INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and
reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any
type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduccu form at ihe back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

U niversity M icrofilm s International
A Bell & H ow ell Inform ation C o m p a n y
3 0 0 N orth Z e e b R o a d . Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 U SA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0

8 0 0 /5 2 1 - 0 6 0 0

Order N um ber 9111639

A study of th e nationally recognized exem plary m iddle schools
in M ichigan and th e extent of th eir im plem entation of th e 18
characteristics of middle school education
Prentice, David Alden, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1990

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48106

A STUDY OF THE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED EXEMPLARY MIDDLE
SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN AND THE EXTENT OF THEIR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 18 CHARACTERISTICS
OF MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION
By
David A. P r e n tic e

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U niversity
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e requirements
f o r the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Educational Administration
1990

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED EXEMPLARY MIDDLE
SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN AND THE EXTENT OF THEIR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 18 CHARACTERISTICS
OF MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION
By
David A. P re n ti c e

The purpose of t h i s study was t o determine t h e implementation
lev el of the 18 bas ic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of middle school education as
perceived by p r i n c i p a l s and te a c h e r s in th e m id dle -l ev el schools in
Michigan recognized as exemplary by th e United S t a t e s Department of
E d u c a t io n

during

the

years

1982

through

1987.

The

survey

q u e s ti o n n a ir e developed by Riegle (1971) was used in t h i s study.
F i f t e e n o b j e c t i v e s were designed to be used as a p a r t o f t h i s
study.
principal

I d e n t ic a l

surveys

t o g a th e r

and a randomly s e l e c t e d

th e d a t a were
teacher

in each

sent

to

th e

of the

12

i d e n t i f i e d schools.
Survey q u e s tio n n a ir e s were r e tu r n e d from 11 of th e 12 sch ools,
fo r a return
se para ted

in to

rate
th e

o f 92%.
var ious

The r e t u r n e d
subgroups

stated

q u estionnaires
in

the

were

objectives.

Those subgroups were schools lo cated in urban a r e a s , schools lo c a t e d
in suburban a r e a s , schools lo c a te d in r u r a l a r e a s , schools t h a t had
been middle schools f o r more than e i g h t y e a r s , schools t h a t had been

David A. P re n tic e
middle schools f o r fewer than e i g h t y e a r s , schools with a studen t
enrollm en t o f between 450 and 550, and schools t h a t had a student
p o p ulati on o f more than 550 o r l e s s than 450.
f u r t h e r divided i n t o th e group o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

Each subgroup was
in t h a t subgroup

and t h e group o f t e a c h e r s in t h a t subgroup.
Frequency counts o f th e responses were t a b u l a t e d and m u l t i p l i e d
by th e

values

assigned

to

each

o f th e

weighted valu es were then converted

to

survey

q u e s ti o n s .

percentage

sc or es

The
o f the

maximum p o s s i b l e score in each catego ry in o rder to provide f o r ease
o f comparison between t h e var io u s subgroups.
Two conc lusions were supported by the f i n d in g s of t h i s
First,

study.

t h e r e was very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e in th e per ceived lev el of

implementation o f t h e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between any o f th e various
subgroups.
lev el

There was a c o n s is te n cy in th e perceived implementation

o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

among p r i n c i p a l s

and t e a c h e r s

in

The second major f in d in g was t h a t th e implementation l evel

in

each subgroup, as well.

t h e case o f every subgroup f e l l

a t t h e 61st p e r c e n t i l e or hi g her .

The e n t i r e group o f p r i n c i p a l s r a t e d th e implementation level a t the
64 t h

percentile.

The

entire

g roup

of

implementation lev el a t th e 65th p e r c e n t i l e .
implementation
study.

levels

o f th e

teachers

rated

the

These ar e th e h ig h est

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

reported

by any

This d i s s e r t a t i o n

is

dedicated

t o my w ife,

Evelyn,

without

whose continuing love, support, and encouragement t h i s p r o j e c t would
not have been p o s s i b l e ,
encouraged
guidance,

the

and to Dr.

completion

assistance,

reached completion.

of

this

and f r i e n d s h i p

Louis Romano, who c o n s t a n tl y
p roject
this

and w i t h o u t whose

p r o j e c t would not have

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ........................................................
Background .................................................................................
The Secondary School Recognition Program .................
Statement of Purpose ............................................................
Need f o r th e Study ................................................................
D e f i n i ti o n s .................................................................................
Assumptions .................................................................................
Lim it ations .................................................................................
Objectives of th e Study ........................................................
Procedure and Methodology ...................................................
Or ganization o f th e D i s s e r t a t i o n ..................................

II.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

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

I n tr o d u c t io n .............................................................................
The Middle School Program . .
......................
Studies of the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Middle School
Education .................................................................................
Summary .....................................................................................
Studies o f th e Secondary School Recognition
Program .....................................................................................
Summary .....................................................................................
The SSRP in Michigan ............................................................
The SSRP’ s A t t r i b u t e s of Success ..................................
A B r ie f Discussion of th e R e lati o n s h ip s Between
the 18 Basic Middle School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
the 14 A t t r i b u t e s of the SSRP .......................................
Summary .
.................................................................................
III.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY ....................................................................
I n tr o d u cti o n .............................................................................
Purpose o f the Study ............................................................

Page
The S a m p l e .................................................................................
The Survey Instrument ............................................................
P r o c e d u r e s .................................................................................
Objectives of th e S t u d y ........................................................
Summary..........................................................................................

72
73
74
75
77

IV. RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSES.................................................

79

I n tr oducti on .............................................................................
Demographic D a t a ....................................................................
P r e se n ta ti o n o f t h e Data f o r Each Objective . . . .
Summary..........................................................................................

79
81
82
98

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

101

Summary..........................................................................................
Purpose of the Study ........................................................
Design of the S t u d y ............................................................
The L i t e r a t u r e Review ........................................................
C o n c l u s i o n s .................................................................................
Discussion of th e Findings ................................................
Recommendations f o r F ur ther Study .....................................

101
101
101
102
104
112
115

A. LETTERS...............................................................................................

118

B. THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT.................................................................

120

C. THE MICHIGAN MIDDLE-LEVEL SCHOOLSRECOGNIZED BY THE
SECONDARY SCHOOL RECOGNITION PROGRAM DURING THE
YEARS 1982-1987 .........................................................................

133

APPENDICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

vi

134

LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1

Page
Number o f Middle Schools o f Various Grade Organiza­
t i o n s , With Percent o f I nc re as e/Dec rea se , 1970-71
t o 1986-87 .....................................................................................

25

2.2

Eighteen C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e Middle School . . . .

30

2.3

Studies of Unusually Successful Secondary Schools

. .

67

4.1

The 18 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Included in th e Survey
Instrument and the Numbers o f th e Questions
Included t o C o l le c t Data About Each Charac­
t e r i s t i c ..........................................................................................

80

4.2

Demographic D a t a ..............................................................................

81

4.3

Findings Regarding Objectives 1, 2, and 3

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

83

4.4

Findings Regarding Objective 4 ................................................

86

4.5

Findings Regarding Objective 5 ................................................

88

4.6

Findings Regarding Objective 6 ................................................

89

4.7

Findings Regarding Objective 10

92

4. 8

Findings Regarding Objective 11

94

4. 9

Findings Regarding Objective 13

96

4.10

Findings Regarding Objectiv e 14

97

4.11

Comparison o f the Total Implementation Scores f o r
Each o f the Groups Previously Discussed ......................

99

vii

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

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1

Page
D i s t r i b u t i o n of Middle-Level Schools Selected f o r
SSRP Recognition, 1982-1984, Compared to
National D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Name Labels o f MiddleLevel S c h o o l s .............................................................................

viii

56

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Background
In February 1983, a t th e i n s t i g a t i o n o f and with encouragement
from th e United S t a t e s Department o f Education (USDOE), Michigan,
along with the o t h e r 49 s t a t e s ,
Recognition Program (SSRP).

instituted

th e

Secondary School

The s t a t e d purposes o f the program were

"(1) to i d e n t i f y and recognize unusually succ es sful public secondary
sch oo ls, and (2) through p u b l i c i t y and o th e r means, encourage t h e i r
emulation by o t h e r educ ators" (Woods, 1985).
all

50 s t a t e s

to p a r t i c i p a t e

in the

The USDOE encouraged

program during

th e y e a r

of

in c e p ti o n .
A l e t t e r from th e Michigan Department o f Education (MDOE) in
Lansing was sent
districts.
were t o

to

th e

s uperi nte ndents

of

all

Michigan

school

The purposes of th e program, as s t a t e d in th e l e t t e r ,
" c a ll

attention

to

the

many good

secondary

schools

in

Michigan and th e United S t a t e s " as well as "to begin to e s t a b l i s h a
network of schools t h a t can serve as models f o r o t h e r schools and
school d i s t r i c t s t h a t are seeking to become b e t t e r "

(MDOE, 1983a).

Included with t h i s l e t t e r was a self-nom in ati on form.
The purpose s t a t e d on th e cover page o f the nomination form was
"to i d e n t i f y and c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o a n atio n al group of schools t h a t

1

2
ar e unus ually e f f e c t i v e in educating t h e i r s t u d e n t s , " but in seeking
schools t h a t were t o be considered e f f e c t i v e t h e program a ls o sought
"schools

that

have been

su cc es sful

in

overcoming

o b s ta c le s

and

problems and ar e continuing to work hard to improve" (MDOE, 1983b,
p. 1).

The assumption was t h a t th e se e f f o r t s would be r e f l e c t e d in

program innovation as well as in improved outcomes (MDOE, 1983b).
The l e t t e r f u r t h e r encouraged th e s u p e ri n te n d e n t s who received
i t to nominate a high school and a " j u n i o r high o r middle school"
(MDOE, 1983a,

p. 1).

The method chosen

in Michigan to nominate

schools c o n s is t e d o f a self-n om in ati on form t h a t was t o be f i l l e d
out by lo cal

school

per so nne l.

14 a t t r i b u t e s

of effectiveness"

information would be sought.
were l i s t e d on th e form.
performance

on

The nomination form l i s t e d
(MDOE,

1983b,

Furth er ,

three

p.

1)

"the

about which

"outcome v a r i a b l e s "

All t h r e e were measurable (two included

competency or

achievement

tests),

and

d ata

were

sought f o r those v a r i a b l e s , as w ell.
There were t h r e e p a r t s t o th e nomination form.

The f i r s t p a r t

c o n s is te d o f a l i s t of demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of the school,

including

inform ation

about

enrollm ent,

racial

com position,

s t a f f i n g , s o c ia l composition, and type of community.
The second s e c tio n of t h e nomination form c o n s is t e d of answers
to q u e s ti o n s p e r t a i n i n g to th e 14 a t t r i b u t e s of e f f e c t i v e schools
t h a t the USDOE s t a t e d had emerged from r e s e a r c h .

These were to be

used as i n d i c a t o r s o f q u a l i t y in the rec o g n i tio n program.
a t t r i b u t e s l i s t e d were:

The 14

3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Clear academic goals
High e x p e c t a tio n s f o r stu den ts
Order and d i s c i p l i n e
Rewards and i n c e n t i v e s f o r s tu d e n ts
Regular and frequent monitoring of s tu d en t pr og re ss
O pportu nities f o r meaningful s tu d e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and
participation
Teacher e f f i c a c y
Rewards and i n c e n t i v e s f o r t e a c h e r s
Concentration on academic le a r n in g time
P o s i t i v e school cl im ate
Administrativ e l e a d e r s h ip
W e l l - a r t i c u l a t e d curriculum
Evaluation f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvement
Community support and involvement

The t h i r d s e c tio n o f th e instrument c o n s is t e d o f q u es tio n s t h a t
sought answers t h a t were r e l a t e d t o var ious educa tion al
These included competency and/or achievement t e s t
rates,

attendance

s tu d e n ts and s t a f f .

rates,

suspensions,

outcomes.

scores,

dropout

and awards r e c e i v e d

by

Included also were several q u es ti ons r e l a t e d to

f a c t o r s c o n t r ib u t i n g t o th e s ch oo l’ s success and t o t h e o b s ta c le s
t h a t had been overcome.
The completed forms were to be s e n t t o the MDOE and reviewed by
a panel o f " p r a c t ic i n g p r i n c i p a l s of Michigan schools"

(1983b,

p.

1), as well as several employees o f th e MDOE.
In March 1983, f iv e Michigan middle schools or j u n i o r highs and
f i v e Michigan high s c h o o l s were s e l e c t e d

by t h e

panel

to

be

de sig nated "exemplary s ch o o ls ," and those schools were n o t i f i e d of
t h e i r s e l e c t i o n by P h i l i p Runckel, Michigan’ s th en - S u p e rin ten d en t of
Public I n s t r u c t i o n .

All te n s c h o o ls ’ nomination forms were then

sent t o th e USDOE in Washington, D.C., where they were s u b je c te d to
a further

review.

Schools

that

"passed"

that

review were then

n o t i f i e d t h a t a " s i t e v i s i t o r " would come t o the s e le c t e d school f o r

4

one day of i n te n se s c r u t i n y t h a t would c o n s i s t o f in terview s with
parents,

students,

teachers,

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

These s i t e

v i s i t o r s would a ls o ask f o r v e r i f i c a t i o n o f c e r t a i n d ata and would
then make t h e i r own recommendations concerning na tional r e c o g n i t i o n .
From the recommendations o f th e s i t e v i s i t o r s , a f i n a l t o t a l of
60

to

80

secondary

schools

nationwide

would

be

s e le c t e d

by

a

national panel o f e xperts f o r re c o g n itio n .
The program has remained e s s e n t i a l l y

unchanged

in

form and

s t r u c t u r e during i t s seven years o f o p e ration in Michigan.

However,

a few m odifications were s t i p u l a t e d by th e na tional program.
included

th e

a dd it ion

of

an

elementary

school

s e c tio n

These
to

th e

program, th e a ddition of a p r i v a t e school s e c t io n to th e program,
and the banning f o r f i v e years of those schools t h a t had pre viousl y
been

s e le c t e d

for

natio na l

honors.

A s tanda rd ized

method

of

s e l e c t i n g and r a t i n g schools was added to Michigan’ s program.
During these seven y e a r s ,

12 Michigan j u n i o r high or middle

schools have been designa ted as "exemplary" by the USDOE.
The Secondary School Recognition Program
The SSRP is

administered by th e United S t a t e s

E ducation’ s o f f ic e
edu ca tion.

in

cooperation

with

state

S ec r e t a ry

of

departm ents

of

The s t a t e s d i s t r i b u t e individual school nomination forms

and s e t up screening processes f o r review o f school
Individual

states

are resp o n sib le

for

applications.

establishing

procedures s u i t e d t o the co ndit io ns in t h e i r s t a t e .

selectio n
In 1982-83,

each s t a t e was permitted to nominate f iv e schools in each o f two

5

categories:

schools f o r young ad o les cen ts and high sc hoo ls.

In th e

second y e a r , 1983-84, th e procedure was a l t e r e d , and each s t a t e was
given a quota f o r nominations
number o f e l i g i b l e schools.

reflecting

o f Columbia,

and

population

and i t s

In 1982-83, 44 s t a t e s p a r t i c i p a t e d and

496 nominations were submitted.
D istrict

its

th e

During

1983-84,

Department

of

48 s t a t e s ,

Defense

Schools p a r t i c i p a t e d and 555 nominations were re c e iv e d .

the

Dependents
In 1984-85,

49 s t a t e s , the D i s t r i c t of Columbia, and the Department of Defense
Dependents Schools were involved.
The nominations submitted by th e s t a t e s undergo a t h r e e - s t e p
review proce ss .

F i r s t , each y ear a na tional panel of 18 members is

convened by the re c o g n it io n program t o review the a p p l i c a t i o n s .

The

information provided by each school on both the outcome c r i t e r i a and
the 14 i n d i c a t o r s o f success in the nomination form i s c a r e f u l l y
reviewed by t h e panel.
pool

of

nominations

T y p ic a lly , th e paper screening reduces the
by

approximately

schools r e c e iv e a s i t e v i s i t .

one-half.

The

remaining

These s i t e v i s i t s l a s t f o r two days

(only one day in 1983) and ar e conducted by v i s i t o r s r e p r e s e n t i n g a
mix of r e s e a r c h e r s , c o n s u l t a n t s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and o t h e r educators
with e x ten s iv e experience in secondary education.
visits,

interv ie w s

are

s tu d e n t s , and p a r e n t s .

conducted

with

teachers,

During th e s i t e
administrators,

Observations ar e made in t h e b u ild in g s and

classrooms, and d e t a i l e d r e p o r t s are prepared f o r each school.

The

r e p o r t s co ntain ex tensiv e information about how th e var ious school
personnel who have a stake in the outcome pe rceive th e s tr e n g t h s and

6
weaknesses o f th e school and t h e i r r o l e s and in flu e n c e in them.

The

reports

the

also

contain

vivid

descriptions

of

schools and a c t i v i t i e s in t h e classrooms.
selection

proce ss ,

the

n a ti o n a l

r e p o r t s and t h e school
about each school,
Education.
the O ffice

panel

nominations,

the

cl im ate

in

In th e f i n a l s te p o f the
reviews

t h e se

site-v isit

interv iew s th e s i t e

visitors

and makes recommendations to th e S e c r e t a r y of

As a f i n a l check, a l l nominated schools are reviewed by
of Civil

Rights

to

ensure

th at

they

are

in

full

compliance with fed er al c i v i l r i g h t s laws (Woods, 1982).
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the c u r r e n t lev el of
implementation of 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle school education as
perceived by p r i n c i p a l s and te a c h e r s in th e 12 des igna ted Michigan
middle and j u n i o r high schools s e l e c t e d f o r n a t io n a l rec o g n i tio n in
the SSRP during the ye ar s 1983 t o 1988.
was

a discrepancy

a n a l y s is

between

E s s e n t i a l l y , the r esear ch

theor y

and

practice

in

the

sta ge

of

o p e r a tio n o f th e se schools.
Need f o r the Study
The e a r l y
development.
s h o u ld

exist

ado lesc en t

ft

at

a unique and c r i t i c a l

I f t h i s i s t r u e , and r esear ch says t h a t i t i s , t h e r e
a pattern

p a r t i c u l a r s t u d e n t.

of education

that

is

unique

to

th is

By consensus, the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle

school education seem to f i t th e needs o f t h i s age o f s tu d e n t .
Each y e a r , more school d i s t r i c t s

in Michigan and th e r e s t o f

the United S t a t e s ar e making a d e c is io n t o abandon th e j u n i o r high

7

school in fav or of a school des ign ated as a middle sch ool.
(1967)

stated

that,

in

1965-66,

there

were

n e a r ly

desig na te d as middle schools in th e United S t a t e s .

500

Cuff
schools

That number has

grown each y e a r (Alexander, 1968; Compton, 1978; Moss, 1969) and in
1976 stood a t more than 4,000 (Lounsbury & Vars, 1978).

To serve

th e youth who ar e or w ill be in the age range o f 10 t o 14 y e a r s , as
much information as p o s s i b l e needs t o

be ga th er ed so t h a t t h e s e

middle schools can b e t t e r meet the needs o f th e c h ild r e n a t t e n d i n g .
In a d d i t i o n , i f schools t h a t ar e named middle schools ar e t o be
design ated as exemplary and help serve as models f o r a l l o th e r such
schools to emulate, t h e r e needs to be some comprehensive information
available
criteria

that
that

concerns
have

been

whether

or

developed

not
as

these

schools

characteristic

meet
of

th e

middle

schools.
The need e x i s t s f o r s tu d i e s t h a t analyze th e p r a c t i c e s o f th ese
USDOE-named exemplary

schools

and

th e

relationship

between t h e i r p r a c t i c e s and th e b a s ic middle school

that

exists

concepts t h a t

have been developed with th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in mind.

Research

concerning th e implementation of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of middle

school education in the schools desig nated as exemplary in Michigan
would be valuab le to those schools t h a t ar e seeking t o emulate th e
des ignate d sch oo ls.

F urth er, t h i s study would provide an i n d i c a t i o n

of how those desig na ted exemplary Michigan middle schools or j u n i o r
highs

are

faring

characteristics.

in

th eir

attem pts

to

implement

the

18

8
F i n a l l y , s t u d i e s of t h i s na t u r e might be

used t o promote or

d is c la im th e importance o f r e c o g n it io n programs l i k e th e SSRP.
D e f i n i ti o n s
To a s s i s t in understanding the terms used in t h i s s tudy , the
following d e f i n i t i o n s

ar e provided.

These d e f i n i t i o n s

are

a ls o

meant t o be used as an aid f o r those who may wish t o r e p l i c a t e t h i s
study.
Adolescence.

The period o f t r a n s i t i o n

between puberty

and

adulthood in human development ( Webster’s Third New I n te r n a t i o n a l
D i c t i o n a r y . 1971).
C o n tin u o u s p r o g r e s s .
facilitate
their

academic pr ogress

ability

readiness,
program i s

An e d u c a t i o n a l

or

to

by indiv idua l

advance r e g a r d l e s s

other

o f te n

o r g a n i z a t io n a l

referred

to

in

program d e s i g n e d t o
s tu d e n t s

o f grade

levels,

lim itations.
the

according

peer-group

This

literature

as

to

type

of

a nongraded

program (R iegle, 1971).
Enrichment e x p e r i e n c e .

Those courses and experiences designed

by th e school t o meet th e needs and i n t e r e s t s o f s t u d e n ts .
Middle s c h o o l.
high school . . .

"Designates a school in between elementary and

and covering a t l e a s t t h r e e o f th e middle school

y e a r s , beginning with grades 5 or 6" (Murphy, 1965).
Planned gr ad ua lis m .
child

to progress

incremental manner.

An o r g a n iz a ti o n a l plan designed to allow a

from childhood

to

adulthood

in

a gradual

and

9
R u r a l.
. . .

"The comprehensive, nonspec if ic word r e f e r r i n g t o l i f e

in th e country as d i s t i n g u i s h e d from l i f e in th e c i t y "

( New

World Dictio na ry o f the American Language. 1974, p. 1248).
Suburban.
and

o f te n

a

"A d i s t r i c t . . .
separately

on o r near th e o u t s k i r t s o f a c i t y

incorporated

town

or

city"

(New World

Dictionary of the American Language. 1974, p. 1421).
Team t e a c h i n g .
two

or

more

A method o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l o r g a n iz a ti o n in which

teachers

cooperatively

plan

and

implement

the

i n s t r u c t i o n f o r a s in g le group of s tu d e n t s .
Urban.

"Of, in . . .

a c i t y or town . . . c i t i f i e d " ( New World

D iction ar y of the American Language. 1974, p. 1562).
Assumptions
The w r i t e r

assumed t h a t

the

survey

instrument developed

by

Riegle in 1971 and used in t h i s study with only minor changes was
a p p r o p r ia te f o r determining the number of middle school p r a c t i c e s in
the exemplary schools in Michigan.

I t was also assumed t h a t the

o r ig i n a l qu e s ti o n n a ir e and th e minor changes were pres en ted in such
a manner t h a t those who completed the q u e s tio n n a ir e were able to do
so with an ac cur ate and knowledgeable understanding of th e programs
in place in t h e i r schools.
Limitation s
The study was lim i te d to the 12 middle s c h o o l s / j u n i o r highs in
Michigan t h a t were determined t o be outstanding and exemplary by the
USDOE during th e year s 1983 t o 1988.

The w r i t e r ’ s i n t e n t i o n was to

measure th e level of each of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t was p r e s e n t

10

school as o f t h e d ate o f th e survey.

No attempt was made t o measure

t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f any of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
that

the

respondents were

knowledgeable

and

I t was assumed

ac c u r a te

about

the

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and about what has happening in t h e i r schools.
Objectives of th e Study
1.

To measure th e degree o f implementation o f th e 18 middle

school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as r e p o rt e d by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in the Michigan
middle schools and j u n i o r highs t h a t were des ign ated as exemplary by
th e USDOE in the years 1983 t o 1988.
2.
school

To measure the degree o f implementation o f th e 18 middle
characteristics

as

re port ed

by t e a c h e r s

in

th e

Michigan

middle schools and j u n i o r highs t h a t were des ign ated as exemplary by
the USDOE in th e yea rs 1983 to 1988.
3.
the

To compare the average level

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as r e p o r t e d

of implementation scores
by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

to

of

that

rep o rted by te a c h e r s in the 12 designated Michigan middle or j u n i o r
high sch ools.
4.

To measure the average level of implementation scores of

th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s rep o rte d by those schools desig nated as urban
schools.

the

5.

To measure the average level

18

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s rep orted

suburban schools.

by

of implementation scores
those

schools

desig na ted

of
as

11
6.

To measure th e average lev el o f implementation scores of

the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p o rte d by those schools de sig na te d as r u r a l
schools.
7.
rep o rted

To

compare

th e

average

le ve l o f

implementation scores

by th e urban schools with t h a t r e port ed by th e suburban

sc ho ols.
8.
r e port ed

To

compare

by th e

urban

the

average

schools

level of

with

that

implementation scores
rep o rted

by th e

r u ra l

schools.
9.
r e p o rte d

To

compare

by th e r u r a l

th e average

level of

implementation scores

schools with t h a t rep o rte d by th e suburban

schools.
10.

To measure the average level of implementation scores f o r

those designa ted schools with a studen t population between 450 and
550.
11.

To measure the average level of implementation scores f o r

those des ign ated schools with a stu d en t population l e s s than 450 and
invy i c ciia11

12.

Pro

%
j j u

To

♦

compare

th e average

le ve l of

implementation scores

re port ed by thos e schools with a student population between 450 and
550 with
13.

t h a t of a l l o th e r s i z e s o f th e 12 desig nated schools.
Tomeasure the average level of

implementation sc ore s f o r

those schools t h a t have been designated a middle school f o r e i g h t
years or more.

12

14.

To measure th e average level o f implementation sc or es f o r

tho se schools t h a t have been designated a middle school f o r fewer
than e i g h t y e a r s .
15.

To compare th e average l evel o f implementation sc ores of

those schools t h a t have been desig na ted a middle school

f o r more

than e i g h t years with th e average lev el o f implementation score s of
schools t h a t have been desig nated a middle school

f o r fewer than

eight years.
Procedure and Methodology
The

purpose

of

this

study

was

to

determine

th e

lev el

of

implementation o f th e 18 b a s ic middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in th e
12 s e le c t e d Michigan middle s c h o o l s / j u n i o r high schools during th e
f i r s t f iv e years of the SSRP.
developed by Riegle (1971).
and had them v a l i d a t e d

The o r i g i n a l 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were
He e x t r a c t e d them from th e l i t e r a t u r e

by recognized middle

These a u t h o r i t i e s were Marie E l i e ,

school

M ontreal,

authorities.

Canada; N i c h o l a s

Georgiady, Miami U n iv e r s ity , Oxford, Ohio; Ann Grooms, Educational
S ervic es I n s t i t u t e ,

Cincinn ai, Ohio;

Louis Romano, Michigan S t a t e

U n iv e r s it y , East Lansing, Michigan; and Emmett Williams, U niversity
o f F l o r id a , G a i n e s v i ll e , F lo r i d a .

A f te r a l i s t o f 18 b a s ic middle

school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had been compiled,
developed

based

on th ose

characteristics.

a survey instrument was
That

instrument

was

reviewed by Louis Romano and s t a f f c o n s u lta n ts in th e Department of
Research Services a t Michigan S t a t e U niversity (Magana, 1987).

13
The MDOE in Lansing, Michigan, was v i s i t e d t o c o l l e c t verbal
and w r i t t e n

information concerning th e s e l e c t i o n

process used in

determining th e exemplary Michigan middle school s / j u n i o r highs,

as

well as th e names o f th e schools t h a t had been s e le c t e d through the
1987 school

year.

Two c o p i e s

of R iegle’ s re p lic a te d

survey

inst rum en t, modified only by e li m in a t in g a l l r e f e r e n c e s t o "grade 5"
from t h e o r i g i n a l

survey,

were then mailed to each o f t h e s e

sch oo ls, along with two cover l e t t e r s

12

(see Appendix A), r e q u e stin g

th e completion of th e surveys and t h e i r

return

in th e two s e l f -

addressed, stamped envelopes provided.
The r e p l i c a t e d survey instrument (see Appendix B) contained 62
q ues ti ons and was divided
contained

qu esti ons

that

in to two s e c t i o n s .
sought

a single

The f i r s t

response

per

s e c tio n
q u e s ti o n .

Questions seeking a m u lti p l e response ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) were in th e
second s e c tio n o f th e survey.

S p e c i f ic items in th e survey r e l a t e d

to each of the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of middle school educ atio n.

The

qu estio ns were coded according t o which o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
they concerned.
Twenty-two

of

24

response r a t e o f 92%.

survey

instruments

were

returned,

for

a

The completed instruments were s e para ted i n to

groups and then t a l l i e d according to which o b j e c t i v e each question
concerned.

Mean scores and mean percentages of the maximum p o s s i b l e

score y ie ld e d by the survey instruments were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each of
th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

f o r each sample o f schools

These scores were t a b u l a t e d ,

in the

study.

and comparisons between schools were

made on the b a s is of mean per centage s c o re s .

14
Or ganization o f th e D i s s e r t a t i o n
Chapter I contained a frame o f r e f e r e n c e f o r th e e n t i r e study,
including

bac kgr ou nd

statem ent

of

presente d.

the

inform ation

about

problem and t h e

The need f o r

th e

the

USDOE’ s SSRP.

purpose o f

the

study

A
were

study was o u t l i n e d . The l i m i t a t i o n s

and

assumptions of th e study were a l s o l i s t e d .

the

study were s t a t e d , and the

procedures

The o b j e c t i v e s of

and

methodology were

explain ed.
Chapter I I
study .

co n t a i n s a review o f l i t e r a t u r e

p e r t i n e n t t o the

The review i s divi ded i n to f i v e s e c t i o n s .

The f i r s t

is a

general review of r e l a t e d middle school information and surveys and
includes

a list

education.

of

the

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i e s

The s econd s e c t i o n

contains

of

m iddle

schoo l

a review of s tu d i e s

concerning the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of middle school education, as well
as an explanation o f and the r a t i o n a l e f o r the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
middle school educa tion.

Section t h r e e c o n ta in s a review o f the

r e l a t i v e l y few s t u d i e s t h a t have been completed p e r t a i n i n g t o th e
SSRP,

as well

as o t h e r

information r e l a t e d

to

that

program.

A

h i s t o r i c a l review of the SSRP as i t emanated from th e USDOE and as
i t has been put in t o p r a c t i c e in Michigan i s th e focus of s e c t io n
four.

In the l a s t s e c t i o n , th e 14 a t t r i b u t e s o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s of

th e SSRP are d i sc u s s e d .
Chapter I I I p e r t a i n s to t h e design of th e study, includ ing i t s
purpose, the sample, and an explana tion o f the instrument and the
procedures
Chapter I I I .

used.

