Utilizing a qualitative, multisite case study design and the theoretical framework of Hoy and Hannum (1997), the design and execution of this research investigates plausible explanations for the difference in student achievement between high performing (HPS) suburban middle schools and low performing (LPS) urban middle schools. Aside from the great disparity in SES, test scores, and funding, findings show stark contrasts between the 2 types of schools with regard to the technical, managerial, and institutional levels of the schools’ organizational health (i.e., teacher efficacy, curriculum articulation, student expectations, collegiality, instructional leadership, institutional integrity, etc.). Outlining quick fixes and easy-to-follow reform initiatives that are not so easy to achieve is a grave disservice and, under these circumstances, promoting best practices as an ecological package promotes false hope. The power of this study encourages us to move away from the structures per se and return to the deeper meaning and purpose under girding them.
Alexander, W. M., & George, P. S. (1981). The exemplary middle school. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2.
Alspaugh, J. W., & Harting, R. D. (1998). Interdisciplinary team teaching versus departmentalization in middle schools. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 21(4), 31-42.
3.
Andrews, R. L., & Morefield, J. (1991). Effective leadership for effective urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 23(3), 270-278.
4.
Arhar, J. M., Johnston, J. H., & Markle, G. C. (1989). The effects of teaming on students. Middle School Journal, 20(3), 24-27.
5.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
6.
Backes, J., Ralston, A., & Ingwalson, G. (1999). Middle level reform: The impact on student achievement. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 22(3), 43-57.
7.
Bossert, S. T. (1988). School effects. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 341-352). New York: Longman.
8.
Bradley, A. (1998). Muddle in the middle. Education Week on the Webhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-17/31middle.h17
9.
Brough, J. (1997). Home-school partnerships: A critical link. In J. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 265-274). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
10.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
11.
Chein, I. (1981). Appendix: An introduction to sampling. In L. Kidder (Ed.), Selltiz, Wrightsman & Cook’s research methods in social relations (4th ed., pp. 423-440). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12.
Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1992). The Pontoon Transitional Design: A missing link in the research on interdisciplinary teaming. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 15(2), 57-81.
13.
Comer, J. P. (1980). School power. New York: Free Press.
14.
Corwin, R. G., & Borman, K. M. (1988). School as workplace: Structural constraints on administration. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 209-237). New York: Longman.
15.
Cotton, K. (1982). Effects of interdisciplinary team teaching, research synthesis. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Lab. ED 230-533.
16.
Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter?The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-30.
17.
Erb, T. (2000). Do middle school reforms really make a difference?Clearing House, 73(4), 194-200.
18.
Felner, R. D. (1993). Understanding the impact of Turning Points on the adjustment and educational experiences of young adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Medicine, 14, 172-189.
19.
Felner, R., Jackson, A. W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle grades: A longitudinal study of a network engaged in Turning Points-based comprehensive school transformation. In R. Takanishi & D. A. Hamburg (Eds.), Preparing adolescents for the twenty-first century: Challenges facing Europe and the United States (pp. 38-69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Firestone, W. A., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve instruction: The principal’s contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20, 7-13.
21.
Grosin, L. (1991). School climate, achievement, and behavior in eight Swedish junior high schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
22.
Hough, D., & Sills-Briegel, T. (1997). Student achievement and middle level programs, policies, and practices in rural America: The case of community-based versus consolidated organizations. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 13(1), 64-70.
23.
Hoy, W. K., Barnes, K., & Sabo, D. (1995). The organizational health of middle schools: The concept and its measure. Unpublished manuscript.
24.
Hoy, W. K., & Clover, S. (1986). Elementary school climate: A revision of the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22, 93-110.
25.
Hoy, W. K., & Feldman, J. A. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its measure. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 30-38.
26.
Hoy, W. K., & Forsyth, P. B. (1986). Effective supervision: Theory into practice. New York: Random House.
27.
Hoy, W. K., & Hannum, J. W. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 290-311.
28.
Hoy, W. K., Hannum, J. W., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Organizational climate and student achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal view. Journal of School Leadership, 8(4), 336-359.
29.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. W. (1996). Educational administration: Theory into practice (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
31.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open school, healthy school: Making schools work. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
32.
Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.
33.
Johnson, J., Dupuis, V., Musial, D., & Hall, G. (1994). Introduction to the foundations of American education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
34.
Killion, J., & Hirsh, S. (1998). A crack in the middle. Education Week, pp. 44-48.
35.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66(3), 164-187.
36.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37.
Lipsitz, J., Mizell, M. H., Jackson, A., & Austin, L. M. (1997). Speaking with one voice: A manifesto for middle-grades reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 533-540.
38.
Miles, M. B. (1969). Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground. In F. D. Carver & T. J. Sergiovanni (Eds.), Organizations and human behavior (pp. 375-391). New York: McGraw-Hill.
39.
McEwin, C. K., & Alexander, W. M. (1990). What is the place of the middle grades in the k-8 school?Middle School Journal, 22(1), 5-11.
40.
McNeal, R. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117-144.
41.
McPartland, J., Balfanze, R., Jordon, W., & Legters, N. (1998). Improving climate and achievement in troubled urban high schools through the talent development model. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3(4), 337-361.
42.
National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author.
43.
National Middle School Association. (1992). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author.
44.
National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author.
45.
National Middle School Association. (2001). NMSA Research Summary #12: Academic achievement. Retrieved February 5, 2004, from http://www.nmsa.org
46.
Offenberg, R. M. (2001). The efficacy of Philadelphia’s k-to-8 schools compared to middle grades schools. Middle School Journal, 32(4), 23-29.
47.
Parsons, T. (1958). Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organization. In A. Halpin (Ed.), Administrative theory in education (pp. 40-72). Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago.
48.
Parsons, T., Bales, R. F., & Shils, E. A. (1953). Working papers in the theory of action. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
49.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-453.
50.
Report Card on the Schools. (2000, September 24). The Philadelphia Inquirer, pp. Q14-Q15.
51.
Roney, K., Anfara, V., & Brown, K. (2001, November). The middle school movement and high student achievement: An oxymoron? Paper presented at the 28th annual conference of the National Middle School Association, Washington, DC.
52.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
53.
Russell, J. F. (1997). Relationships between the implementation of middle-level program concepts and student achievement. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(2), 152-168.
54.
Sanders, M. (2001). Schools, families, and communities partnering for middle level students’ success. NASSP Bulletin, 85(627), 53-61.
55.
Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal changes and school context. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
56.
Stedman, L. C. (1987). It’s time we changed the effective school formula. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 214-224.
57.
Stephens, J. C., Jr. (1988). The impact of school grade organization on pupil performance. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1988). Dissertations Abstract International,49, 2332A.
58.
Stephens, J. C., Jr., & Jenkins, S. J. (1994). Affective middle grades program elements and criterion based achievement in Georgia schools. Reading Improvement, 31(2), 66-71.
59.
Stevenson, C., & Erb, T. O. (1998). How implementing Turning Points improves student outcomes. Middle School Journal, 30(1), 49-52.
60.
Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. W. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept (pp. 1-32). Boston: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.
61.
Van Zandt, L. M., & Totten, S. (1995). The current status of middle level education research: A critical review. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 18(3), 1-25.
62.
Vassallo, P. (1990). Muddle in the middle: Are middle schools the right choice for the wrong reason?The American School Board Journal, 177(9), 26-27, 37.
63.
Williamson, R. D., Johnston, J. H., & Kanthak, L. M. (1995). The agenda: The achievement agenda for middle level schools. Schools in the Middle, 5(2), 6-9.
