-rfi::f?; firm.- :I HI». fl:{;1 ‘3” WI'$I fivaS'I'x“ III 3. v—I— .1 a .. ‘F‘ w: .I"'/ #213,” 4.2;? filfivfikfiv ..‘nl. §o I 4%“ fffiw I Ifln )1”: 9L 31r . m. I' 1"|':1‘:JII 14' 4W - 4. .I I4 I. .. .. If“, i )IC kt‘fiwp‘: '.'- j. 4 . (III-W .rII 4 4.4, .:. , I' "(if 4' {447.19. M‘, HI? Ty. 7-3.14 ~_ 3 & asks" A 2.. "1'1"" 1‘ inh: 47 ‘ a ‘4‘,» I!‘ 4II II "4‘ ' {:1‘13‘1. I \r -. ' | ' 'H‘lL ‘,: ,|'-‘I'g" ‘; " I" ‘.:. :‘ ’IPI'IVI‘ r1‘1jfl?‘ V‘. ”9“!" .I ll I. ':.'_L 4“}; . " I“; ‘ 4 "" ‘ .- ‘7 . ‘II ‘-I~(” 13:15.4; u-.~.~-.'I" M a . ' ‘ ' m. 4.: " - '0‘ '4 I‘ ,2} . 4‘ z '5 '"fid-thi~Iv‘ IIIW~%{I‘:¢H"I ‘. ' -g‘3, v‘ , ' .1- ' -‘ 4 ’ 'Li ~ .gr- Er. . ‘~ ‘71:» ‘ “I ‘14.” f.“ '. ‘ ' -__!I?, 4 II. I I "‘1 t‘iflniI I: II .:.: |I(' I I4- 2 I» .,~ .. 4. SJ g' "n'L m ,.r iv?3 I ,I’ w ' . ‘ *' I. I4 I: ”I: III ' ‘ E W! .. - I ‘ ., ..- I . ‘3- i ' 'I 1‘ :5”le '52? .; HM" .‘ {‘AII'I': I ll! 1" (7"1')II j” . It.» . 4 J ' .4 ’ ‘II ' ' I4 ’II:I“L ' ‘I I... II. I “5!sz” ‘II ' ' 01”“ ‘hh".‘1,‘.l"’;v I TIL: .43 411A} 5"" 5 If." . '5‘ " I“. I lsflIgtW‘I' H W." .|. ”41:9" ’ 4‘ 5 I }. I I 4‘ fl I!» 4‘ F54. II I AM L. 1 "11.!” "n1 I II. "I": I...“ l‘ _ H, I }$|" I ‘11}; PM. If: a. 1. '.‘ I J "I ' .I'I’ITII' I'IIII I.“ 'II—; I I I“ I"1.I';I“‘J? “I" I .‘ . I III I -I II. ‘ _. ‘4, fl . . I .I -: , ‘ . ' In” M ‘ ' ' )4 I9 "I; II I": -o.I {Eh-{fih'l‘ L551}: lv"‘:"II.‘:JI“.E:‘,' ;‘ I If": lull‘ull‘ " : "'1’ II'I "It" '1'” 51"“; "III-III II “Q Cl III 5191' “I 'Hfiflw'v ”. IMAI ~. qfifi.g‘ IA ’\' A44“ . llllllllllllHlllllllll|l|l|lll|l|llllllllIlllllllililllllllil L 3 1293 10370 0922 $.1-ubtxn‘fio.;lai=““' ' - ‘ _ ‘K .I‘ J " LIBRARY 4 % Michigan State I. Umvcrsxty "h% .k . . 1 I. This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE OPINIONS OF SELECTED SUPERINTENDENTS AND BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESIDENTS AS TO WHAT _ CHARACTERISTICS CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL, presented by JEAN MARI E MARLOWE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Administration 8 Higher Ed. Ph ' D ° degree in Louis Romano Major professor Date 12"5’80 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place In book return to remove charge from ctrcuiatton record: W we 73” 2 / 4/ 25‘?“ ”fig 5999572002 THE OPINIONS OF SELECTED SUPERINTENDENTS AND BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESIDENTS AS TO WHAT CHARACTERISTICS CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL By Jean Marie Marlowe A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education I980 ©Copyright by JEAN MARIE MARLOWE 1980 THE OPINIONS OF SELECTED SUPERINTENDENTS AND BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESIDENTS AS TO WHAT CHARACTERISTICS CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL By Jean Marie Marlowe AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1980 ABSTRACT THE OPINIONS OF SELECTED SUPERINTENDENTS AND BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESIDENTS AS TO WHAT CHARACTERISTICS CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL By Jean Marie Marlowe Purpose The purpose of this study was to collect the opinions of super- intendents and board of education presidents as to what characteristics they believed constituted the ideal middle school. These district personnel, planners of programs for these pre-adolescents, are respon- sible for directing the education of this age youngster. Their opin- ions anng with fiscal support have an effect on the programs that would be implemented in a school district. Methodology An examination of the literature enabled the researcher to identify the characteristics of a middle school and a junior high school. Two teams of authorities critiqued these lists. A revised questionnaire, Characteristics Which Constitute a Middle School Program and a Junior High Program, was mailed to a random sampling of Michigan middle schools and junior high schools. 0f the 100 recipients, who included superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school districts and junior high school districts, 85 questionnaires Jean Marie Marlowe were returned. Scores from the questionnaires were subjected to the two-way ANOVA, and the alpha level was established at .05 for reject- ing the hypotheses. Conclusions 1. There is no significant difference in the opinions concern- ing curriculum between superintendents and board of education presi- dents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 2. There is no significant difference in the opinions concern- ing co-curriculum between superintendents and board of education presi- dents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 3. There is no significant difference in the opinions concern- ing staffing between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 4. There is no significant difference in the opinions concern- ing guidance between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 5. There is no significant difference in the opinions concern- ing scheduling between superintendents and board of education presi- dents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 6. There is no significant difference in the opinions concern- ing methodology between superintendents and board of education presi- dents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Jean Marie Marlowe 7. There is no significant difference in the opinions concern- ing media between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 8. There is no significant difference in the opinions concern- ing resources between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 9. There is no significant difference in the opinions concern- ing evaluation between superintendents and board of education presi- dents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Implications According to the data, there seems to be no clear understanding on the part of superintendents and board of education presidents as to the characteristics of a middle school and those of a junior high school. To remedy this situation, there should be in-depth discus— sions on how middle schools differ from junior high schools. Further- more, presentations of the differences between a middle school program and a junior high school program such as the filmstrip-cassette entitled "The Middle School--A Humanizing Effort"1 could be reviewed. Superintendents and board of education presidents should plan field trips to middle schools within the state and include all_members of the educational family in all_in-service efforts. Superintendents and board of education presidents should plan to attend meaningful Jean Marie Marlowe conferences such as the annual Michigan and National Associations of Middle School Educators. 1A. Kinsinger and L. Romano, "The Middle School-~A Humanizing Effort (Michigan State University: Michigan Association of Middle School Educators, 1979). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Louis Romano, committee chairman and provider of direction, leadership, and guidance, goes my deepest respect. His demands for high standards of excellence are appreciated. To the members of the committee, Dr. Sam Moore, Dr. C. Keith Groty, and Dr. James Snoddy, goes my sincere acknowledgment for their assistance, encouragement, and support. To my mother, Mildred Chapman, an educator of high courage who always believed in me and supported that belief with love and encouragement. And, foremost, to the Marlowes, Harvey, my husband, and Michael and Patrick, our sons, who each gave so unselfishly and pro- vided constant and unfailing love and encouragement, this thesis is dedicated. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ...................... Purpose of the Study ................ Significance of the Problem ............. Definition of Terms ................. Limitations of the Study .............. Review of the Related Literature .......... Objectives ..................... Procedures for Analysis of Data ........... Selection of the Sample .............. Treatment of the Data ................ Overview ...................... II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ........... A History of the Junior High School in America . . . A History of the Middle School Movement in America The Need for the Middle School in Today's World . . : Future of Middle School Education .......... Review of Related Studies .............. Eighteen Characteristics of the Middle School . . . . Swmmy. ... ... . ............... DESIGN OF THE STUDY .................. Introduction .................... Measurement Instrument ............... Rationale ..................... Selection and Validity .............. Reliability .......... . ......... Format ...................... Sample ....................... Data Collection ................... Procedure of the Analysis .............. Hypotheses ..................... Design of the Statistical Analysis ......... 42 Significance Level ................. 42 Sumna ry ....................... 43 IV. PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS ............. 44 Introduction .................... 44 Descriptive Information ............... 44 Findings ...................... 46 Summary ....................... 56 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 58 Introduction .................... 58 Summary ....................... 58 Conclusions ..................... 59 Curriculum .................... 59 Co-Curriculum ................... 6O Staffing ..................... 60 Guidance ..................... 6O Scheduling .................... 60 Methodology .................... 61 Media ....................... 61 Resources ..................... 61 Evaluation .................... 61 Discussion of the Findings ............. 63 Implications .................... 65 Recommendations for Further Study .......... 66 Reflections ..................... 67 APPENDICES .......................... 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 103 iv Table LIST OF TABLES Means and Standard Deviations of the Perceptions of Superintendents and Presidents of Middle Schools and Junior High Schools on Nine Scales . . . . . ..... Interaction Between Superintendents and Board Presidents of Middle School Districts and Superin- tendents and Board Presidents of Junior High School Districts on the Characteristic, Curriculum . . . . . . Interaction Between Superintendents and Board Presi- dents of Middle School Districts and Superintendents and Board Presidents of Junior High School Districts on the Characteristic, Co-curriculum ......... Interaction Between Superintendents and Board Presi- dents of Middle School Districts and Superintendents and Board Presidents of Junior High School Districts on the Characteristic, Staffing ............ Interaction Between Superintendents and Board Presi- dents of Middle School Districts and Superintendents and Board Presidents of Junior High School Districts on the Characteristic, Guidance ............ Interaction Between Superintendents and Board Presi- dents of Middle School Districts and Superintendents and Board Presidents of Junior High School Districts on the Characteristic, Scheduling ........... Interaction Between Superintendents and Board Presi- dents of Middle School Districts and Superintendents and Board Presidents of Junior High School Districts on the Characteristic, Methodology .......... Interaction Between Superintendents and Board Presi- dents of Middle School Districts and Superintendents and Board Presidents of Junior High School Districts on the Characteristic, Media . . . . . ........ Page 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 Page 9. Interaction Between Superintendents and Board Presi- dents of Middle School Districts and Superintendents and Board Presidents of Junior High School Districts on the Characteristic, Resources ........... 55 10. Interaction Between Superintendents and Board Presi- dents of Middle School Districts and Superintendents and Board Presidents of Junior High School Districts on the Characteristic, Evaluation . . . . ....... 56 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. EIGHTEEN MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS ........ 70 B. LIST OF EXPERTS .................... 72 C. COVER LETTER TO FIRST EIGHT AUTHORITIES ........ 74 D. CHECKLIST DESIGN OF THE INSTRUMENT .......... 78 E. CHARACTERISTICS WHICH CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM AND A JUNIOR HIGH PROGRAM .......... 82 F. SECOND LIST OF AUTHORITIES AND LETTERS ........ 88 G. SCHOOL DISTRICTS SENT QUESTIONNAIRES ......... 93 H. COVER LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS AND PRESIDENTS . . . . 96 I. CHARACTERISTICS WHICH CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL . . . 99 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The middle school is an emerging school organization that has grown significantly in numbers throughout the United States. This national proliferation is supported by a number of studies. One of the most recent studies, by Hawkins, included more than 3,000 middle schools; in the state of Michigan, there were approximately 270 middle schools.1 With this growth of interest in the middle school organiza- tion, there is a need to know what teaching-learning strategies are needed in the middle school. An understanding of these teaching- 1earning strategies and an implementation of them would hopefully bring about schools designed to meet the unique needs of children between 10 and 14 years of age. Unfortunately, Alexander, Romano, and others have shown that the junior high program at one time met the needs of the pre- adolescent, but that this is no longer true.2 The criticism of the 1James Hawkins, "A Study to Ascertain Actual Middle School Practices as Compared to Reported Middle School Practices in Selected Michigan Schools and Nationally Prominent Schools as Perceived by Principals" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972). 2William M. Alexander, "Alternative Futures for the Middle School," in The Middle School--A Look Ahead, ed. Paul S. George (Florida University: NMSA, 1977), p. 39; Louis G. Romano, Nicholas P. Georgiady, and James E. Heald, The Middle School: Selected Readings on an Emerging School Program (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Co., 1973), p. 73. I junior high program and the earlier onset of puberty were factors that established a strong theoretical foundation for the development of an in-between school for students age 11 through 14.1 The middle school is an attempt to develop a new organiza- tion with certain teaching-learning strategies that are consistent with the emotional, social, physical, and intellectual growth needs of these students. But despite this concern for the middle school child, the emerging school organization unfortunately may not be meeting the needs of these children. Romano asked the question, "Is the present middle school an 'emerging cesspool'?" He continued: I have serious concerns about the "new" middle school. Far too often, I observed middle schools within the state and throughout the country being merely a case of name changing. Yesterday, the school was a junior high school; today, it is a middle school. Far too many practices in the middle school are typical of the former junior high school which in turn was lit- tle more than a carbon copy of the senior high school. With the problems facing a new school organization, this study was an attempt to ascertain the opinions of superintendents and board of education presidents as to what a middle school is. These two groups of educational personnel are in positions of authority and should be able to provide the necessary financial and human resources to bring about educational programs consistent with the growth needs of the student aged 10 through 14. More important, it would seem imperative to learn if superintendents and board of education 1William M. Alexander, "The Middle School: In Retrospect and Prospect," Texas Technical Journal of Education 3(3) (1976): 157. 2Louis Romano, "The Middle School--An Emerging Cesspool," Indiana Middle School Association Yearbook (1978), p. 91. presidents understand middle school concepts. An understanding of what constitutes a middle school can either promote or hinder the growth of middle school programs. Purpose of the Study The researcher's purpose in this study was to determine the opinions as related to the characteristics of middle and junior high schools between superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school programs in both middle school districts and junior high school districts. Since opinions were being collected, there were no correct or incorrect answers. Significance of the Problem The number of middle schools will continue to increase while the number of junior high schools will decrease; this statement has been substantiated in the professional literature.I With this growth, school personnel may view the middle school as an opportu- nity to improve and enhance the educational progress for early adoles- cents.2 Improved guidance, team teaching independent study, and nongradedness are a few of 18 characteristics that can be implemented in the middle school.3 1Thomas A. Sinks, Max Bough, John McLute, Robert Malinka, and Dorothy J. T. Terman, "The Middle School Trend: Another Look at the Upper Midwest," The Clearing House 49 (October 1975): 52-104. 