The o b j e c t i v e s

of

th e

study

ar e

restated

in

Results o f th e data a n a l y s is are found in Chapter IV.
d a ta

pertain

to

characteristics

th e
of

current

middle

level

school

of

implementation

education

in

th e

of
12

These
the

18

Michigan

schools s e le c t e d as exemplary by th e USDOE from 1983 to 1988.
Chapter V contains a summary o f th e study, co nclusions based on
t h e re se arch f i n d i n g s , and recommendations f o r p r a c t i c e and f u r t h e r
research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
I n troduction
The review of l i t e r a t u r e

begins

with

a d is c u s s io n

o f what

c o n s t i t u t e s a middle school program, as defined by var ious a u th o r s .
In th e
school

second s e c t i o n ,

s tu d i e s

of t h e

education ar e reviewed.

r e v ie w o f

studies

characteristics

The t h i r d

pertaining

to

the

information r e l a t e d to t h a t program.

of middle

s e c t io n c o n s i s t s o f a

SSRP,

as

A historical

wel l

as

other

review of the

SSRP program and how i t has been put in to p r a c t i c e in Michigan i s
given in th e f o u rth s e c t i o n .

The d is c u s s io n in cludes a summary of

th e changes in th e program s in ce i t s in c e p t io n , as well as p e r t i n e n t
changes in the d i r e c t i o n and g u i d e li n e s o f th e program t h a t have
emanated from th e USDOE.

The l a s t s e c tio n of t h i s c h a p t e r c ontains

a d is c u s s io n of the 14 a t t r i b u t e s of e f f e c t i v e n e s s of th e SSRP.
The Middle School Program
Conceived in 1960, coming of age approximately f our y e a r s l a t e r
with th e p u b l i c a t i o n
Leadership (Leeper,

in 1964 of
1974),

several

articles

in

Educational

and continuing with the p u b l i c a t i o n o f

Howard’ s (1968) Teaching in Middle Schools and Alexander’s (1968)
The

Emergent

Middle

School

and

an

even

larger

number

of

d i s s e r t a t i o n s and o t h e r p u b l i c a t i o n s today, th e middle schools of
16

17
th e United S t a t e s

have received co n s id e rab le a t t e n t i o n .

Authors

such as Lounsbury, Vars, Moss, Georgiady, Eichhorn, Romano, and a
host of oth er s have w r i t t e n p rodig io us ly about the middle school and
i t s new concept f o r and o f a d o le s c e n ts .

In th e n e a r ly t h r e e decades

sin ce th e incep ti on o f t h e term middle school educa tion, s i g n i f i c a n t
strid es

have been made i n

the

amount

of

knowledge a v a i l a b l e

concerning how best to tea ch s tu d en ts who are 10 t o 14 y e a r s o f age.
Conant (1960) gave th e i n i t i a l impetus to the movement when he
stated th a t:
Some people have approached th e question of education f o r the
12-15 ye a r olds from a viewpoint t h a t emphasizes r e c e n t s t u d i e s
in p h y s i o l o g y and a d o l e s c e n t p s y c h o l o g y .
O t h e r s have
a p p r o ach ed t h e q u e s t i o n from a d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t t h a t
s tr o n g l y emphasizes academic s u b je c t m atter.
Having s t a r t e d
from one or another of t h e se approaches and defined the
purposes of a school in general terms, one can then proceed by
deductive reasoning to the d e t a i l s of the program in each
grade, (pp. 9-10)
Conant’ s p r in c ip a l

fin d in g s

in t h i s r e p o r t were t h a t t h e r e was a

g r e a t d i v e r s i t y of opinion regarding the placement of grade 9 in a
school system and, more important, t h a t s p e c i a l l y t r a in e d te a c h e r s
were needed in grades 7 and 8 because t h e se were th e " t r a n s i t i o n a l
years."
Conant also made a number o f recommendations.

He wrote t h a t

i n s t r u c t i o n in th e bas ic s k i l l s o f reading and mathematics should be
continued through the

end o f grade 8;

group

activities

(music,

drama, in tra m u r a ls , clu b s, homeroom, and assembly programs) should
be a p a r t o f th e " e x t r a - c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s ; block-time should be s e t
as id e ;

schedules

should be f l e x i b l e ;

guidance

services

should be

a v a i l a b l e t o a l l s tu d e n ts " ; and the " j u n i o r high school should not

18

con tinue

to

be

a

replica

of

th e

senior

high

school

with

its

a t t e n d a n t socia l p ress ure s" (pp. 16-21).
Vars (1961) s t a t e d t h a t :
A school t h a t would t r u l y serve yo ungsters during t h e i r inbetween years must combine th e elementary s c h o o l’ s concern f o r
t h e whole c h i l d w i t h t h e s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l ’ s s t r e s s on
s c h o la r s h ip and i n t e l l e c t u a l development.
This balance may
b e s t be provided through a program t h a t in cl udes a block-time
o r c o r e c l a s s f o r g u i d a n c e and p r o b l e m - c e n t e r e d l e a r n i n g
p a r a l l e l e d by more s p e c i a l i z e d cour ses . . . in such f i e l d s as
mathematics, s cie nce, f o r e ig n language, a r t and music, (p. 4)
Howard (1968) wrote t h a t
child

must

mentally

be provided with

developing

the

"many ex periences
the thought

ability

11).

te aching

and experie nces, t h a t

minimum o f l e c t u r e
that

the

teacher

independent study.

age of

they

ar e

and work with

s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e must be a v a r i e t y o f

and e x c l u s iv e ly
should

this

mind t h a t

co n c e p tu a li z e

a b s t r a c t i o n s " (p.
methods

He

to

in

for

teac hing

must

te a c h e r - c e n t e r e d

p r o v i d e “f o r

student

involve

a

methods,

and

in teractio n

and

Howard a l s o s t a t e d t h a t the middle school should

emphasize indiv idua l i n s t r u c t i o n , have f l e x i b l e schedules i n s t e a d of
a r i g i d t r a d i t i o n a l bell schedule, and provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s to use
a v a r i e t y o f le a r n in g r e s o u r c e s .
In a 1965 Educational Research S ervic e survey, some advantages
and disad va nta ges

of middle schools were

were

grouping, curriculum

better

age

sm oo ther t r a n s i t i o n ,
lim itation

closer

b e tte r socially,

by Carnegie u n i t s ,

r e p o r t e d . Among th e former

and th e

to a b i l i t y

level,

better artic u la tio n ,
"newness"

of the

no

concept.

Disadvantages l i s t e d were t h a t the middle school ta kes more planning
and

scheduling

time,

teachers

must

spend

more

time

p r ep arin g ,

19

r e p o r t i n g pupil pr ogress i s more d i f f i c u l t , and g i r l s mature f a s t e r
than boys.
Finley

(1967)

knowledge o f c h i l d
p r e a d o le s c e n t .

noted t h a t

a middle school

development,

especially the

"is

based on th e

knowledge o f

I t i s a school which i s devoted t o th e education of

th e c h i l d who i s in th e age brac ke t of ten t o fo urt ee n"
Murphy

(1965)

th e

identified

a middle

school

as

"a

(p. 33).

school

between

elementary school and high school . . . and covering a t l e a s t t h r e e
o f th e middle school y e a r s , beginning with grades 5 or 6" (p. 14).
Brod (1966) conducted a survey of the 50 s t a t e s ’ departments of
education

and also

cont ac ted

some 5,000

school

districts

e f f o r t to measure th e e x t e n t o f t h e middle school movement.

in

an

Results

in d i c a t e d th e e x i s t e n c e of middle schools in 45 of th e 50 s t a t e s .
In

1965

and

1966,

Cuff

(1967)

contacted

the

50

state

departments of education again with a d e f i n i t i o n of middle school as
c o ntaining grades 6 and 7,
grade 8.
o th e r

but not going below grade 4 or above

He re ceived only 36 r e p l i e s but r ec eive d information from

sources

about e i g h t

other

states.

From th e se

sources

he

i d e n t i f i e d ne a r ly 500 middle schools throughout th e United S t a t e s .
His conclusion was t h a t th e number o f middle schools was i n c r e a s in g ,
accompanied by a decr ea se in th e number of j u n i o r high schools.
At t h e

February

1968

annual

conference

of

the

National

A s sociation of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s (NASSP), Williams ( c i t e d
in Grooms,

1967) claimed t h a t t h e r e were more than 1,000 middle

schools in the United S t a t e s .

I f those f ig u r e s were a c c u r a te , t h a t

20
would be s l i g h t l y more than a 100% i n c r e a s e in two years from the
number Cuff determined.
In the in tro d u c t i o n t o a 1974 A sso ci at ion f o r Supervision and
Curriculum

Development

(ASCD)

publication,

Alexander

wrote

that

"watching th e new middle s c h o o l’ s emergence has been i n t e r e s t i n g
indeed. . . . Confused as t h e middle school movement has been . . .
i t s focus on th e t r a n s i t i o n from childhood to adolescence gives the
movement v a l i d i t y
that

in

the

and s i g n i f i c a n c e "

early

1960s

(p.

mounting

vii).

Alexander claimed

d issatisfactio n

with

the

d i s c o n t i n u i t y of elementary and secondary schools and t h e r e s u l t a n t
problems with
receptive

c h i l d r e n ’ s moving

climate

f o r middle

from

school

level

to

proposals

level

c r e a te d

and th e

a

resulting

reorganizations.
In his own 1968 survey, Alexander had i d e n t i f i e d 1,101 middle
sc ho ols.

Two years l a t e r , Kealy (1971) i d e n t i f i e d more than twice

t h a t number.
In 1973, both Trauschke and Mooney wrote t h a t l i t t l e

re se arch

was a v a i l a b l e concerning the m erits of a middle school o r g a n iz a tio n .
From t h e i r cooper ative r e s e a r c h , they believed t h a t :

(a) a middle

school

so cial,

s h o u ld

recognize

the

dynamic

physical,

and

i n t e l l e c t u a l changes t h a t ar e occ ur ri ng in young people; (b) middle
schools

should not

include

th e

n in t h

grade;

(c)

middle

schools

provide o p p o r tu n i t i e s f o r innovation; (d) middle schools should deemphasize the a c t i v i t i e s t r a d i t i o n a l l y found in high sc hools , such
as marching bands, i n t e r s c h o l a s t i c a t h l e t i c s , and dances; (e) middle
schools should provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e x p l o r a to ry and enrichment

21

activities,

and

(f)

middle school

te a c h e r s

should

be elementary

t r a i n e d but have a s u b j e c t - a r e a s p e c i a l t y .
Gatewood (1974) wrote t h a t his review o f both th e a v a i l a b l e
r esear ch and a v a i l a b l e surveys i n d i c a t e d t h a t r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the
middle grades had been a t t r i b u t e d p r im a r i l y t o p r a c t i c a l
such as moving t h e n in th

high school,

e lim in a t in g

overcrowding in o t h e r b u i l d i n g s , aiding d e s eg reg atio n ,

and using a

new b u i ld i n g .

grade to

He found t h a t ,

the

r easons ,

"in t r u t h ,

the only r e a l d i f f e r e n c e

between most j u n i o r highs and middle schools i s in name and grade
o r g an izatio n " (p. 13).

He also discovered t h a t middle schools were

founded more on g rounds o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
educational
moved th e

expedience than of

improvement and t h a t most middle
existing

program and

structure

schools

had

down a grade

simply
or

two.

Gatewood found t h a t a number of s tu d i e s favored th e middle school
over th e j u n i o r high but t h a t oth er s demonstrated tl^e r e v e r s e .
The landmark study in the area o f middle school education in
Michigan and surrounding s t a t e s was conducted by Riegle (1971).

By

consensus, i t i s th e study t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d th e d e f i n i t i o n o f what
middle school education should be.
many tim es,

has

r ec eived

wide

The study has been r e p l i c a t e d

publicity,

and

was

in co rpora ted

v i r t u a l l y in i t s e n t i r e t y in both Michigan’ s and West V i r g i n i a ’ s
standards o f middle education as o u t lin e d by t h e i r S t a t e Departments
o f Education.
In a 1973 a r t i c l e , Georgiady, Riegle, and Romano s t a t e d t h a t :
The u n r est in our pub lic schools today i s th e r e s u l t of a
number of f a c t o r s . . . . Among the s i g n i f i c a n t and notable

22
e f f o r t s t o reshape ed ucation in l i g h t of p r e s e n t s o c i e t a l
co n d iti o n s is the movement towards th e middle school concept.
(P. 73)
The authors s t a t e d t h a t the j u n i o r high programs in use a t t h a t time
disp lay ed a s e r io u s l a c k o f relev an ce t o the- t r u e n a tu r e of t h e
s o c ie t y

in

which

transcescents

lived.

In an e f f o r t t o provide general g u i d e l i n e s f o r use by edu ca to rs
in

co nsid e ri ng

the

implementation,

middle

school

Georgiady e t

al.

i n v e s t i g a t i o n s in t o a lo g i c a l

approach

organized the

the next

in

planning

results

of

its
their

sequence, which they named "the 18

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle school education."
are l i s t e d

and

These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

in t h e i r e n t i r e t y , with r a t i o n a l e and e x p l a n a ti o n s ,
section

ch aracteristics
m ultim ate ri al

of t h i s
include

approach,

chapter.

B riefly,

however,

continuous-progress

flexible

schedules,

so c ia l

the

pr o g ram s ,

in
18
a

experiences,

physical ex pe riences, intramural a c t i v i t i e s , team tea c h in g , planned
gradualism,

exploratory -en rich men t exper ie nce s,

independent

study,

bas ic

learning

sk ills,

guidance s e r v i c e s ,

creative

experiences,

student, s e c u r i t y f a c t o r s , e v alu atio n p r a c t i c e s , community r e l a t i o n s ,
student s e r v i c e s , and a u x i l i a r y s t a f f i n g .
In 1973, Romano e t a l . proposed t h a t the following q ues ti ons be
used in e v a lu a tin g proposed and e x i s t i n g middle school programs:
1.

Is continuous progress provided for?

2.

Are c l a s s schedules f l e x i b l e ?

3.

Is team teaching used?

4.

Is a multi m ate ri al approach used?

5.

Is t h e r e pro vision f o r bas ic s k i l l r e p a i r and ex tensions?

23

6.

Are e x p lo r a t o r y and enrichment s tu d i e s provided f o r?

7.

Are t h e r e a c t i v i t i e s f o r c r e a t i v e exper iences?

8.

Is t h e r e p r ov is ion f o r independent study?

9.

Is t h e r e f u l l pro vis ion f o r ev a lu a tio n ?

10.

Is planned gradualism provided fo r?

11.

Is t h e r e an a p p r o p r i a te program o f physical expe rien ce s and
intramural a c t i v i t i e s ?

12.

Are a p p r o p r i a t e so c ia l ex periences provided f o r?

13.

Are t h e r e adequate and a p p r o p r i a t e guidance s e r v ic e s ?

14.

Is t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n to a u x i l i a r y s t a f f i n g ?

15.

Are t h e r e adequate p r o v is io n s f o r stu d en t s e r v i c e s ?

16.

Does th e program emphasize community r e l a t i o n s ?

17.

Is an intramural a c t i v i t y program i n t e g r a l to th e t o t a l
middle school program?

18.

Are t h e r e pro v is io n s f o r stu d en t s e c u r i t y f a c t o r s ?

In a 1977 "w orking
Education p o s i t i o n
Board),

paper

draft"

of

a Michigan

(never o f f i c i a l l y

"middle school" was defined as

S tate

adopted

"a b u il d in g

Board o f

by t h e

State

in which the

program has been planned s p e c i f i c a l l y t o meet th e needs o f young
people in th e s ta g e between childhood and adolescence" (p. 6 ) .

The

document went on to s t a t e t h a t :
Since the 1960’ s th e middle school
concept has continued t o
r a p i d l y expand acro ss t h e United S t a t e s and in Michigan, and a t
p r esen t as many as 272 schools i d e n t i f y themselves as "middle
schools" in Michigan.
However, simply because a school i s
c a l l e d a middle school does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t i t is
o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g th e middle school concept nor t h a t i t is
o f f e r i n g th e kinds of programs most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r emergent
a d o le s c e n ts . Indeed a study o f 138 schools in Michigan in 1972
found t h a t however promising middle school concepts might
appear, most of th e programs and p r a c t i c e s of th e middle

24
schools in Michigan remain commonly s i m i l a r t o th ose o f the
s t a t e ’ s j u n i o r high sc hools .
On th e b a s i s o f t h i s study and
o t h e r s , i t appears t h a t in Michigan many schools have been
unable t o move very much beyond c a l l i n g themselves middle
sc hools , nor have th ey been able to e s t a b l i s h programs based on
our knowledge o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and needs o f emerging
a d o le s c e n t s , (p. 6)
Writing in 1978, Brooks noted t h a t t h e number o f middle schools
nationwide had increase d t o 4,060 in 1977, according t o a study done
a t th e U n i v e r s it y o f Kentucky.
for establishing

He l i s t e d th e t h r e e primary reasons

a middle school

middle school t o be:

or f o r making th e

change t o

a

(a) t o bridge the gap from elementary t o high

school more e f f e c t i v e l y ,

(b) t o provide a program t a i l o r e d t o th e

needs o f th e e a r l y a d o le s c e n t, and (c) t o e l i m i n a t e overcrowding.
Brooks noted t h a t more than h a l f o f the p r i n c i p a l s responding to the
study in d i c a t e d th e s e t h r e e reasons were important in th e d e c is io n
to e s t a b l i s h middle schools.
In response to Brooks’ s a r t i c l e ,

Alexander (1978)

rea ff irmed

Brooks’ s conclusion t h a t " l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found
o t h e r than t h a t the number o f middle schools had quadrupled" (p. 3)
since

A lexander’ s

1368

survey

and

that

"an

identity

d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s " f o r middle schools was not y e t app ar en t.

and

a

He also

noted the s i m i l a r conc lu sions of th e two s u r v e y s - - t h a t th e middle
school program i s not e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from j u n i o r high schools
or even from high sc ho ols.
c e r t a i n program f e a t u r e s

Alexander noted t h a t

"with regard to

included in both surveys

[team te a c h in g ,

in tersch o lastic a th le tic s,
instruction],
(P. 3).

little

change

the provision fo r la rg e/sm all-g ro u p
occurred

over

the

decade,

1967-77"

25

In a 1988 study of a l a r g e

sample o f

th e

n a t i o n ’ s middle

sch oo ls, Alexander and McEwin s t a t e d :
The l a t e s t d ata we have . . . show t h a t th e t o t a l number of 7-9
u n i t s ( j u n i o r high schools) was 2,191 in 1986-87, a drop o f 53
percent sin ce 1970-71, and t h a t of 6-8 u n i t s (middle schools)
was 4,329, an i ncr ea se o f 160 percent sin ce 1970-71" (p. 2).
T heir data ar e shown in Table 2 .1.

Table 2 . 1 . --Number o f middle schools of var ious grade o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,
with pe rce nt of i n c r e a s e / d e c r e a s e , 1970-71 t o 1986-87.
Number of Schools

Percent of
Incre as e/Dec re as e

Grade Organization

Grades 5-8
6-8
7-8
7-9
O ther s3
T otals
Source:

1970-71

1986-87

772
1,662
2,450
4,711
850

1,137
4,329
2,627
2,191
573

10,395

10,857

+ 47
+ 160
+
7
- 53
- 33
+

4

W. M. Alexander and C. K. McEwin, Schools in th e Middle:
S tatu s and Progress (Columbus, Ohio: National Middle
School Associ at ion , 1989), p. 2.

In 1977, the West V i r g in i a Department of Education accepted a
report

that

encouraged th e

development

a l t e r n a t i v e t o th e t r a d i t i o n a l

o f middle

j u n i o r high

schools

sc hools .

as

an

The r e p o r t

included a l l 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a middle school defined e a r l i e r
by Riegle (1971).
In a 1977 survey in F lo r id a , George rep o rte d t h a t th e number of
middle

schools

in

Florida

exceeded

the

number

of

junior

high

26
sch oo ls.

He sought t o determine whether or not the two types of

schools were, in f a c t , d i f f e r e n t and which type was implementing the
educational

programs deemed ap p r o p ria te f o r t h i s

age group.

His

sample c o n s is t e d o f 153 middle schools and 127 j u n i o r high sc ho ols,
as defin ed by th e names of t h e schools.
and 82%, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
were c l o s e l y r e l a t e d

George found t h a t th e two types of schools
in many r e s p e c t s ,

(interscholastic ath letics,
teaching,

elective

o r g a n i z a t io n

for

The response r a t e s were 84%

dances,

offerings,

instruction),

but

that

in

a few area s

clubs and o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

certification
differences,

of teachers,

although

minor,

team
and
were

beginning to appear in F lo rid a.
Valentine (1981) found t h a t t h e r e were dozens of arrangements
f o r the grade organization

p a t t e r n o f middle schools nationwide.

The most common was grades 7-8-9 housed in the same bu il ding (42%),
followed by grades 7-8 (31%) and grades 6-7-8 (15%).
In a 1984 National Association o f Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s
p u b l i c a t i o n , th e authors noted t h a t th e r ecen t
concern f o r
in numerous
schools and
several of
unprepared,

our system of public education has been evidenced
wide-ranging r e p o r t s , many o f them c r i t i c a l of
c a l l i n g f o r widespread reforms. Too many s tu d e n t s ,
the r e p o r ts su ggested, leave the classroom
(p. 1)

The NASSP authors attempted to determine whether t h e r e was a
standard t h a t could be applied to a l l elementary and middle schools
in ord er t o determine whether they could i d e n t i f y
t h a t make a d i f f e r e n c e between a successful
needs a change in d i r e c t i o n "
assumptions

that

(p. 1).

in order to m er it

"those f a c t o r s

school

and one t h a t

The authors s t a r t e d from the
a "q u a l ity "

rating

a school

27
"should focus i t s program on th e p a r t i c u l a r needs o f th e individual
c h ild re n who att e n d t h a t school" and t h a t " q u a l i t y schools do not
e x i s t in i s o l a t i o n from t h e r e s t o f th e community" (p. 1).
The authors
Excellence"

went

and the

on

to

list

"Quality

and d isc u s s

I n d ic a t o r s "

that,

21

"Standards

if

developed

of
and

followed, would provide a " q u a l i t y " school f o r the community.
According to Alexander and McEwin (1989),
The d e a r th o f information concerning the s t a t u s of middle level
education has long plagued t h i s educational movement. Although
a s e p a r a t e middle l ev el school has been a p a r t o f m ajo rit y
p r a c t i c e f o r several decades . . . t h e United S t a t e s Department
o f Education and many s t a t e departments have v i r t u a l l y ignored
this reality.
Information on those schools continues to be
gather ed by these agencies in j u s t two c a t e g o r i e s , elementary
and secondary, (p. ix)
In

a

1989

Development,

Carnegie

the council

s i g n i f i c a n t turn in g p oints"

C orporation
stated
(p. 3 ) .

that

Report

on

Adolescent

"Young a d o l e s c e n t s

The council

face

s t a t e d t h a t the

y ears of adolescence from 10 to 15 may be the l a s t , bes t chance f o r
many youths to choose a "productive and f u l f i l l i n g

l i f e " and also

" t h e i r l a s t b e s t chance t o a v o i d a diminished f u tu r e " (p. 8 ) .

The

council noted t h a t the " co nd itions of e a r l y adolescence have changed
d r a m a t ic a l l y from previous g e n e r a tio n s" (p. 8).
The council made a number of recommendations.

These included

c r e a t i n g small communities f o r le a r n in g (team t e a c h i n g ) , te aching a
core

academic

tracking

program

(continuous

(basic

le a r n in g

progress),

e x p e r ie n c e s ) ,

empowering

e l im in a tin g

teachers

and

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s to make d e c i s io n s about th e experiences o f s tu d e n ts
(team t e a c h i n g ) ,

fostering

th e

h e a lth

and

fitness

of

s tu d e n ts

28
( s tu d e n t s e r v i c e s ) , reengaging f a m i l i e s in th e education o f young
a d o l e s c e n t s (community r e l a t i o n s ) ,

and c o n n e c t i n g s c h o o l s w ith

communities.
The council

noted t h a t th e

"c onditions o f e a r l y

have changed d r a m a tic a lly from previous g e ner ations"

adolescence
(p.

9);

y et

many o f t h e i r recommendations appear t o r e l a t e d i r e c t l y t o R i e g l e ’ s
(1971)

basic

m id d le

school

ch aracteristics

as

noted

in

the

pa renthese s above.
Middle-level education has changed s in ce th e e a r l y 1960s, when
i t began.
junior

In 1965, Woodring wrote t h a t the 6-3-3 plan, with i t s

high

school,

appeared

on

th e

way out,

and

Vars

(1961)

commented t h a t j u n i o r high schools were changing and t h a t a s t a t e of
flu x e x i s t e d in which educators needed to r e s t r u c t u r e in te rm e d ia te
educ atio n.

The period of middle-level

decade l a t e r

showed signs

that

education t h a t

the movement to

started

establish

a

middle

schools had alr ea dy cleared the bandwagon or innovation s ta g e and
was h e r e

to

stay.

The

period

that

began

in

the

mid-1 9 80s

demonstrated t h a t a l l doubt concerning whether th e middle school was
here t o s ta y had been removed.
In

the

certification
published
state

m id -1 9 8 0 s ,
of te a c h e r s ,

f o r middle-level

professional

several
several

states

journals

ed uca to rs,

organizations

required

were r e g u l a r l y

and one national

had been fo rm ed .

r e g i o n a l , and s t a t e conferences were held ann ually.
about m id d le-lev el
quantities.

m iddle-level

p r a c t i t i o n e r s were p u b l i s h e d

References in th e l i t e r a t u r e

being

and many
N ational,

Books f o r and
in p r o d i g i o u s

to j u n i o r high schools

29
were few, whereas r e f e r e n c e s t o middle schools were abundant.

It

appeared t h a t the middle school c o n c e p t - - a t l e a s t in concept, i f not
in f a c t - - h a d preempted th e f i e l d .
Stu dies o f th e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Middle School Education
Riegle (1971) e x t r a c t e d from th e l i t e r a t u r e a l i s t o f 18 bas ic
middle

school

characteristics

that

previous w r i t e r s

had

d i f f e r e n t i a t e a middle school from a j u n i o r high school.

used to
This l i s t

was l a t e r r e f i n e d by Romano e t a l . (1973), given wide p u b l i c i t y , and
used as a model by many m id dle- level schools attempting t o change
t h e i r mode o f o p e r a tio n .
middle school

The l i s t was used as a d e f i n i t i o n o f what

education should be by both th e West V i r g in i a

Michigan S t a t e Departments of Education.

and

R i e g l e ’ s o r ig i n a l d i s s e r ­

t a t i o n was als o used as the b a s is f o r many o th e r s t u d i e s .
The 18 bas ic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of middle schools were chosen to
be used in t h i s study because (a) they ar e f a m i l i a r to most Michigan
m id d le

school

q u e s ti o n n a i r e

educators,
that

has

(b)

been

the

used

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
to

determine

their

and t h e
degree

of

implementation have been used by a la r g e number o f o th e r r e s e a r c h e r s
in o t h e r s t u d i e s , (c) t h e i r use has been supported by o t h e r s tu d ie s
during th e past two decades, and (d) they encompass those c h a r a c t e r ­
i s t i c s t h a t most middle school a u t h o r i t i e s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s would
expect to have in o p e r a ti o n in a middle school.
The l i s t
detailed

in

o f th e
T a b le

18 b a s ic
2.2.

middle

Included

school
are

a

characteristics
defin itio n

of

is
the

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and an explana tion of th e reasons f o r includ ing the
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c in th e l i s t o f 18.

Table 2 . 2 . —Eigh te en c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e middle sc hoo l.
Principle

What and Why

E x p l a n a t i on

Continuous progress

The middle school program should feature a
nongraded organization that allows students
to progress at their own individual rate
regardless of chronological age.
Individual
differences are at the most pronounced
stage during the transescent years of human
development. Chronological groups tend to
ignore the span of individual differences.

The curriculum built on continuous progress is
typically composed of sequenced achievement
levels or units of work. As a student com­
pletes a unit of work in a subject he moves on
to the next unit. This plan utilizes pro- '
grammed and semi-programmed instructional
materials, along with teacher-made units.

Multi-material approach

The middle schoDl program should offer to
students a wide range of easily accessible
instructional materials, a number of expla­
nations and a choice of approaches to a
topic. Classroom activities should be
planned around .a mul ti-materi al approach
rather than a basic textbook organization.

Maturity levels, interest areas, and student
backgrounds vary greatly at this age, and
these variables need to be considered when
materials are selected. The middle-school age youngster has a range biologically and
physiologically anywhere from 7 years old to
19 years old. Their cognitive development,
according to Piaget, progresses through different levels, too.
(Limiting factors include
environment, physical development, experiences,
and emotions.) The middle school youngster i s at
one of two stages: preparation for and orga­
nization of concrete operations and the period
of formal operations. These students have
short attention spans. Variation in approach
and variable materials should be available in
the school program to meet the various needs
and abilities of the youngsters and to help
the teachers retain the interests of the
youngsters.

Flexible schedules

The middle schocl should provide a sched­
ule 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 situation
or to a particular student.

Movement should be permissive and free rather
than dominated by the teacher. Variation of
classes and the length of class time as well
as variety of group size will help a student
become capable of assuming responsibility for
his own learning.

c*>
®

T ab l e 2 . 2 . - - C o n t i n u e d .
Principle
Social experiences

Physical experiences &
intramural activities

What and Why

Expl a n a t i o n

The program should provide experiences approp­
riate for the transescent youth and should not
emulate the social experiences of the senior
high school. Social activities that emulate
high school programs are inappropriate for
middle school students. The stages of their
social development are diverse and the ques­
tion of immaturity is pertinent in the plan­
ning of activities for this age level.

The preadolescent and early adolescent under­
goes changes which affect the self-concept. The
youngster is in an in-between world, separate
from the family and the rest of the adult world.
This is a time of sensitivity and acute percep­
tion, a crucial time in preparation for adult­
hood. This is the age of sex-role identifica­
tion. The youngsters model themselves after a
same-sex adult and seek support from the samesex peer group. The youngster needs to be
accepted by the peer group. The attitudes of
the group affect the judgment of the individual
child. There is the necessity for developing
many social skills— especially those regarding
the opposite sex. There are dramatic changes
in activity: dancing, slang, kidding, practi­
cal joke give and take, etc. Common areas
should be provided in the building for social
interaction among small groups.

The middle school curricular and co-curricular
programs should provide physical activities
based solely on the needs of the students.
Involvement in the program as a participant
rather than as a spectator is critical for
students. A broad range of intramural
experiences that provide physical activity
for all students should be provided to sup­
plement the physical education classes,
which should center their activity upon
helping students understand and use their
bodies. The middle school should feature
intramural activities rather than inter­
scholastic activities.

Activities that emulate the high school program
are inappropriate for the middle school. The
stages of their physical development are diverse
and the question of immaturity is pertinent in
planning activities for this age level. The
wide range of physical, emotional, and social
development found in youngsters of middle school
age strongly suggests a diverse program. The
child's body is rapidly developing. The rela­
tionship of attitude and physical skill must be
considered in planning physical activities con­
sistent with the concern for growth toward inde­
pendence in learning. The emphasis should be
upon the development of fundamental skills as
well as using these skills in a variety of
activities.
Intramural activity involves maxi­
mum participation, whereas interscholastic
activity provides minimum involvement. There
is no sound educational reason for interscho­
lastic athletics. Too often they serve merely
as public entertainment, and encourage an over­
emphasis on specialization at the expense of the
majority of the student body.

T ab l e 2 . 2 . — C o n t i n u e d .
Principle

What and Why

Explanation

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 stu­
dents a variety of resource persons.

Team teaching provides an opportunity for
teacher talents to reach greater numbers of
students and for teacher weaknesses to be min­
imized. This organizational pattern requires
teacher planning time and an individualized
student program if it is to function most
effectively.

