INFORMATION TO USERS

T his dissertation was produced from a m icrofilm co py of th e original docum ent.
W h ile th e mcst advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this
docum ent have been used, the q u a lity is heavily dependent upon the q u a lity o f
th e original su bm itted.
The

follow ing e xp lan ation o f techniques is provided to

help you

understand

markings o r patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.

The sign o r "target" fo r pages apparently lacking fro m the docum ent
photographed is "Missing P a g e ( s ) I f

it was possible to obtain the

missing page(s) or section, they are spliced in to the film along w ith
adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and
d up licatin g adjacent pages to insure you com plete c o ntin u ity.
2.

When an image on the film is o bliterated w ith a large round black
m ark,
copy

it

is an indication that th e photographer suspected th a t th e

m ay

have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred

image. Y o u will find a good image of th e page in the adjacent fram e.
3.

When a map, drawing o r chart, etc., was part o f the m aterial being
p h o to g ra p h e d

the

photographer

fo llo w ed

a

defin ite

m ethod

in

"se c tio n in g " the material. It is customary to begin photoing at th e
upper le ft hand corner o f a large sheet and to continue photoing fro m
left

to

right in equal sections with

sectioning

is continued

a small

overlap.

If necessary,

again — beginning below the first row and

c o n tin u in g on until complete.
4.

The m a jo rity of users indicate th a t the textual content is o f greatest
value,

however,

made fr o m
d issertation.

a somewhat higher q u ality

"photographs" if essential
Silver

prints

of

reproduction

could

be

to th e understanding o f th e

"photographs"

may

be

ordered

at

ad dition al charge by w ritin g th e Order D epartm ent, giving th e catalog
num ber, title , author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

University Microfilms
3 0 0 N orth Z e e b Road
A n n A rbor, M ic h ig a n 481 06
A X e ro x E d u catio n C o m p a n y

73-5395
HAWKINS, James, 1939A 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.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972
Education, administration

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

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
By
James Hawkins

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Education
1972

PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages m a y h a ve
indistinct print.
F i l m e d as r e c e i v e d .

University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company

ABSTRACT
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
By
James Hawkins

The middle school came into existence over sixty
years ago.

Other forms of organization existed prior to

then, but it was during the 1960's that the middle
school concept increased in popularity.

Today more

than 1,200 of these schools are in existence.
The middle school concept is based on the belief
that a special kind of curriculum design and educational
planning can better provide for the special needs and
interests of the transescent at this level than the tra­
ditional junior high.

The most defensible position

taken for establishing the middle school is to remedy
the deficiencies of the junior high school.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
relationship between principals and teachers in selected
Michigan middle schools and four nationally prominent
middle schools regarding their perceptions of their
school practices.

James Hawkins
Eighteen basic middle school characteristics had
previously been identified and validated.

These charac­

teristics centered on continuous progress programs, the
use of multi-media, flexible schedules, social exper­
iences, physical experiences, intramural activities,
team teaching, planned gradualism, exploratory-enrichment
programs, independent study, community relations, guidance
services, creative experiences, evaluation practices,
student security factors, basic learning skills, student
services, and auxiliary staffing.
Four major hypotheses were developed to test for
differences in perceptions, if any, between teachers and
principals:
Hypothesis 1 :

There is a significant difference
between the mean scores of principals
and the mean score of teachers in the
Michigan middle schools.

Hypothesis 2

There is a significant difference
between the mean scores of principals
and the mean score of teachers in the
nationally prominent middle school.

Hypothesis 3

There is a significant difference
between the mean scores of Michigan
middle school principals and teachers
and the mean scores of principals and
teachers of the national sample.

Hypothesis 4 :

There is a significant difference
between the mean scores of Michigan
middle school principals and principals
of the national sample in Survey I
when compared with their mean scores
in Survey II regarding their school
program.

James Hawkins
Survey questionnaires seeking data related to the
current practices of middle schools were mailed to the
principal of all schools in Michigan identified as
"middle schools" with a 6-8 grade organization.

The

survey questionnaires were also mailed to four schools
that had been arbitrarily selected on a national basis
because of their excellent reputation as exemplary
middle schools.

Each principal and two teachers who

had been on the staff two years or more were asked to
respond to the questionnaire.

Survey forms were

returned by 63.1 per cent of the Michigan middle
schools and by all four of the schools in the national
sample.

Scheffe's one-way analysis of variance and the

T-test were the statistical techniques used to test the
data.

Mean scores were calculated on each of the

eighteen characteristics for principals and teachers
in this study.

The .05 level of confidence was estab­

lished as the minimum criterion level for accepting
mean differences as being significant.
Generally, the null hypotheses showed no signifi­
cant differences in three comparative measurements:
A.

There was no significant difference discovered
when comparing the mean scores of principals and
teachers in the Michigan middle schools.

James Hawkins
B.

There was no significant difference found when
comparing the mean scores of the national samples
of principals and teachers.

C.

There was no significant difference found when
comparing the mean scores of Michigan and national
middle school principals in Survey I with the
mean scores of both in Survey II.
A statistical significant difference was found on

Hypothesis 4 when mean scores of teachers and principals
in the Michigan middle schools were compared with mean
scores of teachers and principals in the national sample.
Principals and teachers in the national sample scored
significantly higher than teachers and principals in the
Michigan schools.
After an analysis of the data, it was apparent
the schools in the national sample were applying the
middle school characteristics to a greater degree than
were the Michigan middle schools.

DEDICATION

To my wife, Vivian Dolores, whose
love, patience, and sacrificing
made this event a reality

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincerest appre­
ciation and gratitude to the many people who contributed
generously to make this thesis a reality.
Dr. Louis Romano, chairman of the doctoral
guidance committee, whose scholarly advice and assistance
guided this thesis to completion.

To him I am indeed

grateful.
To the other members of my doctoral committee,
Dr. Wilbur Brookover, Dr. Donald Nickerson, and Dr.
Joseph McMillen, I am appreciative for the generosity
of their guidance.
A special dedication is due my mother, Mrs.
Hattie B. Hawkins, whose greatest desire would have
been to realize this occasion.
This thesis is also dedicated to my lovely
daughters, Lisa and Linda, whose thirst and love of
knowledge may someday yield the same return.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.

Page
THE P R O B L E M ................................
Introduction.............................
Statement of the Problem................
Significance of the Problem.
. . . .
Definition of Terms
....................
Procedure...................
Assumptions of the Study................
Limitations of the Study................
Research Objectives
...................
Objective
Objective
Objective
Objective

I ..........................
II ..........................
I I I .......................
I V ..........................

Procedures for Analysis of Data
. . .
Organization of Dissertation
. . . .
II.

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE . . . .
History of the American Middle School
.
What Is the Middle S c h o o l ? .............
Why A Middle S c h o o l ? ....................
Evaluating the Middle School
. . . .
Review of Related Studies
.............
S u m m a r y ................................

III.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1
1
2
2
4
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
10
12
12
18
28
34
37
41
45

Introduction.............................
Hypothesis and Sub-Problems.............

45
45

Major P r o b l e m .......................
Sub-Problem I .......................
Sub-Problem I I .......................
Sub-Problem III.......................
Sub-Problem I V .......................

45
46
46
47
47

Chapter

IV.

V.

Page
Source of the D a t a .......................
Instrument Employed.......................
Procedures................................
Objectives to Be Measured................
Summary....................................

47
49
56
59
60

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A .......................

61

General Hypothesis .......................
F i n d i n g s ................................
F i n d i n g s ................................
F i n d i n g s ................................
F i n d i n g s ................................
S u m m a r y ................................

61
62
64
66
68
70

C O N C L U S I O N S .................................

73

S u m m a r y ................................
F i n d i n g s ................................

73
75

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

75
79
81
84

C o n c l u s i o n s .............................
Recommendations for Further Study . . .
R e f l e c t i o n s .............................

86
87
88

.......................................

89

Letter Requesting Permission to Use the
Riegle Instrument
.......................

95

Letter Received Granting Permission to Use
Survey Instrument
.......................

96

Letter Sent to Principals Requesting Their
Assistance in Filling Out Questionnaire .

97

The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ..........................

98

Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1
2
3
4

APPENDICES
Appendix
A.
B.
C.
D.

v

LIST OF TABLES
Table
3-1.

Page
A Listing of the Eighteen Middle School Char­
acteristics Used in This Study to Measure
Practices of Middle Schools (by Louis G.
Romano, Jack Riegle, and Nicholas P.
G e o r g i a d y ) ................................

50

The Questions Within the Survey and the
Number Which Reflect the Practice Being
M e a s u r e d ................................

54

Refers to Number of Michigan and National
Schools Contacted, Number of Affirmative
Responses and Percentage of Questionnaire
R e t u r n s ....................................

57

3-4.

Table depicting Data Sources ................

58

4-1.

Mean Scores of Principals and Teachers in
Michigan Middle Schools and Approximate
Significance Probability of F Statistic

63

3-2.

3-3.

4-2.

4-3.

4-4.

4-5.

.

Comparison of Mean Scores of Principals and
Teachers of the National Sample as
Measured by Survey I I ...................

65

A Comparison of Michigan Middle School
Teachers and Principals with National
Sample Using Achieved Mean Score on
Survey I I ................................

67

Comparison of Mean Scores Achieved by
Michigan and National Principals in
Survey I and I I ..........................

69

Maximum Scores Yielded by Survey Instrument
for Michigan and National Sample and
Composite Mean Score on Each Variable .

71

vi

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
The past....d©Gade has witnessed a vast increase in
the number of middle schools in the United States.

Along

with this increase various organizational designs have
become practically standardized as representing this new
innovation.

This school of question often contains a

proliferation of grade arrangements, but usually has
grade five or six as its beginning level and terminates
typically with grade eight.

That the growth of the

middle school is now approaching the dimensions of a
movement appears to be well borne out by several signifi­
cant surveys in recent years.

At present there are over

1,200 middle schools in the United States.'*'

Michigan

has more than 136 middle schools of various grade combi­
nations.

Of these, 103 are organized as grades six

through eight.

■*"Doris L. Marshall, "A Comparative Study of
Instructional Policies of Middle Schools Administered
Respectively by Elementary-Oriented Principals and Secon­
dary Principals" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1970) ,
p. 1.

1

2

Statement of the Problem
The study is designed to investigate the relation­
ship of reported practices in selected Michigan middle
schools and four nationally prestigious middle schools as
perceived by principals and selected teachers in each
school.

A concern for what is taking place in these

schools can provide valuable information for future
middle school development.

Thus, the discovery of the

viable ingredients of the middle school will have a
significant impact on the total program of public
school education.
Significance of the Problem
The major concern of educators during the late
1800's and 1900's was the early adolescent youth.

The

organizational design of six years of elementary school­
ing and six years of secondary schooling had failed to
take into consideration the needs and problems of this
age level.

With these students representing the junior

high school, the promise of an utopian future was never
realized.
The events and forces that set the stage for the
consideration of the middle school were paralleled in
the development of the junior high school from 1890 to
1920.

Lack of standardization of secondary school pro­

grams was causing considerable difficulty for the col­
leges in admission procedures by 1890.

Thus, the

3
increase in industrialization and a discernable shift
from rural to urban living was placing a heavier demand
on colleges, and they in turn demanded more of the
secondary schools.

Therefore, this demand for excellence

in the academics and preparation for future college stu­
dents brought this new intermediate school into the
position of a miniature high school.
The term "middle school" continues with great
popularity today.

Gaining momentum during the 1960's

a variety of diverse organizational patterns have become
extremely popular.

Within a relatively short time

period, many schools have made the transition to middle
schools for a variety of reasons that range from pressures
2
to integrate to alleviating overcrowded conditions.
The rationale given for this emerging interest
in the middle schools seems to relate to the dissatisfaction with what the junior high school has become.

3

In essence the middle school movement is basically a
reactionary movement against the existing structure.
Much of the criticism of existing junior high school
practices is undoubtedly justified, yet some of the

2

William M. Alexander and Emmett L. Williams,
"School for the Middle Years," Educational Leadership,
XXIV (December, 1965), 217-23.
3

William M. Alexander and Emmett L. Williams,
The Emergent Middle School (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1968) , p. 4.

4

"excuses" for deserting the junior high school structure
for a different number combination are not sound.

4

Most theorists argue that the emergent middle
school organization can and will meet the many needs of
the transescent child.
The need exists for studies that analyze and
investigate the reported practices of middle schools as
perceived by both administrators and teachers.

It seems

paramount that this basic practice be examined now.
Definition of Terms
The definition of terms which follows is pre­
sented in order for this study to be easily and accurately
understood and aids in any future replication that may be
considered.
Middle School.— A school unit which combines into
organization and facility grades six through eight.
Middle School Program.--A technique or educational
strategy that commits itself to making provisions for
each child within its program and strives to make the
program flexible and consistent with the philosophic
positions developed.

R. P. Brim, "Middle School or Junior High? Back­
ground and Rationale," National Association for Secondary
School Principals (March^ 196^) , p. I"!

n

5
Transescent Youth.— That youth in the stage of
growth and development which begins just prior to the
onset of puberty and continues to early adolescence.
Planned Gradualism.— Those experiences which
assist early adolescents in making the transition from
childhood dependence to adult independence.
Team Teaching.— An administrative design in
organization that maximizes on teacher talents and pro­
vides experiences for students to interact with a variety
of teachers in a wide range of subject areas.
Continuous Progress Program.— A nongraded edu­
cational program which utilizes a diversification of
instructional techniques which are used to allow stu­
dents to progress at their own individual rate regard­
less of chronological age.
Survey Instrument.— A survey instrument, consist­
ing of eighteen validated middle school characteristics,
that was mailed to all Michigan middle school principals
and four exemplary middle school principals in the Riegle
Study.

The identical survey was also used in this

study.

Survey I instrument will apply to the Riegle

Study while Survey II instrument will apply to this
study.

6

Procedure
Much attention will be given to Survey II in
this research project.

This instrument is identical in

organization as Survey I.

It differs, however, from

Survey I in the following:
A.

It was mailed to all middle schools in Michigan
housing grades 6-8.

B.

All principals in 6-8 grade schools were asked
to fill out the survey.

C.

Principals in Michigan and national middle
school were asked to select two teachers,
with two or more years seniority at their
respective school to fill out the questionnaire
form.
Assumptions of the Study
The Study assumes that the checklist prepared and

organized was appropriate for measuring middle school
practices.

It also assumes that the instrument was

presented in such a manner that allowed respondents to
answer with their true perceptions relative to the pro­
grams housed within their school building.
Limitations of the Study
This study is limited to those schools in Michigan
and a small national sample that house students in grades
six through eight.

Although the terms have been

carefully defined, a lack of consistent responses may
develop because of the wide range of training and
experiences of the respondents.
The intent of the survey was to discern the
degree of application being made of eighteen middle school
principals.