2William M. Alexander, Emmett L. Williams, Mary Compton, Vynce A. Hines, and Dan Prescott, The Emergent Middle School (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 64. 3Jack Riegle, "A Study of Middle School Programs to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Principles" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971), p. 60. The importance of the middle school was best stated by Alexander et al.: Educating the 10-14 year old is one of America's most chal- lenging and rewarding opportunities today. To meet this chal- lenge, the middle school's major objective should be the development of a curriculum designed specifically to meet their needs and interests, to provide an opportunity to achieve a degree of responsibility, productivity, creativity and self- respect. Superintendents and board of education presidents can assist to meet the challenge by providing the resources for programs that best meet the needs of these youngsters. Besides resources, there is a need for these personnel to know the significant differences between a junior high school program and a middle school program. To suggest the implementation of a middle school program without a knowledge of what a middle school is can be futile. The board of education is the legal policy maker of a school district, and it is the board policies that can put the schools in motion to develop a meaningful and unique program for students in the "in-between" stage. Alexander et a1. stated that the middle school program is an improvement over the junior high school program in meeting the edu- cational needs of the 11- to 14-year-old child.2 Dettre stated, Based on all kinds of physiological, psychological, socio- logical, curricular and instructional research, the junior high concept had the weight of evidence in its corner, yet it never really emerged as a separate and distinct entity Wlthln 1Alexander et a1., The Emergent Middle School, p. 64. 21bid. the public school milieu. It failed to achieve its announced goals not because it lacked right on its side; rather, it failed in part because the overall mentality of those in edu- cation was such that they were not capable of intellectually and psychologically capitalizing on the emergence of a “third force" and moving to create for themselves a separate and equal status with elementary and secondary. If the junior high school has failed to meet its goals and the middle school is an attempt to improve the situation, this knowl- edge in the hands of the superintendents and board of education presi- dents can facilitate programs to meet the present unmet needs of the transescent.2 Without a sound understanding of the middle school, superin- tendents and board of education presidents may desire planning a middle school organization and curriculum that is significantly dif- ferent from the junior high school. This study was an attempt to determine if superintendents and board of education presidents have Opinions that promote the middle school concept or opinions that reinforce the traditional junior high concept. Definition of Terms Characteristics--Distinguishing features basic to the middle 3 school philosophy. Middle school--An educational unit with a philosophy, struc- ture, and program that will realistically and appropriately deal with 1John R. Dettre, "The Middle School, A Separate and Equal Entity," The Clearing House, September 1973, p. 20. 2Romano et al., The Middle School: Selected Readings, p. 13. 3 Riegle, "A Study of Middle School Programs." 11 to 14 year olds as they indeed are and behave. Its commitment is primarily to the youths it seeks to serve.1 Transescence: The period in an individual's development beginning before the onset of puberty and continuing through early adolescence. It is characterized by changes in physical development, social interaction, and intellectual functions.2 Superintendent: The chief executive who directs the work of a school district and is appointed by the local board of education members. He or she provides leadership and general supervision over public education. The term of office is determined by the laws gov- erning the board of education membership. Board of education: An official body (from five to seven members) of elected persons who direct and supervise the work of a school district. This body provides general planning and coordinat- ing for public education and gives advice on financial requirements. This is the board of the governing body of local school districts. Junior high school: Usually a school that enrolls pupils in grades 7, 8, and 9--1ess commonly grades 7 and 8 or grades 8 and 9; may be a separate school or the lower part of junior-senior high school.3 1Louis Romano, guest editor, Michigan Journal of Secondary Education (Ann Arbor: Michigan Association of Secondary School Prin- cipals, Summer 1971). 2Donald Eichhorn, The Middle School (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966), p. 3. 3Carter V. Good, ed., Dictionary of Education, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973). Limitations of the Study The validity of the study was affected by the following factors: 1. A lack of consistent responses may develop as a result of the variety of experiences and backgrounds of the respondents. 2. Only public school districts in Michigan and superin- tendents and board of education presidents of districts that included middle school and/or junior high school programs were included. 3. The instrument, Factors Which Constitute a Middle School and a Junior High School, was limited to the measurement of the opinions of superintendents and board of education presidents. 4. The use of a paper-and-pencil survey instrument and/or the fact that it was mailed may not have been the most effective means of collecting data pertinent to the study. Review of the Related Literature A review of the literature included a history of the junior high school in America. It also included a history of the middle school movement, along with growth characteristics and a base for defining educational needs for the transescent. The need for the middle school is discussed in the review of the literature. Alexander and other writers have shown that the junior high school no longer meets the needs of the 11-14 year old. Objectives The hypotheses dealt with in this study were as follows: Hypothesis I: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning curriculum between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis II: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning co-curriculum between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis 111: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning staffing between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis IV: There is no significant difference in the Opinions concerning guidance between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis V: There is no significant difference in the opihiOns concerning scheduling between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis VI: There is no significant difference in the Opinions concerning methodology between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis VII: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning media between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis VIII: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning resources between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis IX: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning evaluation between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Procedures for Analysis of Data Selection of the Sample The sample Of superintendents in this study was randomly selected from the population of the public school districts in Michigan as listed in the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's gngg. The districts included housed both middle schools and/or junior high schools. Besides superintendents, board of education presidents participated in this study. A questionnaire entitled Characteristics Which Constitute a Middle School and a Junior High School consisted of 37 matched char- acteristics derived from a perusal of the literature. There was a total of 74 items. Some examples of these matched characteristics of junior high school and middle school programs are as follows: Junior High, Middle School 1. Primary thrust is toward 1. Primary thrust is toward learning a body of infor— learning how to learn. mation. 2. Departmentalized. 2. Team teaching. 3. Interscholastic sports. 3. Intramural sports. Each participating superintendent and board of education president received a copy of the instrument. Each participant was asked to mark his opinion regarding the middle school program. A cover letter accompanied each questionnaire. A stamped, self-addressed return envelope was provided for each participant. The validity of the instrument was established when practi- tioners in the field reviewed and checked the instrument. 10 Treatment of the Data The data were processed using the Control Data Computer at Michigan State University. A test for distinctiveness was adminis- tered--that is, which items on the questionnaire were most frequently evaluated the same by the respondents. The data were treated using the two-way ANOVA statistical test. The alpha level was .05. The scoring process included use of points marked on the Likert scale by the respondents and the number of times each point was marked. Treatment of the data tested responses for differences in the opinions of superintendents and board of educa- tion presidents in the areas of the nine hypotheses. Overview The need for opinions of superintendents and board of education presidents about what they believed constituted the middle school pro- gram was discussed in Chapter I. The purpose Of the study was defined, and the significance of the problem was presented. Definitions of terms pertinent to this study were included, and limitations of the study were presented. In Chapter II, a review of the literature related to the middle school and the junior high school education is presented. A history of the middle school movement in America is also included. The need for middle school education in today's world and research on the opinions Of authorities in the field in regard to middle school education and the value of that research to the education of youngsters aged 11 through 14 are further included. II In Chapter III, the design of the study, including the develop- ment of the instrument, the selection of the sample, the procedure for collection Of data, and the statistical tools applied to the data, are presented. The data are discussed in Chapter IV. An outline Of the significant findings, implications of the findings, along with con- clusions and suggestions for further studies are included in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE The review of the literature begins with a historical presen- tation of the development of schools for students between childhood and adolescence, namely, the junior high school. This early development was led by educators who wanted to define a school organization that would provide the best teaching-learning situation for the pre- adolescent student. The educational thinking of these people regard- ing the junior high movement is reviewed. The emergent middle school is discussed, including the need for a middle school and its program. This discussion is followed by a look into the future of middle school education. A History of the Junior High School in America Schools in different localities were unequal in their cur- ] As a result, riculm offerings for students in the 11-14 age group. many of these students did not see the relevancy of a formal education and dropped out of school. Indeed, the original initiators of the junior high school conceived it as a terminal education for some of the students enrolled and as an academic introduction for those capable 1Alvin W. Howard and George C. Stoumbis, The Junior High and Middle School: Issues and Practices (London: Intext Educational POb- lishers, 1970), p. 11. 12 l3 and financially able to continue their education. The high drop-out rate attributed to student lack Of interest and a "dull, dry, imprac- tical curriculum" along with a lack of practical courses, irregular attendance, late entrance, child labor laws and illnesses, all became arguments used in support of the emergence of the junior high school.1 "The birthplace of the junior high school was probably Berkeley, California, in 1910 and was followed by similar provisions in other cities including Columbus, Ohio, and Grand Rapids, Michi- gan."2 Among the earliest to advocate a separate school unit for the education Of early adolescents was W. A. Greeson, who served as the Grand Rapids, Michigan, superintendent of schools in the early 19005.3 Greeson pointed out the inadequacy of the six-year high school before the 1909 Annual Meeting of the North Central Association. It was he who proposed a structural blueprint for what was to become in Berkeley the first modern-day junior high school. With the advent of the junior high school, consideration was given to the reorganization of the schools themselves and the curricu- lum. The child study movement had been a major factor in causing school administrations to look more closely at this age student. "This junior high school of fifty years ago operated more along the llbid. 2Tony Egnatuck, Nicholas Georgiady, and Louis G. Romano, 1Hg_ Middle School: A Position Paper (East Lansing: Michigan Association of Middle School Educators, 1975), p. l. 3Samuel Popper, The American Middle School: An Organizational Analysis (Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell'Publishing Co., 1967), p. 213. l4 concept that we now refer to as the 'middle school' concept today."1 Leonard V. Koos, Professor of Education at the University of Minne- sota, said in 1920 that "among the most popular descriptors of the Junior High School at that time were the 'recognition of individual differences' and 'exploration for guidance.”2 The NEA, Department of Superintendent, published a listing of descriptors of the junior high school in the late 19205. Again, the most frequently mentioned descriptor was "meeting individual differences in pupils."3 In 1893, the emphasis focused on a school for the child and not the child for the school. Hall stated that "adolescence empha- sized psychological age. Adolescence was virtually a new birth and a time of changes in the adolescent's life in all areas Of physical, emotional, mental, social and moral."4 Because of these changes, a new approach was needed. A new school, new methods, and new curricu- lum were required in order to work properly with the individual dif- ferences found in the age group of youngsters in transition. Although the primary focus in 1920 was to meet individual differences, in the next thirty years, the country travelled through depression, world war, cold war, economic boom, and a revolution in scientific technology and college was viewed as the "saving pathway" for almost all youth. The pressure of society, particularly in the late fifties, for 1James H. Fox, Jr., "Middle School: Surviving, Refining and Growing in the Future," in IHg_Midd1e School--A Look Ahead, ed. Paul S. George (Florida University: NMSA, inc., 1977), p. 22. 2Ibid. 3 4 Ibid. Howard and Stoumbis, p. 11. 15 quantity matriculations into college pushed school districts toward a more subject-orientated curriculum at the junior high level. The heavily academic curriculum resembled that of the high school. Was this approach appropriate for the children in the middle? Was mass production or a child-centered environment stressing individual differences more appropriate? The junior high school seemed a good idea, but today the junior high school is no longer an innovation. In fact, the junior high school is no longer a departure from the traditional; it j§_the traditional.2 "The nation's junior high schools, plagued by academic and disciplinary problems, are giving way in growing numbers to an alter- native type of institution--the 'middle school.”3 "The late 50's and the 60's saw mounting criticism of the junior high school; it housed the wrong students, had lost sight of its transitional nature and purpose and was too subject-matter orientated."4 A History of the Middle School Movement in America From 1910 to 1960, the junior high school became so stan- dardized and inflexible that reformers sought to replace that model 'Fox, p. 22. 2 3“Middle Schools Spread Fast and Stir Controversy," U.S. News and World Report, February 2, 1976, pp. 41-43. 4Maurice McGlasson, "The Middle School: Whence? What? Whither?" Phi Delta Kappan, 1973, p. 12. Romano et a1., The Middle School, p. 13. 