F7 Illllllllllllllllllllllflilllll'llIllllllflllllllllllllll 55?“? L 3 1293 10632 3334 Mueugaganatate University i This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Study to Determine the Current level of Implemen- ‘ tation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Characteristics as Reported by Teachers; Principals and Superintendents in Selected Illinois Middle Schools. presented by Henry E. Minster has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for W J dam in /Z//J¢m > 7 ajor péfessor Date% Zé /7/jf / / MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ' 0-12771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES _ your record. ‘FINES w1ll be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 2 a" 751 ,- M ,. \J H a. 7‘2, w ' , ax (7'1? 172. A098. 78. K2611? A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE CURRENT LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF EIGHTEEN BASIC MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AS REPORTED BY TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS IN SELECTED ILLINOIS MIDDLE SCHOOLS By Henry E. Minster A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education 1985 ABSTRACT A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE CURRENT LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF EIGHTEEN BASIC MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AS REPORTED BY TEACHERS. PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS IN SELECTED ILLINOIS MIDDLE SCHOOLS By Henry E. Minster The middle school concept was developed in the early 19505 in res- ponse to criticisms of the effectiveness of junior high schools in address- ing the needs of children ages ll through 14. It was observed that children in this age group mature more rapidly than they did generations ago. They experience rapid and diverse physical, emotional, and psychological changes unique to the period between childhood and adolescence. These children were called transescents and new programs were developed to deal with their special problems. The middle school concept has gained in popularity and there are now more than 4,000 middle schools in the United States. Using research by Jack Riegle (l97l), which identified eighteen basic middle school characteristics, this study was designed to determine the current level of their implementation in selected middle schools in Illinois. A survey questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of superintendents, principals and teachers in Illinois middle schools which were comprised either of grades five through eight or grades six through eight. Seventy-seven Henry E. Minster percent of the superintendents, eighty-two percent of the principals and seventy percent of the teachers returned the completed survey forms. Super- intendents reported a higher degree of implementation than principals did, and principals reported greater implementation than teachers did. Two schools were visited, the one which had the highest score for implementation of the eighteen basic characteristics and the one which had the lowest score. Observations were compared with responses from the sur- veys. They reinforced the responses from staff at the school with the lowest score but were not as positive as the responses from the school with the highest score. The findings of this study indicate that neither the middle schools grades six through eight nor those grades five through eight were found to have high implementation of the eighteen characteristics, with the former having an average total score of 53.1 and the latter a score of 51.5. This study indicates a need for exploring the reasons middle school goals have not been implemented to a great degree in Illinois middle schools. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the many people who in some way provided assistance in the completion of this study. Certainly there are too many of them to thank individually. However, a few very special people need to be recognized. Dr. Louis Romano, the chairman of my doctoral committee, was the person who provided the encouragement and advice that was needed to complete the project. All the personal time he invested was certainly appreciated. A special note of thanks to George Kuhn of the Traverse Bay Area Computer Center for the help in processing the data. This involved a matter of geographical convenience for me. Finally, my deepest gratitude is extended to Iny family, Todd, Kelly, Amy and Edie. My wife, Edie, especially deserves the credit for all of the many days of hard work in typing and proofreading the thesis. Also. the many sacrifices by my family necessary to make this a reality is deeply appreciated. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Chapter I. THE PROBLEM I—I Introduction . . Statement of the Problem Need. . . . Definition of Terms . . Assumptions of the Study Limitations of the Study Objectives of the Study . . Procedures for Analysis of Data . Overview of the Study tomOiO'iOfimeU—I II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE —l —| A Historical Review of the Middle School in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . ll The Middle School Student . . . . . . . . . . . l5 The Middle School Program . . . . . . . . . . . l6 Review of Related Studies . . . . . . l9 Eighteen Characteristics of the Middle School . . . . 21 Economic Influences on Programs . . . . . . . 34 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Source of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Instrument Employed. . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 4l Objectives to be Measured. . . . . . . . . . . 45 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Objective I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Responses of Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . 48 Responses of Principals . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Responses of Teachers . . . . . . . 52 Responses of Superintendents, Principals and Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Chapter V. Objective II . . Responses of Superintendents . Responses of Principals Responses of Teachers Responses of Superintendents, Principals . and Teachers Objective III Objective IV . Objective V Objective VI . Objective VII Objective VIII . School Visitations . Summary CONCLUSIONS Summary . Purpose of the Study Design of the Study Findings . . . Objective I Objective II . Objective III . Objective IV Objective V Objective VI Objective VII Objective VIII School Visitations Conclusions . . Implications of the Findings . Recommendations for Further Study . Reflections . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX iv Table 3.] LIST OF TABLES The characteristics within the survey instrument and the numbers of questions included to collect data on each characteristic . The number of participants contacted, the number of responses by each group, and the percentage of the responses . . . . . . . . . . . The mean and percent of implementation scores of superin— tendents for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6 - 8 The mean and percent of implementation scores of prin- cipals for selected Illinois middle schools. grades 6 - 8 The mean and percent of implementation scores of teachers for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6 - 8 . The ranking of the characteristics by using the level of implementation scores in descending order of the superintendents, principals and teachers in selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6 - 8 The mean and percent of implementation scores of super- intendents for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 5 - 8 . . The mean and percent of implementation scores of prin- cipals for selected Illinois middle schools. grades 5 - 8 . . . . . . . . The mean and percent of implementation scores of teachers for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 5 - 8 . The ranking of the characteristics by using the level of implementation scores in descending order of the superintendents, principals and teachers in selected Illinois middle schools, grades 5 - 8 . The mean and percent of implementation scores for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6 - 8. computed by using the average of the scores of superintendents. principals and teachers . . . . . . . . . . Page 42 43 50. ST 53 56 58 6O 62 64 66 Table 4.10 4.12 4.14 4.15 The mean and percent of implementation scores for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 5 - 8, computed by using the average of the scores of superintendents, principals and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of the average level of implementation scores of selected middle schools in Illinois housing grades 6 - 8 and grades 5 - 8 . . A comparison of the average levels of implementation scores of the teachers and principals in the Illinois middle schools . . . . . . A comparison of the average levels of implementation scores of the teachers and superintendents in the Illinois middle schools . . . . . A comparison of the level of implementation scores of the principals and superintendents in the Illinois middle schools . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of the raw scores on the survey instrument of the superintendent, principal, teacher, and observer regarding the visitation of two schools vi Page 68 72 74 76 79 83 “fr 1:.) CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The current concept of the middle school began developing in the late l950s. The common organizational patterns as we know them today came into existence by I963 according to Kindred, Nolotkiewicz, Mickel- son and Coplein.1 A study by Zdanowicz in 1965 showed that, of the intermediate school units in his sample, 3.8 percent were organized to include a unit consisting of grades five through eight or six through eight.2 His population consisted of a random sample of 414 middle and junior high schools located in the northeastern United States. Another researcher defined a middle school as a school that included grades seven and eight in its organization and that did not extend below 3 grade four or above grade eight. In 29 states, he found 446 school 1L.w. Kindred, R.J. Nolotkiewicz, J.M. Mickelson, L.E. Coplein, and E. Dyson, The Middle School Curriculum: A Practitioner's Handbook (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, l976l, p. 2. 2Paul Zdanowicz, "A Study of the Changes That Have Taken Place in the Junior High Schools of the North Eastern United States During the Last Decade and the Reasons for Some of the Changes," Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, 1965. 3William A. Cuff, "Middle Schools on the March," Bulletin of the National Association ngecondary School Principals, Volume 51. PP. 82-86, February, 1967. districts operating 499 middle schools fitting this description. A survey by Alexander of the number of middle schools in the United States 4 In 47 states and the in 1967-68 indicated that there were about 1,100. District of Columbia 960 middle schools were located by Gross.5 Nearly two-thirds of the schools were located in the states of Texas, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and Ohio. In a more recent study, Raymer found 1,906 middle schools in the United States during the 1973-74 school year.6 A project in 1977 identi- fied 4,060 middle schools serving at least three grades and no more than five grades, and including at least grades six and seven. The number of middle schools had quadrupled since 1967.7 Three years prior to the Raymer study, Riegle conducted a study de- signed to identify basic middle school characteristics.8 The eighteen characteristics in Riegle's study were extracted from the literature and sent for validation to five noted authorities in the area of middle school education. 4William Alexander, et. a1., The Emergent Middle School (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968), pp. 8-10. 5Bernard Melvin Gross, “An Analysis of the Present and Perceived Purposes, Functions, and Characteristics of the Middle School," Ed.D. Dissertation, Temple University, 1972. 6Joe T. Raymer, "A Study to Identify Middle Schools and to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Character- istics in Selected United States and Michigan Schools," Doctoral Disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1974. 7Kenneth Brooks, "The Middle School - A National Survey," Middle School Journal. Volume 9, p. 6, February, 1978. 8Jack D. Riegle, "A Study of Middle School Programs to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Principles," Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. An extension of the Riegle study was completed in 1972 by Hawkins.9 His purpose was to determine whether, in the judgment of principals and teachers in selected Michigan middle schools and four nationally prominent middle schools, these eighteen middle school characteristics were being implemented in their schools. Studies have been completed in the states of Texas, California, New Jersey and Ohio. Another state having a large number of middle schools is Illinois. Before now, the degree of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics in the Illinois schools had not been deter- mined. Statement of the Problem The problem examined in this thesis is to determine the implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics as reported by teachers, principals and superintendents in selected Illinois middle schools. Nggg_ Many educators have criticized the junior high school movement. A writer, in a 1970 study, stated that, "the junior high school by almost unanimous agreement is the wasteland. . . one is tempted to say the cesspool of American Education."10 A study was completed by the Association for 9James 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 Teachers and Principals," Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. 10Charles E. Silberman, Crisis in the_§lassroom: The Remakingof American Education (New York: Random House, 1970). p. 4. Supervision and Curriculum Development of what is actually occurring in eighth grade classrooms throughout the country.11 The researchers found that the teaching-learning situation was dominated by the teacher, who was in full direction of the learning program and frequently was lecturing. The single textbook approach was by far the most common teaching strategy. In the Michigan Middle School Journal in 1981, Romano stated that his observation of middle schools within the state and throughout the country have been merely a case of name changing.12 He further stated that far too many practices in the middle school are typical of the former junior high school, which in turn was little more than a carbon copy of the senior high school. Research concerning the application of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics in Illinois schools would provide important infor- mation concerning current progress in the field and hopefully would be used to improve present programs. Documenting the degree of implementation of middle school characteristics would provide data for the Illinois State Department of Education, educators in Illinois and schools of education in the United States. The research would also help determine the consistency of reports among teachers. principals and superintendents as to how well these characteristics are being implemented. Finally, this study would provide an indication of how the Illinois schools are progressing in regard to the middle school movement. 11Lounsbury, John H. and Marani, Jean Victoria, The Junior High We Saw: One Day in the Eighth Grade, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Washington, D.C., 1964, p. 5. 12Louis Romano, "The Middle School - An “Emerging“ Cesspool?" Michigan Middle School Journal, Volume 7, No. 1, p. 2, Winter, 1981. Definition of Terms The presentation of the following definition of terms is made to aid in the interpretation and understanding of this study and to assist in clarifying terms for possible replications of this study. 1. Middle School: A school unit which includes grades five through eight or grades six through eight for purposes of planning and conducting a unique set of academic, social, emotional and physical experiences for early adolescent students.13 2. Transescent Youth: That period in an individual's development beginning prior to the onset of puberty and continuing through early adolescence. It is characterized by changes in physical development, social interaction and intellectual functions.14 3. Planned Gradualism: An organizational plan to provide exper- iences designed to assist early adolescents in making the transition from childhood dependence to adult independence. 4. Continuous Prggress Prggram: A nongraded program which permits students to progress at their own educational pace regardless of their chronological age. 5. Enrichment Experience: A variety of elective courses designed 15 to meet the individual interests of students. 13Nicholas P. Georgiady and Louis G. Romano, "The Middle School - Is it A Threat to the Elementary School?" Im act, New York Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, inter, 1967-68, p. 1. 14Donald Eichhorn, The Middle School (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 19661, p. 31. 15Raymer, op. cit.. p. 5. Assumptions of the Study The study assumes that the questions prepared, organized, and checked for validity in the Riegle study are appropriate for measuring middle school practices. It further assumes that the Riegle study instrument was presented in a manner that permitted middle school teachers, principals and superintendents in Illinois to reply accurately with regard to programs currently functioning within their schools. Limitations of the Study The schools surveyed in this thesis were limited to those officially defined as "middle schools". A further limitation was that these Illinois, ”middle schools" housed children in grades five through eight or six through eight. Even though the terms in this study were carefully defined, the variety of experiences and backgrounds of the respondents may have resulted in a lack of consistent responses. The responses were based on the knowledge and insight of the respondents. The survey instrument used in the Riegle study was used in this thesis. The questionnaire was reviewed and checked for wording by Dr. Louis Romano and by staff consultants in the Department of Research Services, Michigan State University, in 1971. The instrument is limited solely to measurement of the application of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics. Objectives of the Study Objective 1: To measure the degree of implementation, as reported by superintendents, principals and teachers, of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics practiced by selected middle schools, grades six through eight, in Illinois. Objective II: To measure the degree of implementation, as reported by superintendents, principals and teachers, of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics practiced by selected middle schools, grades five through eight, in Illinois. Objective III: To compare the average level of implementation scores of selected Illinois middle schools, grades six through eight, with the scores that the measurement instrument would yield if all eighteen middle school characteristics were fully implemented. Objective IV: To compare the average level of implementation scores of selected Illinois middle schools, grades five through eight, with the scores that the measurement instrument would yield if all eighteen middle school characteristics were fully implemented. Objective V: To compare the average level of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics reported by selected middle schools in Illinois, grades six through eight, with the average level reported by selected middle schools in Illinois, grades five through eight. Objective VI: To compare the average level of implementation scores reported by teachers with that reported by principals in the Illinois middle schools. Objective VII: To compare the average level of implementation scores reported by teachers with that reported by superintendents in the Illinois middle schools. Objective VIII: To compare the average level of implementation scores reported by principals with that reported by superintendents in the Illinois middle schools. Procedures for Analysis of Data The instrument used was a replication of the sixty-two item question- naire developed and used in the 1971 Riegle study, the 1972 Hawkins study, and the 1974 Raymer study. Riegle used a panel of middle school authori- ties to validate the eighteen basic middle school characteristics and the instrument. This study investigated the degree of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics as reported by teachers, principals and superintendents in selected middle schools in Illinois. Prior to mailing the questionnaire, a directory of middle schools was obtained from the Illinois State Board of Education. This directory included schools officially named middle schools and containing either grades five through eight or six through eight. The Illinois State Board of Education divided the state into five regions. Statewide programs are administered through the directors of the five regions. A random sample of schools was determined by taking twenty schools from each region, using a random table of numbers. Only those schools officially named middle schools and housing either grades five through eight or six through eight were included in the sample. A packet containing the survey instrument, a cover letter, and a stamped, return- addressed envelope was sent to the teachers, principals, and superintendents. TWo weeks later a follow-up letter was mailed to each person who did not initially reply. When the survey instruments were returned, they were separated into groups containing schools housing either grades six through eight or five through eight. Seventy-seven percent of the superintendents, eighty-two percent of the principals, and seventy percent of the teachers returned the completed survey forms. Mean scores and level of implementation per- centages of the maximum possible score yielded by the survey instrument were calculated on each characteristic for each group of schools and each group of respondents. Level of implementation scores were then used to make comparisons between the groups. Also, a comparison was made between the responses of teachers and principals, principals and superintendents, and teachers and superintendents. Two schools from the sample were selected for a visitation. One of the schools selected was the school that scored highest on the implementa-' tion of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics, using the total of the scores of superintendents, principals and teachers. The other school selected was the school that scored lowest on the implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics. The purpose of the visitation was to observe the accuracy of the responses of the individuals surveyed. Overview of the Study The first chapter contains a statement of the problem and the reasons for the need for the study. Special terms are defined for clarification purposes. The methods used in the research, the limitations of the study, and a listing of the objectives are presented. The procedures for analyzing the data are also explained. Chapter II presents a historical review of the middle school movement in the United States. The middle school student is described and the middle 10 school program is defined. A number of related studies are included along with a listing and an explanation of the eighteen characteristics of the middle school. The design of the study is presented in Chapter III. The source of the data is given along with a description of the survey instrument. The procedures for collecting the data and the methods used to determine the school visitations are also presented. In Chapter IV each of the objectives is listed. Included with each objective are the descriptive statistics needed for the analysis procedures. Chapter V presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE The middle school concept was established specifically to meet the unique physical and intellectual needs of preadolescents and early adolescents. The ability of this type of school to accomplish that goal is the basic subject of this study. Many specialists in the field agree that the most important influence on a student's education is the quality of the program. Concepts and beliefs of these specialists regarding this unique age group are reviewed. A review of other studies that have a relationship to this project is also presented. The number of middle schools rapidly increased from the mid-19605 through the 19705. The special needs and characteristics of the students of these schools are discussed. Chapter II also includes a historical review of the middle schools in the United States, a description and definition of the middle school student, a description of the middle school program and the economic influences on the program. A Historical Review of the Middle School in the United States In 1888, Harvard President Charles Eliot spoke at a meeting of Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association in Washington, D.C. He proposed that the eight-four school organization 11 12 wasted students' time and that college preparatory subjects be introduced into the school at an earlier grade level.1 These proposals inaugurated a chain of events that resulted in the reform of the entire system of education in the United States. During the next thirty years a series of committees, the first chaired by Eliot himself, continued the evaluation of education in the United States. The Department of Secondary Education of the National Education Association (NEA) organized the Committee on College Entrance Requirements in 1895. This committee reported its recommendations four years later. suggesting that the appropriate grade pattern should be six-six.z In 1918, the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education of NEA issued a series of general guidelines for education and strongly urged the establishment of a six-six system, with the last six years further subdivided into a three-three pattern.3 The prevailing eight-four school structure was revised to make the six-six system and the introduction of the junior high school further refined this to a six-three-three pattern.4 1R.P. Brimm, "Middle School or Junior High? Background and Rationale," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Volume 55, pp. 1-7, March, 1969. 