The survey instrument used in this thesis

was used in a previous study of the middle school and is
considered acceptable for the purpose for which it is to
be used.
Research Objectives
The problem as has been outlined can better be
understood with the following research questions which
will be tested in this study.
Objective I
Is there a high degree of consistency between
responses of teachers and principals in Michigan middle
schools relative to reported practices as measured by
Survey II?
Objective II
Is there a high degree of consistency between
responses of teachers and principals in the four
nationally prominent middle school relative to reported
practices as measured by Survey II?

8
Objective III
Is there a significant difference in responses
between teachers and principals in the Michigan middle
school as compared to the responses of teachers and
principals in the four nationally prestigious schools
relative to reported practices as measured by Survey II?
Objective IV
Is there a high degree of agreement between
principals in Michigan middle schools and principals in
the four nationally famous middle schools in their
responses to both Survey I and Survey II?
Operational hypotheses in relation with these
research questions are presented in Chapter III.
Procedures for Analysis of Data
The following study is an extension of the Riegle
Study which was also done on the middle school.

The

Riegle Study dealt with making a compilation of the most
frequently mentioned characteristics of middle school
education after a thorough review of the literature.
A survey instrument was designed and disseminated to
all schools in Michigan housing grades above four but
below nine.

The survey instrument was also mailed to

four arbitrarily selected schools outside the state of
Michigan that had received national recognition as
exemplary middle schools.

The purpose of the study

ir~
s

9

was to determine the current level of implementation of
the above mentioned characteristics which totaled
eighteen.

The author's main conclusion was, in general,

the national sample of exemplary middle schools were
found to be applying the basic middle school character­
istics to a greater degree than were the middle schools
in Michigan.

He further concluded that middle schools

in Michigan could provide improved middle schools pro­
grams by increased study and application of the middle
school concepts presented in the literature.
This study is concerned with investigating the
relationship of reported practices in selected Michigan
middle schools and four nationally prestigious middle
schools as perceived by principals and selected teachers
in each school.

The responses to the survey form used

in the Riegel Study will constitute the reported prac­
tices in this study.
One hundred and thirty-six schools listed by the
Michigan Department of Education met the criteria estab­
lished for defining a middle school.

From the schools

on this list, those organized in a manner appropriate to
this study were identified and totaled 104.
The same survey instrument used in the Riegle
Study was determined appropriate for this study by the
Research Department at Michigan State University.

5

^Research assistance provided by the Department of
Research Services, College of Education, Michigan State
i

10

A cover letter and survey forms along with a
stamped return addressed envelope were sent to the 104
identified Michigan middle schools and the four nationally
prominent schools.

A follow-up letter was sent one month

later to each school from whom no reply had been received.
The data were programmed and processed by the
control Data Corporation (CDC) 3600 computer at Michigan
State University.

The analysis of variance was used to

analyze these data.
Organization of Dissertation
A frame of reference for the entire study is
provided in Chapter I.

An introduction to the middle

school and a statement of the problem examined in this
study has been presented.

Research questions and

important terms have been stated and defined.

Methods

used for collecting and analyzing the data are also
presented.
Chapter II begins with a review of the related
literature.

A middle school rationale is then espoused.

The topic of middle school evaluation concludes this
chapter.
The research design and procedures are described
in Chapter III.

Details relating to the samples, the

University, and Dr. Lawrence Lezotte, Assistant DirectorCenter for Urban Affairs-Research, Michigan State Uni­
versity.

r
i

11
instrument, administration, data collection, and analysis
procedures are presented.
The analysis of data is presented in Chapter IV.
Appropriate descriptive statistics are presented along
with each hypothesis.
A summary of the study indicating the significant
findings, conclusions, and implications for future
studies is presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

The key issue pursued in this dissertation dic­
tates a thorough review of the literature.

The review

begins with a brief history of the intermediate school.
Because of the nebulous picture often given of
the middle school, clarification is attempted by looking
at what the middle school is, followed by a rationale or
a why for its existence.

Consideration is then given to

the necessity of evaluation in the middle school.
History of the American
Middle School
Over sixty years ago, with a reorganization
movement developing in secondary education, seventh ar.d
eighth graders were siphoned off of existing elementary
schools and either appended to the four-year high school
to form the six-year secondary school or joined with
high school freshmen in the newly created junior high
school.
factors.

This reorganization occurred because of many
As early as 1888, President Charles W. Eliot

of Harvard had sounded the call as he addressed the

12

13
National Education Association.

His basic concern was

that if secondary education could begin earlier than the
ninth grade the result would be younger high school
graduates.

As interest grew toward this idea the N.E.A.

appointed a "Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies."
Their recommendation was to begin high school subjects in
the late elementary school or within a six-year high
school.^
The emergence of a plethora of organizations
came into existence, including the 6-6, 6-3-3, 6-2-4,
5-3-4, 4-4-4 plans.

Despite the many aberrations, the

concept of six years of elementary education and six
for secondary was quite acceptable to most educators.
Economy of time was not the sole factor in the
reorganizational movement.

The new psychology of G.

Stanley Hall had focused educator's attention on develop­
mental characteristics and needs of children and
adolescents.

Age twelve was regarded by many psycho­

logists as the turning point of adolescence.

The belief

was that these students should be with their peers in
a three-year unit or with older students in the six-year
2
secondary school.

"'"Theodore C. Moss, "The Middle School Comes— And
Takes Another Grade or T w o ," The National Elementary
Principal (February, 1969), pp. 37-38.
^Ibid., p. 38.

14
A second reason contributing to the reorganization
movement was the great dissatisfaction over the dupli­
cation of studies offered in the elementary school.
Rather than being bothered with the traditional offer­
ing of penmanship, grammar, spelling, geography, reading,
arithmetic, and history, a variety of substitute courses,
departmentalized teaching of high school subjects, some
vocational courses, and a broader program of extra­
curricular activities were suggested as alternatives.
It was felt that earlier introduction of high school
subjects, including the vocational courses, were justifi­
cation for retaining those students who normally left
school after consummation of grade eight.

It was

theorized that, given these high school courses within
a building of older students, many potential dropouts
would be encouraged to remain an additional year and
hence, the dropout rate would greatly diminish.

Both

Thorndike and Dewey supported the theory and this gave
considerable prestige to the movement.
The recommendations of the Commission on the
Reorganization of Secondary Education in 1918 proved
significantly important.

The report, published under

the title of "The Cardinal Principles of Secondary Edu­
cation," reaffirmed the 6-6 plan of school organization
but suggested the establishment of a three-year junior

15
high school with grades seven through nine.

It dis­

tinguished between the functions of the junior and
senior high by stating:
In the junior period emphasis should be placed upon
the attempt to help the pupil to explore his own
aptitudes and to make at least provisional choice
of the kind of work to which he will devote him­
self.
In the senior period emphasis should be
given to training in the fields thus chosen. . . .
In the junior high school there should be the
gradual introduction of departmental instruction,
some choice of subjects under guidance . . . and
a social organization that calls forth initiative
and develops the sense of personal responsibility
for the welfare of the group.3
The first three-year junior high schools were
opened in Columbus, Ohio, and Berkeley, California in
1909 and 1910.

Their opening was the result of over­

crowding in the existing four-year high school.

The

school age population reflected the rapid rise in our
national birth rate.

From 1890 to 1920 public secondary

enrollment rose from 3.8 per cent to 24 per cent of the
4
normal high school age group (14-17).
Although the junior high school started slowly,
by 1920 it was firmly entrenched as an American school
between the elementary and the high school.^
3

Leslie W. Kindred, The Intermediate School
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968) ,
pp. 20-21.
4
Moss, o£. c i t ., p. 38.
Joseph C. Devita, Phillip Pumerantz, and Leighton
B. Wilklow, The Effective Middle School (West Nyack, N.Y.:
Parker Publishing Company, l9?0), p. I T .

16
During the next forty years or the period from
1920-1960 the number of junior high schools increased at
a phenomenal rate.
been established.

In 1920, 55 separate schools had
The number then rose to 1,842 by 1930

and to 7,143 by 1964.

These figures exclude those

schools that were part of a six-year junior-senior high
school form of grade organization.

Because of this

rapid growth and great popularity, the junior high
school experienced wide and popular acceptance.
The popularity of the junior high school began
to fade after World War II.

The senior high school

had begun to push more academics into the junior high
and the statistics on the school dropout rate led to
serious cogitation about the 7-9 grade plan.

Afterwards

many educators began accusing the junior high schools of
not fulfilling its purposes in caring for the develop­
mental and educational needs of its pupil.

Parents began

complaining that the junior high school was forcing their
7
children to grow up too fast.
The junior high school
was slowly becoming a miniature high school.

In 1965 Paul

Woodring remarked that "it now appears that the 6-3-3
g

plan, with its junior high school, is on the way out."
Kindred, o£. c i t ., p. 25.
7

Paul Woodring, "The New Intermediate School,"
Social Foundations of Education, ed. by Dorothy Westley
Gibson (New York:
The Freedom Press, 1967), p. 235.

g

Paul Woodring, "The New Intermediate School,"
Saturday Review, XLVIII (October 16, 1965), 77.

17
Even though a few middle schools existed in the
1950's, the middle school concept rapidly grew in popu­
larity during the 1960's.

In 1965 the Research Division

of the National Education Association reported in a sur­
vey of the growing number of middle schools widely
scattered across the country.

Cuff reported in his

study that in the 1965-66 school year 446 public school
districts in 30 states were operating 499 middle schools.
Middle school growth became so popular that by
the 1967-68 school year, Alexander had identified over
1,200 in the United States.10

Alexander's survey was

undertaken to provide more precise and comprehensive
data regarding the nature and extent of the middle
school movement.

His survey clearly confirmed that

there was definitely a national movement toward new
school organization in the middle of the school ladder.
This new-found popularity was met by a series of
criticisms by many well-established educators.

Popper,

who had been critical of the middle school practice but
supportive of the concept, described the middle school
as an "institutional corruption" that was corruptive
of both early adolescent and childhood education in the

^William A. Cuff, "Middle Schools on the March,"
National Association of Secondary School Principals
Bulletin, LVII (February, 1967), 83-66.
10William M. Alexander, "The New School in the
Middle," Phi Delta Kappan, XVI (February, 1969), 335-36.

9

elementary school.^"*"

The junior high school Education

Committee representing the National Association of
Secondary School Principals proclaimed that any school
housing grades six through nine had greater merit than
a school housing grades five through eight.

12

What Is the Middle School?
One current innovation which may eventually have
great impact on education reform, and which certainly
seeks to challenge conventional organizational patterns
is the emerging middle school program.

13

The term "middle school" has come to mean dif­
ferent things to different people.

Alexander defined

it as, "a school providing a program planned for a range
of older children, preadolescents, and early adolescents
that builds upon the elementary school program for earlier

■'■'^Samuel Popper, "What About the Middle School?"
Today's Education, LVIII (November, 1969), 52.
12

"Recommended Grades or Years in Junior High or
Middle Schools," National Association of Secondary School
Principal's Bulletin, L (February, 1967) , 69.
13

John W. Vaughn, "Implication of Physical and
Intellectual Growth Characteristics, Interests, and Cul­
tural Forces for the Improvement of the Middle School
Program" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970).

19

childhood and in turn is built upon by the high school's
program for adolescence."1^
The middle school concept, to establish an edu­
cational program designed to meet the needs and interests
of the preadolescent and early adolescent has been
described as having specific prerequisite features:
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

15

Includes at least three grades to provide for the
transition from elementary methods to high school
instructional procedures.
A movement toward departmentalization, more pro­
nounced in each higher grade, to effect the
change from the elementary self-contained class­
room to the departmentalized structure of the
high school.
Flexible approaches to instruction characterize
the middle school-team teaching, flexible
scheduling, individualized instruction, indepen­
dent study, programmed learning, and such other
procedures as will help children learn how to
learn.
Special courses, required of all students,
usually taught in a departmentalized structure
in such fields as industrialized arts, home
economics, art, music and typing.
A guidance program that is a distinct entity,
especially designed for the preadolescent and
early adolescent, and one that is comprised of
more than tests and record keeping.
A faculty that is specifically for this age group
and this sort of school.

14

William M. Alexander and Emmett L. Williams,
The Emergent Middle School (Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1*6977 p. 5"!
1^Alvin W. Howard and George C. Stoumbis, The
Junior High and Middle School:
Issues and Practices
(Scranton, Penn.:
Intext Educational Publishers, 1970) ,
p. 198.

20
7.

A program of interscholastic sports and social
activities that is substantially limited from
that commonly found in the traditional junior
high.16
That the middle school is more than a grouping of

grades is evident from an examination of the degree to
which each of the above mentioned seven essentials of
a school is part of the programs.
Williams notes that, " . . .
characterized by extreme variety.

The middle school is
However, despite the

fact that middle schools probably differ from one another
more than they resemble one another, they do have some
features in common:"
1.

2.
3.

4.

An effort to combine the best features of the
elementary school and its self-contained class­
rooms with the best aspects of the specialization
of the secondary schools.
An instructional program that emphasizes selfunderstanding and includes units on the special
concerns of young adolescents.
An observable, definite, and planned emphasis
upon greater student self-direction and self­
responsibility for learning.
This requires
extended use of independent study and student
selection of activities of the individual's own
choosing and design.
Expanded use of innovations such as team teach­
ing, nongrading, the newest of educational media,
flexible scheduling, programmed learning, and
laboratory facilities.
The middle school move­
ment is an exciting development and part of the
excitement grows out of its newness— the excite­
ment of creativity is felt in these schools.17

■^"Middle Schools in Theory and in Fact," N.E.A.
Research Bulletin, XLVII (May, 1969), 49.
17

Emmet L. Williams, "The Middle School Movement,"
Today1s Education, LVII (December, 1968), 41.

21

The Connecticut Legislature defined the middle
school in an act of 1965 as an extension of the defi­
nition of a secondary school to include " . . .

any

separate combination of grades five and six or grade six
with grades seven and eight in a program approved by the
State Board of Education when the use of special facili­
ties generally associated with secondary schools is an
essential part of the program for all grades included in
such a school."
Alexander and his associates

18

see the middle

school as bringing together in one facility and organi­
zation specific school years, commonly grades 5-8 or 6-8,
that have previously been separated by elementary and
junior high school organization patterns under the 6-3-3
plan.

This new structure should be considered, they

believe, in a larger sense as an effort to "reorganize
the total school ladder," not just one of its divisions.
The middle school, in this concept, is defined as,
. . . a school providing a program planned for a
range of older children, preadolescents, and early
adolescents that builds upon the elementary school
program for earlier childhood and in turn is built
upon by the high school's program for adolescence.
Specifically it focuses upon the educational needs
of what is termed the "in-between-ager."19

18

Alexander and Williams, o£. c i t ., pp. 4-5,
Ibid.

22
Atkins relates the following as distinguishing
characteristics of the middle school that promise to
render it "uniquely appropriate for the children it
serves":
1.

2.

3.

