September 2010 • Volume 42 • Number 1 • Pages 49-63

Results and Recommendations from the 2009 National Surveys of Randomly Selected and Highly Successful Middle Level Schools

C. Kenneth McEwin & Melanie W. Greene

Download Article

In the early 20th century, junior high schools were established to serve as a transitional bridge between the elementary and high school. By the 1960s, this form of schooling had come to look more like senior high school than a unique school program responsive to the nature and needs of the young adolescent students it served (see Alexander, 1995). The middle school movement grew out of concerns with the junior high school, and after more than four decades there is much to celebrate when considering the accomplishments of the movement to establish developmentally responsive middle level schools for young adolescents. The number of schools with a middle school grade configuration (e.g., 5–8, 6–8, 7–8) has nearly tripled since 1970, and today 89% of all middle level schools have one of these popular grade configurations. This indicates public recognition of the need for special school programs for this unique age group; however, school names and grade configurations alone do not speak to the quality of programs within schools. Questions remain concerning the failure of many middle level schools to fully implement programs and practices that have been advocated in the literature (e.g., George, 2009a, 2009b; Dickinson, 2001; Lounsbury, 2009; National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), National Middle School Association (NMSA), 2010a, 2010b).

While a number of studies have yielded useful information regarding the status of middle level schools in the United States (Brooks & Edwards, 1978; Cawelti, 1988; Compton, 1976; Epstein & Mac Iver, 1990; George, 2009c; George & Oldaker, 1985; George & Shewey, 1994; and Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, 2002), four linked national surveys provide a longitudinal perspective on the degree of implementation of key middle grades programs and practices. These studies were conducted in 1968 (Alexander, 1968), 1988 (Alexander & McEwin, 1989), 1993 (McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 1996), and 2001 (McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 2003). This article reports selected results of a fifth study in this series conducted in 2009 by McEwin and Greene, with a particular focus on recommendations derived from an analysis of trends evident over time. An additional national survey of programs and practices in a sample of highly successful middle level schools was conducted by the authors in 2009 using essentially the same instrument. The results from the highly successful schools are compared to results from the random sample to determine if differences existed and, if so, what lessons might be learned from those differences.

The 2009 Random and Highly Successful Middle Schools Surveys

In the random study, an electronic survey was sent to a 20% random stratified sample of middle level schools that included grades 5–8, 6–8, or 7–8 (N=2,783), with a return rate of 30% (n=827). Data from this study are compared with similar data from the four earlier surveys to help identify trends that have occurred over time. The survey instrument included some items that were part of one or more of the four previous studies as well as some new items not reported in this article. Readers should refer to the full report to obtain more detailed information about the findings discussed here as well as additional results not presented in this article (McEwin & Greene, forthcoming).

The highly successful middle school survey was conducted during the same period in 2009 as the random middle school survey. For the purposes of this study, highly successful middle schools (hereafter, HSMS) were defined as those schools that had been recognized as Schools to Watch by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform or as Breakthrough Middle Schools by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. At the time this study was initiated, 186 middle schools had been identified as Schools to Watch (n=180) or MetLife-NASSP Breakthrough Middle Schools (n=7), and one school was recognized by both programs. Surveys were sent via e-mail attachment to the 186 schools, with a response rate of 54% (n=101).

Characteristics of the schools
The grade organization patterns of schools in the random study reflected those of all middle level schools in the country (see Figure 1), with the 6–8 organizational pattern occurring most frequently (67%). Forty-three percent of random study schools were located in rural communities, 18% in urban settings, and 39% in suburban areas. Twenty-seven percent of HSMS were in rural communities, 17% in urban areas, and 56% in suburban areas. Thirty-six percent of schools in the random study reported that more than half their students qualified for the free or reduced lunch program, compared to 27% in the HSMS, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1
Percentage of grade organization patterns: 2009 HSMS Study

Figure 2
Percentage of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch program

Student enrollments in schools in the HSMS study were larger than those in the random study, as shown in Figure 3. Almost one-fourth (24%) of schools in the HSMS study enrolled more than 1,000 students, compared to only 9% of schools in the 2009 random study.

