Vincent A. Anfara

Part I: Resolving the Tension between Academic Rigor and Developmental Appropriateness

The teachers became more distant and uncar ing throughout my middle school career. The teachers would come to class, lecture, and go home. Students had very little contact with the educators as class curriculum shifted from hands on learning to textbook/lecture style. At this point, many students started disliking school because the school environment was closed, cold, and very boring. As I entered sixth grade ... I quickly dis covered that the school I had once loved was falling further into my memories (Student reflect ing on her middle school experience, 1998).

Teachers as Leaders: Collaborative Leadership for Learning Communities

All the key documents explicating the essential features of effective middle level schools highlight the importance of organizational structures that foster teaching, learning, and meaningful relationships. This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School Association, 2010) identifies interdisciplinary teams as one of these organizational features and reminds us that these teams need “daily or regular common planning time” so they “can plan ways to integrate the curriculum, analyze assessment data, examine student work, discuss current research, and reflect on the effectiveness of instructional approaches being used” (p. 32). Teachers also use common planning time to address management issues related to individual student and parent concerns, the day-to-day management of the team, and scheduling of activities. Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) also addressed the need for teachers to have greater authority to make decisions that affect the educational experiences of their students. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development noted,

Grade Configuration and the Education of Young Adolescents

How do we configure schools to maximize student achievement, high attendance rates, and the development of a positive selfconcept while minimizing discipline infractions, violence, and feelings of anonymity? What is the best configuration for K-12 schooling? Is it an elementary school, followed by a middle school, followed by a four-year high school? Are there advantages to K-8 schools, followed by a four-year high school? Seller (2004) reminds us “configuring schools by grade is a practice influenced by history, psychology, sociology, and pedagogy” (p. 2). Beyond what is best for students, administrative issues related to transportation, finances, and facilities usage all affect the final decision. Answers to these questions are not easily obtained when we consider that Mac Iver and Epstein (1993) found that seventh and eighth graders in the United States attend schools with about 30 different grade configurations. More than a decade ago, Jenkins and McEwin (1992) wrote, “Grade organization remains a controversial topic in American education as it has for at least 80 years” (p. 8). Indeed, the issue of grade configuration has again surfaced in the current debate that has resulted in many large, urban school systems abandoning middle schools in favor of K-8 schools. After reviewing the history of the junior high and middle school, one could easily conclude that there seems to be perennial dissatisfaction with how public schools educate young adolescents. The junior high appeared at the turn of the twentieth century and with grades seven, eight, and nine brought the 6-3-3 grade configuration to the education scene. In 1918, the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education recommended the new organization in its annual report. It noted:

Academic Growth with Developmental Responsiveness: Organizational Health Directly Influences Student Performance at the Middle Level

A ccording to a research summary published by National Middle School Association (NMSA) (2001), schools that implement more Turning Points recommendations show greater gains in student outcomes. We disagree. While trying to link the middle level concept to heightened student achievement is not new, we posit that it may be misdirected. Findings from this study suggest that elements of the middle school concept are necessary but not sufficient for high student achievement. They are a means to an end, not an end in themselves as Backes, Ralston, and Ingwalson (1999) contend. Working together to explore subject matter keeps these students focused on an important learning task.

Advisor-Advisee Programs: Important but Problematic

Advisory programs are predicated on the beliefs that every young adolescent should have at least one adult at school to act as an advocate and that advisories help young adolescents navigate a challenging developmental stage of life. According to the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989), “Students should be able to rely on that adult to help [them] learn from their experiences, comprehend physical changes and changing relations with family and peers, act on their behalf to marshal every school and community resource needed for the student to succeed, and help to fashion a vision of the future” (p. 40). Advisory programs, though, are not new to the middle school movement. Between 1900 and 1920, advisories were implemented in junior highs (Briggs, 1920). Discussing the importance of advisories, Briggs wrote, “In order that the individual pupil may not be neglected by his several teachers, it has seemed not only wise, but actually imperative, that some adult be appointed as his advisor” (p. 253).