Attitudinal stance, a difference in the approach
to the task at hand.
"The uniqueness of the
middle school is not so much a matter of organi­
zation, of grouping, of schedules, or of staffing,
as it is a matter of attitude, of expectation,
of sensitivity, and of perception.
The mission
of the school is viewed as neither remedial nor
preparatory."
In such a concept the transitional
condition of these children is both recognized
and valued.
The middle school is "characterized organi­
zationally by flexibility, environmentally by
sensitivity to changing needs, and instructionally
by individualization." There is more awareness
of the need for reexamination of school practices
in middle schools which, in turn, makes these
schools more open to innovation.
There is an emphasis upon the shift from mastery
of knowledge to utilization of knowledge.
The
prominent features of the program includes some
form of these four ideas:
diagnostic teaching,
individualized instruction, self-directed learn­
ing, and learner-centered evaluation.20
Compton described the middle school as "a promis­

ing alternative to the inadequate 6-3-3 organization— it
focuses attention on a portion of the school population
too often treated as second-class citizens in the public
schools."

In noting that the middle school varies

between school districts, she has pointed out that it
is just as impossible to describe the middle school
specifically as it is to specify the elementary school
20

Neil P. Atkins, "Rethinking Education in the
Middle," Theory Into Practice (Columbus: Ohio State Uni­
versity College of Education, June, 1968), pp. 118-19.

23
or the junior high school.

She labels common elements

found in middle schools a s :
1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

9.
10.

Planned articulation with the elementary school
that may require "a pseudo-self-contained approach"
for a part of the school day in the first year of
the middle school program.
Use of subject matter specialist into team teach­
ing technique in closely related areas of general
knowledge.
Establishment of skill laboratories within the
middle schools that are staffed by technologists
who possess subject matter competencies to furnish
remedial, developmental, and advanced instruction.
An independent study program for all students in
accord with the individual student's needs,
interests, and abilities, and commensurate with
the topics chosen for study.
Home base groups should be assigned to teachers
who have special training in guidance and coun­
seling and who also have the time and opportunity
to help children both with personal and academic
problems.
An activity program in which all students are
encouraged and able to participate.
Such a pro­
gram is aimed at the individual student's develop­
ment rather than building the school's prestige
or providing public entertainment.
A vertical school organizational plan that permits
continuous progress of students.
A system of evaluation and grading that is based
upon individual progress rather than some mythical
average for a particular grade or chronological
age group.
Individualized student programs designed to fit
the needs of each student, and individualized
student schedules.
A faculty and administration that is knowledgeable
concerning this age group, competent in at least
one subject field, and that indicate a sincere
desire to provide the best program possible for
the "in-between-ager."21
An informational brochure prepared by the Grosse

Pointe, Michigan, Public School System delineates
21

Mary F. Compton, "The Middle School: Alterna­
tive to the Status Quo," Theory Into Practice (Columbus:
Ohio State University College of Education, June, 1968) ,
p. 110.

24
specifically the differences between a middle school and
a junior high school.

Their definition follows:

A middle school program is designed to recognize
the uniqueness of the growth stage spanning the
transition from childhood to adolescence.
The
junior high has evolved into exactly what the
name implies— junior high s c h o o l . 22
Middle School Emphasized

Jr. High Emphasizes

1.

A program that is childcentered

A program that is subject
centered

2.

Learning how to learn

Acquiring a body of infor­
mation

3.

Creative exploration

Skill and concept mastery

4.

A belief in oneself

Interstudent competition

5.

Skilled Guidance for
student self-direction

Conformance to the teachermade lesson plan

6.

Student assuming
responsibility for
their own learning

Student learning is the
responsibility of the
teacher

7.

Student independence

Control by the teacher

8.

A flexible schedule

A six-period day

9.

Scheduling involving
student planning

A schedule administrative
constructed

10.

Variable group size

Standard classrooms

11.

Use of team teaching

One teacher per class

12.

Students learning at
different rate— self­
pacing

All students at the same
place at the same time;
textbook approach

22

The Middle School in Grosse Pointe, A brochure
prepared by the Gross Pointe, Michigan Public School
system.

25
A theoretical model for the middle school has
been enunciated by Alexander and Williams.
middle school

The model

(grades 5, 6, 7, and 8) proposed by these

writers is based on eight guidelines, a three-phase
curriculum, and a suggested organization for instruction.
The Eight Guidelines are:
1.

A real middle school should be designed to serve
the needs of older children, preadolescents,
and early adolescents.

2.

A middle school organization should make a
reality of the long-held ideal of individualized
instruction.

3.

A middle school program should give high priority
to the intellectual components of the curriculum.

4.

A middle school program should place primary
emphasis on skills of continued learning.

5.

A middle school should provide a high program
of exploratory experiences.

6.

A program of health and physical education should
be designed for boys and girls of the middle
school years.

7.

An emphasis on values should underline all
aspects of a middle school program.

26
8.

The organization of a middle school would
facilitate most effective use of the special
competencies of the teaching staff.
They suggest that the curriculum of the model

middle school would consist of planned programs in three
areas:

learning skills, general studies, and personal

development.

These programs would be developed in an

organization of instruction comprised of a homeroom, the
wing unit, the vertical unit, and special learning
centers.

They also suggest having homerooms of about

twenty-five pupils in the same grade levels, but also
heterogeneously arranged under the supervision of a
teacher counselor.

A suggestion is made of having four

homeroom groups with their teachers constituting a wing
unit.

Each of the four homeroom teachers would possess

a special competence in one of the general studies areas
of language arts, social studies, science, or mathematics.
The combination of these teachers working and planning
together would serve as a committee and a teaching team
for the wing unit of 100 students.
The vertical unit would consist of approximately
400 students and 16 teachers.

This unit would be com­

prised of four wing units, one from each grade level,
five through eight.

This arrangement is often referred

to as the "school within a school" concept.

These

special learning centers would serve the exploratory

27
interests as well as the special and remedial needs of
students who would be scheduled on an individual basis
for work in these centers for both long-term and short­
term learning.
Certain statements consistently appear in dis­
cussions of what the middle school is or ideally should
be.

Among these are dissatisfaction with the actual

practices of the junior high school— although not with
its stated goals and functions; the opportunities for
innovation; the conviction that the middle school more
nearly answers the question,

"How can we best serve the

educational needs of pupils who are no longer children
and not quite adolescents?"

23

; and the claim that the

middle school program should be a distinct entity in
itself, not a carbon of the high school nor a fancy
version of the elementary program.

There appears to be

a near-unanimous feeling that the middle school must
avoid practices and curricula like those that now appear
to characterize the traditional junior high school.

It

must establish itself as a truly middle unit in a threesegment system of American education, one comprised of
elementary, middle, and high school.

23
24

Williams,

0 £.

24

c i t ., p. 41.

Howard and Stoumbis,

0£.

c i t ., p. 203.

28
Why A Middle School?
A multiplicity of reasons have been given as to
the rationale for the creation of middle schools as the
intermediate unit of a school system.

With this advo­

cation, much is made of the fact that today's young
people mature earlier now than they did some years ago.
Earlier maturation is attributed to a better diet.
As a result, many boys and girls enter puberty
in grades five and six.

25

The majority of girls today

enter puberty between the ages of ten and twelve, the
majority of boys between the ages of eleven and thirteen,
and these children share common developmental problems.
Much evidence exists relating the positive aspects of
placing the preadolescent and early adolescent in a
school situation together where they will not have to
compete and associate with the older and mature youth.
It has been agreed upon by many middle school proponents
that fifth and sixth-graders can profit from learning
experiences typically allotted to seventh-graders in the
junior high school.

Brimm, however, feels that the

actual age of puberty of girls today as compared with
the estimated age for their mothers and grandmothers is
relatively small, only a month or two.

25

Kindred, o£. c i t ., p. 33.

He further points

29
out that this slight difference hardly justifies a oneto two-year change in g r o u p i n g . ^
In further support ~f this position, it is felt
that children of middle school age appear to have more
in common with each other than with elementary school
pupils as a group or high school pupils as a group.
There seems to be less difference between the maturity
of boys and girls in grade six and eight than between
boys and girls in grades seven and nine; consequently,
it is felt that children in the fifth through eighth
grades should be separated both physically and intel­
lectually from older children.
A very popular belief related to the middle
school is that children from the ages of ten through
fourteen not only differ considerably from each other
and require an appropriate environment for learning
but also have particular emotional, social, and intel­
lectual needs that cannot be met satisfactorily in
elementary and junior high school.

It is theorized in

this respect that these conditions and needs can only
be met through special facilities and instructional
personnel who understand the growth and developmental
processes in children of middle school ages.
? fi

27

R. P. Brimm, "Middle School or Junior High?
Background and Rationale," National Association of Secon­
dary School Principals, No. 355 (March, 1969), 5-6.
^ I b i d . , p. 33.

30
It is typically accepted that the middle school
child needs an educational program that is quite dif­
ferent from the traditional self-contained classroom at
the elementary level, but one that does not quite
parallel the departmentalized high school.

The middle

school can provide fifth or sixth graders with more
constructive challenges and more leadership opportuni­
ties.

In addition it slows down the more undesirable

aspect of early sophistication and the rapid growth
28
process.
American education has customarily been
classified as elementary and secondary, with junior
high school included as a part of the secondary.

Middle

school advocates believe that it is time to recognize
the third major division of education, the intermediate
area, to take its place between the elementary and
secondary.

29

The educational advantages of the middle school
are emphasized by its supporters.

Grooms contends that

the middle school provides an educational program aimed
at the 10-14 age groups, one that stresses flexibility
rather than the acquisition of specific skills as does
the elementary school.

28

Further, it does not emphasize

Howard and Stoumbis, o£. c i t . , p. 204.

29T,
Ibid.

31
the specialization of the high school.

Responsibility

for learning is a goal expected of the middle school
child; the encouragement of students to explore on their
own, and the assignments are designed to fit the stu­
dent's needs.
The junior high school became too large and over­
grew itself.

It became, because of expediency, too

involved with high school type activities.

The needs

of the students, though advocated in its philosophy,
were being neglected.
high began.

Thus, the demise of the junior

The name itself,

"junior high school"

carried a very negative connotation which handicapped
it for years.
The name, "middle school" gives this structure
a standing of its own.

The middle school exists in its

own right, separate from the image of the senior high
school.

Techniques, programming, and curriculum permit

the greatest possible flexibility of scheduling to pro­
vide for the varying rates, abilities, and interests
of the individual.

30

A variety of basic subjects should

be available in this school, however, there should be a
wide range of exploratory subjects available.

Williams33-

has listed several innovative features common to the

30Ibid. , p. 205.
31

Williams,

0£.

c i t ., p. 42.

32
middle school, team-teaching, flexible scheduling, pro­
grammed instruction, laboratory facilities, and non­
grading.
One major criterion espoused for a successful
middle school program is individualized instruction.

It

has long been advanced in educational theory that a stu­
dent's learning ability and retention is best when he
has tackled the process of discovery by himself.

Thus,

a rationale is given for the inclusion of the concepts
of non-grading and team teaching within the middle school
as to improve instruction.

Williams suggests that it is

difficult to find a middle school that is not using some
form of team teaching.

32

Alexander suggests three principal kinds of
justification for adoption of the middle school:
1.
2.
3.

To provide a program especially adapted to the
wide range of individual differences and
special needs of the "in-between-ager."
To create a school ladder arrangement that
promotes continuity of education from school
entrance to school completion.
To facilitate through a new organization, the
introduction of needed innovations in curriculum
and instruction.33
Moss

34

contends that a new organizational pattern

has developed.

This, he believes, is the natural

32x.
■,
Ibid.
33

Alexander and Williams, o£. c i t ., p. 11.

"^Theodore C. Moss, Middle Schools
Houghton-Mifflin, 1969), p. l 6 .

(Boston:

33
development of the change from the 8-4 plan to that of
the 6-3-3 which developed during the early 1900's.
In a 1967-68 survey by Alexander, he attempted to
discern the nature and extent of the current middle
school movement.

His survey included a checklist of

reasons for the establishment of 110 middle schools in
a 10 per cent random sample of the ten regions in the
nation as described by the USOE.

Many of the reasons

cited by the respondents for adopting the middle school
program w e r e :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

To eliminate crowded conditions in other schools
(58.2%)
To provide a program specifically designed for
students in this age group (44.6%)
To better bridge
the elementary and the high
school (40%)
To provide more specialization in grades five
and/or six (30%)
To move grade nine into the high school (24.5%)
To remedy the weaknesses of the junior high
school (24.5%)
To try out various innovations (23.6%)
To utilize a new school building (20.9%)
To use plans that have been successful in other
school systems (12.7%)
To aid in desegregation (6.4%)
Other (11.8%)35
Several of these reasons other than "to remedy

the weaknesses of the junior high school" do imply an
inadequacy of the junior high:

"to provide a program

specifically designed for students in this age group";

35

William M. Alexander, "The New School m the
Middle," Phi Delta Kappan (February, 1969), pp. 355-56.

34
"to better bridge the elementary and the high school";
and "to move grade nine into the high school."

36

Brod sees many positive advantages of the middle
school.

She surveyed more than 1,000 middle schools and

concluded that the middle school is successful in
37
practice.
Certainly one of the most cumbersome aspects of
the middle school movement has been the bandwagon effect.
Far too many schools have been created as middle schools
without seriously considering the students to whom it is
to serve.

Without any serious planning or organization

true implementation will be difficult.

Thus, it is

little wonder that many educators are skeptical about
the middle school movement.
Evaluating the Middle School
There is no one way to evaluate a school.
and people both differ.

Schools

However, the need for evaluation

in the middle schools is certainly a must.

Why is it

necessary to evaluate the intermediate school?
The middle school movement has accelerated at
such a pace until it has come to be almost a landslide.
Each year witnesses a vast multiplication of such schools.

36
Alexander,
37

0 £.

cit.

Pear Brod, "Middle Schools in Practice," The
Clearing House, XLII (May, 1968), 531.

35
Without evaluation boards of education and school people
will never really know whether this organization is any
better than the old.
Fundamentally, evaluation of the middle school,
or of any educational enterprise or activity, seeks to
provide answers to two related questions:
1.
2.

How well are we achieving our goals or purposes?
How can we improve what we are doing or how
can we do it better another time?38
A very thorough evaluation of a middle school has

to begin with an examination of the philosophy, theory,
rationale, and purposes of the school.

It should include

relationships to what precedes and what follows the
middle school as well as relate the program to the stated
purposes and to the cultural setting in which the school
operates.

In addition it should also include adequacy

of facility, what the staff and administration do, and
how well they are carrying out their activities.

Major

emphasis should be placed on curriculum— the instruction,
services, and activities provided by the middle school
for its pupils.

39

The highest priority should be the

assessment of what the intermediate or middle school
is doing for its students.

38
Vynce A. Hynes and Williams M. Alexander,
"Evaluating the Middle School," National Association of
Elementary School Principal (February, 1969), p. 32.
T9

Ibid., pp. 32-33.