Figure 3
Percentage of enrollments of schools

Respondents for both 2009 studies provided information on the percentage of students at their schools who scored on or above grade level on standardized tests in mathematics and reading (see Figure 4). The percentage of students on or above grade level in both subjects was higher in the HSMS than in schools in the random study. Ninety-three percent of schools in the HSMS sample reported that more than half of students were on or above grade level in mathematics, and 98% had more than half of students on or above grade level in reading. In comparison, smaller percentages of schools in the random study had more than half of students at or above grade level in mathematics (82%) and reading (86%).

Figure 4
Percentage of students scoring on or above grade level in mathematics and reading

Selected Results and Recommendations

In this section we present selected recommendations based on analysis of data from the 2009 random study, earlier national surveys, and the HSMS survey. Readers are encouraged to examine the full research report for additional recommendations and a more comprehensive presentation of the recommendations included here (McEwin & Greene, forthcoming).

Teaming and common planning time
The interdisciplinary team—two or more teachers sharing a common group of students—is an organizational model associated with many beneficial student outcomes (Arhar, 1990; Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall, 1999, 2000; NMSA, 2010a, 2010b). As shown in Figure 5, 72% of schools in the random study had interdisciplinary teams in 2009 compared to 77% in 2001, the first decrease since baseline data were obtained in the 1968 survey. In open-ended comments, some principals attributed this trend to budget cuts.

Figure 5
Percentage of random study middle schools using interdisciplinary team organization

The decline in interdisciplinary teaming was accompanied by a trend toward providing decreasing amounts of weekly common planning time for core teachers (see Figure 6). Common planning time for teachers on interdisciplinary teams is an organizational feature that enables them to plan curriculum and instruction and work together in other important ways to increase student learning (Mertens, Flowers, Anfara, & Caskey, 2010; Mertens & Flowers, 2006; Mertens, Flowers, & Mulhall, 1998; NMSA, 2007a, 2010a; Warren & Muth, 1995). Ideally, core teachers are given ten common planning periods each week, allowing for one common planning period for team planning and one for individual planning each day. The percentage of middle level schools providing ten common planning periods per week for core teachers teaching on teams declined 13% since the 2001 study. Seventy-seven percent of schools in the random study provided core teachers with five or more common planning periods per week.

Figure 6
Percentage of random study middle schools with numbers of common planning periods for core teachers

The HSMS demonstrated higher levels of interdisciplinary teaming and provided more common planning time for core teachers than the schools in the random study, as shown in Figure 7. Ninety percent of the HSMS had interdisciplinary team organization, compared to 72% in the random study, and 94% provided at least five common planning periods per week for core teachers. Forty percent of HSMS scheduled ten common planning periods for core teachers each week.

Figure 7
Percentage of HSMS and random schools with numbers of weekly common planning periods for core teachers

Recommendation: Interdisciplinary team organization should be implemented in the middle grades of all schools that include young adolescents. All teachers serving on teams should be provided at least one daily common planning period.

Scheduling plans
Flexible scheduling is a key organizational component that supports successful interdisciplinary teaming and allows teachers to make strategic schedule modifications to enhance teaching and learning (George & Alexander, 2003; George & Lounsbury, 2000; NASSP, 2006; NMSA, 2010a, 2010b). Respondents were asked to select the term that best described the type of schedule at their schools: daily uniform periods, daily periods of varying lengths, flexible block schedule, self-contained classrooms, or other schedule type. Seventy-two percent of schools reported daily uniform periods were most commonly used, while the percentage of schools reporting the use of flexible block schedules decreased from 33% to 14% since the 1993 study. In the HSMS sample, however, 30% of schools used a flexible block schedule, and greater use of scheduling plans involving daily periods of varying lengths (22%) was also reported (see Figure 8). Moreover, only 45% of HSMS reported using daily uniform periods.

Figure 8
Percentage of scheduling plans used by schools

Recommendation: All schools with middle level students should adopt some form of flexible scheduling. The highest priorities of the schedule should be providing blocks of instructional time and daily common planning times for teams of core teachers.