2Samuel H. Popper, The American Middle School: An Organizational Analysis (Waltham, Massachusetts: Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1967), pp. 130-131. 3Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, "Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education," Bulletin. Washington, D.C., Depart- ment of the Interior, Bureau of Education, Volume 35. PP. 12—13, 1918. 4William Van Til, Gordon F. Vars. and John H. Lounsbury, Modern Education for the Junior High School Years (Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967), pp. 124-127. 13 The first junior high school opened in Richmond, Indiana in 1895. In 1910 Berkeley, California and Columbus, Ohio organized six-three-three 5 systems. The number of junior high schools then increased rapidly. In 1915 the Bureau of Education found that twenty-six cities had organized their school systems along a six-three-three plan.6 The North Central Association surveyed its members in 1918 to deter- mine the number of junior high schools. 0f the 1,165 secondary schools polled, 293 reported either that they had reorganized their systems to include junior high schools or that they intended to effect such a re- organization in the near future.7 From 1920 to 1970, the number of junior high schools grew in numbers from 385 to almost 6,000.8 The National Education Association, in 1923, reported that the junior high school was characterized by the following features: 1. A building of its own, housing grades seven, eight, and nine or, at the least, two of these grades. 2. A separate staff of teachers. 3. Recognition of individual differences among the students. 4. Reform of the program of studies traditionally offered in these grades. 5. Elective courses to be chosen by the students under guidance. 5Conrad F. Toepfer, Jr., "Evolving Curricular Patterns in Junior High Schools - An Historical Study," Ed.D. Dissertation, The University of Buffalo, p. 53, 1962. 6Alexander Inglis, Principles of Secondary Education (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 19181, p. 292. 7Calvin 0. Davis, Junior High School Education (Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: World Book Company, 19241: p. 2. 8William M. Alexander, "Middle School Status in Ten States," National Elementary Principal, Volume 51, p. 76, 1971. 14 6. Promotion by subject. 7. Student activities designed for the needs of early adolescents.9 Although the junior high school originally attempted to bridge the gap between elementary school and high school it tended to emulate the high school. The junior high school emphasized a subject-oriented approach to education. Many educators perceived this as a failure of the junior high school and felt the program should focus on the student. Middle school advocates put forth four major criticisms of the junior high school. 1. Junior high schools never achieved their original purposes. 2. Junior high schools evolved into a "cheap imitation" of the high schools. 3. The 9th grade continued to emphasize college preparation despite being housed with the 7th and 8th grade. 4. Junior high schools tended to encourage racial segregation by delaying the departure from neighborhood schools until the 7th grade.1 These criticisms encouraged educators to develop a new school concept. The middle school movement responded to the perceived shortcomings of the junior high school by developing programs more consistent with the needs of the preadolescent. Specifically, less sophisticated social experiences, less departmentalization, more concern for the individual differences, and others. 9National Education Association Research Bulletin, "Creating a Curriculum for Adolescent Youth," Volume 6, p. 5, February 10, 1923. 10Theodore C. Moss, Middle School (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin. 1969), pp. 18-19. 15 The first middle school opened in Bay City, Michigan in 1950. Four hundred and ninety-nine middle schools in 446 school districts across the 29 states were identified by Cuff during the 1965-1966 school year.11 Between 1965 and 1971, the number of middle schools quadrupled. Approxi- mately 2,000 were in operation by the end of the period.12 During the next half dozen years, this number doubled. Four thousand and sixty schools in the United States were identified by Brooks in 1977.13 The Middle School Student Middle school advocates believed that today's children mature faster than children did years ago. Children in 1910 entered puberty sometime between the ages of twelve and fourteen. Children of today reach puberty at approximately age eleven.14 There is substantial evidence to support the theory that today's youth arrive at puberty earlier and are heavier and taller than the youth of previous generations.15 The onset of puberty occurs four months earlier every decade according to 8105.16 In 1978, 11Cuff, op. cit., p. 83. 12Mary F. Compton, "The Middle School: A Status Report," Middle School Journal, Volume 7, p. 4, June, 1976. ‘ 13Brooks, loc. cit. 14Moss, op. cit., pp. 4-5, 31. 15Joseph Spagnoli, "Today's Early Adolescent and the Needs of Youth as Identified through the Junior High School," Ed.D. Dissertation, Southern Illinois University, p. 52, 1967. 16Peter Blos, “The Child Analyst Looks at the Young Adolescent," Daedalus, Volume 100. p. 969, Fall, 1967. 16 the Smarts suggested that puberty began as much as two and a half to three years earlier than in 1900.17 With the evidence Johnson found, he concluded that in many communities children reach pubescence before seventh grade.18 Relying on data developed by Tanner, Eichhorn also claimed that today's youth mature physically much earlier than the youth of the 1900's. He stated that this was coupled with marked cultural changes that have 19 Eichhorn coined the term trans- taken place over the past sixty years. escence, which he defined as the stage of development which begins prior to the onset of puberty and extends through the early stages of adoles- cence.20 He noted that these transescents undergo many physical, emotional and psychological changes. Therefore, new programs needed to be instituted to help the transescents deal with the problems and confusion they exper- ience. The Middle School Program The goals of the middle school reflected the belief that the middle school could cure many of the ills facing education in the decade of the 1960's. Five major goals for the middle school were set by Alexander and others. They were: 17Mollie S. Smart and Russell C. Smart, Adolescents (New York: McMillan Co., 1978). p. 4. 18Mauritz Johnson, Jr., “The Dynamic Junior High School," Bulletin of The National Association of Secondary School Principals, Volume 48, p. 51, March, 1964. 19Eichhorn, op. cit., p. 2. 201bid.. p. 3. 17 To bridge the gap between the elementary and the high school. To offer individualized instruction and curriculum to a student population varied in its physical and mental abilities. To design a curriculum that included a planned sequence of new concepts, an effort to develop skills for continued learning, an opportunity for exploration of new experiences, and an emphasis on the development of values. To foster continuous progress through the entire educational program, including adequate articulation from one school to the next. To improve the student's Eihooling through the optimum use of personnel and facilities. Advocates such as Brown, Moss, Howard and Stoumbis, Frieson, Georgiady and Romano, and Teagarden identified similar goals. For example, Brown developed a list of key ingredients for a successful middle school. TWenty of the key ingredients are: 1. Grade Organization - Middle schools should include at least three grades. ’Most middle schools are organized as either grades five through eight or six through eight. Team Teaching_- The team teaching approach should emphasize the strengths of individual teachers, assist in grouping students, and allow teachers to plan together. Instructional Planning_- Middle schools should allow team planning by the faculty, instructional leaders and administra- tion. Student Groupings - Middle schools should allow for a variety of student groupings, such as one-to-one, small groups, and large groups, depending on the particular learning activities. Flexible Scheduling - The diverse nature of the middle school student population would require flexibility in scheduling to allow teachers and students to design programs that meet the needs of the students. 21Alexander, et. a1., op. cit., p. 19. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 18 Continuous Progress - Middle school programs should promote continuous progress, with an emphasis on individual needs, rate of learning, and abilities. Individualized Instruction - Middle schools should recognize the diverse nature of the students by planning the program to meet each of the student's needs. Independent Study_- Independent study should allow students to develop their own individual interests. Instructional Materials - The instructional materials used in the schools should be varied enough to meet the diverse interests of all the students. Basic Skills - Middle schools should offer remedial programs in reading, math, and other basic subjects to reinforce what the students have learned in earlier grades. Exploration - Students should be given the opportunity to ex- plore all types of subjects through a strong elective program. Creative Experiences - Student activities, such as school news- papers, dramatic productions, music and art, and literary maga- zines should be encouraged as an outlet for student eXpression. Social Develgpment - Middle schools should provide programs and guidance to help the students develop social skills. Intramural Sports - An intramural sports program should offer an outlet for students to develop physically and help supplement the physical education program. Focus on Develgpment - Middle school students should be helped in understanding the changes their bodies undergo. Individualized Guidance - Guidance should be individualized to meet the particular needs of each student. The classroom teacher can assist in this counseling. Home Base Program - Home rooms should allow the teacher to offer personal guidance to the students on a daily basis. Values Clarification - Middle schools should help the students identify appropriate values and clarify conflicting values. Student Evaluatigp - Evaluation in the middle schools should be positive and nonthreatening and should treat the student's work on an individual and personal basis. 19 20. Transition from Elementaryyto High School - Middle schools should provide a gradual transition from the self-contained classrooms of the elementary school to the departmentalized programs of the high school. The above lists and the views of other middle school advocates allowed a description of a middle school according to these attributes. l. A grade pattern that begins with either the fifth or the sixth grade and ends with the eighth grade. 2. An educational philosophy that emphasizes the needs and interests of the students. 3. A willing attitude on the part of the staff toward instructional experimentation, open classrooms, team teaching, utilization of multimedia teaching techniques, and student grouping by talent and interest, rather than age alone. 4. An emphasis on individual instruction and guidance for each pupil. 5. A focus on educating the whole child, not just the intellect. 6. A program to Help ease the transition between childhood and adolescence.2 These qualities provide the opportunity to fulfill the goal of human- izing the education of early adolescents. Review of Related Studies In 1971, Riegle surveyed 136 Michigan middle schools. He used a ques- tionnaire based on eighteen middle school characteristics that he identified from the literature and from a panel of experts. The eighteen basic characteristics were: (1) continuous progress, (2) multi-media approach, (3) flexible schedules, (4) social experiences. (5) physical experiences, 22William T. Brown, "The Makings of the Middle School: 21 Key Ingredients," Principal, Volume 60. pp. 18-19, January, 1981. 2igrgarjzation of the Middle Grades: A Summary of Research (Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Services, 1983), p. 88. 20 (6) intramural activities, (7) creative experiences, (8) security, (9) evaluation, (10) team teaching, (11) planned gradualism, (12) ex- ploratory experiences, (13) guidance programs, (14) independent study, (15) basic skill extension and adjustment, (16) community relations, (17) student services, and (18) auxiliary staffs. For comparative purposes he also selected four schools from across the nation that he believed best exemplified the ideal middle school. He wanted to compare Michigan middle school practices to the middle school characteristics. The rapid increase in the number of schools labeled as middle schools has not been accompanied by a high degree of application to these prin- ciples, according to Riegle. He also concluded that Michigan middle schools were not based on an understanding of the eighteen basic middle school concepts.24 Three years later Raymer conducted a similar study of Michigan middle schools. He also wanted to compare Michigan middle school prac- tices to the middle school characteristics. To accomplish this he surveyed one hundred sixth through eighth grade schools and one hundred fifth through eighth grade schools. He also surveyed four nationally prominent middle schools. The original listing of the eighteen basic middle school character— istics developed by Riegle were refined by Georgiady, Heald, and Romano.25 The characteristics used in the Raymer study are listed with an explana- tion of each characteristic. 24Rieg1e. op. cit., pp. 67-68. 25Louis G. Romano, Nicholas P. Georgiady, and James E. Heald, The Middle School: Selected Readings on ap_Emergipg_School Program (Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall Co., 1973)} pp. 75-84. 21 Eighteen Characteristics of the Middle School Characteristics 1. Continuous Progress 2. Multi-material Approach What and Why The middle school program should feature a non- graded organization that allows students to pro- gress at their own individual rate regardless of chronological age. Individual differences are at the most pronounced stage during the transescent years of human development. Chrono- logical groups tend to ignore the span of individ- ual differences. Explanation The curriculum built on continuous progress is typically composed of sequenced achievement 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 utilizes programmed and semi- programmed instructional materials, along with ' teacher-made units. What and Why The middle school program should offer to stu- dents a wide range of easy accessible instruc- tional materials, a number of explanations and a choice of approaches to a 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 seven years old to nineteen years old. Their cognitive development, according to Piaget, progresses through different levels, too. (Limiting factors include environment, physical development, experiences, and emotions). The middle school youngster is one of two stages: preparation for and organization of concrete operations and the period of formal operations. These students have short attention spans. Varia- tion in approach and variable materials should Characteristics 3. Flexible Schedules 4. Social Experiences 22 Explanation Be available in the school program to meet the various needs and abilities of the young- sters and to help the teachers retain the interest of the youngsters. What and Why The middle school should provide a schedule that encourages the investment of time based on educa- tional needs rather than standardized time periods. The schedule should be employed as a teaching aid rather than a control device. The rigid block schedule provides little opportunity to develop a program to a special situation or to a particular student. Erplanation Movement should be permissive and free rather than dominated by the teacher. Variation of classes and the length of class time as well as variety of group size will help a student become capable of assuming responsibility for his own learning. What and Why The program should provide experiences appro- priate for the transescent youth and should not emulate the social experiences of the senior high school. Social activities that emulate high school programs are inappropriate for middle school students. The stages of their social development are diverse and the question of immaturity is pertinent in the plan- ning of activities for this age level. Erplanation 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 sensitivity and acute percep- tion. a crucial time in preparation for adult- hood. This is the age of sex-role identifica- tion. The youngsters model themselves after a Characteristics 5. and 6. Physical Experience and Intramural Activities 23 Explanation same-sex adult and seek support from the same- sex peer group. The youngster needs to be accepted by the 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, practical joke give and take, etc. Common areas should be provided in the building for social inter- action among small groups. What and Why The middle school curricular and co-curricular programs should provide physical activities based solely on the needs of the students. Involve- ment in the program as a participant rather than as a spectator is critical for 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 helping students understand and use their bodies. The middle school should feature intramural activities rather than interscholastic activities. Explanation Activities that emulate the high school program 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, emotional, social develop- ment found in youngsters 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 considered in planning physical activities consistent with the concern for growth toward independence in learning. The emphasis should be upon the develop- ment of fundamental skills as well as using these skills in a variety of activities. Intramural activity involves maximum participation, whereas interscholastic activity provides minimum involve- ment. There is no sound educational reason for interscholastic athletics. Too often they serve Characteristics 7. Team Teaching 8. Planned Gradualism 24 Explanation merely as public entertainment and encourage an overemphasis on specialization at the ex- pense of the majority of the student body. What and Why The middle school program should be organized in part around team teaching patterns that allow students to interact with a variety of teachers in a wide range of subject areas. Team teaching is intended to bring to students 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 re- quires teacher planning time and an individual- ized student program if it is to function 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 physical phenomena in boys and girls which bring about the need for learning to manage their bodies and erotic sensations without embarrassment. Awareness of new concepts of self and new pro- blems of social behavior and the need for de- veloping many social skills is relevant. There is a reSponsibility to help the rapidly develop- ing 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 make adult, independent decisions. The transition involves a movement away from a dependence upon what can be perceived in the Characteristics 9. Exploratory and Enrichment Studies 10. Guidance Services 25 Explanation immediate environment to a level of hypothesiz- ing 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 in 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 range of educational training 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 during his years in the middle school. Explanation Levels of retention are increased when students learn by "doing" and understanding is more com- plete when viewed from a wide range of experiences. Time should be spent enriching the student's con- cept of himself and the world around him, rather than learning 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 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 oppor- tunities and progress in respective areas. Each child should perhaps be a member of a home-base group led by a teacher-counselor, someone who watches out for his welfare. Puberty and its many problems require expert guidance for the youngsters, so a professional counselor should be available to the individual youngster. Characteristics 11. Independent Study 12. Basic Skill Repair and Extension 13. Creative Experiences 26 What and Why The program should provide an opportunity for students to spend time studying individual interests or needs that do not appear in the organized curricular offerings. Explanation A child's own intellectual curiosity motivates him to carry on independently of the group, with the teacher serving as a resource person. Inde— pendent study may be used in connection with organized knowledge, or with some special inter- est or hobby. The student pursues his work, after it has been defined, and uses his teachers, various materials available in and out of 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 oppor- tunities for students to receive clinical help in learning basic skills. The basic education program fostered in the elementary school should be extended in the middle school. Explanation Because of individual differences, some young- sters have not entirely mastered the basic skills. These students should be provided organized opportunities to improve their skills. Learn- ing must be made attractive and many opportuni- ties to practice reading, listening, asking questions, etc., must be planned in every class- room. Formal specialized instruction in the basic skills may be necessary and should be available. What and Why The middle school program should include oppor- tunities for students to express themselves in creative ways. Student newspapers, dramatic creations, musical programs, and other student- centered, student-directed, student-developed activities should be encouraged. Characteristics 14. Security Factor 15. Evaluation 27 Explanation Students should be free to do some divergent thinking and explore various avenues to possi- ble answers. There should be time allowed for thinking without pressure, and a place for un- usual ideas and unusual questions to be conside ered 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 to whom he relates in a positive manner; a peer group that meets regularly and represents mgre than administrative convenience in its use 0 time. Explanation Teachers need time to give the individual stu- dent the attention he needs, to help in coun- seling and curriculum situations. The student needs someone in school that he can be comfort- able with. What and Why The middle school program should provide an evaluation of a student's work that is personal, positive in nature, nonthreatening, and strictly individualized. The student should be allowed to assess his own progress 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 system offers. Tradi- tional systems seem to be punitive. The middle school youngster needs a supportive atmosphere that helps to generate confidence and a willing- ness to explore new areas of learning. Student- teacher planning helps to encourage the students to seek new areas. Student-teacher evaluation sessions can help to create a mutual understand- ing of problems and also to provide a more mean- ingful report for parents. Parent-teacher-student Characteristics 16. Community Relations 17. Student Services 18. Auxiliary Staffing 28 Explanation 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. What and Why The middle school should develop and maintain a varied program of community relations. Pro- grams to inform, to entertain, to educate, and to understand the community, as well as other activities, should be a part of the basic opera- tion of the school. Explanation The middle school houses students at a time when they are eager to be involved in activities with' their parents. The school should encourage this natural attitude. The middle school has facili- ties that can be used to good advantage by com- munity groups. What and Why The middle school should provide a broad Spec- trum of specialized services for students. Community, county, and state agencies should be utilized to expand the range of specialists to its broadest possible extent. Explanation Health services, counseling services, testing opportunities for individual development (curricular and co-curricular) meeting the interests and needs of each child should be provided. What and Why The middle school should utilize highly diver- sified personnel such as volunteer parents. teacher aides, clerical aides, student volun- teers, and other similar types of support staff- ing that help to facilitate the teaching staff. 