INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced 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 reduced form at the 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. A Bell & Howell information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 AN EXAMINATION OF MIDDLE-LEVEL EXEMPLARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN TO DETERMINE THE CURRENT RATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF EIGHTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF MIDDLE SCHOOLS By Janelle C. McGuire A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirem ents for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1994 UMI N u m b er: 9 5 3 7 2 4 6 Copyright 1994 by McGuire, Janelle C. All rights reserved. UMI Microfora 9537246 Copyright 1995, by UMI Coapany. All rights reserved. This aicroform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF MIDDLE-LEVEL EXEMPLARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN TO DETERMINE THE CURRENT RATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF EIGHTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF MIDDLE SCHOOLS By Janelle C. McGuire T he purpose of this study w as to determ ine the current level of implementation of 18 basic characteristics of middle schools in exem plary schools in Michigan. The writer also com pared implementation levels betw een Michigan national exem plary schools a s well a s exemplary schools from th e first five years of the S econdary School Recognition Program (SSRP) and the last five years of the SSR P. The population sam pled w as th e 56 schools identified by the S S R P from the inception of the program through th e current year, 1983 through 1993. The survey instrument w as a questionnaire developed in 1971 by Riegle and used in m any studies to exam ine th e 18 characteristics. The weighted resp o n ses to eac h question yielded a sco re that w as then converted to a percentage, allowing for com parison am ong and betw een groups. Inter-item correlations and reliability tests w ere performed on the original survey instrum ent to ensure reliability of the questionnaire. Each group of questions, Janelle C. McGuire as they related to each individual characteristic, was also tested for reliability. It was determined that the survey instrument was reliable. A review of the statistical data indicated that none of the three null hypotheses could be rejected. The implementation rates, a s reported by principals of exemplary middle schools in Michigan, did not represent a statistically significant difference between any of the three comparisons of groups of schools. Within each comparison, rank order of individual characteristics changed, but the overall implementation rate has not changed significantly in exemplary schools in Michigan over the past 10 years. It w as further concluded that participation inthe SSRP may heighten the aw areness of the 18 middle school characteristics on the part of the school making application for exemplary status, but that attaining national, a s opposed to state, exemplary status does not significantly affect the rate at which those 18 characteristics are implemented. A single study cannot cover the multitude of questions surrounding the exemplary schools program or to what extent middle school characteristics are implemented. This study stands as one examination of the current implementation of middle school characteristics in Michigan exemplary schools. Copyright by JANELLE C. McGUIRE 1994 To my sons, Lakins Thom as and Reid Michael. In memory of my grandmother, Bernice Fordyce Cook. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To my sons, Lakins Thom as and Reid Michael, I thank you for your patience and understanding when Mom w asn ’t there. Part of this belongs to you. To Howes Smith, without w hose help in fulfilling my job dem ands a s an administrator I would not have had the time I needed to complete the research, I am deeply indebted. To Dr. Louis G. Romano, w hose love for middle school students inspired me to continue my work in the hope of making a small contribution to the middle school movement, I owe my professional growth. To the m em bers of my committee, Drs. Lois Bader, C. Keith Groty, and Michael Boulis, I extend my appreciation for their assistance and counsel. To my grandmother, Bernice Fordyce Cook, w hose belief in lifelong education inspired her "Jannie" to reach for a dream , I present this final project. My regret is that her death this past year, at 94, did not allow both of us the pleasure of seeing that dream ’s completion. Finally, "thank you” se em s so insignificant for th e support, encouragem ent, and faith in my personal and professional ability given me by my mentor. His unconditional love and friendship allowed m e the courage and determination to complete this project. My friend, my soulm ate . . . thank you, Thomas. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF T A B L E S ................................................................................................................. ix C hapter I. THE PR O B L E M .............................................................................................1 P urpose of th e S tu d y ................................................................................... 1 Background and Im portance of th e S tu d y ............................................. 2 B a c k g ro u n d ................................................................................................... 4 Definition of T erm s ..................................................................................... 5 A ssum ptions and Limitations of the Study ...........................................6 A s su m p tio n s ..................................................................................... 6 Limitations ........................................................................................6 H y p o th e s e s ....................................................................................................7 Sum m ary and O rganization of the Dissertation ................................. 7 II. REVIEW O F THE LITERATURE..............................................................9 D evelopm ent of th e Middle S c h o o l .........................................................9 C haracteristics of Middle S c h o o l........................................................... 17 T he S econdary School Recognition Program (SS R P) ................ 26 T he S econdary School Recognition Program in Michigan ............ 28 Fourteen Attributes of S u c c e ss a s Perceived by th e S econdary School Recognition Program ...............................29 T he Relationship of th e 18 Characteristics of Middle Schools to th e 14 Attributes of the S S R P ............................... 31 S u m m a ry ...................................................................................................... 35 lit. DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ....................................................................... 36 T he S a m p le ................................................................................................. 37 T he Survey Instrum ent ............................................................................ 37 D ata-G athering P ro ced u res .................................................................. 40 Data-Analysis P r o c e d u r e s .......................................................................41 S u m m a ry ......................................................................................................42 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 44 Results of Reliability A n a ly sis............................................................. 44 Interpretation of Scales ........................................................... 52 Rate of Implementation of 18 Characteristics of Middle S c h o o ls ...........................................................................55 Results of Hypothesis T e stin g ............................................................. 55 Null Hypothesis O n e ..................................................................55 Null Hypothesis T w o ..................................................................59 Null Hypothesis Three ............................................................. 63 S um m ary ................................................................................................. 70 V. REVIEW OF THE STUDY, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ............................................................................... 71 Review of the Study ............................................................................. 71 S um m ary ................................................................................................. 72 Conclusions and Implications ............................................................. 74 Recommendations for Further Study ............................................... 85 APPENDICES A. EXEMPLARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN FROM 1983 THROUGH 1993 .................................................................................. 87 B. CORRESPONDENCE............................................................................89 C. SURVEY INSTRUMENT....................................................................... 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................... 105 viii LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Original 18 Characteristics of Middle Schools and Refined 14 C h aracteristics.................................................................................18 2.2 Eighteen Middle School Characteristics Identified by Riegle (1971) and Their D efinitions................................................................ 20 2.3 The 14 Attributes of the SSR P and Their Correlation to the Findings of Effective Schools R e s e a r c h .................................................. 32 3.1 Numbers of Questions Included in th e Survey Instrument to Collect Data on Each of the 18 Middle School Character­ istics ....................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Inter-item Correlations Within the S cales of the Survey Instrument ............................................................................................................45 4.2 Reliability S u m m a ry ............................................................................................. 51 4.3 Rate of Implementation of the 18 Characteristics of Middle Schools in Michigan Exemplary Schools, in Rank O r d e r ........................... 56 4.4 Comparison of Rate of Implementation of the 18 Character­ istics of Middle Schools by Michigan National Exemplary Middle-Level Schools a s Reported by Prentice (1990) and the Current Study (1993), in P e r c e n t ..............................................................58 4.5 Mean Percentage of Implementation for Sam ples of Michigan National Exemplary Schools From 1983 Through 1987 (Prentice, 1990) and From 1988 Through 1993 (Current S tu d y ) ................................61 4.6 Means, Standard Deviations, and Mean P ercentages for Sam ples of Exemplary Schools in Michigan ................................................65 4.7 Individual Univariate Confidence Levels for the 18 Char­ acteristics of Middle Schools From Michigan State and National Exemplary Middle Schools ..............................................................68 A.1 Exemplary Schools in Michigan From 1983 Through 1993 ...................... 87 ix CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Middle schools in Michigan continue to grow in number in comparison to junior high schools. Because middle school is a concept a s well a s a name, practitioners are seeking models as they implement the middle school. The 18 characteristics of middle schools, a s defined by Riegle (1971), were drawn from the literature on successful middle schools and have been generally accepted as standard components to move toward a quality middle school concept. The United States Department of Education began the Secondary Schools Recognition Program to recognize state and national exemplary schools that could serve a s models and encourage other school personnel wishing to create good junior high, middle, and high schools. The exemplary schools, coupled with the 18 characteristics of middle schools, can provide a viable source of information for practitioners in the field wishing to pursue quality middle-level education. Purpose of the Study The writer’s purpose in this investigation w as to examine the middle-level exemplary schools in the State of Michigan to determine which of the 18 1 characteristics of middle schools were present and to what degree they were being implemented. The study w as basically an analysis between theory and actual practice in the schools. Background and Importance of the Study The middle school movement has been in effect for more than 30 years. Because of its success, many school districts have elected to adopt the philosophy and research supporting middle schools and move from the traditional junior high school configuration to create middle-level schools. The State of Michigan has granted exemplary status to 56 middle-level schools beginning with the 1982-83 school year. Based on that status, these schools provide standards for other districts wishing to provide effective middle schools. In addition, a review of the literature would suggest that certain characteristics are inherent in effective middle schools. It is assum ed that the likelihood of being a successful middle school, a s defined by exemplary status, is greater when these characteristics are in place. This study of exemplary schools in the State of Michigan w as intended to provide practitioners and other researchers with an opportunity to consider characteristics that appear appropriate for implementation of a quality middle-level school. Practitioners can then make informed decisions using the findings from this study. A primary goal of this investigation w as to provide information that will allow decision makers to determine which characteristics they wish to implement to establish a sound middle school. In addition, school districts can determine the likelihood of an effective middle-level school while making th e transform ation from th e traditional junior high. In a study don e by Prentice (1990), 12 nationally recognized exem plary middle schools in Michigan, a s evidenced by th e Secondary School Recognition Program (SSR P), w ere surveyed to determ ine the extent of implementation of th e 18 characteristics of middle-level schools a s perceived by principals and te a c h e rs in th o se schools. T he resea rch e r exam ined th e 12 schools receiving national exem plary sta tu s from 1983 to 1987. Prentice used the Riegle questionnaire, now considered a landm ark in middle-level research, a s the survey instrum ent. R esults of th e study provided a percentage of d eg ree of characteristic implementation and com parisons of that implementation by school size, geographic location, and length of time the building had been a middle school. Prentice found that all national exem plary schools in Michigan had a rate of characteristic im plem entation a t least 10 percentage points higher th an in previous stu d ies done on middle schools in general. Only the recent Mowen (1992) study of national Blue Ribbon Schools show ed an implementation rate to be higher in any survey of this nature. T he current study w as a replication of portions of the Prentice study. T hose 12 schools receiving national exem plary status from 1983 to 1987 w ere com pared to th e 6 schools receiving national exem plary sta tu s from 1988 to 1993. In addition, th e com bined 18 national exem plary schools and the additional 38 sta te exem plary schools w ere com pared with regard to th e level of implementation of th e 18 characteristics of middle-level schools. If the rate of implementation of th e characteristics had changed significantly regarding th e national exem plary schools, the researcher attem pted to ascertain the nature of said changes. D ata w ere gathered through the u se of questionnaires, and a statistical analysis w as performed for the purpose of interpreting and presenting the results. Background In 1983, th e S ta te of Michigan, along with the other 49 states, instituted the Secondary School Recognition Program (SSRP), with the support and encour­ agem ent of the United S tates D epartm ent of Education (USDOE). The intention of this program w as to "(1) identify and recognize unusually successful public secondary schools, and (2) through publicity and other m eans, encourage their emulation by other educators” (Woods, 1985). in 1983, superintendents in all school districts in the state received a letter from th e Michigan D epartm ent of Education (MDOE), stating th e purpose of the SSR P. S uperintendents w ere asked to nom inate either a high school or a junior high school from their district for this recognition. Specific m easurable criteria were stated with resp ect to the program, and specific information w as requested from the schools that w ere nominated. Com pleted forms w ere sent to the MDOE and reviewed by a panel of "experienced readers" who were practitioners in the field of education. Schools were then notified of their selection by the MDOE. Those selected, from the self­ nominations, were also sent on to the USDOEfor national competition. Following intense review, selected nominations were slated for site visitations. From the recommendations of site visitors, a total of 60 to 80 schools, nationally, were selected by the panel of experts for recognition. Since the program’s inception, Michigan has added a standardized method of selecting and rating schools. Since 1983,56 middle-level schools have been awarded state recognition, and 18 of the 56 have been awarded national recognition, two schools having received the honor twice. Of initial interest to this researcher was the fact that only half of the number of schools have been awarded national exemplary status from 1987 to 1993 a s compared to the first five years of the program. A further examination of this situation is provided in Chapter IV. Definition of Terms The following term s are defined in the context in which they are used in this study. Exemplary schools. T hose schools recognized by the State of Michigan and/or the United States government a s having been unusually successful through the Secondary Schools Recognition Program (SSRP). Michigan Department of Education (MDOE). A state governmental agency that administers and monitors education for the State of Michigan. Middle schools. Those schools enveloping a configuration that includes grades six through eight. Secondary School Recognition Program (SSRP). A federal program established in 1983 to "identify and recognize unusually successful public secondary schools, and through publicity and other means, to encourage others to emulate their successful policies and practices" (Woods, 1985, p. 2). The SSRP is referred to a s the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. United States Department of Education fUSDOE). An agency of the United States government dealing with the administration and monitoring of education in the United States. Assumptions and Limitations of the Study The writer recognized two assumptions and three limitations of this study: Assumptions 1. For the purpose of this investigation, exemplary status was considered to be synonymous with quality education. 