Curriculum
Curriculum has long been a key focus of efforts to create developmentally responsive middle level schools (Beane, 1990; Brazee & Capelluti, 1995; Lounsbury & Vars, 1978; NMSA, 2004a, 2005). This We Believe (NMSA, 2010a) states that "middle level curriculum should be challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant and encompass every planned aspect of the educational program" (p. 17). As depicted in Figures 9–11, schools represented in both the random and HSMS samples offered rich curricula, with a variety of non-core and elective subjects and numerous extracurricular activities. Still, the proportion of the school day in all schools allotted for language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies suggests that middle level schools continue to place a high priority on these core subjects (see Figure 12). In general, the HSMS scheduled slightly more time for instruction in core subjects than did schools in the random study. More schools in the HSMS (49%) offered interest/mini courses than random study schools (39%), and 65% of HSMS offered intramural sports programs, compared to 55% in the random study.

Figure 9
Percentage of schools requiring selected non-core subjects by grade level

Figure 10
Percentage of schools with electives in selected subject by grade level

Figure 11
Percentage of schools with electives in selected subjects by grade level: 2009 HSMS

Figure 12
Average number of minutes scheduled daily for core subjects by grade level

The frequency of remediation practices in core subjects is further evidence of the academic focus of schools in the studies. The majority of schools in both studies offered remediation in core subjects through before- and after-school classes or tutoring, an extra core period instead of an elective, and summer school courses. More than half of all schools surveyed offered pull-out remediation programs in language arts and mathematics (see Figure 13).

Figure 13
Percentage of schools using common remediation plans

Schools should continue this intense focus on core subjects while continually working to offer a challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant curriculum (NMSA, 2010a). While middle grades educators should help all stakeholders appreciate the importance of the core subjects, they should also make it clear that an education for young adolescents must include experiences in non-core subjects, student activities, and exploratory courses.

Recommendation: All schools that serve young adolescents should place a major emphasis on the core subjects of language arts/reading, science, mathematics, and social studies. Significant portions of each instructional day should be devoted to these subjects while ensuring other developmentally appropriate experiences are included.

Instructional strategies
This We Believe calls for teachers to use multiple instructional strategies leading to purposeful learning (NMSA, 2010b). Respondents were asked the extent to which selected teaching strategies were rarely or never, occasionally, or regularly used in their schools. The percentage of schools using direct instruction on a regular basis decreased from 90% in 1993 to 81% in 2009, while the use of cooperative learning, inquiry, and independent study increased. Fifteen percent of schools reported the use of online instruction on a regular basis and 54% indicated occasional use. Schools in the HSMS sample were less likely to use direct instruction on a regular basis (71%) than schools in the random study, and they more regularly used cooperative learning, inquiry teaching, independent study, and online learning on a regular basis (Figure 14). The difference found between the use of cooperative learning in HSMS (85%) and schools in the random sample (64%) was especially significant. While the trend observed in all schools toward more frequent use of student-centered strategies (i.e., cooperative learning and inquiry teaching) is encouraging, schools still tend to rely more heavily on teacher-centered direct instruction.

Figure 14
Percentage of selected teaching strategies used (2009)

Recommendation: Effective instruction in core and non-core subjects should be a top priority in all middle level schools. The developmental learning characteristics of young adolescents should serve as a basis for selecting instructional strategies. Efforts to move away from over-reliance on whole-class instructional strategies should be initiated, with more emphasis being placed on cooperative learning, inquiry learning, and other strategies for involving young adolescents in their own learning.

Instructional grouping arrangements
The findings from both the random and HSMS studies revealed discouraging trends in instructional grouping practices. As shown in Figure 15, the number of schools in the random study using random instructional grouping has declined 9% since 1993, signaling a move away from heterogeneous grouping in middle level schools. An identical 23% of schools in both studies reported that instructional grouping was random at their schools. Results from both the HSMS and the random schools suggest that more middle level schools are using some form of ability grouping, or tracking (77%); however, only 2% of HSMS tracked students in some non-core subjects, while 19% of schools in the random study engaged in this practice. These trends clearly show that ability grouping is on the rise in middle level schools despite serious concerns that this practice may benefit high achievers but negatively affect low achievers (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, 2001; NMSA, 2007b; Pool & Page, 1995; Slavin, 1990; Wheelock, 1992).