16 with the emergent middle school.1 Mead pointed out that the educa- tional system had become too impersonal and too standardized.2 Because of these criticisms there was a need for a reformation of the American junior high school. "The middle school movement was born in the 1960's as a product of this dissatisfaction with the junior high school."3 Today's bur- geoning middle school began "in the 8-4 and 6-3-3 organizations, but inappropriate to all American communities and inadequate to meet the challenge of equal educational opportunity for all children."4 This inadequacy hastened the emergence of a middle unit in the public schools between elementary and high school. This middle unit required a status, curriculum, and staff unique to the needs of the students it served. "The middle school was justified socially as it embraced the period during which the majority Of pupils reached adolescence. The sixth, seventh and eighth unit was valid in that many children in sixth grade were pubescent."5 The movement of this "school in the middle" spread rapidly. By 1965, it was so observable 1Alexander, "Alternative Futures for the Middle School," 2Margaret Mead, "Are We Squeezing Out Adolescents?" National Parent Teacher 55 (September 1960): 4-6. 3Howard and Stoumbis, pp. 17, 20. 4Alexander, "The Middle School: In Retrospect and Prospect," p. 157. 5Richard Conover, "The Junior High School Principalship," in Schools for the Middle Years: Readings, ed. Alvin W. Howard and George C. Stoumbis (Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Co., 1979), pp. 81-86. 17 that Woodring acclaimed that "it now appears that the 6-3-3 plan with its junior high school is on the way out."1 The Need for the Middle School in Today's World "This emergent school in the middle became the program of education for the students age 11-14."2 DeVita continued that the middle school, a philosophy and belief about children, their unique needs, who they are, and how they grow and learn, is an organization that structures education to meet the needs of pre-adolescents and considers the nature of these children and their potential. This program of education was concerned with all aspects of the child: cultural, social, recreational, and avocational. Designed to separate these children from the younger elementary as well as the older high school student, "middle school became a place where pupils could be exposed to a wide range of educational experiences instead of specialized training."3 This program did not have the negative connotation of the junior high school with all of the semantic problems inherent in the word "junior." Middle school "became a place where compatibility of students in grades six, seven and eight seemed rational because of similar social, emotional and physical problems 1 p. 158. Alexander, "The Middle School: In Retrospect and Prospect,” 2Joseph C. DeVita, Philip Pumerantz, and Leighton B. Wilklow, The Effective Middle School (West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Co., Inc., 1970), pp. 25-26. 3Ron L. Billings, "Musts for a Middle School,“ Clearing House, April 1976, p. 377. 18 of these children."1 Moss's description of this school organization included "flexible grouping, adaptable curriculum, great range of materials and instructional approaches."2 Disque related that "evidence now shows that with each suc- ceeding generation, girls tend to experience menstruation up to one year earlier. This earlier growth in girls presents a certain prob- lem in schools and other social groups during the pre-adolescent years."3 "Social change," Mead reminded us, "has occurred so rapidly in the past two decades that parents are not only confused by the experiences their children are undergoing, but they are experiencing many of these changes themselves for the first time in their own lives."4 Since notice of earlier onset of puberty has occurred in recent years and as middle school was intended for early adolescents, onset of puberty should be one of the determining factors for grade organization. The earlier arrival of puberty is a factor that estab- lishes a strong theoretical foundation for grade organization in which students age 11-14 do acquire greater amounts of general infor- mation and social sophistication earlier, substantiating the need for the in-between school. Stradley and Aspinall summed this up as they 1Thomas E. Curtis, "Administrators View the Middle School," in Schools for the Middle Years: Readings, ed. George C. Stoumbis and Alvin W. Howard (Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Co., 1969), pp. 147-48. 2Theodore C. Moss, Middle School (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1969), p. 154. 3Jerry Disque, "In-Between: The Adolescents' Struggle for Independence," Phi Delta Kappan, 1973, p. 8. 4 Ibid., p. 9. 19 stated, "It is only common sense for the teacher to accept the changes in each student and vary the functioning demands."1 Mead perceived this age group as emphasizing social rather than intellectual preparation. "Neither acquisition of basic skills as in elementary school nor specialization of the high school should be stressed."2 “The middle school's major objectives are the development of a curriculum designed specifically to meet pupil needs and interests and to provide an opportunity to achieve a degree of responsibility, productivity, creativity, and self-respect."3 These objectives call for provisions in a setting that encourages experimentation. These provisions include varied instruction along with independent study where teachers can focus on the individual student, encouraging com- munications among teachers and students. This environment provides for effective use of instructional media and technology and encourages students to relax from a competitive environment. Staff talents, interests, and expertise can better be used in this setting as teach- ing teams are a large part of the program. Because of teaching teams, staff can be released to prepare and research and work with small groups of students or individuals. 1William E. Stradley and Richard D. Aspinall, Discipline in the Junior High/Middle School: A Handbook for Teachers (New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1975), p. 24. 2Ann M. Grooms, Perspectives on the Middle Schools (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, 1967), p. 4. 3Alexander et a1., The Emergent Middle School, p. 64. 20 Co-curricular activities are an important part of the modern middle school, with all students encouraged to participate. "The diverse needs of transescent youth dictate a diverse program, includ- ing communication skills and mathematics, along with programs designed to help youngsters understand the social and emotional changes they are experiencing. These changes must be considered in a program Of education for the 10-14 year old students."1 Future of Middle School Education "It is predicted that the number of middle schools will con- tinue to increase while the number of junior high schools will continue to decrease."2 This growth is evidenced by Alexander's 1968 statis- tics, which indicated that approximately 1,100 middle schools were operational. Kealy located nearly 2,300 middle schools. A 1974 report on the growth of middle schools showed that more than 3,700 middle schools could be found in operation across the nation.3 Undoubtedly, the current number of middle schools is more than 4,000.4 Alexander stated that "clearly the new organization and name has 1Joseph Bondi, "Addressing the Issues: The Middle School--A Positive Change in American Education," in The Middle School--A Look Ahead, ed. Paul S. George (Florida University: NMSA, 1977), pp. 28-29. 2Thomas A. Sinks, Max Bough, John McLute, Robert Malinka, and Dorothy J. T. Terman, "The Middle School Trend: Another Look at the Upper Midwest," The Clearing House 49 (October 1975): 52-104. 3Robert Malinka, "The Middle School: Trends and Trouble SPOtS," in The Middle School--A Look Ahead, ed. Paul S. George (Florida Uni- versity: NMSA, 1977), p. 50. 4 Ibid., p. 52. 21 caught on; from fewer than 100 to some 4000 middle school grade organizations in fifteen years."1 This kind of growth would indicate that the middle school movement is healthy, with every indication of continued growth for a viable future. Additional indicators of robustness include the rapid increase in the number of publications on the middle school.2 State and national organizations were created to support the ideals and concepts of the middle school. Members at the national level now number more than 2,000, with state membership for Michigan alone totaling 1,200. Some institutions of higher education how include programs of certi- fication and education specifically aimed at the teacher in the middle school. A recent survey by George identified eight states as having a teacher's certification specifically for middle school.3 In addi- tion, 14 states were planning such a certification or had the issue under study. Middle school teacher-education programs of some type were identified in 19 states, with an additional five states planning them. Dr. John Porter, Superintendent of Michigan State Public Edu- cation, stated at a Michigan Association of Middle School Educators Conference in 1977 that consideration would be underway for the inclu- sion of a department for middle school education within the state department Of education. 1Alexander, "The Middle School: In Retrospect and Prospect," p. 158. 2 . Ibld., p. 159. 3 Paul 5. George, ed., The Middle School--A Look Ahead (Florida University: NMSA, 1977). 22 All of these indicators point to the necessity for superin- tendents and school board members to look Openly at students‘ needs and determine which programs best meet these necessities. In some instances, the boards of education have mandated organizational changes to meet such essentials in a school district. Superinten- dents and boards of education, through other administrators, teachers, and parents, are asked to design a middle school organization and curriculum so as not to duplicate the junior high school. This calls for a careful study of the middle school literature, including visi- tations to promising middle school programs and other meaningful activities. A truly "new" program should provide a program consis- tent with the needs Of these children and also give middle school teachers status positions in the school organization.1 Review of Related Studies In 1970, Riegel conducted a study designed to identify the basic middle school characteristics.2 These characteristics were gleaned from the middle school literature in existence at that time. From the literature, those characteristics frequently mentioned were gathered. These were then sent to five noted authorities in the field of middle school education for validation. From the number of char- acteristics collected, 18 basic middle school characteristics were compiled. They included: (1) continuous progress, (2) multi-media use, (3) flexible schedules, (4) social experiences, (5) physical 'Egnatuck et a1., The Middle School, A Position Paper, p. 7. 2Riegle, "A Study of Middle School Programs," pp. 60-68. 23 experiences, (6) intramural activity, (7) team teaching, (8) planned gradualism, (9) exploratory-enrichment programs, (10) guidance ser- vices, (11) independent study, (12) basic learning skills, (13) crea- tive learning experiences, (14) student security factors, (15) evalua- tion practices, (16) community relations, (17) student services, and (18) auxiliary staffing. A survey instrument was designed to measure data related to the implementation of these characteristics by selected middle schools. The survey instrument was mailed to all schools in Michigan housing grades 5-8 and 6-8. It was also mailed to four middle schools arbi- trarily selected on a national basis because of their well-known middle school programs. The findings and conclusions of the Riegle study were as follows: 1. The rapid increase in the number of schools labeled as middle schools has not been accompanied by a high degree of appli- cation of those characteristics considered by authorities in the field to be basic to middle school education. 2. There was an overall 49.64 percent application by middle schools in Michigan as measured by the survey instrument used in this study and a 64.9 percent application by the national sample when measured on the same basis. 3. The number of grades housed in a middle school was not a significant factor in determining application of the basic middle school characteristics. It should be noted that generally both 24 three-grade and four-grade middle schools in Michigan applied the middle school characteristics to a limited degree. 4. While a high degree of agreement exists among authori- ties in the field regarding what constitutes basic middle school characteristics, the degree of application of these characteristics and the wide variation in levels of application provide evidence of a failure by the leadership of the Michigan middle schools to imple- ment the validated characteristics. 5. A limited number Of Michigan middle schools demonstrated application of the basic middle school characteristics to a degree equal to that level achieved by the four selected exemplary middle schools included in this study. A complete listing of these 18 basic middle school character- istics is presented. Although the original development of these 18 characteristics was by Riegle, a more complete description was pre- pared by Georgiady, Riegle, and Romano.1 Eighteen Characteristics of the Middle School Characteristic What and WHy 1. Continuous Progress The middle school program should feature a nongraded organization that allows students to progress at their own individual rate regardless of chronological age. Individ- ual differences are at the most pronounced stage during the transescent years of human development. Chronological groups tend to ignore the span of individual differences. 1Romano et al., The Middle School: Selected Readings, pp. 73-84. Characteristic 2. Multi-material Approach 3. Flexible Schedules 25 Explanation The curriculum built on continuous progress is typically composed of sequenced achieve- ment levels or units of work. As a student completes a unit of work in a subject, he moves on to the next unit. This plan uti- lizes programmed and semi-programmed instruc- tional materials, along with teacher-made units. What and Why The middle school program should offer to students a wide range of easy, accessible instructional materials, a number of expla- nations and a choice of approaches to the topic. Classroom activities should be planned around a multi-material approach rather than a basic textbook organization. Explanation Maturity levels, interest areas, and student backgrounds vary greatly at this age, and these variables need to be considered when materials are selected. The middle-school- age youngster has a range biologically and physiologically anywhere from 7 years Old to 19 years old. Their cognitive develop- ment, according to Piaget, progresses through different levels, too. (Limiting factors include environment, physical development, experiences, and emotions.) The middle school youngster is at one of two stages: preparation for an organization of concrete Operations and the period of formal Opera- tions. These students have short attention spans. Variation in approach and variable materials should be available in the school program to meet the various needs and abili- ties of the youngsters and to help the teach- ers retain the interest of the youngsters. What and wny The middle school should provide a schedule that encourages the investment of time based on educational needs rather than standard- ized time periods. The schedule should be employed as a teaching aid rather than a control device. The rigid block schedule Characteristic 4. Social Experiences 26 What and Why provides little opportunity to develop a program to a special situation or to a particular student. Explanation Movement should be permissive and free rather than dominated by the teacher. Vari- ation of classes and the length of class time as well as variety of group size will help a student become capable of assuming responsi- bility for his own learning. What and Why The program should provide experiences appropriate for the transescent youth and should not emulate the social experiences of the senior high school. Social activities that emulate high school programs are inap- propriate for middle school students. The stages of their social development are diverse, and the question of immaturity is pertinent in the planning of activities for this age level. Explanation The preadolescent and early adolescent undergo changes which affect the self- concept. The youngster is in an in-between world, separate from the family and the rest of the adult world. This is a time of sen- sitivity and acute perception, a crucial time in preparation for adulthood. This is the age of sex-role identification. The youngsters model themselves after a same-sex adult and seek support from the same-sex peer group. The attitudes of the group affect the judgment of