36
Alexander and Williams reviewed five purposes
for evaluating the middle school:
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

To provide information on how well the purposes
of the middle school are being met.
To test assertions or hypotheses underlying the
middle school.
To provide feedback for improving practices in
the middle school included here relates to what
teachers do, how they do it, and all the courses,
activities, and services provided for the chil­
dren who attend the middle school.
To provide psychological security to staff,
pupils, parents, and school officials.
To provide a basis for expanding middle schools.
The current costs of establishing and operating

new schools— in dollars and in their effects, or lack of
effects, on children are too great to allow another wave
of "experimental" but untested school organizations to
become fixed in the middle school movement is almost at
hand.4 ^
The existence of a movement toward middle schools
is not justification alone for evaluating the new schools.
The important questions are how middle schools differ
from prior organizations and whether they are better
schooling arrangements for children.

Alexander's survey

found that very few of the middle schools had any builtin evaluation plans for getting such data.

40
41

Alexander and Williams,

0 £.

42

c i t ., p. 131.

Hynes and Alexander, ojd. c i t ., p. 34.

42Ibid.

37
One of the important ingredients in evaluation
of the middle school is to examine the goals.

Stated

goals should be very specific as they relate to philosophy
and purpose.

Goals must be appropriate for the students

and community being served and thus should not be above
criticism.

There must exist close correlation between

the goals and the knowledge of how pupils learn.
Evaluation can provide for clarifying objectives,
for assessing progress toward achievement of the objec­
tives, and can supply data for improving both process
and product.

43

Evaluative measures have been developed

in huge quantities for the traditional junior high
school, but unfortunately nothing as complete and
comprehensive has been done for the middle school as
yet.
Evaluation should and must be a part of every
middle school.

An adequate evaluation will undoubtedly

assist administrators and all from duplicating the mis­
takes of the traditional junior high school.
Review of Related Studies
Jack D. Riegle conducted a study in the 1970-71
school year to identify the basic middle school prin­
ciples that were frequently expressed in the literature.
He then attempted to determine the degree of application

^ I b i d . , p. 35.

38
middle schools in Michigan and in a selected national
sample were making of these principles.

The study was

limited to those schools housing grades above four and
below nine.
The basic middle school principles focused
attention upon the areas o f :

continuous progress pro­

grams , use of multi-media, flexible scheduling, pro­
visions for student social experiences, provisions for
student physical experiences, intramural activities,
team teaching applications, programs for planned gradu­
alism, exploratory-enrichment opportunities, guidance
services, independent study programs, basic learning
skills extension, creative experiences, programs to
provide student security factors, student evaluation
practices, community relations, student services, and
auxiliary staffing.
The survey instrument which sought data related
to the application being made of the eighteen middle
schools principles was sent to the principal of all
schools housing grades above four but below nine.
The findings and conclusions of the study were
as follows:

(1) The rapid increase in the number of

schools labeled as middle schools has not been accompanied
by a high degree of application of those principles con­
sidered by authorities in the field to be basic to
middle school education;

(2) An overall 46.94 application

39

by middle schools in Michigan as measured by the survey
instrument used in this study and a 64.9 per cent appli­
cation by the national sample when measured on the same
basis;

(3) The number of grades housed in a middle school

was not a significant factor in determining application
of middle school principles.

In general both three-

grade and four-grade middle schools in Michigan had
implemented the middle school principle to a small
degree;

(4) While a high degree of agreement exists

among authorities in the field regarding what con­
stitutes basic middle school principles, the degree of
application of these principles and the wide variation
in levels of application provide evidence of a failure
by the leadership of the middle schools of Michigan
to implement the principles proclaimed by the authori­
ties.

(5) A few middle schools in Michigan demonstrated

application of the basic middle school principles to a
degree equal to that level achieved by the four selected
exemplary schools included m

the study.

44

A study by Marie-Therese Elie to compare the
group behavior of students attending the middle school,
and the junior high school on the basis of socioemotional problems, self-concept of ability to learn,
creative thinking ability, and physical fitness and
health was done during the 1969-70 school year.
44

Riegle, ojd. c i t .

40
The data required for testing the hypothesis of
the investigation were collected by means of four
instruments:

The Mooney Problem Checklist: Junior High

School Form; The Michigan State Self-Concept of Ability
Scale; The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Ability;
and the AAHPER youth fitness Inventory.

A random sample

of 108 seventh and eighth grade boys and girls was
selected for testing.
follows:

The results of the study were as

(1) A significant difference was found between

the middle school and the junior high school students on
the measures of socio-emotional problems and creative
thinking ability.

(2) No significant differences were

found between the groups on the measures of self-concept
of ability to learn, and physical fitness and health.
(3)

There was a significant difference between the

groups in terms of creative thinking ability.

Middle

school students, regardless of grade, scored signifi­
cantly higher than junior high school students than
junior high school students on measures of "originality"
and "flexibility."

(4) No significant difference between

the two groups was found on standard measures of physical
fitness and health.

45

45
Marie-Therese Elie, "A Comparative Study of
Middle School and Junior High School Students in Terms of
Socio-Emotional Problems, Self-Concept of Ability to
Learn, Creative Thinking Ability, and Physical Fitness
and Health" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1970) .

41
Summary
The middle school came into existence approxi­
mately sixty years ago.

From the early part of the twen

tieth century to the middle 19 60's, the established
institution for the transescent youth was the junior
high school.

The latter part of the nineteenth century

saw Charles Elliot leading a movement to reorganize the
educational organization in order for earlier graduation
from high school.

A claim was made that the drop-out

rate was too high and this gave credence to the reorgani
zation movement.
The popularity of the new organization, the 7-9
junior high school, began to decline after World War II.
Many parents and educators became disenchanted with this
new organization.

It was then felt that the junior high

school was slowly becoming a miniature high school.
The middle school concept achieved its greatest
height and popularity during the 1960's.

During the

1967-68 school year, Alexander identified over 1,200
middle schools

in the United States as compared to4 99

in the 1965-66

school year.

The popularity of the middle school was
with a variety

of viewpoints, both pro

leading educators.

then met

and con, by

Many were vigorously supportive

of its concept and many were also equally opposed.

42
Thus, the divergence of opinions served to create a mul­
titude of information available in print for consumption.
The middle school has been defined as a school
providing a program for a range of older children, pre­
adolescents, and early adolescents that build upon the
elementary school program for earlier childhood and in
turn is built upon by the high school's program for
adolescence.

It is more than a grouping of grades

together.
There are specific prerequisites typically within
the middle school; includes at least three grades, a
movement toward departmentalization, more pronounced
in each higher grade; flexible approaches to instruction;
special courses required of all students; a guidance
program that is a distinct entity; a faculty that is
specifically trained for this age group; and a program
of interscholastic sports and social activities that
is substantially limited from that found in the tra­
ditional junior high school.
The middle school is characterized by extreme
variety.

Most differ from one another more than they

resemble one another.

However, there are some features

they have in common which often revolve around a wide
range of teaching strategies, team teaching, guidance
programs, individualized instruction, and independent
study.

Since one of the goals of the middle school is

43
to meet the educational needs of pupils who are no
longer children and not quite adolescents, the middle
school program thus emphasizes a program that is child
centered rather than subject centered.

It has been

described as a promising alternative to the inadequate
junior high school which focuses attention on a part
of the school population often treated as second-class
citizens in the public schools.
Much of the justification for the middle school
lies in the changes in maturation levels for adolescents
which demands a special kind of personalized educational
experience, and the failure of the junior high school to
develop into a student-centered institution.

Children

at this level not only differ from one another and
require an appropriate learning environment, but also
have special social, emotional, and intellectual needs
that cannot be satisfactorily met in elementary and
junior high school.
A survey by Alexander in 1967-68 attempted to
discover reasons for middle school development found
that many were begun for reasons other than "to provide
a program specifically designed for students in this
age group."

Some of the reasons given for middle school

development were to aid in desegregation, to use plans
that have been successful in other schools, to try out

44
various innovations, to remedy the weaknesses of the
junior high school and to move grade nine to the high
school.
Evaluation must be a constant and continuous
process in the middle school.

Evaluation serves to

answer the questions of how well goals and purposes are
being met and how can improvement be made in what is
currently being practiced.

Evaluation can provide for

clarifying objectives and for assessing progress toward
achievement of the objectives.

Evaluation thus provides

data for improving both process and product.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The basic objective of this study was to provide a
comparison between the perceptions of principals and
teachers of Michigan middle schools and four nationally
famous middle schools regarding practices within their
respective building.

This chapter is primarily con­

cerned with composition of the sample, the development
of the appropriate statistical instrument, the methods
used for collection of the data, and the procedures
used for analysis of the data.

In addition four

researchable hypotheses are made relative to differences
expected between the responses of principals and teachers
within the local and national schools regarding their
school program.
Hypothesis and Sub-Problems
Major Problem
The purpose of this research was to investigate
the relationship of reported practices in selected

45

46
Michigan middle schools and four nationally prestigious
middle schools as perceived by principals and selected
teachers in each school.

General Hypothesis:

There is a significant difference
between the mean scores of
Michigan middle school principals
and national principals regarding
their school program measured in
Survey I as compared to the mean
scores obtained by these princi­
pals one year later in Survey II.

Sub-Problem I
To determine if there is a significant difference
between responses of teachers and principals in Michigan
middle school relative to reported practices as measured
by survey II.
Hypothesis 1:

There is a significant difference
between the mean scores of principals
and the mean scores of teachers in the
Michigan middle schools.

Sub-Problem II
To determine if there is a significant difference
between responses of teachers and principals in the four
nationally prominent middle schools relative to reported
practices as measured by Survey II.
Hypothesis 2 :

There is a significant difference
between the mean scores of principals
and the mean scores of teachers in the
nationally prominent middle schools.

47
Sub-Problem III
To determine if there is a significant difference
between the responses of Michigan middle school principals
and teachers and the responses of principals and teachers
of the four nationally famous middle schools relative to
their school program.
Hypothesis 3 :

There is a significant difference
between the mean scores of Michigan
middle school principals and teachers
and the mean scores of principals and
teachers of the four nationally
prominent middle schools.

Sub-Problem IV
To determine if there is a significant difference
between the responses of Michigan middle school principals
regarding their school program when Survey II is compared
to Survey I, and responses of principals in the four
nationally famous schools regarding their school programs
when Survey II is compared to Survey I.
Hypothesis 4 :

There is a significant difference
between the mean scores of Michigan
middle school principals and national
middle school principals in Survey I
and the mean scores of Michigan middle
school principals and national middle
school principals in Survey II regard­
ing their school program.

Source of the Data
The Michigan State Department of Education supplied
a list of all schools classified as "middle schools."

48
One hundred and thirty-six met the qualification of hous­
ing grades above four and below nine.
schools were organized as

6-8

Of this number 103

middle schools.

The basic

predominant pattern of middle school organization in the
United States is 5-8 or
the

6-8

6 -8

.

This study was limited to

organization.
Since this study is a follow-up on a previous one

done on the middle school, the Riegle Study, the same
four nationally prestigious middle schools were used to
constitute the secondary sample.

These four schools were

selected because of the national prominence received for
operating exemplary middle school programs.

The exemplary

middle schools that were arbitrarily selected were:
Hithergreen Middle School, Dayton, Ohio; Pearl River
Middle School, Pearl River, New York; Fox Lane Middle
School, Bedford, New York; and Barrington Middle School,
Barrington, Illinois.
Three questionnaires were mailed to each of the
107 middle school principals.

One was filled out by the

principal and the two remaining were filled out by two
separate teachers who had two years or more seniority
on the staff.

The data for this study were gathered

from the questionnaires that had been completed and
returned by the principals.

49

Instrument Employed
To measure practices in middle schools, an
instrument used in the Riegle Study was replicated in
this study.
The instrument had been developed previously by
its author by reviewing the literature directly and
indirectly related to the middle school.

From this

review a list of basic principles of middle school pro­
gramming were extracted.

The author reviewed the list

with several well-known authorities on the middle school.
Based upon their critique, a list of eighteen basic
characteristics were compiled and agreed upon by the
panel of authorities in the field

(see Table 3.1).

The

instrument was a questionnaire containing sixty-two
questions

(see Table 3.2).

The questions dealt with

the application of eighteen middle school characteris­
tics.

The questions were divided into three sections

according to the manner of response indicated for the
question.

Multiple choice questions that used mutually

exclusive and exhaustive responses and sought a single
answer per question made up the first section of the
questionnaire.

The second section of the questionnaire

was multiple choice questions which sought multiple
responses, and the final section contained check forms
that were designed to compare two variables.

50
TABLE 3-1.— A listing of the eighteen middle school char­
acteristics used in this study to measure practices of
middle schools (by Louis G. Romano, Jack Riegle, and
Nicholas P. Georgiady).
Characteristic I
Continuous Progress: The middle school program should
feature a nongraded organization that allows students to
progress at their own individual rate regardless of chrono­
logical age.
Individual differences are at the most pro­
nounced stage during the transescent years of human develop­
ment.
Chronological groups tend to ignore the span of
individual differences.
Characteristic II
Multi-material approach: The middle school program should
offer to students 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.
Characteristic III
Flexible schedules: The middle school should provide a
schedule that encourages the investment of time based on
educational 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 sit­
uation or to a particular student.
Characteristic IV
Social experiences: The program should provide exper­
iences appropriate for the transescent youth and should
not emulate the social experiences of the senior high
school.
Social activities that emulate high school pro­
grams are inappropriate for middle school students.
The
stages of their social development are diverse and the
question of immaturity is pertinent in the planning of
activities for this age level.
Characteristic V and VI
Physical experiences and intramural activities: The
middle school curricular and co-curricular programs
should provide physical activities based solely on the
needs of the students.
Involvement in the program as a

51
TABLE 3-1.— Continued.
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 pro­
vided to supplement the physical education classes, which
should center their activity upon helping students under­
stand and use their bodies.
The middle school should
feature intramural activities rather than interscholastic
activities.
Characteristic VII
Team teaching: 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.
Characteristic VIII
Planned Gradualism: 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.
Characteristic IX
Exploratory and enrichment studies; The program should be
broad enough to meet the individual interests of the stu­
dents 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.
Characteristic X
Guidance services: The middle school program should
include both group and individual guidance services for
all students.
Highly individualized help that is of a
personal nature is needed.
Characteristic XI
Independent study: The program should provide an oppor­
tunity for students to spend time studying individual
interests or needs that do not appear in the organized
curricular offerings.

52
TABLE 3-1.— Continued.
Characteristic XII
Basic skill repair and extension: The middle school pro­
gram should provide opportunities for students to receive
clinical help in learning basic skills.
The basic edu­
cation program fostered in the elementary school should be
extended in the middle school.
Characteristic XIII
Creative experiences: The middle school program should
include opportunities for students to express themselves
in creative ways.
Student newspapers, student dramatic
creations, student oratorical creations, musical programs,
and other student-centered, student-directed, studentdeveloped activities should be encouraged.
Characteristic XIV
Security factor; The program should provide every student
with a security group:
a teacher who knows him well and
whom he relates to in a positive manner; a peer group that
meets regularly and represents more than administrative
convenience in its use of time.
Characteristic XV
Evaluation: 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.
Characteristic XVI
Community relations: The middle school should develop
and maintain a varied program of community relations.
Programs to inform, to entertain, to educate, and to
understand the community as well as other activities
should be a part of the basic operation of the school.
Characteristic XVII
Student services: The middle school should provide a
broad spectrum of specialized services for students.
Community, county, and state agencies should be utilized
to expand the range of specialists to its broadest
possible extent.