Figure 15
Percentage of schools using selected instructional grouping practices

Recommendation: Schools should carefully select instructional grouping plans and be careful to avoid an over-reliance on tracking. Middle level educators should "work deliberately to reduce disparities in educational attainment by adopting open and fair student assignment practices. When students are grouped and regrouped for instruction, the assignment should be temporary and based on diagnosed needs, interests, and talents of students, not on a single achievement test" (National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, 2001, p. 1).

Advisory programs
Advisory programs have been a recommended component of middle schools since the beginning of the middle school movement (Alexander et al., 1968; Galassi, Gulledge, & Cox, 1998; George & Alexander, 2003). Advisory programs ensure all young adolescents have adult advocates who know them well and help them succeed in school, but these important programs are difficult to implement and sustain successfully over time (Anfara, 2006). Fifty-three percent of schools in the 2009 study had advisory programs, reflecting a steady increase from previous studies (see Figure 16). However, analysis of the 2009 data revealed that only 54% of schools with advisory programs scheduled daily meetings of advisory groups, representing a 24% decline since the 1988 study. While the number of schools allocating more than 15 minutes to advisory programs has increased 24% since 1988, this amount seems to have reached a plateau in 2001 (see Figure 17). Larger percentages of HSMS had advisory programs (65%) than schools from the random study (53%), and the HSMS allocated more time per advisory meeting than schools in the random study. While the steady increase in schools with advisory programs is an encouraging trend, almost half of all middle level schools still have no formal advisory program. Additionally, little is known about the overall quality and effectiveness of existing programs.

Figure 16
Percentage of schools with advisory programs

Figure 17
Number of minutes scheduled for advisory meetings

Recommendation: Carefully planned student advisory programs should be a high priority component of all middle level programs and schools. Advisory groups should meet at least twice per week, and the advisory curriculum should be carefully planned, articulated, implemented, and evaluated. All teacher advisors and other professional personnel should be provided ongoing professional development regarding effective advisory programs and be held responsible for their success.

Professional preparation and certification/licensure
A major barrier to the success of middle level school programs has been the practice of employing teachers who lack specific professional preparation to teach young adolescents. Too frequently, middle level classrooms are staffed with teachers who were prepared to teach students at other developmental stages and levels of schooling (e.g., young children in elementary schools, older adolescents in senior high schools). Additionally, many states lack effective certification/licensure regulations to ensure teachers are specially prepared for the middle grades. Some states do not require middle level teachers to hold separate middle level teaching certifications, and four states do not have any form of middle level license/certification (Gaskill, 2007). In some states, middle level teaching certification is granted to anyone who has completed a senior high or secondary school professional preparation program. Additionally, in some states, this certification can be obtained by simply having an undergraduate degree in some area and passing a standardized test.

Respondents provided information about the percentage of core teachers with some level of specialized professional preparation to teach at the middle level. In approximately one third of schools in both the random and HSMS surveyed, more than 90% of core teachers had some level of specialized middle level professional preparation; however, the instrument did not define the nature of this preparation. Higher percentages of teachers in HSMS held separate middle level certifications compared to random sample schools. Forty-nine percent of HSMS reported that the majority of core teachers (51% or more) held distinctive middle level certification, while only 29% of schools in the random sample had this percentage. Twenty-seven percent of HSMS had 81% or more core teachers with middle level certification, compared to only 11% in the random sample schools.

While significant progress on these issues has been made in recent years (McEwin & Smith, 2003, 2004; NMSA, 2004b), many thousands of middle level teachers still begin their careers without the specialized knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to be highly successful teaching young adolescents. Middle level educators should work collaboratively with policymakers, teacher preparation representatives, state department of education officials, professional practice board members, and other stakeholders to create specialized middle level teacher preparation programs and mandatory middle level teacher licensure requirements where they do not exist and to strengthen them where they are already available.

Recommendation: Whenever possible, personnel directors and principals should employ teachers who have received specialized middle level professional preparation and hold middle level teacher certification/licensure. Comprehensive and ongoing professional development should provide teachers and other school personnel with a knowledge base that focuses on young adolescent development, middle level curriculum, middle level instruction and assessment, effective middle level programs and practices, and other key topics. Middle level educators should support and promote specialized middle level professional preparation as well as specific middle level teacher certification.