the individual child. There is the necessity for developing many social skills, especially those regarding the Opposite sex. There are dramatic changes in activity: dancing, slang, kidding, prac- tical joke give and take, etc. Common areas should be provided in the building for social interaction among small groups. Characteristic 5. Physical Experiences and Intramural Activities 6. Team Teaching 27 What and Why The middle school curricular and co- curricular programs should provide physical activities based solely on the needs of the students. Involvement in the program as a participant rather than as a spectator is critical for the students. A broad range of intramural experiences that provide physical activity for all students should be provided to supplement the physical education classes, which should center their activity upon help- ing students understand and use their bodies. The middle school should feature intramural activities rather than interscholastic activities. Explanation Activities that emulate the high school pro- gram are inappropriate for the middle school. The stages of their physical development are diverse, and the question of immaturity is pertinent in planning activities for this age level. The wide range of physical, emo- tional, social development found in young- sters of middle-school age strongly suggests a diverse program. The child's body is rapidly develOping. The relationship of attitude and physical skill must be consid- ered in planning physical activities consis- tent with the concern for growth toward independence in learning. The emphasis should be upon the development of fundamental skills as well as using these skills in a variety of activities. Intramural activity involves maximum participation, whereas interscholastic activity provides minimum involvement. There is no sound educational reason for interscholastic athletics. Too often they serve merely as public entertain- ment and encourage an overemphasis on spe- cialization at the expense of the majority of the student body. What and WHy The middle school program should be organ- ized in part around team-teaching patterns that allow students to work with a variety Characteristic 7. Planned Gradualism 8 8 9. Exploratory and Enrichment Studies 28 What and wny teachers in a wide range of subject areas. Team teaching is intended to bring to stu- dents a variety of resource persons. Explanation Team teaching provides an opportunity for teacher talents to reach greater numbers of students and for teacher weaknesses to be minimized. This organizational pattern requires teacher planning time and an indi- vidualized student program if it is to func- tion most effectively. What and Why The middle school should provide experiences that assist early adolescents in making the transition from childhood dependence to adult independence, thereby helping them to bridge the gap between elementary school and high school. Explanation The transition period is marked by new physi- cal phenomena in boys and girls which bring about the need for learning to manage their bodies and erotic sensations without embar- rassment. Awareness of new concepts of self and new problems of social behavior and the need for developing many social behaviors and the need for developing many social skills is relevant. There is a responsibility to help the rapidly developing person assert his right to make many more decisions about his own behavior, his social life, management of money, choice of friends, in general, to 4 make adult, independent decisions. The transition involves a movement away from a dependence upon what can be perceived in the immediate environment to a level of hypothe- sizing and dealing with abstractions. There is an establishment of a level of adult-like thought and a desire to test ideas in school as well as social situations. What and Why The program should be broad enough to meet the individual interest of the students for which it was designed. It should widen the Characteristic 10. Guidance Services 11. Independent Study 29 What and Why range of educational truining a student experiences rather than specialize his training. There is a need for variety in the curriculum. Elective courses should be a part Of the program of every student dur- ing his years in the middle school. Explanation Levels of retention are increased when students learn by "doing“ and understanding is more complete when viewed from a wide range of experiences. Time should be spent enriching the student's concept of himself and the world around him, rather than learn- ing subject matter in the traditional form. A student should be allowed to investigate his interests on school time and to progress on his own as he is ready. What and Why The middle school program should include both group and individual guidance services for all students. Highly individualized help that is of a personal nature is needed. Explanation The middle-school child needs and should receive counseling on many matters. Each teacher should "counsel" the child regarding his learning opportunities and progress in respective areas. Each child should per- haps be a member of a home-base group led by a teacher-counselor, someone who watches out for his welfare. Puberty and its many prob- lems require expert guidance for the young- ster, so a professional counselor should be available to the individual youngster. What and WHy The program should provide an opportunity for students to spend time studying indi- vidual interests or needs that do not appear in the organized curricular offerings. Characteristic 12. Basic Skill Repair and Extension 13. Creative Experiences 30 Explanation A child's own intellectual curiosity moti- vates him to carry on independently of the group, with the teacher serving as a resource person. Independent study may be used in connection with organized knowledge, or with some special interest or hobby. The student pursues his work, after it has been defined, and uses his teachers, various materials available in the school, and perhaps even other students, as his sources. He grows in self-direction through various activi- ties and use of materials. What and Why The middle school program should provide Opportunities for students to receive clini- cal help in learning basic skills. The basic education program fostered in the ele- mentary school should be extended in the middle school. Explanation Because Of individual differences, some youngsters have not entirely mastered the basic skills. These students should be pro- vided organized opportunities to improve their skills. Learning must be made attrac- tive and many Opportunities to practice reading, listening, asking questions, etc., must be planned in every classroom. Formal specialized instruction in the basic skills may be necessary and should be available. What and Why The middle school program should include opportunities for students to express them- selves in creative ways. Student newspapers, dramatic creations, musical programs, and other student-centered, student-directed, student-developed activities should be encouraged. Explanation Students should be free to do some divergent thinking and explore various avenues to pos- sible answers. There should be time allowed for thinking without pressure, and a place for unusual ideas and unusual questions to Characteristic 14. Security Factor 15. Evaluation 31 Explanation be considered with respect. Media for expressing the inner feelings should be provided. Art, music, and drama provide opportunities for expression of personal feelings. What and Why The program should provide every student with a security group: a teacher who knows him well and whom he relates to in a positive manner and a peer group that meets regularly and represents more than administrative con- venience in its use of time. Explanation Teachers need time to give the individual student the attention he needs, to help in counseling and curriculum situations. The student needs someone in school with whom he can be comfortable. What and Why The middle school program should provide an evaluation of a student's work that is per- sonal, positive in nature, non-threatening, and strictly individualized. The student should be allowed to assess his own prog- ress and plan for future progress. Explanation A student needs more information than a letter grade provides, and he needs more security than the traditional evaluation sys- tem offers. Traditional systems seem to be punitive. The middle-school youngster needs a supportive atmosphere that helps to gener- ate confidence and a willingness to explore new areas of learning. Student-teacher plan- ning helps to encourage the students to seek new areas. Student-teacher evaluation ses- sions can help to create a mutual understand- ing of problems and also to provide a more meaningful report for parents. Parent- teacher-student conferences on a scheduled and unscheduled basis should be the basic reporting method. Competitive letter-grade evaluation should be replaced with open pupil-teacher-parent communications. Characteristic 16. Community Relations 17. Student Services 18. Auxiliary Staffing 32 What and Why The middle school should develop and main- tain a varied program of community rela- tions. Programs to inform, to entertain, to educate, and to understand the community, as well as other activities, should be a part of the basic operation of the school. Explanation The middle school houses students at a time when they are eager to be involved in activi- ties with their parents. The school should encourage this natural attitude. The middle school has facilities that can be used to good advantage by community groups. What and Why The middle school should provide a broad spectrum of specialized services for stu- dents. Community, county, and state agen- cies should be utilized to expand the range of specialists to its broadest possible extent. Explanation Health services, counseling services, test- ing, opportunities for individual develop- ment (curricular and co-curricular) meeting the interests and needs of each child should be provided. What and Why The middle school should utilize highly diversified personnel such as volunteer parents, teacher aides, clerical aides, stu- dent volunteers, and other similar types of support staffing that help to facilitate the teaching staff. Explanation Auxiliary staffing is needed to provide the individual help students require. A vari- ety of teacher aides or paraprofessionals may be used to extend the talents of the professional staff. 33 In 1972, Hawkins investigated the relationship between prin- cipals and teachers in selected Michigan middle schools and four nationally prominent middle schools regarding their perceptions of their school practices. Survey questionnaires seeking data related to the current practices of middle schools were mailed to these schools. After an analysis of the data, it was apparent that the exemplary middle schools in the national sample were applying the 18 basic middle school characteristics to a greater degree than were the middle schools in Michigan.1 NO studies were available that attempted to determine the Opinions of superintendents and board of education presidents as to the implementation of the 18 middle school characteristics. This study is an attempt to gain these opinions from two important leaders in the educational hierarchy. Summary The origin of the junior high school was a product of dis- satisfaction of the times caused by many children dropping out of school at an early age. The intent of the junior high school was to meet the unique needs of the 11-14 year olds. For 50 years, the junior high schools served this function. Due to societal pressures, the basic ideals of the junior high school were radically changed, causing more and more junior high schools to resemble the high school. In the 1960s, reformers brought about the 'Hawkins, "A Study to Ascertain Actual Middle School Practices." 34 emergence of a school in the middle--neither an elementary school nor a high school--for this age youth. This school in the middle has continued to survive and has grown at a healthy rate. Besides numbers, there have emerged asso- ciations Of middle schools at state and national levels, publications, and teacher certification for this school "in the middle." Studies by Riegle and Hawkins attempted to determine the degree of implementation of 18 characteristics of a middle school that were developed by a panel of experts. None of the studies related to the middle school attempted to gain the Opinions of superintendents and board of education presidents. The present study attempted to obtain the opinions of these school leaders as they relate to the middle school or the junior high school. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The design of the study involved the 18 characteristics of middle school programs and of junior high educational programs plus superintendents' and board of education presidents' opinions of these characteristics. The objective of this study was to collect these opinions of these leaders as to middle school and junior high school characteristics. The literature was searched for characteristics of middle school and junior high educational programs. These characteristics were incorporated into an instrument entitled Characteristics Which Constitute a Middle School Program and a Junior High Program. The derivation and evolution of that instrument are discussed in this chapter along with the rationale, reliability, and validity for the instrument. The discussion includes features of the sample, process for data collection and analysis, treatment of the data, hypotheses, and the significance level. Measurement Instrument Rationale The instrument was developed from a search of the literature on junior high and middle school programs. The instrument consisted 35 36 Of 37 characteristics comprising the middle school and junior high school philosophy. These 37 characteristics were grouped into nine scales for ease of measuring the collected data. The data collected by this instrument measured the attitudes that school leaders held as to characteristics relevant to educational programs for the transescent. The nine scales comprising the 37 vari- ables included:1 1. Curriculum 2. Co-curriculum 3. Staffing .4. Guidance 5. Scheduling 6. Methodology 7. Media 8. Resources 9. Evaluation2 These nine scales constituted the nine dependent variables investi- gated in this study. Selection and Validity The selection and validity indices of the instrument were based on Riegle's study, which yielded characteristics relevant to middle school education.3 (See Appendix A.) 1The 37 items that comprise the nine scales are listed in Appendix E. 2Riegle, "A Study of Middle School Programs," p. 43. 3Ihid. 37 Reliability To determine reliability, 28 graduate students in the course entitled 852E Middle School Administration were given a list of the middle school characteristics and the junior high school characteris- tics, but in a random order. An attempt was made to determine if the middle school characteristics were truly middle school items, and if the junior high characteristics were truly junior high school items. The split-half reliability correlation coefficient was .95 using the Spearman Brown method and .91 using the Pearson product-moment method. Format The format of the instrument was as follows: Junior High School Middle School 1. Primary thrust is toward 1. Primary thrust is toward learning a body of infor- learning how to learn mation. (study skills). 2. Departmentalized. 