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

Abstract

The middle school concept, aimed at creating a more developmentally responsive learning environment for young adolescents, gained a stronghold in the later part of the 20th century. Proponents of this concept have argued continually for the holistic implementation of its six key characteristics if its benefits are to be realized. These characteristics include: (a) a challenging, integrative, and exploratory curriculum; (b) varied teaching and learning approaches; (c) assessment and evaluation that promote learning; (d) flexible organizational structures (i.e., including the physical space, scheduling, and grouping of students and teachers); (e) programs and policies that foster health, wellness and safety; and (f) comprehensive guidance and support services. Recently, Ellerbrock, Falbe, and Pomykal Franz identified key middle school organizational structures of people, place, and time as being interconnected and integral to effective middle school practices. Main also demonstrated the interconnected nature of these key characteristics and how organizational structures of people affected the successful implementation of other characteristics. Thus, how these organizational structures can and are being implemented has implications for our understanding of the effectiveness of other middle school practices. In this paper, researchers from both the United States and Australia examine and compare literature published between 2000 and 2018 addressing ways in which middle school/middle years organizational structures have been reported and categorized by structures of people, place, and time in these two countries. Pertinent literature related to organizational structures of middle schools in the United States and to middle years education in Australia was examined. Findings from studies and evaluations from each country are reported to provide an international perspective on the organizational structures of middle schools/middle years education across the two countries. Overall, since 2000, the body of knowledge about middle schools/middle years organizational structures has been surprisingly limited in comparison to their perceived importance in the field. This lack of research is concerning in the midst of educational reform in both countries, resulting in questions about the impact of school organizational structures on young adolescent development and learning.

Optimising leadership: Conceptualising cognitive constraints of sociality and collaboration in Australian secondary schools

“…In Australia, since the beginning of the 20th century, the dominant secondary school organisational model has been that of the subject departmental structure (Brady, 2010; Ellerbrock et al, 2018; Woolner et al, 2014). These organisational departments are purposely created to deliver specialised knowledge and competencies to students but can also promote insular behaviour and maintain departmental boundaries, at the expense of school improvement agendas.…”

The Influences of Organizational Structure in the Hidden Curriculum: Implications in School Practice

“…They mentioned two types, which are physical and social structures. Similarly, Ellerbrock et al (2018) studied three types in their paper, the people (social) structure, the place (physical) structure, and the time structure. Structure of time is a unique type, placing importance on how time is allocated for learning.…”

The Effect of Instructional Time Frequency on Middle School Students' Mathematics Achievement Scores

“…According to a report by the American Education Research Association (2016), more investigation is needed into what school structures are effective for middle schools. Although block scheduling was well represented in the data before 2000 this topic has rarely been found in the literature since then (Ellerbrock, Main, Falbe, & Franz, 2018). There is new urgency to investigate different time structures to help students achieve the more rigorous state standards related to the Common Core Standards.…”

“…Patall et al (2010) suggested that educational researchers conduct a well-designed research that will help determine under what condition, for whom, and when more instructional time will yield the greatest student achievement. The gap in the literature suggested by Patall et al (2010) and Ellerbrock, Main, Falbe, and Franz (2018) guided this investigation to determine if more frequent instructional time in mathematics will yield greater student achievement and decrease the achievement gap in mathematics.…”