2. The likelihood of having a middle school meet the needs of students is greater if the 18 characteristics of middle schools are in place. Limitations This investigation was limited to schools that obtained exemplary status by virtue of an application/selection process. 2. Exemplary status w as limited to a definer for quality education and an indicator of success. 3. For the purpose of this study, the Riegle (1971) listing of the 18 characteristics of middle schools w as used exclusively. Hypotheses The primary focus of this study w as on the rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools by middle schools in the State of Michigan receiving exemplary status from 1983 to 1993. The following null hypotheses were tested: Ho 1: There is no difference in the degree of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools in Michigan middle-level schools receiving exemplary status from 1983 through 1987 (Prentice study) and their degree of implementation in the sam e schools in 1993 (current study). Ho 2: There is no difference in the degree of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools in Michigan middle-level schools receiving national exemplary status from 1983 through 1987 and those receiving national exemplary status from 1988 through 1993. Ho 3: There is no difference in the degree of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools in Michigan middle-level schools receiving national exemplary status and those receiving state exemplary status. Summary and Organization of the Dissertation Chapter I contained a description of the general nature of the study, indicating the background and significance of the study. The purpose of the study, definitions, basic assum ptions, and limitations of the study were included. Chapter II contains a review of the literature related to this study. Included are a brief historical review ofthe middle school, general characteristics of middle- level schools, historical background regarding the inception and implementation of the SSRP, and a general discussion of the Prentice (1990) research and other related studies. The relationship of the 14 attributes developed by the SSR P to the 18 characteristics of middle schools, a s defined by Riegle, also is examined. The procedures used in the study, the sources of data, collection and analysis of the data, and the research design are described in Chapter III. C hapter IV is devoted to presentation and interpretation of the data. Chapter V includes a review of th e study, summary, conclusions and implications, and recom mendations for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature begins with a discussion of the historical development of the middle school. In the second section, the most commonly accepted characteristics of middle schools are reviewed. The third section is devoted to the Secondary School Recognition Program (SSRP) and a review of research pertaining to that program. Exemplary schools are defined, and their application for that status through the SSR P in Michigan is explained. The final section deals with the relationship of the 18 characteristics of middle schools defined by Riegle (1971) to th e 14 attributes used a s evaluation criteria by the SSRP. Development of the Middle School Since its inception in the 1960s, the middle school has fought to em erge and prove its worth a s a sound educational concept for the 11- to 14-year-old age group. The middle school, a s conceived by the educational leaders in this movement, w as designed to be just what th e nam e im plied-a school in the middle, between elem entary and high school. Educational leaders were dissatisfied with the continuity betw een elem entary and secondary schools. This, 9 10 coupled with th e problem s asso ciated with children making th e transition from elem entary to high school, h a s b een cited a s th e primary reason for th e em erging middle school. Many definitions of th e middle school e n co m p ass th e above-m entioned concepts, ranging from general to specific. O ne of th e m ost commonly accepted definitions of th e middle schools is found in th e research of G eorgiady and R om ano (Georgiady, 1968). According to their definition, a middle school is "an organizational arrangem ent encom passing w hat a re traditionally grades six, seven, and eight for p u rp o se s of planning and conducting a unique se t of educational ex periences for early a d o le sc en ts or tra n se sc e n t students, a g e s 11 to 14" (p. 73). O ther middle-level authorities who have defined middle schools include Alexander, DeVita, H ansen, and Murphy. A lexander's (1968) definition is broad. He stated th at a middle school is "a school providing a program planned for a range of older children, p read o lescen ts, and early ad o lescen ts that builds upon th e elem entary school program for earlier childhood and in turn is built upon by the high school’s program for adolescence" (p. 1). Another general definition of the middle school w as given by DeVita (1970). According to him, "the middle school is a school that tries to structure a child’s education for him and around him. It considers who h e is, w here he is, w hat his n e e d s are, and w hat his potential is” (p. 26). Murphy (1967) gav e a m ore specific definition: "A middle school d e sig n ates a school in betw een elem entary and high school housed 11 separately and, ideally, in a building freshly designed for its purpose and covering at least three of the middle school years, beginning with grades 5 or 6" (p. 6). Regardless of the breadth of definition, the middle school, a s evidenced by the research, is conclusively child-centered. Its purpose is to serve the social, physical, intellectual, and emotional needs of the transescent through an educational program based within the school. The term "transescence" was coined by Eichorn (1987) to describe the movement from elementary to high school. T ransescence defines . . . the stage of development which begins prior to the onset of puberty and extends through the early stag es of adolescence. Since puberty does not occur for all precisely at the sam e chronological age in human development, the transescent designation is based on the many physical, social, emotional and intellectual changes in body chemistry that appear prior to the puberty cycle to the time in which the body gains a practical degree of stabilization over th ese complex pubescent changes, (p. 3) Authors such as Conant, Vars, Lounsbury, Beane, Romano, Georgiady and others have written prolifically about the middle school concept. Over the past three decades, since the beginning of the middle school movement, significant strides have been made about how best to provide instructional services to students 11 to 14 years of age. The middle school has em erged a s the most-often-named grade configuration for this level, and studies in the field have increased to provide validation of established com ponents in a true middle school. A growing dissatisfaction with the junior high school provided one reason for the new configuration of a three-to four-grade middle-level school. The 1960s 12 were filled with criticisms of American schools. Wiles and Bondi (1981) mentioned reasons of a political, social, and fiscal nature. They cited Why Johnny C an’t Read a s triggering questions about educational quality, and the launching of Sputnik left the American public outraged that w e had allowed the R ussians to outperform us in the math and science arena. As a result, subjects w ere moved downward in grade level, especially algebra, foreign language, and chemistry. Wiles and Bondi (1981) stated that the elimination of racial segregation served a s an external force in the development of middle schools during the 1960s. It w as an opportunity to integrate the different races at an earlier educational level. Further, according to Wiles and Bondi (1981), the population growth of the late 1950s and 1960s forced districts to build new facilities during this period. The three-year middle-level school often solved the problem rather than constructing either a new elementary or high school building. Overcrowding w as relieved by moving the older elem entaries up to the middle level and the ninth grade down to the middle level. Wiles and Bondi (1981) cited the "bandwagon" effect a s having had an influence on middle school growth. One middle school received favorable exposure in the media, and others hoped to "tag along," determ ined that it w as the "thing to do." 13 R eg ard less of th e reaso n s, middle schools w ere appearing in th e early 1960s, num bering in th e low hundreds. In a national study, Alexander (1968) reported 1,101 schools identifying them selves a s middle schools. Michigan rea ch e d a total of 137 middle schools by the 1969-70 school year (Riegle, 1971). Two y e a rs later, Kealy (1971) identified m ore than twice that num ber. Little resea rch is available concerning the m erits of a middle school organization. In 1973, T rauschke and Money’s cooperative research indicated philosophical beliefs they determ ined from teach er resp o n ses. G atew ood’s 1974 review of th e available literature indicated that reorganization of th e middle g rad e s had b e e n attributed primarily to practical reaso n s. He found that th e only real difference betw een m ost junior highs and middle schools w as in nam e and grad e organization. G atew ood (1974) found that a num ber of studies favored the middle school o ver th e junior high, w h ereas others dem onstrated th e reverse. Since m any middle schools m erely changed their nam e and not th e program , and given th e sh o rt tim e span in which the m ovem ent had developed, com bined with th e continued growth and expansion of th e middle school concept, it is not surprising to find few studies of a conclusive nature. In 1971, however, Riegle’s landm ark study in the a re a of middle-level education in Michigan and surrounding sta te s established the definition of w hat middle school education should be, b a sed on th e 18 characteristics he glean ed from th e literature of the time. T he study h as b een replicated m any tim es and w as incorporated virtually in its entirety in both Michigan and W est Virginia a s 14 they developed their standards of middle education. Both states used Riegle’s 18 characteristics a s outlined by their state departm ents of education (Prentice, 1990). The 1970s were characterized by constant growth, and the trend soon unfolded with a proliferation of workshops and institutes about middle schools. The founding of the National Middle School Association, the Center for Early Adolescence in North Carolina, and the National Middle School R esource Center in Indiana gave further evidence that the middle school w as well rooted (Beane, 1990). The "movement" w as beginning with the increasing numbers of publications about middle schools, and a growing body of research w as conducted. Brooks (1978) noted that the number of middle schools nationwide had increased to 4,060 by 1977, according to his study done at the University of Kentucky. In his research, Brooks cited the three primary reasons for establishing a middle school or for making the change from a junior high to a middle school as: (a) to bridge the gap from elementary to high school more effectively, (b) to provide a program tailored to the needs of the early adolescent, and (c) to eliminate overcrowding. There w as no decrease in the level of activity regarding middle schools in the 1980s. A new wave of middle schools emerged a s a result of the educational tumult following the publication of the so-called Nation at Risk, a report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. Virtually every state in the nation implemented programs and practices intended to bridge high school 15 program s with elem entary program s. T he ninth g rad e cam e under attack. It w as met with m ore intensity, and it w a s dom inated with graduation requirem ents. More and more administrators found it difficult to keep ninth grade in the middle level. W hereas programmatic ch an g e s w ere gradual, m any schools changed grade configurations in an effort to recognize and respond to the earlier onset of puberty, and to recognize the need for ninth grad e to be placed at the high school. In the mid-1980s, the 6-7-8 grade level configuration becam e the predominant middle-level grade organization. Alexander and McEwin (1989) stated the shift in grade configuration from 1970-71 to 1986-87 a s "the total num ber of 7-9 units (junior high schools) w as 2,191 in 1986-87, a drop of 53 percent since 1970-71, and that of 6-8 units (middle schools) w as 4,329, an increase of 160 percent since 1970-71" (p. 15). During this period, gains w ere also m ade in the education of future middlelevel teach ers and administrators. D evelopm ent of standards for middle-level teach er preparation and certification b e ca m e th e function of departm ents of education, universities, and professional organizations. The Carnegie Corporation’s Task Force on Education for Young A dolescents funded large grants to states to promote m ore effective middle-level education. As a result of this funding, national, regional, and state conferences w ere held annually. Books for and about middle-level practitioners w ere published in m assive num bers. R eferences in the literature to junior high schools w ere few, w hereas references 16 to middle schools w ere abundant. It appeared that the middle school, at least in concept, w as well established. The middle school of the 1990s is alive and growing both numerically and conceptually. The Michigan Education Directory (1994) lists 404 middle schools by nam e and only 153 junior high schools. Mowen’s (1993) study of the 18 characteristics of middle schools a s practiced in Michigan indicated a higher rate of implementation by middle-level schools than w as reported in the earlier Prentice (1990) study. General use of the term "middle school" by the public, by the media, and in other communications is an indication of the acceptance of middle school as an educational concept. Professional development in the area of middle-level teaching, administration, and parenting has experienced more attention than in previous years. Middle-level professional organizations are experiencing higher attendance at conferences and workshops than has been recorded before. T eacher education and certification have becom e topics of conversation and debate in state departm ents of education and higher educational institutions, and among practitioners in the field. In Michigan, a group called the Middle School Alliance has been formed to promote middle-level education. Funded in part by a private foundation, the group hopes to influence certification requirem ents for future middle-level teachers, and serve a s a networking center for all middle-level educators in the state. 17 Characteristics of Middle School The search for more responsive middle-level school structures and programs during the 1980s prompted many middle-level educators to reexamine current practices. In 1971, Riegle extracted a list of 18 basic characteristics from the literature, which middle-level writers used to differentiate between junior highs and middle schools. The list w as validated by five national middle school authorities: Marie Elie, Montreal, Canada; Nicholas Georgiady, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio; Ann Grooms, Education Services Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio; Louis Romano, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; and Emmett Williams, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Riegle’s list, often referred to simply a s 18 middle school characteristics, has subsequently been used throughout the country by a large number of researchers, including Hawkins (1972), Raymer (1974), Caui (1975), Bohlinger (1977), Beckman (1978), Pook (1980), Wah (1980), Schindler (1982), Minster (1985), Magana (1987), Prentice (1990), and Mowen (1993). Each of th ese researchers determined a rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics, based on a sampling of schools. Their specific outcomes are discussed in the related studies section of this chapter. The 18 characteristics of middle schools identified by Riegle were refined by Romano and other researchers (1973). They were used a s a basis for the characteristics of an exemplary middle school endorsed by the Michigan State Board of Education in 1980 and a s the basis for standards of education in West Virginia. 18 In their m ost recent publication, R om ano and G eorgiady (1994) refined the original 18 characteristics even further, collapsing them to 14, a s shown in Table 2 . 1. Table 2.1: Original 18 characteristics of middle schools and refined 14 characteristics. Original 18 C haracteristics (Riegle, 1971) Refined 14 Characteristics (R om ano & Georgiady, 1994) 1. Continuous progress 1. C ontinuous progress 2. Multi-material approach 2. Multi-media approach 3. Flexible schedule 3. Flexible schedule 4. Social experiences 4. Social experiences 5. Physical experiences 5. Physical ex periences and intram ural activity 6. Intramural activities 6. T eam teaching 7. Team teaching 7. G uidance for a program of planned gradualism 8. Planned gradualism 8. C reative exploratory and enrichm ent activities 9. Exploratory and enrichm ent activities 9. Independent study 10. G uidance services 10. B asic skill and repair 11. Independent study 11. Evaluation 12. Basic skill and repair 12. Com munity relations 13. Creative experiences 13. S tu d en t services 14. Security factor 14. Auxiliary staffing 15. Evaluation 16. Community relations 17. Student services 18. Auxiliary staffing 19 Riegle’s list of the original 18 characteristics w as chosen for this study b ecau se (a) they are commonly accepted by most middle-level educators in Michigan, (b) they provide a specific framework for evaluation, (c) their u se is supported by other research, (d) the 18 characteristics and the corresponding questionnaire have been used by other researchers to determ ine the degree of implementation of the characteristics of middle schools, and (e) to replicate portions of the Prentice study, the sam e evaluative tool had to be used. A detailed list of the 18 middle school characteristics and their definitions are shown in Table 2.2. Riegle’s original study consisted of 136 middle-level schools in Michigan and four national schools selected for their exemplary status. His findings revealed that “the exemplary schools achieved a higher degree of application of the middle school principles . . . than did the middle schools in Michigan, when considered a s a group" (p. 4). He also found that: While a high degree of agreem ent exists am ong authorities in th e field regarding what constitutes the basic principles of middle school education, th e degree of application of th ese principles by school system s in Michigan in general fails to provide evidence of implementation of the principles proclaimed by this leadership, (p. 4) Hawkins (1972) developed an extension of the Riegle study to ascertain actual middle school practices in Michigan middle schools and four national middle schools with distinguished reputations. He found that the four nationally prominent middle schools were applying the 18 characteristics to a significantly higher degree than were the Michigan middle schools that replied to his survey. 