2. Team teaching. This checklist was left in the comparison form for ease of scrutiny. However, the finalized questionnaire items were scrambled. A number of authorities (see Appendix B) were asked if these characteristics identified middle school and junior high practices. Adjustments were made in the instrument from the suggestions that these experts returned in their responses (Appendix C). A revised questionnaire (Appendix D) was mailed to a second list of authorities in the field of middle school education, seeking their review of this improved instrument. Changes in the second instrument included use of a five-point Likert scale with the ideal middle school and ideal junior 38 high items appearing at either end of the scale. Questions were organized on the instrument in no discernible patterns (Appendix E). Each expert in the second group was called personally. This allowed the researcher to request their assistance with the revised instrument and to assure the instrument's prompt return. Following each conversation, the questionnaire and cover letter were mailed (Appendix F). Suggested changes were incorporated into the finalized questionnaire (Appendix F). One suggestion was to change the five-point scale to a nine- point scale for a more finite measurement of the collected data. The new scale now reads one through nine points, instead Of the original one through five points. Sample A random sample was obtained of the population of all the middle and junior high schools in the state of Michigan as listed in the 1979 Michigan Education Directory. Only public school districts were included. After compiling a total list of all of the junior high schools in the state of Michigan, 25 of those were selected to be included in the study. Each superintendent and board president Of that district received a questionnaire. The same procedure was used with the middle schools. The total schools equalled 50, with the total respondents equalling 100. This figure included superintendents and board presi- dents from each of the 50 schools. These two separate lists Of schools and their districts are shown in Appendix G. 39 Data Collection All addresses of the superintendents in the sampling were obtained from the 1979 Michigan Education Directory. The addresses of board of education presidents were obtained from the Michigan School Board Association. The board presidents were selected for the study because they usually had a longer tenure on the board of educa- tion than did superintendents. A cover letter (Appendix H), the finalized instrument, and a return-addressed stamped envelope were mailed to 50 school superin- tendents and to 50 board of education presidents. After a return of 57 questionnaires, a decision was made to send out a second mailing. A second cover letter (Appendix H) was mailed along with the same questionnaire to those superintendents and board of education presi- dents who had not previously responded. A great deal of care and attention was given to the collec- tion of the data as a system was developed to log in each questionnaire as it was returned. In addition, the questionnaires and envelopes of the original mailings had been color-coded for the purpose of record- ing the junior high and middle school respondents. Eighty-five of the 100 questionnaires mailed were returned. Only one was unusable, as one of the school districts had replicated the questionnaire and two people from that superintendent's office had responded. Only the originally mailed response was used in this case. Procedure of the Analysis The 2 x 2 factorial design was used to test the interaction hypothesis. If the interaction was retained, it implied that the 4O hypothesis was also retained. If, for a given dependent variable, an interaction was not retained, the hypothesis was further examined as a post-hoc comparison of the interaction, between groups, within groups, and with alpha equal to .05 and over all F tests. Further, though the schools' main effect and the respondents' main effect were not the main concern in this study, the F tests associated with the two main effects were also reported in the ANOVA tables. The 85 replies were organized in anotebook. The notebook was divided into four parts representing the source of the replies; that is: Part I --- Board Presidents ---- Middle Schools Part II -- Superintendents ---- Middle Schools Part III - Board Presidents ---- Junior High Schools Part IV -- Superintendents ---- Junior High Schools Returns were tallied for each point on each scale for each of the 37 questions. Examples follow: Question 1: Primary thrust is Primary thrust is toward learning a toward learning body of information how to learn Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T°ta' rap'ies 3 7 15 19 27 5 5 l l for each point: Twenty-seven people marked point five on the scale for their reply; 19 people marked point four, and so on. The means and standard devia- tions were analyzed and subjected to the two-way ANOVA. 41 Hypotheses The following hypotheses were derived to help test the general theory that there were no significant differences between the opinions of the superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those of superintendents and board of education presidents in junior high school districts in the nine areas that comprise the 37 characteristics of junior high schools and middle schools. The hypotheses to be tested between the two groups were: Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning curriculum between superintendents and board Of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis II: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning co-curriculum between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis III: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning staffing between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis IV: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning guidance between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis V: There is no significant difference in the Opinions concerning scheduling between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis VI: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning methodology between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 42 Hypothesis VII: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning media between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis VIII: There is no significant difference in the Opinions concerning resources between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Hypothesis IX: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning evaluation between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Design of the Statistical Analysis There were two main factors in this design. The first one was type of school,with two levels, middle school and junior high school. The second factor was type of respondent, with two levels, presidents of boards of education and superintendents. The nine hypotheses stated in the objectives were the interaction between the respondents and the two types of schools on each of the nine scales. To analyze this general premise about the interaction, the two-way ANOVA was used to test the nine scales separately. The 2 x 2 fac- torial design of the analysis of variance was used to test the nine hypotheses. Each of the nine dependent variables involved in this study was analyzed by this 2 x 2 factorial design separately. These nine dependent variables were mentioned in each hypothesis. Significance Level The alpha level was set at alpha = .05 for not retaining the null hypotheses. 43 Summary The evolution of the measuring instrument, selection, valid- ity, reliability, and format of the instrument, along with features of the sample, data collection, hypotheses, design of statistical analysis, and significance level were discussed in this chapter. After validation by two groups of authorities, 100 copies of the instrument, Characteristics Which Constitute a Middle School Program and a Junior High Program, were mailed to a random sample of 25 middle school district superintendents, 25 middle school board of education presidents, 25 junior high district superintendents, and 25 junior high board of education presidents. All public schools were located in the state of Michigan. Eighty-five questionnaires were returned. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS Introduction Descriptive information about the means and standard devia- tions of the nine dependent variables in the four groups of respond- ents is discussed in Chapter IV. These four groups are: 1. Board of education presidents from middle school districts. 2. Board of education presidents from junior high school districts. 3. Superintendents from middle school districts. 4. Superintendents from junior high school districts. The results of testing the nine hypotheses on each of the nine dependent variables are presented. Descriptive Information In Table 1, the means and standard deviations of the nine scales for superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and superintendents and board of education presidents in junior high school districts are reflected, along with these respondents' opinions of the middle school characteristics. 44 45 0m. 00.0 mm.0 mm.¢ 0m. mm.¢ em. mp.m compmspm>m m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mmocsomom 0 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00002 0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00000000002 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000000 0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00000000 0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00000000 0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 0000000c00-00 0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 2000000000 0 00 .0 00 .0 00 .0 00 .0 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 Foogum 000000 0 000: .c0 :00: .00 00 mflmmammee 000002 00 -c00000000 00000 0o 0000000000 mpcmucmpcwsmazm 0020000000 mpcmucwpcwcqum .000000 0:0: :0 00oogum :00; Lowczw 0:0 0000500 000002 0o 0000000000 0:0 mucmccwpcmsmaam yo 00000000000 0:0 00 0000000>mc csmccmum 0:0 mcmmz-i._ 00000 46 Findings Hypothesis I: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning curriculum between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Superintendents of middle school districts had a mean of 5.05, while the presidents of middle school districts had a mean of 4.75 (Table 1, Scale 1). The superintendents of junior high school dis- tricts had a mean of 4.83, while the presidents of junior high school districts showed a mean of 4.40. The Opinions of superintendents in middle school districts concerning curriculum centered at the mean, while the other three groups' opinions reflected more toward the junior high ideal. An r level was determined between the schools and respondees, and it was found not to be significant (.74) (Table 2). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the opinions concerning curriculum between middle school superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and those of the superintendents and board of education presidents of junior high school districts was retained. Hypothesis II: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning co-curriculum between the superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school districts and those of junior high school districts. Superintendents of middle school districts had a mean of 4.31, while the presidents of middle school districts had a mean of 4.55 (Table 1, Scale 2). The superintendents of junior high school dis- tricts had a mean of 4.63, while the presidents of junior high school 47 districts Showed a mean of 4.84. All four groups had opinions con- cerning co-curriculum more closely toward the junior high school ideal. Table 2.--Interaction between superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and superintendents and board presidents of junior high school districts on the char- acteristic, curriculum. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sign. Variation Squares Square Level Main effect: school 1.372 1 1.372 2.239 .139 Main effect: respondee 2.187 1 2.187 3.567 .063 School-respondee interaction .068 1 .068 .110 .740 Residual 49.042 80 .613 -- -- An r level was determined between the schools and respondees, and it was found not to be Significant (.96) (Table 3). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the opinions concerning co-curriculum between superintendents of middle school districts and board presidents of middle school districts and those Of the superintendents of junior high districts and board presidents of junior high school districts was retained. 48 “7 Table 3.--Interaction between superintendents and board presidents ; of middle school districts and superintendents and board i presidents of junior high school districts on the char- _[ acteristic, co-curriculum. . Source of Sum of df Mean F Sign. :l Variation Squares Square Level Main effect: school 1.417 1 1.471 2.074 .154 Main effect: respondee 1.006 1 1.006 1.472 .229 School-respondee interaction .001 1 .001 .002 .965 Residual 54.653 80 .683 -- -- Hypothesis III: There is no significant difference in the Opinions concerning staffing between superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Superintendents of middle school districts had a mean of 5.11, ; while the presidents of middle school districts had a mean of 4.75 (Table 1, Scale 3). The superintendents of junior high school dis- | tricts had a mean of 5.00, while the presidents of junior high school districts showed a mean of 4.29. The opinions of superintendents of Gd- '"" middle school districts and the superintendents of junior high school districts concerning the characteristic, staffing, were at the median point. The opinions of the other two groups were toward the junior high school ideal (4.75 and 4.29, respectively, for middle school and junior high school board presidents). An r level was determined between the schools and respondees, and it was not found to be significant (.45) (Table 4). Therefore, 49 the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the opinions concerning staffing between middle school superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and those of the superintendents and board presidents of junior high school districts was retained. Table 4.--Interaction between superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and superintendents and board presi— dents of junior high school districts on the characteristic, staffing. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sign. Variation Squares Square Level Main effect: school 1.479 1 1.479 1.822 .181 Main effect: respondee 3.921 1 3.921 4.832 .031 School-respondee interaction .467 l .467 .575 .450 Residua1 64.919 80 .811 -- -- Hypothesis IV: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning guidance between superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school districts and those of junior high school districts. Superintendents of middle school districts had a mean of 4.73, while the presidents of junior high school districts had a mean of 4.47 (Table 1, Scale 4). The superintendents of junior high school districts had a mean of 4.85, while the presidents of junior high school districts showed a mean of 4.90. On the characteristic, 50 guidance, the opinions of all four groups were closer to the junior high ideal. An r level was determined between the schools and respondees, and it was not found to be significant (.45) (Table 5). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the opinions concerning guidance between superintendents of middle school districts and board presidents of middle school districts and those of the superintendents and board presidents of junior high school dis- tricts was retained. Table 5.--Interaction between superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and superintendents and board presidents of junior high school districts on the char- acteristic, guidance. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sign. Variation Squares Square Level Main effect: School 1.393 1 1.393 2.188 .143 Main effect: respondee .526 l .526 .826 .366 School-respondee interaction .354 1 .354 .557 .458 Residual 50.937 80 .637 -- -- Hypothesis V: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning scheduling between superintendents and board of education presidents Of middle school districts and those of the junior high school districts. Opinions of superintendents of middle school districts on the characteristic, scheduling, had a mean of 5.76, while the presidents 51 of middle school districts had a mean of 5.55 (Table 1, Scale 5). The superintendents of junior high districts had a mean of 5.00, while the presidents of boards of education of junior high districts showed a mean of 5.06. Opinions of superintendents and presidents of middle school districts on the characteristic, scheduling, were more toward the middle school ideal, while superintendents and board of education presidents of junior high districts had scores at the median. An r level was determined between the schools and respondees, and it was found not be significant (.77) (Table 6). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the opin- ions of the characteristic, scheduling, between superintendents of middle school districts and board presidents of middle school dis- tricts and those of the superintendents and board presidents of junior high school districts was retained. Table 6.--Interaction between superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and superintendents and board presi- dents Of junior high school districts on the characteristic, scheduling. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sign. Variation Squares Square Level Main effect: school 5.600 1 5.600 1.714 .194 Main effect: respondee .292 1 .292 .089 .766 School-respondee interaction .263 1 .263 .080 .778 Residual 261.387 80 3.267 -- -- 52 Hypothesis VI: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning methodology between superintendents and board of education presidents of the middle school districts and those of junior high school districts. Superintendents of middle school districts had a mean of 5.08, while the presidents of middle school districts had a mean of 4.79 (Table 1, Scale 6). The superintendents Of junior high school districts had a mean of 4.70, while the presidents of junior high school districts showed a mean of 4.87. The opinions of middle school district superintendents on the characteristic, methodology, centered at the median. The opinions of the other three groups were toward the junior high ideal. An r level was determined between the schools and respondees, and it was found not to be significant (.07) (Table 7). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the opinions concerning methodology between middle school superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and those of the super- intendents and board presidents of junior high school districts was retained. Hypothesis VII: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning media between superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school districts and those of junior high school districts. Superintendents of middle school districts had a mean of 5.35, while the presidents of middle school districts had a mean of 5.30 (Table 1, Scale 7). The superintendents of junior high school dis- tricts had a mean of 5.56, while the presidents of junior high dis- tricts showed a mean of 5.03. The opinions of superintendents of 53 Table 7.--Interaction between superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and superintendents and board presi- dents of junior high school districts on the characteristic, methodology. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sign. Variation Squares Square Level Main effect: school .206 l .206 .834 .364 Main effect: respondee .493 1 .493 1.997 .161 School-respondee interaction .819 1 .819 3.320 .072 Residual 19.744 80 .247 -- -- middle school and junior districts and the presidents of junior high districts were scored near the median. Opinions of the junior high school district superintendents reflected a slight tendency toward the middle school ideal. An r level was determined between the schools and respondees, and it was not found to be significant (.32) (Table 8). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the opinions of the characteristic, media, between middle school superin- tendents and board presidents of middle school districts and those of the superintendents and board presidents of junior high school districts was retained. 54 Table 8.--Interaction between superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and superintendents and board presi- dents of junior high school districts on the characteristic, media. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sign. Variation Squares Square Level Main effect: school .061 1 .061 .066 .797 Main effect: respondee .656 1 .656 .717 .400 School-respondee interaction .882 1 .882 .964 .329 Residual 73.253 80 .916 -- -- Hypothesis VIII: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning resources between superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school districts and those of junior high school districts. Superintendents Of middle school districts had a mean of 6.00, while the presidents of middle school districts had a mean of 5.60 (Table 1, Scale 8). The superintendents of junior high districts had a mean of 6.25, while the presidents of junior high districts showed a mean of 6.00. The opinions of all of the respondents concerning resources were closer to the middle school ideal than to the junior high school ideal. An r level was determined between the schools and respondees, and it was not found to be significant (.84) (Table 9). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the Opinions of the characteristic, resources, between middle school superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and 55 those of the superintendents and board presidents of junior high school districts was retained. Table 9.--Interaction between superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and superintendents and board presidents of junior high school districts on the char- acteristic, resources. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sign. Variation Squares Square Level Main effect: school 1.753 1 1.753 .745 .391 Main effect: respondee 2.381 1 3.281 1.012 .318 School-respondee interaction .086 1 .086 .036 .849 Residual 188.300 80 2.354 -- -- Hypothesis IX: There is no significant difference in the opinions concerning evaluation between superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school districts and those of junior high school districts. Superintendents of middle school districts had a mean of 5.15, while the presidents of middle school districts had a mean of 4.59 (Table 1, Scale 9). The superintendents Of junior high school dis- tricts had a mean of 4.68, while the presidents of junior high dis- tricts showed a mean of 4.41. The opinions of middle school district superintendents concerning evaluation reflected more closely the middle school ideal than did the other three groups of respondents. The Opinions of these groups were toward the junior high ideal. 56 An r level was determined between the schools and respondees, and it was not found to be significant (.55) (Table 10). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts as compared to superintendents and board presidents of junior high school districts regarding evaluation was retained. Table 10.--Interaction between superintendents and board presidents of middle school districts and superintendents and board presidents of junior high school districts on the char- acteristic, evaluation. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sign. Variation Squares Square Level Main effect: school 1.447 1 1.447 1.521 .221 Main effect: respondee 4.212 1 4.212 4.426 .039 School-respondee interaction .337 1 .337 .354 .553 Residual 76.130 80 .952 -- -- Summary In summary, the opinions of superintendents of middle school districts had mean scores larger than the other three groups of respondents on the characteristics: curriculum, staffing, scheduling, methodology, and evaluation. Their opinions were toward the middle school ideal. The Opinions of superintendents of junior high schools on the characteristics, curriculum, co-curriculum, guidance, method- ology, and evaluation were toward the junior high school ideal. 57 The opinions of presidents of middle school districts had mean scores in curriculum, co-curriculum, staffing, guidance, methodology, and evaluation that were toward the junior high ideal. The opinions of board presidents in junior high districts had mean scores in curriculum, co-curriculum, staffing, guidance, methodology, and evaluation toward the junior high ideal. Using the two-way ANOVA to analyze each Of the nine char- acteristics, it was found that there was no significant difference in the opinions of superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school districts and those of superintendents and board of education presidents Of junior high school districts on any of the nine characteristics, namely, curriculum, co-curriculum, staffing, guidance, scheduling, methodology, media, resources, and evaluation. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Since 1910, the goals of the junior high school were very similar to those of today's middle school. But, in time, it became apparent that the junior high school had become a "junior" high school. The implementation of the original goals was no longer being realized. The middle school emerged in the 19605 designed to meet the unique physical, emotional, intellectual, and social growth char- acteristics of these children, age 11-14. Middle schools steadily grew in numbers throughout the United States. An abundance of lit- erature pertaining to this educational program for transescents became available. Teacher certification for educators of the "youth in the middle" evolved in some states. m The general purpose of this study was to determine the Opin- ions of superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and in junior high districts on nine characteristics that identify a middle school and a junior high school. A 37-item survey was developed to elicit data necessary to answer the research questions. The items were designed to reflect 58 59 characteristics of a middle school and characteristics of a junior high school. This survey tool was mailed to authorities in the field of middle school education. After their suggestions for improvement were incorporated, a second instrument was mailed to a group of middle school practitioners. They critiqued the instrument, and suggestions were incorporated. The finalized questionnaire, Characteristics Which Constitute a Middle School Program and a Junior High Program, included 37 variables. Each respondent was asked to place an X on a nine-point Likert scale. Twenty-five superintendents from public school dis- tricts housing middle schools and 25 superintendents from public school districts housing junior high schools were randomly selected from all of the public junior high and middle schools in the state of Michigan. The board of education president from each of the 50 school districts received a questionnaire along with the superintendent. Eighty-five percent of the questionnaires were returned. Mean scores were computed for each of the subjects for the characteristics, and the two-way ANOVA was used to analyze each of the nine characteristics. Conclusions Curriculum The opinions of superintendents of middle school districts were neither toward the ideal middle school curriculum or the ideal junior high curriculum. The opinions of superintendents of junior high school districts, board of education presidents of middle school districts and junior high districts were toward the ideal junior high curriculum. 60 Co-Curriculum The Opinions of all four groups, superintendents of middle school districts and junior high districts and board of education presidents of middle school districts and junior high districts, were toward the ideal junior high co-curriculum characteristic. Staffing The opinions of superintendents of middle school and junior high districts were neither toward the ideal middle school staffing characteristicrun~the ideal junior high staffing characteristic. The opinionscfiiboard of education presidents of middle school and junior high districts were toward the ideal junior high staffing characteristic. Guidance All four groups, superintendents of middle schools and junior high schools and board of education presidents of middle schools and junior high schools, had opinions more toward the ideal junior high guidance characteristic. Scheduling Opinions of superintendents and board of education presidents Of middle school districts were more toward the ideal middle school schedule characteristic, whereas the opinions of superintendents and board of education presidents of junior high school districts were neither toward the ideal middle school schedule characteristic nor the ideal junior high school schedule characteristic. 61 Methodology Opinions of superintendents of middle school districts were neither toward the ideal middle school methodology characteristic nor the ideal junior high school methodology characteristic. The other three groups, superintendents of junior high school districts and board of education presidents of middle school and junior high dis- tricts, were toward the ideal junior high school methodology char- acteristic. Midi}. Opinions of superintendents of middle school and junior high school districts were neither toward the ideal junior high media char- acteristic nor the ideal middle school media characteristic. Opinions of the board of education presidents of middle school districts and junior high school districts were slightly toward the ideal middle school media characteristic. Resources Opinions of all of the respondents, superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school and junior high districts, were toward the ideal middle school resources characteristic. Evaluation Opinions of the superintendents of middle school districts were toward the ideal middle school evaluation characteristic, whereas superintendents of junior high school districts and board of educa- tion presidents of middle school and junior high school districts were toward the ideal junior high evaluation characteristic. 62 Each of the hypotheses was subjected to a significance test, and the conclusions were as follows: 1. There was no significant difference in the opinions concerning curriculum between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 2. There was no significant difference in the Opinions con- cerning co-curriculum between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 3. There was no significant difference in the opinions con- cerning staffing between superintendents and board of education presi- dents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 4. There was no significant difference in the opinions con- cerning guidance between superintendents and board of education presi- dents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 5. There was no significant difference in the opinions con- cerning scheduling between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 6. There was no Significant difference in the Opinions con- cerning methodology between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 63 7. There was no significant difference in the opinions con- cerning media between superintendents and board of education presi- dents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 8. There was no significant difference in the opinions con- cerning resources between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. 9. There was no significant difference in the opinions con- cerning evaluation between superintendents and board of education presidents in middle school districts and those in junior high school districts. Discussion of the Findings In an overall examination of means of the nine characteris- tics for middle and junior high schools, almost all resources tended to congregate at the mean, which is 5.0. In other words, board of education presidents and superintendents of middle school districts and junior high districts did not have opinions that were clearly middle school or junior high school. The researcher expected to find board of education presidents and superintendents of middle schools having opinions concerning a particular characteristic to lean toward the middle school, and the board of education presidents and superintendents of junior high school districts to be toward the junior high school. In all nine characteristics there was no clear-cut division, and any scores from the mean were only slight. 64 These data might indicate that superintendents and board of education presidents did not have a clear understanding of not only the characteristics of a middle school, but also the characteristics of a junior high school. Without a clearer understanding, how can these characteristics be implemented, whether a school district has a junior high school or plans to implement a middle school? Even though these policy makers decide to implement a middle school, the question must be raised, "How do they know that the pro- fessional staff has achieved a middle school program--or that the program is a carbon copy of the typical junior high school?" Of the nine characteristics, the data showed that superin- tendents of middle schools approached the ideal middle school char- acteristic in only three instances. 0n four characteristics they scored at the median point, whereas two characteristics were toward the ideal junior high characteristic. The data were slightly different for the superintendents of junior high districts. Only five characteristics were toward the ideal junior high, three were at the median, and one was toward the ideal middle school. The board of education presidents of middle school districts had only three characteristics toward the ideal middle school, and six were toward the ideal junior high. None was found at the median. At least, one could say that board of education presidents of middle school districts had some definite ideas despite their lack of under- standing of what constituted a middle school. 65 The board of education presidents of junior high districts had six characteristics toward the ideal junior high, one at the median, and two toward the ideal middle school. The data showed greater consistency between the superinten- dents and presidents of junior high districts, with a significant number of ideal junior high characteristics. This was not true of the superintendents and board of education presidents of middle school districts. They scored few characteristics toward the ideal middle school and a significant number toward the ideal junior high (especially the presidents). Implications According to the data, there seemed to be no clear under- standing on the part of superintendents and board of education presi- dents as to the characteristics of a middle school and those of a junior high school. To remedy this situation, there should be in-depth discussions on how middle schools differ from junior high schools. Furthermore, presentations of the differences between a middle school program and a junior high school program, such as the filmstrip- cassette entitled "The Middle School--A Humanizing Effort,"1 could be reviewed. Discussion following the Showing would be most helpful in bringing out an understanding Of the middle school. Another implication of these data would call for superin- tendents and board of education presidents to plan field trips to 1A. Kinsinger and L. Romano, "The Middle School--A Humanizing Effort" (Michigan State University: Michigan Association of Middle School Educators, 1978). 