Planned gradualism

The middle school should provide experiences
that assist early adolescents in making the
transition fron childhood dependence to adult
independence, thereby helping them to bridge
the gap between elementary school and high
school.

The transition period is marked by new physi­
cal phenomena in boys and girls which brings
about the need for learning to manage their
bodies and erotic sensations without embar­
rassment. Awareness of new concepts of self
and new problems of social behavior and the
need for developing many social skills is
relevant. There is a responsibility to help
the rapidly developing person assert his right
to make many more decisions about his own
behavior, his social life, management of
money, choice of friends, in general, to make
adult, independent decisions. The transition
involves a movement away from a dependence
upon what can be perceived in the immediate
environment to a level of hypothesizing and
dealing with abstractions. There is an estab­
lishment of a level of adult-like thought and
a desire to test ideas in school as well as
social situations.

Exploratory &
enrichment studies

The program should be broad enough to meet
the individual interests of the students
for which it wes 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.

Levels of retention are increased when stu­
dents learn by "doing" and understanding is
more complete when viewed from a wide range
of experiences. Time should be spent enrich­
ing the student's concept of himself and the
world around him, rather than learning sub­
ject matter in the traditional form. A stu­
dent should be allowed to investigate his
interests on school time, and to progress on
his own as he is ready.

to

T a bl e 2 . 2 . — C o n t i n u ed .
Principle

What and Why

Explanation

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.

The middle school child needs and should
receive counseling on many matters. Each
teacher should "counsel" the child regarding
his learning opportunities and progress in
respective areas. Each child should perhaps
be a member of a home-base group led by a
teacher-counselor, someone who watches out for
his welfare. Puberty and its many problems
require expert guidance for the youngsters, so
a professional counselor should be available
to the individual youngster.

Independent study

The program should provide an opportunity
for students to spend time studying indi­
vidual interests or needs that do not
appear in the organized curricular offer­
ings.

A child's own intellectual curiosity motivates
him to carry on independently of the group,
with the teacher serving as a resource person.
Independent study may be used in connection
with organized knowledge, or with some special
interest or hobby. The student pursues his
work, after it has been defined, and uses his
teachers, various materials available in and
out of school, and perhaps even other students
as his sources. He grows in self-direction
through various activities and use of material
of his choice.

Basic skill repair
and extension

The middle school program should provide
opportunities for students to receive
clinical help in learning basic skills.
The basic education program fostered in
the elementary school should be extended
in the middle school.

Because of individual differences some young­
sters have not entirely mastered the basic
skills. These students should be provided
organized opportunities to improve their
skills. Learning must be made attractive,
and many opportunities to practice reading,
listening, asking questions, etc., must be
planned in every classroom. Formal special­
ized instruction in the basic skills may be
necessary and should be available.

T ab l e 2 . 2 . —C on t i nu e d.
Principle

What and Why

Explanation

Creative experiences

The middle school program should include
opportunities for students to express them­
selves in creative ways. Student newspapers,
student dramatic creations, student oratori­
cal creations, musical programs, and other
student-centered, student-directed, studentdeveloped activities should be encouraged.

Students should be free to do some divergent
thinking and explore various avenues to vari­
ous possible answers. There should be time
allowed for thinking without pressure, and a
place for unusual ideas and unusual questions
to be considered with respect. Media for
expressing the inner feelings should be pro­
vided. Art, music, and drama provide oppor­
tunities for expression of personal feelings.

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 posi­
tive manner; a peer group that meets regu­
larly and represents more than administra­
tive convenience in its use of time.

Teachers need time to give the individual
student the attention he needs, to help in
counseling and curriculum situations. The
student needs someone in school that he can
be comfortable with.

Evaluation

The middle school program should provide
an evaluation of a student's work that is
personal, positive in nature, nonthreaten­
ing, and strictly individualized. The stu­
dent should be allowed to assess his own
progress and plan for future progress.

A student needs more information than a let­
ter grade provides and he needs more secu­
rity than the traditional evaluation system
offers. Traditional systems seem to be puni­
tive. The middle school youngster needs a
supportive atmosphere that helps to generate
confidence and a willingness to explore new
areas of learning. Student-teacher planning
helps to encourage the students to seek new
areas. Student-teacher evaluation sessions
can help to create a mutual understanding
of problems and also to provide a more mean­
ingful report for parents. Parent-teacherstudent conferences on a scheduled and
unscheduled basis should be the basic
reporting method. Competitive letter grade
evaluation should be replaced with open
pupi1-teacher-parent communications.

T a bl e 2 . 2 . - - C o n t i n u e d .
Pri nci pie

What and Why

Explanation

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.

The middle school houses students at a time
when they are eager to be invovled in activi­
ties with their parents. The school should
encourage this natural attitude. The middle
school has facilities that can be used to
good advantage by community groups.

Student services

The middle school should provide a broad
spectrum of specialized services for stu­
dents. Community, county, and state agen­
cies should be utilized to expand the
range of specialists to its broadest pos­
sible extent.

Health services, counseling services, test­
ing, opportunities for individual develop­
ment (curricular and co-curricular) meeting
the interests and needs of each child should
be provided.

Auxiliary staffing

The middle school should utilize a highly
diversified array of personnel such as
volunteer parents, teacher aides, clerical
aides, student volunteers, and other simi­
lar types of support staffing that help
to facilitate the teaching staff.

Auxiliary staffing is needed to provide the
individual help students require. A variety
of teacher aides or paraprofessioiic:s may be
used to extend the talents of the profes­
sional staff.

Source:

L. G. Romano, J. Riegle, and N. P. Georgiady.

36

Hawkins
device

to

(1972)

ascertain

used t h e
actual

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

middle

and

f our

practices

other

a measuring
in

nationally

selected

Michigan middle

schools

middle sc hools .

He found t h a t th e f our n a t i o n a l l y prominent middle

schools were applying the

in

school

as

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

to

prominent

a significantly

h ig her degree than were th e 63% o f Michigan middle schools
replied to

h is

prin cip als

he

survey.

He f u r t h e r

s u rv ey ed

viewed

found t h a t

the

the

application

teachers
of

the

that
and
18

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to be of v i r t u a l l y th e same degree.
Butera (1972) surveyed th e l i t e r a t u r e and found 8 v a r i a b l e s and
53 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t should be p r e s e n t in middle sch o o ls .

He

surveyed a l l middle-level schools in New J e r s e y and scored each of
them on t h e i r lev el of a p p l i c a t i o n o f the e i g h t v a r i a b l e s .

He found

t h a t most New J e rs e y middle schools did not possess a high number of
th e observable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

that

little

difference existed

in

th e actu al p r a c t i c e s of New Je rs e y middle and j u n i o r high sch o o ls ,
and t h a t t h e r e was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in th e p r a c t i c e s of
those middle schools scoring in th e top q u a r t i l e o f th e v a r i a b l e s
and t h e t o t a l sample of middle schools.
S t a rk (1972) compared Arkansas middle schools and j u n i o r high
sc hools .

He rec eived survey r e s u l t s from 94% o f th e middle schools

and 88% of th e j u n i o r high sch oo ls.

S ta rk found t h a t t h e r e was no

s i g n i f i c a n t philo so ph ic al or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between the
two s e t s

of

sch ools,

that

most middle

schools

had adopted

th e

p r a c t i c e s considered most de tr im ental by c r i t i c s o f th e j u n i o r high

37
schools, and t h a t th e primary reason f o r changing to a middle school
was bui lding use.
In a study of middle school p r a c t i c e s , Good (1972) examined the
o r g a n iz a tio n a l s t r u c t u r e , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s , and programs o f
middle schools

in Pennsylvania.

He found t h a t

th e purposes

and

o b j e c t i v e s o f the middle schools r e f l e c t e d an i n t e r e s t in th e "whole
c h i l d " philosophy in e x p l o r a t io n , in i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , and in the
development o f l e a r n in g s k i l l s .

However, he a l s o found t h a t the

lev el of innovation was low and incompatible with t h e se purposes and
that

the

o r g a n i z a ti o n a l

structures

of

the

i n c o n s i s t e n t with th e purposes o f th e schools.
th e ir instructional

middle

schools

were

He a l s o found t h a t

p o l i c i e s were a t var iance with t h e i r purposes

and t h a t many stu d en t a c t i v i t y programs were " i n a p p r o p r i a t e . "
In 1972,
f u n c t io n s ,

Gross

s tu d ied

the

pr esen t

and

perceived

and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the middle school.

50% of th e known middle schools with
p o s s ib l e middle school purposes.

purposes,

He surveyed

a survey c o n s i s t i n g

of 49

This survey was augmented by an

op in io n n aire c o n s i s t i n g of th e same 49 p o s s i b l e purposes, which he
sent to 150 n a t i o n a l l y prominent middle school educa to rs i d e n t i f i e d
from the l i t e r a t u r e .

Gross found t h a t the middle school p r i n c i p a l s

and th e n a t i o n a l l y prominent a u t h o r i t i e s agreed almost unanimously
on th e f i r s t 15 purposes and t h a t the 7 purposes ranked l a s t were
r a t e d as unnecessary by both groups.

The two groups disagr ee d on

the purposes ranked from 16 through 42, concerning whether i t was
necessary to e x h i b i t t h e s e in a middle school.

All but 1 of th e 15

38
purposes were included

among th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of

R ie g le ’ s

(1971) study.
B i l l i n g s (1973) developed a s e l e c t i o n of middle school c r i t e r i a
c o n s i s t i n g of 78 items t h a t he had c u l l e d from th e l i t e r a t u r e .
attem pted

to

identify

those

c rite ria

implementation in middle schools in Texas.
although

au th o rities

in t h e

field

and

analyze

Billings

He

th eir

found t h a t ,

o f m id d l e sc hool

education

demonstrated a high degree o f co n sis tency in t h e i r det er m in ati on of
th e c r i t e r i a necessary f o r middle school s t a t u s , middle schools in
Texas did not evidence implementation of those c r i t e r i a .
B ligh t (1973) attempted to i d e n t i f y the unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
o f th e emergent middle school and to e s t a b l i s h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t
would d e l i n e a t e the emergent middle school.
nationally

prominent

middle

school

From the w r i t i n g s of

authorities,

he

extracted

33

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and organized them i n to a model t h a t co ntained seven
categories.

Bli ght

interviewed

25 middle school

principals

and

found t h a t the m ajo rity of them accepted a l l 33 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
t h a t they agreed in general

with th e a u t h o r i t i e s

w r itin g

in the

f i e l d on th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t made the middle school unique.
In a study of Arkansas middle schools, Daniel (1973) endeavored
to determine the level o f implementation of nine bas ic middle school
characteristics

as

set

forth

in the

literature.

He found t h a t

Arkansas middle schools did not implement th e nine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
t o an a p p r ecia b le degree.
F r a n k li n ’ s (1973) study o f middle school p r a c t i c e s in V ir g in i a
was undertaken t o i d e n t i f y observable p r a c t i c e s f o r middle schools

39

as proposed in th e l i t e r a t u r e and t o as s e s s th e degree t o which
these

practices

were in e f f e c t

in V ir g in ia middle

sc ho ols.

He

i d e n t i f i e d 12 p r a c t i c e s in th e area s o f i n s t r u c t i o n and o r g a n i z a t io n
and interviewed every middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r in t h e s t a t e .

All

12 p r a c t i c e s Fran klin i d e n t i f i e d were a l s o included among R i e g l e ’ s
(1971) 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Franklin found t h a t 5 o f th e 12 were

p r a c t i c e d to an a p p r ecia b le degree and t h a t th e remaining 7 were not
in general p r a c t i c e .
In 1973,

Fontenot

investigated

sim ilarities

and d i f f e r e n c e s

between middle schools and j u n i o r high schools in Louisiana.

He

determined

that

middle

schools

in

op e r a t io n ,

with

grade

structure

feature.

In h i s

Hughes

(1974)

study of

found

that

resembled j u n i o r
being

s e le c te d
the

the

high

most

schools

distinguishable

Pennsylvania middle

o r g a n iz a ti o n a l

patterns

schools,
of

those

schools were t y p i f i e d by team teaching w ith in g rad es .
Raymer

(1974)

attempted

to

determine

th e

implementation of th e 18 bas ic middle school
Riegle had i d e n t i f i e d in 1971.

current

level

of

characteristics that

Raymer used a n a ti o n a l

sample of

middle schools to c o n t r a s t with a Michigan sample o f middle sch oo ls.
He found

that

Michigan middle

schools

with

grades

6 through

8

implemented and p r a c t i c e d th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o a higher degree
than th e n atio n al sample of middle schools, but t h a t th e r ev ers e was
t r u e f o r schools with grades 5 through 8.
In a study o f middle school

programs

in C a l i f o r n i a ,

Kramer

(1974) i n v e s t i g a t e d the degree o f implementation of 18 ba s ic middle

40
school

characteristics

level.

in

all

California

schools

at

th e

middle

He found t h a t approximately 50% o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had

been implemented in middle-le vel C a l i f o r n i a sc hools , but he s t a t e d
t h a t no f u r t h e r implementation would p r e v a il u n t i l " t r a i n e d teac hing
s t a f f s " provided impetus f o r change.
Bloom (1974)
determine

conducted

th e e x t e n t o f

principles

th e

a study

of

W isc o n sin

implementation

underlying t h e middle school

schools

o f 30 middle

concept

in t h e

to

school

areas

of

... cu rriculum , i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s , s p e c ia l s e r v i c e s , and programs.
Her 30 p r a c t i c e s could be summarized in to th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
R iegle’s

(1971)

study.

Bloom found

th at,

in

the

area

of

i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s , Wisconsin middle schools showed a g r e a t e r
tendency t o implement th e p r i n c i p l e s than did j u n i o r high schools.
However,

t h e r e was not a high degree o f

implementation o f th ose

p r i n c i p l e s considered by a u t h o r i t i e s to be b a s ic t o middle school
education in Wisconsin middle schools.
Bourgeois’ s (1974) study of a beginning middle school program
demonstrated t h a t th e r e was a p o s i t i v e growth in studen t achievement
during the f i r s t y ear o f a middle school program t h a t used as i t s
p r i n c i p l e s 5 o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

o f R i e g l e ’ s (1971)

study.

However, th e evidence was t h a t th e growth in achievement was not
co nclusive concerning the program’ s e f f e c t on s t u d e n t s .

There was

no contr ol group, and the study had a number of flaws.
As

a

result

of

his

study

of

Utah

sc ho ols,

Dunham

(1974)

concluded t h a t th e reason f o r th e move t o th e middle school was to
meet more adequately the individ ua l

needs of s tu d e n t s .

The data

41

in d i c a te d t h a t the m ajo rity o f th e emerging middle schools in Utah
were stu d en t o r ie n te d and organized on a 6-8 p a t t e r n .
of

this

study

investigations

contrasted
(M itchell,

with

those

of

The r e s u l t s

several

previous

1 9 7 5 ) , which had i n d i c a t e d t h a t

the

primary reason f o r the move t o middle schools was not to b e t t e r meet
t h e needs o f s t u d e n t s , but i n s t e a d to manage enrollment problems.
In

her

1975

study

of

student,

teacher,

and

p rincipal

p e r c e p t io n s of o r g a n iz a tio n a l s t r u c t u r e s o f middle schools with high
and low l e v e l s o f middle school

concept implementation, Caul

used

R i e g l e ’ s (1971) q u e s ti o n n a i r e to determine the implementation lev el
o f middle school concepts.
higher

level

of

characteristics

She found t h a t middle schools with a

implementation

of

the

had a more p a r t i c i p a t i v e

18

m id d le

o r g a n iz a t io n a l

s ch ool
structure

and t h a t th e management p r a c t i c e s of th e p r i n c i p a l s of those schools
were r e f l e c t e d in te a c h e r management p r a c t i c e s toward s tu d e n t s .
Cave’ s (1975) study of middle schools and j u n i o r high schools
in the Rocky Mountain region demonstrated t h a t middle schools in Lhe
region

did

not

characteristics

incorporate

styles,

greater

percentage

than did j u n i o r high schools.

t h a t m id d l e school
te aching

a

of

the

I t was a l s o found

i n n o v a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g e x t e n s i v e ch a n g e s

g r a de-l evel

organization,

c o o p e r a t i o n between t e a c h e r s e n j o y e d l e s s

18

schedule

changes,

in
and

l i k e l i h o o d o f b e in g

adopted than those not r e q u i r i n g such e x tens iv e changes.
Rosenau

(1975)

concluded

that

a

number

should be inc or po ra ted into every middle school

of

characteristics

program.

Of the

42
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s he s tu d ied , a l l had been included in R i e g l e ’ s (1971)
o r i g i n a l l i s t of 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
The purpose o f Phelps’ s (1975) study o f Georgia middle schools
was t o

in v estigate

th eir

statu s.

She c o n c l u d e d

that

their

cur riculum was very s im i l a r to t h a t o f j u n i o r high sc hoo ls, with the
exception

of the

predominant

inclusion

o r g a n iz a ti o n

was

of

some r e l a t e d

arts.

d e p a r tm e n ta l iz a t io n

The most

in

both

middle

schools and j u n i o r high schools.
Unruh (1975)

used a nationwide

sample of t h r e e

schools and t h r e e middle schools from each s t a t e .

junior

high

He found t h a t , in

r e f e r e n c e to t h e i r curriculum, middle schools more f r e q u e n t l y used
d ifferentiated

staffin g ,

flex ib le

scheduling,

individualized

i n s t r u c t i o n , and team t eaching, a l l o f which were p a r t of R i e g l e ’ s
(1971) 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
of

organizational

instructional

Unruh concluded, however, t h a t in terms

patterns,

programs,

groups

and a c t i v i t y

of

subjects

programs,

schools were more a l i k e than d i f f e r e n t

th e

stu d ied ,

two types

and tended t o

of

follow the

p a t t e r n of the previous two oecaoes.
According to Kopko’s (1976) study o f New J e r s e y middle schools,
th e schools were only moderately ( a t the 50th to 74th p e r c e n t i l e )
implementing th e

recommendations

Force on In te rm ediate

Education

of th e

publication

in New J e r s e y ,

of

entitled

th e

Task

"Middle

School: An Idea Whose Time Has Come."
Walsh (1977) s tu d ied th e s e lf - c o n c e p t of s tu d en ts in Michigan
middle schools co ntain in g both high and low l e v e l s o f implementation
of the 18 b a s ic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle sch oo ls.

Her purpose was

43

to determine whether a d i f f e r e n c e

existed

in

s t u d e n t s ’ level

s e lf - c o n c e p t in e i t h e r o f th e two types o f schools.

of

Walsh concluded

t h a t no d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d in s t u d e n t s ’ s e lf - c o n c e p t t h a t r e l a t e d t o
th e lev el of implementation of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Green
principals

(1977)
in

attem pted

Michigan

to

junior

ascertain

high

the

schools

perceptions

and

middle

of

schools

concerning the degree to which t h e i r schools implemented 55 s e l e c t e d
p r a c t i c e s recommended in th e l i t e r a t u r e .
substantial

difference

"implemented"

and

"should

between
be

The r e s u l t s

prin cip als’

implemented"

on

indicated a

perceptions
the

survey

of

scale;

p r i n c i p a l s ’ pe rce pti ons were g r e a t e r on th e "should be implemented"
s e c t io n of the s c a l e .
Bohlinger

(1977)

investigated

the

implementation of 18 basic middle school
schools housing grades 5-8 and 6-8.
implemented

level

characteristics

of

in Ohio

He concluded t h a t Ohio middle

schools

had not

degree.

The t o t a l score of 50.5% supported t h i s conclusion.

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

th e

current

18

characteristics

to

a

great
Of the

none had an implementation score hig he r than

80%.
In 1978, Beckmann conducted a study of Missouri middle schools
to determine th e c u r r e n t level
middle school
instrument.

principles.

He,

o f implementation of th e 18 basic
too,

used R ie g le ’ s

(1971)

survey

Beckmann found t h a t schools whose name included th e

words middle school, when compared with those t h a t c a l l e d themselves
j u n i o r high schools, made s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores in 7 o f the 18

44
areas.

However, although schools with the t i t l e

"middle school"

were s l i g h t l y higher in applying the b a s ic middle school p r i n c i p l e s ,
the

differences

between

the

two

types

of

schools

were

not

s ta t i s t i c a l l y significant.
Bell (1978) i n v e s t i g a t e d 11 area s o f d i f f e r e n c e between j u n i o r
high and middle schools in Missouri.

He, too,

found t h a t middle

schools and j u n i o r high schools were more a l i k e than d i f f e r e n t on
selected

characteristics

of adm inistration,

organization,

and

cur riculum.
Demps

(1978)

studied

the

relationship

between

teach ers’

pe r c e p tio n s of job s a t i s f a c t i o n and t h e i r perceptions o f th e level
of

im plementation

of R ie g le ’ s

(1971)

18 b a s i c

m id d l e

school

characteristics.

He found t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d

between

schoo l

m id d le

perceptions
school

o f the

teachers’

level

characteristics.

of

job

satisfactio n

implementation

of

He al s o discovered

th e

that

no

and

th eir

ba s ic

middle

significant

d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between p r i n c i p a l s ’ and t e a c h e r s ’ perceptions of
the le ve l o f implementation o f the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Wah (1980) a ls o used R i e g le ’ s (1971) q u e s ti o n n a ir e about the 18
middle school

characteristics.

Wah determined t h a t

th e longer a

middle school had been o p e r a tin g , th e g r e a t e r th e number of middle
school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i t had implemented.
number o f t e a c h e r s who s a i d

they

philosophy had no i nfl uen c e on t h e i r
school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
70 s t a f f members.

He a l s o found t h a t the

accepted

the

m i d d le

school

responses t o the 18 middle

Wah’ s study involved only fo ur schools and

45
Pook’ s (1980) study concerned t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between te a c h e r
job

satisfaction

m id d le

school

and th e

level

of

ch aracteristics.

implementation
She used

of

recommended

R iegle’ s

(1971)

18

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and found t h a t schools with high,

medium,

or low

levels

did

differ

of

implementation

of

th e

characteristics

s i g n i f i c a n t l y in terms of te a c h e r job s a t i s f a c t i o n .

not

However, Pook

found t h a t the higher th e degree o f implementation o f middle school
p r a c t i c e s , the g r e a t e r the s a t i s f a c t i o n with school curriculum and
facilities.
In a study o f middle

schools

in New J e r s e y ,

Schuck

(1982)

concluded t h a t th e r e was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e d e s i r a b l e and
observable

ch aracteristics

of

m id d le

schools

and

student

achievement.
Using a 24-question c r i t e r i o n s c a l e , Middleton (1982) studied
the r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e degree o f perceived implementation of
criteria

a s s o c i a t e d with th e middle

characteristics

of middle

school

school

teachers.

concept
She

and

found

s e le c t e d
that

the

amount of school time devoted t o s t a f f development was p o s i t i v e l y
a s s o c ia te d with the implementation of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s but t h a t
age, years of exper ienc e, and te a c h e r gender were not a s s o c i a t e d in
any way with implementation o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
In a 1982 study, S l a t e attempted t o determine how middle school
programs in Georgia had changed during the previous f i v e y e a r s with
regard to

15 middle school

characteristics.

She concluded

that

t h e r e had been an increase in th e amount o f implementation o f the
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s she studied over t h e previous f i v e y e a r s .

46
Sch indler (1982) conducted a study with a s t r a t i f i e d sample of
10 exemplary middle schools and 150 nationa l
found

that

both

gr o u p s

were

middle s chools .

im plem enting

the

He

philosophical

p r i n c i p l e s o f the middle school concept and moving away from j u n i o r
high school models.
concerted e f f o r t

The exemplary middle schools showed th e most

t o provide

a curricular

program unique

to

the

middle school s tu d e n t.
In 1985, Minster completed a study t o determine th e c u r r e n t
lev el of implementation of 18 bas ic middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as
reported

by

a

random

superintendents

in

sample

selected

of

teachers,

Illin o is

m id d le

p rin c ip a ls,
schools.

and
Using

qu es tio ns in R ie g le ’ s (1971) survey instrument, Minster found t h a t
s u p e rin te n d e n ts rep or ted a higher degree o f implementation o f the 18
characteristics

than

did

principals,

and

principals

a

higher degree

of implementation o f th e

teachers.

f in din gs a l s o supported the i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e r e was

The

characteristics

r e p o rte d

than did

not a high degree of implementation o f the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; the
t o t a l average score was between 50% and 54%.
Magana (1987) r e p l i c a t e d M in ste r’ s study in Wisconsin sch ools.
Her

f in d i n g s

were

sim ilar

to

M in s te r ’ s

( s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s and p r i n c i p a l s )
implementation

of ne a r ly a l l

in

that

administrators

perceived a higher degree

of the

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of

than did

teachers.
Summary
From th e e a r l y 1960s, when the tre nd toward the middle school
concept f i r s t began t o be discu ssed in th e l i t e r a t u r e , t o t h e e a r l y

47
1970s, when R i e g l e ’ s (1971) landmark d i s s e r t a t i o n concerning th e 18
characteristics

o f middle

school education was published ,

to the

p r e s e n t , th e tre nd toward middle schools with t h e i r focus on meeting
the

in d iv id ual

needs o f s tu d e n ts has

steadily

progressed.

New

programs have been developed f o r t h i s age group, t h e uniqueness of
this

age group

has been e s t a b l i s h e d ,

numerous

surveys have been

conducted and d i s s e r t a t i o n s published about middle school educ ation,
and more than 4,000 middle schools ar e in o p e r a t i o n .
review

of

th e

interest

in ,

Riegle’s

(1971)

literature

shows a

plethora

of

and d isc u s s io n of what c o n s t i t u t e s
investigation

remains the

Even a cursory
articles

about,

a middle school.

landmark study

in

th e

expanding f i e l d of information about t h i s unique age of stu dent.
S tudies of the Secondary School Recognition Program
A c l o s e in sp ec tio n of th e c r i t e r i a and area s o f measurement f o r
t h e SSRP demonstrates t h a t the c r i t e r i a provide a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a
d i r e c t and simple s t y l e o f management f o r a m idd le-lev el school.

It

i s f a i r l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the way " t i g h t ship" schools have been
run during much of the tw e n ti e th century.

St. C l a i r (1984) s t a t e d

t h a t th e c r i t e r i a ar e "incomplete, not f a u l t y " and t h a t "when one
compares t h e DOE’ s l i s t with th e NASSP’ s l i s t o f components f o r good
middle

lev el

sc hools ,

th e

d is c r e p a n c i e s

in

style

and

tone

are

immediately obvious" (p. 1).
The NASSP’ s components were put t o g e t h e r over a period of e i g h t
y ears by p r a c t i c i n g school

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s working with u n i v e r s i t y

48
personnel who s p e c i a l i z e in middle-level

ed ucation

(NASSP, 1979).

The NASSP’ s l i s t was updated in 1983.
Garvin (1984) wrote t h a t :
As one reads t h e n a tio n a l r e p o r t s , one should keep in mind t h a t
th e recommendations ar e not n e c e s s a r i l y based on e f f e c t i v e
s c h o o l s , but a r e , i n s t e a d , recomm en da tion s f o r c o r r e c t i n g
i n e f f e c t i v e ones. The fin d in g s o f t h e SSRP reveal f a c t o r s t h a t
a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s in i d e n t i f i e d ex em plary
sch oo ls.
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t t h e s e f i n d i n g s , a t l e a s t on
t h e middle grade l e v e l , do not ofte n agree with those of th e
na tional r e p o r t s , (p. 31)
Schindler (1982) used as one o f h i s t h r e e sample groups ten
exemplary middle schools.

One o f the study fin d in g s was t h a t the

exemplary middle schools showed the most concerted e f f o r t t o provide
a c u r r i c u l a r program unique t o th e middle school s tu d e n t.
H o s t e t l e r (1984) attempted to determine to what e x t e n t th e r e
was

agreement

between

l e a d e r s h ip

behavior

in

companies and America’ s most e f f e c t i v e schools.

America’ s

b es t- run

He used a sample of

82 schools recognized by the SSRP.

H o s t e t l e r found t h a t agreement

existed

the

between

principals

the

managers

of e f f e c t i v e

management.

Also,

p rin c ip a ls

ab out

of

schools

general

as to

best-run

companies

th e e i g h t

b a s ic s

and

of qood

agreement e x i s t e d between t e a c h e r s and

leadership

style

in

schools

recognized

for

exc e l le n c e .
Jameson’s (1985) study of Arizona’ s exemplary school
included a l l
since the

program

of the schools in th e s t a t e recognized as exemplary

inception

o f t h e program.

Her s t u d y

involved

the

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the p r i n c i p a l s o f these schools as r e l a t e d to t h e i r
personality,

formal

training,

and o n - th e -j o b exper ien ce .

Jameson

49
found t h a t p r i n c i p a l s perceived themselves to be o p e rating mainly on
th e b a s is of t h e i r o n - th e -jo b experience; te a c h e r s perceived t h e i r
principals

to

be o p erati ng mainly on th e

b a s is

of th e ir

formal

training.
In a 1985 study, Laurie sought t o determine th e communication
p a t t e r n s o f p r i n c i p a l s of exemplary secondary schools in Kansas.
His sample was the 29 schools i d e n t i f i e d as exemplary in th e 1983-84
Kansas Exemplary School

Program.

Laurie found t h a t t e a c h e r s

and

p r i n c i p a l s perceived th e p r i n c i p a l s ’ communication p a t t e r n s d i f f e r ­
ently.
O’Donnell (1985) i n v e s t i g a t e d the c o r r e l a t i o n s of r i s k tak ing
and o t h e r

s e le c t e d

schools.

He sought

schools

s e le c t e d

in

variables
da ta
the

among s uperi ntendents

from 175

s uperi ntendents

SSRP during

th e

1983-84

of

exemplary

of

exemplary

school

year.

O’Donnell found t h a t r i s k ta king was g r e a t e r among s u p e rin te n d e n ts
who had a l a r g e c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t a f f , whose d i s t r i c t s spent more per
p u p il, who had been employed longer as a f u l l - t i m e t e a c h e r before
achieving a superintendency,

and who were younger a t the time of

t h e i r f i r s t superintendency.
Brown (1985) stu d ie d t h e l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e of p r i n c i p a l s of th e
schools
year.

s e le c t e d

f o r national

re c o g n it io n

in

the

1983-84

school

The sample included a l l 202 of the secondary schools s e le c t e d

th a t year.

Brown concluded t h a t the s t y l e o f th e p r i n c i p a l s was

high l e a d e r s h i p - h i g h t a s k , as d e l i n e a t e d by Hershey and Blanchard’ s
(1977) s i t u a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h ip theory.

50
Mason (1987) used as her s u b je c ts schools in Washington, D.C.,
t h a t had been s e le c t e d as exemplary by th e SSRP.

The study was

concerned with computer use in t h e s e secondary schools.
Koger (1987) i n v e s t i g a t e d th e l e a d e r s h i p a c t i v i t i e s ,

beliefs,

and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l 209 p r i n c i p a l s o f schools s e l e c t e d by the
SSRP in 1984-85.
and 39 s p e c i f i c

He i d e n t i f i e d from the l i t e r a t u r e 7 general areas
instructional

l e a d e r s h ip a c t i v i t i e s .