20 Table 2.2: Eighteen middle school characteristics identified by Riegle (1971) and their definitions. Characteristic Definition 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. Multi-material approach The middle school program should offer stu­ dents a wide range of easily accessible instructional materials. Classroom activities should be planned around a multi-media approach rather than a basic textbook organi­ zation. Flexible schedules The middle school should provide a schedule that encourages the investment of time based on educational needs rather than standardized time periods. The schedule should be employed a s a teaching aid rather than a con­ trol device. Social experience The middle school program should provide social experiences appropriate for the transescent youth and should not em ulate the social experiences of the senior high school. Physical experience The middle school curricular and co-curricuiar programs should provide physical activities based solely upon the needs of the students. A broad range of intramural experiences that provide physical activity for all students should be provided to supplem ent the physical educa­ tion classes, which should center their activity upon helping students understand and use their own bodies. Intramural activities The middle school should feature intramural activities rather than interscholastic activities. Team teaching The middle school program should be orga­ nized in part around team teaching patterns that allow students to interact with a variety of teachers in a wide range of subject areas. 21 Table 2.2: Continued. Characteristic Definition Planned gradualism The middle school should provide experiences that assist early adolescents in making the transition from childhood dependence to adult independence, thereby helping them to bridge the gap between elementary school and senior high school. Exploratory and enrich­ ment studies The middle school program should be broad enough to m eet the individual interests of the students for which it was designed. It should widen the range of educational training a stu­ dent experiences rather than specialize his training. Elective courses should be a part of the program of every student during his years in the middle school. Guidance services The middle school program should include both group and individual guidance services for all students. Independent study The middle school program should provide an opportunity for students to spend time studying individual interests or needs that do not appear in the organized curricular offerings. Basic skill repair and extensions The middle school program should provide opportunities for students to receive clinical help in basic learning skills. The basic educa­ tion program fostered in the elementary school should be extended in the middle school. Creative experiences The middle school program should include opportunities for students to express them­ selves in creative manners. Student news­ papers, student dramatic creations, student oratorical creations, musical programs, and other student-centered, student-directed, student-developed activities should be encour­ aged. 22 Table 2.2: Continued. Characteristic Definition Security factor The middle school program should provide every student with a security group: a te a c h e r who knows him well and whom h e relates to in a positive m anner; a p e e r group that m ee ts regularly and rep re se n ts m ore than adm inistra­ tive convenience in its u s e of time. Evaluation The middle school program should provide an evaluation of a student’s work th at is personal, positive in nature, nonthreatening and strictly individualized. P aren t-teach er-stu d en t con­ feren ces on a scheduled and unscheduled basis should be th e b asic reporting m ethod. Competitive letter-grade evaluation form s should b e replaced with open and honest pupil-teacher-parent com m unications. Community relations The middle school should develop and m ain­ tain a varied program of com m unity relations. Program s to inform, to entertain, to educate, and to understand th e com m unity a s well a s other activities should be a part of th e basic operation of the school. Student services The middle school should provide a broad spectrum of specialized serv ices for students. Community, county, and sta te a g en c ie s should be utilized to expand th e ran g e of specialists to its broadest possible extent. Auxiliary staffing The middle school should utilize a highly diver­ sified array of personnel su c h a s volunteer parents, tea c h e r aides, clerical aides, studen t volunteers, and other similar ty p es of support staffing that help to facilitate the teaching staff. 23 In a study of a sam ple of 100 national schools com pared to 100 Michigan schools, Raymer (1974) compared the degree to which the 18 basic characteris­ tics had been implemented in the 5-8 or 6-8 grade configuration of both se ts of schools. He found that Michigan middle schools with grades 6-8 implemented and practiced the 18 characteristics to a higher degree than the national sam ple of middle schools, but that the reverse w as true for schools with grades 5-8. Caul (1975) used the 18 basic characteristics to determ ine their level of implementation of middle school concepts. Student, teacher, and principal perceptions of organizational structure of the middle school w as the basis of her inquiry. She found that schools with high implementation of the 18 basic characteristics had a more participative organizational structure and that the m anagem ent practices of the principals of those schools w ere reflected in teacher m anagem ent practices toward students. Bohlinger (1977) attempted to determ ine the degree to which the 18 characteristics of middle schools were implemented in Ohio public middle schools housing grades 5-8 or grades 6-8. He concluded that Ohio middle schools had not implemented th ese characteristics to a high degree. Bohlinger determined that the overall implementation rate w as 50.5%, which supported his conclusion. Ofthe 18 characteristics, no individual characteristic had an implementation score higher than 80%. In a study of Missouri middle schools, Beckman (1978) investigated the current level of implementation of 18 basic middle school principles. He, too, 24 u sed th e Riegle survey instrum ent. Beckm an found no statistically significant difference in the implementation level regardless of th e school nam e, including "elem entary," "middle," or "junior high" school. D em ps (1978) attem pted to determ ine th e relationship betw een te a c h e rs’ job satisfaction and th e level of implementation of th e 18 middle school characteristics. No significant relationships w ere found betw een the two variables. D em ps also discovered that no significant difference existed betw een principals’ and te a c h e rs’ perceptions of the level of implementation of the 18 basic characteristics. Pook (1980) replicated and supported D em ps’s earlier study using Colorado schools. Although direct correlations w ere found betw een the level of implementation and th e d eg ree of satisfaction surrounding school facilities, curriculum, and community support, no significant difference w as found in the job satisfaction o fte a c h e rs em ployed in districts with low, medium, or high implemen­ tation of th e characteristics. W ah (1980) also used Riegle’s questionnaire regarding the 18 middle school characteristics. W ah determ ined th a tth e longer a middle school had been in operation, the g reater th e num ber of middle school characteristics it had im plem ented. W ah's study involved only four schools. Schindler (1982) conducted a study with a stratified sam ple of 10 exem plary middle schools and 150 national middle schools. He found that both groups w ere implementing th e philosophical principles of middle schools and 25 moving away from junior high school models. The exemplary middle schools showed the most concerted effort to provide a curricular program unique to the middle school student. Minster’s (1985) study w as designed to determine the current level of implementation of middle school practices in selected middle schools in Illinois. Using Riegle’s questionnaire, he found that superintendents reported a higher degree of implementation than principals, and that principals reported a higher degree of implementation than teachers. The findings also supported the notion that there w as not a high degree of implementation of the 18 characteristics; the total average score for the rate of implementation w as between 50% and 54%. Magana (1987) replicated Minster’s study in Wisconsin schools. Her findings were similar to Minster’s in that administrators perceived a higher level of implementation of nearly all of the 18 characteristics than did teachers. In a 1990 study, Prentice determined the level of implementation of the 18 basic characteristics of middle school education a s perceived by principals and teachers. He used a s a sam ple 12 Michigan schools selected for national recognition in the SSR P during the years 1983 through 1988. Prentice found that there w as very little difference in the level of implementation of the characteristics a s perceived by principals and teachers. He also determined that the implemen­ tation level w as higher in the exemplary schools than in any other reported group to that date. 26 Mowen (1993) conducted an investigation of randomly selected Michigan schools and national Blue Ribbon schools. He discovered the overall implemen­ tation rate of the 18 characteristics of middle schools to be 67.4%. When comparing the two groups, Mowen also found that the Blue Ribbon schools scored approximately 11% higher than the Michigan schools in their implementa­ tion of the 18 characteristics of middle schools. The .Secondary School Recognition Program (SSRP1 The 1980s were a decade of unsettling information regarding the decline and perceived failure of public education. Reports and books such a s The Paideia Proposal (Adler. 19821. High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America (Boyer. 19831. A Place Called School (Goodlad. 1983), and A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) gave cause for educators to do a self-evaluation and look critically at public education. Sensing the upheaval of a strong pillar of American society, then-Secretary of Education, Terrel H. Bell, established a program of Recognizing exemplary schools, which he believed could be found in every state and region of the nation. The intention w as not merely to m ake Americans feel better about their schools, but to provide role models in an attempt to promote school improvement. The Secondary Schools Recognition Program (SSRP) w as thus estab ­ lished. The first nomination forms w ere sent to all 50 states in 1983. In his preface to a report on this program, the new United S tates Secretary of Education, William Bennett (1985), indicated that the intention w as basically 27 unchanged. He stated, "The purpose of the 'Secondary School Recognition Program’ is to identify and call attention to th e su c c e sse s of many of th ese schools while encouraging other schools and communities to link to them for ideas and encouragem ent" (preface). To win recognition, schools first have to be nominated by their state education agency and then p a ss a rigorous screening and site visit. Each school is evaluated on five outcom e m easures and 14 attributes of success identified in school effectiveness studies of the 1980s. The SSR P committee determined th ese 14 attributes that they had identified a s criteria for exemplary schools. Recom m endations on which schools best m eet the program’s recognition criteria are m ade to the Secretary of Education by a national panel representing various constituent groups in public education. Individual states are responsible for establishing selection procedures appropriate to their state. In 1982-83, each state w as permitted to nominate five schools in each category: schools for young adolescents (middle or junior high schools) and high schools. In the second year, 1983-84, the procedure was altered, and each state w as given a quota for nominations, reflecting its population and its number of eligible schools. In 1989, the program w as expanded to include elementary schools. Each nomination submitted by the individual states undergoes a three-step review process. First, a national panel is selected yearly by the recognition program to review the applications. This 18-m em ber panel is representative of the diverse constituent groups in public education. The panel carefully reviews 28 the applications submitted by the schools. In general, about one-half of the applications are screened out before continuing to the second step, according to W oods (1985). The remaining schools then move on to the second step. They receive a two-day site visitation conducted by visitors representing a mix of researchers, consultants, administrators, and other educators with extensive experience in secondary education. During the visit, interviews are held with parents, students, teachers, and administrators. O bservations are m ade in the buildings and classroom s, and detailed reports are prepared for each school. In the final step, the national panel reviews the reports from the site visitors about each school and m akes recommendations to the Secretary of Education. The Secondary School Recognition Program in Michigan In Michigan, self-nomination forms for the SSR P w ere mailed to the superintendents of local school districts in 1983 by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Phillip Runkle, asking them to "nominate any of your schools which you feel would be worthy of recognition." Runkle’s letter stated that once the forms w ere received in Lansing, they would be reviewed by a "panel consisting of practicing Michigan principals who have been selected by their professional organizations." Following the review, Runkle stated that he would announce up to five schools at the high school level and up to five m ore at the middle level, w hose nomination forms would be sent to W ashington, D.C., for national consideration. In 1989, a site visit w as added to the process. This site visit w as designed to u se the sam e criteria proposed by the USDOE a s its model. 29 In 1989, the MDOE letter announcing the opening of the 1989-90 elem entary school portion of the program brought with it the concern that perhaps Michigan w as not looking for the very best, but only a representative selection of those schools at the upper end of the spectrum, and thus a denigration of the goals of the SSRP (Prentice, 1990). Our selection process will involve a peer panel review of the applications, site visitations for finalist schools, and the final nomination of 15 Michigan schools for the national program. Superintendents should also be aware ofthe Department’s concern forthe need of representation from across the State. We will not be nominating more than a single school from any district with fewer than 50 elementary buildings. We will formally recognize outstanding schools in a ceremony this winter with the State Board of Education. Fourteen Attributes of Success as. Perceived _fay_tbe Secondary School Recognition_Program Som e schools provide more effective instruction to their students than other schools serving similar populations. The question that has plagued researchers for decades is "Why?” This question is not easily answered and has caused debates among educators and policy makers. In an attempt to answ er that question, research regarding what m akes an effective school began. In establishing criteria for selection of exemplary schools, the SSR P used a sum m ary of effective schools research. This research substantiated the development of like characteristics (attributes) of schools that had proven to be successful. It drew from the Five Factor Theory developed by Edmonds (1979). This theory identifies (a) strong building-level leadership, (b) clear goals, (c) an orderly school climate, (d) high expectations and standards, and (e) frequent 30 monitoring and a sse ss m e n t of student progress a s the essential characteristics of effective schools (W oods, 1985). The 14 attributes of s u c c e s s w ere drawn from studies of effective schools and rep resen t a synthesis of th e research findings concerning significant characteristics of effective schools. T he com m ittee relied on th e judgm ents and application of the aforem entioned findings of experienced people for overall a sse ss m e n ts about school su c c e ss . T he final attributes identified by th e S S R P are a s follows: 1. Clear academ ic goals 2. High expectations for students 3. O rder and discipline 4. R ew ards and incentives for students 5. Regular and frequent monitoring of student progress 6. Opportunities for m eaningful student responsibility and participation 7. T eacher efficacy 8. R ew ards and incentives for te a ch e rs 9. Concentration on academ ic learning time 10. Positive school climate 11. Administrative leadership 12. Well-articulated curriculum 13. Evaluation for instructional improvement 14. Community support and involvement 31 Four studies w ere used to validate the general findings a s drawn from the school effectiveness research. Rutter and his colleagues (1979), who studied London secondary schools, together with the comparative analysis of public and private secondary schools in the United S tates by Coleman and his associates (1982), identified secondary school variables that are linked to higher student achievem ent. Their findings w ere similar to the conclusions from other school effectiveness studies. Two other researchers reached similar conclusions based on their analyses of c a se study data. Lightfoot (1983) studied public and private high schools, and Lipsitz (1984) studied public middle schools. The 14 attributes of th e SSR P were correlated to the four previous studies (see Table 2.3). Although som e of the researchers defined the variables som ewhat differently, the general pattern w as similar. The Relationship of the 18 Characteristics of Middle Schools to the 14 Attributes of the SSR P The 18 characteristics of middle schools w ere listed and identified previously. The 14 attributes of the S S R P also were cited. The 14 attributes are used a s criteria for evaluating self-nominated schools during the exemplary school selection process. They are used to evaluate elementary, middle, junior high, and high schools. All of th ese schools are distinctly different. The 18 characteristics are m eant only to be applied to middle schools or to those schools in transition to a middle school. Table 2.3: The 14 attributes of the SSRP and their correlation to the findings of effective schools research. Studies of Usually S u ccessfu l Secondary Schools Attributes