No abstract

This descriptive study sought to determine the attitudes of middle school teachers in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio toward the current implementation of key components of the middle school concept within their schools. Researchers were asked to assess the relationship of state accountability programs to the implementation levels of such components. Random cluster sampling was used to select participants from a population list of districts. One hundred four teachers of 201 (52%) completed the questionnaires. Results revealed that many essential components of effective middle school programs are currently present in the schools, but often less so than in prior years. Other tenets were perceived to be disappearing or absent completely. A lack of fit with state testing/ accountability was the primary reason for the current lack of fully implemented middle school components, although a clear majority of teachers did not select this option. Some reported that high-stakes testing/ state testing and accountability had some positive effects in the classroom. Teachers, however, believed they have less autonomy. Most perceived a decrease for enrichment, elective, or exploratory courses and activities. In sum, the results from this tri-state study suggested that teachers still consider the middle school concept to be quite relevant and applicable. The real issue would appear to be the intensity, integrity, and strength with which the components are implemented.

W hen I spoke recently on the topic of cooperative learning with teachers who work with gifted students, I got the distinct impression tomato throwing was imminent. The experience certainly reinforced the discord that seems to exist between proponents of cooperative learning and those who advocate for the gifted and talented. At best, educators of the gifted have been cautioned to approach the cooperative learning bandwagon with "caution." Is this trepidation warranted? Are the goals of cooperative learning inconsistent with the needs of gifted students? Is cooperative learning simply misunderstood or truly a mismatch?As I progressed through my own preservice teaching preparation program in the mid-1990s, I was indoctrinated with cooperative learning as a mainstay in my instructional arsenal. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991) synthesized more than 375 studies on the effect of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on student achievement and productivity and concluded that cooperative learning results in more higher level reasoning, more frequent generation of new ideas and solutions, and greater transfer of what is learned within one situation to another. Cooperative learning also promotes academic achievement, increases retention, and vastly improves student self-esteem and communication (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). When I began my teaching career, I was caught unaware when I encountered rumblings of dissension from gifted preteens and their parents after employing cooperative learning techniques in my classroom. It was, quite frankly, a harbinger of things to come, and not unlike the reaction I received in my aforementioned conference chat with gifted and talented teachers.To arrive at common ground, one must first isolate those areas of difference between the two camps. Perhaps the greatest contention lies in the debate over heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping

This descriptive study investigated the attitudes of middle school building principals toward the desirability of preservice teacher preparation programs conducted wholly or almost wholly online. This project included middle schools in the states of Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio where random cluster sampling was utilized to select participants from a population list of schools and districts. After districts were determined, each middle school principal in the selected district was provided with a questionnaire. Seventy-five of 120 principals (16 from Indiana, 36 from Kentucky, 23 from Ohio) completed questionnaires for a response rate of 63%. The principals expressed apprehension about teacher dispositions and the social aspects of teaching that may be compromised in an online program, as well as general ethical concerns surrounding online courses. If middle grades principals are to acknowledge ultimately the marketability of online teacher preparation, the degree-granting institutions need to address these concerns and actively seek the input of administrators in program design.

No abstract