53
TABLE 3-1.— Continued.
Characteristic XVIII
Auxiliary staffing: The middle school should utilize a
highly diversified array of personnel such as volunteer
parents, teacher aides, clerical aides, student volun­
teers, and other similar types of support staffing that
help to facilitate the teaching staff.

54

TABLE 3-2.— The questions within the survey and the number
which reflect the practice being measured.
Characteristics
1.
2 .
3.
4.
5.
6 .
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Continuour progress
Multimedia
Flexible schedule
Social experiences
Physical experiences
Intramural activity
Team teaching
Planned gradualism
Exploratory and enrich­
ment programs
Guidance services
Independent study
Basic learning Experiences
Creative experiences
Student security factors
Evaluation practices
Community relations
Student services
Auxiliary staffing

Survey Question Numbers
1, 2
3, 4, 5 , 6 , 38 , 49
7, 8
9, 1 0 , 40, 41, 42, 56
1 1 , 57, 58
1 2 , 13, 43, 59
14, 15, 16, 17
18
19,
22,
46,
25,
27,
32,
34,
36,
53
54,

20,
23,
47,
26,
28 ,
33
35,
37,

55

21,
24,
61
48,
29,

44, 45
60
62
30, 31, 49

50
51, 52

55
The questionnaire had previously been reviewed and
revised by Dr. Louis Romano and staff consultants in the
Department of Research Services, Michigan State University
The suggested revisions were incorporated into the
questionnaire.

A cover letter was then prepared.

Along with the cover, the questionnaires and an
addressed stamped return envelope was mailed on January 31
1972, to 103 principals of grades
Michigan.

6-8

middle schools in

Four questionnaires and a personalized letter,

along with an addressed, stamped return envelope were
mailed to each of the principals of the four selected
national sample school.
The choices for each question on the questionnaire
were given a numerical value.

The values were weighted to

provide a positive correlation between large scores and
a high degree of implementation of the characteristics
being measured.

The numerical values and the weighting

of responses were previously reviewed by Dr. Louis
Romano and a research consultant.

Modifications were

made and the instrument was acknowledged as being appro­
priate .
Table 3.2 indicates which specific question in the
survey instrument measures each characteristic which is
indicative of a practice of the middle school.

56
Procedures
By March

6

, 1972, thirty-eight schools had

returned their questionnaires.

The questionnaires of

principals and teachers from one school were discarded
because the school had erroneously been listed by the
Michigan Department of Education as a
school.

6-8

grade middle

One principal returned his set of questionnaires

unanswered with a note indicating he and his staff were
too busy to take the necessary time to fill them out.
A letter was sent on March 9, 1972, to the
principals of all the schools from whom no responses
had been received.

The letter asked their cooperation

in returning their questionnaires within the next few
days.

As of April 11, a total of sixty-five schools had

returned their questionnaires.
As the questionnaires were returned from the
various schools the responses were coded and the coding
was verified for each response.
divided into two sample groups

The coding forms were
(see Table 3.3).

The data of this research project were programmed
for computer analysis.

The raw scores were recorded and

a mean score for each principle used to measure middle
school practice was developed.

These mean scores were

used to compare responses of principals in first and
second surveys, responses of national principals with
local middle school principals, and responses of

TABLE 3-3.— Refers to number of Michigan and National
schools contacted, number of affirmative responses and
percentage of questionnaire returns.

Number of Schools
Contacted

Number of Responses c
Received
Schools Responding
Received
fco QUestionnaire

National Schools
4
Local Michigan
Schools (6-7-8)
103

principals and teachers.

4

100%

65

64%

Any inconsistency discovered is

reflected when comparing mean scores of one group with
another.

An analysis of variance technique which com­

pares groups by their mean scores, was used to perform
this statistical comparison.

A copy of the design is

seen in Table 3.4.
Formulas used to calculate the necessary sta­
tistics reported in Table 4.1 and other tables in this
chapter a r e :
2 X
Mean = --n
where :
EX = the sum of the scores for the variable
being reported
n = the number of scores summed

58
TABLE 3-4.--Table depicting data sources.
Principals

Second Survey

First Survey

Teachers

4 National Middle
Schools

1

2

Local Michigan
Middle Schools

3

4

4 National Middle
Schools

5

Local Michigan
Middle Schools

6

Comparisons will be made between cell

1

and

2

.

Comparisons will be made between cell 3 and 4.
Comparisons will be made between cell

1

and 5.

Comparisons will be made between cell

2

and 4.

Comparisons will be made between cell 3 and

Scheffe's Analysis of Variance:
F = ss b/dfb _ M S B
ss w/dfw
M S W
where:
. /JJ:,
sum of squares between
ss b/dfb = -3------- ------- ------'
degrees of freedom
ss w/dfw =

sum of squares within
degrees of freedom
within a group
3 ----------- ^--- 3-----

M S B = variance between groups
M S W = average variance within
each group

6

.

59
Student's t-test:
. _

x - m

" /T~2Ai
where:
x = sample mean
m = hypothesized mean
§

2

= estimated population variance

n = number of people
Objectives to Be Measured
Objective one and two were met by comparing the
mean scores of teachers with principals in the Michigan
and National middle schools.

Mean scores for each teacher

were computed and a composite teacher mean score was used
for comparison with the principals composite mean score
from Survey II.
The conditions of objective three were met in a
like manner as objective one and two.

The only difference

was that the raw scores and mean scores of Michigan
principals and teachers were compared with the raw scores
and mean scores of teachers and principals of the four
nationally famous middle schools.
The conditions of objective four were met simply
by comparing the results of principals in Survey I with
the responses of principals to the same instrument one

60

year later.

The analysis of raw scores and mean scores

achieved by the two groups at different times were used
to make this comparison.
Summary
Questionnaires designed to measure practices of
middle schools were mailed to principals of 103 schools
in Mxchigan housing grades

6-8

.

Questionnaires were also

mailed to principals of four nationally prominent middle
schools.

Each principal and two teachers with two or

more years of seniority on the school staff were
requested to fill out and return the survey.

A final

total of sixty-five schools returned questionnaires.
The data were computed and summarized in this study.
This chapter also presented the hypotheses and
subproblems investigated in this research project.

A

description of the instrument employed and procedures
to be followed has been detailed.
Mean scores were calculated for principals and
teachers using the analysis of variance technique.
parisons between groups were made using these mean
scores.

Com­

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The findings of the analysis of data are pre­
sented in this chapter.

The research hypotheses pre­

sented in Chapter III were concerned with determining
the existence of a significant difference between
teachers and principals and between principals and
principals locally and nationally concerning reported
practices of their schools.
The data presented in this chapter were collected
from the results of survey questionnaires returned by
sixty-nine schools.

A comparison of responses made by

both teachers and principals was calculated and compared
with similar responses made in the Riegle Study

(Survey I) .

A one-way analysis of variance was used to make such
comparisons.
General Hypothesis
The statistical hypothesis examined in the
analysis of data was stated initially in research form
and finally in the null as follows:

62

Ho,:

There is a significant difference between the
mean scores of principals and the mean scores
of teachers in the Michigan middle schools.

Mx

Null Hypothesis 1 :

*

M2

There is no difference between the
mean scores of principals and the
mean scores of teachers in the
Michigan middle schools.
Mi = M 2

Findings
Table 4.1 indicates the statistical contents cal­
culated for both Michigan teachers and principals earlier
identified.
The maximum score for each of the eighteen
variables is indicated in Table 4.1.

The mean total

score achieved by the Michigan Middle School principals
(147.74) represents 46.3 per cent of the maximum total
possible.

The mean total Michigan middle school teachers

score represents 42.1 per cent of the maximum total
possible.
The probability of significance of the F statistic
was computed for each variable and significance found on
four characteristics.
At the 95 per cent level of confidence, the null
hypothesis was not rejected.

The mean was calculated on

eighteen items both for principals and teachers.

63

TABLE 4-1.— Mean scores of principals and teachers in
Michigan middle schools and approximate significance
probability of F statistic.
Maximum
Possible
Score

Teachers

1.88
21.55

8
33

1.94
20.40

0.874 NS
0.146 NS

3 .11

18

3.06

0.939 NS

Social exper­
iences
11.42

20

9.98

0.012 Sa

21.49

31

20.01

0.139 NS

10.46

23

9.49

0.359 NS

3.68

16

3.06

0.328 NS

1.42

3

1.63

0.119 NS

25

9.23

0.435 NS

23

9.06

0.047 Sa

16

4.56

0.286 NS

11.20

25

9.98

0.124 NS

Characteristics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.

Continuous
Progress
Multi-media
Flexible
schedule

Physical
experiences
Intramural
activity
Team teach­
ing
Planned grad­
ualism

Princi­
pals

Exploratory
and enrich­
ment programs 9.89
Guidance ser­
vices
10.68
Independent
5.14
study
Basic learn­
ing Exper­
iences

Approximate
Significance

13.

Creative
experiences

9.23

21

8.15

C.152 NS

14 .

Student
security
factors

4.34

8

2.69

0.0005 Sa

15.

Evaluation
practices

6.37

16

6.27

0.817 NS

16.

Community
relations

5.60

16

5.32

0.440 NS

17.

Student ser­
vices
Auxilliary
staffing

7.40

9

6.68

0.008 Sa

2.88

8

2.73

0.579 NS

Total Scores 147.74

319

134 .26

18.

Significant at the .05 level.

64
Significance was discovered on only four of a minimum
requirement of nine characteristics.

Because the number

of significant discoveries was less than nine the null
hypothesis was not rejected.
H0 2 :

There is a significant difference between
the mean scores of principals and the mean
scores of teachers in the nationally
prominent middle schools.

M 3 * M4

Null Hypothesis 2 :

There is no difference between the
mean scores of principals and the
mean scores of teachers in the
nationally prominent middle schools.

m3

=

m4

Findings
The procedure used to evaluate this hypothesis was
the one-way analysis of variance.

Table 4.2 projects the

achieved mean scores of principals and teachers of the
four nationally prominent middle schools.
This table also reveals that the mean total score
achieved by principals was 215.75, which represents
67.6 per cent of the maximum possible score.

The mean

total score achieved by teacher in the national sample
was 180.19 which represents 56.5 per cent of the maximum
possible score.
Since only one item out of a minimum requirement
of nine revealed significance, the null hypothesis was not
rejected at the 95 per cent level of confidence.

65

TABLE 4-2.— Comparison of mean scores of principals and
teachers of the national sample as measured by Survey II.

Characteristics

1.
2

.

Continuous progress
Multi-media

National
Princi­
pals

National
Teachers

Approximate
Significance
Probability
of F stat.

1.25

2 .89

0 .310 NS

26.50

23.62

0.185 NS

3.

Flexible schedule

8.25

6.37

0.512 NS

4.

Social experience

13.25

12.25

0 .759 NS

5.

Physical experiences

26.00

23.37

0.116 NS

Intramural activity

20.25

16.75

0.338 NS

Team teaching

14 .25

12.37

0.353 NS

0.50

0.87

0.443 NS

Exploratory and
enrichment programs

15.75

10.00

0.041

6

.

7.
8

.

9.

Planned gradualism

sa

10

.

Guidance services

14.50

11.87

0.344 NS

11

.

Independent study

12.50

10.25

0.337 NS

12

.

Basic learning
experiences

14.50

14 .62

0.959 NS

13.

Creative experiences

9. 50

5.00

0.274 NS

14.

Student security
factors

6.50

4.50

0.299 NS

15.

Evaluation practices

9.25

6.87

0.073 NS

16.

Community relations

9.75

7.62

0.161 NS

17.

Student services

7.75

6.62

0 .287 NS

18.

Auxiliary staffing

5.50

4 .37

0.109 NS

215.75

180.19

0.109 NS

Total

a Significant at the .05 level.

66
Ho,:

There is a significant difference between
the mean scores of Michigan middle school
principals and teachers and the mean
scores of principals and teachers of the
four nationally prominent middle schools.
M5 / M6

Null Hypothesis 3 :

There is no difference between the
mean scores of Michigan middle
school principals and teachers
and the mean scores of principals
and teachers of the four nationally
prominent middle schools.
Mr = M,

5

6

Findings
Table 4.3 compares the achieved mean scores of
Michigan teachers and principals with the achieved mean
scores of teachers and principals from the nationally
exemplary middle schools.

The T-test was used to measure

significance between these means.
Significance was consistently found when comparing
national principals with local principals and national
teachers with local teachers.

In each comparison the

national schools scored significantly higher than Michigan
schools.
The test of significance yielded several signifi­
cant differences in achieved mean scores when comparing
the mean scores of teachers and principals in Michigan
middle schools with teachers and principals in the national
sample.

The teachers of the national sample scored

67

TABLE 4-3.— A comparison of Michigan middle school teachers and principals
with national sample using achieved mean score on Survey II

Characteristics

Local
Teachers

National
Teachers

Local
Principals

National
Principal

1.94

2.87

1.88

1.25

20.40

23.62a

21.55

26.50a

1.

Continuous progress

2.

Multi-material

3.

Flexible schedule

3.06

6 .37a

3.11

8. 25a

4.

Social experiences

9.98

12.25a

11.42

13.25a

5.

Physical experiences

20.01

23.37a

21.49

26.00a

6.

Intramural experiences

9.49

16.75a

10.46

20.25a

7.

Team teaching

3.06

12.37a

3.68

14.25a

8.

Planned Gradualism

1.63

0.87

1.42

0.50

9.

Exploratory and
enrichment programs

9.23

iO.OO

9.89

15.75

10.

Guidance services

9.06

11.87a

10.68

14.50a

11.

Independent study

4.56

10.25a

5.14

12.50a

12.

Basic learning
experiences

9.98

14.62a

11.20

14.50a

13.

Creative experiences

8.15a

5.00

9.23

9.50

14.

Student security factors

2.69

4.50

4.34

6 .50a

15.

Evaluation practices

6.27

6.87

6.37

9.25

16.

Community relations

5.32

7.62

5.60

9.75a

17.

Student services

6.68

6.62

7.40

7.75

18.

Auxiliary staffing

2.73

4.37

2.88

5. 50a

134.26

180.19

147.74

Total

Significant at the .05 level.

68
significantly higher than Michigan teachers on nine of
the eighteen characteristics.

The principals of the

national sample scored significantly higher than the
Michigan middle school principals on twelve of the
eighteen characteristics.
Since both teachers and principals of the
national sample met the requirements for significance
between groups, the null hypothesis was rejected.
Ho.:

There is a significant difference between
the mean scores of Michigan middle school
principals and national middle school
principals in Survey I and the mean scores
of Michigan middle school principals and
national middle school principals in
Survey II regarding their school program.
M7 / M s

Null Hypothesis 4 :

There is no difference between the
mean scores of Michigan middle
school principals and national
middle school principals in Survey
I when comparing their mean scores
with Survey II regarding their
school program.

Findings
Table 4.4 reflects the mean score achievements of
Michigan principals and national principals on Survey I
and Survey II.