Koger found

t h a t the most important b e l i e f o f p r i n c i p a l s was t h a t a l l s tu dents
can l e a r n .
In a 1987 study of secondary schools recognized as exemplary by
th e USDOE,

Fink des cr ibe d

community involvement

in

28

secondary

schools in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana t h a t had been s e l e c t e d over a
t h r e e - y e a r per iod.

He found t h a t sup erin ten d en ts and p r i n c i p a l s in

t h e s e schools had a c t i v e l y sought and s tr o n g ly encouraged community
involvement and had nur tur ed i t .
Suprina (1987) s tu d ied four high schools s e l e c t e d as exemplary
by th e SSRP.

His purpose was to d e f i n e the f a c t o r s lead in g to t h e i r

ex cellence and to c o n t r a s t those four schools with another ty p ic a l
high

school.

From h i s

study,

Suprina

developed

a

list

of

recommendations designed to transform an average high school in to a
candidate f o r rec o g n it io n by th e SSRP.
S cott (1987) sought t o determine th e p r a c t i c e s c u r r e n t l y in use
in

effective

suburban

high

schools

that

had

been

s e le c t e d

as

exemplary by the 1984 SSRP.

A f te r reading a l l of th e a p p l i c a t i o n s

o f th e

schools,

nationally

selected

Scott

developed

a

list

of

51

practices

that

had been

re port ed

by th e s e

exemplary

schools

as

evidence of t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s , in rank o r d e r o f frequency.
Kolton

(1988)

compared p r a c t i c e s

of principals

in

secondary

schools i d e n t i f i e d as exemplary by th e SSRP with th ose o f p r i n c i p a l s
o f nonexemplary sc hools.

He found t h a t

principals

of identified

exemplary schools devoted l e s s time t o c l e r i c a l t a s k s , were younger,
had l e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ex per ience, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y
to

have

career

principalship,

aspirations

other

than

the

secondary

s chool

and spent l e s s time on stu d en t d i s c i p l i n e than did

p r i n c i p a l s o f nonexemplary schools.
Nelon

(1988)

sought

to

determ ine

whether

there

was

a

r e l a t i o n s h i p between a p r i n c i p a l ’ s behavior and t h e o r g a n i z a ti o n a l
clim ate

in s e le c t e d exemplary schools.

The study

involved

only

t h r e e North Caro lina schools t h a t had been s e le c t e d as exemplary in
the

1985

and

1986 SSRP.

Nelon

found

a close

and

significant

r e l a t i o n s h i p between a p r i n c i p a l ’ s behavior and th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
clim ate in those schools.
W e s th o f f (1988) a t t e m p t e d t o draw a r e l a t i o n s h i p
Wisconsin’ s School

Improvement P r o je c t and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

s i x Wisconsin high schools
1986-87 SSRP.

School

o f the

s e le c t e d

as exemplary

in th e

(Three were s e le c t e d

f o r national

r e c o g n i t io n

t h r e e were n o t . )
criteria

between

s ta te ’s
and

Westhoff’ s purpose was to compare the USDOE’ s

for selection

as exemplary with those o f th e Wisconsin

Improvement P r o j e c t

t o d e t e r m i n e how c o n s i s t e n t

c r i t e r i a were in i d e n t i f y i n g successful secondary sc ho ols.

those
Results

o f the study in d ic a te d t h a t the instrument used in th e Wisconsin

52
School

Improvement P r o je c t

yielded

resu lts

selection

( th e

Connecticut

t h a t were c o n s i s t e n t

criteria

in t h e i r

with

identification

s chools .

The mean sc or es

of

recognized

schools were s i g n i f i c a n t l y

Staff

te a c h e r s

those

of

in

of th e

selected

th e

higher

Questionnair e)

three

SSRP

secondary
nationally

on each o f

the

12

c o n s t r u c t s f a c to r e d from t h e S t a f f Ques tionnaire than the score s of
teachers

from the

three

scho ols

that

had not

receiv ed

national

recognition.
Terry (1988) s tu d ied secondary school t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p ti o n s of
p r i n c i p a l s ’ l e a d e r s h ip behaviors in schools s e l e c t e d
r e c o g n i t i o n in 1982 and 1983.

f o r nation al

She found t h a t t e a c h e r s in exemplary

schools and those in nonrecognized schools had s i m i l a r perceptions
re gard ing t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’ behavior.
Arnn and Mangieri (1988) conducted a study o f th e 202 secondary
schools t h a t had received r e c o g n i t io n

in t h e 1983-84 SSRP.

The

r e s e a r c h e r s found t h a t th e top t h r e e teaching behaviors valued by
the p rincipals

( r e g a r d l e s s o f th e lev el

o r i e r i i a l i o n , enthusiasm and i n t e r e s t ,
three

of th e school) were ta s k

and d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n .

teach in g behaviors valued l e a s t

by t h e

The

p r i n c i p a l s were

v a r i a b i l i t y ( f l e x i b i l i t y of teach in g methods, e x t r a m a t e r i a l s ,
so on),

structuring

o p p o r tu n i ty

to

le a r n

(th e

amount

criterion

of

te a c h e r

m a t e r ia ls

c r i t e r i o n mat er ia l was covered in c l a s s ) .

direction),

(th e

extent

and

and th e
to

which

I t appeared from t h e i r

survey t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of e f f e c t i v e schools placed p r i o r i t y
on strong

goal

orientation,

active

assessment,

strong

academic s u b j e c t s , and t e a c h e r - i n i t i a t e d i n s t r u c t i o n .

focus

on

53

In

a

r ecen t

re se arch

project

in

Michigan,

R a t a jik

(1988)

co ncentrated on th e SSRP’ s s e l e c t i o n and d ete r m in a tio n p rocess .
ques tion

he

asked

was:

"Did

those

public

elementary

The

schools

s e l e c t e d f o r r e c o g n i tio n as exemplary by t h e Michigan Department of
Education

represent

th e

h ig h e s t

levels

of quality

in

Michigan?"

Five independent v a r i a b l e s t h a t were suggested to be a s so c ia te d with
th e

dependent

variable

of

an

exemplary

school

were

identified.

These v a r i a b l e s were derived from Parsons, Bales, and S h i l s ’ s (1953)
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l - e f f e c t i v e n e s s elements and from Mott’ s (1972) overall
organizational-effectiveness rating.

Also included in t h i s

study

were socioeconomic elements such as household income and educatio n,
and d i s t r i c t per-pupil ex p enditures.
The s e l e c t i o n o f s u b je c ts included a l l schools [in Michigan]
which applied f o r r e c o g n i tio n as an exemplary school in 1986,
including the 20 f i n a l i s t s which were u l t i m a t e l y s e l e c t e d .
As
a r e fe r e n c e p o in t t o compare the a p p l i c a n t schools, th e hig h est
achieving Michigan pub lic elementary schools were i d e n t i f i e d
a c c o r d i n g t o 1984, 1985 and 1986 f o u r t h g r a d e Michigan
Educational Assessment Program t e s t r e s u l t s .
Thus, t h r e e
c a t e g o r i e s of sch o o ls--"exem plary" ( th o s e chosen), "non­
exemplary" ( a p p l i c a n t s ) and "achievement" ( t e s t r e s u l t s ) - - w e r e
com pared.
4 The d a ta were c o l l e c t e d through surveys as well
as the [Michigan Department of Education] computer system.
The major fin d i n g s of th e study i n d i c a t e t h a t :
1.
No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s among
th e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f schools, except f o r pupil academic
achievement.
2. Schools which appli ed f o r exemplary s t a t u s have p u p i l achievement t e s t scores which ar e s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower . . .
than schools which were i d e n t i f i e d based upon highes t p u p ilacademic achievement.
3. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e , between
th e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f schools, when comparing household
income, h o u s e h o l d e d u c a t i o n and s ch ool d i s t r i c t p e r - p u p i l
exp en diture. . . .
Thus, o n l y one s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a p p e a r s between
pu blic elementary schools involved in t h i s study:
schools

54
which ap plied f o r exemplary s t a t u s have pupil achievement t e s t
score s which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than schools which were
i d e n t i f i e d based upon th e h ig h e s t pupil academic achievement.
The o r g a n iz a ti o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s elements used in t h i s s tudy -pupil achievement, s t a f f commitment, s t a f f inn ova tion , s t a f f
c o h e s i v e n e s s and o v e r a l l b u i l d i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s - - a r e n o t
r e l a t e d t o th e s e l e c t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f th e schools which
app lied f o r exemplary s t a t u s . . . . The a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s
thought t o e x i s t between exemplary and non-exemplary schools do
not e x i s t .
Even more unexpected was th e f a c t t h a t th e socioeconomic
elements have no apparent e f f e c t on any one o f th e t h r e e s e t s
o f sch oo ls. How much money a school d i s t r i c t spends per pupil
has l i t t l e or no e f f e c t on th e s e l e c t i o n o f an exemplary school
or on how well th e pu p ils achieve. Family income has l i t t l e or
no e f f e c t on th e s e l e c t i o n of an exemplary school or how well
p u p i l s achieve.
Family education has l i t t l e or no e f f e c t on
t h e s e l e c t i o n o f an exemplary school or how well pup ils
achieve, (pp. 22-23)
Connors and I rv i n (1989) attempted to determine whether th e way
a school i s organized f o r i n s t r u c t i o n and student l i f e
t o " e x c e l le n c e . "

co n tr ib u ted

They believed t h a t t h e r e might be a r e l a t i o n s h i p

between "middle-schoolness" (th e degree to which a school adheres to
the

middle

school

concept)

and

e x cellen ce.

They

conducted

a

na tio n a l study whose purpose was to determine i f t h e r e was indeed a
d i f f e r e n c e in t h e degree of middle-schoolness between schools c i t e d
as

excellent

sch oo ls.

by

th e

SSKP and

a

random sample

of

middle-level

S u b s t a n t ia l d i f f e r e n c e s were found between th e two groups.

T h e i r sample c om pris ed t h e

93 m i d d l e - l e v e l

"recognized" by the USDOE in 1987, as well

schools

t h a t were

as a random national

sample of 154 nonrecognized middle-level schools s erv in g grades 6,
7, and 8.

The response r a t e was 83% f o r the former group and 57%

f o r t h e l a t t e r group.
The s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t was a 1982 N a t i o n a l

Middle School

As sociation pamphlet from which Connors and I rvin drew 10 statements

55

t h a t they used t o determine th e level t o which a school a s c r i b e d to
th e middle school concept.

Respondents had t o answer only "yes" or

"no" to each s ta tem ent.

Clear d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the

recognized schools and th e randomly s e l e c t e d schools with r eg ar d to
each of th e 10 s ta te m e n ts .

Recognized schools were c o n s i s t e n t l y

o n e - t h i r d to o n e - h a l f h igher in t h e i r level
according t o th e a u th o r s.

o f m id dle-s ch oo lnes s,

Schools were r a t e d on a s c a l e o f 1 to 10,

with 10 r e p r e s e n t i n g th e h i g h e s t degree o f m idd le-s ch oolnes s.
authors

s t a t e d t h a t 74% o f t h e n a t i o n a l l y

recognized

The

schools

implemented 6 t o 10 o f th e e s s e n t i a l elements o f a middle school, as
compared

to

concluded

only

that

47% of

th e

randomly

middle-schoolness

selected

appears

to

be

sc ho ols.
an

They

indicator

of

ex c e lle n c e , i n s o f a r as th e SSRP i s concerned.
A distribution

of the

m iddle-level

schools

selected

for

r e c o g n i tio n by the SSRP during th e yea rs 1982 through 1984, compared
to a n a ti o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f name l a b e l s of m iddle-l evel
i s shown in Figure 2.1.

sc ho ols,

According t o th e United S t a t e s Department

o f Education’ s Office o f Educational Research and Improvement,

"in

th e schools f o r young a d o le s c e n ts , t h e r e ar e [ s i c ] a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y
of

grade-span

combinations"

than

in

h ig h

schools,

"but

the

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s whether a school l a b e l s i t s e l f as a
j u n i o r high or a middle school" (Woods, 1985, p. 7).

I t should be

noted t h a t those schools t h a t bear t h e name "middle school" e x h i b i t
a slightly

incre ased

incidence o f s e l e c t i o n

by t h e SSRP than do

those schools t h a t ar e la b e l e d " j u n i o r high sch oo l."

56

60 -I
Recognition
program

o

o°

0)

K3

National

30 ■

CD

£

c

20 •

(LI

o_

0

rzzzrFXsXX
Middle

Figure 2.1:

J u n io r

Other

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f m iddle-level schools s e l e c t e d f o r
SSRP r e c o g n i t i o n , 1982-1984, compared t o n a ti o n a l
d i s t r i b u t i o n of name l a b e l s o f m iddle-lev el sch ools.
(From M. A. Woods, e d . , The Search f o r Successful
Secondary Schools--The F i r s t Three Years o f th e
Secondary School Recognition Program. P h i l a d e l p h i a ,
P a.: U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce o f Edu­
c a t i o n a l Research and Improvement, 1985, p. 10.)

Summary
The SSRP is
significant

still

body o f

too

new t o

research.

have developed

Of the

studies

around

that

it

have

a

been

completed, most involved th e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h ip behavior as an
as pec t o f th e r e s e a r c h .

A minor p a t t e r n i s also th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n

of what determines th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a school
SSRP c r i t e r i a ) .
has

I t appears t h a t v i r t u a l l y a l l of th e r esear ch t h a t

been conducted

elementary

( o th e r than the

schools

appreciable degree.

involved
do not

high

seem to

sc hoo ls.
have been

Middle

schools

investigated

to

and
an

57
The SSRP in Michigan
In 1982, S ec r e t a ry o f Education Te rre l H. Bell

established a

program o f recognizing exemplary schools, which, he b e lie v e d , were
t o be found in every s t a t e and region o f th e n a t i o n .

The i n t e n t i o n

was not simply to make Americans fee l b e t t e r about t h e i r schools and
th e schools to fee l b e t t e r about themselves.

Bell hoped t h a t the

program, which was named th e SSRP, would give r i s e t o a " national
c o nversation on e x c e ll e n c e
become th e matrix

in e d u c a t io n , "

of school

which,

improvement.

in

turn,

He a s s e r t e d

would

that

the

n a t i o n ’ s schools needed out st an din g r o l e models and t h a t t h i s was
the motivation f o r t h e program.
During th e e a r l y 1980s, th e n a t i o n ’s educa tiona l

institutions

and t h e i r various p ublics had been b a t t e r e d by th e d e f i c i e n c i e s and
recommendations t h a t had been o u t l i n e d in r e p o r t s such as A Nation
a t Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
Place

Called

Secondary
Proposal

School

Education
(Adler,

educa tiona l

(Goodlad,
in

1982).

1983),

America

High

(Boyer,

Confidence

School:

1983),

in

i n s t i t u t i o n s was a t a low ebb.

A Report

and

education

1983), A

The
and

on

P aide ia
American

S e c r e t a r y o f Education

Bell i n v i t e d a l l 50 s t a t e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e in th e SSRP.
In Michigan in February 1983,

self - n o m in a tio n

forms f o r the

SSRP were mailed to the s u p e rin te n d e n t s of local school d i s t r i c t s by
th e Superintendent o f Public I n s t r u c t i o n .

The form f o r t h e f i r s t

ye ar r eq ue st ed answers t o q u e s ti o n s in t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s and had an
additional

three

questions

relatin g

to

obstacles,

c h a n g in g

c o n d i tio n s in th e school, and school c l im a te , as well as places f o r

58

the

names,

addresses,

and

signatures

of

local

d istrict

administrators.
Michigan’s then-Supe ri nte ndent
R unkle,

o f Public

w r o te t o M ichigan sc hool

February 4,

1983,

d istrict

asking each o f them t o

Instruction,

Philip

superintendents

on

"nominate any o f your

schools which you f eel would be worthy of r e c o g n i t i o n . "

He enclosed

a copy o f th e nomination form.
The forms were t o be f i l l e d out and sent t o Runkle’ s o f f i c e in
Lansing on or before March 4, 1983.

His l e t t e r s t a t e d t h a t "once

th e forms have been receiv ed in Lansing, they wil l be reviewed by a
panel

c o n s is t i n g

of p r a c t i c i n g Michigan p r i n c i p a l s who have been

s e l e c t e d by t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . "

Runkle s t a t e d t h a t ,

following t h i s review, he would announce up t o f i v e schools a t th e
high school

level

whose nomination

and up t o f i v e more a t th e middle school
forms

would

be

sent

to

Washington,

level

D.C.,

for

n a ti o n a l c o n s id e r a t i o n .
During the f i r s t y ear o f th e SSRP, each s t a t e was allowed to
f o r w a r d t o Washington t h e

names o f a maximum o f

s c h o o l s / j u n i o r high schools and f i v e high schools.

five

m iddle

In succeeding

y e a r s , t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n was changed, and each s t a t e was granted a
quota determined by the number o f secondary schools in the s t a t e on
each educa tion al
names of

schools

level.

For i n s t a n c e ,

t o Washington

n a ti o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n ) .

in 1984, Michigan sent 18

(of t h e s e ,

11 were s e l e c t e d

for

Michigan had been allowed a t o t a l o f 9 high

schools and 10 mid dle-leve l

schools during th e second y e a r of the

59
program.

During t h e t h i r d y e a r o f t h e progra m ,

past

years’

n a t i o n a l l y recognized schools were l i s t e d by th e USDOE as i n e l i g i b l e
to p a r t i c i p a t e again.

(This r e s t r i c t i o n was l a t e r def ined t o mean

for a five-year period.)
Inform ation

a b o u t t h e program d u r i n g

its

first

year

was

sketchy, a t b e s t .

The program was new and had r ec eive d v i r t u a l l y no

publicity

ince ption

press.
y ear

at

its

in the

literature

or

in

th e

popular

In Michigan, t h a t s i t u a t i o n was remedied dur ing t h e second
of

a d d itio n al

the

program.

The

S ta te

Department

information such as a time l i n e ,

of

Education

sen t

th e a p p l i c a t i o n forms

were sent in November (as compared t o February t h e prev ious y e a r ) ,
a p p l i c a t i o n s had a due d ate t h a t was two months
mailing date o f th e a p p l i c a t i o n
the s i t e

visits

later

than

the

(as compared to one month),

and

were t o be completed before the end of May (as

compared to mid-June th e previous y e a r ) .
During th e second year of the program, Michigan als o sent a
po int s c ale so t h a t those who f i l l e d out th e form would know the
degree of emphasis those who reviewed the forms would be i n s t r u c t e d
to

place

on each

item.

In a d d i t i o n ,

the

nomination

form was

expanded from a t o t a l o f 14 pages t h a t had been allowed to a t o t a l
o f 20 pages f o r each school.
During th e f i r s t
Michigan led

all

na tional honors.
those two y e a r s .

two yea rs of th e program (1983 and 1984),

states

in the

number o f schools

that

rec eived

Sixteen Michigan schools rec eive d awards during

60
The s e l e c t i o n process in Michigan was not complex during the
y e a r o f t h e program’ s in c e p tio n .

I t has become i n c r e a s i n g l y more so

during t h e p a s t f i v e y e a r s .
Following r e c e i p t o f th e self -nom in ation form in th e i n i t i a l
y e a r o f th e program,

th e MDOE in Lansing s e t up a review panel

c o n s i s t i n g of MDOE personnel and p r a c t i c i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who had
been

recommended

organizations.

to

ser ve

on

th e

panel

by

their

p r o fe s sio n a l

The goal was to have 15 reviewers f o r middle-level

schools and 15 f o r high schools.
In t h a t f i r s t y e a r , th e reviewers simply r a t e d each school t h a t
had sent a s elf -no mination form according t o t h e i r per cep ti o n s of
th e minimal
Lansing.

verbal

instructions

they

received

when they

met

in

The top f i v e schools in each category were then s e l e c t e d

and s e n t t o th e MDOE as Michigan’ s "se le c te d s ch o o ls ."
The

selection

process

in

complex during succeeding y e a r s .

Lansing

became

increasingly

more

By 1986, f o r in s ta n c e , a number of

s i g n i f i c a n t changes had been made in the pro ce ss .

Reviewers were

provided with a general background paper on th e process o f s e l e c t i n g
schools f o r the SSRP in Michigan and copies of th e nomination forms.
A ls o ,

th a t year,

27 s e c o n d a r y

personnel

participated

p e r io d .

S e le c tio n

in

of th is

the

school
selection

review panel

prin cip als
process

and 12 MDOE

over

had been

a two-day

based

on

(a)

experience with the SSRP, (b) geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n throughout the
state,

and

(c)

balance

according

to

school

size,

racial/ethnic

composition, and urban/suburban/small town/rural l o c a t i o n s .

61
The 1986 review panel was divi de d i n t o 13 teams c o n s i s t i n g of
t h r e e members each.
major components:

The a p p l i c a t i o n review process
(a)

involved two

scoring based on m u l t i p l e rea dings of the

nomination form and (b) s i t e v i s i t s by th e p a n e l i s t s .

This process

was designed t o use th e same c r i t e r i a proposed by the USDOE as i t s
model and t o use th e same sc ori ng, weighting, and s i t e v i s i t forms
as t h e n a tio n a l program.
The s e l e c t i o n process

involved t h r e e p a r t s .

involved reviewing and s co ring th e a p p l i c a t i o n .

The f i r s t

part

In th e f i r s t round

of s c o ri n g , each o f th e a p p l i c a t i o n s was read by a team o f t h r e e
pan el

members

who

scored

them

independently,

discussed

d i s c r e p a n c i e s , and c o l l e c t i v e l y a r r i v e d a t an average score based on
th e

three

independent

s c o re s .

The a p p l i c a t i o n s

were then

rank

ordered according t o t h e i r average s c o r e s , and th e top 25 in each
category (high school and j u n i o r high/middle school) were s e le c t e d
f o r th e

second round o f

s c o rin g .

The second

round

of

scoring

involved the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the top 50 a p p l i c a t i o n s t o new teams
ami r e a d e r s , where they were read by an a d d it io n a l t h r e e re aders and
scored independently.

A new average score based on th e t o t a l

s ix

independent re ader sc ore s was computed, and a new ranking l i s t was
established.

Based on th e new ranking, the top 15 schools in each

category were s e l e c t e d f o r v i s i t s .
The second p a r t of the s e l e c t i o n process was th e s i t e v i s i t s .
T h i r t y schools were v i s i t e d during th e week o f January 12-16, 1987,
by designated teams.

The team of two was t y p i c a l l y composed of a

p r in c ip a l from a secondary school t h a t had been recognized in t h i s

62

program in p r e v i o u s y e a r s ,
community ( i . e . ,
etc.).

parent,

and a member o f t h a t

board member,

business

p rin cip al’s

leader,

teacher,

Each team arranged an appointment with each v i s i t e d school

independently and e x p e c ta ti o n s were d is c u s s e d :

(a) p r i n c i p a l s of

th e schools being v i s i t e d would have t o provide evidence o f th e
programs and /o r d ata p r e s e n t in t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n , and (b) t h e s i t e
v i s i t team would v e r i f y the information and d a t a according t o a s i t e
v isit

report

presen ted

form p r o v i d e d ,

which

in th e nomination form is

asked
(a)

if

the

a ccur ate

"inform ation
as s t a t e d ,

(b)

u n d e r s t a te d , or (c) o v e r s t a t e d . "
Each

site

visit

team was

given

15

p o in ts

to

use

in

th e

following manner:
1.

I f a l l information and d a ta could be v e r i f i e d or other wise

proven, th e s i t e would gain 15 p o in ts to be added to t h e i r f i n a l
average sc ore , or
2.

I f the information provided by th e a p p l i c a t i o n was inaccu­

r a t e , g r o s s l y o v e r s ta t e d or other wise impossible to dem onstrate, t h e
s i t e v i s i t team was i n s t r u c t e d to deduct 1 p o in t f o r each ar ea t h a t
could not be v e r i f i e d up to a t o t a l o f 15 p o i n t s .
The f i n a l

s e l e c t i o n process

c o n s is t e d of ranking the

review

p a n e l ’ s f i n a l recommendations and forwarding those rankings t o the
MDOE.

The rankings were based on:
1.

three scores).

Ranking of f i r s t round o f a p p l i c a t i o n s review

(average of

63
2.

Ranking o f second round o f a p p l i c a t i o n s review (average of

six scores).
3.

S i t e v i s i t a t i o n s t h a t v e r i f i e d information ( p o s s i b le 0-15

additional points).
The Reviewer’ s Guide t o S e le c t in g Schools f o r S i t e V i s i t s was
drawn up by t h e USDOE and contained a maximum of
"points."

135 p o s s i b l e

Points were as si gned , based on the following c r i t e r i a f o r

each o f th e t h r e e s e c t i o n s o f the nomination form:
For S ections I and I I I
Ex c elle nt
Good
Average
Below Average
Poor
Missing

=
=
=
=
=
=

5 po in ts
4 p o in t s
3 p o in ts
2 points
1 po in t
0 po ints

For Section II

(E=5)
(G=4)
(A=3)
(BA=2)
(P=l)
(M=0)

E xc elle nt
Good
Average
Below Average
Poor
Missing

For th e 14 responses t o Section I, th e t o t a l
was, t h e r e f o r e ,
total

70.

=
=
=
=
=
=

p o s s i b l e p o i n ts

The second s e c t io n o f th e form

of 30 p o s s i b l e p o in t s

q u e s ti o n s asked on the form.

distributed

eq u a l ly

14-15 p o in ts
12-13 p o in ts
9-11 p o i n ts
6-8 p o i n t s
1-5 p o i n t s
0 po in ts

co ntained a

between th e

two

The t o t a l p o s s i b l e p o in ts on th e t h i r d

s e c t i o n o f the self -nom in a tion form was 35.
The Reviewer’ s Guide t o S e le c tin g Schools f o r S i t e V i s i t s forms
were used in Michigan by th e Michigan pan el.

They were a ls o used by

th e n a t io n a l panel in th e second phase of the process in Washington,
D.C., in 1986-87.

This form contained 12 pages and a cover sh ee t

with d i r e c t i o n s .
The S i t e V i s i t Report form was a more ex t e n s iv e document.

It

was used by both the Michigan panel in t h e i r one-day s i t e v i s i t s and

64
by th e nati o nal

site visitors

in t h e i r

two-day s i t e

visits.

It

c o n s is te d of th e same q u e s ti o n s , but in a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t form.
For each ques tion on the s elf - n o m in a tio n form, th e s i t e v i s i t o r was
asked

to

check

a

blank

that

in d ic a te d

whether

th e

information

pr esented in th e nomination form was "(a) a ccur ate as s t a t e d ,

(b)

u n d er stated or (c) o v e r s t a t e d . "
T he re

was

"documentation"
comments
verified.

a

section

also,

in t h a t

for

and s i t e

area

each

question

visitors

concerning

were

that

as ked

expected

to

th e documentation

they

for
w r ite
had

There was als o a page f o r th e s i t e v i s i t o r to answer

s p e c i f i c qu es ti ons t h a t th e panel had posed.

The f i n a l page noted

t h a t th e s i t e v i s i t o r should "use t h i s space to note anything he/she
b e lie v e s i s important in understanding t h i s school and t h a t i s not
mentioned elsewhere in t h i s r e p o r t . "
The s i t e v i s i t o r s ’ completed r e p o r t s were then s e n t back to the
Michigan panel f o r th e f i n a l e lim in a t io n pr oc es s.
consisted

of n a r r o w i n g

down

the

number o f

In Michigan t h a t
schools

that

was

acce ptable t o send t o the n atio n al panel.
In 1989 th e MDOE’ s l e t t e r announcing the opening o f th e 19891990 elementary school p o r tio n of the program s t a t e d :
Our s e l e c t i o n process will involve a peer panel review of th e
a p p l i c a t i o n s , s i t e v i s i t a t i o n s f o r f i n a l i s t s chools , and the
f i n a l nomination of f i f t e e n Michigan schools f o r th e n a ti o n a l
program.
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s s h o u ld a l s o be aware o f t h e
Department’ s concern f o r th e need f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from
across the s t a t e . We w il l not be nominating more than a s i n g l e
s c h o o l from any d i s t r i c t w i t h fewer t h a n 50 e l e m e n t a r y
b u il d in g s . We wi ll formally recognize our ou tst and in g schools
in a ceremony t h i s w in te r with th e S t a t e Board o f Education.

65
This seemed t o some t o be a statem ent t h a t Michigan was not
seeking th e very b e s t , but only a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s e l e c t i o n o f those
schools a t th e upper end o f the spectrum, and, t h u s , a d e n i g r a t io n
o f t h e goa ls o f th e SSRP.
The SSRP’ s A t t r i b u t e s o f Success
To determine whether o r not a school was exemplary and t o be
able t o have some c r i t e r i a t o i d e n t i f y exemplary s chools , t h e SSRP
had f i r s t to answer ques ti ons such as "What c o n s t i t u t e s success in
p u b lic

secondary

education?"

and

"How can

unusually

su cc es sful

schools be i d e n t i f i e d ? "
The SSRP attempted to

answer th e s e

q ues ti ons

by c o l l e c t i n g

information from t h e schools t h a t nominated themselves based on th e
SSRP’ s

"14 a t t r i b u t e s

attrib u tes
represent

o f s u c c e ss ."

"were drawn from s t u d i e s
a synthesis

of the

The SSRP s t a t e d

that

of e f fe c tiv e

schools

findings

concerning

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of schools" (Woods, 1985, p. 17).
to s ta te

that

criticized

the

"re se ar ch on e f f e c t i v e

f o r methodological

weaknesses"

these
and

sig n ifican t

The SSRP went on

schools
and t h a t

has o f te n

beer,

"most

the

s t u d i e s have examined urban elementary schools serving

of

low-income

c h ild re n " (Woods, 1985, p. 17).
N eve rtheles s,
f our s t u d i e s

th e SSRP s e le c te d

(Coleman,

Hoffer,

&

from

the

available

Kilgore , 1982; L i g h tf o o t,

re se arch
1983;

L i p s i t z , 1984; R u tt e r e t a l . , 1979) t h a t they thought confirmed "the
general

fin d in g s

1982, p. 17).

from th e

school e f f e c t i v e n e s s

r esearch"

(Wood,

From thos e f our s tu d ie s th e SSRP, although a l l o f th e

66

14 a t t r i b u t e s were not discussed in each study, e x t r a c t e d t h e i r 14
a t t r i b u t e s of success.
The 14 a t t r i b u t e s o f success are l i s t e d

in Table 2 . 3 .

The

d e s c r i p t o r s of each a t t r i b u t e ar e l i s t e d under th e column headed by
th e name o f th e author o f t h e study and ar e intended t o serve as a
d e f i n i t i o n of th e a t t r i b u t e .
A B r i e f Discussion o f the Relationships Between the
18 Basic Middle School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the
14 A t t r i b u t e s of the SSRP
The 18 ba s ic
attributes

characteristics

o f middle

schools

and th e

14

from the SSRP ar e l i s t e d and defined elsewhere in t h i s

ch a p te r .

The 14 a t t r i b u t e s of the SSRP are used to ev a lu a te s e l f -

nominated

schools

during

th e

exemplary-school

selection

proce ss .

These 14 a t t r i b u t e s are used to e v alu ate high sch oo ls, j u n i o r high
sc ho ols, and middle schools.

All of th e se t h r e e types of schools

a r e , o f course, d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t .

The 18 b a s ic middle school

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are meant to be applied only to middle schools or to
those schools t h a t ar e attempting t o change to middle schools.
An examination of both l i s t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t :
1.

