Haverback, H. R., & Mee, M. (2013). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and barriers of common planning time. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(2), 6–19. Kellough, R. D., & Kellough, N. G. (2008). Teaching young adolescents: Methods and resources for middle grades teaching (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Mertens, S. B. (2006, March). A proposal for establishing a national middle level research project. White paper submitted to the Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. Mertens, S. B., & Flowers N. (2003). Middle school practices improve student achievement in high poverty schools. Middle School Journal, 35(1), 33–43. Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Caskey, M. M. (2010). Common planning time. Middle School Journal, 41(5), 50–57. Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., Flowers, N., & Caskey, M. M. (2011). A national research project revitalizes and strengthens a SIG’s membership, leadership, and the quality of research in the field. Educational Researcher, 40(6), 295–298. Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., Caskey, M. M., & Flowers, N. (2012a). The history and development of the MLER SIG’s National Middle Grades Research Project on common planning time. In S. B. Mertens, V. A. Anfara, Jr., M. M. Caskey, & N. Flowers (Eds.), Common planning time: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s National Middle

282 ◾ NEW AMERICAN SCHOOLS Grades Research Project (pp. 1–23). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., Caskey, M. M., & Flowers, N. (Eds.). (2012b). Common planning time in middle level schools: Research studies from the MLER SIG’s National Project. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Warren, L. L., & Payne, B. D. (1997). Impact of middle grades organization on teacher efficacy and environmental perception. Journal of Education Research, 90(5), 301–308.

NEW AMERICAN SCHOOLS Louise Kennelly Contributor from 1st edition As part of an unprecedented partnership formed to strengthen middle-grades schooling in 2002, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation awarded a $3 million grant to New American Schools (NAS), the business-led education nonprofit that promotes the quality, scale and sustainability of service providers such as Middle Start, a middle-grades school improvement program. The 3-year award recognized New American Schools’ strong record in assisting promising education programs in having widespread impact on schools and students and becoming financially sustainable. The award also recognized the foundation’s confidence in Middle Start, which was developed by the foundation, the Academy for Educational Development, and several other Michigan- and Mid-South-based partners, on its journey toward self-sufficiency. Under the grant, NAS provided assistance in the areas of model refinement and business planning as well as in the area of external relations so that the program can maintain a high level of quality as it continues to be implemented in schools on a wider scale. As part of the grant, New American Schools also provided public relations guidance to the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, an alliance of educators, researchers, national associations, officers of professional organizations, and foundations dedicated to improving education in the middle grades. The outreach work included targeted communications to policymakers, arming them with up-todate information needed to make decisions on behalf of middle-grades students. “Innovative partnerships of this kind are required for deep and lasting improvement in our middle grades,” said Mary Anne Schmitt, President of NAS. “When like-minded organizations come together to leverage their skills and experience, the pay-off for students is significant, helping them meet high standards and face the increasingly complex demands of the competitive 21st century job market and the global economy.”

Middle Start, a comprehensive school improvement program for the middle grades, is dedicated to building strong local, state, and regional support for middle-grades schools and students across the country. The program combines on-site coaching, professional development, and the resources of regional partners to strengthen student achievement in schools with middle grades. Guided by current research and practice emphasizing the developmental needs of young adolescents, Middle Start upholds the three goals that form broad student achievement—academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, and social equity in middle-grades education—and it does so through small learning communities; team structure; student-focused instruction; meaningful student assessment; reflective review and selfstudy; as well as sustainable and meaningful partnerships. NAS is uniquely positioned to assist education organizations such as Middle Start in moving to a sustainable, national platform, bridging the gap between the initial research and development phase and mature operations. New American Schools (NAS) is a leading nonprofit provider of professional services and investment in K–12 education. The mission of NAS is to help all students succeed by shaping, supporting and sustaining system-wide innovation and improvement in learning. NAS provides support to state departments of education, school districts, charter authorizers, and foundations, offering key stakeholders the tools and assistance needed to facilitate and sustain student learning. Effective in January 2005, NAS will merge with the American Institutes for Research, bridging high-quality educational research and improved K–12 system performance.

