This study investigated four school features that are consistent with the middle school concept to determine which, if any, had the expected positive relationship with affective and cognitive student outcomes. Each of six schools studied had at least one of four program features classified as consistent with the middle school movement. For each feature, the analyses compared the average of scores for seventh graders in schools with and without the feature for each outcome, controlling for initial achievement differences. A general trend appeared over these analyses: specific program features consistent with the middle school concept were most often related to lower student performance. Reasons for and implications of these unexpected results are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, W. M.
(1971). How fares the middle school. National Elementary Principal, 51, 8-11.
2.
Arnold, J.
(1982). Rhetoric and reform in middle schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 453-456.
3.
Borg, W. R.
(1966). Ability grouping in public schools (2nd ed.) Madison, WI: Dembar Educational Research Services.
4.
Chumlee, W. C.
(1982). Physical growth in adolescence. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology. (pp. 472-473). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
5.
Coopock, N.
, & Hale, N. (1977). Middle schools. Burlingame, CA: Association of California School Administrators.
6.
Cronbach, L. I.
, & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington/Naiburg.
7.
Doda, N.
(1982). Middle school organization and teacher world view. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
8.
Educational Research Service, Inc.
(1977). Summary of research on middle schools. Arlington, VA: Author.
9.
Eichorn, D. H.
(1980). The school. In M. Johnson (Ed.), Toward adolescence: The middle school years. Seventy-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Evertson, C. M.
, Anderson, C. W., Anderson, L. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1980). Relationships between classroom behaviors and student outcomes in junior high mathematics and English classes. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 43-60.
11.
Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. (1982). A catalog of Bay Area junior high/middle/intermediate schools. Unpublished document.
12.
Fullan, M.
, & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47, 335-397.
13.
Hansen, J. H.
, & Hearn, A. C. (1971). The middle school program. Chicago: Rand McNally.
14.
Harter, S.
(1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook of child psychology (Vol. IV, 4th ed.). New York: John Wiley.
15.
Klingele, W. E.
(1979). Teaching in middle school. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
Lipsitz, J.
(1977). Growing up forgotten. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
17.
Lipsitz, J.
(1980). The age group. In M. Johnson (Ed.), The National Society for the Study of Education 1980 yearbook. Chicago: NSSE.
18.
Lounsbury, J. H.
, & Mariani, J. V. (1964). The junior high we saw: One day in the eighth grade. Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19.
Lounsbury, J. H.
, Mariani, J. V., & Compton, M. F. (1980). The middle school in profile: A day in the seventh grade. Fairborn, OH: National Middle School Association.
Mergendeller, J. R.
, & Mitman, A. L. (1985). The relationship of middle school program features, instructional strategy, instructional performance, and student engagement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5.
22.
Meyer, J. W.
, & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. W. Meyer & Associates (Eds.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78-109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Moss, T. C.
(1971). Characteristics of a good middle school. NASSP Bulletin, 55, 71-74.
24.
National Education Association, Research Division
. (1968). Ability grouping (Research Summary S3). Washington, D. C.: Author.
25.
Niemark, E. D.
(1982). Adolescent thought: Transition to formal operations. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of Developmental Psychology (pp. 497-498). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
26.
Osaki, S. Y
(1983). Summary of teacher perceptions in the Program Variation Study. Unpublished report, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
27.
Porteus, A.
, & Collins, J. (1981). Motivation Survey. Unpublished instrument.
28.
Power, C.
, & Cotterell, J. (1979). Students in transition. (Tech. Rep.). Flinders University of South Australia.
29.
Rosenbaum, J. E.
(1978). The structure of opportunity in school. Social Forces, 57, 236-256.
30.
Rosenbaum, J. E.
(1980). Social implications of educational grouping. In D. Berliner (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 8. Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association.
31.
Ward, B. A.
, Mergendeller, J. R., & Mitman, A. L. (1982, May). The years between elementary school and high school: What schooling experiences do students have? Invited paper prepared for National Commission on Excellence in Education. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