None of th e 14 a t t r i b u t e s i s worded th e same as any of the

characteristics.
2.
concepts.
concepts.

The 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
The

14

attributes

seem to
seem to

focus

on s t u d e n t - r e l a t e d

focus

on

teacher-related

Ta bl e 2 . 3 . — S t u d i e s o f u n u s u a l l y s u c c e s s f u l s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s .
Attributes of
Success

Rutter et al.
(1979)

1. Clear academic
goal s

Consensus on aims
and values

2. High expectations
for students

High expectations of
academic success

3. Order and
di sci pii ne

Coleman et al.
(1982)

Lightfoot
(1983)

Li psitz
(1984)

Clear and shared
ideology

Clarity about school
mission and consensus
about goals

Students taking more
rigorous courses and
higher grading stand­
ards

Desire to have all
students work to
their full potential

A climate of high
expectations

Students held respon­
sible for personal
behavi or

Fewer disciplinary
problems, but firm,
fair discipline

A safe, regulated
envi ronment for
teacher-student
relationshi p

An orderly and caring
envi ronment

A. Rewards and
incentives for
students

Frequent use of prai se
and di rect feedback on
performance

Greater teacher inter
est in students

Respect for teachers

Respect for teachers;
many rewards for stu­
dents

5. Regular and fre­
quent monitoring
of student progress

Frequent feedback on
performance to stu­
dents; frequent home­
work

Higher standards in
gradi ng

6. Opportunities for
meaningful student
responsibility and
participation

High proportion of
children in positions
of responsibility

High participation in
extracurricular activ
ities

7. Teacher efficacy

Pleasant working con­
ditions for staff
and students

Respect for teachers
and teaching; greater
autonomy for teachers

8. Rewards and incen­
tives for teachers
9. Concentration on
academic learning
time

Students actively
engaged in learning
and doi ng more home­
work

School provides diverse
experience for students

Students do more home
work and less class
cutti ng

A principal who supports
the staff; lack of isolation of teachers

o>i

T a bl e 2 . 3 . — C o n t i n u e d .
Attributes of
Success

Rutter et al.
(1979)

10. Positive school
climate

A positive "ethos"

11. Administrative
leadership

Consistent policies
and procedures

12. Well-articulated
curriculum

13. Evaluation for
instructi onal
improvement

“™

Coleman et al.
(1982)

Greater teacher inter­
est in students

Li ghtf oot
(1983)

A sense of community

An orderly and caring
environment

Leadership fitting the
culture of the school

Strong instructional
leadership; a prin­
cipal with vision

-

Teaming promotes
curriculum develop­
ment and articulation
Awareness of imperfec­
tions and willingness
to search for solutions

14. Community support
and involvement

Note:

A —

Lipsitz
(1984)

indicates this attribute was not discussed in that particular study.

Standardized tests
used for diagnosis
and justification of
curricular decisions
Schools responsive to
their particular
social and political
mi 1ieu

69
3.
seems

By d e f i n i t i o n ,
to

be r e l a t e d

t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f continuous progress

to

th e

attribute

of

high

e x p e c t a t io n s

for

students.
4.
seems

By d e f i n i t i o n ,
to

be r e l a t e d

th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

to

the

attribute

o f community r e l a t i o n s

of

community

support

and

involvement.
5.
related

By d e f i n i t i o n , th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f e v a l u a tio n seems to be
to

th e

attribute

of

regular

and

f requent monitoring

of

s tu d e n t p r o g re s s.
6.

By d e f i n i t i o n , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of s e c u r i t y f a c t o r seems

to be r e l a t e d t o th e a t t r i b u t e of p o s i t i v e school c lim a te .
7.
related

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
to the a t t r i b u t e

of c r e a t i v e

o f o p p o r tu n i t i e s

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and p a r t i c i p a t i o n
studies.

exper iences

seems to

f o r meaningful

by d e f i n i t i o n

be

studen t

in one o f t h e

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of physical exper iences and intramural

activ ities

and

social

experiences

c o u ld

also

relate

to

th is

attribute.
It

would

appear

that

there

may

be

a

small

correspondence between th e 18 bas ic middle school

degree

of

characteristics

and th e 14 a t t r i b u t e s o f th e SSRP, based on the d e f i n i t i o n s of a l l
32 i n d i c a t o r s .
I f the USDOE-selected middle schools in Michigan rank high on
t h e i r degree of attainm en t o f th e 14 a t t r i b u t e s of success of the
SSRP,

based on the f a c t t h a t they were,

indeed,

selected

by the

USDOE, then they also rank high on t h e i r implementation level of the
18 b a s ic middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as evidenced by th e f a c t t h a t

70

the

implem entation

levels

as

reported

by

the

teachers

and

administrators

in those USDOE-selected schools were 64% and 65%,

respectively.

Those l e v e l s of implementation are th e h i g h e s t t h a t

have been re port ed by any study of t h e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
facts,

to o,

argue t h a t

(a)

t h e r e may be a p o s i t i v e

These

correlation

between th e two s e t s o f c r i t e r i a and (b) f u r t h e r study i s needed.
Summary
During th e l a s t t h r e e decades,

th e growth in th e number of

schools l a b e l i n g themselves as middle schools has been phenomenal.
The concepts t h a t led to the development o f middle schools and t h e i r
tremendous

growth

have

remained,

according

to

the

p r o fe s sio n a l

literature,

remarkably unchanged during th e past 30 y e a r s .

There

has been a growing u n it y t h a t the needs of adoles ce nts should be met
by implementing th e concepts t h a t form th e bas is f o r middle school
education.
Numerous s tu d i e s t h a t r e l a t e to middle school
been completed during th e p a s t 30 y e a r s .

education have

Perhaps the landmark study

was R i e g l e ’ s (1971) study o f the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle school
educa tion.

I t has been r e p l i c a t e d many times and i s used as a b a s is

f o r e v a l u a ti n g and examining middle school programs.
The

SSRP

is

yet

comprehensive s t u d i e s .

too

new t o

I t has,

have

however,

been

the

subject

because o f i t s

of

nati onal

scope and because of the widespread p u b l i c i t y given t o t hose schools
designated

as

ex em pla ry by t h e

reco g n it io n in th e popular p r e s s .

progra m ,

received

widespread

71

Michigan

has

participated

in

the

SSRP since

th e

program’ s

ince pti on in 1982, and Michigan schools have r ec eive d t h e i r share of
the

national

aw ards.

It

appears

th at

both

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of middle schools and th e SSRP w il l
middle school education f o r some time.

the

18

basic

be a p a r t of

CHAPTER I I I
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

In tr oducti o n
The design and methodology o f t h i s study included th e following
areas:

(a )

purpose

of

the

study,

(b)

the

sam ple,

(c)

the

instrument, (d) procedures, and (e) tre at ment o f th e d a t a .
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the e x te n t t o which
the 12 n a t i o n a l l y recognized exemplary middle s c h o o l s / j u n i o r highs
in Michigan had implemented the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle school
education a t th e time of t h e survey, as perceived by p r i n c i p a l s and
t e a c h e r s in those schools.
The 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been recognized as d e f i n i t i v e since
Riegle

(1971)

extracted

them from the

literature

v a l i d a t e d by a n a t i o n a l l y recognized panel of e x p e r t s .

and

had

them

Essentially,

the r esear ch was a discrepancy a n a l y s i s between the survey r e s u l t s
and t h e p r a c t i c e s o f th e exemplary Michigan middle s c h o o l s / j u n i o r
highs chosen during the yea rs 1983 through 1987.
The Sample
The MDOE i d e n t i f i e d th e 12 Michigan middle s c h o o l s / j u n i o r highs
t h a t had been s e le c t e d by the USDOE as outstan ding and exemplary

73
secondary schools during th e f i r s t f i v e years o f th e program.

Those

12 schools became th e study sample.
The 12 s e l e c t e d

schools were sent

two cover l e t t e r s

packet of m a t e r i a l s t h a t included two survey
stamped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d r e t u r n envelopes.

and a

instruments and two

One survey instrument was

t o be f i l l e d out by the b u ilding a d m i n i s t r a t o r ,

and one was t o be

f i l l e d out by a t e a c h e r who was c l o s e s t to t e n t h on th e b u i l d i n g ’ s
a l p h a b e t ic a l

list

of

teachers

and

bu il d in g f o r a t l e a s t f i v e y e a r s .
all
this

who had

als o

ta ught

in

the

The b u i ld in g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of

12 schools were co ntacted by telephone in advance o f mailing
m ateria l

in ord er

to

solicit

their

cooperation.

Those 22

documents t h a t were completed provided th e da ta f o r t h i s study.
The Survey Instrument
The survey instrument t h a t was developed and used by Riegle
(1971)

and used and r e p l i c a t e d

a number o f t i m e s

since

then

(Beckmann, 1978; Bohlinger, 1977; Demps, 1978; Kramer, 1974; Magana,
1987; Minster, 1985; Pock, 1S8C;

Raymer, 1374) was s e l e c t e d as the

instrument to be used in t h i s study.
that

this

instrument

literature)

is

the

be

used

I t was p a r t i c u l a r l y p e r t i n e n t

because

instrument t h a t

it

(with

its

accompanying

i s most o f te n r e f e r r e d

to

in

organizing middle schools in Michigan.
The o r i g i n a l

instrum ent

that

Riegle

developed

had

been

v a l i d a t e d by a panel of middle school ex per ts a t th e time of i t s
o r ig i n a l use.

The o r i g i n a l instrument was then f u r t h e r reviewed and

r e v is e d by a panel

of a u t h o r i t i e s

at

Michigan S t a t e

U n iv e r s ity .

74
That

panel

included Marie

Elie,

Nicholas

Georgiady,

Ann Grooms,

Louis Romano, and Emmett Williams.
Based on t h e i r s u g g e stio n s, Riegle compiled a l i s t o f th e 18
middle

school

document.

characteristics

Those

on which

characteristics

were

he had

based

listed

and

his

survey

ex plaine d

in

Chapter I I .
The survey instrument used in t h i s study included the e n t i r e
survey as used by Riegle with only minor changes in wording.

For

in s t a n c e , R i e g l e ’ s o r ig i n a l instrument included r e f e r e n c e s t o "Grade
5. "

That r e f e r e n c e was elim in ated from the instrument used in t h i s

study because not one o f th e schools surveyed included Grade 5 in
its

organization.

letters,

Copies

of

and o t h e r p e r t i n e n t

th e

survey

inst rum en t,

inform ation

are

th e

included

cover
in t h e

appendices.
Procedures
On February 28, 1988, a telephone c a l l was placed to each of
th e bu ild in g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of th e 12 s e le c t e d sch oo ls,
their

cooperation

in f i l l i n g

out

and r e t u r n i n g

the

soliciting
survey

(and

encouraging a t e a c h e r to f i l l out and r e t u r n the survey) and giving
them some background concerning the purpose o f t h e

survey.

All

promised to coo per ate.
On March 5, 1988, two cover l e t t e r s ,

the survey inst rum ents,

and two stamped, s e lf - a d d r e s s e d r e t u r n envelopes were mailed t o each
o f the 12 s e le c t e d schools.
of the s e le c t e d schools.

Surveys were r e t u rn e d from a l l but one

On March 28, 1988, a reminder l e t t e r and

75
two a d d i tio n a l s e t s of m at er ia l were s e n t t o t h e s i n g l e school from
which completed surveys had not been r e t u r n e d .

No response was

re c e iv e d .
The responses received from th e 11 responding schools provided
t h e raw d ata f o r t h e a n a l y s i s .

The raw sc ores were recorded on a

t a l l y s h e e t.

A mean score on each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r each group was

calculated.

The mean score was converted t o a per centage o f maximum

possible

score

yielded

by

the

survey

instrum ent

for

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and f o r th e grand t o t a l p o s s i b l e f o r each group.

each
The

conversion of mean scores t o percentages was nec es sa ry because of
the

varying

maximum

characteristics.

scores

that

were

possible

among

the

This conversion made p o s s i b l e comparisons between

th e va rious groups.
O bjectives o f th e Study
1.

To measure the degree o f implementation o f th e 18 middle

school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as rep or ted by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in th e Michigan
middle schools and j u n i o r highs t h a t were designated as e x e m p la r y by
th e USDOE in th e ye ar s 1983 t o 1988.
2.
school

To measure th e degree of implementation of th e 18 middle
characteristics

as

r e p o r te d

by

teachers

in

th e

Michigan

middle schools and j u n i o r highs t h a t were desig na ted as exemplary by
th e USDOE in the yea rs 1983 t o 1988.
3.

To compare the average le ve l

t h e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

as r e p o r t e d

of implementation score s of
by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

to

that

76
r e p o r t e d by te a c h e r s in th e 12 desig na ted Michigan middle o r j u n i o r
high sch ools.
4.

Tomeasure th e average lev el of implementation

scores of

th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p o rt e d by those schools des ignated as urban
sc hools .
5.
th e

To measure th e average lev el o f implementation scores of

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

rep o rted

by

those

schools

de sig na te d

as

suburban schools.
6.

Tomeasure th e average lev el of implementation

scores of

th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p o rte d by those schools des ign ated as r u ra l
sc ho ols.
7.
r e p o rt e d

To compare th e

average

level of

by the urban schools with t h a t

implementation scores

rep orted by the

suburban

schools.
8.
r e p o rt e d

To compare the
by th e

urban

average
schools

level o f

with

that

implementation scores
rep o rted

by th e

r u ra l

schools.
9.
r e p o rt e d

To compare the
by th e r u r a l

average

level o f

schools with t h a t

implementation scores

r e port ed by th e

suburban

schools.
10.

To measure th e average level of implementation scores f o r

those desig na te d schools with a s tu d en t population between 450 and
550.
11.

To measure the average level of implementation scores f o r

those des ign ated schools with a studen t population l e s s than 450 and
more than 550.

1

77

12.

To compare th e

average

l evel

of

implementation

scores

r e port ed by those schools with a s tu d e n t population between 450
550 with t h a t o f a l l
13.

To measure

and

o th e r s i z e s o f th e 12 des igna ted sch oo ls.
th e average level o f

implementation scores f o r

those schools t h a t have been desig na ted a middle school f o r e ig h t
y ears or more.
14.

To measure

th e average lev el o f

implementation scores f o r

th ose schools t h a t have been desig na ted a middle school

f o r fewer

than e i g h t y e a r s .
15.

To compare the average lev el o f implementation scores of

those schools t h a t have been designated a middle school

f o r more

than e i g h t yea rs with th e average le ve l o f implementation scores of
schools t h a t have been designated a middle school

f o r fewer than

eight years.
Summary
In 1971,

Riegle e x t r a c t e d

from th e l i t e r a t u r e

a list

o f 18

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of middle school education and c o n s tr u c te d a survey
instrument

based on those

characteristics.

r e p l i c a t e d a number of times s in c e then .

His

study

has

been

The 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had

been reviewed by p r a c t i t i o n e r s and by c o n s u lt a n t s a t Michigan S t a te
U niversity before Riegle developed his survey in strum ent.
In

1982,

Departments
selecting,

of

the

USDOE developed

Education

during

the

to

1982-83

put

and

in t o

school

requested
practice

year,

exemplary secondary schools in t h e i r s t a t e s .

th e

th e

a

50

state

procedure

for

o u ts ta nding

and

In t h e p r e s e n t study,

78

th e r e s e a r c h e r attempted t o determine th e e x te n t of th e usage o f the
18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in tho se Michigan schools t h a t had been s e le c t e d
as outstand ing

and exemplary by the USDOE during th e f i r s t

f iv e

y ears o f th e SSRP.
The
R ie g le ’ s

survey instrument
(1971)

study

received from a l l

for

this

with only

study

minor

was

changes.

but one school surveyed.

replicated

from

Returns

were

The completed surveys

were used as the source m ate ria l f o r t h i s study..
Using the completed surveys, a raw score f o r each survey group
was t a l l i e d .

Scores were

then

converted

to

percentages,

which

provided an in d i c a t i o n o f th e lev el o f implementation f o r each of
the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r each school and each group a t the time of
the survey.

This information allowed c e r t a i n comparisons to be made

according to s iz e of school, length of time the
termed a

middle school,

school was lo ca ted.

school

had

and the type of community in which

been
the

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSES
I n tr o d u ctio n
The d ata
gathered

for

the

from the

m at er ia l

survey

pres en ted

instruments

that

Michigan m i d d le /ju n io r high schools t h a t
n ational
during

re c o g n itio n by the
the

years

1983

in

were

1987.

chapter

sent

Recognition

A total

of

i n s t r u m e n t s were r e t u r n e d ;

24 had been s e n t o u t .

m etro po litan

r e p ly

school

did not

to

to

either

th e

were

th e

had been i d e n t i f i e d

Secondary School

through

this

12
for

Program

22

survey

One l a r g e

teacher

or th e

a d m i n i s t r a t o r survey d e s p i t e several r e q u e s t s .
The q u e s tio n n a ir e used had been designed to c o l l e c t d a ta f o r
each

of

the

18

bas ic

middle

school

described and l i s t e d in Chapter I I .

characteristics

that

were

The q u e s ti o n n a i r e was s l i g h t l y

modified only t o r e f l e c t the f a c t t h a t grade 5 was not included in
any of the 12 s e le c t e d sch oo ls.

The o r i g i n a l survey instrument had

included r e f e r e n c e s to grade 5, and a l l

o f th ose r e f e r e n c e s were

e lim inated from t h i s survey f o r purposes of c l a r i f i c a t i o n .
Table 4.1 l i s t s the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and th e survey q u e s ti o n s
that

relate

to

each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c .

Numerical

values

had

been

assigned to each survey q u es ti o n , and the t a b l e r e f l e c t s th e maximum

79

80
p o s s i b l e raw score f o r each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c .

Appendix B c o n ta in s a

copy o f th e survey instr um ent.

Table 4 . 1 . --The 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s included in th e survey instrument
and the numbers o f th e ques ti ons included t o c o l l e c t
d ata about each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c .

The 18 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17
18.

Continuous progress
M ulti-m ateri al
F l e x i b l e schedule
Social experiences
Physical experiences
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Team teaching
Planned gradualism
Exploratory &
enrichment programs
Guidance s e r v ic e s
Independent study
Basic l e a r n in g exper iences
Creative experiences
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Community r e l a t i o n s
Student s e rv ic e s
A u x il ia ry s t a f f i n g

Note:

and

Maximum
P o ss ib le
Score

Survey
Question Number
1, 2
3, 4, 5, 6, 46
7, 8, 38
9, 10, 47, 48, 60
11, 41, 42, 61
12, 13, 49, 62
14, 15, 16, 17
18

10
37
15
19
15
18
20
3

19,
22,
39,
25,
27,
32,
35,
36,

26
14
8
13
17
9
9
14
9
8

20,
23,
44,
26,
28,
33,
40
37,

21,
24,
52
45,
29,
34

50, 51
43
53
30, 31, 54

55, 56

C7
W/

58, 59

See Appendix B f o r th e complete q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

This ch apter c on ta ins an a n a l y s i s of th e d a t a ,

th e f i n d i n g s ,

a summary o f t h e

from t h e

responding schools.

dem ogra phic

data

obtained

11

A f t e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the demographic d a t a

t h a t were used to c a t e g o r i z e each responding school, each o b j e c t i v e
in t h i s study i s s t a t e d and i s followed by a summary o f t h e f in d i n g s

81
t h a t r e l a t e to t h a t o b j e c t i v e .

The c h ap ter concludes with a summary

o f th e fin d i n g s o f th e study.
Demographic Data
The demographic d a ta

ar e

presen ted

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s responded t o th e survey.
female.

in

Table

4.2.

Eleven

Ten were male;

one was

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s had been in t h e i r p r esen t p o s i t i o n s an

average of 7.9 y e a r s , with a range o f from 4 t o 22 y e a r s
median of 7 y e a r s .

and a

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s had served an average of 25.9

years in ed ucation, with a range o f from 18 t o 36 y e a r s .

The median

was 25.5 y e a r s .

Table 4 . 2 . --Demographic d a ta .
Principals
I.
II.
III.

Males

10

Females
Averaae■ vvparc
in n
”
r y es en t p
r osition

V.

VI.

Average years in education
Range
Average number o f ye ar s as a
middle school
Range
Population category
Rural
Urban
Suburban

3

8
10. u

5-20

Range
IV.

Teachers

25.9
18-36

18.1
15-25

8. 2
0-15

8. 2
0-15

2
4
5

2
4
5

82
Eleven t e a c h e r s
e i g h t were female.

responded to th e

survey.

Three were male;

The t e a c h e r s had been in t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s it i o n s

an average o f 13.2 y e a r s , with a range o f from 5 t o 20 y e a r s .
median was 14 y e a r s .

The

The te a c h e r s had served an average o f 18.1

years in education, with a range of from 15 t o 25 y e a r s .

The median

was 17 y e a r s .
Teachers’ and p r i n c i p a l s ’ responses to the l a s t two items of
demographic d ata c o l l e c t e d were i d e n t i c a l .

Both groups responded

t h a t t h e i r schools had been middle schools f o r an average o f 8.2
y e a r s , with a range of 0 to 15 y e a r s .

The median was seven y e a r s .

Both groups in two schools s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r schools were not middle
schools.
Respondents

from two

schools

s aid

that

their

schools

were

considered " r u r a l " schools; four in dicated t h a t t h e i r schools were
considered
considered

"urban"

schools;

"suburban"

five

schools.

sa id
These

that

their

schools

responses

matched

were
the

d e f i n i t i o n s of r u r a l , urban, and suburban l i s t e d in Chapter I.
P r e se n ta ti o n of t h e Data f o r Each Objective
Objective 1 ;
middle school
t h e Michigan
designated as

To measure the degree of implementation of th e 18
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as r e port ed by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in
m id d le s c h o o l s and j u n i o r h i g h s t h a t were
exemplary by th e USDOE in the years 1983 to 1988.

Only two o f th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were ranked below the 50% level
of implem entation.

These were c o n t i n u o u s p r o g r e s s

a u x i l i a r y s t a f f i n g (20%).
or a t t h i s l e v e l .

(36%)

and

Sixteen c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were ranked above

The scores are rep orted in Table 4 .3.

Table 4.3.--Findings regarding Objectives 1, 2, and 3.
Adm inistrato rs
Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
M ult i- m ateri al
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Student s e r v i c e s
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Basic l e a r n in g experiences
Cre ative experiences
Community r e l a t i o n s
Planned gradualism
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Independent study
Physical ex periences
F l e x i b l e schedule
Social ex periences
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Team teach ing
Continuous progress
Auxiliary s t a f f i n g

Teachers
Level
84%
80%
71%
70%
69%
68%
67%
67%
64%
63%
63%
62%
56%
56%
54%
50%
36%
20%

Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
M u lti - m a te ria l
Basic l e a r n i n g ex periences
Student s e r v i c e s
Independent study
Explorator y & enrichment programs
C r eati v e exper ience s
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Community r e l a t i o n s
Physical expe rien ce s
Intramural a c t i v i t y
F l e x i b l e schedule
Planned gradualism
Eva luation p r a c t i c e s
Social ex periences
Team tea ch in g
Continuous pr ogress
A u x il ia r y s t a f f i n g

Level
88%
80%
79%
79%
76%
71%
71%
69%
67%
64%
61%
56%
55%
54%
53%
48%
36%
23%

84
Green’s (1977) study o f the p r i n c i p a l s o f Michigan m iddle-level
schools in d i c a t e d t h a t th e degree o f implementation o f 55 s e le c t e d
mid dle-leve l p r a c t i c e s recommended in th e l i t e r a t u r e was much lower
than the l e v e l s found in th e schools in t h i s study.
O bjective 2 : To measure the degree o f implementation o f th e 18
middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as r e port ed by te a c h e r s in the
Michigan middle schools and j u n i o r highs t h a t were desig na te d
as exemplary by th e USDOE in the y e a r s 1983 t o 1988.
Three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were ranked by t h e t e a c h e r s as below th e
fiftieth

percentile.

These were

continuous

a u x i l i a r y s t a f f i n g (23%), and team teac hing (48%).

progress

(36%),

The remaining 15

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were a l l ranked above th e f i f t i e t h p e r c e n t i l e .

The

sco re s are re port ed in Table 4. 3.
Bohlinger (1977) found t h a t in Ohio schools th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s ­
t i c s were implemented a t th e 50.5% l e v e l , and t h a t no c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
had an implementation r a t e higher than 80%.

Both of those r e s u l t s

ar e much lower than th e l e v e l s shown by the schools in t h i s study.
Objective 3 : To compare th e average lev el o f implementation
sco re s of the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as r e p o rte d by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
t o t h a t r e p o rte d by t e a c h e r s in th e 12 des igna ted Michigan
middle or j u n i o r high schools.
As Table 4.3 i n d i c a t e s , te a c h e r s r a t e d f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t
t h e 75% or higher l e v e l .
m ate ria l

These were guidance s e r v i c e s (88%), m u l t i ­

(80%), bas ic l e a r n in g exper iences (79%), stu d en t s e r v i c e s

(79%), and independent study (76%).

Admin istrators ranked only the

f i r s t two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t high er than th e 75% l e v e l .
In g e n e r a l , the scores appear t o d i s p l a y l i t t l e
with

only

percentage

two ex ce pti ons.
points

("Discrepancy"

o r more d i f f e r e n c e

in

is

disc rep an cy ,

defined

sco res.)

to

be

10

Those two

85
exceptions
Teachers

involve c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

reported

adm inistrators
Independent

ba s ic

rated

study

learning
th at

was

11 and

12 from T a b le 4 . 1 .

expe rien ce s

at

ch aracteristic

rated

by

teachers

the

79% l e v e l ;

a t the

68% l e v e l .

a t the

76% l e v e l ;

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r a t e d t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a t th e 63% l e v e l .
A dm inistrators

rated

the

im plementation

level

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s taken as a group a t th e 64% l e v e l .

of

all

18

Teachers r a t e d

th e implementation lev el o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a group a t the
65% l e v e l , as noted in Table 4.11.
In 1982, S ch in d ler conducted a study o f 10 "exemplary" (but not
USDOE-selected) m iddle- level schools and 150 o t h e r n a tio n a l middlelevel

schools.

He found t h a t th e "exemplary" middle schools were

making a more concerted

effort

to

provide

a curricular

program

unique f o r the middle-leve l s t u d e n t.
Objective 4 : To measure th e average lev el
scores o f the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s rep o rted
des igna ted as urban schools.
An examination of th e

implementation l e v e l s

o f implementation
by those schools
as d isp lay ed

in

Table 4.4 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were r e p o rte d a t l e s s
than th e 50% lev el o f implementation by each group.
th ose were the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :

In two cases

continuous pr ogress a t 43% f o r

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and 35% f o r t e a c h e r s and team te aching a t 44% and
49%, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Ad m ini st rat or s r e port ed a u x i l i a r y s t a f f i n g a t a

very low 19%, whereas t e a c h e r s r e port ed f l e x i b l e schedule a t 48%.
Both groups r e p o r te d guidance s e r v i c e s a t over t h e 90% l e v e l
implementation.

of

In a d d i t i o n , both groups r e p o rte d s tu d en t s e r v i c e s

Table 4.4.--Findings regarding Objective 4.
A d m in istr ato rs
C haracteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
Student s e r v i c e s
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Basic l e a r n i n g exper iences
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Planned gradualism
Creative ex periences
M ulti-material
Community r e l a t i o n s
Independent study
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Physical expe rien ce s
Social experiences
Intramural a c t i v i t y
F le x ib le schedule
Team te aching
Continuous pr og re ss
Aux iliar y s t a f f i n g

Teachers
Level
93%
81%
80%
75%
71%
67%
66%
65%
62%
61%
61%
58%
56%
55%
52%
44%
43%
19%

Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
Independent study
Student s e r v i c e s
Ex ploratory & enrichment programs
Basic l e a r n i n g expe rien ce s
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Community r e l a t i o n s
Creativ e exp er ienc es
M ult i- m a t e ria l
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Physical exper ience s
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Social expe rien ce s
A u x il ia ry s t a f f i n g
Planned gradualism
Team te achin g
F l e x i b l e schedule
Continuous pr og re ss

Level
91%
83%
78%
77%
75%
73%
73%
71%
66%
64%
60%
58%
56%
56%
50%
49%
48%
35%

87
and b a s ic l e a r n in g expe rien ce s a t th e 75% le v e l o f implementation or
more.
Ob jec tiv e 5 : To measure th e average level o f implementation
sc ores of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p o r te d by tho se schools
de sig na te d as suburban schools.
An examination o f Table 4.5 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
suburban

schools r e p o r t e d

three

characteristics

at

over

th e

in
75%

lev el o f implementation and four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as below t h e 50%
le v e l

o f implementation.

characteristics

Teachers corresp on dingly r e p o r te d

a t over th e 75% le ve l

of

implementation and s ix

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as below the 50% lev el o f implementation.
discrepancies existed

four

Severe

in th e areas o f e v alu ati o n p r a c t i c e s ,

team

tea c h in g , stu d en t s e r v i c e s , and bas ic l e a r n in g ex periences; t e a c h e r s
reported

the

last

two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

at

a higher

degree

of

implementation and th e f i r s t two a t a lower lev el o f implementation
than did a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Objective 6 : To measure the average l ev el o f implementation
scores o f the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e port ed by those schools
des igna ted as r u r a l schools.
Teachers
being

at

in r u r a l

over

illustrates.

the

schools r e p o rte d e i g h t

75% l e v e l

Ad m inist rat ors

of

implementation

re port ed

only

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being over the 75% l e v e l .
characteristics

characteristics

three

as

T a b le

of

those

as
4.6
same

Teachers r e p o rt e d two

as being below th e 50% l e v e l ,

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

r e p o rt e d t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being below t h a t l e v e l .

Table 4.5.--Findings regarding Objective 5.
A d m in istr ato rs
Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
M ulti-m ate ri al
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Student s e r v i c e s
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Creativ e ex periences
Physical ex periences
Basic l e a r n i n g exper iences
Community r e l a t i o n s
Independent study
Team teach ing
Social experiences
F le x ib le schedule
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Planned gradualism
Continuous progress
A u xil iary s t a f f i n g

Teachers
Level
83%
81%
76%
74%
67%
66%
65%
65%
64%
64%
62%
60%
55%
53%
49%
47%
38%
25%

Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
Basic l e a r n i n g ex perie nces
Student s e r v i c e s
M u lti- m a te ri a l
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Independent study
C r e a tiv e exper ience s
Physical expe rienc es
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Community r e l a t i o n s
F l e x i b l e schedule
Planned gradualism
Social exper ienc es
Team te aching
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Continuous progress
A u x ili a ry s t a f f i n g

Level
86%
83%
80%
78%
74%
71%
69%
68%
67%
66%
63%
57%
47%
45%
43%
38%
36%
18%

Table 4.6.--Findings regarding Objective 6.
A d m in is trators
C haracteristic
Planned gradualism
M ulti-m ate ri al
Creative ex periences
F lexible schedule
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Guidance s e r v i c e s
Independent study
A u xil iary s t a f f i n g
Basic l e a r n i n g exper ience s
Physical exper iences
Social exper iences
Community r e l a t i o n s
Student s e r v i c e s
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Team teach ing
Continuous progress

Teachers
Level
100%
77%
76%
70%
68%
68%
67%
63%
61%
60%
59%
57%
56%
55%
50%
47%
40%
20%

Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
Team te aching
M u lt i- m a t e ria l
Basic l e a r n i n g ex periences
Student s e r v i c e s
Independent study
C r eativ e expe rienc es
Explorator y & enrichment programs
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Social ex periences
F l e x i b l e schedule
Community r e l a t i o n s
Planned gradualism
Physical expe rien ce s
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
A u x il ia ry s t a f f i n g
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Continuous pr og re ss

Level
86%
83%
80%
79%
78%
78%
76%
75%
72%
70%
67%
67%
67%
63%
50%
50%
44%
40%

90

An examination of th e rankings and th e lev el o f implementation
percentages
disparity

i n Table 4 . 6 e v i d e n c e s

in t h e rankings

and

in

th e

that

there

per centage

was a g r e a t e r
levels

between

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and te a c h e r s than in any o th e r t a b l e in t h i s s e c t i o n .
A d m in istr a to rs , f o r i n s t a n c e , r a t e d planned gradualism a t th e 100%
level,

whereas

characteristic

at

th e

however, re port ed guidance s e r v i c e s

at

the 86%

l e v e l , whereas a d m i n i s t r a t o r s re port ed i t a t th e 68% l e v e l .

