Although rearranging school organizational features is a popular school reform, little research exists to inform policymakers about how grade spans affect achievement. This article examines how grade spans and the school transitions that students make between fourth and eighth grade shape student performance in eighth grade. The authors estimate the impact of grade span paths on eighth-grade performance, controlling for school and student characteristics and correcting for attrition bias and quality of original school. They find that students moving from K–4 to 5–8 schools or in K–8 schools outperform students on other paths. Results suggest four possible explanations for the findings—the number and timing of school changes, the size of within-school cohorts, and the stability of peer cohorts.
AllensworthE. (2005). Graduation and dropout trends in Chicago: A look at cohorts of students from 1991 through 2004. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p75.pdf.
2.
Alspaugh J. W..Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school and high school.Journal of Educational Research. 1998;92 (1): 20-25
3.
Alspaugh J. W.,Harting R. D..Transition effects of school grade-level organization on student achievement.Journal of Research and Development in Education. 1995;28 (3): 145-149
4.
Bedard K.,Do C..Are middle schools more effective? The impact of school structure on student outcomes.Journal of Human Resources. 2005;40 (3): 660-682
5.
Bowie L..Study raises doubts on K–8: JHU research finds no academic benefit over middle schools, undercuts city’s push.Baltimore Sun. 2007;:
6.
Boyd D.,Grossman P.,Lankford H.,Loeb S.,Wyckoff J..How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement.Education Finance and Policy. 2006;1 (2): 176-216
7.
Byrnes V.,Ruby A..Comparing achievement between K–8 and middle schools: A large-scale empirical study.American Journal of Education. 2007;114:101-135
8.
Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development of the Carnegie Corporation; 1989:
9.
Coladarci T.,Hancock J..Grade span configuration.Journal of Research in Rural Education. 2002;17 (3): 189-192
10.
Cook P. J.,MacCoun R.,Muschkin C.,Vigdor J..The negative impacts of starting middle school in sixth grade.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2008;27 (1): 104-121
11.
DeJong W. S.,Craig J..How should schools be organized?.School Planning and Management. 2002;41 (6): 26-32
12.
Engec N..The relationship between mobility and student performance and behavior.Journal of Educational Research. 2006;99 (3): 167-178
13.
Epstein J. L..What matters in the middle grades: Grade span or practices?.Phi Delta Kappan. 1990;71 (6): 438-444
14.
Gootman E..Taking the middle schoolers out of the middle.New York Times. 2007;:A1
15.
Gootman E..All’s fair in the middle school scramble.New York Times. 2008;:A1
16.
Gruman D. H.,Harachi T. W.,Abbott R. D.,Catalano R. F.,Fleming C. B..Longitudinal effects of student mobility on three dimensions of elementary school engagement.Child Development. 2008;79 (6): 1833-1852
17.
The comprehensive high school today. Hammack F. M., ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2004:
18.
Hanushek E. A.,Kain J. F.,Rivkin S. G..Disruption versus Tiebout improvement: The costs and benefits of switching schools.Journal of Public Economics. 2004;88 (9–10): 1721-1746
19.
Harris D. N..Toward policy-relevant benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes: combining effects with costs.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2009;31 (1): 3-29
20.
Ingersoll G.,Scamman J.,Eckerling W..Geographic mobility and student achievement in an urban setting.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989;11 (2): 143-149
21.
Jellick C..District plans school setup review: Peoria will consider a K–8 configuration.Peoria Journal Star. 2005;:
22.
Jonas M..Junior high.Boston Globe. 2007;:E1
23.
Kerbow D..Patterns of urban school mobility and local school reform.Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. 1996;1 (2): 147-169
24.
Lamarche C..Private school vouchers and student achievement: A fixed effects quantile regression evaluation.Labour Economics. 2008;15 (4): 575-590
25.
Lee V. E.,Smith J. B..Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle grade students.Sociology of Education. 1993;66 (3): 164-187
26.
Mac Iver M. A.,Mac Iver D. J..Which bets paid off? Early findings on the impact of private management and K–8 conversion reforms on the achievement of Philadelphia students.Review of Policy Research. 2006;23 (5): 1077-1093
27.
New York City Department of Education. (2010). Elementary school admissions. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/ChoicesEnrollment/Elementary/default.htm.
28.
Offenberg R. M..The efficacy of Philadelphia’s K-to-8 schools compared to middle grades schools.Middle School Journal. 2001;32 (4): 23-29
Pribesh S.,Downey D..Why are residential and school moves associated with poor school performance?.Demography. 1999;36:521-534
31.
Roderick M.Closing the aspirations–attainment gap: Implications for high school reform. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation; 2006:
32.
Rubenstein R.,Schwartz A. E.,Stiefel L.,Bel Hadj Amor H..From districts to schools: The distribution of resources across schools in big city school districts.Economics of Education Review. 2007;26 (5): 532-545
33.
Rubenstein R.,Schwartz A. E.,Stiefel L.,Zabel J..Spending, size and grade span in K–8 schools.Education Finance and Policy. 2009;4 (1): 60-88
34.
Sable J.,Hoffman L.Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 2002–03. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2005:
35.
Schwartz A. E.,Stiefel L.,Chalico L.The multiple dimensions of student mobility and implications for academic performance: Evidence from New York City elementary and middle school students. Albany Albany: New York State Education Finance Research Consortium; 2007:
36.
Schwartz A. E.,Stiefel L.,Kim D. Y..The impact of school reform on student performance: Evidence from the New York Network for School Renewal Project.Journal of Human Resources. 2004;39 (2): 500-522
37.
Seidman E.,Allen L.,Aber J. L.,Mitchell C.,Feinman J..The impact of school transitions in early adolescence on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth.Child Development. 1994;65:507-525
38.
Simmons R. G.,Blyth D. A.Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change and school context. New York, NY: Gruyter; 1987:
39.
Snyder T. D.,Dillow S. A.,Hoffman C. M.Digest of education statistics 2008. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2009:
40.
Stiefel L.,Rubenstein R.,Schwartz A. E..From districts to schools: The distribution of resources across schools in big city school districts.
Proceedings from the Symposium on Education Finance and Organizational Structure in NYS Schools; 2004Albany, NY: Education Finance Research Consortium; 2004. .
41.
Stiefel L.,Schwartz A. E.,Ellen I. G..Disentangling the racial test score gap: Probing the evidence in a large urban school district.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2007;26 (1): 7-30
42.
Wampler R. S.,Munsch J.,Adams M..Ethnic differences in grade trajectories during the transition to junior high.Journal of School Psychology. 2002;40 (3): 213-237
43.
Weiss C. C.,Kipnes L..Reexamining middle school effects: A comparison of middle grades students in middle schools and K–8 schools.American Journal of Education. 2006;112 (2): 239-272
44.
Zabel J..The impact of peer effects on student outcomes in New York City public schools.Education Finance and Policy. 2008;3:197-249
