Sally N. Clark

Middle Level School Reform: The Rhetoric and the Reality

This article examines the development of junior high and middle level education since the early 1900s, with a special focus on the rhetoric of reform and the reality of practice. Although reformers have consistently focused on the developmental needs of early adolescents, greater success has been achieved in bringing about changes in school organization than in obtaining substantive changes that lead to developmentally responsive curriculum and instruction. Meeting the unique needs of early adolescents continues to be the compelling argument for middle level school reform. Successful reform requires that middle level educators become more knowledgeable about early adolescent development, successful middle level programs and practices, and current middle level research; take appropriate steps to ensure that implemented programs are functioning as intended; become more aggressive advocates for early adolescents and their schools; and take advantage of current reform initiatives to increase funding and support.

Building Collaborative Environments for Successful Middle Level School Restructuring.

Administrators, teachers, parents, and community members can be involved in collaborative efforts in many ways. Whether the collaboration is direct involvement in decision making or participation as an influencer, leadership plays an important role in its success. Principals, by valuing and recognizing the contributions of each teacher, staff member, student, and parent, give high visibility to the collaborative process.

Making Leadership for Learning the Top Priority.

W ith the continuing pressure for higher levels of student achievement, middle level principals are being challenged to find more effective ways to lead and to organize their schools for learning. As a result, many principals are finding it necessary to reexamine the focus of their leadership, to reevaluate their priorities, and to reconsider the ways in which they manage their time and resources. It is becoming increasingly clear that creating middle school environments where all students can be successful learners requires visionary leaders who place student and adult learning as the top priority of their schools (Barth, 1990, 2002; Clark &: Clark, 1994; jackson &: Davis, 2000; Wheelock, 1998).

Developmentally Responsive Curriculum and Standards-Based Reform: Implications for Middle Level Principals

The need for middle level principals skilled in curricular and instruc tional reform and school restructuring has never been more important. The hope for highly implemented and fully functioning programs lies in the principals ability to facilitate comprehensive restructuring, restructuring that has broad-based involvement in establishing new visions of teaching and learning and collaborative decision making.

The Pontoon Transitional Design: A Missing Link in the Research on Interdisciplinary Teaming

AbstractThe Pontoon Transitional Design was significant among team teaching efforts during the 1960s and early 1970s because it was a staff utilization model that placed emphasis on scheduling, grouping, instruction, and curriculum. This comprehensive model was a forerunner of many of the current teacher collaborative efforts.Ten studies of the Pontoon Transitional Design (two published in research journals, one published by a school district, and seven doctoral studies) were conducted in grades 7, 8, and 9 of middle schools, intermediate schools, junior high schools, and high schools between 1964 and 1972. Although the evidence for the pontoon as a more effective way to bring about student achievement was unclear, nine of the ten studies did show significance in favor of the pontoon group in at least one academic area or test. Findings in support of affective gains for both students and teachers were also found throughout the studies.The Pontoon Transitional Design has significance not only for its contr...

Achieving Teaming's Full Potential: A Leadership Challenge

Since the beginning of the middle school movement, teaming has been one of its signature structures. It has been endorsed by major middle level professional associations (National Middle School Association, 2003, 2006; National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2006), featured in the literature of middle level education (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Jackson & Davis, 2000), supported by research (George & Alexander, 2003; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, 2002, 2004), and embraced by practitioners (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2006; National Middle School Association, 2006; Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, 2002, 2004). By the turn of the 21st century, instructional teams consisting of two or more teachers charged with the instruction of a group of students were found in 79% of America’s middle level schools (Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, 2002). While the high percentage of middle level schools with teams is encouraging, we know that the mere existence of teams is no guarantee that they will have a positive influence on student learning and school improvement (Clark & Clark, 2004a; Erb & Doda, 1989; Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, & Flowers, 1997; Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall, 2000). Several questions must be asked to bring more clarity to middle school teaming: In what ways do teams affect students and adults? How do team structures influence school reform and improvement? What are the characteristics of effective teams and how should they be organized to reach their full potential? What are the implications for leaders in creating and sustaining highly effective teams? What does it take to get teams to function effectively? It appears that high-quality, knowledgeable, and skilled leadership is essential (Clark & Clark, 2004a, 2002a). According to Erb (2006), getting teams to “function coherently and energetically requires leaders who have a sound understanding of the middle school concept, of how to create and maintain healthy organizations, and how to energize the people who have been recruited to do the work expected in the schools” (p. 2). Jackson and Davis (2000) also placed great emphasis on principal leadership in bringing about teaming success. “Team success,” they suggested, “often depends on the administrator’s leadership skills. A principal must be prepared to be the key source of information within the school on effective teams, always available to serve as a guide, troubleshooter, and relentless supporter” (p. 137). Of great concern is that many middle school principals do not have Achieving Teaming’s Full Potential: A Leadership Challenge

Principal Leadership for Developing and Sustaining Highly Successful Middle Level Schools

Throughout the nation there are numerous middle level schools that are meeting the requirements of standards-based reform, highstakes testing, and accountability while still maintaining their commitment to providing learning environments that are developmentally responsive to the needs of young adolescents. Many of these schools and the characteristics that make them successful have been identified by Lipsitz (1984), Jackson and Davis (2000), Wheelock (1998), Norton and Lewis (2000), Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, and Flowers (1997), The National Forum (Schools to Watch, 2004a), and the National Association of Secondary School Principals (Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, in press). Over the years these schools, and others like them, have continued to demonstrate that developmental support and academic rigor are complementary in creating schools where young adolescents are successful learners (Clark & Clark, 2003; Mizell, 2002; Norton, 2000).

The Middle School Achievement Project: Involving Parents and Community in School Improvement.

learning and enhance their knowledge of appro priate middle school classroom practices. Currently parents and community members are involved in middle level schools in a variety of ways and most typically they give assistance to students, teachers, and administrators by serving as monitors and ticket sellers for student activities, operating concessions for the benefit of the Shadow study researchers like to observe productive student work groups. PHOTO BY TIMOTHY L. VACULA

Reform Efforts in American Schools: Will Faddism Continue to Impede Meaningful Change?

Policy direction in American education is like the weather in the Midwest: constantly changing. However, unlike the weather which is driven by nature, people are responsible for fads in education. Education moves from problem to problem and typically defines problems too simply. Thus, the exaggerated answer to today’s problem usually becomes tomorrow’s problem. This ‘disease orientation’ in American education (identify a problem and devise a simple, quick solution) has drawn criticism from numerous educators, scholars and researchers (e.g., Cuban, 1993; Good, 1983; Good & Biddle, 1988; Slavin, 1989). The likelihood that any reform will be implemented is remote. Still, despite the fact that policy has resulted in few long-term solutions, the winds of change in the educational literature blow constantly.

School Structure: Does it Make Any Difference?

The study examined and compared the responses of students in 7-9, 6-8, K-8, 5-8, and 6-7 schools in the areas of self-esteem, preferred teacher characteristics, dating behavior, and perceived victimization. A total of 1,753 students, enrolled in six different middle level schools in North Carolina, responded to the 100-item Mid-Years Opinion Questionnaire. Of the twelve subscales in the questionnaire, the Self-Esteem Inventory, the Preferred Teacher Characteristics Scale, the Dating Behavior Scale, and the Perceived Victimization Scale were selected for use in this study. Significant differences were found for each of the dependent variables. Of the five school-grade level structures studied, the 6-7 school appeared to be the most inappropriate organization for early adolescents.