Implementing the vision
All stakeholders should intensify their efforts to overcome the complex challenges associated with authentic middle level school reform and work persistently and collaboratively to implement key middle level programs and practices. Otherwise, middle level schools may slip further back into the mistakes made in the first reform movement to create developmentally responsive schools for young adolescents—the junior high school movement. The rationale for developmentally responsive junior high schools had much in common with the current rationale for developmentally responsive middle level schools. One of the problems with junior high schools was that so many of them became junior versions of the senior high school. This same fate may befall middle level schools if more progress is not made in implementing what are known to be effective middle level programs and practices.

The middle level research base has expanded, and growing numbers of HSMS are providing models for reaching high levels of success, as demonstrated by the HSMS survey. To establish and maintain HSMS, middle level leaders must avoid a recurring mistake—blindly following tradition and staying with what is comfortable and noncontroversial rather than pushing forward with courage and purpose to ensure that all schools serve young adolescents effectively.

Recommendation: Efforts should be initiated to learn from the successes of existing model middle level schools as well as from the middle level research base.

Lessons Learned from Highly Successful Middle Schools

One major lesson that can be learned from the 101 HSMS is that the middle school concept as originally proposed by Alexander in 1963 remains valid (1968) and supported in the middle school literature (NMSA, 2010a, 2010b; NASSP, 2006). As shown in the survey results, HSMS tend to embrace programs and practices associated with developmentally responsive schools—the middle school concept.

The HSMS study also suggests that leadership is a key factor. The overwhelming majority of the highly successful, nationally recognized schools have principals who strongly support components of the middle school concept and implement recommended middle level programs and practices in their schools at higher rates than are found in the general population of public middle schools in the nation. Compared to schools in the random sample, HSMS:

• More frequently used interdisciplinary team organization (90% vs. 72%).
• More frequently provided core teachers with ten common planning periods per week (40% vs. 28%).
• Less frequently organized school schedules using daily uniform periods (45% vs. 72%).
• More often used the flexible block scheduling plan (30% vs. 14%).
• More frequently offered interest course/mini-course programs (49% vs. 39%).
• Used direct instruction less frequently (71% vs. 81%).
• Used cooperative learning more often (85% vs. 64%).
• Used inquiry teaching more frequently (57% vs. 43%).
• Had higher percentages of core teachers holding separate middle level teacher certification.
• More frequently had advisory programs (65% vs. 54%).

An open-ended survey item asked HSMS principals to provide advice for other middle level schools striving to be highly successful. Seventy-eight principals responded to this item. Several comments focused on recruiting and maintaining teachers who want to teach young adolescents and have the specialized knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be effective. Many comments emphasized fully implementing teaming, common planning time for core teachers, and flexible scheduling. Other responses stressed the importance being committed to a vision and always making decisions based on what is best for young adolescents. A more extensive list of comments from HSMS principals appears in the sidebar. Principals also volunteered an extensive list of pitfalls schools should avoid as they strive to be highly successful. They are:

• Partial implementation of effective middle level programs and practices.
• Lack of ongoing, comprehensive professional development targeting specific middle level topics.
• Acceptance of the status quo and/or traditional popular practices that are not effective at the middle level.
• Giving in to the pressures associated with standardized tests to the extent that other important programs and practices suffer.
• Not understanding the need to continually advocate for developmentally responsive middle level education.
• Not using the middle level knowledge and research base when making decisions.
• Not holding all professionals accountable for their roles in developmental responsive schooling.
• Not working to create a vision that includes a commitment to always doing what is best for young adolescents rather than what is most comfortable and familiar for adults.

Concluding Remarks

Much has been accomplished toward creating developmentally responsive middle level schools. Despite difficulties encountered along the way (e.g., negative political climates, devotion of some educators and a segment of the public to tradition), the middle school concept has survived and remains a valid model for organizing the schooling of young adolescents.

Results from the 2009 study reveal, however, that many middle level schools have failed to fully implement developmentally responsive programs and practices. This situation has led to criticism of middle level schools and the middle school concept. However, the problem does not lie in a lack of knowledge about the components of developmentally responsive middle schools; the real problem lies in the failure to fully implement these features in ways that benefit all young adolescents (McEwin & Greene, in press). As Lounsbury (2009) noted, "The true middle school concept … has not been practiced and found wanting; rather, it has been found difficult to implement fully, and is practiced, then, only partially" (p. 31).