66 middle schools within the state. Care should be exercised that in observing a middle school, practices be identified that are consis- tent with a middle school philosophy. For example, a middle school that includes interscholastic sports should be pointed out to the visitors that this practice is part of the junior high program and is not consistent with the middle school philosophy. Although this study was limited to superintendents and board of education presidents, it seems advisable that gll_members of the educational family be included in gll_in-service efforts devoted to knowing the significant differences between a middle school and a junior high school. This common understanding and effort would rein- force learnings for all participants. They would be able to critique each other in discussions. Besides discussions, audio-visual presentations, and visi- tations, superintendents and board of education presidents should plan to attend meaningful conferences such as those planned yearly by the Michigan Association of Middle School Educators and the National Middle School Association. Recommendations for Further Study There is a need for a study to determine why some of the respondents marked some of the items as critically as they did. Respondents' opinions appeared to favor some junior high character- istics. It might be of interest to determine the reasons why superin- tendents and board of education presidents have Opinions concerning particular characteristics. 67 Another study might focus on how superitnendents' and board presidents' opinions affect programs of middle schools in their dis- tricts. A parallel study with a sample comprised of respondents from different Michigan schools might be researched and their opinions compared to those reflected in this study, or the study could be reflected using a national sample. Opinions of respondents from urban and those from rural dis- tricts might be compared in another study. Or a researcher could look at the size of the district to determine if size deters the implementation of a middle school program. Pairing of respondents' opinions could be of interest to see if teams of peOple who work together, i.e., superintendents and board presidents, agree in their opinions on middle school characteristics. The question to be explored would be, "Do superintendents and board of education presidents in the same school districts have the same understanding as to middle school districts?" Still another study might be a replication using teachers and principals as the respondents to assess their opinions regarding characteristics of a middle school. Reflections In this study it became clear to the researcher that there is much confusion among our educational policy makers as to what a middle school or a junior high school is. The data left the researcher to lose some of her idealism concerning these educational leaders. 68 Another startling finding was the middle-Of-the-road stance indicated by so many educational leaders and a seeming reluctance to take a strong stand for one set of characteristics or the other. This concern was reinforced as the data revealed that so many of the responses fell near the median. The researcher anticipated strong opinions toward either the ideal junior high school characteristics or toward the ideal middle school characteristics. This anticipation was not realized in this study. APPENDICES 69 APPENDIX A EIGHTEEN MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS 7O 01 APPENDIX A EIGHTEEN MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS] Continuous Progress Multi-material Approach Flexible Schedules Social Experiences Physical Experiences and Intramural Activities Team Teaching Planned Gradualism Exploratory Enrichment Studies Guidance Services Independent Study Basic Skill Repair and Extension Creative Experiences Security Factor Evaluation Community Relations Student Services Auxiliary Staffing 1Riegle, "A Study of Middle School Programs." 71 APPENDIX 8 LIST OF EXPERTS 72 APPENDIX 8 LIST OF EXPERTS Dr. Nicholas Georgiady, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Dr. Louis Romano, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Dr. Joe Raymer, Superintendent of Schools, Rockford, Michigan Dr. Alexander Kloster, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan Dr. Conrad F. Toepfer, State University of New York, Albany, New York Dr. James Heald, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois Dr. Jacqueline Caul, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Dr. Glen Gerard, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Forest Hills, Grand Rapids, Michigan 73 APPENDIX C COVER LETTER TO FIRST EIGHT AUTHORITIES 74 APPENDIX C COVER LETTER TO FIRST EIGHT AUTHORITIES August 22, 1978 Dr. Nicholas P. Georgiady 110 West Bullrun Oxford, Ohio 45056 Dear Nick, Lou Romano says, "Hello." He suggested that I ask if you would take a look at the enclosed comparison and critique it. I am work- ing on a Ph.D. in the Middle School with Lou. My thesis is that superintendents and boards of education know what a middle school is. The format of comparisons of a junior high school to a middle school has been used. For the questionnaire, the concepts are scrambled. My plan is to ask superintendents and board of education members to check the items which they feel constitute a middle school. The questionnaire has been left in the comparison form for ease of critiquing. Do the items truly designate middle school practice? Enclosed is a return-addressed, stamped envelope for convenience in reply. Thank you for your help, Nick. I remember meeting you two summers ago, when you addressed Lou's middle school seminar at the M.S.U. campus. Sincerely, Jean Marlowe JM Enclosures: 2 75 76 August 17, 1978 Mrs. Jean Marlow 7764 Walnut Avenue Jenison, Michigan 49428 Dear Jean: Thank you for your recent letter. I am delighted that you are seriously pursuing a doctorate and especially with my very good friend, Lou Romano. The topic you have selected for your dissertation is highly worthy of investigation. I am not sure that you will find the evidence you seek that confirms your belief regarding boards of education being able to identify middle school characteristics correctly. I will be very curious about your findings. I have examined the listing of characteristics and offer these reactions and suggestions for your consideration. First, I would question, as others might, whether the term Junior High School is accurate enough for your purposes. Some junior high schools have rather good programs with many of the characteristics of the middle school concept. I believe that what you are looking for is the traditional or conservative (outmoded) junior high school, at the far end of your continuum, far from the middle school, that is. As to specific items, I would suggest the following may deserve some further attention: 4. Read "interschool." Should this be intraschool, that is within the middle school building? 7. "Many teachers by a class." This sounds like a high school. You really mean several teachers, or a team of teachers, don't you? The middle school concept advocates more than the one teacher per class in the elementary school but not the numerous teachers each student meets in the departmentalized high school --Something in-between for the middle school student. 8. "Rigid 45-minute schedule." Insert the word "period" after "minute." 11. "Class use of instructor only." The real meaning is unclear to me--you ought to restate this. 21. I would suggest--"Retention in grade or failure" in place of just "retention." 77 Page 2 Mrs. Jean Marlcw August 17, 1978 24. Would you consider including "psychomotor" along with affec- tive as these two are closely related? 28 834. These two sound very similar. Is this intentional? 36. Do you mean students are fully independent or that they are responsible for their own behavior? I hope my quick reactions are of some help to you. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best wishes, N. P. Georgiady Professor NPG/pab APPENDIX D CHECKLIST DESIGN OF THE INSTRUMENT 78 APPENDIX D CHECKLIST DESIGN OF THE INSTRUMENT Matching items on a continuum from Junior High to Middle School Junior High School Program 1. Learning a body of information 2. Curriculum development for the high school student 3. Departmentalized 4. Interscholastic sports 5. Marching bands 6. Physical education geared to the exceptional 7. One teacher for a class 8. Rigid 45-minute period schedule 9. Single-textbook approach 10. Minimal media approach 11. Total class use of instruc- tor only 12. Teacher-directed instruction 13. Adherence to the teacher- made lesson plan 14. Homogeneous grouping 15. Minimum community resource use 79 Middle School Program Learning how to learn Curriculum developed to specific- ally meet the needs, interests, and problems of pre- and early adolescents Team teaching Intramural Sports Band for intraschool perform- ances only Physical education geared to all students Team of teachers for a class Flexible schedule Multi-textbook approach Maximum media approach Variable class size instruction Pupil-teacher planned instruction Student self-directed under expert guidance Heterogeneous grouping Maximum community resource use 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Teacher responsible for learning Use of formal ABC grading Dances and other night activities Meeting class needs Guidance designed to get student ready for high school Retention in grade or failure Curriculum design for getting ready for high school Textbook approach with all students on the same page at the same time Greatest concentration on cognitive skills Limited creative experiences Library materials for the specific grade levels Teachers are responsible for the students' learning Students' achievement compared with other students Memorization Standard classroom Honor rolls Teaching is predominantly lecture 80 Student responsible for learning Use of diagnostic evaluation tools plus parent-teacher conferences Rich variety of co-curricular activities during the day and after school Meeting individual needs Guidance designed to meet the here-and-now needs of the student Continuous progress for each stu- dent Curriculum design to meet specific needs and interests of the pre- adolescent A self-pacing approach with stu- dents learning at different rates Concentration on both cognitive, affective, and psychomotor areas Extensive opportunities for creative experiences Library materials encompass read- ing levels for grades three to adult level Students are responsible for their own learning Students' achievement compared with own goals . Learning how to learn Variable group size Recognition for all students Teaching includes much discussion and small-group work 33. 34. 35. 36. Competes with other students in class Subject-centered program Mastery of concepts and skills Teacher control 81 Competes with his own goals Child-centered program Creative expression Student independence APPENDIX E CHARACTERISTICS WHICH CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM AND A JUNIOR HIGH PROGRAM 82 APPENDIX E CHARACTERISTICS WHICH CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM AND A JUNIOR HIGH PROGRAM Each of the following items from the literature identifies a middle school program or a junior high school program. This list indi- cates the present "ideal type" junior high and the original "ideal type“ middle school. Please place an M for middle school on the lines below to indi- cate at which point you believe that item pertains to the middle school. . Primary thrust is toward learning a body Of information . Curriculum developed for the high school student . Team teaching . Bands for intraschool performances only . Interscholastic sports . Physical education for all students 83 Primary thrust is toward learning how to learn (study skills) Curriculum developed to specifically meet the needs, interests, and problems of pre- and early adolescents Departmentalized Marching bands Intramural sports Physical education for the exceptional student 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. . One teacher for a class . Rigid block period . Textbook approach Maximum media approach Instructor used for small group or individuals Pupil-teacher planned instruction Student self-directed under faculty guidance Heterogeneous grouping Minimum emphasis upon community resource use 84 Team of teachers for some classes Flexible schedule Multi-materials approach Minimal media approach Instructor used for total class group Teacher-directed instruction Adherence to the teacher- made lesson plan Homogeneous grouping Maximum emphasis upon community resource use 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Teacher responsible for learning Dominance of formal ABC grading Rich variety of co-curricular activities during the day and after school Meeting individual needs Guidance designed to get student ready for high school Retention in grade or failure Curriculum designed for getting ready for high school Textbook organization with all students on the same page at the same time 85 Student and teacher respon- sible for learning Use of diagnostic evaluation tools plus parent-teacher conferences. Varied evalua- tion tools Dances and other night activities Meeting class needs Guidance designed to meet the social, emotional, and intellectual needs of the student Continuous progress for student Curriculum designed to meet specific needs and interests of the pre-adolescent A self-pacing approach with students learning at dif- ferent rates 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Concentration on cognitive, psychomotor, and affective areas Extensive opportunities for creative experiences 1 l Library materials for the specific grade levels Teachers are responsible for the students' learning Students' achievement com- pared with other students Learning how to learn Teaching is predominantly lecture Variable group size Recognition for all students 86 Greatest concentration on cognitive skills Limited creative experi- ences Library materials encompass reading levels for grades three to adult level Students are responsible for their own learning Students' achievement com- pared with own goals Memorization Teaching includes much dis- cussion and small-group work Standard classroom Honor rolls 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Child-centered program Competes with his own goals Creative expression Teacher control Use secondary-trained teachers Subject-centered program Competes with other students and/or rigid scales in class Mastery of cognitive con- cepts and skills Students are responsible for their own behavior Use elementary-trained teachers APPENDIX F SECOND LIST OF AUTHORITIES AND LETTERS 88 APPENDIX F SECOND LIST OF AUTHORITIES AND LETTERS Dr. Gerald Burgeois, Maine Dr. Tom Maglaras, Colorado Dr. Ken McEwin, North Carolina Howard McIntyre, Maryland Thomas E. Moeller, Missouri Sheri Russell, Ohio Frank Whittlesey, Texas 89 90 January 2, 1979 Lou Romano says, "Hello." He suggested that I ask you if you would take a look at the enclosed Factors Which Constitute a Middle School instrument and critique it. Currently, I am writing my doctoral dissertation on the topic and am working under Lou's direction. My thesis is that superintendents and Board of Education members know what a middle school is. I have used a Likert Scale with 5 points with the middle school being at either end of the scale. I have mixed them up in no set pat- tern. My plan is to ask superintendents and Board of Education members to place an M on the line at the point where they believe the middle School concepts to be. Do these items truly designate the middle school? Will the marking Of the M on the scale truly indicate the understanding and per- ceptions of the superintendents and Board of Education members for the middle school philosophy? Are there problems inherent in the scoring of this instrument? Your help in critiquing this instrument would be sincerely appreciated. Enclosed in a return-addressed, stamped envelope for convenience in replying. Thank you for your reply. Sincerely yours, Jean M. Marlowe JM: 2 enclosures 91 January 15, 1979 Ms. Jean M. Marlowe Jenison Public Schools 8375 20th Avenue Jenison, Michigan 49428 Dear Ms. Marlowe: I have received your instrument "Factors Which Constitute a Middle School" with your request that I critique it. By the way, would you convey my greeting to Lou Romano and tell him I am anxious to see him in February at our board meeting. I have the following comments to make regarding your instrument: 1. The middle school descriptors which you use are fine. However, the middle and junior high descriptors dichotomize the two rather severely. It is like establishing two groups--"the white hats" and "the black hats." You have a priori determined the items which designate the "ideal" middle school and stated the contrast between the middle school and junior high in such a way that you may not precisely measure board member and superintendent perceptions. In other words, the construction of your instruments may predict the results. See for examples item two, four, five, nine, ten, and others. I do have some concerns with your list describing the "ideal" junior high school. What literature presents this? I would suggest that the ideal middle school and the ideal junior high, as defined in the literature, would be more convergent in philosophy than divergent. I would suggest more precise instructions and directions on how to use the instrument. In other words, how are people to rate each item? For example, you need to define the scale of one to five on the form, and provide a description of what a specific response means or at least a definition of what each incremental movement in the Likert scale in either direction would indicate. I would suggest that you include some instructions or directions on the types of comments you are soliciting or how respondents should use the comment section of the instrument. What information will you have when you compile all of your returns; how will you score each return and the total returns; and how will you use the result on each specific question? I have incorporated comments throughout your instrument so please look through there to find those. I hope they are self-explanatory. 