29 Explanation Auxiliary staffing is needed to provide the individual help students require. A variety of teacher aides or paraprofessionals may be used to extend the talent of the professional staff. Raymer found that the sixth through eighth grade schools implemented middle school characteristics to a higher degree than fifth through eighth grade schools. He also found that neither grade organization did parti- cularly well in implementing all eighteen basic characteristics. In a study conducted by Butera in 1972, 229 middle schools were surveyed. The purpose of the study was to determine how well New Jersey middle schools were implementing the middle school characteristics. He found that most middle schools in the state did not implement an impressively high number of middle school goals.27 Four years later Kopko tried to evaluate the degree to which the New Jersey middle schools accepted the recommendations of the New Jersey Task Force on Intermediate Education. The Task Force strongly urged the introduction of middle schools. A survey was completed of 114 middle schools from which Kopko identified high implementing schools, moderate implementing schools, and low implementing schools. He administered a questionnaire to ten students and ten teachers from schools in each cate- gory. 26Raymer, op. cit.. pp. 78-79. 27Thomas s. Butera, "A Study of Middle Schools in the State of New Jersey," Ed.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1972. Pp. 58-63, 168. 170. 30 The data showed that New Jersey middle schools were implementing the Task Force's recommendations to a moderate extent. It also showed that there was a definite lack of organizational innovations such as team teaching or nongradedness among the schools. The conclusion was that the implementation of the Task Force's recommendations was ques- tionable.28 In 1972 Good submitted a questionnaire to 44 middle schools in Pennsylvania. He studied grade organizations, programs, administrative practices and building and classroom facilities of middle schools. He found that most respondents established middle schools primarily for reasons of expediency rather than educational philosophy. Few of the schools worked to implement middle school programs. The conclusion was that the organizational structures found in the middle schools in this study were, for the most part, inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of these schools.29 The purpose of Hughes' study in 1974 was to elicit perceptions of principals in the Pittsburgh area toward middle school programs. He surveyed fifteen principals with a questionnaire of thirteen open-ended questions. From the results he concluded that principals believed a middle school was a graded school with grades six, seven, and eight, 28Jon Raymond Kopko, "A Comprehensive Study of Selected Middle Schools in the State of New Jersey,“ Ed.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University, 1976. pp. 16. 55-65. 135—136. 146. 29Charles W. Good, "A Study of Middle School Practices in Pennsylvania," Ed.D. Dissertation, Temple University, 1972. DP. 7, 77, 382. 31 departmentalized and typified by team teaching within a grade. The aim of the school was to take care of the physical, psychosocial, and intel- lectual needs of early adolescents.30 In West Chester County, Pennsylvania, in 1962, Brantley surveyed parents. students, teachers and administrators with an instrument based on Riegle's criteria. The purpose of the study was to compare Pennsyl- vania middle schools with middle school goals. He found great consistency among the four respondent groups. The groups expressed favorable ratings on the ability of the middle schools: 1. to offer a range of instructional materials; to provide social experiences; to organize team teaching; to assist in transition from childhood to adulthood; to widen the range of educational training; to provide elective courses; to include opportunities for creative expression; to maintain community relations; and SOWNOSUl-bOON to use varied groups of personnel. Individual progress, varied length of class period, and pursuit of indivi- dual interest received the least approval.3' Flynn compared practicing California middle schools with middle school goals in 1971. He distributed a questionnaire to middle school principals 30Sean Hughes, "Organizational Pattern of Western Pennsylvania Middle Schools, Role and Role Conflict as Perceived by Their Principals," 3'William E. Brantley, "West Chester Area School District Middle School Survey," Unpublished Report, 1982. PP. 11-15, 17. 32 and found that there was a need for a middle school identity oriented toward neither the elementary nor the secondary level. He also concluded that administrators worked under much confusion and indecision regarding the most effective practices in their schools. This was due to a signifi- cant gap between accepting established criteria and implementing them.32 In 1974, James Kramer sent questionnaires to 102 California middle schools. He wanted to determine the degree to which the middle schools instituted the recommended programs of the middle school movement. The results showed that the middle schools of California have not implemented the basic middle school characteristics to a great degree.33 A questionnaire for middle school principals was developed by Billings ‘ in 1973. He surveyed 115 middle school principals in the state of Texas to find out how well Texas middle school practices measured up to the middle school ideals. The conclusions were that middle schools in Texas did not evidence implementation of middle school ideals. Also, the name middle school did not imply adoption of the middle school characteristics.34 In 1973 Daniel evaluated middle schools in Arkansas. He surveyed forty middle school principals and conducted personal interviews with twelve. He found that middle schools in Arkansas were more similar to traditional 32John H. Flynn, "Practices of the Middle School in California," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1971. DP. 2, 84-86, 194-196. 33James W. Kramer, "A Study of Middle School Programs in California," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1974. pp. 2, 33-34, 41, 63. 65. 34Ronald L. Billings, "A Computer Based Analysis of the Implementation of Selected Criteria in Texas Middle Schools," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Houston, 1973, pp. 73-76. 33 junior high schools than to true middle schools. The schools failed notably in bridging the gap between elementary and high schools.35 An evaluation of the performance of Virginia middle schools in implementing middle school ideals was done by Franklin in 1973. He interviewed each principal of the 31 middle schools in the state. The findings showed a mixed success at implementing the desired practices. Principals attributed the failure to the desired practices on the lack of specially trained teachers, the lack of staff time, and the lack of money.36 In 1978, Brown sent questionnaires to 121 middle schools in South Carolina in order to determine the extent to which South Carolina middle schools implemented recommended practices. He found that the majority of the schools were instituting many middle school practices. However, several practices considered basic to the middle school concept were not being adequately implemented.37 Years ago the experts found a discrepancy between the ideals and the operation of junior high schools. Likewise, all of the studies re- viewed in this chapter found a significant gap between the ideal described by experts and the actual practices of the middle schools. 35Jerry C. Daniel, "A Study of Arkansas Middle Schools to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Nine Basic Middle School Principles," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1973. pp. 3, 34-35, 111. 36Charles B. Franklin, "A Study of Middle School Practices in Virginia," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, 1973, pp. 7, 9-10, 75-6. 37William T. Brown, "A Comparative Study of Middle School Practices Recommended in Current Literature and Practices of Middle Schools in South Carolina,“ Ed.D. Dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1978, pp. 8. 73-77. 119-120. 34 Economic Influences on Programs Several major demographic studies concerning the effects of decline in finances and enrollment, K-12, have been conducted nationally regard- ing staff composition characteristics such as age, pupil-teacher ratios and salaries. It was found by Dembowski, in 1979, that the median age of staff increased with decline.38 Pupil-teacher ratios were lowest in districts declining most rapidly, according to Odden and Vincent.39 They also found that in declining districts there was no difference in the average salaries of teachers from state averages. This indicated an aging and more expensive teaching staff and an increase in per pupil expendi- tures. The Illinois State Board of Education reported in 1977 that teaching effectiveness decreased with length of service. Neill reported in 1981 that program decline had become significant at the secondary level, which includes most middle schools. Electives had been eliminated, some classes had been offered in alternate years and activity programs had been curtailed. This trend had restricted programs to the basics and hindered districts from being innovative. In the 1978-79 school year, the Comptroller General of the United States found that there were 2,943 vacant schools in 19 states. In June, 1981, he estimated there were probably 6,000 schools closed in at least 38Frederick L. Dembowski, "The Effects of Declining Enrollments on the Instructional Programs of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Associa- tion, Boston, Massachusetts, April 7-11, 1980. 39A. Odden and P.B. Vincent, "The Fiscal Impacts of Declining Enrollments: A Study of Declining Enrollments in Four States - Michigan, Missouri, South Dakota and Washington," In Declinithnrollments: Challenge of the Comihg Decade. pp. 209-56. Edited by S. Abramowitz and S. Rosenfeld. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute of Education, 1978. 35 40 states, according to Neill's report.40 Due to the attractiveness of the cost savings, school closings were looked upon as a popular alterna- tive for dealing with financial and enrollment declines. School district reorganization, then, has often been a result of school closings. In Maryland, moving ninth graders to the high schools and sixth graders to the junior highs saved money, according to Riew.41 The development of a sixth through eighth grade middle school program thus came about mainly for economic reasons. But, according to Brodinsky, two- thirds of the nation's school districts cannot use school closings as a solution to decline since they are one high school districts.42 Along with school closings came a reduction in force. Most studies have indicated that teaching staffs have been cut proportionately more than administrative staffs. The result of the cuts have caused reassign- ment of teachers. One of the problems middle schools have faced is in teacher certification. In most states elementary certified and secondary certified teachers may teach any subject in grades seven and eight. Most reductions in force have been dealt with through seniority. Therefore, elementary and senior high school teachers may be reassigned to the middle school though they prefer not to be. Programs at the middle school level may suffer if reassigned teachers do not want to teach at this level or 40Shirley Box Neill, ed., Declining Enrollment - ClosingySchools, American Association of School Administrators Critical Issues Series #9, Sacramento: AASA. 1981. 41John Riew. Enrollment Decline and School Reorganization - A Cost Effi- ciency Analysis," Economics of Education Review, 1 (Winter, 1981), pp. 53-73. 42Ben Brodinsky, "Education Issues to be Watched," Michigan School Board Journal, 28 (February, 1982), pp. 22-24. 36 do not have the training to effectively teach this age group. The literature tends to Show that there is a positive relationship between the amount of decline in finances and enrollment and the number of changes in the schools. The same two factors have negatively impacted public school programs. Summary The President of Harvard University, Charles Eliot, was instrumental in the reform of the educational system in the United States beginning in 1888. Recommendations were made to change the grade pattern from the eight-four plan to a six-six plan. With the introduction of the junior high school the six-six system was then revised to a six-three-three pattern. The number of junior high schools grew from 385 in 1920 to almost 6,000 in 1970. One of the original intentions of the junior high schools was to bridge the gap between elementary school and high school. But many educators criticized the progress of the junior high school movement and were encouraged to develop a new school concept to correct these perceived shortcomings. Thus, the middle school movement was begun. In 1950 the first middle school opened in Bay City, Michigan. By 1977, Brooks identified 4,060 middle schools in the United States. This movement was developed on the theory that the children of today mature more rapidly than the children of generations ago. These children, between the ages of eleven and fourteen, undergo many physical, emotional and psychological changes. Eichhorn called these children transescents and new programs were developed to deal with the special problems of this group of students. 37 According to Brown the key ingredients for a successful middle school program are: (1) grade organization, (2) team teaching, (3) instructional planning, (4) student groupings, (5) flexible scheduling, (6) continuous progress, (7) individualized instruction, (8) independent study, (9) instructional materials, (10) basic skills, (ll) exploration, (12) creative experiences, (13) social development, (14) intramural sports, (15) focus on development, (16) individualized guidance, (17) home base program, (18) values clarification, (19) student evaluation, (20) transi- tion from elementary to high school. Eighteen basic middle school characteristics were developed by Riegle and later refined by Georgiady, Heald and Romano. The characteristics are: ' (1) continuous progress, (2) multi-material approach, (3) flexible schedules, (4) social experiences, (5)&(6) physical experiences and intramural activi- ties, (7) team teaching, (8) planned gradualism, (9) exploratory and en- richment studies, (10) guidance services, (11) independent study, (12) basic skill repair and extension, (13) creative experiences, (14) security factor, (15) evaluation, (16) community relations, (17) student services, and (18) auxiliary staffing. This list of characteristics served as a model for several research projects. A number of studies on the implementation of middle school goals and practices concentrated on middle schools in particular cities or states. These studies found a significant gap between the ideal described by experts and the actual practices of the middle school. Other studies indicated that decline in finances and enrollment have negatively affected programs in the public schools and that the relationship 38 between such decline and the amount of effect on schools is positive. Middle school programs have been especially impacted due to the reassign- ment of staff from both elementary and senior high school. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The basic objective of this study was to determine the level of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics as reported by superintendents, principals and teachers. The original eighteen characteristics were developed by Jack Riegle.1 He extracted them from the literature and had them validated by middle school author- ities in the field. This chapter looks at the composition of the samples, the selection of the appropriate statistical programs, the methods used to collect the data, and the procedures used for analysis of the data. Source of the Data A directory of all Illinois schools was obtained from the Illinois State Board of Education. The directory included the names of middle schools, the mailing address of each school, the name of the superinten- dent of each school district, and the name of the principal of each middle school. Only those schools officially named middle school were considered for the study. A further requirement was that these middle schools 1Riegle, op. cit. 39 4O housed children in grades five through eight or six through eight. One hundred and five schools housing grades six through eight were identified and 82 schools housing grades five through eight were identified. There- fore, a total of 187 middle schools were identified in the State of Illinois. A packet containing the survey instrument, a cover letter, and a stamped, return-addressed envelope was forwarded to a random sample of 56 superintendents, principals and teachers of schools housing grades six through eight. Likewise, a packet of materials was sent to a random sample of 44 superintendents, principals and teachers of schools housing grades five through eight. Therefore, 100 of the 187 schools were con- tacted. Instrument Employed In a 1971 study, Riegle compiled eighteen basic middle school charac- teristics by reviewing the literature related to the middle school. He then reviewed the list with acknowledged authorities on the middle school. Based upon their critique. the list was refined and subsequently validated by those authorities. Riegle developed a questionnaire to use as a survey instrument for measuring the degree of application of these eighteen basic middle School characteristics. For the purposes of this study, Riegle's survey instrument was reviewed and revised with the guidance of Dr. Louis G. Romano and research consul- tants from the Department of Research Services at Michigan State University. This revised survey instrument was used in this study of Illinois schools to measure the current level of implementation of the eighteen basic middle 41 school characteristics as perceived by Illinois superintendents, principals and teachers. The questionnaire contains 62 questions and is divided into two sec- tions. The first section contains multiple choice questions with responses that seek a single answer per question. In the second section, questions seeking multiple responses are presented. A title page including the directions for completing the questionnaire and a page devoted to obtaining general information from the respondents were used as cover pages for the questionnaire. A cover letter was prepared and mailed with the questionnaire and a stamped, return envelope on January 5, 1983. It was mailed to 100 super- intendents, 100 principals and 100 teachers of Illinois middle schools. Responses to each item on the questionnaire were assigned numerical values. These assigned values were weighted to provide a positive correla- tion between large scores and a high degree of application of the charac- teristic being measured. A listing of the characteristics included in the survey instrument and the corresponding numbers of questions used to collect data on each characteristic are presented in Table 3.1 on page 42. The questionnaire is included in the appendix. Procedures By January 14. 1983. a total of 110 questionnaires had been returned. Superintendents returned 36 questionnaires for a rate of 36 percent, prin- cipals returned 50 questionnaires for a rate of 50 percent, and teachers returned 24 questionnaires for a rate of 24 percent. On January 17, 1983, 42 TABLE 3.1.-- The characteristics within the survey instrument and the numbers of questions included to collect data on each characteristic. w Characteristic* Survey Q uestion Numbers 1. Continuous progress 1, 2 2. Multi-material 3, 4, 5, 6, 46 3. Flexible schedule 7, 8, 38 4. Social experiences 9, 10, 47, 48, 60 5. Physical experiences 11, 41, 42, 61 6. Intramural activity 12, 13, 49, 62 7. Team teaching 14, 15, l6, l7 8. Planned gradualism 18 9. Exploratory and enrichment programs 19, 20, 21, 50, 51 10. Guidance services 22, 23, 24, 43 11. Independent study 39, 44, 52 12. Basic learning experiences 25, 26, 45, 53 13. Creative experiences 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 54 14. Student security factor 32, 33, 34 15. EValuation practices 35, 40 16. Community relations 36, 37, 55, 56 17. Student services 57 18. Auxiliary staffing 58, 59 . *Characteristics are designated by numbers. A complete questionnaire may be found in the appendix materials. 43 a letter was sent to all superintendents, principals, and teachers from whom there was no response. The final number of questionnaires by Janu- ary 28, 1983, was 229. Ninety-four responses were for grades five through eight and 135 responses were for grades six through eight. For the five through eight schools, 34 superintendents, 35 principals and 25 teachers responded. For the six through eight schools, 43 superintendents, 47 principals and 45 teachers responded. See Table 3.2 below. TABLE 3.2.