NEW LITERACIES Hiller A. Spires North Carolina State University Shea N. Kerkhoff North Carolina State University Literacy demands and opportunities in the 21st century extend beyond the traditional practices of reading and writing to incorporate facility with new genres of media and information technologies. The term, new literacies, is used to refer to the literacies associated with the affordances of digital technologies. Linguists use the term deixis (dike-sis) for words whose meanings change quickly depending upon the time or space in which they are used. Accordingly, Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, and Henry (2013) argued that contemporary literacy is a deictic term since the forms and functions of literacy rapidly change as technologies for information

NEW LITERACIES ◾ 283

and communication change. Emerging technologies require new skills and strategies on the part of the user. As society evolves, what counts as literacy tends to evolve (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013). New literacies advocates do not suggest replacing instruction of traditional literacies with new literacies. Instead, traditional literacies are still very much a part of the middle grades curriculum and need to be taught in conjunction with new literacies. Advocates of new literacies contend that the types of literacies that are used outside of school, driven by the use of the Internet, should match what is taught in middle school. The latest statistics claim that over 3 billion individuals now use the Internet to read, write, communicate, learn, and solve important problems online (Internet World Stats, 2014). By all indications, these numbers will continue to increase. ADOLESCENTS AND TECHNOLOGY USE Although the level of connectivity and use of technologies among youth varies widely, this generation comprises the largest demographic of Internet and social media users. Currently, more than 90% of young adults in the United States identify themselves as Internet users (Smith, 2011). Of these users, roughly 75% make use of some sort of social media (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). Although the particular websites and platforms are shifting, the number of users is steadily increasing. Growing up amid developing digital technologies has significantly influenced the way this generation has developed. Because of the influence and heightened involvement with technology, Prensky (2001) referred to millennials as digital natives. Although this generation is highly influenced by digital technologies, their digital literacies vary widely. A subset of the millennial generation, popularly referred to as Generation Z, was born between the late 1990s to the present. This subset generation is considered to be more involved and reliant on technology than the larger millennial generation (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010). Transforming education to meet the demands of the 21st century begins with an acknowledgement that today’s middle school students have opportunities to learn in different ways than those of previous generations. The way students use technology outside school, from instant messaging, mobile phones, and handheld games to digital music players and video game consoles is similar to how today’s workers use technology in their professional careers—multi-tasking, on-the-go, and fast paced. Middle school students’ Internet access at home has increased across socio-economic groups. Almost all middle class and almost half of those living below the poverty line have Internet access (Brown & Marin,

2009). However, middle grade students have consistently reported minimal use or disappointing use of technology and the Internet in school (Spires, Lee, Turner, & Johnson, 2008). In some classrooms students are totally “unplugged”—in fact, school policies often prohibit them from bringing their technology tools with them to school. As schools continue to implement oneto-one computing and bring your own device programs, this trend is expected to change (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). DIFFERENT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF NEW LITERACIES There are many terms that have been used interchangeably to discuss new literacies, including “twenty-first century literacies, Internet literacies, digital literacies, new media literacies, multiliteracies, information literacy, Information Communication Technology (ICT) literacies, computer literacy, and so forth” (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008b, p. 10). The specific area of new literacies can be categorized into three theoretical perspectives. First, the literature formally labeled the New Literacy Studies (NLS) encompasses a group of theorists and researchers who take a predominantly sociocultural view of literacy (Gee, 2005). This view of new literacies was derived from the New London Group’s (1996) seminal publication, A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Second, semiotic multimodalities (SMM) includes theorists and researchers who take a predominantly semiotic view of literacy, which focuses primarily on the symbols and the emerging new media used to convey meaning (Bezemer & Kress, 2008). Literacy theorists Lankshear and Knobel (2006) believed that “the more a literacy practice privileges participation over publishing, collective intelligence over individual possessive intelligence, collaboration over individuated authorship . . . the more we should regard it as a ‘new’ literacy” (p. 60). Third, Don Leu and his colleagues used new literacies to describe the new skills, strategies, and depositions needed for online research and comprehension. Students need to be able to identify a problem or research question, locate reliable sources both online and offline, read through a critical lens, construct knowledge by synthesizing information from multiple sources, and communicate using appropriate modes (Leu et al., 2013). Examining new literacies through different theoretical perspectives has the potential to increase our knowledge and create innovative solutions to problems in literacy pedagogy. Researchers inside the field are willing to work together as evidenced by the Handbook of Research on New Literacies (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008a) which includes different perspectives on