of S u c c e s s Rutter et al. (1979) 1. Clear academ ic g o a ls Coleman et al. (1982) C on sen su s on aim s and values — Lightfoot (1983) Clear and shared ide­ ology Lipsitz (1984) Clarity about school m ission and co n sen su s about goals 2. High expectations for students 3. Order and discipline High expectations of Desire to have all stu­ Students taking more rigorous courses and dents work to their full higher grading standards potential Students held responsi­ Fewer disciplinary prob­ A safe, regulated envi­ An orderly and caring ble for personal behavior lem s, but firm, fair disci­ ronment for teacher- environment pline student relationship R espect for teachers academ ic su c c e s s 4. Rewards and incen­ Frequent u se of praise Greater teacher interest tives for students and direct feedback on in students dents Frequent feedback on Higher standards in grad­ monitoring of student performance to students; ing progress frequent homework 6. Opportunities for meaningful student responsibility and R esp ect for teachers; many rewards for stu­ performance 5. Regular and frequent A climate of high exp ec­ tations High proportion of chil­ High participation in dren in positions of extracurricular activities — -------- — School provides diverse experience for students responsibility participation 7. T eacher efficacy Pleasant working condi­ tions for staff and stu­ dents — R esp ect for teachers and teaching; greater auton­ om y for teachers A principal who supports the staff; lack of isolation o f teachers Table 2.3: Continued. Studies of Usually S uccessful Secondary Schools Attributes of S u c c e ss Rutter et al. (1979) 8. Rewards and incen­ tives for teachers — Coleman et al. (1982) Lightfoot (1983) — Lipsitz (1984) — — — — 9. Concentration on a ca ­ dem ic learning time Students actively e n g a g ed in learning and doing more homework Students do more hom e­ work and le ss cla ss cut­ ting 10. Positive school climate A positive "ethos" Greater teacher interest in students 11. Administrative leadership C onsistent policies and procedures — 12. Weil-articulated curriculum — — 13. Evaluation for instructional improvement ---- --- A w areness of imperfec­ tions and willingness to search for solutions 14. Community support and involvement --------- --------- — A se n s e of community An orderly and caring environment Leadership fitting the culture of the school Strong instructional leadership; a principal with vision — Note: D a sh es (— ) indicate that the attribute w a s not d iscu ssed in that particular study. Teaming promotes cur­ riculum development and articulation Standardized tests used for diagnosis and justifi­ cation o f curricular deci­ sion s S ch ools responsive to their particular social and political milieu 34 In a comparison of both lists, the researcher corroborated the findings of Prentice (1990) in that: 1. None of the 14 attributes are worded in the sam e m anner a s any of the characteristics. 2. The 18 characteristics seem to focus on student-related concepts. The 14 attributes seem to focus on teacher-related concepts. 3. By definition, the characteristic of continuous progress seem s to be related to the attribute of high expectations for students. 4. By definition, the characteristic of community relations seem s to be related to the attribute of community support and involvement. 5. By definition, the characteristic of evaluation se em s to be related to the attribute of regular and frequent monitoring of student progress. 6. By definition, the characteristic of security factor seem s to be related to the attribute of positive school climate. 7. The characteristic of creative experiences se em s to be related to the attribute of opportunities for meaningful student responsibility and participation by definition in one of the studies. The characteristics of physical experiences and intramural activities and social experiences could also relate to this attribute. If the USDOE-selected middle schools in Michigan rank high on the 14 attributes of su c ce ss of the SSRP, then they also rank high on their level of implementation of the 18 basic middle school characteristics a s evidenced in Prentice’s (1990) research. His study indicated implementation levels of the basic 35 18 characteristics at significant levels a s reported by teach ers and principals from those Michigan schools selected a s national exemplary schools from 1983 to 1988. Mowen’s 1993 study of national Blue Ribbon schools surpassed th e rate of implementation of the 18 basic characteristics of middle schools a s reported by Prentice. To date, the Mowen (1993) study’s levels of implementation w ere the highest that have been reported in any study of the 18 characteristics. Sum m ary A brief description of the historical developm ent of th e middle school w as presented in this chapter. The 18 characteristics of middle schools, a s defined by Riegle, w ere presented, and studies that used those 18 characteristics w ere discussed. The SSR P w as explained, a s well a s how it is administered in Michigan to determ ine exem plary schools. The final portion of this chapter w as a discussion of th e positive relationship o fthe 14 attributes used a s criteria by the SSR P to determ ine exemplary schools and the 18 characteristics of middle schools, a s defined by Riegle. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY This chapter contains a description of th e m ethods and procedures used to determ ine which of th e 18 characteristics of middle schools w ere presen t and to w hat extent they w ere being im plem ented in th e schools a s reported in the collected d a ta . A com parison w as m ad e betw een Michigan schools that received national exem plary statu s in th e first five y ears of th e S econdary School Recognition Program (SSR P) and th o se receiving that sta tu s in the m ost recent five years of th e program. This re sea rch e r further explored w hether there w as a difference in the d egree of implementation of th e 18 characteristics of Michigan middle-level schools receiving exem plary statu s from 1983 through 1987 and their d eg ree of implementation in 1993. Finally, the re se a rc h e r determ ined w hether there w as a difference in the implementation of th e 18 characteristics of middle schools betw een national exem plary schools in Michigan and state exem plary schools, also in Michigan, a s selected through the S S R P process. The chapter is divided into the following sections: th e sam ple, th e survey instrument, data-gathering procedures, data-analysis procedures, and a summary. 36 37 The Sam ple The Michigan Department of Education (MDOE) identified 56 Michigan middle/junior high schools that have been selected a s outstanding and exemplary secondary schools at the state and national level by the United S tates Department of Education (USDOE). All 56 schools becam e the study sample. The aforementioned 56 schools were sent a cover letter (Appendix A) that described the study and asked for their cooperation in completing the questionnaire. Materials included a copy of the survey instrument (Appendix B) and a self-addressed, stam ped envelope along with instructions for completion; th ese were mailed together with the cover letter. The instrument w as to be completed by the building administrator. The completed and returned surveys provided the data for this study. The Survey Instrument The survey instrument w as replicated from the Riegle (1971) study. It was modified only by the inclusion of definitions for middle school characteristics and an educational terminology revision, w here appropriate, to create more current language and reduce ambiguity. The original instrument developed by Riegle w as validated at the time of his study by a panel of middle school authorities. The validation procedure included m easuring the level of implementation of the basic middle school characteristics. The list w as then reviewed and revised by consultants at Michigan State University, and further reviewed by a panel of 38 authorities, including Nicholas Georgiady, Ann Grooms, Marie Elie, Louis Rom ano, and Emmett Williams. B ased on th e suggestions of the panel of authorities, Riegle compiled a list of 18 basic middle school characteristics. T hese characteristics w ere listed and defined in C hapter II. It w as of particular importance that this instrument be used in the current study, a s it is the instrument m ost often referred to in the literature on organizing middle schools in Michigan. Other researchers who have used the Riegle survey instrum ent include Raymer (1974), Demps (1978), M agana (1987), Minster (1985), Mowen (1993), and Prentice (1990). The survey instrument used in this study contained 62 questions arranged in a m anner to g en erate collectable data. This included single-choice, multiplechoice, and check forms, corresponding to the specific survey item s related to each of the 18 basic middle school characteristics. All choices for each question in th e survey w ere assigned a numerical value. T hose values w ere weighted to provide a positive correlation betw een high scores and a high d eg ree of application of the characteristic being m easured. No information regarding th e numerical values of any response w as provided in the m aterials mailed to th e sam ple schools. The corresponding questions and total score possible related to eac h characteristic are listed in Table 3.1. 39 Table 3.1: Numbers of questions included in the survey instrument to collect data on each of the 18 middle school characteristics. Characteristic* Survey Item No. Total Possible Score 1.2 10 3,4,5,6,46 37 3. Flexible scheduling 7,8,38 15 4. Social experiences 9,10,47,48,60 24 5. Physical experiences 11,41,42,61 16 6. Intramural activities 12,13,49,62 18 7. Team-teaching 14,15,16,17 20 1. Continuous progress 2. Multi-material approach 8. Planned gradualism 9. Exploratories 18 3 19,20,21,50,51 28 10. Guidance services 22,23,24,43 14 11. Independent study 39,44,52 8 25,26,45,53 14 27,28,29,30,31,54 18 32,33 7 15. Evaluation practices 34,35,40 12 16. Community relations 36,37,55,56 15 17. Student services 57 9 18. Auxiliary staffing 58,59 8 12. Basic learning experiences 13. Creative experiences 14. Student security factors “Characteristics are designated by number and key words. Complete descriptions of the 18 characteristics can be found in Chapter II. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix B. Before the null hypotheses were tested, a reliability analysis was conducted on the survey instrument, using coefficient alpha and correlations, as well as corrected item/total correlations. Although the original survey instrument 40 was validated and has been used in many studies since 1971, this researcher could find no reference to a reliability test having been conducted on the questionnaire. The current investigator surveyed a selected group of schools based on exemplary status a s designated by the SSRP. A restriction-of-range problem existed because the sam ple w as drawn from the exemplary schools. Thus, the coefficient alphas and inter-item correlations in this study were lower than if the sam ple had been drawn from the entire population of Michigan middle schools. Previous studies using the questionnaire are not necessarily discredited because their sam ples were from a wider population. The results of the reliability analysis on the survey instrument are reported in Chapter IV. Data-Gathering Procedures Each of the aforementioned 56 schools in Michigan received a packet that included a letter, a survey instrument, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. The cover letter (Appendix A) indicated that the survey instrument was to be completed by the building principal. On November 1,1993, a reminder letter, another survey instrument, and a stamped return envelope were mailed to each principal who had not completed and returned the survey instrument sent on Septem ber 14,1993. By December 20, 45 of the 56 principals had completed and returned survey instruments. One principal returned an incomplete questionnaire. The percentage of returned usable questionnaires received was 82.1%. 41 Data-Analysis Proceducss The raw scores were summed for each characteristic and converted to a percentage of maximum possible score yielded bythe survey instrument for each characteristic and for the grand total possible. Converting to percentage scores made possible comparisons between groups, e.g., SSRP, national, and state exemplary schools’ responses by characteristic. Riegle (1971) did a validity check on the survey instrument. However, to test the reliability of the survey instrument and its scales, coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) was calculated for both the questionnaire and the 18 characteristics. Because of the small number of items within each scale, tables of inter-item correlations also were calculated. These tables provided another indication of internal consistency within the scales. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using Wilks' lambda statistic to test whether there were differences between the two groups of schools on any characteristic. The expected Type I error rate was set to .05. Statistical-analysis computations were generated by use of the computer program, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 4.1). Three comparisons were m ade. The first comparison was between the Prentice (1990) study of Michigan schools receiving national exemplary status (1983 through 1987) and those sam e schools in 1993. Prentice found rates of implementation of the 18 middle school characteristics in Michigan exemplary schools that were recognized by the SSRP during the first five years of the 42 program, from 1983 through 1987. The historical perspective w as examined by comparing the percentage scores from the current study with percentage scores reported by Prentice. The second comparison was between rate of implementation scores of schools receiving national exemplary status from 1983 through 1987 and those receiving national exemplary status from 1988 through 1993. Again, the percentage scores of implementation were compared. The third comparison was made between the rate of implementation scores of Michigan schools receiving state exemplary status and those receiving national exemplary status from 1983 through 1993. After the MANOVA tests were completed, follow-up univariate tests were performed to investigate further the possible differences between groups. Because only two groups were being compared at any one time, these tests were equivalent to t-tests. As in the Mowen (1993) study, the individual alpha level w as set to .01 per test, resulting in a maximum Type I error rate of approximately .16 per group of univariate tests. Summary This chapter contained an explanation of the research design and procedures followed in conducting the study. A procedure for investigating the reliability of the Riegle (1971) survey instrument was outlined. The sample was described, and the validation of the survey instrument, originally developed by Riegle, was explained. The data-gathering procedures and data-analysis 43 techniques also were discussed. Chapter IV contains the results of the analyses of data collected for this study. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter contains the analysis of the data. The inter-item correlations and testing of reliability are reported, a s is the current rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics in Michigan exemplary schools. Each hypothesis is stated, and the statistics related to that hypothesis are reported immediately following the statem ent of the hypothesis. The d ata presented in this chapter were collected from survey questionnaires returned by 45 Michigan exemplary schools, a s identified by the S S R P from 1983 through 1993, which represents an 82.1% return rate. The questionnaire, an updated version of the Riegle (1971) instrument, w as designed to provide data for each of th e 18 characteristics listed in C hapter II for each school. Results of Reliability Analysis A reliability analysis w as run on the survey instrument before the data analysis to determ ine the internal consistency of the questionnaire scales. This analysis consisted of an examination of C ronbach’s alpha, inter-item correlations by characteristic, and the corrected item/total correlation. The results are reported in Table 4.1. 