The middle school concept, when fully implemented, goes beyond a checklist of middle school programs, practices, and features. Care should be taken not to make the false assumption that the goal of having effective, developmentally responsive middle level programs and schools has been accomplished when recommended middle level programs and practices can be checked off a list. This can lead to what Dickinson (2001) has termed arrested development—the failure of schools to move forward from the levels of implementation already accomplished. When this happens and middle level educators grow complacent instead of moving forward, young adolescents pay the price by spending days and even years in schools that operate as if they have been designed for other developmental levels (e.g., senior high schools for older adolescents.)

Middle level educators, while working courageously and collaboratively with other stakeholders, can change middle level schools in ways that benefit all young adolescents. This study helps document and lends creditability to that possibility. For example, organizational features such as interdisciplinary team structures are useful only if teachers are offered and use opportunities to plan and work collaboratively. The misuse of essential middle level programs and practices at some middle level schools does not negate their importance nor offer a valid excuse for not implementing these elements to help provide schooling based on the characteristics, needs, and interests of young adolescents. Being satisfied with the status quo at middle level schools is neither acceptable nor productive. All who are responsible for the education of young adolescents should continually search for new ways to improve the schools they attend (see also McEwin & Greene, in press).

Based on responses from this survey (see Figures 18, 19), administrators and other professionals at HSMS, and most of the random study schools, seem to understand the importance of developmentally responsive programs and practices (e.g., teaming, advisory programs, flexible scheduling). They have chosen not to go back to traditional, deeply entrenched programs and practices more appropriate for older students in senior high schools or universities, thinking this will increase student learning and raise standardized test scores (e.g., departmentalization, rigid scheduling, no common planning time for teachers). Thus, one of the most important findings of this study is that the middle school concept and philosophy remain valid. Therefore, all middle level educators and other stakeholders should focus intently on implementing and maintaining developmentally responsive programs and practices.

Figure 18
Percentage of agreement between levels of importance and levels of implementation of selected middle level components: 2009 Random

Figure 19
Importance of and level of implementation of selected middle level school components by percentages: 2009 HSMS

References

Alexander, W. M. (1968). A survey of organizational patterns of reorganized middle schools. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Alexander, W. M. (1995). The junior high school: A changing view. Middle School Journal, 26(3), 20–24.

Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1989). Schools in the middle: Status and progress. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Alexander, W. M., Williams, E., Compton, M., Hines, V. A., Prescott, D., & Kealy, R. (1968). The emergent middle school (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Anfara, V. (2006). Advisor-advisee programs: Important but problematic. Middle School Journal, 38(1), 54–60.

Arhar, J. (1990). Interdisciplinary teaming as a school intervention to increase social bonding of middle school students. Research in Middle Level Education: Selected Studies 1990. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Beane, J. (1990). The middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Brazee, E. N., & Capelluti, J. (1995). Dissolving boundaries: Toward an integrative curriculum. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Brooks, K., & Edwards, F. (1978). The middle school in transition: A research report on the status of the middle school movement. Center for Professional Development. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Cawelti, G. (1988, November). Middle schools a better match with early adolescent needs, ASCD survey finds. ASCD Curriculum Update, 1–12. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Compton, M. F. (1976). The middle school: A status report. Middle School Journal, 7(2), 3–5.

Dickinson, T. S. (2001). Reinventing the middle school: A proposal to counter arrested development. In T. S. Dickinson (Ed.), Reinventing the middle school (pp. 1–20). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (1990). Education in the middle grades: National practices and trends. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Flowers, N., Mertens, S., & Mulhall, P. (1999). The impact of teaming: Five research-based outcomes of teaming. Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57–60.

Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. (2000). How teaming influences classroom practices. Middle School Journal, 32(2), 52–59.

Galassi, J., Gulledge, S. A., & Cox, N. D. (1998). Advisory: Definitions, descriptions, decisions, directions. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Gaskill, P. E. (2007). The current status of middle grades teaching credentials: Executive summary. Retrieved September 2, 2009, from http://www.peggygaskill.com/images/Executive
%20Summary-March%202007.pdf

George, P. S. (2009a). Renewing the middle school: The early success of middle school education. Middle School Journal, 41(1), 4–9.