284 ◾ NEW LITERACIES

new literacies. While there are different perspectives, the new literacy theorists seem to agree that today’s students need new literacy skills, dispositions, and practices for work and life in our interconnected world. READING ONLINE CONTENT WITH A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE Searching for information online requires new kinds of reading skills. A learner may be skilled with using search engines but lack the critical expertise for selecting reliable information from the vast number of links that are available. In the same way that readers must acquire skills in navigating textual and graphic features of the traditional informational textbook, readers must acquire sophisticated reading skills with online environments in order to be academically and professionally competitive—not to mention civically engaged. As technology alters the literacy experience, the task of literacy learners increasingly will become to learn how to learn effectively while adapting to rapid changes (Coiro et al., 2008b). Advocates of new literacies say we must assist middle grades students in becoming critical consumers of information in these new online contexts by providing instruction in how to critically evaluate the relevancy, accuracy, reliability, and perspective of information created for a range of purposes and audiences. Sutherland-Smith (2002) found that while the sixth grade students in her study adapted to hyperlinks and nonlinear reading, they did not as readily adapt to the critical component essential for Internet research and comprehension. Instead, they used a “snatch-and-grab philosophy” when searching for reading materials (p. 664). While middle schools students have adapted to hyperlinks and nonlinear reading, they have not as readily adapted to the critical component essential for Internet research and comprehension (Leu et al., 2013). CREATING CONTENT AS A MEANS OF LEARNING A key aspect of new literacies is creating or producing content as a means of learning. Middle grades teachers can combine instructional strategies (i.e., collaboration, distributed authority, nontraditional texts, and authentic contexts) with the use of production tools to create dynamic and engaging learning contexts for their students. Students can pose inquiry questions, locate information, and then create answers to the inquiry questions using production tools. After locating and consuming information relevant to the topic, the student might use Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Animoto, VoiceThread, Glogster, and Storify) to design and produce an original answer to the inquiry questions. Hundreds

of free production tools are available online. A key pedagogical goal for middle grades teachers is to support tool use based on the affordances of the technology as well as instructional goals and projected learning outcomes (Downes & Bishop, 2012; Spires, Hervey, Morris, & Stelpflug, 2012). Henry Jenkins and colleagues (2009) asserted that we do not typically consider people literate if they cannot both read and write. They added that in contemporary times we should not consider youth literate if they cannot both consume and produce media. The literacy of the future rests on the ability to decode and construct meaning from one’s constantly evolving environment. The capacity to evaluate information on the issues of credibility and reliability is essential, as is the ability to make judgments about when and how to apply information to solve problems. These skills allow working collaboratively within social networks, pooling knowledge collectively, navigating and negotiating diverse communities, and critically analyzing and reconciling conflicting information in order to perform desired tasks. Obviously, the ability to work differently leads to different social and work practices; thus, we can now have distributed teams across the world and more people working from home. NEW LITERACIES AND EDUCATIONAL EQUITY As a matter of educational equity, learners of all ages need to be successful content creators and users of technologies that foster the sharing of information, thoughts, and ideas central to active and effective participation in society. An individual’s ability to read, write, do math, problem solve, work in a team, think critically, and use information and communications technologies is essential to education and workforce preparation, employment success, as well as civic participation. Advocates of new literacies suggest that these literacies should be understood as a wide-ranging set of practices that enable students to create, share, and understand meaning and knowledge in an increasingly digital age. In fact, some would argue that new literacies should be positioned as an entitlement for students, which supports their full participation in a society in which social, cultural, political, and financial life are increasingly mediated by digital technologies (Leu et al, 2013). Based on a recent project, Futurelab, Hague, and Payton (2010) contended that new literacies: (a) can be developed alongside subject knowledge in all classrooms across the curriculum; and (b) can be important not only in supporting students to become independent, critical learners but also in narrowing the gap between student’s experiences inside and outside of school. The digital divide needs to be addressed simultaneously with the issue of increasing new literacies within

NEW LITERACIES ◾ 285

the classroom (Coiro et al., 2008b; Leu et al., 2015). The digital divide has three components: home access, classroom time, and teacher knowledge. According to the Pew Research Center, 38% of low-income homes (