44 45 Table 4.1: Inter-item correlations within the scales of the survey instrument. Characteristic Continuous P rogress Q1 Q2 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .5667 Coefficient alpha = .7 2 0 5 Characteristic Multi-Media Approach Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q46 Flexible Scheduling Q7 Q8 Q38 Q2 1.0000 .5667 1.0000 Minimum = .5667 Maximum = .5667 Q3 Q4 1.0000 .0199 -.1 9 8 4 .0436 -.1 4 6 3 1.000 .1983 .1458 .1252 Item-total correlations: M ean = .0996 Coefficient alpha = .3028 Characteristic Q1 Q5 1.0000 .1236 .3973 Minimum = -.1 9 8 4 Q7 Q8 1.0000 .2810 -.1 1 4 3 1.0000 .3370 Inter-item correlations: Mean = .1 6 79 Coefficient alpha = .3661 Minimum = -.1 1 4 3 Q6 1.0000 .2873 Corrected ItemTotal Correlation .5 6 6 7 .5 6 6 7 Q 46 1.0000 Corrected Item-Total Correlation -.1 2 2 5 .1752 .3 8 1 4 .3130 .2652 Maximum = .3973 Q38 Corrected ItemTotal Correlation 1.0000 Maximum = .3370 .0 7 6 5 .4 6 4 5 .1 4 9 8 46 Table 4.1: Continued. C haracteristic S o c ia l E x p erien ce Q9 Q 10 Q 47 Q 48 Q 69 Q9 Q 10 1 .0 0 0 0 .4271 .0 7 8 6 .4 7 9 4 .2 0 8 4 1 .0 0 0 .1 7 5 4 .2 9 9 5 -.0 0 9 9 Item-total correlations: M ean = .2 2 0 6 C oefficient alpha = .5 8 3 4 C haracteristic P h y sica l E x p erien ces Q11 Q41 Q 42 Q61 C haracteristic Intramural Activities Q 12 Q 13 Q 49 Q 62 Q41 1 .0 0 0 0 .2 6 9 7 .4 7 8 9 .0 9 9 8 1 .0 0 0 0 .6 6 7 2 -.1 2 9 9 1 .0 0 0 0 .2071 .0 1 4 2 Q 42 1 .0 0 0 0 -.1 0 6 7 Minimum = -.1 2 9 9 Q 12 Q 13 1 .0 0 0 0 .1 5 7 3 -.1 3 5 8 -.2 4 1 4 1 .0 0 0 0 .0 7 4 8 .0 2 0 3 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .0 7 2 8 C o efficien t alpha = .3 1 6 5 Q 48 M inimum = -.0 0 9 9 Q 11 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .2 1 3 2 C oefficient alpha = .5 4 0 7 Q 47 Q 49 1 .0 0 0 0 .5 6 1 6 Minimum = - .2 4 1 4 Q 60 1 .0 0 0 0 .3 2 6 2 C orrected Item -Total Correlation 1 .0 0 0 0 .4 9 0 4 .3 3 4 9 .1 7 3 8 .5 4 6 0 .2 0 1 6 M aximum = .4 7 9 4 Q61 C orrected ItemTotal Correlation .4 3 1 0 .4 3 0 7 .5961 -.0 6 5 6 1 .0 0 0 0 M aximum = .6 6 7 2 Q 62 C orrected Item Totai Correlation 1 .0 0 0 0 M aximum = .5 6 1 6 -.1 5 5 9 .0 6 1 4 .5 1 5 8 .2 9 3 2 47 Table 4.1: Continued. C haracteristic T eam T each ing Q 14 Q 15 Q 16 Q 17 Q 14 Q 15 1 .0 0 0 0 .9 2 8 5 .7 6 4 0 .7 9 8 8 1 .0 0 0 0 .7 1 8 7 .8 1 6 0 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .7 8 6 9 C oefficient alpha = .9 3 3 4 Planned G radualism : C orrected ItemTotal Correlation .9 0 8 2 .8941 .7661 .8 2 3 5 1 .0 0 0 0 M aximum = .9 2 8 5 Had few er than tw o n on zero varian ce item s and thus could not b e p r o c e sse d . Q 19 Q 20 Exploratories Q 19 Q 20 Q21 Q 50 Q51 1 .0 0 0 0 .5 8 2 8 .0 5 8 6 -.0 1 4 4 .0 6 9 5 1 .0 0 0 .1 9 7 5 .2 0 9 5 .2 1 4 0 Item-total correlations: M ean = .1 8 0 5 C oefficient alpha = .3 8 3 4 G u id an ce S e r v ic e s Q 22 Q 23 Q 24 Q 43 1 .0 0 0 0 .6 9 5 5 Minimum = .6 9 5 5 Characteristic Characteristic Q 17 Q 16 Q 22 1 .0 0 0 0 .4681 .3 3 3 8 .2 5 7 6 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .3 6 1 2 C oefficient alpha = ,6 8 1 3 Q21 Q 50 1 .0 0 0 0 -.0 3 4 2 .1 1 4 9 1 .0 0 0 0 .4 0 7 2 Minimum = -.0 3 4 2 Q 23 1 .0 0 0 0 .4 8 6 2 .3 5 3 7 1 .0 0 0 0 .1 6 6 9 .3811 .1 2 7 0 .3 6 8 5 .3 5 1 9 M aximum = .5 8 2 8 Q 24 Q 43 1 .0 0 0 0 .2 6 7 8 Minimum = .2 5 7 6 Corrected Item-Total Correlation Q51 1 .0 0 0 0 M aximum = .4 8 6 2 Corrected ItemTotal Correlation .4 6 6 9 .6 0 9 7 .4 8 0 6 .3 6 7 9 48 Table 4.1: Continued. C haracteristic IndeD endent Study Q 39 Q 44 Q 52 Q 39 Q 44 1 .0 0 0 0 .5 8 3 4 .1 3 9 5 1 .0 0 0 0 .1599 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .2 9 4 2 C oefficient alpha = .5 2 9 6 C haracteristic B a sic Learning E x p erien ces Q 25 Q 26 Q 46 Q 53 Q 26 1 .0 0 0 0 .0491 .0 3 8 0 .3 1 5 6 1 .0 0 0 0 -.1 4 6 4 .1 8 7 4 Characteristic Creative Experiences Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q54 Q27 Q28 1.0000 .2915 .3115 .1382 .2006 .2842 1.0000 .4046 .1799 .3207 .3261 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .2 5 8 7 C oefficient alpha = .6 4 2 9 1.0000 .3389 .0981 .6001 .2 9 4 2 .1 3 9 5 .5 8 3 4 Maximum = .5 8 3 4 Q 46 1 .0 0 0 0 .0 5 5 5 Minimum = -.2 4 6 4 Q29 C orrected ItemTotal Correlation 1 .0000 Minimum = .1 3 9 5 Q 25 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .0 8 3 2 C oefficient alph a = .2 8 5 9 Q 52 Q30 1.0000 -.0589 .2494 Minimum = -.0 5 8 9 Q 53 C orrected ItemTotal Correlation .2741 .0 9 9 2 -.0 0 6 4 .3 1 2 6 1 .0 0 0 0 M aximum = .3 1 5 6 Q31 1.0000 .1957 Q54 1.0000 M aximum = .6001 Corrected Item-Total Correlation .3766 .4954 .5447 .2657 .1886 .5708 49 Table 4.1: Continued. C haracteristic S tu d en t Secu ritv F actor Q 32 Q 33 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .4 9 6 9 C oefficien t alpha = .6 4 2 6 C haracteristic E valuation P r a c tic es Q 34 Q 35 Q 40 Q 33 1 .0 0 0 0 .4 9 6 9 1 .0 0 0 0 Minimum = .4 9 6 9 Q 34 Q 35 1 .0 0 0 0 -.1 3 6 3 .0 1 8 7 1 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .0 3 9 2 C oefficient alp ha = -.0 3 1 4 C haracteristic Q 32 Q 36 .4 9 6 9 .4 9 6 9 Maximum = .4 9 6 9 Q 40 Corrected ItemTotal Correlation .0 2 8 9 .0 5 4 9 .0 1 5 6 1 .0 0 0 0 Minimum = - .1 3 6 3 Q 37 C orrected ItemTotal Correlation Maximum = .0 1 8 7 Q 56 Q 55 Corrected ItemTotal Correlation C om m unity R ela tio n s Q 36 Q 37 Q 56 Q 55 1 .0 0 0 0 .2 6 8 2 .0 6 9 7 .0 8 8 2 Inter-item correlations: M ean = .2 0 2 0 C oefficient a lp h a = .5 0 5 7 .1 9 4 9 1 .0 0 0 0 .3 6 2 2 .0 9 3 8 1 .0 0 0 0 .3301 Minimum = .0 6 9 7 1 .0 0 0 0 Maximum = .3 6 2 2 .3 4 1 5 .4 1 6 8 .2 5 4 7 50 Table 4.1: Continued. Characteristic Student S ervices Q 32 Q 33 Q 57 Q32 1 .0000 .49 6 9 .21 1 7 Minimum = .2 1 1 7 Characteristic Auxiliary Staffing Q58 Q59 M ean = .4658 Corrected ItemTotal Correlation .3473 .5638 1.0000 .4155 Inter-item correlations: Mean = .3 7 47 Coefficient alpha = .5491 Inter-item correlations: Q 57 Q33 1 .0000 .3428 Maximum = .4 9 6 9 Q58 Q59 1.0000 .4858 1.0000 Corrected ItemTotal Correlation .4858 Minimum = .4858 .4858 Maximum = .4858 Coefficient alpha = .6534 Coefficient alpha (a) was calculated for each scale, using the formula reported by Cronbach (1951, p. 83): [ <*x J Tables of inter-item correlations, along with the corrected item-total correlations, serve a s another indicator of whether the questions within a scale m easure the sam e construct. The corrected item-total correlation for any item (Qj) is equal to the correlation between 0 , and the sum of all other items within the scales, except 51 N Corr. (Qj E j=1 where: Qj) N = num ber of items in a scale Q, and Qj refer to items within the scale Very low or negative corrected item-total correlations m ay indicate that the particular item is not m easuring the sam e construct a s other questions in that scale. In regard to restriction of range, the reliabilities and correlations reported here are likely to be less than in a similar investigation that used a m ore representative sam ple of Michigan schools. B ecause only exem plary schools in Michigan were investigated in this study, the reliability and correlations reported likely underestim ate the magnitude of such relations when the instrum ent is used a cro ss all qualities of schools. (S ee Table 4.2.) Table 4.2: Reliability summary. Characteristic Coeff. Alpha Continuous P rogress .7205 Multi-Media Approach Inter-Item Correlations Mean Suspect Items Minimum Maximum .5667 .5667 .5667 .3028 .0996 -.1984 .3973 Flexible Scheduling .3661 .1679 -.1143 .3370 Social Experiences .5834 .2206 -.0099 .4794 Physical Experiences .5407 .2132 -.1299 .6672 Q61 Intramural Activities .3165 .0728 -.2414 .5616 Q62 Team Teaching .9334 .7869 .6955 .9285 Q3 52 Table 4.2: Continued. Characteristic Coeff. Alpha Planned Gradualism Inter-Item Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Could not b e p ro cessed Exploratories .3834 .1805 -.0342 .5828 G uidance Services .6813 .3612 .2576 .4862 Independent Study .5296 .2942 .1395 .5834 Basic Learning E xperiences .2859 .0832 -.1464 .3156 Creative E xperiences .6429 .2587 -.0589 .6001 Student Security Factors .6426 .4969 .4969 .4969 -.0314 -.0392 -.1363 .0187 Community Relations .5057 .2020 .0697 .3622 Student S ervices .5491 .3747 .2117 .4969 Auxiliary Staffing .6534 .4858 .4858 .4858 Evaluation Practices S u sp ect Items Q50 Q 26.46 Q 34,35,40 Interpretation of S cales Multi-Media A pproach. T here is evidence that Q 3 w as not m easuring the sam e construct a s the result of th e questions surrounding th e characteristic. The inter-item correlations betw een Q3 and th e rest of the items w ere n ear zero or negative. This is evidence th at Q 3 m ay n eed to b e eliminated or reworded for a better understanding of Multi-Media Approach. Physical E xperiences. questions in this group. Q61 negatively correlated with th e rest of the B e ca u se the question im poses a specific grade 53 configuration, not all schools w ere able to score the maximum possible points a s not all grades, 5 through 8, w ere in every building. Q61 may need to be weighted or worded differently to allow for the flexibility in grades housed. Intramural Activities. There may be a problem with Q62 due to grade configuration, a s w as discussed under Physical Experiences. Not all schools may have four grades, and the score for Q62 totals nearly one-half the weight for the characteristic. The entire characteristic, Intramural Activities, may not be a s competitive with interscholastic activities a s w as presum ed in the original survey instrument. Exploratories. Q50 correlated negatively with two other questions. This item centers on selecting exploratory classes; however, not all electives may be exploratories. Thus, Q50 would not correlate positively with the rest of the group of questions surrounding this characteristic. The coefficient alpha level of the group was still acceptable. Basic Learning Experiences. Q46 correlated negatively with the others in the group. The question asks about the media-center materials available to students. As was mentioned earlier, questions on the survey concerning multi-media may need to be updated to reflect current technology. Q46 may not allow for the respondents' maximum score b ecau se it limits media materials that may be checked. Evaluation Practices. Coefficient alpha w as low for this group of questions, probably because the survey instrument links student evaluation heavily with parent- 54 teach er conferences. Although that is one way of reporting academ ic progress, today’s educators may not associate the two that closely. Evaluation Practices may need to be revisited for different, more updated terminology and instructional practices in the questions to generate a more positive correlation. In addition, variance w as low because most respondents answ ered with the sa m e one or two choices out of five. Apparently, these items are not a s related a s originally hoped. The rest of the scales did not have any highly su sp ect items. Overall, the survey instrument can be deem ed fairly reliable a s determined by analysis of inter-item correlations and coefficient alphas. Six characteristics’ inter-item correlations produced considerably lower coefficient alphas than the others. They included Multi-Media Approach (coefficient alpha = .3028), Flexible Scheduling (coefficient alpha = .3661), Intramural Activities (coefficient alpha = .3165), Exploratories (coefficient alpha = .3834), Basic Learning Experiences (coefficient alpha = .2859), and Evaluation Practices (coefficient alpha = .0314). The other 12 characteristics produced coefficient alphas at the .5 or higher level. All of the characteristics listed above showed suspect items when reviewing corrected item-total correlations, except Flexible Scheduling. All characteristics that had suspect items are listed above, except Physical Experiences. As w as previously mentioned, the coefficient alphas may have been higher if there had not been restriction of range. 55 Rate of Implementation of 18 Characteristics of Middle Schools T able4.3 indicates the current rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics a s reported by Michigan exemplary schools. The characteristic receiving the highest implementation rate w as Guidance Services, with 85.7%. The lowest implementa­ tion rate w as for Auxiliary Staffing, at 24.4%. It is interesting that Continuous Progress and Auxiliary Staffing remain the two characteristics receiving the lowest rates of implementation in the Prentice (1990), Mowen (1993), and current studies. Although rankings within the characteristics have shifted, the overall implementation rate within Michigan exemplary schools has remained within six percentage points throughout the past 10 years. The confidence intervals indicate that the estim ated m ean is likely within seven percentage points of the true population m ean. Results of Hypothesis Testing In the following pages, each null hypothesis is restated, followed by the results pertaining to that hypothesis. Null Hypothesis One Ho 1: There is no difference in the degree of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools in Michigan middle-level schools receiving exemplary status from 1983 through 1987 (Prentice study) and their degree of implementation in the sam e schools in 1993 (current study). Principals of Michigan exemplary middle-levei schools that originally attained their national exemplary status between 1983 and 1987 w ere asked to complete a replicate survey questionnaire in 1993. T hese schools’ overall percentage rate of 56 Table 4.3: Rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools in Michigan exem plary schools, in rank order (N = 45). Characteristic Mean Std. Dev. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper 1. Guidance Services .857 .156 .810 .904 2. Community Relations .778 .207 .827 .951 3. Multi-Media Approach .719 .306 .488 .672 4/5. Physical E xperiences .660 .152 .614 .705 4/5. Basic Learning Experiences .660 .187 .604 .716 6. Evaluation Practices .654 .221 .587 .720 7. Student Services .637 .219 .517 .703 8. Creative E xperiences .623 .179 .570 .677 9. Planned Gradualism .615 .213 .551 .679 10. Social Experiences .604 .152 .558 .649 11. Team -Teaching .580 .306 .488 .672 12. Student Security Factors .578 .232 .508 .647 13. Exploratories .567 .160 .528 .624 14. Independent Studies .553 .236 .482 .624 15. Flexible Scheduling .533 .188 .477 .590 16. Intramural Activities .498 .187 .441 .554 17. Continuous P rogress .367 .227 .299 .435 18. Auxiliary Staffing .244 .194 .186 .303 57 implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools w as then com pared to their original percentage rates a s reported by Prentice (1990) (see Table 4.4). Principals of 3 of the original 12 schools chose not to respond to the survey instrument in 1993. B ecause the original data collected in the Prentice study were not available, it w as impossible to undertake an absolute matching of schools for the current study. The overall implementation rate, a s reported by school principals, indicated a slight decline of 2.8% in their current rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics. With respect to a slight decline (2.8%), this study would differ from the Wah (1980) study, which indicated that the longer a middle school w as in existence, the higher the rate of implementation of the characteristics. Ten characteristics increased in implementation rates during the past five years. T hese characteristics included Flexible Scheduling, Social Experiences, Physical Experiences, Team-Teaching, Planned Gradualism, Basic Learning Experiences, Creative Experiences, Evaluation Practices, and Auxiliary Staffing. They had implementation rates from 1.6% to 23.9% higher than originally reported in the Prentice (1990) study. The characteristic, Social Experiences, had the largest increase in rate of implementation (18%). Eight characteristics decreased in implementation rates during the last five years. They were Continuous Progress, Multi-Media Approach, Intramural Activities, Exploratories, Guidance Services, Independent Studies, Student Security Factors, and Student Services. The 58 Table 4.4: Comparison of rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools by Michigan national exemplary middle-level schools as reported by Prentice (1990) and the current study (1993), in percent. 1990 Prentice Study* (N = 12) 1993 Current Study (N = 9) 1. Continuous Progress .360 .311 2. Multi-Media Approach .800 .754 3. Flexible Scheduling .560 .593 4. Social Experiences .545 .725 5. Physical Experiences .630 .778 6. Intramural Activities .620 .580 7. Team Teaching .490 .600 8. Planned Gradualism .595 .667 9. Exploratories .710 .615 10. Guidance Services .860 .770 11. Independent Studies .695 .653 12. Basic Learning Experiences .735 .770 13. Creative Experiences .690 .722 14. Student Security Factors .690 .508 15. Evaluation Practices .540 .556 16. Community Relations .670 .700 17. Student Services .745 .519 18. Auxiliary Staffing .215 .292 Overall Implementation Rate .645 .617 Characteristic “Prentice (1990), Table 4.3, p. 83. 59 percentage of decrease ranged from 4% to 22.6%. T he characteristic, Student Services, had the largest decrease in rate of implementation (18.2% points). The characteristics, Continuous Progress and Auxiliary Staffing, remained at a very low level of implementation during the last five years of the SSR P program, a s well a s the first five years, in addition, they are the only two characteristics that remained below the 50% level of implementation a s reported in th e current study. The Prentice (1990) study indicated that Team -Teaching w as also at less than a 50% level of implementation. It can be suggested from the study that Continuous Progress and Auxiliary Staffing are not considered to be high needs for an exemplary middle school in Michigan. Null Hypothesis One failed to be rejected, b ased on the low percentage change (2.8%) from the Prentice study to the current study. The characteristics changed rank order; however, little change w as m ade in regard to the characteristics’ being implemented at or below the 50% level. Null Hypothesis Two There is no difference in the degree of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools in Michigan middle-level schools receiving national exemplary status from 1983 through 1987 and those receiving national exemplary status from 1988 through 1993. The national exemplary schools in Michigan w ere divided into two groups; those receiving exemplary status from 1983 through 1987 (N = 12) and those receiving exemplary status from 1988 through 1993 (N = 6). The schools from 1983 through 1987 were the sam e schools surveyed in the Prentice (1990) study. Their 60 percentage scores of implementation, reported by Prentice, were compared with the scores of the schools receiving national exemplary status from 1988 through 1993. These rates of implementation w ere determined in the current study. Only half the number of schools received national exemplary status from 1988 through 1993 a s compared to 1983 through 1987. The SSR P instituted an elementary school recognition program in 1989, and that program w as rotated with the SSRP on an every-other-year basis. This accounts for the small number of secondary schools being recognized from 1988 through 1993. A comparison of the average percentage rates of implementation of the two groups of schools showed an overall lower rate of implementation of the 18 basic characteristics of the middle schools in national exemplary middle schools in Michigan (see Table 4.5). The overall implementation rate fell 3.1 percentage points, from 64.5% in the Prentice (1990) study to 61.4% in the current study. However, in both studies, 14 of the 18 characteristics were implemented above the 50% level. In both studies, two characteristics were implemented below the 50% level. They were Continuous Progress and Auxiliary Staffing. The Prentice (1990) study indicated a 50% implementation rate as a satisfactory level; that percentage w as used for comparisons within the study. Therefore, to draw comparisons between the Prentice study and the current one, a 50% rate of implementation w as deem ed satisfactory. Table 4.5: Mean percentage of implementation for sam ples of Michigan national exemplary schools from 1983 through 1987 (Prentice, 1990) and from 1988 through 1993 (current study). 1983-1987“ (N = 12) 1988-1993 (N = 6) 1. Continuous Progress .360 .417 2. Multi-Media Approach .800 .640 3. Flexible Scheduling .560 .467 4. Social Experiences .545 .715 5. Physical Experiences .630 .521 6. Intramural Activities .620 .565 7. Team Teaching .490 .608 8. Planned Gradualism .595 .667 9. Exploratories .710 .673 10. Guidance Services .860 .905 11. Independent Studies .695 .521 12. Basic Learning Experiences .735 .770 13. Creative Experiences .690 .630 14. Student Security Factors .690 .690 15. Evaluation Practices .540 .556 16. Community Relations .670 .700 17. Student Services .745 .704 18. Auxiliary Staffing .215 .250 Overall Implementation Rate .645 .614 Characteristic “Prentice (1990), Table 4.3, p. 83. 