Sim ilar

d i s p a r i t i e s were found f o r b a s i c l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s ,

social

level.

teachers

Teachers,

experie nces,

r e port ed t h a t

community r e l a t i o n s ,

e valuatio n

practices,

67%

and team

t e ach in g .
Objec tive 7 : To compare th e average level o f implementation
sco re s rep o rte d by the urban schools with t h a t r e p o rte d by th e
suburban schools.
An examination of Table 4.11 shows t h a t th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of
urban

schools

reported

characteristics

at

r e port ed th e level

the

the

level

63% l e v e l .

to be 65%.

of

implementation
Teachers

Suburban

in

schools*

of

those

th e

18

schools

administrators

r e p o r te d the le ve l o f implementation t o be a t th e 65% l e v e l , whereas
t e a c h e r s in those schools r e port ed the level of implementation to be
a t th e 63% l e v e l .
O bjective 8 : To compare th e average lev el o f implementation
scores rep or ted by th e urban schools with t h a t rep o rte d by th e
r u r a l schools.
Table 4.11

shows t h a t urban s c h o o ls ’ a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

t h e average level
level.

rep o rte d

of t h e implementation scores to be a t th e 63%

Rural s c h o o ls ’ a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e port ed those scores t o be at

91
th e 65% l e v e l .

Teachers in urban schools r e p o r te d t h e average level

o f implementation t o be a t th e 65% l e v e l , whereas t e a c h e r s in r u r a l
schools r e p o r te d th e average lev el t o be a t 71%.
An examination o f Table 4.11 shows t h a t , with th e ex ception of
th e 71% score re p ort ed by t e a c h e r s in r u r a l

s chools ,

t h e r e was a

range o f only two p o i n ts in th e implementation score s r e p o r t e d .

To

inclu de th e 71% f ig u r e would make a range o f only e i g h t p o i n t s .
Ob.iective 9 : To compare th e average lev el o f implementation
sc ore s r e p o rte d by th e r u r a l schools with t h a t r e p o rte d by the
suburban sc h ools .
A dm inistrators in r u r a l schools r e p o rte d th e average lev el

of

implementation sco re s to be a t th e 65% l e v e l , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in
suburban schools a ls o r e p o rte d t h a t score t o be 65%.
rural

schools r e p o r te d t h e average l ev el

Teachers in

of implementation to be

71%, and t e a c h e r s in suburban schools re port ed th e average lev el to
be 63%.

These l a s t two r e p o r t s provided th e g r e a t e s t d i s p a r i t y in

th e t e a c h e r s e c t i o n o f Table 4.11.
Ob.iective 10 : To measure th e average lev el o f implementation
scores f o r those design ated schools with a student, population
between 450 and 550.
Table

4.7

characteristics
multi-material

indicates
of
at

that

guidance
the

although

services,

80% or

highe r

administrators
creative
level,

rated

th e

experie nces,

and

te a c h e r s

rated

a d d i t i o n a l two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t higher than th e 80% l e v e l .
groups r a t e d

continuous progress

and a u x i l i a r y

staffing

at

an
Both

lower

than the 40% l e v e l .
D i s p a r i t i e s in th e r a t i n g s were evidenced in th e areas of b a s ic
learn in g experiences, student se rv ic e s,

and i n d e p e n d e n t s t u d y ;

Table 4.7.--Findings regarding Objective 10.
A d m in is trators
Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
Cre ative ex periences
M ulti-m ate ri al
Basic l e a r n i n g expe rienc es
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Student s e r v i c e s
Planned gradualism
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Community r e l a t i o n s
Physical exper iences
Independent study
Social ex periences
Team teach ing
F l e x ib l e schedule
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Continuous progre ss
A u x iliary s t a f f i n g

Teachers
Level
86%
85%
81%
69%
68%
68%
67%
67%
67%
64%
63%
61%
61%
58%
58%
52%
30%
25%

Characteristic
Basic l e a r n i n g ex pe rien ce s
Guidance s e r v i c e s
C r eativ e exper ie nc es
Student s e r v i c e s
M u lti- m aterial
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Independent study
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Physical exper ien ce s
Community r e l a t i o n s
F l e x i b l e schedule
Planned gradualism
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Team teach in g
Social expe rien ce s
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Continuous pr ogr es s
Auxiliary s ta ff in g

Level
90%
89%
89%
87%
81%
75%
74%
64%
64%
62%
61%
61%
59%
58%
58%
44%
38%
23%

93
teachers

rated

the

implem entation

level

of

those

three

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s much higher than did a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Objective 11 : To measure th e average level o f implementation
sc ores f o r those d es ignated schools with a s tu d e n t population
l e s s than 449 and more than 551.
Ad m ini st rat or s in t h e s e schools r a t e d th e implementation l e v e l s
o f t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being below th e 50% l e v e l .

Teachers

r a t e d t h e s e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t below t h a t l e v e l , and they r a te d
an a d d i tio n a l t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being implemented a t below
t h a t l e v e l , as w e l l .
D isparities
independent

are

study,

evidenced

community

in T a b le

relations,

4.8

and

in

the

planned

areas

of

gradualism.

Teachers r a t e d the l e v e l s o f implementation o f th e f i r s t two a t a
higher

lev el

than did

administrators.

A dm inistrators

rated

the

implementation lev el o f the l a s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a t a higher level
than did t e a c h e r s .
Ob.iective 12: To compare th e average level o f implementation
scores rep or ted by those schools with a stu d en t population
between 450 and 550 with t h a t of a l l o t h e r s i z e s o f th e 12
rWlWoWc i• ng inf Ma + orl

crK nnl;

W Wl IW W I w

•

Table 4.11 l i s t s th e average scores r e port ed by th e two groups
o f respondents.

Administrators in those schools with en rollm ents of

between 450 and 550 re port ed the average lev el o f implementation to
be

65%,

w hereas

teachers

reported

the

level

to

be

68%.

Ad m ini st rat or s in a l l o th e r s i z e s of schools r e p o rte d th e level to
be 62%, whereas te ach er s in t hose same schools rep o rted th e lev el to
be 64%.

Table 4.8.--Findings regarding Objective 11.
A d m in is trators
C haracteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
M ulti-m ateri al
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Student s e r v i c e s
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Basic l e a r n i n g ex periences
C rea tive exper iences
Independent study
Planned gradualism
Physical ex periences
Community r e l a t i o n s
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
F le x ib le schedule
Social ex periences
Continuous progress
Team teach ing
Aux iliar y s t a f f i n g

Teachers
Level
81%
79%
77%
73%
70%
66%
64%
64%
60%
60%
59%
59%
56%
53%
50%
44%
40%
15%

Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
M u lti - m a te ria l
Explor atory & enrichment programs
Independent study
Community r e l a t i o n s
Student s e r v i c e s
C r e a t iv e expe rienc es
Basic l e a r n i n g exper ienc es
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Physical exper ience s
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
F l e x i b l e schedule
Social ex periences
Planned gradualism
Team tea ch in g
Continuous progre ss
A u x ili a ry s t a f f i n g

Level
86%
81%
81%
78%
73%
69%
67%
66%
64%
64%
63%
62%
49%
48%
47%
45%
34%
23%

95
Ob.iective 13: To measure th e average lev el o f implementation
sc ores f o r those schools t h a t have been desig na ted a middle
school f o r e i g h t years o r more.
Teachers r e p o rte d t h a t th e im plem entation l e v e l s o f fo u r
characteristics

were hig he r than th e 80% l e v e l .

r e p o rt e d only one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

Adm inist rat ors

to be a t t h a t

level

o r hi gher .

Teachers r e p o rte d f our c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o be a t the 50% level

or

lower, and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l s o r e p o rte d t h a t four were a t t h e 50%
level or lower.
D i s p a r i t i e s ar e evidenced in Table 4.9 in th e area s o f stu d en t
services,

basic

learning

experiences,

and

independent

study.

Teachers r a t e d a l l t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t a higher lev el than did
administrators.
Wah’ s (1980) study determined t h a t th e longer a school had been
o p erating as a middle school,

th e g r e a t e r

th e

number o f th e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of middle school education i t had implemented.

18
His

r e s u l t s from a sample o f only fou r schools are in o p pos it ion t o th e
r e s u l t s of t h i s study.
Ob.iective 14; To measure th e average lev el o f implementation
scores f o r th ose schools t h a t have been designated a middle
school f o r fewer than e i g h t y e a r s .
A dmin istrators and t e a c h e r s in th e se schools r a t e d th e same two
characteristics
groups

a ls o

a t a 50% or lower lev el

rated

th e

same th r e e

o f implementation.

characteristics

at

a lev el

Both
of

implementation o f 80% or more, as an in sp e c tio n of Table 4.10 shows.
Only one d i s p a r i t y i s in evidence from th e t a b l e .

This i s the

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f community r e l a t i o n s , which t e a c h e r s r a t e d somewhat
higher

than

administrators rated th a t

particular

characteristic.

Table 4.9.--Findings regarding Objective 13.
A d m in is trators
C haracteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
M ulti-m ate ri al
Student s e r v i c e s
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Planned gradualism
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Creative ex periences
Basic le a r n i n g ex periences
Physical ex periences
Community r e l a t i o n s
Intramural a c t i v i t y
F le x ib le schedule
Independent study
Social expe rien ce s
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Team teaching
Continuous pr ogress
A u x iliary s t a f f i n g

Teachers
Level
86%
79%
69%
69%
67%
66%
66%
61%
61%
60%
56%
55%
53%
53%
49%
40%
40%
23%

Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
Basic l e a r n i n g exp er ienc es
Student s e r v i c e s
M u lt i- m aterial
Independent study
C r eativ e ex periences
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Physical exper ience s
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Planned gradualism
F l e x i b l e schedule
Community r e l a t io n s .
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
Social expe rienc es
Team te aching
Continuous progre ss
A u x ili a ry s t a f f i n g

Level
86%
86%
82%
81%
78%
72%
70%
69%
64%
63%
60%
60%
59%
53%
50%
48%
46%
20%

Table 4.10.--Findings regarding Objective 14.
A dm inist rators
Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
Creativ e exper ience s
M ulti-m ateri al
Basic l e a r n i n g exper iences
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Student s e r v i c e s
Independent study
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Community r e l a t i o n s
Planned gradualism
Physical exper iences
Social exper iences
Team teach in g
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
F le x ib le schedule
Continuous progress
A u xil iary s t a f f i n g

Teachers
Level
82%
82%
81%
73%
73%
72%
70%
70%
69%
63%
61%
61%
59%
58%
57%
57%
33%
21%

Characteristic
Guidance s e r v i c e s
C r e a tiv e ex periences
M u lt i- m a t e ria l
Student s e r v i c e s
Community r e l a t i o n s
Independent study
Basic l e a r n i n g expe rience s
Exploratory & enrichment programs
Student s e c u r i t y f a c t o r
Physical exp er ience s
Intramural a c t i v i t y
Planned gradualism
Social exp er ienc es
Team te achin g
Evaluation p r a c t i c e s
F l e x i b l e schedule
Continuous pr og re ss
A u x i lia ry s t a f f i n g

Level
89%
84%
80%
76%
74%
74%
74%
73%
68%
63%
60%
56%
56%
56%
54%
53%
35%
25%

98
Table 4.10 a l s o demonstrates a g r e a t s i m i l a r i t y in th e rankings of
th e implementation level o f each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c when ranked both by
pe rcentages and numerically.
Ob.iective 15: To compare t h e average lev el o f implementation
scores o f those schools t h a t have been d e s ig na te d a middle
school f o r more
than e i g h t years with th e average l e v e l of
implementation scores o f schools t h a t have been d e s ig na te d a
middle school f o r fewer than e i g h t y e a r s .
Table 4.11 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in tho se schools t h a t
had been middle

schools

for

fewer than

e i g h t years

reported

an

implementation l evel of 67%, whereas a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in schools t h a t
had been middle schools f o r more than e i g h t y e a r s r e p o rte d a le ve l
of

61%.

Teachers

in

the

newer m i d d l e

schools

reported

the

implementation lev el to be 67%, whereas t e a c h e r s in the o l d e r middle
schools r e p o rte d the level t o be 65%.
Conners and Irv in (1985) conducted a n atio n al

study using as

p a r t of t h e i r sample 93 USDOE-selected schools t h a t had been middle
schools f o r

both long

and s h o r t periods o f time.

s t u d y were

154 o t h e r n o n s e l e c t e d m i d d l e - l e v e l

Included in th e
schools.

They

determined t h a t USDOE-selected schools demonstrated a higher degree
o f "middleschoolness" than d i d nonselected schools.
Summary
An in s p e c ti o n o f Tables 4.3 through 4.10 i n d i c a t e s t h a t

th e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a u x i l i a r y s t a f f i n g and continuous pr ogr es s were
almost always ranked among th e l a s t of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in th e
level o f implementation both in th e rankings and in the per centages
r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s .

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of

99
guidance s e r v i c e s

and m u l ti- m a t e r ia l

were n e a r l y

as

consistently

ranked among th e h ig h est of th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Table 4 . 1 1 .--Comparison o f t h e t o t a l implementation sc ores f o r each
o f the groups p r eviously d iscu s s ed .
Principals
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
V III .

All 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s taken t o g e t h e r
Middle schools fewer than 8 years
Middle schools more than 8 yea rs
Enrollment between 450 and 550
Enrollment under 450/over 550
Urban schools
Suburban schools
Rural schools

64%
67%
61%
65%
62%
63%
65%
65%

Teachers
65%
67%
65%
68%
64%
65%
63%
71%

A c arefu l examination o f th e t a b l e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e were
many more s i m i l a r i t i e s among th e rankings and the per centage r a t i n g s
than t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s .

For i n s ta n c e , i t was not uncommon f o r

individ ua l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to r eceiv e th e same per centage r a t i n g by
both groups in any p a r t i c u l a r t a b l e .

For i n s ta n c e , Table 4.4 showed

t h a t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f so c ia l experiences was r a t e d a t th e 56%
lev el

by both t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and was, t h u s ,

ranking o f 13 in each t a b l e .

given a

In Table 4 .8, th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f

ba s ic l e a r n in g experiences was given a r a t i n g o f 66% by both groups.
The

same

held

true

for

th e

characteristic

enrichment programs in Table 4.9 a t 69%.

of

exploratory

and

In the v a s t m a j o r i ty of

ca s e s , the percentage r a t i n g s given t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by th e
groups being compared did not d i f f e r to a l a r g e degree.

100

An examination o f Table 4.11 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t e a c h e r s tended t o
r a t e th e implementation lev el of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being a
few p e r c e n t a g e
difference,

points

higher

than

did

adm inistrators.

although not l a r g e , was c o n s i s t e n t .

The

Table 4.11

also

demonstrates t h a t t h e implementation l e v e l s f o r a l l groups and f o r
th e t o t a l group o f surveys were r a t e d a t a l ev el h igher than 60%.
Those s tu d i e s o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p o rt e d in Chapter II
t h a t r e p o r te d a per centage r e s u l t a l l r e p o rte d t h a t lev el t o be in
c lo se proximity t o 50%, and most o f these rep o rted l e v e l s lower than
50% (Beckmann, 1978; Bohlinger, 1977; Hawkins, 1972; Kramer, 1974;
Minster, 1985; Magana, 1987; Raymer, 1974).
Those d is c r e p a n c i e s t h a t were found in th e pe rcentage r a t i n g s
given by th e var io us groups f e l l
(five

cases),

services

b a s ic

learning

(four cases),

community r e l a t i o n s

in th e area s o f independent study

exper iences

(three

planned g radualism

(three cases).

In only

cases),

stu d en t

(three ca se s),
s ix

and

other d iff e r e n t

cases of th e 162 p o s s i b l e cases were t h e r e d i s c r e p a n c i e s

in the

percentage rankings given by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r s w it hin any
given group.
In only two cases were t h e r e d i s c r e p a n c i e s in th e per centage
r a t i n g s given by th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r and te a c h e r groups when taken as
a whole.

In both o f those cases ( b a s i c le a r n in g exper ienc es and

independent s tu d y ),

teachers

rated

the

implem entation

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a t a higher level than did a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

of the

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter

V is

presen ted

in

three

sections.

In

th e

first

s e c t i o n , t h e study i s summarized through a b r i e f review of several
o f i t s major s e c t i o n s .

In th e second s e c t i o n , co nclusions ar e drawn

from the f in d in g s o f th e study.

The l a s t s e c t i o n of t h i s ch ap ter

c ontains recommendations f o r f u r t h e r study.
Summary
Purpose of the Study
This study was designed to answer the question:

To what degree

do the Michigan middle-leve l schools s e le c t e d by th e United S t a t e s
Department of Education to be n a t i o n a l l y recognized and exemplary
middle-level

schools during th e yea rs 1982 through 1987 implement

the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle school education?
the

purpose

of

this

study

was

to

determine

the

Specifically,
extent

of

the

implementation o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle school education
in

Michigan’ s

middle-le vel

USDOE-selected

exemplary

sch ools,

as

perceived by te a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s in th ose sc hoo ls.
Design of th e Study
The MDOE i d e n t i f i e d

those

12 middle-level

schools

USDOE had recognized as exemplary during the y e a r s

101

that

the

1982 through

102

1987.

After

securin g

verbal

permission

from

th e

12

b u ilding

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , th e r e s e a r c h e r mailed a s l i g h t l y modified copy of
R i e g l e ’ s 1971 survey instr ument t o one randomly s e l e c t e d t e a c h e r and
th e bu i ld i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r from each o f th e 12 de sig na te d schools.
Replies were r ec ei ve d from 22 o f th e 24 q u e s ti o n n a i r e s s e n t , f o r a
r e p ly r a t e o f 92%.
th e de sig na te d

Nei the r th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r nor th e t e a c h e r from

school

lo c a te d

in th e

largest

city

in t h e

state

responded.
The surveys were d iv id ed in t o th e various c a t e g o r i e s t h a t were
t o be compared.
sc ho ols;

These c a t e g o r i e s were:

r u r a l , suburban, and urban

schools with an enr ollment between 450 and 550;

schools

with an enr ollment s m aller than 450 and l a r g e r than 551\ 0 ;
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s completed by t e a c h e r s ;

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s completed by

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ; schools t h a t had been des ign ated as middle schools
f o r fewer than e i g h t y e a r s ; and schools t h a t had been designated as
middle schools f o r e i g h t y e a r s or more.
weighted in t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

manner t h a t

used when using t h i s survey instrum ent.

The survey q ues tions were
previous r e s e a r c h e r s

had

The numbers d erived from

th e survey q ues ti ons were converted i n to perc en tages of the maximum
p o s s i b l e score on each q u es ti o n in o rder t o provide f o r ease of
comparison between groups.
The L i t e r a t u r e Review
A brief

review o f th e

literature

concerning

sin ce th e e a r l y 1960s was w r i t t e n f o r t h i s study.

middle

schools

In g e n e r a l , t h i s

showed a tremendous growth in the number o f schools t h a t now c a l l

103
themselves middle schools.

This review als o made c l e a r th e f a c t

t h a t a very l a r g e number o f a r t i c l e s , p u b l i c a t i o n s , books, s t u d i e s ,
and o t h e r r e l a t e d

mat er ia l

is

available

concerning middle-school

educ ation.
A review o f tho se s t u d i e s p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s study was a p a r t of
th e o v e r a l l l i t e r a t u r e review.

Many r e s e a r c h e r s have attempted to

d e f i n e the " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a middle sc hool. "
There have been a number o f r e p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e o r i g i n a l Riegle
(1971) study, which many co n s id e r to be a landmark study in t h i s
a r ea.

Almost

im plem entation

all
rate

of

these

of

per centage po in ts o f 50%.

the

replications

have

demonstrated

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

w ithin

a

an
few

A few s tu d i e s have shown s l i g h t l y higher

r a t e s , but most of them have shown a lower r a t e .
A review o f the

literature

concerning t h e

Secondary

Recognition Program was als o a p a r t o f t h i s study.
SSRP i s s t i l l
ne a r ly a l l

School

Although the

too new t o have been the s u b je c t o f many s t u d i e s ,

of th e a v a i l a b l e s tu d i e s focused on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of

th e school a d m i n i s t r a t o r to th e SSRP’ s "14 a t t r i b u t e s o f s u c c e s s ."
No SSRP s t u d i e s focused on th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle school
ed uc ati on,

and only one study focused on schools o t h e r than high

sch oo ls.
Middle sch o o l a u t h o r i t i e s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s c o n s i d e r t h a t
c e r t a i n of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ar e e s s e n t i a l t o th e middle school
concept.

That i s , i f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s not p r e s e n t , the school

may be a middle school in name only.

There appears t o be a l a r g e

disc re pan cy between theory and p r a c t i c e in middle school ed uc ati on .

104

Unf ort unat el y,

it

appears t h a t

the USDOE’ s 14 a t t r i b u t e s

of

success were not designed with th e middle school concept in mind.
For th e most p a r t , thes e a t t r i b u t e s come from th e e f f e c t i v e schools
r e s e a r c h , which was conducted mainly in elementary and, to a much
s m aller degr ee, in high schools.
There appears to be a severe discrepancy in meaning between th e
18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f middle school education and t h e 14 a t t r i b u t e s
o f success o f th e USDOE program.
leve l

schools w il l

There i s a danger t h a t middle-

bl in d ly attempt t o implement th e 14 a t t r i b u t e s

i n s t e a d of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
laurels,

in ord er t o gain t h e p r e s t i g e ,

and r e c o g n itio n t h a t accompany t h e former.

Should t h i s

occur to any l a r g e degree, th e middle school may e x i s t in name only
in l e s s time than i t took f o r i t t o gain i t s c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n .
Conclusions
Ob.iective 1 :
middle school
t h e M ichigan
des igna ted as
Conclusion.

To measure th e degree o f implementation of th e 18
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as re p ort ed by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in
m id dle s c h o o l s and j u n i o r h i g h s t h a t were
exemplary by th e USDOE in th e years 1983 t o 1988.

Adm in istrators o f t h e 12 des igna ted schools r a t e d

th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of guidance s e r v i c e s and m u l t i - m a t e r i a l
80% lev el

or

high er .

Only

th e

characteristics

of

a t the

continuous

pr ogress and a u x i l i a r y s t a f f i n g were r a t e d below th e 50% lev el

of

implementation.
D i s c u s s io n .
desig nated

It

appears

schools believed

that

that

administrators

their

schools

most o f the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t a high l e v e l .

of

th e

USD0E-

were implementing

105

Ob.iective 2 : To measure th e degree o f implementation o f th e 18
middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as r e p o rt e d by t e a c h e r s in the
Michigan middle schools and j u n i o r highs t h a t were designated
as exemplary by th e USDOE in the years 1983 to 1988.
Conclusion.
implementation

The te a c h e r s in th e exemplary schools r a t e d the

l evel

of

fou r

characteristics

(guidance

services,

m u l t i - m a t e r i a l , bas ic l e a r n i n g ex per ien ce s, and studen t s e r v i c e s ) at
th e 79% or higher lev el

and t h a t o f t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

(team

t e a c h in g , continuous p ro g re s s , and a u x i l i a r y s t a f f i n g ) a t th e 50% or
lower l e v e l .
D is c u ss i o n .
that

th eir

Teachers in these USDOE-designated schools thought

s c h o o l s were

im pl em en ting

the

m ajority

of

the

18

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t a high l e v e l .
Ob.iective 3 : To compare th e average level o f implementation
scores of the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as r e p o rte d by a d m i n i s tr a to r s
t o t h a t re port ed by t e a c h e r s in th e 12 designated Michigan
middle or j u n i o r high schools.
Conclusion.

In g e n e r a l , t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s both r ated

and ranked th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in a very s i m i l a r manner.
D is c u ss io n .
se ve ral

Although

exceptions

to

this

Table

4.1

indicated

generality,

thos e

that

there

exceptions

were

can

be

explained by th e f a c t t h a t te a c h e r s are c l o s e r to th e day-to-day
s i t u a t i o n than are a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and may well
judge the e x t e n t t o which those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
The

exceptions

were

bas ic

learning

experiences

study, which were r a t e d hig he r by te a c h e r s .

be b e t t e r able to
ar e implemented.
and

independent

106
Ob.iective 4 : To measure th e average lev el o f implementation
scores o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p o rte d by those schools
des igna ted as urban schools.
Conclusion.

Teachers

and

administrators

in

urban

schools

i n d ic a te d a c l o s e correspondence in th e r a t i n g s and ranking of the
18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Both in d ic a t e d a high degree o f implementation

of guidance s e r v i c e s .
D is c u ss i o n .
rated

Guidance

s e r v ic e s

was

the

only

characteristic

a t over 90% by both subgroups o f any l a r g e r group in the

survey.

Urban schools may have a higher need f o r a g r e a t e r degree

of implementation of t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c because o f t h e population
they se rve.
Ob.iective 5 : To measure th e average level o f implementation
scores of the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e port ed by th ose schools
designated as suburban schools.
Conclusion.
group

of

Administrators in suburban schools were th e only

administrators

to

rate

th e

implementation

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being a t a higher le ve l
te a c h e r s

in t h e i r

r a t e d the t o t a l

schools.

t e a c h e r s in th e se schools.
4.11)

rated

the

th e

18

than a given group of

These suburban sch o o l

implementation level

of

administrators

as being 2% high er than did

All o t h e r groups o f t e a c h e r s (see Table

implem entation

level

higher

than

did

th eir

administrators.
D is cuss ion.
unusual.

Although th e d i f f e r e n c e

was minor,

it

appears

I t would seem t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of th e s e schools viewed

the implementation level

o f the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

higher level than did te a c h e r s in t h e s e schools.

as being a t a

107

Ob.iective 6 : To measure the average le ve l
sco res o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p o r te d
d es ignated as r u r a l schools.
Conclusion.

Teachers in r u ra l schools r a t e d a t o t a l o f e i g h t

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t th e 75% level or hig h er .
were g u i d a n c e

of implementation
by th ose schools

services,

team t e a c h i n g ,

These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
m ulti-m aterial,

basic

l e a r n i n g e x p er ien ces, s tu d e n t s e r v i c e s , independent study, c r e a t i v e
e x p er ien ces,

and e x p l o r a t o r y

and enrichment

programs.

This

71%

o v e r a ll r a t i n g was th e h ig h e s t level o f implementation by any group
in

the

survey.

The l o w e s t

level

of

im plementation

for

any

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r a t e d by the te achers in t h i s group was a t th e 40%
lev el of implementation.
p r o g re s s.

That was the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f continuous

I t was the h ig h e s t "low" r a t i n g in th e survey.

D is c u s s io n .

Rural t e a c h e r s seemed t o t h i n k t h a t th e lev el of

implementation

(71%) of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

t h e i r schools.

Perhaps te a c h e r s in the r u r a l

was very high

in

schools ar e granted

more freedom to experiment; perhaps they understand or fee l
to t.heir stu den ts because they are mere apt t o l i v e

closer

in th e

community; perhaps the f a c t t h a t the r u r a l middle school

same

i s most

l i k e l y the only middle school in th e community has an in f l u e n c e .
Objective 7 ; To compare th e average lev el o f implementation
scores re port ed by th e urban schools with t h a t rep o rted by the
suburban schools.
Conclusion.
level

of th e

Urban school t e a c h e r s viewed th e

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

as b e i n g

at

implementation

the

65% l e v e l .

A dm inistr ators in those schools viewed the implementation level
being s l i g h t l y lower.

as

A dministrators o f suburban schools viewed th e

108

implementation level as being s l i g h t l y hig he r than did t e a c h e r s in
suburban sch oo ls.
D is c u s s io n .

The implementation l e v e l s o f 63-65% ar e very high

when compared t o t h e r e s u l t s of o t h e r such surveys.

I t appears t h a t

these

high

USDOE-designated

schools

exhibited

implementation o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

a

very

lev el

of

The d i f f e r e n c e s among the

f our groups were very minor.
Ob.iective 8 : To compare the average lev el o f implementation
sc or es r e p o rte d by the urban schools with t h a t r e p o r te d by the
r u r a l schools.
Conclusion.

Both t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in r u r a l schools

viewed the degree o f implementation o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

as

being a t a higher level than did th e groups of t e a c h e r s and adminis­
trators

in urban schools.

Teachers

in r u r a l

schools

viewed the

implementation level as being 6% higher , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in r ura l
schools viewed th e level as being 2% hi gher .
D is cu ss io n .

Perhaps urban schools have more c o n s t r a i n t s than

do r u r a l schools because urban schools are u s u a lly l a r g e r .

They may

have more a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l s and/or have more of a p o s s i b i l i t y of
h aving

several

m iddle-level

schools

w i th

which

they

need

to

cooperate and correspond in t h e d i s t r i c t .
Ob.iective 9 : To compare the average lev el o f implementation
scores r e p ort ed by th e r u r a l schools with t h a t r e p o rt e d by the
suburban schools.
Conclusion.

Although a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in both r u r a l and suburban

schools viewed th e implementation level of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as

109
being o f t h e same level

(65%), suburban school te a c h e r s viewed the

lev el

in t h e i r schools as being a t th e 63% lev el

rural

schools viewed th e lev el

that.

and te a c h e r s

in

as being e i g h t p o i n ts higher than

This e i g h t - p o i n t d i f f e r e n c e provided t h e g r e a t e s t d i s p a r i t y

among subgroups of t e a c h e r s in the comparison.

I t was concluded

t h a t r u r a l school t e a c h e r s viewed th e implementation level of th e 18
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being hig her than t h a t o f any o t h e r subgroup in
th e study.
Ob.iective 10: To measure th e average lev el of implementation
sco re s f o r those desig nated schools with a s tu d en t population
between 450 and 550.
Conclusion.

Teachers

in schools with

a stu d en t

population

between 450 and 550 r a t e d f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being a t th e 80%
lev el or hig h er .
experiences,

These were the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f ba sic l e a r n in g

guidance s e r v i c e s ,

s e r v i c e s , and m u l t i - m a t e r i a l .

creative

view o f t h e o v e r a l l

student

Adm inist rat or s r a t e d only t h r e e as

being a t t h a t lev el or h ig h e r .
guidance s e r v i c e s ,

c re a tiv e experiences,

These were th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

expe rienc es ,

closeness

and m u l t i - m a t e r i a l .

of ra tin g

and r a n k i n g

In

between

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r s in t h i s subgroup, i t was concluded t h a t
t h e two groups viewed th e implementation o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
as being v i r t u a l l y o f the same degree.
Ob.iective 11: To measure the average level o f implementation
scores f o r those desig nated schools with a s tu d en t po pulation
l e s s than 450 and more than 550.
Conclusion.
th e

implementation

Teachers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
levels

of

the

18

in t h i s group r a t e d

characteristics

lower

than

110

n e a r l y a l l of the o th e r subgroups.
th e

characteristic

of

Rated a t 15% by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

auxiliary

staffing

was

the

lowest

rated

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c by any subgroup o f t e a c h e r s o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in th e
survey.