-- The number of participants contacted, the number of responses by each group, and the percentage of the responses. G d Number of Superin- Number of Princi- Number of Teachers ra e tendents Responses pals Responses Responses 6 - 8 43 47 45 5 - 8 34 35 25 Total Number of Responses 77 82 70 Total Number Contacted 100 100 100 Percentage of Responses 77% 82% 70% Two schools were visited in May, 1983. One of the schools came closest to meeting the criteria and the other school was farthest from meeting the criteria. The schools were determined by using the sum of the raw scores of the superintendent, principal and teacher of each school. The schools were then ranked from the highest total raw score to the lowest raw score. The school with the highest total raw score 44 was selected for a visitation along with the school with the lowest total raw score. Principals of both schools were contacted and asked for a two day visitation. Both requests were granted. The school with the highest total score is located in central Illinois and houses grades six through eight with an enrollment of approximately 410 students. There are 26 teachers, a counselor and a principal on the professional staff. The school with the lowest score is located in northern Illinois. also houses grades six through eight. has an enrollment of approx- imately 445 students, a staff of 25 teachers, an assistant principal and a principal. The arrangement for the two day visitation at each school was one day in conferencing and interviewing and the second day in observation. During the visitations, the observer used the Riegle survey instrument to determine a total raw score so that a comparison could be made between observation and questionnaire responses. Materials such as parent-student handbooks, master schedules, stu- dent evaluation reports, parent materials and an overview of the school district were requested and received prior to the visitation. Items on the survey instrument pertaining to these areas were then completed by the observer. The remaining items were completed after on-site interviews with counselors, academic teachers, physical education teachers and coaches, special services teachers and students. At the school in northern Illinois, interviews were held with the assistant principal, media center director, two teachers at each grade level, the secretary and groups of six students at each grade level. At the school in central Illinois, interviews were held with the principal, 45 the counselor, two teachers at each grade level, the media center direc- tor, two coaches, the secretary and groups of six students at each grade level. Those items on the instrument that pertained to the area of the interviewee were discussed in depth during the interview. The coaches, for example, discussed items 11, 41, 42 and 61 of the survey instrument, which specifically relate to the characteristic physical experiences, and items 12, 13. 49 and 62, which relate directly to intramural activities. Upon completion of all interviews and observations, results were compiled and used to complete the observer's survey instrument. The interview guide is presented in the appendix. The data for this research project were programmed for computer analysis. The raw scores from the questionnaires were keypunched at the Michigan State University Computer Center. Each set of keypunched ques- tionnaire cards was coded for individual questionnaire number, grade, group and questions. The data were then processed by the computer at The Traverse Bay Area Computer Center in Traverse City, Michigan. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program was used to generate descriptive statistics. Objectives to be Measured The first objective of this study was designed to provide a measure- ment of the degree of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics practiced by schools, grades six through eight, as reported by superintendents, principals and teachers on the Riegle survey instru- ment. 46 The second objective of the study was designed to provide a measure- ment relative to the degree of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics practiced by schools, grades five through eight, as reported by superintendents, principals and teachers on the Riegle survey instrument. The third and fourth objectives of the study were designed to com- pare the average of the scores of the superintendents, principals and teachers for the six through eight schools and the five through eight schools in Illinois with the scores that the instrument would yield if all eighteen middle school characteristics were fully implemented. The results were reported on the Riegle survey instrument by superintendents, principals and teachers from the respective schools. Objective five was devoted to making a comparison study of the degree of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteris- tics in schools with grades six through eight with the results of schools with grades five through eight. Again, the results of the superintendents, principals and teachers were used from the Riegle survey instrument. The conditions of objective six were met by comparing the levels of implementation scores reported by teachers and principals in the Illinois middle schools. The purpose of objective seven was to compare the levels of imple- mentation scores reported by teachers and superintendents in the Illinois middle schools. Objective eight of the study was designed to compare the levels of implementation scores reported by principals and superintendents in the Illinois middle schools. 47 The Riegle survey instrument was used to measure the degree of implementation for the comparisons called for in these stated objectives. Also, the survey instrument was used by this researcher during the visi- tation of the two schools. Summar In a 1972 study, Riegle developed eighteen basic middle school characteristics. He then developed a survey instrument using these characteristics. The instrument was validated by a panel of middle school experts. The instrument was again reviewed and revised by re- search consultants for Raymer's 1974 study. The 62 item questionnaire was replicated for use in this study and sent to the superintendents, principals and teachers in middle schools in Illinois. Out of 300 mailings there were 229 responses. A descrip- tion of the instrument and the data gained from this survey is summarized in this study. Two schools were selected for a visitation. One of the schools se- lected scored highest on the survey. The other school scored lowest in the implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics. The Traverse Bay Area Computer Center and the Michigan State Univer- sity Computer Center were used to generate the descriptive statistics by employing the SPSS program. p/ g g ( Z— )1 / 3,) CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter is an analysis of the data and the findings. Each objective is stated separately with a presentation of the statistical findings. The data presented in this chapter were collected from the results of 229 survey questionnaires returned by superintendents, principals and teachers in middle schools in Illinois. The Traverse Bay Area Computer Center and the Michigan State University Computer Center were used to generate the descriptive statistics by employing the SPSS program. Objective I To measure the degree of implementation, as reported by superintendents, principals and teachers, of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics practiced by selected middle schools, grades 6 - 8, in Illinois. Repponses of Superintendents The responses of the superintendents indicated that eleven of the middle school characteristics were over the 50 percent level of imple- mentation while seven of the middle school characteristics were below the 50 percent level of implementation. The middle school characteristics that were above the 50 percent level included the following: creative experiences (50.8%), social 48 49 experiences (51.5%), community relations (52.6%), planned gradualism (58.7%), independent study (61.9%), basic learning experiences (63.2%). student security factor (65.7%). multi-material (67.8%). guidance services (70.1%), student services (71.3%). and physical experiences (79.5%). Those middle school characteristics below the 50 percent level of implementation included: team teaching (36.4%), continuous progress (39.3%), intramural activity (39.6%), evaluation practices (39.8%), auxiliary staffing (41.6%), exploratory and enrichment programs (44.1%) and flexible schedule (49.1%). The results are presented in Table 4.1 on page 50. Responses of Principals The results of the principals' responses indicated that nine charac- teristics were over the 50 percent level of implementation and nine were below the 50 percent level of implementation. The characteristics that were above the 50 percent level of imple- mentation included the following: community relations (50.1%), planned gradualism (53.0%), independent study (59.3%), student security factor (63.0%). guidance services (63.1%), student services (65.4%), basic learning experiences (69.9%), multi-material (70.3%) and physical exper- iences (76.8%). Those characteristics below the 50 percent level of implementation included: auxiliary staffing (38.3%), intramural activity (38.9%). team teaching (39.6%), evaluation practices (41.1%), flexible schedule (44.8%), exploratory and enrichment programs (44.9%), continuous progress (47.4%), creative experiences (48.3%) and social experiences (49.3%). The results are presented in Table 4.2 on page 51. 50 TABLE 4.1.-- The mean and percent’of implementation scores of superin- tendents for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6-8. Maximum Percent of Characteristic Possible Mean Implementa- Score tion 1. Team teaching 22 8.00 36.4 2. Continuous progress 10 3.93 39.3 3. Intramural activity 18 7.12 39.6 4. Evaluation practices 9 3.58 39.8 5. Auxiliary staffing 8 3.33 41.6 6. Exploratory and enrichment programs 27 11.91 44.1 7. Flexible schedule 15 7.36 49.1 8. Creative experiences 18 9.15 50.8 9. Social experiences 24 12.36 51.5 10. Community relations 14 7.36 52.6 11. Planned gradualism 3 1.76 58.7 12. Independent study 7 4.33 61.9 13. Basic learning experiences 13 8.21 63.2 14. Student security factor 9 5.91 65.7 15. Multi-material 37 25.09 67.8 16. Guidance services 15 10.52 70.1 17. Student services 9 6.42 71.3 18. Physical experiences 13 10.33 79.5 Total Scores 271 146.67 54.6 51 TABLE 4.2.-- The mean and percent'of implementation scores of principals for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6-8. Maximum Percent of Characteristic Possible Mean Implementa- Score tion 1. Auxiliary staffing 8 3.06 38.3 2. Intramural activity 18 7.00 38.9 3. Team teaching 22 8.72 39.6 4. Evaluation practices 9 3.70 41.1 5. Flexible schedule 15 6.72 44.8 6. Exploratory and enrichment programs 27 12.11 44.9 7. Continuous progress 10 4.74 47.4 8. Creative experiences 18 8.70 48.3 9. Social experiences 24 11.82 49.3 10. Community relations 14 7.02 50.1 11. Planned gradualism 3 1.59 53.0 12. Independent study 7 4.15 59.3 13. Student security factor 9 5.67 63.0 14. Guidance services 15 9.46 63.1 15. Student services 9 5.89 65.4 16. Basic learning experiences 13 9.09 69.9 17. Multi-material 37 26.00 70.3 18. Physical experiences 13 9.98 76.8 Total Scores 271 145.42 53.5 52 Responses of Teachers The responses of the teachers indicated that eight of the charac- teristics were above the 50 percent level of implementation and ten of the characteristics were below the 50 percent level of implementation. The eight characteristics above the 50 percent level of implementa- tion included the following: independent study (55.9%). planned gradualism (56.3%), student security factor (58.4%). student services (60.3%). guidance services (62.1%). basic learning experiences (66.6%), multi- material (66.8%) and physical experiences (74.3%). Those characteristics below the 50 percent level of implementation included: auxiliary staffing (31.1%). evaluation practices (38.4%). team teaching (40.4%). continuous progress (41.4%), intramural activity (41.6%), creative experiences (44.3%). exploratory and enrichment programs (45.3%), community relations (45.3%), flexible schedule (47.4%) and social experiences (47.6%). These results are presented in Table 4.3 on page 53. Responses of Superintendents,xPrincipals and Teachers A comparison of the levels of implementation reported by superinten- dents. principals and teachers showed that there was considerable agreement in ranking of all but three middle school characteristics, namely, community relations. social experiences and creative experiences. Those middle school characteristics which were above the 50 percent level of implemen- tation for all three groups, superintendents, principals and teachers were as follows: 53 TABLE 4.3.-- The mean and percent of implementation scores of teachers for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6-8. 11- Maximum Percent of Characteristic Possible Mean Implementa- Score tion 1, Auxiliary staffing 8 2.49 31.1 2. Evaluation practices 9 3.46 38.4 3. Team teaching 22 8.89 40.4 4. Continuous progress 10 4.14 41.4 5. Intramural activity 18 7.49 41.6 6. Creative experiences 18 7.97 44.3 7. Exploratory and enrichment programs 27 12.23 45.3 8. Community relations 14 6.34 45.3 9. Flexible schedule 15 7.11 47.4 10. Social experiences 24 11.42 47.6 11. Independent study 7 3.91 55.9 12. Planned gradualism 3 1.69 56.3 13. Student security factor 9 5.26 58.4 14. Student services 9 5.43 60.3 15. Guidance services 15 9.31 62.1 16. Basic learning experiences 13 8.66 66.6 17. Multi-material 37 24.71 66.8 18. Physical experiences 13 9.66 74.3 Total Scores 171 140.17 51.3 54 Superintendents Princjpals Teachers Physical experiences 79.5% 76.8% 74.3% Student services 71.3% 65.5% 60.3% Guidance services 70.1% 63.1% 62.1% Multi-material 67.8% 70.3% 66.8% Student security factor 65.7% 63.0% 58.4% Basic learning experiences 63.2% 69.9% 66.6% Independent study 61.9% 59.3% 55.9% Planned gradualism 58.7% 53.0% 56.3% Those middle school characteristics which all three groups listed as being implemented below the 50 percent level were as follows: Superintendents Principals Teachers Team teaching 36.4% 39.6% 40.4% Continuous progress 39.3% 47.4% 41.4% Intramural activity 39.6% 38.9% 41.6% Evaluation practices 39.8% 41.1% 38.4% Auxiliary staffing. 41.6% 38.3% 31.1% Exploratory and enrichment programs 44.1% 44.9% 45.3% Flexible schedule 49.1% 44.8% 47.4% In the following middle school characteristics there were discrepancies as to whether they were above or below the 50 percent levels of implemen- tation. The discrepancies were as follows: 55 Superintendents Principals Teachers Creative experiences 50.8% 48.3% 44.3% Social experiences 51.5% 49.3% 47.6% Community relations 52.6% 50.1% 45.3% The results are presented in Table 4.4 on page 56. In satisfying Objective 1, it was found that all three groups, super- intendents, principals and teachers stated that seven of the middle school characteristics were below the 50 percent level of implementation while eight of the middle school characteristics were over the 50 percent level of implementation. The discrepancies were in the following middle school characteristics: creative experiences, social experiences and community relations. Superintendents placed eleven of the eighteen basic characteristics at or above the 50 percent level of implementation. Principals rated nine of the characteristics at or above the 50 percent level, while teachers' score was eight. Movement down the hierarchy indicates lower scores. Among the eight characteristics that all three groups rated at or above the 50 percent level of implementation, superintendents scored highest with the principals next and teachers lowest on five of these characteris- tics. On the remaining three characteristics teachers never attained the highest score. There was only one characteristic that showed the relationship of superintendents with the highest score and teachers with the lowest score among the seven characteristics below the 50 percent level of implementa- tion. Teachers attained the highest score on three of the characteristics. 56 7:” seats... .0252 men mite: 32:5; $8 9.283 as: .3 e.om moovuoutn :o_ua:—~>u m.mm Au,>.uuo pec35mcu:~ n.mn mmotmocn macac—ucou .5. c.oe aevgomou Bump o.am mcpguoou some o.mn xu_>_uun .oc:5ogue~ .m— e._v mmmcmoca maoacvucou p._e moovuuuca covuaapa>u «.mn moo.»uuca co.uu:—a>u .m— o.pe xur>.uuo pucasotucu m.¢e o—avogum opawxopu o.—e ucvmmuum aya*_—x=< .¢_ n.ee moucovconxo o>+uaocu m.¢e «anemone —.¢e mancuoca «coaguvcco a Acouacopaxm aces:uvc:m a seepage—gum .m— n.m¢ msocaocn «coagu—cco a agouocopnxu e.~o mmocmoca mzozeaueou p.me opauogum m—nvxo—u .m— m.me meowucpoc saweaesou n.m¢ mmucovcoaxm o>—uemcu m.om neocoacmaxo u>aauocu .—— e.~o opavogum o—npxopu m.m¢ moucopconxm pevuom m.—m moucopcoaxm poauom .o_ o.~e moueovcoqxo po_oom F.om meowucpog xuwczseou o.~m mco_»o—oc supeaesou .m . m.mm avaum unocconove~ o.mm Ema—oavaca vocempd ~.om Emvpoacoca tuneup; .m m.wm smvpcavmcm emcee—e m.mm xvaum acoueoaouc~ o.po xvsum «cutaneouc. .h ~.mm mmucowcoa ¢.mm Logos» zuvcaumm «covaum o.mo gouge» xuvcauom unavaam -xo uevccao. u.mom .o m.oo mou.>cow acouaum _.mm mouv>com ooccu.=o N.mo coupon xuvcaoum «seesaw .m —.~m mouvscom uucuv.=u «.mo mouv>cum «cannon c.5o pe_cou~e-_u—=z .e m.mm moucopconxu savanna. u—mum m.ac mooeovgonxo mcvccoop uvmom _.o~ moup>eom oucuc.=w .m w.om peacouus-vu—=z m.o~ povgouosa.up=: n.—~ «mu.>com «covaum .~ m.v~ . mouco.conxo pou'mxza 0.05. neocovgoaxu _uu*m»;o m.ms. mouse—coaxo pau.mxga .— —o>ou u.um_couuocuzu —u>o4 ovum.cuuu~co;u po>u4 u.»m.eouuucogu . mmmzuop on» mean: an movumvcouunc-gu egg mo unexcoc as» --.o.v m4o.uuo —ac=Eagu=_ «.mm zuv>vuua pagasocu=~ m.oe mansmcca acosguygco a xuouucc—axm .m— o.mm moo—uuasa co.au:p~>u —.mn acupuuosq ca'uoa—aau a.oo opauogum o—a.xo.u .mp m.mm mangaoca o.o. msosmoga newsguvccu a xgcuuco—axm ueoscu—gco a nuoumso—nxm ¢.—e au_>—uuo pagasugu:_ .c— m._o u—acmgum opa.xo—m o.¢¢ unasmoca «soacvucou ~._o moo—uuaga co.ua:pa>m .m_ m.—¢ muucm_coaxm u>.uawcu o.m¢ muucopcoaxu o>vuaogu o.me mmmgaoca m=o==.ucou .~— «.3 28339. 3255.8 ~13 32.2.3 3.:qu «.8 mmucotmnxo 333.5 .: o.mv mmwcmoca maoac—ucou m.o¢ mcopuapog »u_c:EEou °.mm mcopuopuc xu.casaou .o— n.om moo—>gom acuvaum n.mm wooed—coaxa povuom p.vm suaum acovcoaou=_ .m m.om mmu=o_guaxo —u_uom «.mm xvaum unaccoaovc~ n.om mouco.gmaxm .avuom .m _.—m mou.>gmm uocau.=o n.—o mou.>gom oucov_:u ~.mm mouv>com oucauwsu .u m.mm Em.—aauucm coccapa m.po Landau xu.g=uom acouaum ¢.no mauv>gam «gouaum .u m.mm xuaum ucoocoaovcm m.~o mouco—Lua «.mo Em._~=uacm vaccopa .m uxo m:.=cuo— u.m~m “.mo moucu_coq m.mm Louuom xu.c:omm acuvaum o.no mou.>cmm «covaum -xo a:.:coo— uvmam .e —.om —o¢guuasupa—=z c.oo —a.gmuusl.upaz o.~m .awcouasr_upaz .n ~.mm moucovcoaxo mcvccuu_ u.m~m c.- Em.—uavacu vmccupa «.Ns Lauuom xuwcaucm acauaum .N m.- mouco.goaxa —au_magu m.—w moucovgoaxo —uu.mxga ¢.~m muu:u_coaxo .uu.m»g¢ .— —o>u4 u.umwcuuuugacu po>m4 u.um*soauuc~gu pa>ua o_umvcouuacacu . ”55E 3% E .m n m wouuca .m_co:um opus—E mwoc..—~ wouuopmm cw mguguaau ago n—oapucfign .mucoucmu=.cuaam usu mo covco mcvucoumou :. museum co—uaucuea—ae. yo —u>u_ «nu oc.m= an mu_um'couuacogu use no ucvxcac ugh u-.m.v u4m<~ 65 Superintendents had the highest score on eight of the characteristics. Principals scored highest on eight characteristics and lowest on three characteristics. The incidence of descending scores in going down the positions in the hierarchy of school organization was true in seven of the eighteen characteristics. The scores never increased as the position in the hierarchy increased. Objective III To compare the average level of implementation scores of selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6 - 8, with the scores that the measurement instru- ment would yield if all eighteen middle school charac- teristics were fully implemented. To satisfy the requirements of this objective, the level of implemen- tation scores for the schools with grades 6 - 8 was determined by com- puting the average of the level of implementation scores of the superin- tendents, principals and teachers of the schools with grades 6 - 8. Table 4.9 on page 66 represents the average mean scores and the average of the level of implementation for this group. The average scores of the level of implementation as perceived by all three groups, superintendents, principals and teachers of middle schools grades 6 - 8, indicated that eight of the characteristics were over the 50 percent level of implementation while ten of the characteris- tics were below the 50 percent level of implementation. The middle school characteristics that were above the 50 percent level included the following: planned gradualism (56.0%), independent study (59.0%), student security factor (62.3%), guidance services (65.1%), student services (65.7%), basic learning experiences (66.5%). multi- material (68.3%) and physical experiences (76.8%). Those middle school TABLE 4.9.-- The mean and percent’of implementation scores for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6-8, computed by using the average of the scores of superintendents, principals and teachers. Maximum Percent of Characteristic Possible Mean Implementa- Score tion 1. Auxiliary staffing 8 2.96 37.0 2. Team teaching 22 8.54 38.8 3. Evaluation practices 9 3.58 39.8 4. Intramural activity 18 7.20 40.0 5. Continuous progress 10 4.27 42.7 Exploratory and enrichment programs 27 12.08 44.7 7. Flexible schedule 15 7.06 47.1 8. Creative experiences 18 8.61 47.8 9. Community relations 14 6.91 49.4 10. Social experiences 24 11.87 49.5 11. Planned gradualism 3 1.68 56.0 12. Independent study 7 4.13 59.0 13. Student security factor 9 5.61 62.3 14. Guidance services 15 9.76 65.1 15. Student services 9 5.91 65.7 16. Basic learning experiences 13 8.65 66.5 17. Multi-material 37 25.27 68.3 18. Physical experiences 13 9.99 76.8 Total Scores 271 144.08 53.1 67 characteristics below the 50 percent level of implementation included: auxiliary staffing (37.0%), team teaching (38.8%), evaluation practices (39.8%), intramural activity (40.0%), continuous progress (42.7%), exploratory and enrichment programs (44.7%), flexible schedule (47.1%), creative experiences (47.8%), community relations (49.4%) and social experiences (49.5%). Objective IV To compare the average level of implementation scores of selected Illinois middle schools, grades 5 - 8, with the scores that the measurement instru- ment would yield if all eighteen middle school charac- teristics were fully implemented. The average level of implementation scores for the schools, grades 5 - 8, was determined by computing the average of the level of imple- mentation scores of the superintendents, principals and teacher of schools with grades 5 - 8. Table 4.10 on page 68 represents the average level of implementation scores for this group. In satisfying Objective IV, the perception of all three groups indicated that nine middle school characteristics were above the 50 percent level and nine characteristics were below the 50 percent level of implementation. The middle school characteristics that were above the 50 percent level of implementation included the following: social experiences (54.2%), independent study (56.1%), guidance services (57.4%), student services (59.1%), student security factor (63.2%), planned gradualism (63.7%), basic learning experiences (65.5%), multi-material (66.5%) and physical experiences (80.5%). Those middle school characteristics below 68 TABLE 4.10.