The survey instrument was administered

to the same principals one year apart.

The test of

significance was performed and a significant difference

69

TABLE 4-4.— Comparison of mean scores achieved by Michigan
and national principals in Survey I and II.
Michigan
Principals

National
Principals

Characteristics

1.
2

.

Continuous progress
Multi-media

Survey
I

Survey
II

Survey
I

Survey
II

1.92

1.88

3.00

1.25

20.66

21.55

26.50

26.50 .

3.

Flexible schedule

4.

Social experiences

10.62

11.42

12.50

13.25

5.

Physical experiences

21.59

21.49

27.25

26.00

Intramural activity

11.52

10.46

19.25

20.25

Team teaching

3.36

3.68

11.25

14.25a

Planned gradualism

1.32

1.42

1.00

Exploratory and
enrichment programs

10.50

9.89

10.50

15.75a

6

.

7.
8

.

9.

5.00

3. lla

10.75

8

.25a

.50

10

.

Guidance services

10.32

10.68

17.00

14.50

11

.

Independent study

4.96

5.14

9.00

12.50

12

.

Basic learning skills

12.35

11.20

14 .50

14.50

13.

Creative experiences

9.09

9.23

10.25

9.50

14.

Student security
factors

4.87

4.34

6.25

6.50

15.

Evaluation practices

5.77

6.37

7.75

9.25

16.

Community relations

7.09

5.60

8.25

9.75

17.

Student services

7.09

7.40

6.25

7.75

18.

Auxiliary staffing

3.03

2.88

6.25

5.50

150.63

147.74

207.25

215.75

Total Scores

S i g n i f i c a n t at .05 level with 1 df.

70
was found only in one case with the Michigan principals
and in three with the national principals.

Because the

number of significant items measured was less than mini­
mum requirement of nine, the null hypothesis was not
rejected.
The requirement for a minimum of nine items was
a suggestion of the Research Department at Michigan
State University.
Table 4.5 reports the maximum scores possible
for the survey instrument and the composite mean scores
of the Michigan middle schools and the national sample
schools on each variable surveyed.
Summary
Generally, the null hypotheses showed no signifi­
cant differences in three comparative measurements:
A.

There was no significant difference when comparing
the mean scores of principals and teachers in the
Michigan middle schools.

B.

There was no significant difference when comparing
the mean scores of the national samples of
principals and teachers.

C.

There was no significant difference found when
comparing the mean scores of Michigan and
National middle school principals in Survey I
with the mean scores of both in Survey II.

71

TABLE 4-5.— Maximum scores yielded by survey instrument
for Michigan and national sample and composite mean score
on each variable.

Characteristic
1.

Michigan
Composite
Mean

National
Composite
Mean

8

1.91

2.33

Multi-media

33

20.79

24.58

3.

Flexible schedule

18

3.07

7.00

4.

Social experiences

20

10.47

12.58

5.

Physical experiences

31

20.51

24.25

Intramural activity

23

9.82

17.91

Team teaching

16

3.27

13.00

3

1.55

0.75

Exploratory and
enrichment programs

25

9.45

11.91

2

6

.

.

7.
8

.

9.

Continuous progress

Maximum
Score

Planned gradualism

10

.

Guidance services

23

9.61

12.75

11

.

Independent study

16

4.76

11.00

12

.

Basic learning skills

25

10.40

14.58

13.

Creative experiences

21

8.52

6.50

14.

Student security
factors

8

3.25

5.16

15.

Evaluation pracitces

16

6.30

7.66

16.

Community relations

16

5.41

8.33

17.

Student services

9

6.92

7 .00

18.

Auxiliary staffing

8

2.77

4.75

Total

319

72
Because no significant differences were dis­
covered in the three areas above the null hypotheses
could not be rejected.

A statistical significant dif­

ference was found when comparing the mean scores of
teachers and principals in the Michigan middle schools
with teachers and principals in the national sample.
Further interpretation of this chapter will be treated
in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The middle school came into existence over sixty
years ago.

Other forms of organization existed prior to

then, but it was during the 1960's that the middle school
concept increased in popularity.

Today more than 1,200

of these schools are in existence.
The middle school concept is based on the belief
that a special kind of curriculum design and educational
planning can better provide for the special needs and
interests of the transescent at this level than the tra­
ditional junior high.

The most defensible position

taken for establishing the middle school is to remedy
the deficiencies of the junior high school.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
relationship between principals and teachers in selected
Michigan middle schools and four nationally prominent
middle ,schools regarding their perceptions of their
school practices.

73

74
Eighteen basic middle school characteristics had
previously been identified and validated.

These charac­

teristics centered on continuous progress programs, the
use of multi-media, flexible schedules, social exper­
iences, physical experiences, intramural activities,
team teaching, planned gradualism, exploratory-enrichment
programs, independent study, community relations, guidance
services, creative experiences, evaluation practices,
student security factors, basic learning skills, student
services, and auxiliary staffing.
Four major hypotheses were developed to test for
differences in perceptions, if any, between teachers and
principals.
Survey questionnaires seeking data related to the
current practices of middle schools were mailed to the
principal of all schools in Michigan identified as
"middle schools" with a

6-8

grade organization.

The

survey questionnaires were also mailed to four schools
that had been arbitrarily selected on a national basis
because of their excellent reputation as exemplary
middle schools.

Each principal and two teachers who

had been on the staff two years or more were asked to
respond to the questionnaire.

Survey forms were returned

by 63.1 per cent of the Michigan middle schools and by
all four of the schools in the national sample.

Scheffe's

one-way analysis of variance and the T-test were the

75
statistical techniques used to test the data.

Mean

scores were calculated on each of the eighteen charac­
teristics for principals and teachers in this study.

The

.05 level of confidence was established as the minimum
criterion level for accepting mean differences as being
significant.
Generally, no significant differences were found
in three of the four hypotheses measured.

A significant

difference was found when comparing the mean scores of
the national sample with those of the Michigan middle
schools.

The results indicated great dissimilarity

between these two groups.
After an analysis of the data, it was apparent
the schools in the national sample were applying the
middle school characteristics to a greater degree than
were the Michigan middle schools.
Findings
Hypothesis 1
There is a significant difference between the
mean scores of principals and the mean score of
teachers in the Michigan middle schools.
A close scrutiny of Table 4.1

(listed in Chapter

IV) indicates that even though it was felt that there
would be great dissimilarity between the two groups, very
little actually occurred.

Generally, there was a high

76
degree of agreement between principals and teachers
regarding all items with the exception of four:

social

experiences, guidance services, student security factors,
and student services.

Significant differences were dis­

covered on these four items when comparing the responses
of these two groups.

Item four, social experiences,

revealed a mean score of 11.42 for principals and 9.98
for teachers out of a maximum possible score of 20.

Even

though the difference seems slight, it was, however,
large enough to be significant.

Michigan principals

felt somewhat more positive toward applying this charac­
teristic within their school than did teachers.

The

difference again seems small, and there always remains
the possibility of error in chance fluctuation regarding
this significance.
The difference between teachers and principals on
item

10

, guidance services, was statistically large

enough to be considered significant.

Principals scored,

out of a maximum score of 23, 10.68 and teachers scored
9.06.

Again the difference seems small.

Guidance

services, both group and individual, should be available
in the middle school.

However, focus should be on the

individual student more than on the group.

Michigan

middle school principals' perception of providing indi­
vidualized guidance services to students differed from
that of teachers.

Principals were more positive than

teachers in relating to this principle.

77
A large difference was discovered between
teachers and principals on item 14, student security
factors.

Significance was measured at the .05 level and

this item had a calculated F statistic of 0.0005.

Prin­

cipals mean score on this characteristic were 4.34 and
teachers were 2.69 of a maximum possible

8

.

Again

principals felt more strongly than teachers in answering
this question.

It seems as though they felt they were

doing an average job in providing students with some
secure persons or groups within the school.

Michigan

middle school teachers, through their responses, did not
agree closely with principals.

Their responses indi­

cated their school was doing little in helping children
adjust to the school and to their problems.

It seems as

though their feelings were that no definite provision
for each student to be known well by at least one teacher
was available.

Even though item 17, student services,

indicated a significant difference between teachers and
principals, which is indicative of their score, princi­
pals, 7.40, and teachers,

6

.6 8 , positive responses

indicated positiveness in providing a variety of ser­
vices for students.

The maximum possible score for

this characteristic was 9.

This characteristic seems

to be having wide application in the Michigan middle
schools.

78
In general there was a great deal of agreement
between Michigan middle school teachers and principals,
regarding their school practices.

Basically, there

were only three main areas of wide use of the middle
schools characteristics:

multi-media, physical exper­

iences, and student services.

Even though there was

much agreement on the remaining fifteen characteristics,
this relationship was indicative of little application
of these middle school characteristics actually being
applied.

The areas of greatest weakness of the Michigan

middle school appeared to be continuous progress, flexible
schedules, and team teaching.

Several teacher question­

naires were returned with notes on questions relating
to continuous progress stating, "not familiar with the
term continuous progress."

In several cases of principals

responding to continuous progress programs, many stated
that these programs are used by all of the students for
their entire program, but this was not authenticated by
their teachers who often reported, "not used at this
time" or "used only with special groups."

Teachers

and principals often responded that team teaching was
done with only a few of their students.

Again teachers'

and principals' responses indicated there was a fairly
general time block for all students with some flexibility,
but the flexibility occurred with general time limits.

79
There was very little evidence of students and teachers
having the ability to control their daily time usage.
After comparing results on each of the eighteen
characteristics, a comparison was made of the total
teachers and principals achieved scores.
possible total of 319 for all items,

From a maximum

the Michigan middle

school principals score totaled 147.7 4 and the teachers'
score totaled 134.26.

Michigan middle school principals

scored higher on all items measured with the exception of
two, continuous progress and planned gradualism.

The

results indicated more similarity than dissimilarity of
responses relative to practices of their school.

The

null hypothesis was not rejected for these reasons.
Hypothesis 2
There is a significant difference between the
mean scores of principals and the mean score of
teachers in the nationally prominent middle
school.
A comparison of the recorded mean scores of
teachers and principals on each of the eighteen items
measuring practices of middle schools sharply reveals a
general constancy in responses.

The only characteristic

where a significant difference in response was discovered
was in exploratory and enrichment programs.

On this item

responses between teacher and principal were far out of
proportion.

Of a maximum possible score of 2 5 for this

characteristic, the principals' mean score was 15.75

80
compared to 10.00 for teachers.

One can only speculate

regarding the difference in their perception to this item.
Since item 9 was the only one where significance was dis­
covered, it could possibly relate to chance.

It could

also possibly be that principals are much more cognizant
of the need for variety in the curriculum and are also
aware of a need for students to assume and explore crea­
tive roles and experiences.

Teachers and principals of

the national sample scored high on all items except two,
continuous progress and creative experiences.
mum total score of

8

Of a maxi­

for continuous progress programs,

principals achieved a mean of 1.25 and teachers scored 2.89.
Both groups seem to support the fact that little application
of this characteristic is being implemented.

Even more

noticeable is that this item is one of two that principals
scored lower than teachers.

Their achieved mean score

seems to indicate that the principals, as instructional
leaders, have not capitalized thoroughly on implementing
this characteristic.

The second item of weakness

occurred in the area of creative experiences.

The

maximum possible total for this characteristic is

21

.

Principals' mean score was 9.23 and teachers scored
5.00.

Even though both groups did not score signifi­

cantly high, the teachers' perception in the school's
responsibility in providing creative experiences to

81
transescents were less than the principals.

Though

principals felt somewhat more positive than teachers,
it seems they are at least aware of the need for stu­
dents to assume and explore creative roles and exper­
iences.

Even though this variation in responses existed,

the difference was not large enough to be considered
significant.
Generally, principals and teachers scored fairly
high and similar on all items except the two previously
mentioned.

However unusual as it may seem, in each

case the principals scored higher, though not necessarily
significant, on each variable than teachers except three,
continuous progress, basic learning experiences, and
planned gradualism.

Of a maximum possible total for all

eighteen characteristics, the national principals' sample
had a total score of 215.75 compared to the teacher score
of 180.19.
Hypothesis 3
There is a significant difference between the mean
scores of Michigan middle school principals and
teachers and the mean scores of principals and
teachers of the national sample.
A careful inspection and observation of Table 4.3
(Chapter IV) sharply reveals differences between Michigan
teachers when compared with teachers of the national
sample, and Michigan principals when compared with
principals of the national sample.

When comparing the

82
two teacher groups, the national sample group clearly
performed higher than the Michigan group in the appli­
cation of the middle school characteristics.

Of the

eighteen characteristics, the national teacher sample
group scored higher on all except three, planned gradu­
alism, creative experiences, and student services.

The

difference between the two groups was so great that
when comparing them with each variable, significance
was discovered on ten of the eighteen.

Nine of those

situations reflected teachers of the national sample
scoring significantly higher than Michigan middle school
teachers.

The Michigan teachers scored significantly

higher on creative experiences than teachers of the
national sample.

On this item, Michigan teachers had

a mean score of 8.15 compared to 5.00 for the national
group.

Whether or not Michigan teachers' perceptions on

this item is indicative of actual implementation in
their school is speculative.

Of a maximum total score

of 319, the local teachers scored 134.26 compared with
180.19 for the national teacher group.

In general it

seems teachers of the national sample perceptions of
their implementing the middle school concept are much
higher than the Michigan teacher group.
A comparison of the Michigan or local principals
with the national middle school principals reveals some­
what the same conclusions found when comparing teachers.

83
Overall, the national principals sample group scored
significantly higher on twelve of the eighteen charac­
teristics than the Michigan principals.

On several of

the items, the national principals' score doubled or
were nearly twice as much as the Michigan principals.
For example, on flexible scheduling the Michigan prin­
cipals scored 3.11 compared to 8.25 for the national
principals; on the intramural experiences the Michigan
principals scored 10.4 6 compared to 20.25 for the
national group.
comparisons.

This trend happened on several other

The Michigan principals did score higher

than the national principals on two items, continuous
progress and planned gradualism; on continuous progress
local principals scored 1.88 to 1.25 for national group;
on planned gradualism the local group scored 1.42 to
0.50 for the national sample.

These differences are

minimal and are not considered significant.
It has been mentioned that the maximum possible
total for all eighteen characteristics is 319.

When

comparing Michigan principals with national principals
the results seem to reflect what has already been said.
The Michigan principals' total score was 147.7 4 compared
to 215.75 for the national principal group.

It could

also be pointed out that the national teachers' total
achieved score was quite higher than the Michigan
principal group, 180.19 to 147.74.

84
In general the perceptions of middle school
principals and teachers regarding school practices seems
to be more visibly perceived in the national sample than
in the Michigan middle schools.

This seems to indicate

that the national schools are doing much more than the
Michigan schools in implementation.
Hypothesis 4
There is a significant difference between the mean
scores of Michigan middle school principals and
principals of the national sample in Survey I when
compared with their mean scores in Survey II
regarding their school program.
Though not expected, there was much consistency
in the responses of Michigan middle school principals and
principals of the national sample when comparing their
mean scores between Survey I and Survey II.