George, P. S. (2009b). Renewing the middle school: The manufactured crisis. Middle School Journal, 41(2), 51–55.

George, P. S. (2009c). Special report: The status of programs in Florida middle schools. Gainesville, FL: School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida.

George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd. ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

George, P. S., & Lounsbury, J. H. (2000). Making big schools feel small: Multiage grouping, looping, and schools-within-a-school. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

George, P. S., & Oldaker, L. L. (1985). Evidence for the middle school. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

George, P. S., & Shewey, K. (1994). New evidence for the middle school. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Lounsbury, J. H. (2009). Deferred but not deterred: A middle school manifesto. Middle School Journal, 40(5), 31–36.

Lounsbury, J. H., & Vars, G. E. (1978). A curriculum for the middle years. New York: Harper & Row.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Jenkins, D. M. (1996). America's middle schools: Practices and progress—A twenty-five year perspective. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Jenkins, D. M. (2003). America's middle schools in the new century: Status and progress. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Smith, T. W. (2003). Middle level teacher preparation: Status, progress, and challenges. In P. G. Andrews & V. A. Anfara, Jr. (Eds.), Leaders for a movement: Professional preparation and development of middle level teachers and administrators (pp. 3–26). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Smith, T. W. (2004). The role of teacher preparation, licensure, and retention in creating high performing middle schools. In S. Thompson (Ed.), Reforming middle level education: Considerations for policymakers (pp. 109–129). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

McEwin, C. K., & Greene, M. W. (in press). Programs and practices in America's middle schools: A status report. In G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

McEwin, C. K., & Smith, T. S. (in press). The professional preparation of middle level teachers. In G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

McEwin, C. K., & Swaim, J. (2007). Clearing the hurdles: Issues and answers in middle school sports. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Mertens, S. B., & Flowers, N. (2006). Middle Start's impact on comprehensive middle school reform. Middle Grades Research Journal, 1(1), 1–26.

Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Caskey, M.M. (2010). Common planning time. Middle School Journal, 41(5), 50–57.

Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., & Mulhall, P. (1998). The middle start initiative, phase I: A longitudinal analysis of Michigan middle-level schools. Champaign, IL: Center for Prevention of Research and Development, University of Illinois.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2006). Breaking ranks in the middle: Strategies for leading middle level reform. Reston, VA: Author.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (n. d.). What are the selection criteria? Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=1685&DID=58798

National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform (2001). Student assignment in the middle grades: Toward academic success for all students. Retrieved September 11, 2009, from http://www.mgforum.org/Portals/0/MGFdocs/AbilityGrouping.pdf

National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform (n. d.). Our criteria. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://www.schoolstowatch.org/OurCriteria/tabid/118/Default.aspx

National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.

National Middle School Association. (2004a). A position paper on curriculum integration. Retrieved August 21, 2009, from http://www.nmsa.org/AboutNMSA/PositionStatements/
CurriculumIntegration/tabid/282/Default.aspx

National Middle School Association. (2004b). National Middle School Association's position statement on professional preparation of middle level teachers. Retrieved September 2, 2004, from http://www.nmsa.org/news/middlelevelteachers.htm

National Middle School Association. (2007a, January). Flexible scheduling. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/
FlexibleScheduling/tabid/1140/Default.aspx

National Middle School Association. (2007b). Heterogeneous grouping. Retrieved September 11, 2009, from http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/
HeterogeneousGrouping/tabid/1264/Default.aspx

National Middle School Association. (2010a). Research and resources in support of This We Believe. Westerville, OH: Author.

National Middle School Association. (2010b). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.

Pool, H., & Page, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Beyond tracking: Finding success in inclusive schools. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499.

Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Hackmann, D. G., & Petzko, V. N. (2002). A national study of leadership in middle level schools: Volume I: A national study of middle level leaders and school programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Warren, L. L., & Muth, K. D. (1995). The impact of common planning time on middle grades students and teachers. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 18(3), 41–58.

Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How untracking can save America's schools. New York: The New Press.

View Digital Issue

Preview/Purchase
Digital Issue

Join/Renew AMLE
to Receive this
Member Benefit