Middle schools often struggle to provide students with the necessary academic rigor to promote academic growth. Many students experience academic stagnation when schools fail to provide appropriate academic services. Dani Tinkel’s article examines how the limited priorities of middle school inadvertently promote disengagement and underachievement and what schools can do to ensure that all middle school students have opportunities to be cognitively challenged, including through programs like Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), by providing a vision for a balanced middle school experience.
Adams-ByersJ.WhitsellS.S.MoonS.M. (2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly
, 48 (1), 7–20.
2.
AnfaraV.A.WaksL. (2000). Part I: Resolving the tension between academic rigor and developmental appropriateness. Middle School Journal
, 32 (2), 46–51.
3.
BishopP.A.HarrisonL. (2020). The successful middle school: This We Believe (5th ed.). Association for Middle Level Education.
4.
BlazerC. (2008). Middle grades reform. Literature review. Research Services, Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
5.
BrigandiC.B.WeinerJ.M.SiegleD.GubbinsE.J.LittleC.A. (2018). Environmental perceptions of gifted secondary school students engaged in an evidence-based enrichment practice. Gifted Child Quarterly
, 62 (3), 289–305.
6.
BuehlerC.FletcherA.C.JohnstonC.WeymouthB.B. (2015). Perceptions of school experiences during the first semester of middle school. School Community Journal
, 25 (2), 55–83.
7.
BurrisC.WelnerK.MurphyJ. (2008). Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students. Teachers College Record
, 110 (3), 571–606.
8.
CookC.M.FaulknerS.A.HowellP.B. (2016). The developmentally responsive middle school: Meeting the needs of all students, Middle School Journal
, 47 (5), 3–13.
9.
EllerbrockC.R.KieferS.M. (2013). The interplay between adolescent needs and secondary school structures: Fostering developmentally responsive middle and high school environments across the transition. The High School Journal
, 96 (3), 170–194.
10.
FirmenderJ.M.ReisS.M.SweenyS.M. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly
, 57 (1), 3–14.
11.
GentryM.RizzaM.G.OwenS.V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted students and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly
, 46 (2), 145–155.
12.
GeorgeP.StevensonC.ThomasonJ.BeaneJ. (1992). The middle school and beyond. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
13.
HuertaJ.J.WattK.M.ButcherJ.T. (2013). Examining Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) and its impact on middle school rigor and student preparedness. American Secondary Education
, 41 (2), 24–37.
14.
LipsitzJ.MizellM.H. (1997). Speaking with one voice: A manifesto for middle-grades reform. Phi Delta Kappan
, 78 (7), 533–540.
15.
LittleC.A. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools
, 49 (7), 695–705.
16.
LovelessT. (2009). Tracking and detracking: High achievers in Massachusetts middle schools. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
17.
MarzanoR.J.TothM.D. (2014). Teaching for rigor: A call for a critical instruction shift. Learning Sciences Marzano Center.
18.
McCallR.B.EvahnC.KratzerL. (1992). High school underachievers: What do they achieve as adults?Sage Publications, Inc.
19.
MoonT.TomlinsonC.A.CallahanC.M. (1995). Academic diversity in middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
20.
National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Author.
21.
PetersonJ.S. (2002). A longitudinal study of post-high-school development in gifted individuals at risk for poor educational outcomes. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education
, 14 (1), 6–18.
22.
PluckerJ.HardestyJ.BurroughsN. (2013). Talent on the sidelines: Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass. Center for Education Policy Analysis at the Neag School of Education.
23.
RenzulliJ.S.ReisS.M. (2021). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development. Routledge.
24.
RyanR.M.DeciE.L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61.
25.
SayeJStoddardJ.GerwinD.LibrescoA.MaddoxL. (2018). Authentic pedagogy: examining intellectual challenge in social studies classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies
, 50 (6), 1–20.
26.
SmedsrudJ. (2018). Mathematically gifted accelerated students participating in an ability group: A qualitative interview study. Frontiers in Psychology
, 9, 1359.
27.
SmitR.HumpertW. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and Teacher Education
, 28 (8).
28.
SnyderK.E.GarciaL.L. (2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement. Educational Psychologist
, 48 (4), 209–288.
29.
StandingK.LewisL. (2021). Pre-COVID ability grouping in U.S. public school classrooms. Institute of Education Sciences.
30.
SztabnikB. (2015, May7). A new definition of rigor. Edutopia.
31.
WhippleK.A. (2012). Differentiated instruction: A survey study of teacher understanding and implementation in a southeast Massachusetts school district [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northeastern University.
32.
WilliamsonR.JohnstonJ.H. (1999). Challenging orthodoxy: An emerging agenda for middle level reform. Middle School Journal
, 30 (4), 10–17.
