A Tri-State Study: Is the Middle School Movement Thriving… or Barely Surviving?

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.

An Instrument to Measure Teacher Practices to Support Personalized Learning in the Middle Grades

“…Although the survey was constructed under the assumption that the practices on the different subscales were related but distinct, the data indicate the potential for considering all of these highly related practices as being part of "good teaching." As found by previous scholars investigating the implementation of middle grades best practices (Faulkner & Cook, 2006;Huss & Eastep, 2011), there is little discriminant validity when considering these philosophically aligned practices. Some of the participants in the cognitive interviews likewise noted that many of these practices could be considered more generally as "good teaching" (Brodhagan & Gorud, 2012;Springer, 2013).…”

“…Prior surveys of middle grades teachers and leaders represent a line of research on middle schools stretching from the 1960s to the present (Huss & Eastep, 2011). These surveys have explored implementation of the middle grades concept (e.g., Faulkner & Cook, 2006;George, 2007;Huss & Eastep, 2011;McEwin & Greene, 2011), including teaching practices that are characteristic of personalized learning approaches.…”

“…These surveys have explored implementation of the middle grades concept (e.g., Faulkner & Cook, 2006;George, 2007;Huss & Eastep, 2011;McEwin & Greene, 2011), including teaching practices that are characteristic of personalized learning approaches. Results comparing random and highly effective middle schools highlight the importance of teaching and learning strategies that involve young adolescents in their own learning, as highly effective middle schools employ less direct instruction and more cooperative and inquiry-based learning opportunities (McEwin & Greene, 2011).…”

“…Results comparing random and highly effective middle schools highlight the importance of teaching and learning strategies that involve young adolescents in their own learning, as highly effective middle schools employ less direct instruction and more cooperative and inquiry-based learning opportunities (McEwin & Greene, 2011). Faulkner and Cook (2006) found that 83-97% of teachers surveyed in Kentucky used teaching strategies tailored to the individual needs of young adolescents; a larger study from multiple states found that 68% of teachers employed these strategies (Huss & Eastep, 2011).…”

An Examination of Middle School Organizational Structures in the United States and Australia

“…In a national study published in 2009, 72% of middle schools in the United States report the use of interdisciplinary teaming, which represents a 5% drop since 2001 [42]. Similarly, in a tri-state study of Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio, Huss and Eastep report that 67% of the 104 schools in their study have fully implemented interdisciplinary teams and 16% have partially implemented teams [43]. In a single-state study, George reports that in Florida one-third of participants have completely implemented interdisciplinary teams at their school sites with 64% reporting that interdisciplinary teaming was never implemented, partially implemented, or eliminated [44].…”