-- The mean and percent'of implementation scores for selected Illinois middle schools, grades 5-8, computed by using the average of the scores of superintendents, principals and teachers. Maximum Percent of Characteristic Possible Mean Implementa- Score tion 1. Team teaching 22 6.42 29.2 2. Auxiliary staffing 8 2.46 30.8 3. Intramural activity 18 6.75 37.5 4. Evaluation practices 9 3.58 39.8 5. Exploratory and enrichment programs 27 10.84 40.1 6. Flexible schedule 15 6.47 43.1 7. Continuous progress 10 4.57 45.7 8. Creative experiences 18 8.24 45.8 9. Community relations 14 6.90 49.3 10. Social experiences 24 13.00 54.2 11. Independent study 7 3.93 56.1 12. Guidance services 15 8.61 57.4 13. Student services 9 5.32 59.1 14. Student security factor 9 5.69 63.2 15. Planned gradualism 3 1.91 63.7 16. Basic learning experiences 13 8.51 65.5 17. Multi-material 37 24.62 66.5 18. Physical experiences 13 10.46 80.5 Total Scores 271 138.28 51.5 69 the 50 percent level of implementation included: team teaching (29.2%), auxiliary staffing (30.8%), intramural activity (37.5%), evaluation practices (39.8%), exploratory and enrichment programs (40.1%), flexible schedule (43.1%), continuous progress (45.7%), creative experiences (45.8%) and community relations (49.3%). Objective V To compare the average level of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics reported by selected middle schools in Illinois, grades 6 - 8, with the average level reported by selected middle schools in Illinois, grades 5 - 8. In satisfying Objective V, the average perception of all three groups, superintendents, principals and teachers, for schools grades 6-8 and schools grades 5-8 indicated that there was only one discrepancy between the two groups. The discrepancy was that the middle school characteristic social experiences was perceived at the 49.5 percent level of implementa- tion for the 6-8 schools and at the 54.2 percent level of implementation for the 5-8 schools. The eight middle school characteristics that both groups, schools 6-8 and schools 5-8, listed as being implemented above the 50 percent level of implementation were as follows: '6-8 Schools 5-8 Schools Planned gradualism 56.0% 63.7% Independent study 59.0% 56.1% Student security factor 62.3% 63.2% Guidance services 65.1% 57.4% Student services 65.7% 59.1% 70 6-8 Schools 5-8 Schools Basic learning experiences 66.5% 65.5% Multi-material 68.3% 66.5% Physical experiences 76.8% 80.5% The eight middle school characteristics that both groups listed as being below the 50 percent level of implementation were: 6-8 Schools 5-8 Schools Auxiliary staffing 37.0% 30.8% Team teaching 38.8% 29.2% Evaulation practices 39.8% 39.8% Intramural activity 40.0% 37.5% Continuous progress 42.7% 45.7% Exploratory and enrichment programs 44.7% 40.1% Flexible schedule 47.1% 43.1% Creative experiences 47.8% 45.8% Community relations 49.4% 49.3% The six through eight middle schools in Illinois showed an average 53.1 percent level of implementation of the eighteen characteristics while the five through eight middle schools had an average level of 51.5 percent. Raymer had also found that the six through eight middle schools in Michigan had a higher average level of implementation than the five through eight middle schools. The average level of implementation of the eighteen characteristics in middle schools in Illinois was just above 50 percent. It had been reported in previous research studies that middle schools in Michigan, New Jersey, 71 Pennsylvania, California, Texas, Arkansas, Virginia and South Carolina did not score much above the 50 percent level either. All studies, including this one, have indicated that there is a lack of adequate implementation of the eighteen characteristics. The results are pre- sented in Table 4.11 on page 72. Objective VI To compare the average level of implementation scores reported by teachers with that reported by principals in the Illinois middle schools. To satisfy the requirements of objectives VI, VII and VIII the level of implementation scores for the superintendents, principals and teachers for all schools in Illinois were determined by computing the average score of each group. The teachers and principals listed eight middle school characteristics above the 50 percent level of implementation. They were: Teachers Principals Planned gradualism 55.0% 62.7% Student services 55.3% 64.6% Independent study 55.6% 59.1% Guidance services 56.6% 62.2% Student security factor 57.0% 62.4% Multi-material 66.5% 68.1% Basic learning experiences 67.5% 66.2% Physical experiences 75.9% 79.2% The eight characteristics perceived by both groups, teachers and principals, to be below the 50 percent level of implementation were the following: 72 TABLE 4.11.-- A comparison of the average level of implementation scores of selected middle schools in Illinois housing grades 6 - 8 and grades 5 - 8. 6-8 Level ffiLfi 5-8 Level Characteristic of of Implementation Implementation 1. Auxiliary staffing 37.0 30.8 2. Team teaching 38.8 29.2 3. Evaluation practices 39.8 39.8 4. Intramural activity 40.0 37.5 5. Continuous progress 42.7 45.7 6. Exploratory and enrichment programs 44.7 40.1 7. Flexible schedule 47.1 43.1 8. Creative experiences 47.8 45.8 9. Community relations 49.4 49.3 10. Social experiences 49.5 54.2 11. Planned gradualism 56.0 63.7 12. Independent study 59.0 56.1 13. Student security factor 62.3 63.2 14. Guidance services 65.1 57.4 15. Student services 65.7 59.1 16. Basic learning experiences 66.5 65.5 17. Multi-material 68.3 66.5 18. Physical experiences 76.8 80.5 53.1% 51.5% 73 Teachers Principals Auxiliary staffing 29.8% 35.4% Team teaching 32.6% 36.1% Intramural activity 38.1% 37.8% Evaluation practices 38.6% 40.1% Exploratory and enrichment programs 42.4% 42.7% Creative experiences 42.9% 46.9% Flexible schedule 44.4% 46.0% Continuous progress 44.7% 45.7% Community relations 45.8% 49.4% There was a discrepancy regarding the middle school characteristic social experiences. The teachers' average score of the level of implemen- tation was 49.1 percent while the principals' average score of the level of implementation was 52.5 percent. The principals reported higher scores than the teachers on sixteen of the eighteen characteristics. The results are presented in Table 4.12 on page 74. Objective VII To compare the average level of implementation scores reported by teachers with that reported by superintendents in the Illinois middle schools. The teachers and superintendents listed eight middle school charac- teristics above the 50 percent level of implementation. They were the following: 74 TABLE 4.12.-- A comparison of the average levels of implementation scores of the teachers and principals in the Illinois middle schools. Teachers' Average Principals' Average Characteristic Level of Implemen- Level of Implemen- tation Score tation Score 1. Auxiliary staffing 29.8 35.4 2. Team teaching 32.6 36.1 3. Intramural activity 38.1 37.8 4. Evaluation practices 38.6 40.1 5. Exploratory and enrichment programs 42.4 42.7 6. Creative experiences 42.9 46.9 7. Flexible schedule 44.4 46.0 8. Continuous progress 44.7 45.7 9. Community relations 45.8 49.4 10. Social experiences 49.1 52.5 11. Planned gradualism 55.0 62.7 12. Student services 55.3 64.6 13. Independent study 55.6 59.1 14. Guidance services 56.6 62.2 15. Student security factor 57.0 62.4 16. Multi-material 66.5 68.1 17. Basic learning experiences 67.5 66.2 18. Physical experiences 75.9 79.2 50.1% 52.8% 75 Teachers Superintendents Planned gradualism 55.0% 62.0% Student services 55.3% 67.4% Independent study 55.6% 58.0% Guidance services 56.6% 62.9% Student security factor 57.0% 69.0% Multi-material 66.5% 67.7% Basic learning experiences 67.5% 64.5% Physical experiences 75.9% 81.1% The middle school characteristics below the 50 percent level of imple- mentation were the following: Teachers Superintendents Auxiliary staffing 29.8% 36.4% Team teaching 32.6% 33.3% Intramural activity 38.1% 40.5% Evaluation practices 38.6% 40.8% Exploratory and enrichment programs 42.4% 42.2% Flexible schedule 44.4% 45.0% Continuous progress 44.7% 42.2% In the following middle school characteristics there were discre- pancies as to whether they were above or below the 50 percent levels of implementation. The discrepancies were as follows: Teachers Superintendents Creative experiences 42.9% 50.6% Community relations 45.8% 52.8% Social experiences 49.1% 53.9% A summary of the results are presented in Table 4.13 on page 76. 76 TABLE 4.13.-- A comparison of the average levels of implementation scores of the teachers and superintendents in the Illinois middle schools. Teachers' Average Superintendents' Characteristic Level of Implemen- Average Level of Im- tation Score plementation Score 1. Auxiliary staffing 29.8 36.4 2. Team teaching 32.6 33.3 3. Intramural activity 38.1 40.5 4. Evaluation practices 38.6 40.8 5. Exploratory and enrichment programs 42.4 42.2 6. Creative experiences 42.9 50.6 7. Flexible schedule 44.4 45.0 8. Continuous progress 44.7 42.2 9. Community relations 45.8 52.8 10. Social experiences 49.1 53.9 11. Planned gradualism 55.0 62.0 12. Student services 55.3 67.4 13. Independent study 55.6 58.0 14. Guidance services 56.6 62.9 15. Student security factor 57.0 69.0 16. Multi-material 66.5 67.7 17. Basic learning experiences 67.5 64.5 18. Physical experiences 75.9 81.1 50.1% 53.5% 77 In satisfying Objective VII, it was found that the two groups, teachers and superintendents, stated that eight of the middle school characteristics were above the 50 percent level of implementation while seven of the middle school characteristics were below the 50 percent level of implementation. The discrepancies were in the following middle school characteristics: creative experiences, community relations and social experiences. The superintendents reported the highest score on fifteen of the eighteen charac- teristics. Objective VIII To compare the level of implementation scores reported by the principals with that reported by superintendents in the Illinois middle schools. The middle school characteristics reported by the two groups, principals and superintendents, as being above the 50 percent level of implementation were the following: Principals Superintendents Social experiences 52.5% 53.9% Independent study 59.1% 58.0% Guidance services 62.2% 62.9% Student security factor 62.4% 69.0% Planned gradualism 62.7% 62.0% Student services 64.6% 67.4% Basic learning experiences 66.2% 64.5% Multi-material 68.1% 67.7% Physical experiences 79.2% 81.1% 78 The middle school characteristics reported by both groups to be below the 50 percent level of implementation were the following: Principals Superintendents Auxiliary staffing 35.4% 36.4% Team teaching 36.1% 33.3% Intramural activity 37.8% 40.5% Evaluation practices 40.1% 40.8% Exploratory and enrichment programs 42.7% 42.2% Continuous progress 45.7% 42.2% Flexible schedule 46.0% 45.0% The discrepancies between the two groups were the following: Principals Superintendents Creative experiences 46.9% 50.6% Community relations 49.4% 52.8% The total results are presented in Table 4.14 on page 79. In satisfying Objective VIII it was found that nine of the middle school characteristics were reported to be above the 50 percent level of implementation while seven of the characteristics were reported to be below the 50 percent level of implementation. The discrepancies were in the following characteristics: creative experiences and community relations. The superintendents reported higher scores on ten of the eighteen characteristics. This group generally scored higher than the principals and the principals scored higher than the teachers. 79 TABLE 4.14.-- A comparison of the level of implementation scores of the principals and superintendents in the Illinois middle schools. Principals' Level Superintendents' Characteristic of Implementation Level of Implemen- Score - , -~- - tation Score 1. Auxiliary staffing 35.4 36.4 2. Team teaching 36.1 33.3 3. Intramural activity 37.8 40.5 4. Evaluation practices 40.1 40.8 5. Exploratory and enrichment programs 42.7 42.2 6. Continuous progress 45.7 42.2 7. Flexible schedule 46.0 45.0 8. Creative experiences 46.9 50.6 9. Community relations 49.4 52.8 10. Social experiences 52.5 53.9 11. Independent study 59.1 58.0 12. Guidance services 62.2 62.9 13. Student security factor 62.4 69.0 14. Planned gradualism 62.7 62.0 15. Student services 64.6 67.4 16. Basic learning experiences 66.2 64.5 17. Multi-material ’ 68.1 67.7 18. Physical experiences 79.2 81.1 52.8% 53.5% 80 School Visitations Two schools were identified from a compilation of the sum of the raw scores of the superintendent, principal and teacher of each school. The total raw scores ranged from a low score of 254 to a high score of 514 out of a possible total score of 813. After the two schools were identified, the principal of each school was contacted and a visitation time was established in May. One of the schools was located in central Illinois and the other was located in northern Illinois. The school in northern Illinois had grades six through eight with an enrollment of approximately 445 students and a staff of 25 teachers. The school in central Illinois also included grades six through eight with an enrollment of approximately 410 students, a staff of 26 teachers and a counselor. Materials such as parent-student handbooks, master schedules, student evaluation forms, parent materials and an overview of the school district were received prior to the visitations. The observer used the same survey instrument for a comparison with scores reported by the superintendent, principal and teacher of each school. Some of the items were completed prior to the visitation using the materials that were sent in the mail. During the visitation the observer interviewed many staff members and students. At the school in northern Illinois, interviews were held with the assistant principal, media center director, two teachers at each grade level, the secretary and numerous students. Classrooms and the media center were visited. Then the remainder of the survey was completed by the observer. 81 In central Illinois, interviews were held with the principal, the counselor, two teachers at each grade level, the media center director, two coaches, the secretary and students. The media center and classrooms were visited. After the interviews and the facility observation, the re- mainder of the survey was completed by the observer. There were three discrepancies between the observation made by the researcher and the survey results from the superintendent, principal and teacher in the school in northern Illinois. Although the observer noted that special classes were available to critically handicapped learners, the respondents claimed no services were available at all. In the opera- tional design of the school the advisor-advisee role of the teacher was identified by the principal. In actuality, all respondents perceived that the role of the teacher as a guidance person was left strictly to the individual teacher's personal motivation. The final discrepancy was that the observation indicated 75 percent or less of the physical education class time was devoted to competitive type activities. The respondents perceived the time to be 50 percent or less. The results of the observa- tion and the average of the scores of the respondents were exactly the same as shown in Table 4.15 on page 83. In the observation of the school in central Illinois there were eleven discrepancies between the observer and the results from the respon- dents. The respondents reported that continuous progress programs were used with special groups while the observer noted that continuous progress programs were not used at this time. The respondents also stated that continuous progress programs were planned for a student over a calendar 82 year for more than three years while the observation indicated these programs were not used at all. The multi-textbook approach to learning was reportedly used in nearly all courses while the observation indicated this approach was not used. The respondents reported the schedule to be flexible to the degree that changes occurred within defined general time limits while the obser- vation noted that the program was traditional. A modified departmentalized (block-time, core, etc.) program was reported by the respondents. The observation indicated that the program was completely self contained and/or completely departmentalized. The observer noted that the school did not have an official newspaper. The response indicated there was an official newspaper and it was published four or fewer times per year. This was not a newspaper but a newsletter. A newspaper would be produced by students. The newsletter was generated by the staff in the principal's office. The role of the teacher as a guidance person was reported to be emphasized. The observer noted that the role was left strictly to the individual teacher's personal motivation. The general policy that pro- visions are made for the teacher to provide guidance services for all students was indicated by respondents. During the observation it was evident that no provisions were made for the teacher to provide guidance services for any students. Planning with other teachers on a weekly basis to change the master class time schedule was reported by the respondents to be a possibility. The observer found, through interviews with the counselor and principal, thatthe only time the master schedule could be changed was upon request for a change for the next school year. 83 Independent study opportunities were reported to be provided for all students. In actuality, according to students interviewed, only some were provided independent study opportunities. The intramural program included primarily team games as observed in the visitation and noted in the interviews with the coaches and physical education teachers. Conversely, the respondents reported that the intra- mural program included a variety of activities. The reports of the respondents and the observations of the visitation showed many discrepancies. Thus the score of the observer was much lower than the average score of the respondents. A summary of the scores is pro- vided in Table 4.15 below. TABLE 4.15.-- A comparison of the raw scores on the survey instrument of the superintendent, principal, teacher and observer regarding the visitation of two schools. Superin- tendent Principal Teacher Average Observer Lowest School 129 117 111 119 118 Highest School 169 168 166 168 139 Summar The superintendents of the six through eight middle schools in the State of Illinois achieved a total mean score of 146.67, or 54.6 percent of a total 271 points possible. Eleven of the middle school characteristics were reported by this group to be above the 50 percent level of implementa- tion. These characteristics were: (1) creative experiences, (2) social 84 experiences, (3) community relations, (4) planned gradualism, (5) indepen- dent study, (6) basic learning experiences, (7) student security factor, (8) multi-material, (9) guidance services, (10) student services and (11) physical experiences. Nine characteristics were reported to be over the 50 percent level of implementation by principals in the six through eight schools. The charac- teristics were: (1) community relations, (2) planned gradualism, (3) independent study, (4) student security factor, (5) guidance services, (6) student services, (7) basic learning experiences, (8) multi-material and (9) physical experiences. The principals attained a total score of 145.42 for 53.5 percent of the maximum score. The teachers in the six through eight schools achieved a total score of 140.17, or 51.3 percent of the maximum score. (1) Independent study, (2) planned gradualism, (3) student security factor, (4) student services, (5) guidance services, (6) basic learning experiences, (7) multi-material and (8) physical experiences were the eight characteristics reported to be above the 50 percent level of implementation. For all three groups the eight characteristics reported to be over the 50 percent level of implementation were: (1) physical experiences, (2) student services, (3) guidance services, (4) multi-material, (5) student security factor, (6) basic learning experiences, (7) independent study and (8) planned gradualism. In the five through eight middle schools the total score of the superintendents was 142.98 for a 53.4 percent level of implementation. The characteristics reported to be above the 50 percent level of implemen- tation were: 85 (1) creative experiences, (2) community relations, (3) independent study, (4) social experiences, (5) guidance services, (6) student services, (7) planned gradualism, (8) basic learning experiences, (9) multi-material, (10) student security factor and (11) physical experiences. The principals had a score of 140.56, or a 52.8 percent level of implementation of the eighteen characteristics. Those characteristics reported to be above the 50 percent level of implementation were: (1) student services, (2) social experiences, (3) guidance services, (4) planned gradualism, (5) independent study, (6) student security factor, (7) multi-material, (8) basic learning experiences and (9) physi- cal experiences. The total score of 131.23 achieved by the teachers in grades five through eight represented a 48.7 percent level of implementation. The characteristics reported in the 50 percent and above level of implementa- tion were: (1) student services, (2) social experiences, (3) guidance services, (4) plannec gradualism, (5) independent study, (6) student securi- ty factor, (7) multi-material, (8) basic learning experiences and (9) physical experiences. The middle school characteristics for all three groups that were reported to be above the 50 percent level of implementation were: (1) physical experiences, (2) student security factor, (3) multi-material, (4) basic learning experiences, (5) planned gradualism, (6) student services, (7) guidance services, (8) social experiences and (9) independent study. The composite score for the grades six through eight middle schools was 144.08, or a 53.1 percent rate of implementation. The rate of imple- 'mentation for the five through eight schools was 51.5 percent with a total 86 score of 138.28. Therefore, the six through eight schools had only a slightly higher rate of implementation of the characteristics than the five through eight schools. The five through eight schools had one more characteristic than the six through eight schools in the 50 percent and above level of implementa- tion. Both groups of schools included the following characteristics in the 50 percent and above level of implementation: (1) planned gradualism, (2) independent study, (3) student security factor, (4) guidance services, (5) student services, (6) basic learning experiences, (7) multi-material and (8) physical experiences. The superintendents achieved a 53.5 percent level of implementation, while the principals achieved a 52.8 percent level of implementation, with the teachers scoring somewhat lower at 50.1 percent. The average score, 119, for the school scoring lowest on the rate of implementation and the observer's score of 118 obtained during the visitation were very similar. But the average score of the school scoring the highest and the observer's score indicated a ten and seven tenths per- cent difference. There were many discrepancies between the reports of the respondents and the observations provided by the visitations. The discrepencies may be a result of the fact that the respondents used the questionnaire only, while the observer used many sources. The observer discussed with those interviewed their understanding of the terms used, such as continuous progress, team teaching, planned gradualism and the other basic characteristics. Materials made available by the school were studied by the observer prior to the visitation, giving the observer insights on particular characteristics. For example, activities schedules 87 were examined to determine whether there was an intramural program avail- able to all students. Also, some questions from the questionnaire were asked only of specific persons involved in a particular area of the school program. Therefore, the findings of the observer were the results of responses from many sources. These findings indicate that Illinois middle schools selected for this study are employing the eighteen basic middle school characteristics at just over a 50 percent rate of implementation. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS Summary Criticisms of the progress of the junior high school movement created a new school concept. This new concept was the middle school philosophy which began in the early 19505. During the past thirty years this move- ment grew in popularity to the point that there are now more than 4,000 middle schools in the United States. This movement was developed on the theory that children of today mature more rapidly than the children of generations ago. The age group from eleven to fourteen was especially identified as the group that ex- periences many physical, emotional and psychological changes. This group of children was called transescents and new programs were developed to deal with their special problems. Purpose of the Study This study was designed to determine the current level of implementa- tion of eighteen basic middle school characteristics as reported by teachers, principals and superintendents in selected middle schools in the State of Illinois. The eighteen basic characteristics are continuous progress, multi-materials, flexible schedule, social experiences, physical exper- iences, intramural activities, team teaching, planned gradualism, explora- tory and enrichment programs, guidance services, independent study, basic 88 89 learning experiences, creative experiences, a student security factor, evaluation practices, community relations, student services, and auxil- iary staffing. Design of the Study A survey questionnaire, used to determine the degree of implementa- tion of these characteristics, was mailed to a random sample of superin- tendents, principals and teachers in Illinois middle schools, grades five through eight and six through eight. Seventy-seven percent of the super- intendents, 91 percent of the principals and 70 percent of the teachers returned the completed survey forms. The Illinois State Department of Education provided the names and addresses of the schools and school districts. Two schools were selected for visitations. The school which came closest to meeting the criteria and another school which was farthest from meeting the criteria were visited. The Traverse Bay Area Computer Center and the Michigan State Univer- sity Computer Center were used to program and process the results of the survey and the visitations. The Statistical Program for the Social Sciences was used to generate the descriptive statistics. The level of implementa- tion scores of each group of respondents was compared as well as the level of implementation scores of the two grade combinations. Findings Objective I To measure the degree of implementation, as reported by superintendents, principals and teachers, of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics practiced by selected middle schools, grades 6 - 8, in Illinois. 90 The superintendents of the grades six through eight middle schools reported the highest mean percentage with the principals second and the teachers last. The difference between the superintendents' percentage and the teachers' was 3.3. This indicates that the three groups, super- intendents, principals and teachers of the grades six through eight middle schools, have very similar perceptions of the level of implementa- tion of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics. Objective II To measure the degree of implementation, as reported by superintendents, principals and teachers, of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics practiced by selected middle schools, grades 5 - 8, in Illinois. The total mean percentage scores for the superintendents, principals and teachers of the five through eight middle schools differed by 4.7 percent. The superintendents recorded the highest mean score while the teachers recorded the lowest mean score. Again the three groups have similar scores, differing only by 4.7 percent, on the level of implementa- tion of the eighteen middle school characteristics. Objective III To compare the average level of implementation scores of selected Illinois middle schools, grades 6 - 8, with the scores that the measurement instrument would yield if all eighteen middle school characteristics were fully imple- mented. The mean score for the grades six through eight middle schools for the level of implementation of the eighteen basic characteristics is 53.1 percent. This indicates that the characteristics are implemented, on the average, just above the 50 percent level of implementation. 91 Some of the characteristics that need to be applied at a higher level of implementation are auxiliary staffing, team teaching, evalua- tion practices, intramural activities, continuous progress and explora- tory and enrichment programs. Objective IV To compare the average level of implementation scores of selected Illinois middle schools, grades 5 - 8, with the scores that the measurement instrument would yield if all eighteen middle school characteristics were fully implemented. The five through eight middle schools achieved an average mean score of 51.5 percent. This indicates just above the 50 percent level of imple- mentation. The characteristics that need to be addressed in the five through eight middle schools in Illinois are auxiliary staffing, team teaching, evaluation practices, intramural activity, continuous progress, explora- tory and enrichment programs and flexible schedule. Objective V To compare the average level of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics reported by selected middle schools in Illinois, grades 6 - 8, with the average level reported by selected middle schools in Illinois, grades 5 - 8. The level of implementation of the six through eight and five through eight schools differed by 1.6 percent. This indicates that there is very little difference between the two units. Both the six through eight and five through eight schools need to apply the following characteristics to a greater degree: auxiliary 92 staffing, team teaching, evaluation practices, intramural activity and exploratory and enrichment programs. Objective VI To compare the average level of implementation scores reported by teachers with that reported by principals in the Illinois middle schools. The level of implementation of the teachers and principals for all middle schools in Illinois differed by 2.7 percent. The principals re- ported the higher of the two scores. Even though there was a difference in scores of only 2.7 percent, the principals reported a higher level of implementation for sixteen of the eighteen characteristics. Objective VII To compare the average level of implementation scores reported by teachers with that reported by superinten- dents in the Illinois middle schools. The level of implementation score for teachers for all middle school in Illinois differed from the superintendents' score by 3.4 percent. The superintendents reported the higher of the two scores. Again the differ- ence in the two scores was not significant. The superintendents reported higher percentages on fifteen of the eighteen characteristics. Administrators reported the implementation of the characteristics at a higher level than teachers. Objective VIII To compare the average level of implementation scores reported by principals with that reported by superin- tendents in the Illinois middle schools. 93 The difference between the scores of the principals and the superin- tendents was 0.7 percent. The superintendents achieved the higher score. Again there is not a signiticant difference between these two groups. School Visitations The raw score of the observer in the lowest scoring school was the same as the average of the raw scores of the superintendent, principal and teacher. In the highest scoring school there was a difference of 10.3 percent between the score of the observer and the average score of the superintendent, principal and teacher. The difference between the two scores in the highest scoring school indicates that the reported level of implementation of the superintendent, principal and teacher was consistently higher compared with that of the observer. This implies that the level of implementation in this school may not be as high as reported but still appears to be higher than most of the schools surveyed. Compensation for the difference among the respondents and the observer resulted from the fact that the observer used materials such as handbooks and schedules to make decisions regarding the level of implementation of some of the characteristics. Also, during the interviewing process the observer defined some of the terms for the interviewee. Examples of some of the terms defined were planned gradualism, continuous progress, flexible schedule and intramural activities. This resulted in a better understanding of the meaning of the eighteen basic characteristics. Conclusions l. The grades six through eight and five through eight middle schools 94 in Illinois have not implemented the eighteen basic characteristics to a very high degree. The total composite score of 52.3 percent, which repre- sents the average implementation for all grades six through eight and five through eight middle schools supports this conclusion. 2. Three middle school characteristics, basic learning experiences, multi-material and physical experiences, had a composite percentage of implementation scores in the 65 to 80 percent range. 3. Four middle school characteristics, auxiliary staffing, team teaching, evaluation practices and intramural activities, had a composite percentage of implementation scores of 40 percent or less. 4. The remaining middle school characteristics, continuous progress, exploratory and enrichment programs, flexible schedule, creative experiences,i community relations, social experiences, planned gradualism, independent study, student security factor, guidance services and student services, had composite percentage scores between 40 and 65 percent. 5. The grade six through eight middle schools in Illinois implement the following characteristics to a high degree: student security factor, guidance services, student services, basic learning experiences, multi- material and physical experiences. 6. Grades five through eight middle schools in Illinois implement the following characteristics to a high degree: student security factor, planned gradualism, basic learning experiences, multi-material and physi— cal experiences. 7. Nhether a middle school houses three grades or four grades is not significantly related to the level of implementation of the eighteen basic 95 middle school characteristics as indicated by grades six through eight and five through eight schools in Illinois. Although the percentage of implementation of 53.1 percent for the grades six through eight schools was slightly higher than the percentage of implementation of 51.5 percent for the grades five through eight schools, both scored just over half of the maximum possible score. 8. A comparison of the level of implementation of grades six through eight schools with the five through eight schools showed only small differ- ences in fifteen of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics. The noticeable differences occurred in the implementation of the characteris- tics of team teaching, planned gradualism and guidance services. The six through eight schools indicated a higher level of implementation of team teaching and guidance services while the five through eight schools indi- cated a higher level of implementation of planned gradualism. In the past, opinions and speculations were the only means of deter- mining how well middle schools in Illinois were implementing the eighteen basic middle school characteristics. Through this study, empirical infor- mation has been obtained and presented as to how well the eighteen charac- teristics are implemented in the schools surveyed. The levels of implemen- tation reported in this study will retain value over a period of time as reference points for other studies and information for educators in the State of Illinois. The challenge facing educators in Illinois and through- out the country is implementation of the eighteen basic characteristics more extensively in the middle schools. 96 Implications of the Findings The findings of the study show that superintendents, principals and teachers were not in agreement on the level of implementation of some of the characteristics, such as creative experiences. Could these discrep- ancies result because superintendents do not get involved in curriculum planning within the school district? What about the lack of consistency between principals and teachers? These two groups should be able to communicate together on planning programs for the pre-adolescent. If a school is going to become a middle school then it seems imperative that there be far more dialogue between administrators and teachers toward a common understanding of what is to be included in the curriculum. Also, if there is a difference of opinion, opportunities should be provided for teachers and administrators to interact. The interviews indicate that there was a lack of common understanding of curriculum, scheduling proce- dures, and definitions of some of the eighteen basic characteristics. In the eighteen basic characteristics this problem of lack of com- munication among the people surveyed was true not only in the area of academic experiences, but also in community relations and social exper- iences. Again, it is imperative that opportunities be provided to assess what teachers are doing and to determine if the program is proceeding as agreed upon by the entire staff. Either a five through eight or six through eight middle school struc- ture seemed to be appropriate. Of greater concern is the need for a con- centrated effort to achieve a much higher level of implementation of the eighteen basic characteristics. 97 One of the ways to increase the level of implementation, not only in Illinois but throughout the United States, is through staff develop- ment. If middle schools are to establish programs that are appropriately reSponsive to the needs of adolescents, an ongoing staff development pro- gram is a necessary ingredient of the total effort of these schools. Middle schools, because of the changing nature of their clientele, must be on an ever moving cycle of self-renewal. Some characteristics, such as team teaching, intramural activity, exploratory and enrichment programs, creative experiences, community relations, auxiliary staffing, flexible scheduling, evaluation practices and continuous progress, were not implemented within the middle schools at a high level. First, it is imperative that principals and teachers have a common understanding of these characteristics, and then they need to determine what procedures and materials are needed to implement them. After implementation comes evaluation. Time must be provided to determine if programs to implement these practices have been successful. This pro- cedure requires a commitment for staff in-service with released time for planning and evaluation. Of the two schools visited, the school that scored highest on the survey was in a community with a university. During the interviews it was very evident that the university had a definite impact on the middle school program in that community. Those teachers who volunteered to be supervising teachers were not paid but could enroll in university courses in exchange for their services and many of the teachers took advantage of this opportunity. Workshops and in-service programs were conducted by university staff on a periodic basis. 98 The school that scored lowest on the survey did not have a campus within the immediate area. In-service programs were not common and the only workshops were of the drive-in variety. Universities need to take their programs to the students rather than waiting for the students to enroll at the universities. The results of the study indicate that there could be more of a com— mitment to middle level education in Illinois. One of the ways to attain this commitment would be to have the Department of Education employ a professional staff member designated by title and responsibility for leadership in middle level education. The leadership responsibilities should include dissemination of materials to boards of education, adminis- trators and staff. Suggested curriculum, research regarding middle level students, schedules and in-service programs should be a part of these mater- ials. Also, another responsibility should include the supervision of the progress of a middle level certification program for teachers, administra- tors and other staff members. School boards and superintendents need to base reorganization deci- sions on the importance of meeting the needs of early adolescent youth. The actual reasons in the past have almost always been based on demography, economical use of existing buildings, desegregation or other administration- oriented factors as witnessed in the visitations. Boards of education and superintendents need to take the responsibility of budgeting for middle level education. Specific and meaningful teacher and administrator certification for the middle level is another area that needs to be addressed. Both teacher training institutions and local school districts need to work together in 99 a well-coordinated program of pre-service education and in-service activi- ties for staff members. The principal has been identified as the key to the success of a middle school. This person has to obtain the educational background and understand the eighteen basic middle school characteristics as an organi- zational structure and be able to develop this structural pattern in the school system. This important component could be a contributing factor in increasing the level of implementation of the eighteen basic middle school characteristics. Recommendations for Further Study The middle schools in Illinois did not score much over the 50 percent level of implementation. Research projects to determine why this is so could explore several possibilities: l. Discovering whether middle schools in Illinois were established according to the goals of the middle school movement or because of non- educational factors such as overcrowding or economics. Such a study could reveal the role a school district's commitment to middle school goals plays in their successful implementation. 2. Determining the educational background, philosophy and goals of the staffs of middle schools in Illinois. Did the age of the staff have any impact on lack of implementation? Were middle school teachers and other staff given a sufficient amount of pre-service training in the goals of a middle school? Were many high school staff members included who were reluctant to adapt to middle school methods? 3. Determining why superintendents scored higher than principals, who in turn scored higher than teachers in considering the implementation of 100 middle school goals to be successful. Was this because of differences in background? communication problems? a lack of understanding of the total program? 4. Analysis of the areas receiving the lowest scores, such as auxil- iary staffing and team teaching. Which of the eighteen middle school characteristics are most likely to be implemented and why? Reflections As present, information is sparse concerning the level of implemen- tation of the middle school concept. Available evidence seems to indi- cate that there is a significant gap between the ideal middle school as outlined in the literature and accepted by theorists and practitioners and actual programs now in operation. This study supported that the gap exists in middle schools in Illinois. Also, in the past ten years education for all grades has experienced serious stresses. Declining enrollments and shrinking financial resources have forced many school districts to close schools. Compounding the pro- blem, the declines have forced school systems to release middle school teachers and to transfer teachers trained for elementary or senior high teaching to teaching assignments in the middle grades. Therefore, there are teachers working in the middle grades who do not understand the needs or characteristics of these students. They were not trained to teach at this level and do not prefer to teach at this level. With the number of secondary trained teachers at the middle level the curriculum structure remains primarily a departmentalized organization. The content and the methods and techniques used to educate adolescents have 101 virtually remained the same. The subject-centered approach with learning experiences directed almost entirely by the teacher is a common practice. Even without considering the problem of reassignment of teachers, or teachers teaching out of their field, there exists a need for educa- tional institutions to provide specialized teacher preparation programs for teachers of middle level students. Perhaps another cause in the wide discrepancy in the organization and practices of middle schools in Illinois as well as across the country is the failure of state departments of education to address the problem. A small percentage of state departments have recommended middle schools to the districts in their states. In summary, then, there has been little leadership evident in develop- ing or supporting changes of the middle school concept. Until recently a lack of knowledge has existed regarding the early adolescent developmen- tal age level. Declining enrollments and shrinking finances have affected the staffing and methods of teaching the middle level students. Institu- tions of higher education have not offered appropriate course work for middle level teacher candidates. However, there has been continued growth in the number of middle schools. There also has been increased attention to middle level education by the established professional educational organizations. Even though some progress has been made, it is not enough. The setbacks have been identified and must be dealt with. In order to make further progress, supporters of the middle school concept must be even more active and committed than ever before. There needs to be a concerted effort again to organize changes in programs and teaching approaches so that middle grade students can learn more effectively. BIBLIOGRAPHY 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alexander, W., Williams, E., Compton, M., Hynes, V., and Prescott, D. The Emergent Middle School. New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1968. Alexander, W. and George, P. The Exempjory Middle School. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1981. Brooks, Kenneth. The Middle School in Transition. Lexington, Kentucky: The Center for Professional Development, 1978. Burington, Richard Stevens, and May, Donald Curtis. Handbook of Proba- bility and Statistics With Tables. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1970. Compton, M. F. (ed.). A Source Book for the Middle School. Athens, Georgia: Education Associates, 1978. Curtis, T. E., and Bidwell, W. W. Curriculum and Instruction for Emergjbg_Adolescents. Atlanta, Georgia: Addison—Wesley, 1977. Davis, Calvin 0. Junior High School Education. Yonkers-on—Hudson, New York: World Book Company, 1924. Eichhorn, Donald. The Middle School. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966. Gatewood, T. E., and Walker, G. H. A Comparative Studybof Middle Schools and Junior High Schools in the State of Michigan. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University, 1971. George, P. S., and Erb, T. O. A Comparative Study of Middle Schools and Junior High Schools in the State of Florida. Gainesville: Florida League of Middle Schools, 1975. Georgiady, Nicholas P., Riegle, Jack 0., and Romano, Louis G. The Middle School. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Company, 1973. Grooms. Perspectives of the Middle School. Merrill, 1976. Guidelines for Middle Grades Education. Nashville: Tennessee Department of Education, n.d. Howard, Alvin W., and Stoumbis, G. C. The Junior High and Middle School: Issues and Practices. Scranton, Pennsylvania: Intext Educational Publishers, 1970. 103 104 Hull, Hadlai C., and Nie, Norman H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Pocket Guide. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1981. Hull, Hadlai C., and Nie, Norman H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Update 7-9. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1981. Inglis, Alexander. Principles of Secondapy Lducetion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1918. Kindred, Leslie W. The Intermediate Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. Kindred, L et. al. The Middle School Curriculum: A Practitioner's Handbook, Second Edition. Rockleigh, New Jersey: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981. Klingele, W. E. Teaching in Middle Schools. New York: Allyn and Bacon, 1979. Lipsitz, Joan. Successful Schools for Young Adolescents. Transaction Books, 1983. Lounsbury, John H., and Vars, G. F. A Curriculum Guide for the Middle School Years. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. McGeassen, Maurice. The Middle School: Where? What? Whether? Phi Delta Kappan, 1973. Middle School We Need: ASCD Working Group on the Emerging_Adolescent ‘1earner. Text ed. Association Supervision, 1975. Moss, Theodore C. Middle School. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. Murphy, Judith. Middle Schools. New York, New York: Educational Facili- ties Laboratories, 1965. Nie, Norman H., Hull, Hadlai C., Jenkins, Jean G., Steinbrenner, Karin, Bent, Dale H. Statistical Packgge for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1975. Organization of the Middle Grades: A Summary of Research. Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Services, 1983. Popper, S. H. The American Middle School: An Organizational Analysis. Waltham, Massachusetts: William Blaisdell Company, 1967. A Programatic Definition for Middle Schools in West Virginia. Charleston: West Virginia Department of Education, 1977. Romano, L. G., Georgiady, N. The Middle School: Selected Reading on an Emerging School Prbgram. Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall, 1973. 105 Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education. New York: Random House, 1970. Smart, Mollie S., and Smart, Russell C. Adolescents. New York: McMillan Co., 1978. Sweat, Clifford, ed. Why the Junior High - Middle School: Its Basic Function. Interstate, 1977. Tickle, Les and Hargraves, Andy. Middle School. Harper and Row, 1980. Vantil, William, and others. Modern Education for the Junior High School Years. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1976. Webster's New Word Dictionary,pSecond College Edition. The World Publish— ing Company, 1970. Periodicals Abdo, Edward. "A Practitioner Speaks About the Middle School." Michigan Journal of Secondary Education, 13 (Winter, 1972), 6-11. Alexander, William M. "How Fares the Middle School?" The National //2\ Elementary Principal, (November, 1971), 8-11. f Alexander, William M. “The Middle School Movement." Theory into )\~,,/c Practice, (June, 1968), 114-117. Alexander, William M. "Middle School Status in Ten States." The National Elementary Principal, 51 (November, 1971), 67-77. Alexander, William M. "What Educational Plan for the In-Between-Ager." National Education Association Journal, (March, 1966), 30-33. Alexander, William M. "What's the Score on Middle Schools?" Today's Education, (November, 1971), 67. /'\ Alexander, William H., and Kealy, Ronald P. "From Junior High School to \xm”, Middle School." The High School Journal, (December, 1969), 151-163. Alexander, William M., and Williams, Emmett L. "Schools for the Middle School Years.” Educational Leadership, 23 (December, 1968), 219-223. Arth, Alfred A. “Renewsing the Momentum of Middle School Education." Education Digest, 46, (May, 1981), 38-41. “Articulating Middle Level and High School Programs: An Elusive Goal.” A Joint Statement of the NASSP Committee and Council on Middle Level Education. NASSP Bulletin, 67, (May, 1983), 2-7. Atkins; Neil P. "Rethinking Education in the Middle." Theory Into Practice, (June, 1968), 118-119. 106 Baldwin, Grover H. ”Middle School: Fantasy, Fad, or Fact.” Educational Leadership, (December, 1973), 242-244. Barnes, Donald E. "Your Middle School Must Have a Revised Program.” Educational Leadership, (December, 1973), 230-232. batezel, W. G. "Middle School: PhilosOphy, Program Organization." Clearing House, 42 (April, 1968), 487—490. Baughman, M. Dale. ”Joy in the Junior High and Middle School.” The National Association of Secondary School Principbls BulletinT-(May, 1973 , 51-59. Billings, Ronald Lee. "Musts for a Middle School." Clearing House, (April, 1976), 377-379. Blackburn, Jack E. "Middle Schools, Dreams, and Realities." High School //4 Journal, (December, 1969), 145-150. { 8105, Peter. "The Child Analyst Looks at the Young Adolescent." Daedalus, k, 100 (Fall, 1967). BOUgh, M. E. "Theoretical and Practical Aspects of the Middle School.“ The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 53 (March, 1969), 8-13. Bough, M. E., McClure, J., and Sinks, T. "Middle School: A Five State Survey; Upper Midwest States." Clearing House, 47 (November, 1972), 162-166. Bough, M. E. “The Intermediate Schools: The Junior High and the Middle School." Education Digest, 39 (October, 1973), 25-27. Brazee, E. and Smalley, B. "What Are Middle Schools Good For?” Instructor, 92 (1982), 30-33. Brimm, R. P. “Middle School or Junior High School.“ The National Associa- tion of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, (March, 1968), l-l7. Brimm, R. P. "Middle School or Junior High? Background and Rationale.” The National Association of Secondary_§chool Principals Bulletin, 55 (March, 1969), 1-7. Brod, Pearl. "Middle School Trends Toward Adoption.” Clearing House, 40 (February, 1966), 331-333. Brod, Pearl. "The Middle School in Practice.” Clearing House, 43 (May, 1969), 530-532. Brodinsky, Ben. "Education Issues to be Watched.” Michigan School Board Journal, 28 (February, 1982), 22-24. 107 Brooks, Kenneth. “The Middle School - A National Shrvey.” Middle School qurnal, (February, 1978), 6-7. Brown, William T. "The Makings of the Middle School: 21 Key Ingredients.“ Princiral, 60 (January, 1981), 18-19. Brubaker, D. L. and Simon, L. H. "Challenge of Articulating the Middle Grades Mission.” Journal of Instructional Psycholpg_, 10 (Spring, 1983), 119-125. Budde, R. "5-6-7-8: The Middle School of the Future." Michigan Journal of Secondary Education, (Fall, 1964), 1-9. Buell, Clayton E. "An Educational Rationale for the Middle School.” Clearing House, 42 (December, 1967), 242-244. Callaway, R. ”Principles, Perceptions of the Junior High and Middle School: A Rose by Any Other Name." Middle School Journal, (Summer, 1973), 13-16. "The Changing Middle School. The Best of ERIC Series. Number 13.” Research in Education, (April, 1976). Chiara, Clara, and Johnson, Elizabeth. "Is the Middle School Doomed for Failure?" Clearinngouse, 46 (January, 1972), 288-292. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. "Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education.“ Bulletin, Washington, D.C., Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, 35 (1918), 12-13. Compton, M. et. a1. “Middle Grades: The State of the Art." Today's Education, (1983-1984), 26-27. Compton, Mary F. "The Middle School: Alternative to the Status Quo.‘l Theory Into Practice, 7 (June, 1968), 108-110. Compton, Mary F. "The Middle School: A Status Report." Middle School Journal, 7 (June, 1976), 3-5. Compton, Mary F. "The Middle School Curriculum: A New Approach.“ The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 67 (May, 1983), 39-44. “Creating A Curriculum for Adolescent Youth." The National Education Association Research Bulletin, 6 (February 10, 1923), 1-5. Cuff, William A. ”Middle Schools on the March.” The National Associa- tion of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 51 (February, 1967), 82-86. Cuff, William A. "Can Middle Schools Cure a National Disgrace?" American School Board Journal, (November, 1969), 38-39. 108 Curtis. Thomas E. "Middle School: The School of the Future.” Education, 88 (March, 1968), 228-231. Curtis, Thomas E. "The Middle School in Theory and Practice." [be National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 52 (May, 1968), 135-140. Davis, Edward L. “What Are the Differences? A Comparison of Junior High and Middle School.“ The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, (December, 1972), 91-97. Dettre, J. R. "Middle School: A Separate and Equal Identity." Clearing House, (September, 1973), 19-23. DeVito, Alfred. "The Middle of the Muddle in the Middle School." School Science and Mathematics, (November, 1975), 621-626. DeYoung, A. M. "Do the Japanese Middle Schools Implement the Eighteen Characteristics?" Michigan Middle School Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Fall, 1980), 5-7. Doob, Heather Sidor. "Summary of Research on Middle Schools, Research Brief.“ Research in_Education, (January, 1976). Douglass, Harl Jr., and Loungsburg, J. H. "A Decade of Changes in Junior High School Practices.” Clearing House, (April, 1966), 456-458. Eichorn, Donald H. "Focus on the Learner Leads to a Clearer Middle Level Picture.“ The National Association of Ekacondary_School Principals Bulletin, 67 (May, 1983), 45-48. Eichorn, Donald H. "Middle School Organization: A New Dimension.“ Theorinnto Practice, 7 (June, 1968), 111-113. Eichorn, Donald H. "Middle School in the Making." Educational Leadership, (December, 1973), 195-197. Eichorn, Donald H. "Middle School, The Beauty of Diversity." Middle School Journal, (February, 1977), 3; 18-19. Eichorn, Dorothy H. "Variations in Growth Rate.” Childhood Education, 44 (January, 1968), 286-291. Fishman, Andrea R. "Moving Up from High School to Middle School." English Journal, 72 (April, 1983), 60-62. Fliegner, Lawia R. "Moving Toward the Ideal Middle School." The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, (May, 1978), 74-77. Freisen, D. “The Middle School: An Institution in Search of an Identity Education Digest, 40 (January, 1975), 10-13. 109 Gagliardi, Vincent M. “The Middle School Movement: Present Success, Future Cautions.” Middle School Journal, (Winter, 1974-1975). Garvelink, Roger H. ”Anatomy of a Good Middle School." Education Digest, 39 (October, 1973), 100-102, (February, 1974), 14-16. Garvelink, Roger H. “Creating a Good Middle School: Through Revolution or Evolution.“ Clearing House, 17 (Spring, 1976), 21-23. Gastwirth, Paul. "Questions Facing the Middle School." Clearing House, 41 (April, 1967), 472-475. Gatewood, Thomas E. ”A Comparative Study of Middle Schools and Junior High Schools in the State of Michigan." Research in Education, (January, 1972). Gatewood, Thomas E. “Recognition for the Middle School: From Dream into Reality." Middle School Journal, (October, 1972). Gatewood, Thomas E. “Research Report: The Middle School Versus the Junior High.” Midwest Middle School Journal, (October, 1971). Gatewood, Thomas E. "The Status of Middle Schools and Junior High Schools in the State of Michigan." Michigan Journal of Secondary Education, (Summer, 1972). Gatewood, Thomas E. "Towards a Self-Identity: The Middle School and the Affective Needs of the Emergent Adolescent." Middle School Journal, (Summer, 1975). Gatewood, Thomas E. “What Research Says About the Junior High Versus the Middle School." North Central Association Quarterly, (Fall, 1971), 264-276. Gatewood, Thomas E. “What Research Says About the Middle School." Educational Leadership, 31 (December, 1973), 221-224. Gatewood, Thomas E., and Dilg, Charles A. “The Middle School We Need. A Report from the A.S.C.D. Working Group on 'Uwa Emerging Adolescent Learner." Research in Education, (March, 1976). Gatewood, Thomas E., and Walder, G. H., Jr. ”The Status of Middle Schools in Michigan.“ Michigan Journal of Secondary Education, (Winter, 1972). George, Paul. "A Response to Yoder: But We Do Need Good Middle Level Schools.“ Educational Leadership, 40 (November, 1982), 50-51. George, Paul. "Ten Steps Towards Implementing An Effective Middle School.” The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, (September, 1977), 93-100. 110 George, Paul. “The Middle School Century.“ Principal, 60 (January, 1981 , 11-14. George, Paul. "Unresolved Issues in Education for the Middle Years.“ The Clearing House, 47 (March, 1973), 417-419. George, P. S., and McEwin, Kenneth C. "Middle School Teacher Education: A Progress Report.‘I Journal of Teacher Education, 29 (September - October, 1978), 13-16. Georgiady, Nicholas P. "Criteria for Evaluating the Middle School." Junior High Middle School Bulletin, (Fall, 1974), 1-3. Georgiady, Nicholas P., and Romano, Louis G. ”The Middle School - Is It A Threat to the Elementary School?” Impact, New York Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, (Winter, 1967-68). Georgiady, Nicholas P., and Romano, Louis G. ”Do You Have a Middle Schocl?" Educational Leadership, 31 (December, 1973), 238-241. Georgiady, Nicholas P., and Romano, Louis.G. “Growth Characteristics of Middle School Children: Curriculum Implications." Middle School Journal, (February, 1977), 12-15; 22-23. Georgiady, Nicholas P., Riegle, Jack D., and Romano, Louis G. "What are the Characteristics of the Middle School?” The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, (April, 1974), 72-77. Gibson, John T. "The Middle School Concept: An Albatross." Journal of Teacher Education, (September-October, 1978), 17-19. Graubb, J. "Junior High School of the Future." Educational Digest, (September, 1961), 15-18. Groden, Austin F. "Junior High vs. Middle Schools vs. Adolescents." The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, (January, 1976), 109-112. Grooms, Ann. "Middle School and Other Innovations." The National Associa- tion of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, (May, 1967), 158-166. Gruhn, William T. "What's Right With the Junior High and Middle School Education." The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, (May, 1970), 139-145. Hahn, Robert. “Research Findings Support Middle School Characteristics.“ Michigan Middle School Journal, 7 (Spring, 1982), 11. Havinghurst, Robert J. “Do Junior High School Youth Grow Up Too Fast?“ The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, (April, 1963), 151-162. 111 Havinghurst, Robert J. ”The Middle School Child in Contemporary Society.“ Theory Into Practice, 7 (June, 1968), 120-122. Heller, Robert W. "Needed: A Rationale for the Middle School." New York State Education, 56 (January, 1969), 35-36. Henry, Mary Louise, and others. “What It's Like in the Middle." Principal, 60 (January, 1981), 26-29. Hines, Vynce A., and Alexander, William M. “Evaluating the New Middle School.” National Elementary Principal, 48 (February, 1969), 32-36. Hooper, Samuel H., and Wilson, Mildred T. "What About the Middle School?" Todayfs Education, (November, 1968), 52-54. Howell, B. "The Middle School: 15 It Really Any Better?” North Central Association Quarterly, 48 (Winter, 1969), 281-287. Huber, Joseph D. "Reincarnation of the One-Room Schoolhouse: The American Middle School." Clearinngouse, (November, 1975), 103-105. Hull, J. H. "What Research Says About the Junior High School." Nation's Schools, (April, 1960), 81. Hull, J. H. "The Junior High School is a Poor Investment.” Nation's Schools, (April, 1960), 78-80. Hull, J. H. "Are Junior High Schools the Answer?" Educational Leadership, (December, 1965), 213-217. James, M. A. "What is Unique About the Junior/Middle School Students?” EngJish Journal. 70 (March, 1981), 77-78. Johnson, Mauritz, Jr. "Schools in the Middle - Junior High: Education's Problem Child." Saturday Review, (July 21, 1962), 40-42, 56. Johnson, Mauritz, Jr. "The Dynamic Junior High School." The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 48 (March, 1964). Johnson, Mauritz, Jr. "School in the Middle." Saturday Review, (July 21, 1964), 40-42, 54-57. Jones, J. B. "Is the Middle School the Only Answer? This District Doesn't Think So.“ Principal, Vol. 60, No. 3 (January, 1981), 30-31. Jones, A. K. “A Look at the Middle School.“ Junior High Middle School Bulletin, (Fall, 1970), 3, 9, 10. Kealy, Ronald P. "The Middle School Movement, 1960-1970." National Elementary School Principal, 51 (November, 1971), 20-25. 112 Kittell, Jack E. "Changing Patterns of Education: The Middle School Years.“ College of Education Record, 33 (May, 1967), 62-68. ll! v . Let's Discuss the New Curricula for the Middle School.” Western European Education, 13 (Spring, 1981), 6-103. Lipsitz, Joan. ”Educating the Early Adolescent." American Education, 17 (October, 1981), 13-17. Lounsbury, John H. "Less Is More in Middle School Scheduling." Principal, 60 (January, 1981), 15-17. Lounsbu y, John H., and Vars, Gordon F. “The Middle School: Fresh Start or New Delusion.” National Elementary Principal, (November, 1971), 12-19. Madon, Constant A. "The Middle School: It's Philosophy and Purpose." Clearing House, 40 (February, 1966), 329-330. Maertens, R. "The Middle School - Weak, Freak, or Unique." Michigan Journal of Secondary Education, (Summer, 1971), 62-68. Marshall, J. “Middle Schooling to be Extended by a Year." Times Education Supplement, 3427 (March 5, 1982), 17. haxwell, Thomas. ”Learning Characteristics of Middle School Children.“ Administrator, (Summer, 1972), 9-12. McCarthy, Robert J. "How to Make Middle Schools Work.“ Anerieeh_ School Board Journal, 168 (January, 1981), 29-31. McDade, T. J. “15 the Middle School Wcrth Considering?“ Cattoiii School Organization, 13 (December, 1982), 36-37. McEwin, C. Kenneth. "Middle Level Teacher Education and Certification.“ The National Assbpiation of Secondary.School Principals Bulletin, 67 (May, 1983), 78-82. McEwin, C. Kenneth. "Schools for Early Adolescents." Theory into Practice, 22 (Spring, 1983), 119-124. McQueen, Mildred. "Rationale of the Middle School: Not Just Another Label for Junior High." Education Digest, (March, 1972), 10-13. Mills, George E. "The How and Why of the Middle School.” Nation's Schools, 68 (December, 1961), 43-53; 72-74. Moore, Samuel A. "Is There Really a Middle School? - Is Yours?" Michigan Middle School Journal, (Spring, 1976), 14-15. Moss, Theodore C. "Characteristics of a Good Middle School." Ihe National Association of Secondbry School Principals Bulletin, 55 (October, 1971), 71-74. 113 Nasca, Donald F. “Beware the Elementar /Middle School Articulation Trap." GgC/T, 19 (September/October, 1981 , 29-30. Neill, Shirley Box, ed. Declining Enrollment - Closing Schools. American Association of School Administrators Critical Issues Series No. 9 Sacramento: AASA, 1981. Nichols, Damela J. “One Teacher's Efforts to Incorporate Middle School Concepts.“ Michigan Middle School Journal, 7 (Spring, 1982), 8-10. Nielsen, Lore; Turner, Susan Douglas. "Program Evaluation as an Evolu- tionary Process.“ Evaluation Review, 7 (June, 1983), 397-405. Odden, A., and Vincent, P. B. "The Fiscal Impacts of Declining Enrollments: A Study of Declining Enrollments in Four States - Michigan, Missouri, South Dakota and Washington." In Declining Enrollments: Challenge of the Coming Decade, pp. 209-256. Edited by S. Abramowitz and S. Rosen- feld. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education, 1978. Olsen, Norman. "A Middle School: No Easy Way." Educational Leadership, 31 (December, 1973), 206-210. Padilla, Michael. ”Early Adolescence.” Science and Children, 19 (February, 1982), 36-37. Popper, S. H. "What About the Middle School - Opinions Differ.“ Today's Education, 58 (November, 1969), 53-54. Post, Richard L. "Middle School: A Questionable Innovation." Clearing House, (April, 1968), 484-486. Powell, William. "Middle Schools Without Failure.” Clearing House, 55 (September, 1981), 5-8. Prentice, David A. "The Middle School I'd Like to Have." Michigan Middle School Journal, 7 (Spring, 1981), 3-4, 10. Pumerantz, Philip. “State Recognition of the Middle School." The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 53 (March, 1969), 14-19. Regan, Eugene E. "The Junior High School is Dead.“ Clearing House, (November, 1967), 150-151. Rice, Arthur H. "What's Wrong With Junior High - Nearly Everything.“ Netion's Schools, (November, 196 ), 30-32. Riew, John. "Enrollment Decline and School Reorganization - A Cost Efficiency Analysis." Economics of Education Review, 1 (Winter, 1981), 53-73. 114 Romano, Louis. “The Middle School - An Emerging Cesspool?“ Michigan Middle School Journal, 7 (Winter, 1981), 2-3, 15. Sanders, Stanley G. ”Challenge of the Middle School.“ Educational Forum, (January, 1968), 191-197. Schmidt, 0. J. "Middle Schools in the Making.“ Educational Leadership, Vol. 31, No. 3 (December, 1973). Schmidt, 0. J. “The Middle School.” The National Elementary Principal, Vol. LI, No. 3 (November, 1971). Schoo, Philip H. "Optimum Setting for the Early Adolescent: Junior High or Middle School.“ North Central Association Quarterly, (Spring, 1974), 340-349. “School In the Middle (Symposiam).“ The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 67 (May,‘1982), 1-82. Sinks, Thomas A. "What's Happening to Middle Schools in the Upper Midwest?“ Clearing House, (October, 1975), 52-56. Sklarz, David P. “A Primer for Middle School Transition." Clearing House, 55 (January, 1982), 197-198. Stafford, E. "Unique Middle School Student: An Unknown Ingredient." Physical Education, 39 (March, 1982), 38-42. Tegarden, R. Stephen. "Implications of the Middle: School for Elementary, Secondary Education.” The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 60 (October, 1976), 86-92. Thomason, J., and Williams, B. "Middle Schools are for Me." Educational Leadership, 40 (November, 1982), 54-58. Thornburg, H. 0. "Middle Level Education: Perspectives for the 1980's.“ Contemporary Education, 52 (Spring, 1981), 133-167. Trauschke, E. M., Jr., and Mooney, Patrick F. "Middle School Account- ability.“ Educational Leadership, 30 (November, 1972), 171-174. Trump, J. Lloyd. "Junior High vs. Middle School.” The National Associa- tion of Secondary School Principels Bulletin, 51 (February, 1967), 71-73. Trump, J. Lloyd. “Dynamic Junior High-Middle-Intermediate Schools." The National Association of Secondarnychool Principals Bulletin, (April, 1974), 1-5. Trump, J. Lloyd. ”Whither tne Middle School - or Whether." The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 51 (December, 1967), 42-44. 115 Turnbaugh, Roy C. ”The Middle School: A Different Name or a New Concept.” Clearing House, 48 (October, 1968), 86-88. Van Til, William. "Junior High School or Middle School." Contemporary Education, (April, 1970), 222-231. Vars, G. F. “Junior High or Middle School? Which is the Best for the Education of Young Adolescence?” High School Journal, 50 (December, 1966), 109-113. Wall, Roger. “Middle School Take Root.” Principal, 60 (January, 1981), 8-10. Wattenburg, William A. “Middle School as One Psychologist Sees It." High School Journal, (December, 1969), 164-171. Wattenburg, William A. "The Junior High School - A Psychologist's View.“ The National Association of Secondary,School Principals Bulletin, (March, 1970), 34-44. "What Are Middle Schools Good For.“ Instructor, 92 (November-December, 1982), 30-33. “What's the Score on Middle School?“ Todey's Education, (November, 1971), 67. Whitfield, Edie L., and others. "Middle School Staff Development.“ Clearing House, 56 (January, 1983), 230-231. Wiles, J., and Thomason, J. l'The Middle School: Alternative Within the System.” National Elementary Principal, (November, 1971), 45-49. Williams, E. "What About the Junior High and Middle Schools?" lhe National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 52 may , 1968) , 726-134. Williams, Emmett L. "Middle School Movement.“ National Education Associa- tion Journal, (December, 1968), 41-42. Wilson, Mary T. “What's a Middle School?” Clearinngouse, (September, 1969), 9-11. Wilson, Mary T. “What About the Middle School?‘I Today's Education, (November, 1969), 52-54. Woodring, Paul. "The New Intermediate School." Saturday Review, 48 (October 16, 1968), 77-78. 116 Essays, Dissertations and Reports Baldwin, G. H. "Middle Schools: Fantasy, Fad or Fact?” Middle School in the Making. Edited by R. R. Leeper. Washington, D.C.: Associa- tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1974. Dembowski, Frederick L. “The Effects of Declining Enrollments on the Instructional Programs of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.“ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amenfican Education Research Association. Boston, Massachusetts, April 7-11, 1980. Gatewood, Thomas E. "A Less Than Optimistic (But Realistic?) View of the Middle School - 1977." The Middle School: A Look Ahead. Edited by Paul 3. George. Fairborn, Ohio: National Middle School Associa- tion, 1977. George P. S. (Editor). The Middle School: A Look Ahead. Fairborn, Ohio: National Middle School Association, 1977. Leeper, R. R. (Editor). Middle School in the Making. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1974. Lounsbury, John H., and Marani, Jean Victoria. The Junior High We Saw: One Dey in the Eighth Grade. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1964. Unpublished Materials Armstrong, James William. "Developing A Middle School Model Based on Perceptions of Administration, Teachers, Students and Parents." Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College, 1982. Beckman, Vernal G. “A Study to Determine the Current Level of Implemen- tation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Principles in the State of Missouri." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wyoming, 1978. Billings, Ronald L. "A Computer-Based Analysis of the Implementation of Selected Criteria in Texas Middle Schools." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Houston, 1974. Bloom, Judith M. "The Implementation of the Middle School Concepts in Wisconsin Schools for Pre - and Early Adolescents." Ph.D. disser- tation, Marquette University, 1974. Bohlinger, Tom. “A Study to Determine the Current Level of Implementa- tion of Eighteen Basic Middle School Characteristics in Ohio Public Schools Housing Grades 5-8 and 6-8." Ph.D. dissertation, Miami University, 1977. Brantley, William E. "West Chester Area School District Middle School Survey." Unpublished Report, 1982. 