Michigan

principals scored nearly identically on Survey II as
they did on the first one.

In general it again accen­

tuated the feeling that even though one year had passed,
their perceptions of what they were doing were still
minimal.

The Michigan principals had a total achieved

score of 150.63 on Survey I compared with a score of
147.74 on Survey II.

The difference seems to be

attributable to the fact that a slight increase in
some areas existed while a smaller decrease was evident
in a few other areas.

However, on an overall basis

85
their responses to Survey II were very much consistent
with their responses in Survey I.
The national principals' score was also indicative
of consistency with their prior responses.

Of the eighteen

characteristics the national principals responded much
differently on three items, flexible schedules, team
teaching, and exploratory and enrichment programs.

On

Survey I they achieved a mean score of 10.75 for flexible
schedules compared with 8.25 for Survey II; on team teach­
ing they achieved a mean score of 11.25 on Survey I com­
pared with 14.25 on Survey II; on exploratory and enrich­
ment programs their Survey I score was 10.50 compared with
15.75 for Survey II.

The difference in responses to these

three items was large enough to be significant.

Signifi­

cance was evidenced by an increase in the latter two
characteristics and a decrease in flexible schedules.
Overall, the national principals had a total achieved
score of 207.25 on Survey I compared to 215.75 on Survey II.
The conclusion that can be derived from the data
presented might be questionable.

However, it certainly

seems that the national exemplary middle schools are
continuing their fine reputation in providing those
services needed to the transescent.

Michigan middle

schools seem to have learned little in the past year
and still are providing "token" programs.

86
Conclusions
1.

A high degree of consistency between principals
and teachers of the Michigan middle schools seems
to indicate general agreement regarding their
perceptions of their school practices.

2.

The consistency of agreement between teachers
and principals of the national sample seems to
indicate they are "practicing what they preach."

3.

The perceptions of principals and teachers of
the national sample seems to indicate their
attunement to the middle school concept more so
than teachers and principals of the Michigan
group.

4.

Collectively, the perceptions of teachers and
principals of

6-8

grade Michigan middle schools

seems to indicate that "much remains to be done"
if they are to truly implement the middle school
philosophy as defined in the literature.
5.

As defined in the literature the perceptions of
principals and teachers of the national sample is
indicative of their status as "true" middle
schools.

87

Recommendations for Further Study
Though this study dealt specifically with middle
schools in a

6-8

grade organization, a similar project

that would encompass other forms of middle school organi­
zation could be pursued to discern whether or not the
same conclusions are found; that is, are schools on the
national level, identified as exemplary, continuing to
outperform local middle schools?

If so, why?

It is fairly apparent that a multitude of schools
are middle schools in name only.

Undoubtedly, because

of its popularity, the transformation that has taken
place has resulted in the same old school with a dif­
ferent name or grade.

This in return has continued to

lead to "traditional" kinds of schools with no emphasis
regarding the special needs of the pre- and early
adolescents.
The disparity that exists between the Michigan
middle schools in this study and middle schools of the
national sample should be cause for concern.

The

middle school is a philosophy and belief about children
and their needs.

An interesting area of research would

be to again examine the perceptions of Michigan middle
schools regarding the "back seat" they hold when com­
pared with exemplary schools.

88

Reflections
While reflecting over this study, the writer
became personally concerned regarding the placement of
Michigan middle schools with the middle schools of the
national sample.

The perceptions of principals and

teachers in this research project were profoundly clear.
Yet, the writer is intrigued as to the reason.
Prior to beginning this project, the writer had
a very obvious prejudice.

Essentially, it was the feel­

ing that too many middle schools of national acclaim were
nothing more than little glorified schools living pri­
marily on reputation.

That, in actuality, they were not

doing all the things they preached.

This research project

did not deal specifically with that hypothesis.

If the

results of the survey instrument given is any indication
of what is actually being done, my suspicion has greatly
been minimized.
The reader should not conclude from the basis
of this finding that all Michigan middle schools are
grossly inadequate.

On the contrary, many Michigan

schools performed admirably on the survey instrument,
and many did not.
tinues to be why.

The key researchable question con­

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Alexander, William A. The Emergent Middle School. New
York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.
Billet, Roy 0.
Improving the Secondary School Curriculum.
New York!
Atherton Press, 1970.
Bossing, Nelson L., and Cramer, Roscoe V.
The Junior
High School.
Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin Company,
1965.
De Vita, Joseph C.; Pumerantz, P.; and Wilklow, Leighton B.
The Effective Middle School. West Nyack, N . Y . :
Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1970.
Eichhorn, Donald H. The Middle School. New York:
The
Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc.,
1966.
Hansen, John H . , and Hearn, Arthur C. The Middle School
Program. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1971.
Howard, Alvin W . , and Stoumbis, George C.
The Junior
High and Middle School:
Issues and Practices.
Scranton, P a . : Intext Educational Publishers,
1970.
Kindred, Leslie W. The Intermediate Schools. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.!
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.
Moss, Theodore C. Middle School.
Mifflin Company, 1967.

Boston:

Murphy, Judith.
Middle Schools. New York:
Laboratories, Inc., 1965.

Houghton
Educational

Popper, Samuel.
The American Middle School:
An Organi­
zational Analysis. Watham, Mass.:
Blaisdell
Publishing Company, 1967.

89

90
Articles and Periodicals
Alexander, William M.
"How Fares the Middle School?"
The National Elementary Principal, LI (November),
8-ll.

________ . "The New School in the Middle." Phi Delta
Kappan, XVI (February, 1969), 335-37.
________ , and Williams, Emmett L.
"Schools for the
Middle Years."
Educational Leadership, XXIV
(December, 1965), 217-23.
Atkins, Neil P.
"Rethinking Education in the Middle."
Theory into Practice (June, 1968), 118-19.
Batezel, W. George.
"Middle School:
Philosophy, Program,
Organization."
Clearing House, XLII (April, 1968),
487-90.
Bough, Max.
"Theoretical and Practical Aspects of the
Middle School." NAASP Bulletin (March, 1969),
8-13.
Brimm, R. P.
"Middle School or Junior High? Background
and Rationale." NAASP Bulletin (March, 1969),
5-6.
Brod, Pearl.
"Middle Schools in Practice."
House, XLII (May, 1968), 531.

The Clearing

________ . "The Middle School:
Trends Towards Its
Adoption." The Clearing House, XL (February,
1966) , 331-33.
Compton, Crystal.
"Getting Middle Schools Started— What
We Learned." The National Elementary Principal,
LI (November, 19?l), 50-54.
Compton, Mary F.
"The Middle School: Alternative to the
Status Quo." Theory Into Practice (June, 1968),
110 .
Cuff, William A.
"Can Middle Schools Cure a National
Disgrace?"
The American School Board Journal
(November, 1969), 38-39.
________ . "Middle Schools on the March."
LVII (February, 1967), 83-86.
LI

"Middle School on the March."
(February, 1967), 82-86.

NAASP Bulletin,
NAASP Bulletin,

91

DiVirgilio, James.
"Switching From Junior High School to
Middle School?" Clearing House, XLVIV (December,
1969), 224-27.
Eichhorn, Donald H.
"Middle School Organization: A New
Dimension."
Theory Into Practice, XII (June,
1968) , 111-14.
Fea, Henry R.
"Team Teaching:
Psychological Implications
The Clearing House, XLIII (November, 1968), 177-79
Glissmeyer, Carl H.
"Which School for the Sixth Grade?"
California Journal of Educational Research, XX
(September, 1969), 176-83.
Gruhn, William T.
"What Do Principals Believe About Grade
Organization?"
Journal of Secondary Education,
XLII (April, 1967), 169-74.
Havinghurst, Robert J.
"Middle School Child in Con­
temporary Society." Theory Into Practice, VII
(June, 1968) , 120-22.
Heller, Robert W . , and Hansen, James C.
"Middle School
and Implications for the Guidance Program."
Peabody Journal of Education, XLVI (March, 1969) ,
291-97.
Howard, Alvin H.
"Which Years in Junior High?"
Clearing House, XXXIII (1959), 227-30.

The

Howard, Alvin W.
"Problems in Junior High School Activi­
ties."
School Activities, XL (January, 1969), 2.
Howell, Bruce.
"Middle School, Is It Really Any Better?"
North Central Association Quarterly, XLIII
(Winter, 1969), 281-87.
Hynes, Vynce A., and Alexander, William M.
"Evaluating
the Middle School."
NAASP Bulletin (February,
1969), 32.
Jennings, Wayne.
"Middle School? No!" Minnesota Journal
of Education, XLVIII (January, 1967) , 73-74.
Kealy, Ronald P.
"The Middle School Movement, 1960-1970."
The National Elementary Principal, LI (November,
1971), 20-25.
Lawrence, Gordon.
"Measuring Teacher Competencies for the
Middle School." The National Elementary Princi­
pal , LI (November^ 1971) , 60-66.

92
Livingston, A. H.
"Middle School."
(April, 1968), 345-47.

Education, XLV

Lounsbury, John H . , and Vars, Gordon F.
"The Middle
School:
Fresh Start or New Delusion?" The
National Elementary Principal, LI (November,
1971), 20-25.
"Middle Schools in Theory and in Fact." N.E.A. Research
Bulletin, XLVII (May, 1969), 49.
Mills, George E.
"The How and Why of the Middle School."
The Nation's Schools, LXVIII (1961) , 43-53.
Moss, Theodore C.
"The Middle School Comes— And Takes
Another Grade or T w o ." The National Elementary
Principal (February, 1969) , 37-38.
Oestreich, Arthur H.
"Middle School in Transition."
The Clearing House, XLIV (October, 1969), 91-95.
Popper, Samuel H.
"What About the Middle School?"
Today's Education, XLIII (November, 1969), 52.
Post, Richard J.
vation."
484-86.

"Middle School: A Questionable Inno­
The Clearing House, XLII (April, 1968),

Pray, H. E., and McNamara, J. A.
"Transition to Middle
School." The Clearing House, XLI (March, 1967),
407-09.
Pumerantz, Philip.
"State Recognition of the Middle
School." NAASP Bulletin, LIII (March, 1969),
14-19.
"Recommended Grades or Years in Junior High or Middle
Schools." NAASP Bulletin, L (February, 1967), 69
Rodes, George A.
"Middle School vs. Junior High School."
New York State Education, LV (April, 1968),
191-97.
Sanders, Stanley S.
"Challenge of the Middle School."
Educational Forum, XXXII (January, 1968), 191-97.
Shawver, David E.
"Team Teaching:
The Clearing House, XLVIII
21-26.

How Successful Is It?
(September, 1968),

93
Southworth, Horton C.
"Teacher Education for the Middle
School, A Framework." Theory Into Practice, VII
(June, 1968), 123-28.
Strickland, Joan H . , and Alexander, William.
"Seeking
Continuity in Early and Middle School Education."
Phi Delta Kappan, L (March, 1969), 397-400.
Vars, Gordon F.
"Junior High or Middle or Middle School?
Which Is Best for Education of Young Adolescents?"
High School Journal, L (December, 1966), 109-13.
Wattenburg, William.
"The Middle School as One Psycholo­
gist Sees It." The Education Digest (March, 1970),
26-29.
"Ways to Build Mistakes Out of Your Middle School." The
Education Digest, XXXVI (November, 1970), 3.
Wiles, Jon.
"The Middle School: Alternative Within the
System."
The National Elementary Principal, LI
(November, 1971), 46-49.
Williams, Emmett L.
"Middle School Movement." Today1s
Education, LVII (December, 1968), 41-42.
________ . "The Middle School Movement."
Today1s Edu­
cation, LVII (December, 1968) , 41.
Wilson, Mildred F.
"What Is A Middle School? Convell
Middle Magnet School in Philadelphis." The
Clearing House, XLIV (September, 1969), 9-ll.
Wilson, Mildred T., and Popper, Samuel H.
"What About the
Middle School?" Today's Education, LVII (November,
1969), 52-55.
Woodring, Paul.
"The New Intermediate School."
Review, XLVIII (October, 1965), 77.

Saturday

Essays and Articles in Collection
Alexander, William M . , and Williams, Emmett L.
"Schools
for the Middle Years." Controversy in American
Education. Edited by Harold Full.
New York:
The MacMillan Company, 19 67.
DeLorenzo, Louis T., and Salter, Ruth.
"Co-operative
Research on the Nongraded Primary."
School
Organization:
Theory and Practice. Edited by
Marion Pope Franklen.
Chicago:
Rand McNally and
Company, 1967.

94
Sanders, Stanley G.
"Challenge of the Middle School."
Education Forum, XXXII (January, 1968).
Woodring, Paul.
"The New Intermediate School."
Social
Foundations of Education. Edited by Dorothy
Westby-Gibson. New York:
The Free Press, 1967,
Unpublished Materials
Marshall, Doris L.
"A Comparative Study of Instructional
Policies of Middle Schools Administered Respec­
tively by Elementary-Oriented Principals and
Secondary-Oriented Principals." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 2 970.
Riegle, Jack D.
"A Study of Middle School Programs to
Determine the Current Level of Implementation of
Eighteen Basic Middle School Principles." Unpub­
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni­
versity, 1971.
"The Middle School in Grosse Pointe." A brochure pre­
pared by the Grosse Pointe Public Schools, Grosse
Pointe, Michigan.
Vaughn, John W.
"Implications of Physical and Intellectual
Growth Characteristics, Interests, and Cultural
Forces for the Improvement of the Middle School
Program." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
LETTER REQUESTING PERMISSION TO USE
THE RIEGLE INSTRUMENT

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

East Lansing • Michigan 4 8823

College of Education • Department of Administration
and Higher Education
Erickson Hall
January 24, 1972

Dr. Jack Riegle
Ball State University
Muncie, Indiana
Dear Jack:
The information forwarded me regarding your study was
extremely helpful. Your expedient response was
appreciated.
As you are aware, I too am doing my study on the middle
school.
In order to give credence to the study, I
would like permission to use your developed survey
instrument in my endeavor.
I am working closely with the research department and
it is their suggestion that your instrument be used
in my project.
You can rest assurred that, as you promised, all
responses will continue to be held in confidence.
Thanks again for your assistance.
Sincerely,

James Hawkins

95

APPENDIX B
LETTER RECEIVED GRANTING PERMISSION TO
USE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

FROM —
TO

JACK D. RIEGLE
Jim_____________

You have my permission to use the instrument
for the purposes of your study.
Jack

96

Good luck.