62 T he characteristics being implemented at the 50% level or higher in both the Prentice study and the current study include Multi-Media A pproach, Social E xperiences, Physical Experiences, Intramural Activities, P lanned Gradualism , Exploratories, G uidance Services, Independent Study, B asic Learning Experiences, Creative Experiences, Student Security Factors, Evaluation Practices, Community Relations, and Student Services. Eight characteristics’ im plem entation rates d e c re a se d from th e originally nam ed Michigan national exem plary schools surveyed in th e Prentice study. They included Multi-Media A pproach, Flexible Scheduling, Physical Experiences, Intramural Activities, Exploratories, Independent Study, C reative Experiences, and Student Services. Nine ch aracteristics’ implementation rate s increased from the originally nam ed Michigan national exem plary schools surveyed in the Prentice study. T hose characteristics included Continuous P rogress, Social Experiences, Team -Teaching, P lanned G radualism , G uidance Services, Basic Learning Experiences, Evaluation P ractices, Community Relations, and Auxiliary Staffing. O ne characteristic, Student Security Factors, rem ained the sa m e in both studies. C rossings of the 50% boundaries w ere found in two characteristics: Flexible Scheduling and T eam Teaching. The Prentice study sho w ed Flexible Scheduling to b e at th e 56% level of implementation, and the current study show ed it at 46.7% . T eam -T eaching rose from 49% to 60.8% implementation. T he largest increase in implementation rate w a s for th e characteristic, Social E xperiences, which rose from 54.5% in the Prentice study to 71.5% in th e current 63 study, a 17% point increase. The largest d ecrease in implementation rate w as represented by the characteristic, Multi-Media Approach, which fell from 80% in the Prentice study to 64% in the current study, a 16% point d ecrease. It would appear that the most implemented characteristics in Michigan national exem plary middle schools continue to be Student Services, Basic Learning Experiences, Guidance Services, Exploratories, and Community Relations. Even though the characteristic, Exploratories, decreased in implementation over the past five years, it w as still well above the 50% level. Based on the small percentage d ecrease in the overall rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools, Null Hypothesis Two failed to be rejected. Null Hypothesis Three There is no difference in the degree of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools in Michigan middle-level schools receiving national exemplary status and those receiving state exem plary status. The exemplary middle schools in Michigan were divided into two samples. O ne sam ple contained those schools receiving national exem plary status (N = 15), and the other contained those schools receiving only sta te exem plary status 67 Because the p-value w as above the .05 level, Null Hypothesis Three was not rejected. After completion of the MANOVA, follow-up univariate tests were performed to investigate further the possible differences between groups. Because only two groups were being compared at any one time, these tests were equivalent tot-tests. As in the Mowen (1993) study, the individual alpha level w as set to .01 per test, resulting in a maximum Type I error rate of approximately .16 per group of univariate tests. The results of this test are reported in Table 4.7. The individual t-tests showed no significant difference between the scores of the two groups of schools except for one characteristic, Basic Learning Experiences, which had a p-value of .00821. This difference of 15.1% may warrant further investigation, but when the differences are examined in their entirety, this may just have been a chance fluctuation. A careful examination of the tables indicates that there were many more similarities among the percentage ratings than there were differences. Only two characteristics, Basic Learning Experiences and Intramural Activities, had a 10% or more difference when comparing implementation rates of Michigan state and national exemplary schools. In the case of Basic Learning Experiences, national exemplary schools scored 15.2% higher than state exemplary schools. National exemplary scores scored 57.4%, w hereas state exemplary schools scored 45.9% on the characteristic, Intramural Activities, for a difference of 11.5%. Statistically, these scores were not substantially different; however, from a practical point of view, Table 4.7: Individual univariate confidence levels for the 18 characteristics of middle schools from Michigan state and national exemplary middle schools. 95% Confidence Level Characteristic Std. Error t-Value P Lower Upper 1. Continuous Progress .03622 -.27612 .78378 -.09412 .07412 2. Multi-Media Approach .02033 -.39883 .69199 -.05533 .03911 3. Flexible Scheduling .03006 .22181 .82551 -.06314 .07648 4. Social Experiences .03045 .83529 .40817 -.04530 .09617 5. Physical Experiences .02429 .47175 .63949 -.04496 .06787 6. Intramurals .02864 2.00425 .05137 -.00912 .12393 7. Team-Teaching .04879 .35866 .72160 -.09583 .13083 8. Planned Gradualism .00349 1.16105 .25202 -.03891 .11668 9. Exploratories .02453 1.89250 .06517 -.01055 .10341 10. Guidance Services .02467 -1.01356 .31646 -.08229 .03229 11. Independent Study .03737 .94761 .34862 -.05139 .12222 12. Basic Learning Experiences .02749 2.77136 .00821 .01234 .14004 13. Creative Experiences .02778 1.66667 .10285 -.01822 .11081 14. Student Security Factors .03708 .06421 .94910 -.08375 .08851 Table 4.7: Continued. 95% Confidence Level Characteristic Std. Error t-Value P Lower Upper 15. Evaluation Practices .03459 -1.40545 .16707 -.12894 .03172 16. Community Relations .03279 .87795 .39485 -.04737 .10495 17. Student Services .03464 -.96220 .34133 -.11380 .04713 18. Auxiliary Staffing .03082 .74355 .46119 -.04867 .09450 70 practitioners may w ant to took m ore closely at program s of implementation of characteristics in national exem plary schools than in state exem plary schools. Sum m ary A review of th e statistical d ata would indicate that none of the three null hypotheses could be rejected. B ased on the findings from this study, it can be concluded that th ere d o e s not a p p ea r to have been much change in the overall rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools since the inception of the S S R P in either state or national exem plary schools in Michigan. CHAPTERV REVIEW OF THE STUDY, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY In this chapter, the entire study, designed to determine the rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools in Michigan exemplary schools and to com pare state exemplary schools and national exemplary schools, is sum m arized. In addition, this chapter contains an observation concerning past research and recommendations. Review of the Study The purpose of this study w as to determine the rate of implementation of the 18 basic middle school characteristics, a s reported by building principals, found in exem plary middle schools in Michigan, identified by the Secondary School Recognition Program (SSRP) since its inception. The population sam pled w as the 56 Michigan exemplary schools identified by the SSR P from 1983 through 1993. Com parisons of rates of implementation of the 18 characteristics w ere m ade between (a) the Prentice (1990) study and the current study, (b) national exemplary schools in Michigan from 1983 to 1988 and those 71 72 from 1989 to 1993, and (c) national exemplary schools in Michigan from 1983 to 1993 with state exemplary schools in Michigan from 1983 to 1993. This study was a replication of the Prentice (1990) study, in part. The Riegle (1971) survey instrument was used to measure the rate of implementation of the 18 characteristics of middle schools; Prentice also used this instrument. The study employed the survey instrument method. Percentage scores, indicating rate of implementation of the basic characteristics, were reported for each group of schools based on the weighted responses of the survey instrument. Coefficient alphas, inter-item correlations, and corrected item total correlations were examined on the original survey instrument to assure reliability of the questionnaire. Straight percentage comparisons were used for two hypotheses, as well as a MANOVA and t-tests for one hypothesis. A review of the statistical data indicated that none of the three null hypotheses could be rejected. Summary The review of literature covered the historical development of the middle school and the Secondary School Recognition Program (SSRP). Eighteen basic middle school characteristics were identified (Riegle, 1971), and their relationship to the SSRP was presented. A review of the basic middle school characteristics and criteria established by the SSRP appeared to have a strong relationship to schools receiving state or national exemplary middle school status. 73 Findings of previous studies showing a steady increase in the rate of implementation of the 18 basic characteristics among exemplary schools in Michigan, a s identified by the SSRP, were reported and com pared to findings from the current study. Comparisons of rates of implementation of the 18 characteristics were m ade between (a) the Prentice (1990) study and the current study, (b) schools in Michigan receiving state exemplary status and national exemplary status, and (c) national exemplary schools in Michigan from 1983 to 1988 and those from 1989 to 1993. The review of research findings on the rate of implementation of the 18 basic characteristics of middle schools in exemplary schools in Michigan indicated a higher rate of implementation than those schools in Michigan that have not achieved exemplary status (Hawkins, 1972; Mowen, 1993; Prentice, 1990). That is not to say that all schools that have not attained exemplary status, a s recognized by the SSRP, are not implementing basic middle school concepts at a high rate. However, no research w as found regarding com parisons between national and state exemplary status of schools in Michigan or any other state participating in the program. The ultimate conclusion of the review of literature and research is that participation in the SSR P may heighten the aw areness of the characteristics of middle schools on the part of schools applying. However, the current study indicated that attaining national a s opposed to state exemplary status has little, 74 if any, effect on the rate of implementation of the characteristics, w hether that statu s w as attained early or late in the program 's inception. Conclusions and Implications T hree studies involving exem plary schools in Michigan have been conducted in th e last 10 years. All of them (Mowen, 1993; Prentice, 1990; and the current study) have raised concern regarding the seem ingly low rate of implementation of th e basic characteristics in exemplary schools. T he following findings are explored later in this chapter regarding the current study. 1. T he rate of implementation of th e 18 basic characteristics of middle schools h a s not changed significantly in exem plary schools in Michigan in the last 10 years. 2. The rate of implementation ofthe 18 basic characteristics of middle schools d o e s not differ significantly when comparing Michigan sta te exem plary schools and Michigan national exemplary schools. 3. The rate of implementation ofthe 18 basic characteristics of middle schools d o e s not differ significantly in Michigan exem plary schools from 1982 through 1987 and th o se from 1987 through 1993. 4. The rank order of the 18 characteristics in term s of their rate of implementation h as changed over the past 10 years. 5. Criteria established by the USDOE for exem plary statu s m ay not directly coincide with a high rate of implementation ofthe 18 basic characteristics of middle schools. 75 T he current study indicated that the rate of im plem entation of th e com bined 18 basic middle school characteristics for all Michigan exem plary middle-level schools w a s 58.8% overall. T he m ost im plem ented characteristic w a s G u id a n c e S e rv ic e s , at a rate of 85.7% , and th e lea st im plem ented characteristic w a s A uxiliary S taffing, at 24.4%. A com parison w as m ade betw een th e Prentice (1990) study and the current study regarding th e rate of implementation of th e characteristics in exem plary sch o o ls in Michigan, a s reported by building principals. T here h a s b een a slight d e c re a s e in the overall rate of implementation of the 18 basic ch aracteristics since the Prentice study. However, th e p ercen tag e of implementation of som e individual characteristics has increased during that sam e tim e period. T h e characteristic, G u id a n c e S e rv ic e s, w as the m ost im plem ented characteristic in th e Prentice (1990) study, and it rem ained so in th e current study. W hen exam ining th e definition of G u id a n c e S e rv ic e s , it b eco m es evident th at th e group and individual services of a personal n ature are important to th e developm ent of middle school students. School personnel a re also aw are of this n e e d , a s evidenced by increased personnel, co n tacts with outside a g e n c ie s for referrals, and sm all-group or p e er counseling. Nearly all of th e schools surveyed em ployed a counselor who not only worked with students, but also helped te a c h e rs develop their guidance skills with students. T he popularity of th e advisory program a s a way to connect a significant adult within th e school 76 setting with each child has also supported the guidance service aspect. The advisory program is not new, but it h as received much attention in the current literature, including trade journals, workshops, and conventions. Peer-group counseling also has received attention in the schools a s community groups have becom e aware of the need for student assistan ce programs, chemical/drugabuse screening, and the general need for direction of transescent students as they make the transition to adolescence. The characteristics, G u id a n c e S e rv ice s, may be an easily understood concept on the part ofthe school and community. Therefore, the characteristic receives financial support for program s a s well a s personnel. In addition, current legislation in Michigan (P.A. 25) m andates accreditation for schools. Part of compliance for accreditation includes the hiring of a counselor based on the number of students in any one building. Recently, state legislative action has m ade available "Drug-free" and "at-risk" monies, which may also support guidance services. T hese combined notions, aw areness and m andates, including financial resources for program s, may account for the high degree of implementation ofthe characteristic, G u id a n c e S e rv ice s, in exemplary schools in Michigan. The characteristic, Auxiliary Staffing, rem ains the least implemented characteristic in exemplary schools in Michigan over the past 10 years, according to the Prentice (1990) study and the current study. According to Riegle (1971), the definition of Auxiliary Staffing includes paraprofessionals to aid teachers in 77 th e classroom . T here are two probable reaso n s for the lack of em phasis on Auxiliary Staffing. First, budget cuts have reduced the possibility of employing paid auxiliary staff, which contributes to th e lack of implementation rate. This creates a situation in which a school m ust rely solely on volunteers to fill the auxiliary staffing role. By th e middle years, students begin to want independence from their parents and encourage them to stay away from th e school for fear of interference or em barrassm ent. Also, parents are becom ing less physically involved with their students' education, and it will be increasingly difficult to fill auxiliary staffing n e ed s on a volunteer basis. Second, support personnel unions may prohibit unpaid volunteers from serving in the recognized role of auxiliary staff. Support personnel contracts continue to em phasize a "closed shop" atm osphere, which m ay prevent parents from volunteering. Thus, it becom es clear why A uxiliary S taffing h a s not been nor is it currently being implemented at a high rate in exem plary schools in Michigan. The largest increase in implementation rate from early exem plary schools (Prentice, 1990) to later exem plary schools (current study) w as for the characteristic, S o c ial E x p e rie n c e s. It rose from 54.5% in the Prentice study to 71.5% in the current study, a difference of 17%. Mowen’s (1992) study placed S o cial E x p e rie n c e s in what h e described a s "the lower implementation category," betw een 64% and 68%. Although th e characteristic, S o cial E x p erien c es, certainly is not highly ranked within all Michigan exemplary schools, according to th e data it a p p e a rs to have m ade an increase in rate of 78 implementation over the last five years in national exemplary schools in Michigan. As aw areness ofth e middle school concept continues to grow, the characteristic, Social Experiences, may be more likely to be implemented than other less visual characteristics. Socialization has traditionally been viewed as an important function of middle-level schools. According to the survey by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (1985), students most often chose athletic contests, parties, field-day activities, roller or ice skating, school carnivals, and talent shows as their desires for social activities. Most activities for students in national exemplary schools in Michigan are held immediately after school rather than in the evening, lessening the transportation need. Many schools provide an "activity" or "late" bus to facilitate rides home after the events. In a recent publication, the Michigan High School Athletic Association reported more athletic contests being sponsored in the late afternoon rather than evening events at the middle level in the past three years, which may also account for the increase in implementation rate. The eight characteristics that decreased from the Prentice (1990) study of national exemplary schools in Michigan include Continuous P rogress, MultiMaterial Approach, Intramural Activities, Exploratories, Guidance Services, Independent Studies, Student Security Factors, and Student Services. Multi-Material Approach, G uidance S ervices, and Student Security Factors were considered high-usage characteristics by national exemplary schools in Michigan in Mowen’s 1993 study. Their decrease in their 79 rate of implementation even since the Mowen study suggests a possible change in em phasis of characteristic importance, at least in the past five years. National exemplary schools may have begun to realize som e benefits of an advisory program stated earlier, accounting for the drop in the rate of implementation of guidance services. With additional staff helping in this area, guidance counselors may work in more specific areas, while teachers and other staff members assum e responsibility for day-to-day personal problems of the students. Technology may provide a rationale for why. Multi-M aterial A pproach, as defined in the original questionnaire (Riegle, 1971), has decreased. Computer networking, which allows immediate access to all kinds of literature and reference materials, has virtually replaced hundreds of library books, and video has certainly replaced the older audio-visual m ethods of presentation. To this extent, the questions regarding the characteristic, Multi-Material Approach, may not be adequate since they deal primarily with books, periodicals, and films. The characteristic, S tudent Security Factor, is affected by advisory programs. There w as a nearly 20% drop in rate of implementation by national exemplary schools in Michigan within the last five years, w hereas during that sam e time span, this characteristic has been touted by many authorities, including Romano and Georgiady (1994), Toepfer (1988), and the Carnegie Council of Adolescent Development (1989), to be a building block o fthe middle school. In addition, Romano and Georgiady combined the two characteristics, G uidance S e rv ice s and S tud ent S ecurity Factor, because they both describe 80 the middle school’s professional personnel a s helping students m ake the social and personal transition from the self-contained elementary school to a highly departm entalized high school. One possible explanation is that the respondents did not link the