92 Jean Marlowe January 15, 1979, Page 2 Good luck in your challenging assignment. You have an excellent advisor in Lou. I would be interested in seeing the results of your study when you complete it. Sincerely, Tom Maglaras, Ed.D. Director of Middle Schools eol/129 APPENDIX G SCHOOL DISTRICTS SENT QUESTIONNAIRES 93 APPENDIX G SCHOOL DISTRICTS SENT QUESTIONNAIRES 1979 MED POPULATION 232 Junior High Schools--designated by Letter J Random Sample--25 Schools 1. Albion 18. 2. Allegan 19. 3. Bessemer 20. 4. Brooklyn 21. 5. Capac 22. 6. Caro 23. 7. Croswell 24. 8. Dearborn Heights NDH 25. 9. Detour Village 10. East Jordan 11. Grant 12. Grosse Ile l3. Kingsford 14. Manistee 15. Manistique 16. Northport 17. Pinconning 94 Redford Saginaw BV Shelby Standish Vicksburg Waterford Watervliet Ypsilanti POWRCS 1979 MED POPULATION 95 163 Middle Schools--designated by Letter M Random Sample--25 Schools \l 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 0301wa Adrian Bronson Burton (A) Chelsea Clare Goodrich G. R. Northview Gwinn Hart Hartford Houghton Lake Hudson Jackson (Monroe) Kalkaska Lawton Madison Heights Mancelona 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Morenci Oak Park Quincy Roscommon Southfield Springport Sturgis Ypsilanti APPENDIX H COVER LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS AND PRESIDENTS 96 APPENDIX H COVER LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS AND PRESIDENTS January 22, 1979 Dear Sir, Let me introduce myself. I have been working as a teacher and a principal for 12 years in the Grand Rapids and Jenison Public Schools and have been involved to a large degree with the middle school concept. Currently, I am writing my doctoral dissertation on the middle schools under the direction of Dr. Louis Romano, Michigan State University. The purpose of this study is to obtain the perceptions of selected superintendents and Board of Education Presidents as to what factors constitute middle schools. This list was derived from a comprehensive study of the literature in the field. Would you please take five minutes to study and mark the enclosed Likert Scale with an X on the line for each item measured? The X need not be at either extreme and can be placed at any point on the scale. An example might be: Open School Closed School (Area for Comment) Available computer time is limited to me, so there is a need to get the questionnaire back as quickly as possible. If you could get this into the mail yet today, I would sincerely appreciate it. To facilitate this, the enclosed stamped, addressed envelope is ready for your anticipated and awaited reply. Thank you for your continued concern for children. Sincerely yours Jean Marlowe, Principal Maplewood School JM: 2 enclosures 97 98 February 12, 1979 Just in case you have mislaid the instrument (Factors Which Con- stitute a Middle School) mailed in January, I am enclosing another copy for your convenience in responding. You are part of a personally selected group, and your perceptions in this area of education are of high importance to me and other edu- cators. I am very eager to hear from you and have included a stamped, addressed envelope for ease of reply. Thank you for your help in this research on the education of chil- dren in the junior high and middle school programs of Michigan. Please indicate on the instrument if you desire a copy of the results of this study. Sincerely yours, Jean M. Marlowe, Principal Maplewood School Jenison Public Schools JM: 2 enclosures APPENDIX I CHARACTERISTICS WHICH CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL 99 APPENDIX I CHARACTERISTICS WHICH CONSTITUTE A MIDDLE SCHOOL Junior High and Middle School Superintendents' Perceptions of the Thirty-Seven Survey Variables: JUNIOR HIGH CHARACTERISTICS MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS I. 1. 22. 24. 25. 35. CURRICULUM AREAS: Primary thrust is toward learning a body of informa- tion. . Curriculum developed for the high school student. Curriculum designed for getting ready for high school. Greatest concentration on cognitive skills. Limited creative experi- ence. Mastery of cognitive con- cepts and skills. . CO-CURRICULUM AREAS: 18. III. . Marching bands. . Interscholastic sports. . Physical education for the exceptional student. Dances and other night activities. STAFFING AREAS: 37. . Departmentalized. . One teacher for a class. Use secondary-trained teachers. 2. 22. 24. 25. 35. I. CURRICULUM AREAS: . Primary thrust is toward learning how to learn. Curriculum developed to specific- ally meet the needs, interests and problems of pre- and early adoles- cents. Curriculum designed to meet spe- cific needs and interests of the pre-adolescent. Concentration on cognitive, psycho- motor, and affective areas. Extensive opportunities for crea- tive experiences. Creative expression. II. CO-CURRICULUM AREAS: 0301 18. . Bands for intraschool perform- ances only. . Intramural sports. . Physical education for all students. Rich variety of co-curricular activities during the day and after school. III. STAFFING AREAS: 3. 7. 37. 100 Team teaching. Team of teachers for some classes. Use elementary-trained teachers. IV. 12. 13. 19. 20. 29. JUNIOR HIGH CHARACTERISTICS GUIDANCE AREAS: Teacher-directed instruction. Adherence to the teacher- made lesson plan. Meeting class needs. Guidance designed to get student ready for high school. Memorization. . SCHEDULING AREA: VI. . Rigid block period. METHODOLOGY: 14. 16. 23. VII. . Textbook approach. 11. Instructor used for total class. Heterogeneous grouping. Teacher responsible for learning. Textbook organization with all students on the same page at the same time. . Teachers are responsible for the students' learning. . Teaching is predominantly lecture. . Standard classroom. . Subject-centered program. . Teacher control. MEDIA AREA: 10. 26. VIII. Minimal media approach. Library materials for specific grade. RESOURCES: 15. Minimum emphasis on com- munity resources. 101 IV. MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS GUIDANCE AREAS: 12. 13. 19. 20. 29. Pupil-teacher planned instruc- tion. Student self-directed under faculty guidance. Meeting individual needs. Guidance designed to meet the social, emotional and intellectual needs of students. Learning how to learn. . SCHEDULING AREA: VI. . Flexible schedule. METHODOLOGY: 14. 16. 23. 27. 30. 31. . Child-centered program. 36. VII. . Multi-materials approach. 11. Instructor used for small group or individuals. Homogeneous grouping. Student and teacher responsible for learning. A self-pacing approach with students learning at different rates. Students are responsible for their own learning. Teaching includes much discus- sion and small-group work. Variable group size. Students are responsible for their own behavior. MEDIA AREA: 10. 26. VIII. Maximum media approach. Library materials for grades three to adult. RESOURCES: 15. Maximum emphasis upon community resources. IX. 17. 21. 28. 32. 34. JUNIOR HIGH CHARACTERISTICS EVALUATION: Dominance of formal ABC grading. Retention in grade or failure. Students' achievements compared. Honor rolls. Competes with other stu- dents and/or rigid scales in class. 102 IX. 17. 21. 28. 32. 34. MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS EVALUATION: Use of diagnostic evaluation tools plus parent-teacher conference. Continuous progress for each student. Achievement compared with own goals. Recognition for all students. Competes with own goals. BIBLIOGRAPHY 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alexander, William M.; Williams, Emmett L.; Compton, Mary; Hines, Vynce A.; and Prescott, Dan. The Emergent Middle School. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. Curtis, Thomas E., and Bidwell, Wilma W. Curriculum and Instruction for Emergipg Adolescents. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1977. DeVita, Joseph C.; Pumerantz, Philip; and Wilklow, Leghton B. Ihg_ Effective Middle School. New York: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1970. Eichhorn, D. H. The Middle School. New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966. George, Paul 3., ed. The Middle School--A Look Ahead. Florida University: NMSA, 1977. Good, Carter V., ed. Dictionary of Education. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Grooms, M. Ann. Perspectives on the Middle School. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967. Hertling, James E., and Getz, Howard G. Education for the Middle School Years: Readings. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971. Howard, Alvin W., and Stoumbis, George C. The Junior High and Middle School: Issues and Practices. London: Intext Educational Publishers, 1970. Moss, Theodore C. Middle School. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1969. Popper, Samuel H. The American Middle School: An Organizational Analysis. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1967. Pumerantz, Philip, and Galano, Ralph W. Establishing Interdisciplinary Programs in the Middle School. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1972. 104 105 Romano, Louis G.; Georgiady, Nicholas P.; and Heald, James E. The Middle School: Selected Readings on an Emergipg School PFOgram. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1973. Stradley, William E., and Aspinall, Richard 0. Discipline in the Junior High/Middle School: A Handbook for Teachers. New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1975. Periodicals Alexander, William M. "The Middle School: In Retrospect and Prospect." Texas Tech. Journal of Education 3 (1976): 157. Billings, Ron L. "Musts for a Middle School." Clearing House, April 1976, p. 377. Dettre, John R. "The Middle School, A Separate and Equal Entity." The Clearinngouse, September 1973, p. 20. Disque, Jerry. "In-Between: The Adolescents' Struggle for Indepen- dence." Phi Delta Kappan, 1973, pp. 8-9. Eichhorn, Donald H. "Youth Cultures: What Can We Learn?" Educational Leadership, April 1978, pp. 499-502. Epstein, Herman T., and Toepfer, Conrad F., Jr. "A Neuroscience Basis for Reorganizing Middle Grades Education." Educational Leader- ship, May 1978, PP. 656-60. Fenwick, James J. "Insights Into the Middle School Years." Educational Leadership 34 (April 1977): 528-35. Garner, Arthur E. "Is Your Middle School Ready?" NASSP Bulletin 60 (November 1976): 98-102. Groden, Austin F. "Junior High vs. Middle School vs. Adolescents." NASSP Bulletin 60 (January 1976): 109-12. Huber, Joseph D. "Reincarnation of the One Room Schoolhouse, The American Middle School." The Clearing House 49 (November 1975): 104. McCarthy, Robert J. "Student and Staff Advocates in the Middle School." NASSP Bulletin 60 (March 1976): 90-94. McGlasson, Maurice. "The Middle School: Whence? What? Whither?" Phi Delta Kappan, 1973, p. 12. Mead, Margaret. "Are We Squeezing Out Adolescents?" The Education Digest 26 (November 1960): 12. 106 "Middle Schools Spread Fast--and Stir Controversy." U.S. News and World Report, February 2, 1976, pp. 41-42. Mitchell, Ronald. "How to Start a Middle School." The National Ele- mentary Principal 99 (June 1979): 46-48. Rathban, Dorothy. "How to Cope in the Middle School Jungle." Learning, November 1977, pp. 40+. Romano, Louis, guest ed. Michigan Journal of Secondary Education (Ann Arbor: Michigan Association of Secondary School Prin- cipals, Summer 1971). Sinks, Thomas A.; Bough, Max; McLute, John; Malinka, Robert; and Terman, Dorothy J. T. "The Middle School Trend: Another Look at the Upper Midwest." The Clearing House 49 (October 1975): 56-104. Slate, Virginia S. "A Program to Train the Middle School Principal." NASSP Bulletin 59 (November 1975): 75-81. Toepfer, C. F., Jr. "Challenge to Middle School Education: Preventing Regression to the Mean." Middle School Journal 7 (September 1976 : 3+. Woodring, Paul, and Casse, James. "The New Intermediate School." Saturdangeview, October 1965, pp. 77-78. Essays and Articles in Collections Alexander, William M. "Alternative Futures for the Middle School." In The Middle School--A Look Ahead. Edited by Paul S. George. Florida University: NMSA, 1977. Bondi, Joseph. "Addressing the Issues: The Middle School, A Positive Change in American Education." In The Middle School--A Look Ahead. Edited by Paul S. George. Florida University: NMSA, 1977. Conover, H. Richard. "The Junior High School Principalship." In Schools for the Middle Years: Readings, Edited by Alvin W. Howard and George C. Stoumbis. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Company, 1979. Curtis, Thomas E. "Administrators View the Middle School." In Schools for the Middle Years: Readings. Edited by Alvin W. Howard and George C. Stoumbis. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Company, 1979. 107 Fox, James H., Jr. "Middle School: Surviving, Refining and Growing in the Future." In The Middle School--A Look Ahead. Edited by Paul S. George.- Florida University: NMSA, 1977. Malinka, Robert. "The Middle School: Trends and Trouble Spots." In The Middle School--A Look Ahead. Edited by Paul 5. George. Florida University: NMSA, 1977. "Middle School in the Making: Readings." In Educational Leadership. Edited by Robert Leeper. ASCD, 1974. Romano, Louis. "The Middle School--An Emerging Cesspool." Indiana Middle School Association Yearbook, 1978. Publications of Professional Organizations Egnatuck, Tony; Georgiady, Nicholas; and Romano, Louis G. "The Middle School: A Position Paper." East Lansing: Michigan Associa- tion of Middle School Educators, 1975. Eichhorn, Donald H. "Middle School in the Making." Position State- ment of the Michigan Junior High-Middle School Task Force. East Lansing: Michigan Association of Middle School Educators, 1974. Johnson, Sharon K.; Number, Kay; Pasternak, Dennis; and Schwenter, Robert. "Michigan Middle School Survey." East Lansing: Michigan Association of Middle School Educators, 1975. Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals and Michigan Department of Education. "The Education of Youth in the Middle Years." A Joint Position Paper. Lansing: Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals and Michigan Depart- ment of Education, January 1976. Michigan Education Directo_ry and Buyer's Guide. Lansing: Michigan Education Directory, 1979. Miscellaneous Blom, Frank 8., Gerard, Glen K., and Kinsinger, Addie." "A Middle School Belief System." Okemos, Mich.: Kinawa Middle School, January 1974. Eichhorn, Donald H. "Rationale for Emergence--A Look at the Middle School." Paper presented at the Conference on the Middle School--Rationale and Development, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, December 11, 1967. 108 Gatewood, Thomas E., and Dilg, Charles A. "The Middle School We Need." Report from the ASCD Working Group on the Emerging Adolescent Learner. 1975. Hawkins, James. "A Study to Ascertain Actual Middle School Practices as Compared to Reported Middle School Practices in Selected Michigan Schools and Nationally Prominent Schools as Perceived by Principals." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Kinsinger, Addie, and Romano, Louis G. "The Middle School--A Humaniz- ing Effort." Michigan State University: Michigan Association of Middle School Educators, 1979. (Filmstrip.) Riegle, Jack D. "A Study of Middle School Programs to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of 18 Basic Middle School Principles." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. "‘illiiiliiiiiiliiiS