I t was concluded t h a t p r i n c i p a l s r a t e d th e implementation

lev el of t h e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t a level higher than did only one
o t h e r subgroup in th e survey.

Teachers r a t e d th e

implementation

l ev el as being higher than only one o th e r subgroup in t h e survey, as
w ell.

(See Table 4 . 1 1 .)
Ob.iective 12: To compare th e average level o f implementation
scores r e p o rt e d by those schools with a s tu d e n t population
between 450 and 550 with t h a t o f a l l o t h e r s i z e s o f th e 12
de sig na te d schools.
Conclusion.

Schools with an enrollment between 450 and 550 had

adm inistrators

who r a t e d

characteristics

as

being

schools o f o th e r s i z e s .
between

450

and

implementation

3% higher
Teachers

rated

the

than

did

level

of

the

18

administrators

in

in schools with an enrollment

implementation

level

of

th e

18

as being 4% higher than did te a c h e r s in schools of

ch aracteristics

o th e r s i z e s .

550

the

I t was concluded t h a t the subgroup of schools with

en rollm ents between 450 and 550 implemented the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
t o a higher degree than did schools o f o th e r s i z e s .
D is c u ss i o n .

Recent l i t e r a t u r e has tended to s t a t e t h a t i t is

more a p p r o p r ia te f o r m iddle-level schools to have en rollm ents t h a t
are r e l a t i v e l y close to the 500-student enrollment lev el
Council
n .d .).

on

Adolescent

Development,

1989;

Goodlad,

(Carnegie

1983;

NASSP,

Ill

Ob.iective 13: To measure th e average lev el o f implementation
scores f o r those schools t h a t have been des ignated a middle
school f o r e i g h t y e a r s or more.
Conclusion.

Ad m inist rat ors of schools t h a t have been middle

schools f o r e i g h t ye ar s or more r a t e d th e implementation o f th e 18
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being t h e lowest o f any subgroup in th e survey
(see Table 4 . 1 1 ) ,
these

schools

implementation.
perceived

the

a t th e 61% implementation l e v e l .

rated

the

level

as

being

at

I t was concluded t h a t t e a c h e r s
implem entation

level

as

b e in g

the

Teachers

in

65% l e v e l

of

in these

schools

higher than

did

administrators.
D is c u ss io n .

Perhaps a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in t h e s e schools were not

as c lo s e to th e t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n

as t e a c h e r s were and

tended to perceive the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as not
a t a high l e v e l .
of trying

Perhaps t h e s e

being implemented

schools in general had grown " t i r e d "

t o a t t a i n th e h i g h e s t degree o f implementation f o r some of

the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Ob.iective 1 4 : To measure the average lev el o f implementation
sc ores f o r those schools t h a t have been des ig na te d a middle
school f o r fewer than e i g h t y e a r s .
Conclusion.

Both the

administrators

and te a c h e r s

in

these

exemplary Michigan middle schools t h a t had been in e x i s t e n c e f o r
few er

than

eight

years

rated

implemented a t the 67% l e v e l .

the

ch aracteristics

as

b ein g

I t was concluded t h a t schools t h a t

had been middle schools f o r fewer than e i g h t y e a r s ranked among th e
hig h est of any subgroup in th e survey f o r degree of implementation.

112

D is cu ss io n .

This was t h e h i g h e s t r a t i n g f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as

a subgroup in any s e c t io n o f th e t o t a l group and among the highest
f o r any subgroup o f t e a c h e r s .

Perhaps "newness" makes a school t r y

har der t o implement a l l o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s because everyone in
th e school

i s focused on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t i v e .

It

is

also

p o s s i b l e t h a t i n s e r v i c e ed ucation f o r s t a f f in th e ar ea o f middle
school education has been a comparatively r e c e n t occurrence in these
schools.
Objective 15: To compare th e average lev el o f implementation
scores o f those schools t h a t have been desig na te d a middle
school f o r more than e i g h t ye ar s with the average lev el of
implementation scores o f schools t h a t have been d e s ig na te d a
middle school f o r fewer than e i g h t y e a r s .
Conclusion.

Teachers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in t hose schools t h a t

had been middle schools fewer than e i g h t y e a r s r a t e d th e level

of

implementation o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being higher than did
administrators

and t e a c h e r s of th e

schools more than e i g h t y e a r s .

schools

that

had been middle

I t was concluded t h a t schools t h a t

had been middle schools fewer than e i g h t years d isp lay ed a higher
degree of implementation o f th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than did schools
t h a t had been middle schools f o r more than e i g h t y e a r s .
Discussion o f t h e Findings
There were two major f i n d i n g s o f th e survey.

The f i r s t was

t h a t t h e r e was very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between th e per ce ived lev el o f
implementation between any o f th e 14 subgroup c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d
Table 4.11, Sections II through V III .
perceived

difference

in

the

in

Indeed, t h e r e was very l i t t l e

im plem entation

levels

of

the

18

113

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s when a l l p r i n c i p a l s o r a l l t e a c h e r s were considered
as a subgroup, as noted in Table 4.11, Section I .

The degree of

unanimity between and among groups i s most unusual.

Teachers as a

group and p r i n c i p a l s as a group in t h e s e exemplary Michigan middlelevel

schools

viewed

the

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being
and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
im plem entation

level

only 1% a p a r t . I t appears

in t h e s e

level

im plem entation

the

18

the

18

th a t teachers

USDOE-selected schools

of

of

perceived

ch aracteristics

the

t o be

at

degree

of

approximately th e same degree.
The second major f in d i n g

was

that

th e

perceived

implementation of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was 64% f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
and 65% f o r te a c h e r s in th e s e sc hools .
surveys

that

included th e

Because v i r t u a l l y a l l o th e r

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

and

that

listed

a

degree o f implementation

in t h i s manner s t a t e d

t h a t th e degree of

implementation was in th e

50% categor y or lower,

th is is certainly a

com paratively

hi gh

implementation le ve l

degree

of

im plem entation.

T h e re i s

no

t h a t i s known t o be higher in any survey of

th is nature.
If it
rate

h ig h

attributes,

i s t r u e t h a t t h e s e USDOE-selected middle-l ev el
in

th eir

degree

attainm ent

of

t h e USDOE’ s

14

i t appears t h a t they rank e q u ally high in t h e i r degree

of im plementation of the
e d ucati on.

of

schools

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

o f middle

s chool

Although f u r t h e r study needs t o be done, perhaps t h e r e

i s some degree o f c o r r e l a t i o n between the 14 a t t r i b u t e s and the 18
characteristics.

114
Of th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

several

were r a t e d

n e a r l y every subgroup l i s t e d in Table 4.11.

very high

in

Rated high in every

subgroup o f te a c h e r s were th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f guidance s e r v i c e s ,
s tu d e n t s e r v i c e s , independent study, b a s ic l e a r n in g e x p er ien ces, and
c r e a t i v e experie nces.

Rated high by th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

subgroup were guidance s e r v i c e s ,

multi-m aterials,

in every

and e x p l o r a to r y

and enrichment programs.

In g e n e r a l , t e a c h e r s perc eive d a higher

degree

of

of

implementation

thos e

characteristics

that

d irectly

involve s tu d e n t s .
Of t h e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , several were c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d and
ranked lower than th e o t h e r s .

These were th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

continuous progress and a u x i l i a r y s t a f f i n g .

of

Ranking and r a t i n g only

s l i g h t l y above th e s e two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
team te aching and e v alu atio n p r a c t i c e s .
Emphasis needs to be placed on developing a higher degree of
implementation o f t h e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in middle sch ools.
als o

needs

to

be some d i s c u s s io n

There

concerning whether or not

the

USDOE’ s 14 a t t r i b u t e s are a p p r o p r i a t e f o r middle school educa tion.
Both th e middle school concept and th e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have
been w e ll- d e f in e d and disc ussed in t h e l i t e r a t u r e .

Middle schools

face t h e chal len ge o f implementing th e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o a higher
degree than th e a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e
done.

suggests

has t y p i c a l l y

been

F a i l u r e to do so may well i n d i c a t e th e f a i l u r e of the middle

school movement in anything o t h e r than name only.

115
Recommendations f o r F urth er Study
If

these

m iddle-level

schools

are

indeed

ex e m p l a r y

and

o utstan ding as the USDOE has so des ignated them, i f they ar e t o be
held up as models f o r o t h e r m iddle-level schools t o emulate, and i f
th e

implementation

vicinity

le ve l

o f 64-65%as

o f th e

the data

18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

from

this

is

survey su gg es t,

in

the

th e r e

e x i s t s cause f o r concern about th e f u tu r e d i r e c t i o n o f m iddle-level
education in Michigan.

These ar e a l l e g e d l y Michigan’s b e s t middle-

level schools.
Because t h i s i s th e f i r s t
s e le c te d

exemplary sch oo ls,

a

known study o f middle-leve l
number of

area s

exist

for

USDOEfurther

r es ea rch :
1.

There is a need t o compare th e Michigan exemplary middle-

level school da ta with o t h e r USDOE-designated m iddle-level
in ot her

states.

This would provide information f o r

schools

comparative

purposes.
2.

There e x i s t s a need to compare th e USDOE-designated schools

t h a t scored high on the 14 a t t r i b u t e s with thos e nonselected schools
that

would

s c o r e hig h

on

the

implem entation

of

the

18

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of middle school education.
3.

There e x i s t s a need to determine whether or not th e USDOE’ s

14a t t r i b u t e s are as

a p p lic a b le

t o middle-level

education as some

say they are t o high school education.
4.

Because the implementation level o f 64-65% found is c o n s i d ­

er a b ly higher than t h a t found in o th e r s t u d i e s , t h e r e e x i s t s a need

116
t o determine whether o r not higher implementation l e v e l s e x i s t

in

any o th e r group o f schools.
5.

A r e p l i c a t i o n of t h i s

study in Michigan using th e

same

schools o r using th e USDOE-selected schools from some l a t e r period
would be useful f o r comparison purposes.
6.

Because the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

scored

at

the

h ig h est

lev el in each o f th e comparison groups and in the t o t a l group,
would be useful t o attempt t o determine why t h a t

it

i s the case and

whether i t i s the case in o t h e r middle schools.
7.

Because th e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ranked among the lowest in

each o f th e comparison groups and in the t o t a l group,

i t would be

useful to determine why t h a t is th e case and whether i t i s th e case
in o th e r middle schools.
8.

I t would be useful t o determine the degree of in fl uen ce the

USDOE’s 14 a t t r i b u t e s have had in determining the f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n
o f m iddle-level education.
9.

Because some of the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are implemented to a

high degree and some ar e not, i t would be useful

to determine the

a t t i t u d e s o f a given group o f school s t a f f s versus th e a t t i t u d e s o f
t h e i r var ious publics concerning t h i s s i t u a t i o n .
10.

A study t o determine the cause of th e f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u ­

ence th e degree of implementation of the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s would be
useful.

Among the

possible

causes

could

be

l e a d e r s h ip

of

the

building a d m i n i s t r a t o r , money a v a i l a b l e f o r implementation, a t t i t u d e
of the s t a f f , a t t i t u d e o f th e community, and o th e r f a c t o r s such as

117
s t a f f tu rn o v e r, l e a d e r s h ip tu rn o v e r, s i z e o f t h e school po pu la tion,
and community involvement in the school.
11.
plary

Because t h i s i s th e f i r s t study t o use USDOE-selected exem­
m idd le

schools

as

its

sam ple,

a need

exists

to

study

ou tst an din g middle schools s e l e c t e d by o t h e r commissions, groups, or
o r g a n iz a ti o n s in r e l a t i o n t o the 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and in r e l a t i o n
t o th e SSRP’s 14 a t t r i b u t e s o f success.
12.

A need e x i s t s f o r a comparison study using th e 18 c h a r a c ­

t e r i s t i c s between the USDOE-selected middle-leve l schools and those
middle-level schools t h a t were s e le c t e d f o r r e c o g n i tio n a t th e s t a t e
level only.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
LETTERS

118

March 5, 1988
Dear Teacher,
I am c u r r e n t l y beginning t o w r i t e my d i s s e r t a t i o n a t Michigan S t a te
U n iv e r s it y .
My t o p i c i s :
"A Study of th e N a tio n a ll y Recognized
Exemplary Middle Schools in Michigan and t h e Extent o f Their
Implementation of th e Eighteen C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Middle School
Education."
I need your help and a s s i s t a n c e in o rder t o g a t h e r th e d a ta I need.
Your school was s e le c t e d because i t i s , o f co urse , a n a t i o n a l l y
recognized, exemplary Michigan middle or j u n i o r high sch ool.
I am
asking the p r i n c i p a l s and a t e a c h e r in each of tho se twelve schools
t o complete one of the two enclosed i d e n t i c a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .
I have asked th e twelve building p r i n c i p a l s to s e l e c t a t e a c h e r to
complete the atta ched q u e s ti o n n a i r e .
Enclosed ar e one q u e s ti o n n a ir e f o r t h e p r in c ip a l and one f o r a
te a c h e r , along with two stamped r e t u r n envelopes.
I know how very
busy everyone i s , e s p e c i a l l y at t h i s time o f y e a r , but IT WOULD BE
VERY HELPFUL IF YOU COULD RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRES TO ME WITHIN THE
NEXT WEEK OR SO.
I f you would l i k e a summary of th e r e s u l t s , please l i s t your name
and address in th e place in d i c a t e d on t h e q u e s ti o n n a i r e .
Please accept my thanks f o r your cooperation and a s s i s t a n c e , and
pleas e feel f r e e to c a ll me ( c o l l e c t ) a t 616-685-5813 (7:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m.) i f you have any q u e s ti o n s .
S in c e r e ly ,

David P r e n tic e

119

March 5, 1988
Dear ( P r i n c i p a l ’ s Name),
I am c u r r e n t l y beginning t o w r i t e my d i s s e r t a t i o n a t Michigan S ta t e
U n iv e r s ity .
My t o p i c i s :
"A Study o f th e N a t io n a lly Recognized
Exemplary Middle Schools in Michigan and th e Extent o f Their
Implementation of the Eighteen C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Middle School
E d u c a tio n ."
I need your help and a s s i s t a n c e in o rd er to g a t h e r th e d ata I need.
Your school was s e le c t e d because i t i s , o f course, a n a t i o n a l l y
recognized, exemplary Michigan middle or j u n i o r high school.
I am
asking the p r i n c i p a l s and a t e a c h e r in each of thos e twelve schools
to complete one of th e two enclosed i d e n t i c a l q u e s ti o n n a i r e s .
I have asked th e twelve buildin g p r i n c i p a l s to s e l e c t a t e a c h e r to
complete th e a tta ch ed q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Please s e l e c t th e t e a c h e r who
is c l o s e s t to number ten on your alp h a b e ti c a l l i s t o f t e a c h e r s and
who also has a t l e a s t f i v e ye ar s o f teaching experience.
Enclosed are one q u e s tio n n a ir e f o r the p r in c ip a l and one f o r a
t e a c h e r , along with two stamped r e t u r n envelopes.
I know how very
busy everyone i s , e s p e c i a l l y a t t h i s time of y e a r , but IT WOULD BE
VERY HELPFUL IF YOU COULD RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRES TO ME WITHIN THE
NEXT WEEK OR SO.
I f you would l i k p a summary of th e r e s u l t s , plea se l i s t your name
and address in th e place in d ic a te d on th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Please accept my thanks f o r your cooperation and a s s i s t a n c e , and
pleas e feel f r e e to c a l l me ( c o l l e c t ) a t 616-685-5813 (7:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m.) i f you have any qu es tio n s .
S in cer ely ,

David P r e n tic e

APPENDIX B
THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

120

A STUDY OF THE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED EXEMPLARY MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN
MICHIGAN AND THE EXTENT OF THEIR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
EIGHTEEN CHARACTERISTICS
OF MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION

A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS A N D PRINCIPALS
OF SELECTED MIDDLE SCHOOLS

P L E A S E R E T U R N IN T H E E N V E L O P E P R O V I D E D T O :

DAVID PRENTICE
7 0 9 G U M R I V E R CT.
PLAINWE L L , M I C H I G A N 49080

121

G e n e r a l I n f o r m a t i o n : (CONFIDENTIAL)

Title of Re s po nd e nt:
(C h e c k o n e )

P r i n c i p a l ____________________

T eacher________________

S ex:

Female_________ ____ Male

Years in Present P o s i t i o n :

years

Years in Education:

years

P l e a s e place a c he c k mark before the g r a d e s s e r v e d bv vour school:
5

6_______ _____7

8

N um be r of y e a r s a s a middle school?

School District:

R u ral

_____________

________ U r b a n

Suburban

If you w ou ld like a c o p y o( the results ol this study, p l e a s e inclu de n a m e an d a d d r e s s .

122
You r response to all questions will be greatly appreciated.
All respondents can be assured of C O M P L E T E A N O N Y M IT Y .
Please feel free to make additional com m ents when
believed necessary.
P a r t I: P l a c e a c h e c k m a r k b e f o r e t h e
S I N G L E B E S T a n s w e r th at e x p l a i n s y o u r
c u r r e n t p r o g r a m a s It r e l a t e s t o t h e
q u estio n .

1 -A .

C o n tin u o u s p r o g r e s s p r o g r a m s (A n o n

g r a d e d p r o g r a m w h i c h p e r m it s s t u d e n t s to

4-B .

T h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s c e n t e r in

this b u i ld in g h o u s e s :

p r o g r e s s at t h e ir o w n e d u c a t i o n a l p a c e
r e g a r d l e s s o f their c h r o n o l o g i c a l a g e . ) are:

1000

b o o k s or l e s s .

(1)

n o t u s e d a t this tim e .

(2)

1 0 0 1 to

(2)

u s e d w i th s p e c i a l g r o u p s .

(3)

3001

(3)

u s e d f o r t h e first t w o y e a r s .

(4)

4 0 0 1 to

(4)

u sed by se lec ted stu dents.

(5)

(5)

u s e d b y all s t u d e n t s .

5-B.

3 0 0 0 books.
to 4 0 0 0 b o o k s .
5 0 0 0 books.

m o r e than 5 0 0 0 b o o k s.

T h e m a te r ia ls c e n t e r h a s a paid

c e r tified
2-A .

(1)

lib rarian:

C o n tin u o u s p r o g r e s s p r o g r a m s are

p l a n n e d for a s t u d e n t o v e r a C A L E N D A R

(1)

no.

(2)

part-tim e

(3)

one

(4)

m o r e t h a n o n e fu ll-tim e .

y e a r s p a n ol:
(1)

not u s e d .

r?)

o n e year.

(3)

tw o

(4)

th ree

(5)

m o r e t h a n th r e e y e a r s .

fu ll- t im e .

years.
6-B.
years.

F o r c l a s s r o o m in s t r u c t i o n , A U D I O

V I S U A L M A T E R I A L S o t h e r th a n m o t i o n
pictu res

3-A .

only.

are:

(1)

not u sed .

(2)

r a r e ly

T h e m u l t i - t e x t b o o k a p p r o a c h to

lea rn in g

is c u r r e n t l y :

used.

(1)

not u s e d .

(3)

o c ca sio n a lly u s e d .

(2)

u s e d in a F E W c o u r s e s .

(4)

freq u en tly u s e d .

(3)

u s e d in M O S T c o u r s e s .

(5)

very

(4)

u s e d in N E A R L Y ALL c o u r s e s

freq u en tly

used

123

7-C .

T h o b a s i c l i m e m o d u l e u s o d l o b u ild

t h e s c h e d u l e is:
......... ( 1 )

9-D .

H o w a r e s p o n s o r s h i p s for c l u b

a c tiv ities

1 0 lo 2 9 m i n u t e s .

h a n d led ?

(1)

st a f f m e m b e r s D O N O T w o r k
w it h

(2)

3 0 to 4 4 m i n u t e s .

(3)

4 5 to 5 9 m i n u t e s .

(2)

..... (<1)

clu b

a ctiv ities.

sta f f m e m b e r s a r e A S S I G N E D
W IT H O U T PAY.

6 0 m inutes.

(3)

st a f f m e m b e r s a r e A S S I G N E D
WIT H P A Y .

(5)

a c o m b i n a t i o n ol tim e
s o d i v e r s i f i e d that n o b a s i c

(4)

m o d u l e is d e f i n e d .
(6)

st a ff m e m b e r s V O L U N T E E R
W IT H O U T PAY.

o t h e r ________________________
(5)

st a ff m e m b e r s V O L U N T E E R
A N D A R E PAID.

10-D .

W hat p e r ce n t of your stu d e n t b od y

r e g u la r l y p a r t i c i p a t e s in at l e a s t o n e c l u b
8-C .

W h i c h of t h e b e l o w b e s t d e s c r i b e s

your sc h e d u le

a c tiv ity ?

at p r e s e n t :

(1)

tr a d itio n a l.

(2)

tra d itio n a l,m o d ified

(1)

w e h a v e no c lu b pro g ra m .

(2)

2 5 % or l e s s .

(3)

26%

to 5 0 % .

(4)

51%

to 7 5 % .

(5)

76%

to

by

" b lo c k - t im e ,’ " r ev o lv in g
p e r io d ," o r o t h e r s u c h
r egu larly

o c cu rrin g

m o d ifica tio n s.
(3)

flexible to

100% .

t h e d e g r e e that

all p e r i o d s a r e s c h e d u l e d

11-E .

b u t a r e n o t id e n t i c a l in

program

| s the p h y s ic a l e d u c a t io n
in d iv id u a lized ?

len gth.
(4)

flexible to

(1)

not at all.

(2)

slig h tly .

(3)

m o d era tely .

(4)

h ig h ly .

th e d e g r e e that

c h a n g e s o c c u r within
d e f i n e d g e n e r a l time lim its.
(5)

fl e x i b l e l o

t h e d e g r e e th at

stu d en ts and teach ers c o n ­
trol t h e d a ily tim e u s a g e
and c h a n g e s occur
r o g u la rly .
(6)

o t h e r __________

12-F .

In ter-sch olastic c o m p e titio n
(3)

not offered.

(2)

o f f e r e d in o n e s p o r t

(1)

only.

o f f e r e d in Iw o or m o r e
sp o ris

is:

124

13-F .
sam e

In tram u ra l a c t i v i t i e s o f t e n u s e
facilities a s

a c tivities.

the

in tersch o la stic

15-G .

W h a t p e r c e n t a g e o f y o u r tea ch in g

s t a f f is i n v o l v e d in t e a m t e a c h i n g

W h e n t h i s c a u s e s a t im e

program s?

c o n f l ic t , h o w d o y o u s c h e d u l e ?
(1)

program .
(2)

(1)

none.

(2)

2 5 % or l e s s .

(3)

2 6 % to 5 0 % .

(4)

5 1 % to 7 5 % .

(5)

7 6 % to 1 0 0 %

w e h a v e n o IN T R A M U R A L

in te rsch o la stic

activ ities

t a k e first priority a n d
oth ers m u st sc h e d u le
a r o u n d their n e e d s .
(3)

w e h a v e no
INTERSCHOLASTIC P R O G R A M
16 - G .

(4)

intram ural activities

take

first priority a n d o t h e r s

H o w m an y m inutes p er d a y d o e s a

s t u d e n t in g r a d e

S I X a v e r a g e in a

le a r n t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m ?

s c h e d u l e a r o u n d their
needs.
14-G .

H o w m a n y s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e in

t e a m te a ch in g p r o g r a m s?
teach ers

(1)

none.

(2)

4 0 m i n u t e s or l e s s .

(3)

41

to 8 0 m i n u t e s .

(4)

81

to 1 2 0 m i n u t e s .

(5)

m o r e th a n a 1 2 1 m i n u t e s .

(T w o or m o r e

ad m in istratively o r g a n iz e d

to

p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s for t h e m to m a x i m i z e
t h e ir t e a c h i n g t a l e n t s a n d a llo w s t u d e n t s to
i n t e r a c t with t e a c h e r s r e s p o n s i b l e

for a

b r o a d r a n g e of s u b je c t a r e a s .)

(1 )

none,

17-G

H ow m a n y m inutes per d a y d o e s a

s t u d e n t in g r a d e s S E V E N o r E IG H T a v e r a g e
_______ ( 2 )

______

2 5 % or l e s s .

:n a t e a m t s s c h i n g p i o y r a m .

(3)

2 6 % to 5 0 % .

(1)

none.

(4)

51%

to 7 5 % .

(2)

4 0 m i n u t e s or l e s s .

(5)

76%

to 1 0 0 % ,

(3)

41

to 8 0 m i n u t e s .

( 6)

comments

(4)

81

to 1 2 0 m i n u t e s .

(5)

m o r e than a 1 2 1 m i n u t e s

125

18-H .

22-J.

W h i c h o f t h e fo l lo w in g b e s t

d e s c r i b e s y o u r s c h o o l p r o g r a m a s it
e v o lv e s

For w h a t p e r c e n t o f s t u d e n ts are

g u i d a n c e s e r v i c e s n o r m a l ly a v a i l a b l e .

from e n r o l l m e n t to c o m p l e t i o n of

the last g r a d e ?

(i.e ., g r a d e s

SIX

thru

(1)

not a v a ila b le.

(2)

2 5 % or l e s s .

(3)

26%

to 5 0 % .

(4)

51%

to 7 5 % .

(5)

76%

to 1 0 0 %

EIGHT).
(1)

co m p lete ly se lf c o n ta in e d
and /or co m p lete ly
d e p a r tm en ta liz ed .

(2)

m od ified d e p a r tm en ta liz e d
(b lo ck tim e,

(3)

core, etc.).

p r o g r a m m o v e s from

23-J.

G u i d a n c e staff m e m b e r s :

la rg ely s e l f c o n ta in e d t o
p a r t i a ll y
(4)

19-1.

d e p a r tm en ta liz ed .

o t h e r _________________________

(1)

n e v e r w o r k w i th

teach ers.

(2)

S E L D O M w o r k w ith t e a c h e r s .

(3)

O F T E N w o r k w ith t e a c h e r s .

(4)

A L W A Y S w o r k w ith t e a c h e r s

H o w m a n y y e a r s is ART instru ctio n

r e q u i r e d for all s t u d e n t s . ?
(1)

none.

(2)

o n e year.

24-J.

G u id a n c e c o u n s e lo r s are:

(1)

n o t e x p e c t e d to h e l p
t e a c h e r s b u ild th e ir

(3)
20-i.

g u i d a n c e sk ills.

t w o or m o r e y e a r s .

H o w m a n y y e a r s is M U S I C

(2)

(1)

E X P E C T E D to h e l p t e a c h e r s
bu ild their g u i d a n c e skills.

i n s t r u c t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r all s t u d e n t s ?
none.

(3)

EXPECTED and REGULARLY
e n c o u r a g e d to h elp te a ch ers

(2)

o n e year.

(3)

t w o or m o r e y e a r s .

b u ild the ir g u i d a n c e sk ills.
25-L .

C l i n i c s o r s p e c i a l c l a s s e s to tr ea t

t h e p r o b l e m s of s t u d e n t s w ith p o o r b a s i c
21-1.

T h e a m o u n t o f s t u d e n t s c h e d u l e tim e

set a sid e

learning

s k i l l s are:

for e l e c t i v e c o u r s e s .

(1)

s u c c e s s i v e g r a d e or, is t h e

(2)

(1)

not a v a ila b le .

(2)

a v a i l a b l e o n l y to t h e m o s t

d e c r e a s e s with e a c h
s a m e for all g r a d e s or, d o e s

c r it ic a lly h a n d i c a p p e d

n ot e x i s t at a n y g r a d e l e v e l .

lea rn ers.

v a r ie s by g r a d e ievel but
not in a n y s y s t e m a t i c
m anner.

(3)

a v a i l a b l e to all s t u d e n t s
n e e d i n g s u c h h e lp .

126

26-L.

T h e a m o u n t o f t i m e p r o v i d e d in t h e

cla ssro o m

for i n s t r u c t i o n in b a s i c l e a r n i n g

30-M .

T his s c h o o l h a s oratorical activities

s u c h a s d e b a t e , public a d d r e s s , etc.:

sk ills:
( 1 ) no.
(1)

r e m a i n s c o n s t a n t or
i n c r e a s e s w ith e a c h

(2)

s u c c e s s iv e grade.
(2)

d e c r e a s e s with e a c h

„___ ( 3 )

3 1 -M.

of instruction.

T a len t s h o w s are:

of

program by teach ers.
27-M .

pa r t o f i ts e n r i c h ­

y e s , a s a part o f its p l a n n e d
program

v a r i e s g r e a t l y d u e to
in d iv id u a liz a tio n

a

m en t program .

s u c c e s s iv e grade.
(3)

yes, a s

( 1 ) n o t a part o f our p r o g r a m .

D o e s y o u r s c h o o l h a v e a n official

( 2 ) p r o d u c e d o n a n all s c h o o l

new spaper?

b a sis.

(1)

no.

( 3 ) p r o d u c e d at e a c h g r a d e l e v e l

(2)

y e s , a n d p u b l i s h e s four or

( 4 ) p r o d u c e d at e a c h g r a d e l e v e l

le s s i s s u e s per year.

w i t h s o m e of t h e a c t s e n t e r ­
i n g a n all s c h o o l ta l e n t

(3)

y o s , a n d p u b l i s h e s live or

show .

m o r e i s s u e s per year.
32-N .
2 8 - M.. D o s t u d e n t s g e t e x p e r i e n c e s in
c re a tiv e

d ra m a tics?
(1)

In t h e o p e r a t i o n a l d e s i g n o f this

s c h o o l t h e role ol t h e t e a c h e r a s a g u i d a n c e
p e r s o n is:

no.

( 1 ) left

str i c tl y

to

the

in d iv id ­

u a l t e a c h e r ’s p e r s o n a l
(2)

yes.

m o tiv a tio n .
(2)

29-M .

D r a m a t i c p r o d u c t i o n s at this s c h o o l

m e n t i o n e d to t h e t e a c h e r
BUT NO T e m p h a siz e d .

a r e p r o d u c e d from:
(1)

d o e s not a p p ly .

(2)

p u r c h a s e d s c r i p t s only.

(3)

m a teria ls

33-N .
w r i tte n

by

s t u d e n t s o n ly .
(4)

m a ter ia ls

w r i t te n

(3)

e m p h a sized .

(4)

stron gly e m p h a s iz e d .

A s a g e n e r a l p olicy, p r o v isio n s are

m a d e for t h e t e a c h e r to p r o v i d e g u i d a n c e
se r v ic e s:

by

(1)

n o.

(2)

y e s , to a lim ite d n u m b e r .

(3)

yes,

stu dents and purchased
sc r ip ts.

to all the>r s t u d e n t s .

127

34-N .

H ow m any tim e s per y e a r is a

38-C .

T h e m a ste r c la s s tim e sc h e d u le c a n

s t u d e n t ' s a c a d e m i c p r o g r e s s fo r m a l l y

b e c h a n g e d by te a c h e r s w h e n n e e d ar ises

r e p o r t e d to p a r e n t s ?

by:

(1)

z e r o to two tim es.