characteristic, S tu d e n t S ecurity Factor, with an advisory program. Another explanation may be that teachers are not taking on the guidance roles that they were earlier, which the findings of the current study seem to suggest. Furthermore, when comparing implementation rates of national exemplary middle schools in Michigan and state exemplary middle schools in Michigan, there is little difference. National exemplary schools had a current, overall implementation rate of 61.0% with regard to the 18 basic middle school characteristics. G u id a n c e S e rv ice s w as their most implemented characteristic, at a level of 82.4%, and Auxiliary Staffing w as the least implemented characteristic, at the 27.5% level. S tate exemplary middle implementation rate of 57.7%. implemented characteristic, schools in Michigan had an overall G u id an ce S e rv ic e s w as also their m ost at 87.4%; likewise, the least implemented characteristic w as Auxiliary Staffing, with an implementation rate of 22.9%. T here is inconclusive evidence that one characteristic, B a sic L earning E x p erien c es, showed any statistically significant difference betw een national and state exem plary middle schools with regard to the rate of implementation. There is basically no evidence that there are any differences betw een th ese two 81 groups on any other characteristics. National exemplary middle schools in Michigan report an implementation rate on B asic L earning E x p e rie n c e s 15.2% higher than state exemplary middle schools. However, when all 18 scales are reviewed, a s in the MANOVA, it is possible that th e difference on the single characteristic is a chance fluctuation. W hether or not there is a difference in the rate of implementation betw een the two groups of schools, it is clear that both the State Department of Education and the Federal Departm ent of Education view B asic L earning E x p e rie n c e s a s critical to being an exemplary school. Basic learning experiences incorporate remediation of math, reading, and language arts; the teaching of study skills and thinking skills; and organizing for m astery learning. A review o fth e criteria for being selected a s a state exemplary school in Michigan indicated that, "For a school to be recognized, there m ust be clear evidence that its students are developing a sold foundation of skills in reading, writing, and m athem atics, a s well a s reasoning and problem solving" (Department of Education Nomination Requirements, introduction). Practitioners may want to exam ine program s in schools with national exemplary status, a s they pertain to the specific characteristic, B a sic L earning E xperiences. A drop in the overall rate of implementation o fth e 18 characteristics to 61.7% from the earlier 64.5% in the Prentice (1990) study gives c a u se for concern regarding the lack of growth in the rate of implementation of the 18 82 characteristics over the past d ecad e. T here are som e reaso n s for the lack of implementation. There are at least three likely re a so n s for th e current and feared future lack of implementation o fth e 18 basic middle school characteristics. A dequate financial support, PA 25, and c h an g e s in school leadership and faculty are all factors contributing to the identified lack of implementation ofthe characteristics. An ongoing turmoil regarding school funding in Michigan in consum ing Michigan educators. Many different school-funding proposals have com e and gone through th e legislature. Legislation in D ecem ber 1993 at least gave guidelines regarding financial expectations, but even since that time, further transactions have occurred, leaving confusion and uncertainty for school districts. School officials are faced with difficult choices, including th e elimination of program s for students. R esearch has indicated th at implementation of middle school characteristics is not high. Program s m ust b e implemented in conjunction with the characteristics in orderto improve th e implementation rate. T hese program s may not be instituted under the current d u ress of th e financial situation in Michigan. Public Act 25 w as enacted to provide a restructuring process for K-12 curriculum through m andatory curriculum standards, school improvement, and accreditation. The 14 attributes identified by th e USDOE for exem plary status encom pass m ost of that public act. However, the 18 basic characteristics do not all necessarily com e under scrutiny by th o se criteria. Educators have struggled to understand outcom e-based education in a relatively short period so that they 83 could lead their districts toward compliance with state m andates. It would seem that PA 25 would be the perfect vehicle for providing programs to improve the rate of implementation o fth e 18 basic characteristics. Yet financial constraints do not allow for those programs. The compliance issue also complicates m atters. Curriculum change atthe middle level is occurring, almost exclusively, by the adaptation method (George, 1992). Using this method, schools implement program s on top of existing curriculum and adapt the new program to fit the existing curriculum. This also explains why som e characteristics are implemented more often than others. In their effort to becom e middle schools, schools select individual programs associated with the middle school philosophy and implement them on top of existing programs that may not be consistent with the middle school philosophy rather than dismantling old programs and starting anew. According to the research, a tth e individual school level, the 18 basic characteristics of middle schools are becoming implemented at various rates stemming from factors other than middle school criteria. Recent changes in the core curriculum a s dictated by the State of Michigan also have thwarted the raising of the rate of implementation of the characteristics of middle schools. By changing the core curriculum, schools have had to comply with state m andates, including timelines, which do not always coincide with implementation of middle school characteristics. In their convictions to be in compliance, school districts have had to review specifically 84 language arts, reading, mathematics, science, and social studies, while ignoring exploratories and electives that were included in the original core curriculum. Personnel have been added in specific areas to m eet accreditation standards, but programs to use these new personnel may not yet have been developed or implemented. Leadership, in the call for further implementation ofthe 18 basic middle school characteristics, is crucial to success. Leaders must direct their energies toward a common g o al-a vision. For the vision to be instilled and carried throughout, a certain amount of longevity is essential on the part ofthe principal, who should lead in this venture. Exemplary schools in Michigan reported a change in building administration during the last 10 years. Additionally, 53% of the exemplary schools in Michigan reported a significant change of 10% or more faculty,and another 28% of the schools have faced layoffs and/or retirements also affecting their total staff. This combination of massive change cannot help but deter the vision for the school and impeded implementation o fth e 18 basic middle school characteristics. As new staff members begin teaching, it is imperative that the mission is understood and adhered to. With an administrative change, the school/community goals must be understood and agreed to if a successful transition is to take place and implementation of the 18 basic characteristics is to continue. Finally, exemplary schools in Michigan, as identified by the SSR P, may not show an increase in the rate of implementation ofthe 18 basic characteristics 85 of middle schools due to the criteria used in obtaining exem plary status. Although the 18 basic characteristics of middle schools and th e 14 attributes of the S S R P a re som ew hat related, the criteria for the USDOE's 14 attributes of su c c e ss w ere not designed with th e middle school concept in mind. For the m ost part, th e se attributes cam e from the effective schools research, which w as conducted mainly in elem entary schools and, to a much sm aller degree, in high schools. Currently, middle schools have the option of choosing to com plete the n ecessary paperwork for applying for exem plary status under either elem entary or secondary schools. There is no se p ara te S S R P recognition for middle-level schools. T here is a danger that middle schools will attem pt to im plem ent the 14 attributes instead of the 18 characteristics in order to gain th e prestige, recognition, and laurels that accom pany the former. Recom m endations for Further Study If th e s e middle-level schools are indeed exemplary, a s th e USDOE h as so designated them , if they are to be "looked to for exem plary practices to support the achievem ent ofthe S tate and National Goals" (USDOE Blue Ribbon Schools Application Form, introduction), and if the overall level of implementation o fth e 18 characteristics in the vicinity of 59% to 60%, a s th e d ata from the current research suggest, there exists concern for the future direction of middlelevel education in Michigan. recom m endations for further study: The researcher offers the following 86 1. Only three studies have been done with Michigan exemplary schools regarding implementation ofthe 18 characteristics. It would be helpful to have comparisons from som e ofthe other 49 states' exemplary schools and their rate of implementation. 2. A timely study on how financial constraints restrict school districts from implementing the basic characteristics would be appropriate, given current Michigan legislation. 3. There is a need to update the Riegle (1971) survey instrument to reflect the current state of technology and collapsing ofthe 18 characteristics to 14 to better capture the reality of implementation rates. 4. There is a need to compare the exemplary schools in Michigan that scored high on the USDOE 14 attributes with those nonselected Michigan schools. 5. Further study is appropriate regarding the 14 attributes for exemplary status and their appropriateness to the middle school philosophy. 6. A reliability study on the Riegle survey instrument which is sampled from the total population of Michigan schools would be advisable. APPENDICES APPENDIX A EXEMPLARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN FROM 1983 THROUGH 1993 87 Table A.1: Exemplary schools in Michigan from 1983 through 1993. Exemplary School Y ear Cantrick Junior High E ast Grand Rapids Middle School Northwestern Junior High Plainwell Middle School ‘W est O ttaw a Middle School 1982-83 1982-83/1992-93 1982-83 1982-83/1984-85 1982-83 D rager Middle School Hartford Middle School \Jo hn P a g e Middle School Kinawa Middle School Marshall Middle School ‘Slauson Interm ediate School ‘T raverse City Junior High School Whittier Middle School 1983-84 1983-84 1983-84 1983-84 1983-84 1983-84 1983-84/1990-91 1983-84 ‘Abbott Middle School ‘ Berkshire Middle School Bernard L. Hope Middle School ‘Brooks Middle School ‘Gaylord Middle School G raveret Middle School Levey Middle School Novi Middle School 1984-85 1984-85 1984-85 1984-85 1984-85 1984-85 1984-85 1984-85/1988-89 Berrien Springs Middle School Maltby Middle School Clarkston Junior High School C harles R. Drew Middle School Elk Rapids Middle School Jenison Junior High School Lakeview Junior High School Boulan Park Middle School 1985-86 1985-86/1988-89 1985-86 1985-86/1986-87 1985-86 1985-86 1985-86 1985-86 Grand Haven Junior High School Larson Middle School M ontabella Middle School O nsted Middle School Parcells Middle School ‘ P etoskey Middle School W est Maple Middle School ‘W est Hills Middle School Scranton Middle School 1986-87 1986-87 1986-87 1986-87 1986-87 1986-87 1986-87 1986-87 1986-87/1990-91 88 Exemplary School Year Marshall Green Middle School •Bloomfield Hills Middle School •Sashabaw Junior High School DeWitt Middle School L’Anse C reuse Middle School Lawton Middle School Meads Mill Middle School Clifford H. Smart Junior High School Iroquois Middle School 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 Lakeview Junior High School •Orchard Lake Middle School •Pinckney Middle School Spring Lake Junior/Senior High School •East Hills Middle School Derby Middle School Munn Middle School 1990-91 1990-91 1990-91 1990-91 1990-91 1990-91 1990-91 Covington Middle School •Rockford Middle School 1992-93 1992-93 •National exemplary schools. APPENDIX B CORRESPON DENCE M IC H IG A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y CO LLEGE O F ED UCA TIO N D E PA R T M E N T O F E D U C A TIO N A L A D M IN IS T R A T IO N ERICKSON HALL E A ST L A N S IN G • M IC H IG A N • 4 8 8 2 4 - 1 0 3 4 (5 1 7 )3 5 5 -4 5 3 8 218 N. Pine River Ithaca, MI 48847 September 13, 1993 Dear Middle School Administrator As a fellow practitioner, I am keenly aware o f the demands placed upon us especially during this latter part o f the school year. Nevertheless, I have a need to call on my colleagues for your assistance. Middle level schools in the State o f Michigan have previously been studied to determine their status regarding implementation o f the characteristics of this level of education. As a part o f a doctoral degree in educational administration at Michigan State University, I am continuing research to update and compare what has happened with the aforementioned implementation over the past ten years. Your school is considered very successful based on the exemplary status received through the Secondary School Recognition Program and the State of Michigan. I need your help, knowledge, and expertise in completing the enclosed questionnaire. It should take you about twenty minutes to finish. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Your candid answers and time in providing information will be greatly appreciated. Please return the completed questionnaire, in the enclosed envelope, by October 14, 1993. If you would like to receive a summary of the results, please indicate by filling in the space provided on the separate sheet attached to the questionnaire. I would like to thank you in advance for your interest, cooperation, and dedication in enhancing middle level education. Sincerely, Janelle C. McGuire (517) 875-2375 enc. M5U tr on Ajfirmativ* Action Equal Opportunity Institution APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT 90 General Information (Confidential): Please place a check mark before the grades served by your school: 6 7 8 Number of years a s a middle school: __________ Changes that have occurred in your school district since obtaining exemplary status (Check a s many a s apply): administrative change work stoppage millage defeat grade configuration significant change in faculty (10% or more) parental involvement population shift student demographics (race/gender) economic change-financial hardship layoffs/retirements other (Please specify) Have you begun to implement the State of Michigan core curriculum per PA 25? Yes No 91 So that we are all working from a common understanding of the characteristics, I have included a brief definition of each, which you may wish to review before responding to the questionnaire. Continuous P rogress: Nongraded organization that allows students sto progress at their own individual rate regardless of chronological age. M ulti-M aterial A pproach: A wide range of easily accessible instructional materials, a num ber of explanations, and a choice of approaches to a topic. Flexible S c h e d u le s: Investment of time b ased on educational n e ed s rather than standardized time periods. S o c ial E x p e rie n c e s: E xperiences appropriate for th etran sescen t youth and should not em ulate the senior high school. P h y sica l E x p e rie n c e s a n d Intram ural A ctivities: Physical activities b ased solely on the n eed s of the students. E m phasis is on participation rather than competition. T ea m T e a c h in g : Allows students to interact with a variety of teach ers in a wide range of subject areas. P la n n e d G ra d u alism : E xperiences provided to a ssist students in transition from childhood dependence to adult independence. Exploratory and Enrichment S tu d ie s: Program s that widen the range of student activities rather than specialization. G u id a n c e S e rv ic e s: Includes group and individual services for all students. In d e p e n d e n t S tu d y : Students spent time studying individual interests or n e ed s that do not appear in th e organized curricular offerings. B a sic Skill R e p air a n d E x te n sio n : S tudents receive clinical help in learning basic skills a s an extension of the elem entary school. C re a tiv e E x p e rie n c e s: Opportunities for students to express them selves creatively, usually through student-centered, student-directed, student-developed activities. S e c u rity F a c to r: Provision of a teach er who knows the student well and whom he relates to in a positiv em anner to serve a s a security group. E v alu a tio n : Provision of evaluation of a student’s work that is personal, positive, nonthreatening, and strictly individualized. 92 Community R elations Maintenance of a program to inform, entertain, educate, and understand the community. S tu d ent S e rv ic e s: Utilization of community, county, and state agencies to provide specialized student services. Auxiliary Staffing: Utilization of a highly diversified array of personnel or support staff who help to facilitate the teaching staff. 93 Your re sp o n se to all questions will b e greatly appreciated. All resp o n d en ts can be a ssu re d of COMPLETE CONFIDENTIALITY. P le ase feel free to m ake additional com m ents w hen believed n ecessary . P a r t I: P lace a check m ark before the SINGLE BEST answ er th at explains your current program a s it relates to th e question. 1-A. Continuous progress program s (a nongraded program which perm its students to p ro g ress at their own educational p ace regardless of their chronological ag e) are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2-A. C ontinuous progress program s a re planned for a student over a CALENDAR year span of: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 3-B. not used. used in a FEW courses. used in MOST courses. used in NEARLY ALL courses. T he instructional m aterials center in this building houses: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5-B. not used. on e year. two years. three years. m ore than th ree years. T he multi-textbook approach to learning is currently: (1) (2) (3) (4) 4-B. not used at this time. u sed with special groups. u sed for th e first two years. u sed by selected students. u sed by all students. 1,000 books or less. 1,001 to 3,000 books. 3,001 to 4,000 books. 4,001 to 5,000 books. m ore than 5,000 books. T he m aterials center h a s a paid certified librarian: (1) (2) (3) (4) no. part-time only. on e full-time. m ore than o n e full-time. 94 6-B. For classroom instruction, AUDIO-VISUAL m aterials other than motion pictures are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 7-C. not used. rarely used. occasionally used. frequently used. very frequently used. The basic time module used to build the schedule is: (1) 10 to 29 minutes. (2) 30 to 44 minutes. (3) 45 to 59 minutes. (4) 60 minutes. (5) a combination of time so diversified that no basic module is defined. 