117 Brown, William T. “A Comparative Study of Middle School Practices Recommended in Current Literature and Practices of Middle Schools in South Carolina.” Ed.D. dissertation, University of South Caro- lina, 1978. buicra, Thomas S. “A Study of Middle Schools in the State of New Jersey.“ Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1972. Cummings, Robert R. ”The Middle School Concept and Its Implementation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1975. Daniel, Jerry C. ”A Study of Arkansas Middle Schools to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Nine Basic Middle School Princi- ples.“ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1973. Flynn, John H. "Practices of the Middle Schools in California.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1971. Franklin, Charles. “A Study of Middle School Practices in Virginia.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1973. Good, Charles W. "A Study of Middle School Practices in Pennsylvania.“ Ed.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1972. Gross. Bernard Melvin. "An Analysis of the Present and Perceived Purposes, Functions, and Characteristics of the Middle School.‘I Ed.D. disserta- tion, Temple University, 1972. 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 Teachers and Principals." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Hill, Gale Boehme. "A Comparison of Principles in Accredited Junior High Schools and Accredited Middle Schools in Indiana." Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1983. Hughes, Sean. “Organizational Pattern of Western Pennsylvania Middle Schools, Role and Role Conflict as Perceived by Their Principals.“ Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1974. James, M. A. "Kansas Middle School Survey." Unpublished Manuscript, Wichita State University, 1977. Kopko, Jon Raymond. "A Comprehensive Study of Selected Middle Schools in the State of New Jersey.“ Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, 1976. Kramer, James Wilfred. "A Study of Middle School Programs in California." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1974. 118 Lendley, Frederick Albert. “Perceptions of the Middle School Principals and Teachers Regarding Past, Present and Future Implementation of Basic Middle School Characteristics.” Ph.D. dissertation, Miami University, 1983. Marlowe, Jean Marie. ”The Opinions of Selected Superintendents and Board of Education Presidents as the What Characteristics Constitute of Middle School.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980. Middleton, Patricia Moxley. “The Relationship Between the Degree of Perceived Implementation of Criteria Associated with the Middle School Concept and Selected Characteristics of Middle School Teachers.” Nesper, David Paul. “A Study to Determine the Current Level of Implemen- tation of Eighteen Selected Critical Attributes of Middle Schools in the United States.” Ph.D. dissertation, Ball State University, 1981. Owen, Jerry Monroe. “A Survey of Teacher Perspectives and Practices of Selected Individual Instructional Elements in Middle-Level Schools.“ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1980. Patrick, Alan Frederick. "The Relationship Between Organizational Effective- ness and the Degree of Implementation of Middle School Principles and Practices." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1980. Phelps, Carolyn S. “A Survey of Middle Schools in Georgia With a View of the Beginning, Present, and Future Status." Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University, 1975. Raymer, Joe T. "A Study to Identify Middle Schools and to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Characteristics in Selected United States and Michigan Schools." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. Riegle, Jack D. "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. Schindler, James F. "A Comparative Study of the Implementation of Recommended Middle School Principles Among Se1ected Schools.“ Ph.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1983. Schuck, Richard C. “Characteristics of Middle School.“ Ph.D. disserta- tion, Teachers College, 1982. Spagnoli, Joseph. ”Today's Early Adolescent and the Needs of Youth as Identified through the Junior High School.“ Ed.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1967. State, Virginia S. “Implementation of the Middle School Concept in Georgia Schools: Direction of Change." Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University, 1983. 119 Toepfer, Conrad F., Jr. “Evolving Curricular Patterns in Junior High Schools - An Historical Study.“ Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Buffalo, 1962. Trauschke, Edward M., Jr. “An Evaluation of a Middle School by a Comparison of the Achievement, Attitudes and Self-Concept of Students in a Middle School with Students in Other School Organizations.“ Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Florida, 1970. Zdanowicz, Paul. ”A Study of the Changes That Have Taken Place in the Junior High Schools of the North Eastern United States During the Last Decade and the Reasons for Some of the Changes.“ Ph.D. disser- tation, Temple University, 1965. APPENDIX THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW GUIDE 120 121 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND CURRICULUM ERICKSON HALL January 5, 1983 Dear Fellow Administrator, Attached to this letter is a questionnaire regarding middle schools from a person seeking his doctorate. I need your help and knowledge to obtain some very important information. I am asking superintendents, principals and teachers from selected middle schools in the state of Illinois to complete the enclosed questionnaire. 1 would appreciate it if the SUPERINTENDENT would fill out the questionnaire for the middle school listed on the front page of the form. Please return the questionnaire in the self-addressed stamped envelope. For PRINCIPALS, two questionnaires are enclosed. Again, I would appreciate it if the principal would complete one of the questionnaires and return it in the self-addressed stamped envelope. The second questionnaire should be completed by a TEACHER selected at random by the principal. Those results should be placed in the second enclosed envelope and mailed by the teacher. PLEASE RETURN ALL QUESTIONNAIRES WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK. If you would like to receive a summary of the results please indicate by filling in the space provided on the cover page of the questionnaire. I would like to thank you in advance for your interest and cooperation. Sincerely yours, fA-yfi (C). ’7/7 6'7‘49132L— Henry E. Minster Michigan State University Erickson Hall, Room 406 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 122 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND CURRICULUM ERICKSON HALL January 17, l983 Dear Fellow Administrator, Once again I seek your help. During the week of January 5th I sent you a questionnaire regarding middle schools. Since I did not receive a response from your school I am enclosing additional questionnaires. Please complete the questionnaire and return it immediately. One questionnaire is mailed separately to the SUPERINTENDENT of the school district. Please complete the questionnaire and return it in the self- addressed stamped envelope. Two questionnaires are mailed directly to the PRINCIPAL. Please complete one of the questionnaires. The second questionnaire should be completed by a TEACHER selected at random by the principal. Please return both question— naires in the self-addressed stamped envelope. PLEASE RETURN ALL QUESTIONNAIRES MITHIN THE NEXT WEEK. Again, I would like to thank you for your interest and cooperation. Sincerely yours, Henry E. Minster Michigan State University Erickson Hall, Room 406 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 HEM/em MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution l23 A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE CURRENT LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF EIGHTEEN BASIC MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS IN SELECTED ILLINOIS MIDDLE SCHOOLS A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS 0F SELECTED MIDDLE SCHOOLS PLEASE RETURN IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED TO: HENRY E. MINSTER MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ERICKSON HALL, 406 EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48823 Your reSponse to all questions will be greatly appreciated. All respondents can be assured of COMPLETE ANONYMITY. Please feel free to make additional comments when believed necessary. l24 General Information: (confidential) Name of Respondent (optionaT) Title of Respondent Address City Please place a check mark before the grades served by your school: Please send me a copy of the results of this survey. 125 PART 1: Place a check mark before the SINGLE BEST answer that explains your current program as it relates to the question. l-A. Continuous progress programs 5-8. The materials center has a paid are: certified librarian: (l) not used at this time _____ (l) no. ______ (2) used with special groups ______ (2) part-time only. ______ (3) used for the first two years. ______(3) one full-time. ______ (4) used by selected students. ______ (4) more than one full-time. (5) used by all students. 6-8. For classroom instruction, AUDIO VISUAL MATERIALS other than 2-A. Continuous progress programs are motion pictures are: planned for a student over a CALENDAR year span of: (l) not used. (1) not used. (2) rarely used. (2) one year. (3) occasionally used. (3) two years. (4) frequently used. (4) three years. (5) very frequently used. (5) more than three years. 7-C. The basic time module used to build the schedule is: 3-8. The multi-textbook approach to learning is currently: (l) 60 minutes. (l) not used. (2) 45 to 59 minutes. (2) used in a FEw courses. (3) 30 to 44 minutes. (3) used in MOST courses. (4) l0 to 29 minutes. (4) used in NEARLY ALL courses. (5) a combination of time so diversi- fied that no basic module is defined. 4-B. The instructional materials center in this building houses. ______ (l) 1000 books or less. ______ (2) 3000 books or less. ______ (3) 4000 books or less. ______ (4) 5000 books or less. ______ (5) 500l books or more 126 PART I, Page 2 8-C. Which of the below best describes lO-D. What percent of your student your schedule at present: ‘ body regularly participates in at least one club activity? (l) traditional. (1) we have no club program. (2) traditional, modified by "block-time,“ “revolving (2) 25% or less. period,“ or other such regularly occurring modi- (3) 50% or less. fications. (4) 75% or less. (3) flexible to the degree that all periods are scheduled (5) 100% or less. but are not identical in length. ll-E. How is the physical education (4) flexible to the degree that program individualized? changes occur within defined general time limits. (1) not at all. (5) flexible to the degree that (2) slightly. students and teachers con- trol the daily time usage (3) moderately. and changes occur regularly. (4) highly. other lZ-F. Inter-scholastic competition is: (l) offered in two or more sports. 9-0. How are sponsorships for club activities handled? (2) offered in one sport only. (1) staff members 00 NOT work (3) not offered. with club activities. (2) staff members are ASSIGNED l3-F. Intramural activities often use WITHOUT PAY. the same facilities as interscho- lastic activities. When this (3) staff members are ASSIGNED causes a time conflict, how do WITH PAY. you schedule? (4) staff members VOLUNTEER (l) we have no INTRAMURAL program. WITHOUT PAY. (l) interscholastic activities take (5) staff members VOLUNTEER AND first priority and others must ARE PAID. schedule around their needs. ______(4) we have no INTERSCHOLASTIC program. (4) intramural activities take first priority and others schedule around their needs. PART I, Page 3 l4-G. How many students participate in team teaching programs? (1) none. ______ (2) 25% or less. ______(3) 50% or less. ______ (4) 75% or less. ______(5) 100% or less. l5-G. What percentage of your teaching staff is involved in team teaching programs? (1) none. ______ (2) 25% or less. ______ (3) 50% or less. ______ (4) 75% or less. ______ (5) 100% or less. l6-G. How many minutes per day does a student in grades FIVE or SIX average in a team teach- ing program? (1) none. (2) 40 minutes or less. (3) 80 minutes or less. (4) 120 minutes or less. (5) 160 minutes or less. (6) 161 minutes or MORE. 127 l7-G. How many minutes per day does a student in rades SEVEN or EIGHT average in a team teaching program? (1) none. (2) 40 minutes or less. (3) 80 minutes or less. (4) l20 minutes or less. (5) 160 minutes or less. (6) 161 minutes or MORE. 18-H. Which of the following best describes your school program as it evolves from enrollment to completion of the last grade? (i.e., grades FIVE thru EIGHT). (1) completely self contained and/or completely departmentalized. (2) modified departmentalized (block- time, core, etc.) (3) program moves from largely self contained to partially depart- mentalized. other 19-I. How many years is ART instruction required for all students? (1) none. (2) one year. (3) two or more years. RH .v PART I, Page 4 20-1. 21-1. How many years is MUSIC instruction required for all students? (1) none. (2) one year. (3) two or more years. The amount of student schedule time set aside for elective courses. (1) decreases with each successive grade or, is the same for all grades or, does not exist at any grade level. (2) varies by grade level but not 22-J. in any systematic manner. For what percent of students are guidance services normally available. (1) not available. (2) 25% or less. (3) 50% or less. (4) 75% or less. 23-J. (5) 100% or less. Guidance staff members: (l) never work with teachers. (2) SELDOM work with teachers. (3) OFTEN work with teachers. (4) ALWAYS work with teachers. 128 24-J. —— Guidance counselors are: (l) not expected to help teachers build their guidance skills. (2) EXPECTED to help teachers build their guidance skills. (3) EXPECTED and REGULARLY encour- 25-L. aged to help teachers build their guidance skills. Clinics or special classes to treat the problems of students with poor basic learning skills are: (1) not available. (2) available only to the most critically handicapped learners. (3) available to all students 26-L. 27-M. needing such help. The amount of time provided in the classroom for instruction in basic learning skills: (l) remains constant or increases with each successive grade. (2) decreases with each successive grade. (3) varies greatly due to individ- ualization of program by teachers. Does your school have an official newspaper? (1) no. (2) yes, and publishes four or less issues per year. (3) yes, and publishes five or more issues per year. PART I, Page 5 28-h. 00 students get experiences in creative dramatics? (1) no. (2) yes. 29-M. Dramatic productions at this school are produced from: (1) does not apply. (2) purchased scripts only. (3) materials written by students only. (4) materials written by students and purchased scripts. 30-M. This school has oratorical activities such as debate, public address, etc.: (1) no. (2) yes, as a part of its enrich- ment program. (3) yes, as a part of its planned program of instruction. 31-M. Talent shows are: (1) not a part of our program. (2) produced on an all school basis. (3) produced at each grade level. (4) produced at each grade level with some of the acts entering an all school talent show. 32-N. In the operational design of this school the role of the teacher as a guidance person is: (1) left strictly to the individ- ual teacher's personal motivation. ' 9 (2) mentioned to the teacher BUT NOT emphasized. (3) emphasized. (4) strongly emphasized. 33-N. As a general policy, provisions are made for the teacher to pro- vide guidance services: (1) no. (2) yes, to a limited number (3) yes, to all their students. 34-N. How many times per year is a stu: dent's academic progress formally reported to parents? (1) two times, or less. (2) four times, or less. (2) six times or less. other 35-0. How many times per year are parent- teacher or parent-teacher-student conferences held on a school wide basis? (1) not at all. (2) once. (3) two times. (4) three times. (5) four or more times. 130 PART I, Page 6 36-P. 37-P. ( ( (3) active. ( 38-C. 39-K. Community service projects by students in this school are: (1) not a part of our program. (2) carried out occasionally for a special purpose. (3) an important part of the planned experiences for all students. What is the status of the parents' organization in your school? 1) none. 2) relatively inactive. 4) very active. The master class time schedule can be changed by teachers when need arises by: (l) requesting a change for next year. (2) requesting a change for next semester. (3) requesting administrative approval. (4) planning with other teachers on a WEEKLY BASIS. (5) planning with other teachers on a DAILY BASIS. Students working in independent study situations work on topics that are: (l) we have no independent study program. (2) assigned to them by the teacher. (3) of personal interest and approved by the teacher.‘ " " 40-0. Formal evaluation of student work is reported by use of: (1) letter or number grades. (2) teacher comments written on a reporting form. (3) parent-teacher conferences. (4) parent-teacher-student con- ferences. other 4l-E. What percentage of physical educa- tion class time is devoted toward COMPETITIVE TYPE ACTIVITIES: ' ______(4) 25% or less. ______(3) 50% or less. ______(2) 75% or less. ______ (l) 100% or less. 42-E. What percentage of physical educa- tion class time is devoted toward DEVELOPMENTAL TYPE ACTIVITIES: ______(l) 25% or less. _____ (2) 50% or less. ______(3) 75% or less. ______(4) lOO% or less. 43-J. Do your guidance counselors offer regular group guidance sessions? (2) yes. (1) no. PART I, Page 7 44-K. Independent study Opportunities are provided for: (1) some students. (2) all students. PART II: not provided. 131 '45-L. Daily instruction in a develop- mental reading program is pro- vided for: (1) poor readers only. (2) all students. not provided. For each question in this section check ALL THE ANSWERS that apply to your school. 46-B. Which of the following types of materials are housed in your instructional materials center? (1) _____(1) ___(1) (l) (1) general library books. current newspapers. below grade level reading materials. current magazines. files of past issues of newSpapers. above grade level reading materials. card catalogue of materials housed. student publications. files of past issues of magazines. filmstrips. collections (coins, insects, art, etc.) motion pictures (include if you are a member of a central service). micro-films. (l) overhead transparencies. ______ (l) phonograph records. (l) ditto and/or mimeo machines. (l) photo or thermal c0py machines. (l) maps, globes and charts. (1) display cases or areas. 47-D. School dances ARE NOT held for: ______ (1) grade five. (1) grade six. (1) grade seven. ______(1) grade eight. 48—0. A club program for students is offered in: ______(1) grade five. (l) grade six. (l) grade seven. (1) grade eight. 132 PART II, Page 8 49-F. The intramural program SO-I. includes: (1) team games. (1) individual Sports. (1) various activities. Students are allowed to elect course of interest from a range of elective offerings: (0) no. __.___ (l) ______ (1) ______ (l) ______(l) 51-I. _ w a” q” w — * —_ fl — in grade five. in grade six. in grade seven. in grade eight. Electives offered in this building are: (1) art. (1) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (1) speech. band. vocal music. drawing. drama. journalism. foreign language. family living. unified arts. orchestra. wood shep. * 52-K. (l) typing. (1) natural resources. (1) creative writing. How much time would you estimate the average student spends in independent study? (1) 20 minutes or MORE per day in grades five or six. (1) 30 minutes or MORE per day in 53-L. grades seven or eight. (0) less than the above. Students with poor basic skills Can receive special help on an individ- ual basis from a special staff member trained to treat such situa- tions in the following areas: (1) reading. (1) spelling. ______(1) physical education. 54-M. (l) mathematics. (1) grammar. other Dramatic presentations by students are: (0) not a part of the school program. (l) a part of the activities program. (1) a part of certain class activities planned by the teachers. other ,‘l PL, v 133 PART II, Page 9 55-P. In regard to community relations (1) speech therapist. this school: (1) visiting teacher. (0) does not send out a parent newsletter. (l) clinic services for the emotionally disturbed. (1) sends out a parent news- letter. (1) special education programs for the mentally handicapped. (1) uses the commercial news- paper. (1) special reading teacher. (1) uses a district wide news- other letter to send out informa- tion related to this school. other 58-R. Teaching teams are organized to include: (1) fully certified teachers. 56-P. The staff presents informa- tional programs related to the (l) para-professionals. school's functions. (1) clerical helpers. (1) when requested by parents. (1) student teachers. (1) once or twice a year at regular parent meetings. , others (l) at open house programs. (l) at regularly scheduled “seminar type“ meetings 59-R. Teaching teams are organized to planned for interested include: parents. (l) paid para-professionals. other (l) volunteer helpers from the community. (1) student teachers and interns. 57-0. From the specialized areas listed below, check each ser- (1) high school "future teachers“ vice which is AVAILABLE to students. students in your building. other (l) guidance counselors. (1) school nurse. (1) school psychologist. (l) diagnostician. 134 PART II, Page 10 60-0. School social functions are held t this school: During the During the afternoon evening ______(1) Grade 5 ______(0) Grade 5 ______(1) Grade 6 ______(0) Grade 6 ______(l) Grade 7 ______(l) Grade 7 ______(1) Grade 8 ______(1) Grade 8 6l-E. The physical education program serves all students in: _____ (1) Grade 5. ______ (1) Grade 6. _____ (1) Grade 7. __ (1) Grade 8. 62-F. Intramural activities are scheduled for: BOYS ONLY GIRLS ONLY ______(l) Grade 5 _____(1) Grade 5 ______(1) Grade 6 ______(1) Grade 6 ______(1) Grade 7 ______(1) Grade 7 _____(1) Grade 8 _____(1) Grade 8 not scheduled THANK YOU SINCERELY FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. Please return to: HENRY E. MINSTER MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ERICKSON HALL, 406 EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48823 RESPONDENT Teachers Principal and/or Assistant Principal Coaches and/or P.E. Teachers Media Center Director Counselor Mailed Materials Secretary Students 135 INTERVIEW GUIDE CHARACTERISTIC Continuous progress Multi-material Team teaching Planned gradualism Guidance services Basic learning experiences Student security factor Independent study Social experiences Team teaching Planned gradualism Creative experiences Evaluation practices Community relations Flexible schedule Auxiliary staffing Physical experiences Intramural activity Multi-material Guidance services Flexible schedule Exploratory and enrichment programs Student services Multi-material Social experiences Student security factor Evaluation practices Community relations Guidance services Auxiliary staffing Multi-material Guidance services Creative experiences Evaluation practices Community relations Independent study Physical experiences Basic learning experiences Social experiences Intramural activity SURVEY QUESTION NUMBERS 1, 2 3 14, 15, 16, 17 18 23, 24 25, 26, 45, 53 32, 33, 34 39, 44, 52 9, 10, 47, 48, 60 14, 15, 16, 17 18 28, 29, 30, 31, 54 35, 4O 36, 37, 55, 56 38 58, 59 11, 41, 42, 61 12, 13, 49, 62 4. 5, 6, 46 22, 23, 24, 43 7, 8 19. 20, 21, 50, 51 57 22. 43 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 54 35, 4O 39. 44 41, 42 47, 48, 6O _— .__- 5135.13.5qu mess 11235153!“ smart MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES 1|WIHHIIWIWHIIMI)WWIIWIMIIIIIIHWI 31293106323334