(1 )

r e q u e s t i n g a c h a n g e for
n ex t year.

(2)

th r e e to five tim es.

(3)

six tim e s or m ore.

(4)

o t h e r _______________________ _

(2)

r e q u e s t i n g a c h a n g e for
next sem ester.

(3)

r eq u estin g

a d m in istrative

a pp roval.
(4)
35 0 .

H ow m any tim es per year are

p arent-teacher

or

p l a n n i n g w i th o t h e r
te a ch er s on a WEEKLY BA SIS

p a ren t-teach er-stu d en t

c o n f e r e n c e s held on a s c h o o l w id e b a s is ?

(5)

p l a n n i n g w i th o t h e r
t e a c h e r s o n a DAIL Y B A S I S .

(1)

n o t a t all.

(2)

once.

(3)

tw o

(4)

three

(5)

fo u r or m o r e t i m e s .

39-K .

S t u d e n t s w o r k i n g in i n d e p e n d e n t

s t u d y s i t u a t i o n s w o r k o n t o p i c s that ar e:
tim es.

(1)

w e h a v e no ind ep en d en t
stu dy

(2)

36-P .

a s s i g n e d to t h e m b y th e
teach er.

C om m u nity s e r v ic e p rojects by

(3)

s t u d e n t s in this s c h o o l are:
(1)

program .

tim es.

of p e r s o n a l in te re st and
a p p roved by the teacher.

n o t a p a r t o f our p r o g r a m .

40-0.

F o r m a l e v a l u a t i o n of s t u d e n t w o r k

i s r e p o r t e d b y u s e oi:
(2)

c a rried

out o c ca sio n a lly

for

a sp ec ia l purpose.
(3)

a n i m p o r t a n t part of t h e

(1)
(2)

p l a n n e d e x p e r i e n c e s for all

le t t e r or n u m b e r g r a d e s .
teach er

com m en ts

w r itte n

o n a r e p o r t i n g for m .

stu dents.

(3)
3 7 - P.

parent-teacher

con feren ces

W h a t is t h e s t a t u s o f t h e p a r e n t s '

o r g a n i z a t i o n in y o u r s c h o o l ?

(4)

p arent-teacher-stud en t
conferen ces.

(1)

none.

(2)

rela tiv e ly in a c tiv e .

(3)

a ctiv e.

(5)

(4)

very

a c tiv e .

o t h e r _____________________

128
41-E .

W h a t p e r c e n t a g e of p h y s i c a l

e d u c a t i o n c l a s s l i m e is d e v o t e d t o w a r d
C O M P E T I T IV E T Y P E ACTIVITIES:
(1)
(2)

42-E .

P A R T II:

F o r e a c h q u e s t i o n in t h i s s e c t i o n

c h e c k A L L T H E A N S W E R S that a p p l y to
your sc h o o l.

2 5 % or l e s s .

46-B .

26%

m a t e r i a l s a r e h o u s e d in y o u r in s t r u c t i o n a l
m a ter ia ls c e n te r ?

to 50% .

_ (3)

5 1 % to 75% .

. (4)

76%

to

100%

W hat p e r c e n t a g e of p h y s ic a l

e d u c a t i o n c l a s s t i m e is d e v o t e d t o w a r d

W h i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t y p e s of

g e n e r a l lib rary b o o k s .
current n e w s p a p e r s .
b e l o w g r a d e le v e l r ea d in g
m a ter ia ls.

D E V E L O P M E N T A L T Y P E ACTIVITIES:
current m a g a z in e s .
(1)

25%

or l e s s .

(2)

26%

to 5 0 % .

(3)

5 1 % to 7 5% .

(4)

76%

f i l e s o f p a s t i s s u e s of
new spapers.
a b o v e g r a d e l e v e l r e a d in g
m a ter ia ls.
to

100%
c a r d c a t a lo g u e o f m a terials
housed.

43-J.

D o yo u r g u i d a n c e c o u n s e l o r s offer

regu lar g r o u p g u i d a n c e s e s s i o n s ?
(2)

n o.

(1)

yes.

stu d e n t pu blications.
f i le s o f p a s t i s s u e s of
m a g a z in es.
film strip s.

44-K .
I n d e p e n d e n t stu d y o p p o rtu n ities are
p r o v i d e d for:

c o lle ctio n s (c o in s,
cjlr

(2)

s o m e stu dents.

(3)

all s t u d e n t s .

(1)

not prov id ed .

*,

in sects,

o i C . j

m o t i o n p i c t u r e s ( i n c l u d e if
y o u a r e a m e m b e r of c e n t r a l
se r v ic e.)
m icr o -film s.
45-L.

D a i l y i n s t r u c t i o n in a d e v e l o p m e n t a l

r e a d i n g p r o g r a m i s p r o v i d e d for:
(2)

p o o r r e a d e r s only.

(3)

all s t u d e n t s .

(1)

not p r o v i d e d .

overhead

tra n sp a ren cies.

com p u ters.
ditto a n d /o r m i m e o m a c h in e s .
p h o t o or th erm al c o p y
m ach in es.

129

47-D.

m a p s, g lo b e s and charts.

band.

d i s p l a y c a s e s or a r e a s .

v o c a l m u sic.

S c h o o l d a n c e s A R E N O T h e l d for;

d raw in g.
dram a.

g r a d e six.

48-D.

_______

jou rn alism .

grade sev e n .

foreign la n g u a g e .

g r a d e e igh t.

fam ily

liv i n g .

un ified

a r t s.

A c l u b p r o g r a m for s t u d e n t s is

offered

in:
orch estra.
w o o d shop.
g r a d e six.
speech.
grade sev en .
ty p in g .
g r a d e eigh t.
natural r e s o u r c e s .

49-F.

T h e in tr a m u r a l p r o g r a m i n c l u d e s :
c r e a tiv e

w ritin g .

team g a m e s.
com p u ters.
ind iv idu a l

sports.
5 2 -K .

va r io u s

a ctiv ities.

c ti iW w
W . W W J

50 -1.

H o w m u c h tim e w o u ld y o u e stim a te

t h e a v e r a g e s t u d e n t s p e n d s in i n d e p e n d e n t
0.

S t u d e n t s a r e a l l o w e d to e l e c t c o u r s e

o f i n t e r e s t from a r a n g e of e l e c t i v e

(3)

o fferin g s:

3 0 m i n u t e s or M O R E p e r d a y
in g r a d e s s e v e n o r e ig h t.

no.

12)

2 0 m in u tes or M O R E per d a y
in g r a d e

(1)
in g r a d e s i x .
in g r a d e s e v e n .
in g r a d e e i g h t .
51 -1.

E l e c t i v e s o f f e r e d in this b u i ld in g a r e:
art.

s ix .

l e s s than the a b o v e .

130

5 3 - L.

S t u d e n t s w ith p o o r b a s i c s k ills c a n

r e c e i v e s p e c i a l h e l p o n a n in d iv id u a l b a s i s

56-P .

T h e stall p r e s e n t s

i n f o r m a t io n a l

p r o g r a m s r e l a t e d l o t h e s c h o o l ’s f u n c t i o n s .

Irom a s p e c i a l s t a l l m e m b e r t r a i n e d to
t r e a t s u c h s i t u a t i o n s in t h e f o l lo w in g

w h en r e q u e s t e d by p a ren ts.

areas:
o n c e o r t w i c e a y e a r at
rea d in g .

regu lar p a r e n t m e e t i n g s .

sp ellin g .

at o p e n h o u s e p r o g r a m s .

p h y sica l education.

at r e g u la r l y s c h e d u l e d
" sem in ar

mk a t h e m a t i c s ,

— -

type" m e e t i n g s

p l a n n e d for i n t e r e s t e d
p arents.

________g r a m m a r .
o t h e r ____
o t h e r ________________________
54-M .

D r a m a tic p r e s e n ta tio n s by s tu d e n ts

are:

57-Q .

F r o m th e s p e c i a l i z e d a r e a s l i s t e d

b e l o w , c h e c k e a c h s e r v i c e w h i c h is
n o t a part ol t h e s c h o o l

A V A IL A B L E to s t u d e n t s in y o u r b u ild in g .

program .
gu id an ce c o u n selo r s.
a p a r t o l th e a c t i v i t i e s
program .

school nurse.

a p a r t o l c e r t a in c l a s s

sc h o o l p sy ch o lo g ist.

a c t i v i t i e s p l a n n e d b y th e

55-P .
this

teachers.

d iagn ostician .

o th er

speech

th erap ist.

v isitin g

teacher.

_____________

In r e g a r d to c o m m u n i t y r e l a t i o n s

school:
clinic
d o e s not s e n d o u t a p a r e n t
new s

se r v ic e s

e m o tio n a lly

lor t h e

disturbed .

le t t e r .
sp ecia l ed u c a tio n p rogram s

s e n d s out a p a r e n t n e w s

for t h e m e n t a l l y h a n d i ­

letter.

capped.

u s e s the c o m m e r c ia l n e w s ­

sp e c ia l rea d in g teach er,

paper.
o t h e r ____
uses

a district w i d e

new s­

l e t t e r lo s e n d o u t i n f o r m a ­
tion r e l a t e d lo t h i s s c h o o l .

ot her

131
50-R .

60-D .

T e a c h i n g t e a m s a r e o r g a n i z e d to

S c h o o l s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s a r e h e ld at

th is s c h o o l :

in clu d e:
fully c e r t i f i e d

D u rin g t h e a f t e r n o o n :

teach ers.

p a ra -p rofession als.
c lerical

G rade 6

h elp ers.

G rade 7
G rade 8

v o l u n t e e r h e l p e r s fr om t h e
com m u n ity.

Not s c h e d u le d
student tea ch ers and

D u r in g t h e e v e n i n g :

in tern s.

h i g h s c h o o l "future
teach ers"
oth er

—

stu dents.

.

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

G rade 6
G rade 7

(

G rade 8

I

N ot s c h e d u l e d

61 -E.

T h e p h y sica l e d u c a tio n program

s e r v e s all s t u d e n t s in:

G r a d e G.
G r a d e 7.
G r a d e 8.

132

62-F .
for

In tram u ral a c t i v i t i e s a r e s c h e d u l e d

:

B O Y S ONLY

G rade 6
G rade 7
____

G rade 8
Not sc h e d u le d

GIRLS ONLY

G rade 6
G rade 7
__

G rade 8
Not sc h e d u le d

THANK YOU SINCERELY FOR YOUR
ASSISTANCE.
P le a se

return

to:

DAVID PRENTICE
7 0 9 G U N R I V E R CT.
PLAINWELL, MICHIGAN 49000

APPENDIX C
THE MICHIGAN MIDDLE-LEVEL SCHOOLS RECOGNIZED BY
THE SECONDARY SCHOOL RECOGNITION PROGRAM
DURING THE YEARS 1982-1987

133
NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED EXEMPLARY MICHIGAN MIDDLE SCHOOLS
1982-1983
West Ottawa School System
West Ottawa Middle School
3700 140th Avenue
Holland, Michigan 48424
1983-1984
Lamphere School System
Page Middle School
29615 Tawas
Madison Heights, Michigan 48071

Ann Arbor School System
Slaussen I nterm ed iate
1019 West Washington
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Traverse City Public Schools
Traverse City Area J r . High School
S i l v e r Lake Road
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
1984-1985
West Bloomfield Public Schools
Abbott Middle School
3380 Orchard Lake
West Bloomfield, Michigan 48033

D e t r o i t Public Schools
Brooks Middle School
16100 West Chicago
D e t r o i t , Michigan 28228

Birmingham Public Schools
Berkshire Middle School
21/0/ West 14 Mile Road
Birmingham, Michigan 48010

Gaylord Public Schools
Gaylord Middle School
600 East F i f t h S t r e e t
Gaylord, Michigan 49735

1986-1987
Troy School D i s t r i c t
Larson Middle School
2222 East Long Lake
Troy, Michigan 48098

Grosse Pointe Public Schools
P a r c e l I s Middle School
20600 Mack
Grosse Pointe, Michigan 48236

Petoskey Public Schools
Petoskey Middle School
601 Howard S t r e e t
Petoskey, Michigan 49770

Bloomfield H i l l s Public Schools
West H i l l s Middle School
2601 Lone Pine
Bloomfield H i l l s , Michigan 48033

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, M. J .

The Paideia P roposal.

New York:

Alexander, W. M. The Emergent Middle School.
Rinehart and Winston, 1968.

Macmillan, 1982.
New York:

________ . "How Fares th e Middle School Movement?"
Journal 9 (August 1978): 3.

Holt,

Middle School

________ . "The Middle School Emerges." In Middle School in the
Making, pp. v i i - i x . Washington, D.C.: Association f o r
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1974.
________ . "A Study of Organizational P a tte r n s of Reorganized Middle
Schools." Cooperative Research P r o je c t No. 7-D-026. Gaines­
v i l l e : U niv ersit y of F lo r id a , J u ly 1968.
________ , and McEwin, C. K. Schools in th e Middle: S tatu s and
P r o g r e s s . Columbus, Ohio: National Middle School A s so cia tio n ,
1989.
Arnn, J . W., J r . , and Mangieri, J . N. " E f f e c ti v e Leadership f o r
E f f e c t iv e Schools: A Survey of Prin cip al A t t i t u d e s . " NASSP
B u l l e t i n 72 (February 1988): 1-4, 6, 7.
Beckmann, V. G. "A Study to Determine the Current Level of Imple­
mentation of Eighteen Basic Middle School P r i n c i p l e s in th e
S t a t e of M issouri." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , St. Louis U n iv e r s it y ,
1978.
B e ll , G. W. "A Comparison o f Missouri J u n io r High and Middle
Schools in Terms o f S elec ted Adm inist rative, Organizational and
C u r r ic u l a r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e r sity of
Missouri-Columbia, 1978.
B i l l i n g s , R. L. "A Computer-Based Analysis of the Implementation of
S elec ted C r i t e r i a in Texas Middle Schools." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , Uni versi ty o f Houston, 1973.
B l i g h t , J . " I d e n ti f y i n g the Unique C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e Emergent
Middle School." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niv er sity of Toledo,
1973.

134

135
Bloom, J . M. "The Implementation o f th e Middle School Concept in
Wisconsin Schools f o r Pre and Early Adolesc en ts." Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Marquette U n iv er sity , 1974.
Bohlinger, T. L. "A Study t o Determine th e Current Level o f Imple­
mentation of Eighteen Basic Middle School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in
Ohio Public Schools Housing Grades 5-8 and 6 - 8 ." Ph.D. d i s s e r ­
t a t i o n , Miami U n iv e r s i ty , 1977.
Bourgeois, G. P. "The Development, Implementation and Evaluation of
a Middle School Program: A D e s c ri p t iv e A n a l y s is . " Ed.D. d i s ­
s e r t a t i o n , Boston U n i v e r s it y , 1974.
Boyer, E. L. High School: A Report on Secondary Education in
America. New York: Harper and Row, 1983.
Brod, P. "The Middle School: Trends Toward I t s Adoption."
inghouse 40 (February 1966): 331-33.
Brooks, K. "The Middle School--A National Survey."
Journal 9 (February 1978): 6.

C le a r ­

Middle School

Brown, E. D., J r . "A Study o f th e Leadership S t y le s of P r i n c i p a l s
in the Exemplary Secondary Schools of the United S t a t e s
( A d a p ta b i lity , Range)." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e r sity of
Alabama, 1985.
Butera, T. S.
Jersey."

"A Study of Middle Schools in th e S t a t e of New
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Columbia U n i v e r s ity , 1972.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. Turning P o i n t s - Preparing American Youth f o r the 21st Century. New York:
Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1989.
Caul, J . L. "A Comparative Study o f Student, Teacher and Prin cipal
Per ce ptions o f Organizational S t r u c t u r e Between Middle Schools
With High Levels and Those With Low Levels of Middle School
Concept Implementation." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e
U n iv e r s it y , 1975.
Cave, B. B. "A Comparison of Organizational C u r r i c u l a r P r a c t ic e s
and Innovational Factors Between Schools Named J u n i o r High and
Those Named Middle Schools Within the Rocky Mountain Region."
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niversity of Wyoming, 1975.
Coleman, J . ; Hoffer, T.; and Kilgore, S. "Cognitive Outcomes in
Public and P r iv a te Schools." Sociology o f Education 55,2/3
(1982): 65-76.
Compton, M. "The Middle School: A S ta t u s Report."
Journal (June 1978): 3-4.

Middle School

136

Conant, J . B. Education in th e J u n io r High School Years.
ton, N . J . : Educational Testing S ervic e, 1960.

P r in c e ­

Connors, N., and I r v i n , J . " I s ’Middle-Schoolness’ an i n d i c a t o r of
Excellence?" Middle School Journal 20 (May 1989): 12-14.
Cuff, W. "Middle Schools on th e March."
(February 1967): 82.

NASSP B u l l e t i n 51

Daniel, J . C. "A Study o f Arkansas Middle Schools t o Determine the
Current Level o f Implementation o f Nine Basic Middle School
P r i n c i p l e s . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e r sity of Arkansas, 1973.
Demps, H. W. "A Study o f th e Relations hip Between T eac her s’ Percep­
t i o n s o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n and Their Perc ep tions o f th e Level of
Implementation o f Eighteen Basic Middle School C h a r a c t e r i s ­
t i c s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s i ty , 1978.
Dunham, G. E. "A Study o f Factors in th e Implementation o f the
Middle School Concept." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Brigham Young
U n i v e r s it y , 1974.
Educational Research Ser vic e. Middle S chools .
D.C.: AASA, NEA, May 1965.

No. 3.

Washington,

Fink, J . P. "A D escr ip tion o f Community Involvement in High Schools
I d e n t i f i e d as Exemplary by the National Commission on Excel­
lence in Education." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Miami U n iv e r sit y ,
1987.
Fin ley,
. "An I l l i n o i s Middle School." In The Middle School: A
Symposium, p. 33. London: Schoolmaster Publishing Co., 1967.
Fontenot, G. L. "A D e s c rip ti v e I n v e s t i g a t i o n of S i m i l a r i t i e s and
D if fe rences Between Middle Schools and J u n i o r High Schools in
Louisiana 1972-73." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , McNeese S t a t e Univer­
s i t y , 1973.
F ranklin, C. B. "A Study o f Middle School P r a c t ic e s in Pennsyl­
v a n i a . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niversity of V i r g i n i a , 1973.
Garvin, J . P. "Common Denominators in E f f e c t i v e Middle Level
Schools." In In Search o f Excellence: The National Reports-Im plic at ions f o r Middle Schools, pp. 31-34. Columbus, Ohio:
National Middle School A s so ciati o n , 1984.
Gatewood, T. E. "What Research Says About th e Middle School." In
Middle School in th e Making, pp. 13-14. Washington, D.C.:
As so ciatio n f o r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1974.

137
George, P.
School

" F l o r i d a ’s J u n io r High and Middle Schools." Middle
Journal 8 (February 1977): 10.

Georgiady, N.; Riegle, J . ; and Romano, L. "What Are th e C h a r a c t e r ­
i s t i c s o f th e Middle School?" In The
Middle School, pp. 73-74.
Edited by L. G. Romano e t a l . Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1973.
Good, C. W. "A Study o f Middle School P r a c t i c e s in Pennsylvania."
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Temple U n i v e r s ity , 1972.
Goodlad, J . I. A Place Called School: Prospects f o r th e F u t u r e .
S t . Louis, Mo.: McGraw-Hill, 1983.
Green, R. C. "A Study o f t h e Perceptions o f P r i n c i p a l s o f Michigan
J u n io r High Schools and Middle Schools on th e Degree t o Which
Their Schools Implement Selected P r a c t i c e s Recommended in
L i t e r a t u r e on I nterm ed iate Education." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The
U n iv e r sity of Michigan, 1977.
Grooms, M. A. Perspective on the Middle School.
M err ill Books, 1967.

Columbus, Ohio:

Gross, B. M. "An Analysis o f the Present and Perceived Purposes,
Functions, and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the Middle School." Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Temple U n i v e r s i ty , 1972.
Hawkins, J . "A Study to A scert ain Actual Middle School P r a c t i c e s
as Compared t o Reported Middle School P r a c t i c e s in Selected
Michigan Schools and N ationall y Prominent Schools as Perceived
by Teachers and P r i n c i p a l s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan
S t a t e U n iv e r s it y , 1972.
H o s t e t l e r , R. E. "In Search of Educational Excellence: To What
Extent Is There Agreement Between Leadership Behavior in
America’ s Best-Run Companies and America’ s Most E f f e c t i v e
Schools?" Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ball S t a t e U n iv e r s ity , 1984.
Howard, A. M. Teaching in Middle Schools.
n atio n al Textbook Co., 1968.

Scranton, Pa.:

Inter­

Hughes, S. "Organizational P a t t e r n s of Western Pennsylvania Middle
Schools, Role and Role C o n f lic t as Perceived by Their P r i n c i ­
p a l s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northwestern U n iv e r s ity , 1974.
Jameson, K. S. " P ri ncipal E f f e c t iv e n e ss as Related t o P e r s o n a l i t y ,
Formal T raining , and On-the-Job Experience in Arizona’ s
Exemplary Schools." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northern Arizona
U n iv e r s it y , 1985.
Kealy, R. P. "The Middle School Movement: 1960-70."
Elementary Prin cipal (November 1971): 20-25.

National

138

Koger, P. C. "The I n s t r u c t i o n a l Leadership A c t i v i t i e s , B e l i e f s
and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f P r i n c i p a l s of E f f e c t i v e Secondary
Schools." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e r sity o f South C a rolina,
1987.
Kolton, W. D. "A Comparison of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s in
F e d e r a lly I d e n t i f i e d Exemplary Public Schools and P r i n c i p a l s of
Non-exemplary Public Scho ols." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niversity
o f Wyoming, 1988.
Kopko, J . R. "A Comprehensive Study o f S elec ted Middle Schools in
t h e S t a t e of New J e r s e y . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Rutgers
U n i v e r s i t y , 1976.
Kramer, J . W. "A Study of Middle School Programs in C a l i f o r n i a . "
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e r s it y o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1974.
Laurie, J . C. "Communication P a t t e r n s of P r i n c i p a l s in Exemplary
Secondary Schools." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Kansas S t a t e Univer­
s i t y , 1985.
Leeper, R., ed. Middle School in th e Making. Washington, D.C.:
A s socia tion f o r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1974.
L ig h tf o o t , S. L. The Good High School: P o r t r a i t s o f Cha ra cter and
C u l t u r e . New York: Basic Books, 1983.
L i p s i t z , J . Successful Schools f o r Young A d o les cen ts .
Brunswick, N . J . : T r an sac tion Books, 1984.

New

Lounsbury, J . H., and Vars, G. E. A Curriculum f o r th e Middle
School Years. New York: Harper and Row, 1978.
Magana, S. "A Study to Determine th e Current Level of Implementa­
t i o n o f Eighteen Basic Middle School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as Per­
ceived by Teachers, P r i n c i p a l s and Supe rin tende nts in S elected
Wisconsin Middle Schools." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a te
U n iv e r s i ty , 1987.
Mason, D. A. S. "Factors That Influen ce Computer Laboratory Use in
Exemplary J u n io r High/Middle Schools in th e D i s t r i c t of Colum­
b i a . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv ersit y o f Maryland, College
Park, 1987.
Michigan Department of Education. L e t t e r . Lansing:
Department of Education, February 2, 1983. (a)
________ . L e t t e r . Lansing:
September 6, 1989.

Michigan

Michigan Department of Education,

139
________ . Secondary School Recognition Program in Michigan Nomina­
t i o n Form. Lansing: Michigan Department o f Education, 1983.
(b)
Michigan S t a t e Board o f Education. Task Force on Middle School
Education. Working d r a f t o f a p o s i t i o n paper. Lansing:
Michigan Department o f Education, December 1977.
Middleton, P. M. "The R elati o n s h ip Between th e Degree o f Perceived
Implementation o f C r i t e r i a Associated With th e Middle School
Concept and S elected C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Middle School Teach­
e r s . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niv ersit y o f Georgia, 1982.
Minster, H. E. "A Study t o Determine th e Current Level of Implemen­
t a t i o n of Eighteen Basic Middle School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as
Reported by Teachers, P r i n c i p a l s , and Sup erintendents in
Selected I l l i n o i s Middle Schools." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michi­
gan S t a t e U n iv e r sity , 1985.
M it ch ell, S. T. "The Development of t h e J u n io r High and Middle
School: Implica tion s f o r Middle School Education." Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , George Peabody College f o r Teachers, 1975.
Mooney, P. F. "A Comparative Study of Achievement and Attendance
of 10 to 14 Year Olds in a Middle School and in Other School
O r ganizations." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e r s i ty of F lo ri d a ,
1970.
Moss, T. C.

Middle School.

Boston:

Houghton-Mifflin, 1969.

Mott, P. The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of E f f e c t iv e O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
Harper and Row, 1972.
Murphy, J . Middle Schools .
Laboratory, 1965.

New York:

New York:

Educational F a c i l i t i e s

National Association of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s . Standards f o r
Quality Elementary Schools: Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade.
Reston, Va.: NAESP, 1984.
National Association of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s . J u n io r High
and Middle School Evaluation Committee. "On th e Threshold of
Adolescence." Reston, Va.: NASSP, 1979.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation a t Risk:
The Imperative f o r Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.:
Government P r in t in g O f fice, 1983.

140
Nelon, B. M. "The Re lat ionship Between a P r i n c i p a l ’ s Behavior and
the Organizational Climate in S elected Recognized Exemplary
Schools." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niversity of North Carolina at
Greensboro, 1988.
New World Dictionar y of the American Language.
Publishing Company, 1974.

New York:

World

O’ Donnell, P. G. "C o r re la tio n s o f Risk-Taking and Selected SocioProfe ssi onal Variables Among Superintendents o f Exemplary
Secondary Schools." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Miami U n iv e r sity ,
1985.
Parsons, T.; Bales, R . ; and S h i l s , E. Working Papers in th e Theory
of A ction. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood P res s, 1953.
Phelps, C. S. B. "A Survey of Middle Schools in Georgia With a View
of th e Beginning, Present and Future S t a t u s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , Georgia S ta te U n iv er sit y , 1975.
Pook, M. E. P. "A Study of the Relations hip of Teacher Job S a t i s ­
f a c t i o n and th e Level o f Implementation o f Recommended Middle
School P r a c t i c e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niversity of Colorado
at Boulder, 1980.
R a t a j i k , D. L. "The Exemplary Elementary School--A D i f f e r e n t Per­
s p e c t i v e . " Prin cipal (Winter 1989): 22-23.
Raymer, J. T. "A Study t o I d e n t i f y Middle Schools and t o Determine
the Current Level o f Implementation o f Eighteen Basic Middle
School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in Selected United S t a t e s and Michigan
Schools." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s i ty , 1974.
Rieyle, J . D. !!A Study of Middle School Progress t o Determine the
Current Level o f Implementation o f Eighteen Basic Middle School
P r i n c i p l e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s i ty ,
1971.
Romano, L. G., e t a l . , eds.
Hall, 1973.

The Middle School.

Chicago:

Nelson-

Rosenau, A. E. "A Comparative Study o f Middle School P r a c t i c e s
Recommended in Current L i t e r a t u r e and P r a c t ic e s in Sel ec te d
Middle Schools." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niversity of Colorado,
1975.
R u tt e r , M. "School E f f e c t s on Pupil Progress: Research Findings
and Policy I m p l i c a t i o n s ." In Handbook of Teaching and P o l i c y .
Edited by L. S. Shulman and G. Sykes. New York: Longman,
1983.

141
S chind le r, J . F. "A Comparative Study of the Implementation of
Recommended Middle School P r i n c i p l e s Among Selected Schools."
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Brigham Young U n iv e r s it y , 1982.
Schuck, R. C. " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Middle Schools." Ed.D. d i s s e r ­
t a t i o n , Columbia U n iv e r sity Teachers College, 1982.
S c o t t , E. H. "The P r a c t i c e s C ur ren tly in Use in E f f e c t i v e Suburban
High Schools: A Secondary Analysis o f 1984 Data." Ed.D. d i s ­
s e r t a t i o n , New York U n iv e r s ity , 1987.
S l a t e , V. S. "Implementation o f th e Middle School Concept in
Georgia Schools: D ir e c tio n o f Change." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Georgia S t a t e U n iv e r s it y , 1982.
S tark , J . B. "A Comparison o f th e Middle Schools in Arkansas With
Se lected J u n io r High Schools Within th e S t a t e . " Ed.D. d i s s e r ­
t a t i o n , U niversity of Arkansas, 1972.
S t . C l a i r , R. "In Search o f Excellence a t the Middle Level."
B u l l e t i n 68 (September 1984): 1-5.

NASSP

Suprina, R. N. "Creating th e Exemplary High School: A Study of the
Factors Leading to the Development of Excellence in th e Ameri­
can High School (New York)." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , F a i r l e i g h
Dickinson U n iv e r s i ty , 1987.
Terry, K. W. H. "Secondary School Te ac hers’ Perceptions of P r i n c i ­
p a l s ’ Leadership Behaviors in Selec ted E f f e c t i v e and Regular
Secondary Schools." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northwestern S t a t e
U n iv ersit y o f Louisiana, 1988.
Trauschke, E. M. "An Evaluation o f a Middle School by a Comparison
o f the Achievement, A t t i t u d e s and Self-Concept o f Students in a
Middle School With Students in Other School O r g a n iz a ti o n s."
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niversity o f F l o r id a , 1970.
Unruh, C. G. "A Study o f J u n io r High Schools and Middle Schools
With Reference t o Philosophy, Function, Curriculum, Personnel
and A c t i v i t i e s Program." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e r sity of
Wyoming, 1975.
Valentine, J . , e t a l . The Middle Level P r i n c i p a l s h i p . Vol. I: A
Survey of Middle Level P r i n c i p a l s and Programs. Reston, Va.:
National Association of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s , 1981.
Vars, G. "In Between." In The T r a n s i ti o n a l Years. A Middle School
P o r t f o l i o . Washington, D.C.: Association f o r Childhood
Education I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1961.

142
Wah, W. "A Study o f Teacher Per ce ptions o f Selected Middle School
Programs in Michigan." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e
U n iv e r s it y , 1980.
Walsh, A. J . K. "A D e s c r ip ti v e Analysis o f Self-Concept o f Middle
School Students in Michigan Based Upon High and Low Level
Implementation o f th e Eighteen Basic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Middle
School Concept." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e Univer­
s i t y , 1977.
Webster’ s Third New I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i c t i o n a r y .
Webster, 1971.

New York:

Merriam-

Westhoff, D. "A Study o f t h e R elati o n s h ip Between th e Connecticut
Secondary School Development P r o j e c t and th e United S t a t e s
Department of Education Secondary School Recognition Program
f o r Selected Wisconsin Secondary Schools." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n iv e r s i ty of Iowa, 1988.
West V i r g i n i a Department o f Education. "A Programmatic D e f i n i ti o n
f o r Middle Schools in West V i r g i n i a . " Wheeling: West V i r g in ia
Department o f Education, April 1977.
Woodring, P. "The New Inte rm ediate School."
(October 1965): 37.
Woods, M. A., ed. The Search
F i r s t Three Years o f t h e
P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pa.: U.S.
Educational Research and

Saturday Review

f o r Successful Secondary Schools--The
Secondary School Recognition Program.
Department o f Education, O f fic e of
Improvement, 1985.