8-C. Which of the below best describes your schedule at present: (1) traditional. (2) traditional, modified by "block-time," "revolving period," or other such regularly occurring modification. (3) flexible to the degree that all periods are scheduled but are not identical in length. (4) flexible to the degree that changes occur within defined general time limits. (5) flexible to the degree that students and teach ers control the daily time usage and changes occur regularly. (6) other. 9-D. How are sponsorships for club activities handled? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) staff m em bers staff m em bers staff m em bers staff m em bers staff m em bers DO NOT work with club activities. are ASSIGNED WITHOUT PAY. are ASSIGNED WITH PAY. VOLUNTEER WITHOUT PAY. VOLUNTEER AND ARE PAID. 10-D. What percentage of your student body regularly participates in at least one club activity? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) we have no club program. 25% or less. 26% to 50%. 51% to 75%. 76% to 100%. 95 11-E. How is the physical education program individualized? (1) (2) (3) (4) not at all. slightly. moderately. highly. 12-F. Interscholastic competition is: (3) not offered. (2) offered in one sport only. (1) offered in two or more sports. 13-F. Intramural activities often use the sam e facilities as interscholastic activities. When this causes a time conflict, how do you schedule? (1) we have no INTRAMURAL program. (2) interscholastic activities take first priority and others must schedule around their needs. (3) we have no INTERSCHOLASTIC PROGRAM. (4) intramural activities take first priority and others schedule around their needs. 14-G. How many students participate in team teaching programs (two or more teachers administratively organized to provide opportunities for them to maximize their teaching talents and allow students to interact with teachers responsible for a broad range of subject areas): (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) none. 25% or less. 26% to 50%. 51% to 75%. 76% to 100%. 15-G. What percentage of your teaching staff is involved in team teaching programs? (1) none. (2) 25% or less. (3) 26% to 50%. (4) 51% to 75%. (5) 76% to 100%. 96 16-G. How m any minutes p er day does a student in grades FIVE or SIX av erag e in a team teaching program ? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) none. 40 m inutes or less. 41 to 80 m inutes. 81 to 120 m inutes. m ore than 121 minutes. 17-G. How m any m inutes per day does a student in grades SEVEN or EiGHT average in a team teaching program? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) none. 40 m inutes or less. 41 to 80 minutes. 81 to 120 minutes. m ore than 121 minutes. 18-H. Which of the following best describes your school program a s it evolves from enrollment to completion ofthe last grade (i.e., grad es FIVEthrough EIGHT)? (1) completely self-contained and/or completely departm entalized. (2) modified departm entalized (blocktime, core, etc.). (3) program m oves from largely self-contained to partially departm entalized. (4) o th e r______________________________________________________ 19-I. How m any years is ART instruction required for all students? (1) none. (2) one year. (3) two or m ore years. 20-I. How m any years is MUSIC instruction required for all students? (1) none. (2) one year. (3) two or m ore years. 21-1. The am ount of student schedule time se t aside for elective courses. (1) d e c re a se s with each successive grade, or is the sa m e for all grades, or d o e s not exist at any grade level. (2) varies by grade level but not in any system atic m anner. 97 22-J. For what percentage of students are guidance services normally available? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) not available. 25% or less. 26% to 50%. 51% to 75%. 76% to 100%. 23-J. Guidance staff members: (1) (2) (3) (4) NEVER work with teachers. SELDOM work with teachers. OFTEN work with teachers. ALWAYS work with teachers. 24-J. Guidance counselors are: (1) not expected to help teachers build their guidance skills. (2) EXPECTED to help teachers build their guidance skills. (3) EXPECTED and REGULARLY encouraged to help teachers build their guidance skills. 25-L. Clinics or special classes to treat the problems of students with poor basic learning skills are: (1) not available. (2) available only to the most critically handicapped learners. (3) available to all students needing such help. 26-L. The amount of time provided in the classroom for instruction in basic learning skills: (1) remains constant or increases with each successive grade. (2) decreases with each successive grade. (3) varies greatly due to individualization of program by teachers. 27-M. Does your school have an official newspaper? (1)no. (2) yes, and publishes four or less issues per year. (3) yes, and publishes five or more issues per year. 28-M. Do students get experiences in creative dram atics? (1) no. (2) yes. 98 29-M. Dramatic productions at this school are produced from: (12) does not apply. (2) purchased scripts only. (3) materials written by students only. (4) materials written by students and purchased scripts. 30-M. This school has oratorical activities such a s debate, public address, etc. (1) no. (2) yes, a s a part of its enrichm ent program. (3) yes, a s a part of its planned program of instruction. 31-M. Talent show s are: (1) not a part of our program. (2) produced on an all-school basis. (3) produced at each grade level. (4) produced at each grade level, with som e of the acts entering an all­ school talent show. 32-N. In the operational design of this school, the role of the teacher a s a guidance person is: (1) (2) (3) (4) left strictly to the individual teach er’s personal motivation. mentioned to the teacher BUT NOT em phasized. em phasized. strongly em phasized. 33-N. As a general policy, provisions are m ade for th e teacher to provide guidance services: (1)no. (2) yes, to a limited number. (3) yes, to all their students. 34-N. How many tim es per year is a student’s academ ic progress formally reported to parents? (1) (2) (3) (4) zero to two times. three to five times. six times or more. o th e r_________________________________________________ 99 35-0. How many tim es per y ear are parent-teacher or parent-teacher-student conferences held on a school-wide basis? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) not at all. once. two tim es. th ree tim es. four or m ore tim es. 36-P. Community service projects by students in this school are: (1) not a part of our program. (2) carried out occasionally for a special purpose. (3) an im portant part of the planned experiences for ail students. 37-P. W hat is the sta tu s of th e p a ren ts’ organization in your school? (1) (2) (3) (4) none. relatively inactive. active. very active. 38-C. The m aster class time schedule can be changed by teachers when need arises by: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) requesting a ch an g e for next year. requesting a ch an g e for next sem ester. requesting administrative approval. planning with other teach ers on a WEEKLY BASIS. planning with other teach ers on a DAILY BASIS. 39-K. Students working in independent study situations work on topics that are: (1) w e have no independent study program. (2) assigned to them by the teacher. (3) of personal interest and approved by the teacher. 4 0 -0 . Formal evaluation of student work is reported by u se of: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) letter or num ber grades. te a c h e r com m ents written on a reporting form. parent-teacher conferences. parent-teacher-student conferences. o th e r_____________________________________________ 100 41 -E. W hat percentage of physical education COMPETITIVE-TYPE ACTIVITIES? (1) (2) (3) (4) 25% 26% 51% 76% class time is devoted to or less. to 50%. to 75%. to 100%. 42-E. W hat percentage of physical education DEVELOPMENTAL-TYPE ACTIVITIES? class time is devoted to (1) 25% or less. (2) 25% to 50%. (3) 51% to 75%. 43-J. Do your guidance counselors offer regular group guidance sessio n s? (1) yes. (2) no. 44-K. Independent study opportunities are provided for: (1) not provided. (2) som e students. (3) all students. 45-L. Daily instruction in a developm ental reading program is provided for: (1) not provided. (2) poor read ers only. (3) all students. 46-B. Which of the following ty p es of m aterials are housed in your instructional m aterials center? (Check all that apply) general library books. below-grade-level reading materials. files of past issu e s of new spapers. card catalogue of m aterials housed. files of p ast issu e s of m agazines. collections (coins, insects, art, etc.). micro-films. com puters. photo or therm al copy m achines. display c a s e s or areas. current new spapers. current m agazines. 101 . above-grade-level reading materials. . filmstrips. motion pictures (include if you are a m em ber of central service), overhead transparencies, ditto and/or mimeo machines, m aps, globes, and charts. 47-D. School dances ARE NOT held for: (1) (2) (3) (4) grade grade grade grade five. six. seven. eight. 48-D. A club program for students is offered in: (1) (2) (3) (4) grade grade grade grade five. six. seven. eight. 49-F. The intramural program includes: team games, various activities, individual sports. 50- Students are allowed to elect courses of interest from a range of elective offerings: . no. . in grade in grade in grade in grade 51-1. five, six. seven, eight. Electives offered in this building are: art. . drawing, foreign language, orchestra, typing. creative writing, band. . drawing, family living. . . wood shop. . natural resources. . vocal music. . journalism. . unified arts, speech, computers. 102 52-K. How much time would you estim ate the average student sp e n d s in independent study? (3) 30 minutes or MORE per day in grades seven or eight. (2) 20 minutes or MORE per day in grades five or six. (1) less than the above. 53-L. S tudents with poor basic skills can receive special help on an individual b asis from a special staff m em ber trained to treat such situations in th e following areas: reading. physical education. grammar. _____ spelling. _____ m athem atics. _____ other____________________ 54-M. Dramatic presentations by students are: not a part of the school program. a part of certain class activities planned by the teachers. a part of the activities program. other 55-P. In regard to community relations, this school: d o es not send out a parent newsletter. se n d s out a parent newsletter. u se s the commercial newspaper. u se s a district-wide newsletter to send out information related to this school. o th e r_________________________________________________________ 56-P. The staff presents information programs related to the school’s functions: when requested by parents. once or twice a year at regular parent m eetings. at open-house programs. at regularly scheduled "seminar-type" m eetings planned for interested parents. other 57-Q. From the specialized a re a s listed below, check e a c h service th at is AVAILABLE to students in your building: guidance counselors. school psychologist. sp eech therapist. clinic services for th e emotionally disturbed. special reading teacher. school nurse. diagnostician. visiting teacher. special education program s for th e m entally handicapped. o th e r_________________________________________________ 58-R. Teaching te a m s are organized to include: fully certified teach ers. clerical helpers. paraprofessionals. student teachers. o th e r_________________________________________________ 59-R. Teaching team s are organized to include: paid paraprofessionals. student te a ch e rs and interns. volunteer helpers from th e community. high school "future teachers" students. o th e r_________________________________________________ 6 0 -0 . School social functions are held at this school: During the afternoon: (1) G rade 5. (2) G rade 6. not scheduled. (3) G rade 7. (4) G rade 8. During the evening: (1) G rade 5. (2) G rade 6. not scheduled. (3) G rade 7. (4) G rade 8. 104 61-E. The physical education program serves all students in: (1) Grade 5. (2) Grade 6. (3) Grade 7. (4) Grade 8. 62-F. Intramural activities are scheduled for: BOYS ONLY Grade 5. Grade 6. Grade 7. Grade 8. not scheduled. GIRLS ONLY Grade 5. Grade 6. _____ Grade 7. _____ Grade 8. _____ not scheduled. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Alder, M. J. (1982). The Paideia proposal. New York: Macmillan. Alexander, W. M. (1968). A survey of organizational patterns of reorganized middle schools (Final Report, USOE Project 7-D-026). Gainesville: University of Florida. Alexander, W. M., & George, P. S. (1993). The exemplary middle school. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1989). Schools in the middle: Progress 1968-1988 (1SSN02764482). National Association of Secondary School Principals. Alexander, W. M., & Williams, E. L. (1968). The emergent middle school. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Beane, J. A. (1990). A middle school curriculum from rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Beckman, V. G. (1978). A study to determine the current level of implementation of eighteen basic middle school principles in the state of Missouri. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. Louis University. Bohlinger, T. L. (1977). A study to determine the current level.of implementation of eighteen basic middle school characteristics in Ohio public schools housing grades 5-8 and 6-8. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Miami University. Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row. 105 106 Brooks, K. (1978, February). T h e middle sch o o l-A national survey. Middle School Journal, 2, 6. Caul, J. L. (1975). A com parative study of student, te a c h e r and principal perceptions of o rganizational structure betw een middle sch o o ls with high levels and th o se with low levels of middle school concept im plem entation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan S ta te University. C ohen, J. (1988). Statistical pow er analysis for th e behavior s c ie n c e s . Hillsdale, NJ: Law rence Erlbaum. C olem an, J., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). Cognitive o u tco m es in public and private schools. Sociology of E ducation. 55(2/3), 65-76. C ronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and th e internal structure of tests. Psychom etrika. 15, 297-334. D em ps, H. W. (1978). A study of the relationship b e tw ee n te a c h e rs ’ perceptions of job satisfaction and their perceptions of th e level of im plem entation of eighteen basic middle school characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan S ta te University. DeVita, J. C. (1970). T he effective middle school. New York: P ark er Publishing. Edm onds, R. (1979). Five factor theory. Cam bridge, MA: Harvard University P ress. Eichom, D. H. (1987). The middle school. New York: C en ter of Applied R esearch in Education (1966). Special printing by th e National Association of Secondary School Principals and th e National Middle School Association. Garvin, J. P. (1992). Com m on denom inators in effective middle schools. In Schools in th e middle (pp. 26-29). R eston, VA: National A ssociation of Middle School Principals. G atew ood, T. E. (1974). W hat research sa y s about th e middle school. In Middle School in the making (pp. 13-14). W ashington, DC: A ssociation for Supervision & Curriculum Development. G eorgiady, N. P., & Rom ano, L. G. (1967-68). T he middle school: Is it a th reat to th e elem entary school? Impact (Journal of th e New York S ta te ASCD). 107 Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A place called school: P rospects for th e future. St. Louis, MO: McGraw-Hill. Hawkins, J. (1972). A study to ascertain actual middle school practices as com pared to reported middle school practices in selected Michigan schools and nationally prominent schools a s perceived bv teach ers and principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan S ta te University. Hopkins, C. D. (1980). Understanding educational re se a rc h . Columbus, OH: Merrill Publications. Johnston, J. H., & Markle, G. C. (1986). W hat research sa y s to th e middle level practitioner. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Kealy, R. P. (1971). The middle school movement: 1960-70. National Elementary Principal, pp. 20-25. Kerewsky, W. (1992). Site visitor's report on effective middle schools. In Schools in the Middle (pp. 29-33). Reston, VA: National Association of Middle School Principals. Levin, J., & Fox, J. (1991). Elementary statisticsJo social re se a rc h . New York: Harper Collins. Lightfoot, S. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of ch aracter and culture. New York: Basic Books. Lipsitz, J. (1984). Successful schools for young a d o le sc e n ts. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Michigan Departm ent of Education. (1983, February). Letter. Lansing: Author. Michigan Departm ent of Education. (1994). Michigan education directory. Lansing: Author. Mowen, G. G. (1983). Com parison study of the implementation rate of eighteen middle school characteristics in Michigan and national Blue Ribbon schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, W estern Michigan University. Murphy, J. (1967). Middle schools. New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories. 108 National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. W ashington, DC: Government Printing office. Prentice, D. (1990). A study of the nationally recognized exemplary middle schools in Michigan and th e extent of their implementation of the eighteen characteristics of middle school education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan S tate University. Raymer, J. T. (1974). A study to identify middle schools and to determine the current level of implementation of eighteen basic characteristics in selected United S tates and Michigan schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Riegle, J. D. (1971). A study of middle school program s to determ ine the current level of implementation of eighteen basic middle school principles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan S tate University. Romano, L. G., et al. (Eds.). (1973). The middle school. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall. Romano, L. G., & Georgiady, N. P. (1994). Building an effective middle school. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark. Rutter, M. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Traischke, E. M. (1970). An evaluation of a middle school by a comparison of the achievement, attitudes, and self concept of students in a middle school with students in other school organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Wiles, J. W., & Bondi, J. (1981). The essential middle school. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Wilks, S. S. (1932). Certain generalizations in th e analysis of variance. Biometrika. 24, 471-494. Woods, M. A. (Ed.). (1985). The search for successful secondary schools-T he first three years of the Secondary School Recognition Program . Washington, DC: U.S. Departm ent of Education.