Courageous, Collaborative Leaders Confront the Challenges and Complexities of School Improvement

Courageous, collaborative leadership is considered one of the essential characteristics of a successful middle school (NMSA, 2003). These leaders, both administrators and teachers, are described as “architects for change” and “prime determiners of the school culture” (NMSA, p. 10). Recognizing that “improvement does not depend upon any single person” (p. 11) and attempting to better understand what courageous, collaborative leadership entails, this review of the research focuses on issues related to the challenges and complexities of school improvement. Specifically, it provides readers with a summary of what the research says about school improvement and focuses on the variety of issues (e.g., change as it relates to context, culture, and capacity) to which courageous, collaborative leaders must be attentive in the process of improving their schools. According to Kelly and Lezotte (2003), there are two kinds of schools—improving and declining. From that perspective, school improvement can no longer be viewed as optional or a luxury. The school improvement process represents a “required opportunity.” Schools as organizations are held accountable, and the work performance of teachers and administrators is measured indirectly, through the performance of students (Quality Counts, 2001). Kelly and Lezotte also remind us that “The bureaucratic, top-down, outside-in, standards-based, results-driven call for school improvement is sweeping over the schools of this nation like a tidal wave” (Introduction, ¶ 1). As part of the current accountability movement, schools are expected to justify the value and effectiveness of their programs. Apart from public relations and accountability issues, educators have come to recognize that they can no longer rely on intuition, tradition, or convenience in making decisions about the best practices and strategies to improve student learning. Data-driven decision making has become not only a familiar term, but also a more prevalent practice. With No Child Left Behind (2001) the number of schools “in need of improvement” has reached into the thousands and is expected to grow as standards for making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) become more and more stringent. To clearly understand what we mean by school improvement, we turn first to the difference between school effectiveness and school improvement.

School Resource Officers in Middle Grades School Communities

Schools across the United States have responded to increased school violence with interventions ranging from deliberate efforts to remove graffiti and clean a schools physical grounds to the use of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and random locker searches. Other common interventions have included the assignment of school resource officers (SROs) to patrol schools and the enforcement of zero-tolerance policies that mandate punishments for specific serious infractions. While much public attention has focused on violence prevention in high schools, these programs may be even more important in the middle grades. Several middle grades schools have experienced incidents of lethal violence during the past 20 years, and researchers have found that students and teachers in middle grades schools may be at a higher risk for experiencing nonlethal forms of violence (i.e., violent crime or assaults against teachers) than their counterparts in high schools (Borgmeier, 2007; Juvonen, Kaganoff, Augustine, & Constant, 2004). Furthermore, peer-directed aggression such as fighting and weapon carrying rises and peaks during the middle grades before declining in the high school years (ODonnell et al., 2006). The addition of SROs to any school community presents particular challenges, but the need for thoughtful planning is especially important in middle grades schools. The increased risk for violent behaviors in the middle grades supports the need for effective violence prevention programs at this level, yet the middle grades years are a time of tremendous physical, cognitive, and social development for students, and the possible disruptions SROs may cause can be magnified as a result. This article reviews research and examines the challenges and opportunities associated with SROs in the middle grades and offers concrete recommendations for their use. Defining school resource officers School resource officers are sworn law enforcement officers assigned to patrol schools full-time. The number of SROs has swelled in the last 15 years, making schoolbased policing one of the fastest growing areas of law enforcement (Theriot, 2009). While it is difficult to know the exact number of school resource officers, the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), the largest school-based police organization in the United States, has approximately 6,000 members. Overall, it is estimated that there may be more than 20,000 law enforcement officers patrolling schools in the United States (Brown, 2006). School resource officers in the United States, also known as school police officers or school liaison officers, typically are employed by a local law enforcement agency and assigned to work in a school or a cluster of schools. They perform traditional law enforcement functions like patrolling school buildings and grounds, investigating criminal complaints, handling students who violate school rules or public laws, and trying to minimize disruptions during the school day and at after-school activities (Lawrence, 2007). SROs also are charged with educating students and school staff about crime and violence prevention, acting as mentors to students, and helping to improve the school environment (Rich & Finn, 2001). Officers usually are armed and often are in uniform. While some schools use area law enforcement officers on a part-time or irregular basis, true SROs typically have received extensive training in topics like working with juveniles and being a positive role model, adolescent development, investigating child abuse, public speaking, instructional techniques and classroom management, counseling, and emergency management (NASRO, n.d.). In contrast to other law enforcement officers assigned to schools, professional SROs are expected to be a consistent presence at their schools. For these reasons, Rich and Finn (2001)urge clear differentiation between official SROs and other sworn officers who focus exclusively on law enforcement activities in schools (p. …