APPENDIX C
LETTER SENT TO PRINCIPALS REQUESTING
THEIR ASSISTANCE IN FILLING
OUT QUESTIONNAIRE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

east

l a n s in o

■ Mi c h i g a n

48825

COLLEGE O F E D U C A TIO N • DEPAR TM ENT O P A D M IN IS T R A T IO N A N D H IG H B R E D U C A T IO N
ERICKSON HALL

January 31, 1972

Dear Principal:
I need your assistance in a project of great personal and
professional importance.
As you may recall
survey instrument
his doctorate.
I
tedious task once

you were
one year
hope you
again.

asked to fill out this enclosed
ago by another
student also seeking
can bear going through this

Like my previous colleague, I too am writing my doctoral dis­
sertation on reported practices of middle schools.
I am
involved in extending the study on middle schools done last
year by Jack Riegle in which you were asked to fill out the
same questionnaire which is now before you.
I know the task requested isn't simple.
As a former principal
I can vividly remember the vast number of requests that
"ended in the wastebasket."
I hope you can resist this
temptation.
Three questionnaires are enclosed. Would you kindly fill out
copy "A"? The remaining two "B" copies, are to be filled out
separately by two teachers who have been on the staff two
years or more.
Again I apologize for this intrusion but desperately need
your assistance if I am to make some attempt at determining
the direction of middle schools for students in grades 6 - 8 .
Of course all respondents can be assurred of complete anonymity.
If you would kindly return the questionnaire in the stamped
self-addressed envelope within the next week I will be most
appreciative.
Hopefully, this study will provide me with
information that I can later share with you regarding the
middle school child.
Sincerely,

James Hawkins
97

APPENDIX D
THE QUESTIONNAIRE

PART I:

1-A.

Place a check mark before the answer that seems best to
explain your current program as it relates to the
question.

Continuous progress programs
are:

2-A.

Continuous progress pro
grams are planned for a
student over a span o f :

not used at this time.
_____ one calendar year.
used only with special groups.
two calendar years.
used only for the first two
years.

three calendar years.
more than three
calendar years.

used only by some students
for all their years at this
school.
used by all of the students
for their entire program.
3-B.

4-B.

The multi-textbook approach
to learning is currently:

The instructional
materials center in
the building houses:

used in all or nearly all
courses.

_____ more than 5,000 books.

used in most courses.

_____ between 4,000 and
5.000 books.

used in a few courses.
_____ between 3,000 and
4.000 books.

not used in any courses.

between 2,000 and 3,000
books.
between 1,000 and
2,000 books.
less than 1,000 books,
5-B.

The materials center has a
paid staff of:

6-B.

more than one certified
librarian.

For classroom instruc­
tion, audio visual
materials other than
motion pictures are
used?
very frequently by
most of the staff.

one certified librarian,
a part-time librarian,
no certified librarian help.
98

99
Part I, Page 2
6 -B.

Continued.
very frequently by a few of
the staff and occasionally
by the others.
occasionally by all of the
staff.
very rarely by most of the
staff.

7-C.

The basic time block
used to build the
schedule i s :

______ a ten to twenty minute
module.
______ a thirty minute module.
_____

a forty-five minute
module.
a sixty minute module.

very rarely by any staff
member.

______ a combination of time
so diversified that no
basic module is defined.
3-C.

Which of the below best
describes your schedule at
present:
traditional
traditional, modified by
"block-time," "revolving
period," or other such regu­
larly occurring modifi­
cations .
flexible to the degree that
all periods are scheduled
but are not identical in
length.
flexible to the degree that
changes occur within defined
general time limits.
flexible to the degree that
students and teachers control
the daily time usage and
changes occur regularly.
other
ATTACH A COPY OF THE MASTER
SCHEDULE IF POSSIBLE.

9—D ,

Sponsorships for club
activities are handled
by staff members who:
are assigned sponsor­
ships without additional
pay.
are paid to assume club
sponsorships that are
assigned.

_____ volunteer to sponsor
club activities without pay.
_____ are paid for sponsorship that they volunteer to assume,
_____ staff members do not
work with club
activities,

100
Part I, Page 3
10-D.

At present approximately
what percent of your stu­
dent body regularly par­
ticipates in at least one
club activity?

11-E.

The physical education
program i s :

_____

highly individualized.
moderately individu­
alized.

none as we have no club
program.

slightly individu­
alized.

25 percent or less

not individualized at
all.

25 to 50 percent.
50 to 75 percent.
13-F .
75 to 100 percent.
12-F.

Inter-scholastic competition
is currently:
not offered at this school.
offered in one sport only.
offered in two sports.
offered in several sports.

14-G.

Team teaching programs
operate for:
all students.
nearly all students.
about half of the stu­
dents .
only a few of the stu­
dents .

Intramural activities
often use the same
facilities as inter­
scholastic activities.
When this causes a time
conflict how do you
schedule?
this does not happen
because we have no
intramural program.
this does not happen
because we have no
interscholastic pro­
gram.
intramural activities
take first priority
and others schedule
around their needs.
interscholastic activ­
ities take first
priority and others
must schedule around
their needs.

none of the students.
other

101
Part
15-G.

, Page 4
What percentage of your
teaching staff is
involved in team teach­
ing programs?

-G.

A student in grades
five or six averages
about how many minutes
per day in a team
teaching program?

over 90%
180 minutes or more.
between 60% and 90%
between 130 and 180
minutes.

between 30% and 60%

between 90 and 130
minutes.

less than 30%
none
17-G.

A student in grades
seven or eight
averages about how many
minutes per day in a team
taught situation?
180 minutes or more.
130 to 180 minutes.
90 to 130 minutes.

less than 40 minutes.
-H.

Which of the following
best describes your
school program as it
evolves from enroll­
ment to completion of
the last grade? (i.e.
grades five thru eight)

less than 40 minutes.

completely self-con­
tained program for the
entire grade span.

Instruction in art is
required for all stu­
dents for:

completely depart­
mentalized for the
entire grade span.

one year

modified departmental­
ized program, (block­
time, core programs,
e t c .)

40 to 90 minutes.

19-1.

between 40 and 90
minutes.

two years
three years
four years

program moves from
largely self-contained
to departmentalized.

not at all
program moves from
largely self-contained
to partially departdepartmentalized .
other

102
Part
20 - 1 .

, Page 5
Instruction in music is
required:

21-1.

The mount of student
schedule time set
aside for elective
courses students may
select:

_____

decreases with each
successive grade.

_____

is the same for all
grades.

_____

increases with each
successive grade.

_____

varies by grade
level but not in any
systematic manner.

all students nearly
every day.

_____

does not exist at any
grade level.

most of the students on
a regular b a s i s .

23-J.

Guidance staff members

_____

always work closely
with the teachers con­
cerning a student.

_____

often work closely
with the teachers con­
cerning a student.

_____

seldom involve the
teachers in their work
with the students.

_____

always work indepen­
dently of the teachers

for one year.
for two years.
for three years.
for four years.
not at all.
22-J.

Guidance services are
available upon request
f or:
all students every day.

a limited number of stu­
dents on a limited
basis.
other

24-J.

Guidance counselors are:
not expected to help
teachers build their
guidance skills.
expected to help teachers
build their guidance
skills.
expected to help teachers
build their guidance
skills and they are regu­
larly encouraged to work
in this area.
other

103
Part I, Page 6
25-L.

26-L.

The amount of time pro­
vided in the classroom
for instruction in basic
learning skills:

not available at this time. _____

increases with each suc­
cessive grade.

Clinics or special classes
to treat the problems of
students with poor basic
learning skills are:

available to all students
needing such help.

27-M.

_____

remains constant with
each successive grade.

available only to the most
critically handicapped
learners.

_____

decreases with each
successive grade.

other

_____

varies greatly due to
the way individualized
program teachers
operate.

Concerning a school news­
paper, our school has:
no official student school
paper.

28-M. Concerning school dra­
matical activities,
most students:
do not get exper­
iences in creative
dramatics while
enrolled in this
building.

an official student school
paper that publishes no
more than four issues
per year.
an official school paper
that publishes five or
more issues per year.

_____

get at least one or
two opportunities to
use their acting skills
while enrolled in the
building.

30-M.

This school has ora­
torical activities
such as debate, pub­
lic address, etc.:

other

29-M.

Dramatic productions at
this school are produced
from:
purchased scripts only.

______ as a part of its
planned program of
instruction.

materials written by stu­
dents only.
_____

materials written by stu­
dents and purchased scripts
other

as a part of its
enrichment program.
_____

not included in
school activities.
other

104
Part
31-M.

, Page 7
Talent shows are:

32-N.

In the operational
design of this school
the role of the teacher
as a guidance person is

_____

given a very strong
emphasis.

not a part of our program.
produced by students at
each grade level.
produced once a year on an
all school basis.

encouraged.

produced at each grade
level with some of the acts
entering an all school
talent show.

33-N.

mentioned to the staff
but not emphasized.

other

left strictly to the
individual teacher's
personal motivation.

As a general policy, in the
teacher-pupil relationship:

not important in our
guidance operational
plan and therefore not
encouraged at all.

no formal provisions are
made for the teacher to
provide specified guidance
services.

_____

other

34-0.

A student's academic
progress is formally
reported to parents:

teachers are expected to
provide guidance services
for all of their pupils.

two times per year.
teachers are expected to
provide guidance services
to only a limited number
of pupils.
other

35-0.

_____

four times per year.

_____

six times per year.
other

Parent-teacher or parentteache.r-student confer­
ences are held on a schoolwide basis.
not at all.

_____

three times per year.

once per year.

_____

four times per year.

twice per year.______ _____

five or more times per year.

105
Part I , Page
36-P.

8

Community service projects 37-P.
by the students a r e :

This school currently
has :

not a part of our program. _____

no parent's organi­
zation.

carried out occasionally
for a special purpose.
an important part of the
planned experiences for
all students while enrolled
in this building.

a parent's organi­
zation that is rela­
tively inactive.
a parent's organi­
zation that is active.
a parent's organi­
zation that is very
active.

106
PART II:
38-B,

FOR EACH QUESTION IN THIS SECTION CHECK ALL THE
ANSWERS THAT APPLY.

Which of the following types 39-B.
of materials are housed in
your instructional materials
center?

Which of the follow­
ing types of materials
are housed in your
instructional
materials center?

general library books.
filmstrips.
current newspapers
collections (coins,
insects, art, etc.)

below grade level reading
materials.

motion pictures,
(include this if
you are a member of
a central service)

current magazines.
files of past issues of
newspapers.

micro films.
above grade level reading
mate rials.

overhead transparen­
cies .

card catalogue of materials
housed.

phonograph records.

student publications.

ditto and/or mimeo
machines.

files of past issues of
magazines.
40-C.

photo or thermal
copy machines.

The master class time
schedule can be changed
by teachers when need
arises by:
planning with other
teachers on a daily
basis.
planning with other
teachers on a weekly basis.
seeking administrative
approval for a special
change.
requesting a change for
next semester.
requesting a change for
next year.
other

m a p s , globes and
charts.
display cases or
areas.
41-D.

School dances are
held for:
grade five.
grade six.
grade seven.
grade eight.

107
Part II, Page 2
42-D.

44-1.

_____

46-K.

A club program for students is offered for:

43-F.

The intramural program
includes:

grade five.

_____

team games.

grade six.

individual sports.

grade seven.

various club activities.

grade eight.

other

Students are allowed to
elect courses of interest
from a range of elective
offerings:

45-1.

in grade six.

Electives currently
offered, in this build­
ing are:
(Check those
you offer from this
list and add any not
listed that you offer.)

in grade seven.

art

_____

speech

in grade eight.

band

_____

typing

not at all.

vocal music

How much time would you
estimate the average
student spends in inde­
pendent study for each
grade listed below?

drawing

minutes per day in grade
five.

foreign language

in grade five.

drama
journalism

family living
minutes per day in grade
six.
minutes per
seven.

day ingrade

minutes per
eight.

day in grade

unified arts
______

orchestra
wood shop

_____ natural resources
creative writing
other
other
other

_______

108
Part II, Page 3
47-K.

Students working in inde­
pendent study situations
work on topics that are:

48-L.

Students with poor
basic skills can get
special help in the
following areas.
(Check only those
areas where special
help on an individual
basis is provided by
special staff members
trained to treat such
situations.

_____

reading

_____

spelling

_____

physical education

we have no independent
study program.
assigned to them by the
teacher.
of personal interest and
approved by the teacher.
of personal interest and
unrelated to classroom
work.
other

mathematics
_____
49-M.

Dramatic presentations by
students a r e :

grammar
other

not a part of the school
program.
50-0.

Formal evaluation of
student's work is
reported by use o f :

_____

a standard report card
with letter grades.

a part of the activities
program.
a part of certain class
activities planned by the
teachers.

teacher comments
writing on a reporting
form.

other
_____

parent-teacher con­
ferences .

_____

standard report card
with number grades.

_____

parent-teacher-student conferences.
other

109
Part II, Page 4
51-P.

In regard to community
relations this school
currently:

52-P,

does not send out a
parents' newsletter.
sends out a parents' news­
letter on a scheduled basis.
uses a district-wide news­
letter to send out infor­
mation related to this
school.
uses the commercial news­
paper.
other

The staff presents
informational programs
related to the school1s
functions:
when requested by the
parents.
once or twice a year at
regular parents' meet­
ings .
at open house programs.
at regularly scheduled
"seminar type" meetings
planned for interested
parents.
other

53-Q.

From the specialized areas
listed below, check each
service which is available
to students in your build­
ing.
(Note that a service
need not be housed within
the school building to be
available to your stu­
dents .)

----------------

guidance counselors,

special reading
teacher.

school nurse,
others:
school psychologist.
visiting teacher.
speech therapist.
diagnostician.
clinic services for the
emotionally disturbed.
special education pro­
grams for the mentally
handicapped.

110
Part II, Page 5
54-R.

Teaching teams are
organized to include:

_____

fully certified teachers.

55-R.

From the following
list check those
types of auxiliary
helpers available in
your building:

para-professionals.
paid para-professionals.

clerical helpers.
_____

student teachers.

_____

volunteer helpers
from the community.

others
student teachers
and interns.
high school "future
teachers"
other

Ill
Part III:
56-D.

FOR EACH QUESTION IN THIS SECTION PLEASE CHECK THE
BOX OR BOXES THAT BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PROGRAM.

School social functions are held at this school:
During the afternoon

During the evening

Grade five
Grade six
Grade seven
Grade eight
57-E.

The physical education program serves:

Air..
Students

All
Students

All
Students

Grade five
Grade six
Grade seven
Grade eight
58-E.

What degree of emphasis does the physical education
program give to the competitive and developmental
aspects of the program for boys and girls?

Competitive
Aspects

Developmental
Aspects

Boys

Girls

High

High

Medium

Medium

Low

Low

High

High

Medium

Medium

Low

Low

112
Part III, Page 2
59-F.

Intramural activities are schedules for:
All
Students

Boys
Only

Girls
Only

No
Students

Grade five
Grade six
Grade seven
Grade eight

60-J.

;

How do your guidance counselors handle group guidance
sessions?

Regular Sessions
Several Times
Per Year
Grade five
Grade six
Grade seven
Grade eight

Special Sessions
Only

None

113
Part III, Page 3
61-K.

Independent study opportunities are provided for:

All
Students

All
Students

All
Students

Regular Class
Time

Time Scheduled
For Independent
Study

62-L.

Daily instruction in a developmental reading program
is provided for:

All
Students

Grade five
Grade six
Grade seven
Grade eight

Poor
Readers
Only

Not At All