Background paper prepared for the Results-Based Staff Development for the Middle Grades Initiative
National Staff Development Council
December 1997
A TROUBLING CRACK
By many measures, the nation's public schools are cracked in the middle. Education reforms over the last 15 years have more often than not focused on students at the start of their academic life or near the end of high school. Smaller class sizes in the kindergarten through fourth grade give the youngest children closer attention from their teachers, and President Clinton has most recently pushed universal literacy by the end of third grade. Most states raised the course load high school students must take, and exit examinations required to earn diplomas give older students and their teachers clear expectations to meet.
Left largely unattended are middle grade students, just as they are reaching a vulnerable and confusing crossroads. Young adolescents feel the tug of physical growth, emotions, social development, and academic needs. Nearly a decade ago, the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development called the years from age 10 to 15 "the last, best chance" to ensure young people reach a fruitful adulthood. Early adolescence offers opportunities to choose a path toward a productive and fulfilling life.
The wrong choices, or the absence of the right opportunities and support, mean a greatly diminished future.
Statistics show us that the nation has yet to heed fully the Carnegie Council's warning. Nationally, middle grade students tend to do less well than they did in elementary school. Inequities between high-achieving and low-achieving students deepen during the middle grades. The dropout rates of urban students climb steeply once they leave middle school.
The mortar that can fill American education's crack in the middle are competent and caring teachers who understand the needs of young adolescents, who establish a safe nurturing learning environment, and who demand a high level of learning and performance through their own strong content knowledge. The challenges of educating early adolescents requires caring, knowledgeable teachers who will balance standards of academic excellence with the demand for a supportive surroundings. Schools which set high expectations, establish a coherent curriculum, encourage teachers to design lessons collaboratively, use innovative instructional strategies involving heterogeneous groups, and engage students in peer-assisted learning are making a difference for early adolescents.
For reasons ranging from collegiate preparation to personal preferences, these teachers are in short supply. The most effective and efficient way to increase their number is through high-quality, comprehensive staff development geared specifically to middle grade instruction. The time is ripe for this improvement - theory and practice are just coming together to produce solid information to reform middle grade education.
With funding from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, the National Staff Development Council has undertaken a two-year study to identify programs that enable teachers and students to achieve high levels of learning. A focus of the initiative is teacher development that immerses teachers in the core academic subjects.
NSDC is working on the initiative with the U.S. Department of Education, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Middle
School Association, and professional groups for English, mathematics, social studies, and science teachers. The council will publish its findings in a "consumer guide" to assist teachers, administrators, policy makers, and others in designing and evaluating staff development efforts.
Middle grade students begin their journey to form life-long habits of mind and body at a time when parents traditionally grow less actively involved in their children's education of middle school students than they were as parents of elementary students. Frequently, students prefer it this way. As students become more independent and have less supervision from parents or guardians, they rely less and less on those influences at home, and more and more on the influences of their peers
These developmental challenges are not new to today's adolescents. Neither are the usual responses from adults. Too often, educators and parents alike believe that middle grade students cannot reach rigorous academic standards while their bodies are growing and changing physically and they are plagued by social and emotional concerns unique to early adolescence. What are new are the risks posed by a failure to reach middle grade students. For example, changes in the global economy have placed increasing pressure on workers to be lifelong learners, and have demanded schools produce well-educated graduates to fend off competitive nations. More than 90 percent of the new jobs being created require at least a high school education, and more than half require a post-secondary degree. That leaves little room for the uneducated in the working world.
At the same time, cultural shifts leave young adolescents confronted by what historically have been late teen behaviors. Middle grade teachers report that their students in the 5th through 8th grades bring problems to school that were more typically experienced by high school students. National surveys indicate that more middle grade students are sexually active and have experimented with or are regular users of illegal substances. In addition, a greater percentage of young adolescents have little support or care from the traditional family, live in poverty, are victims of abuse, have been diagnosed with emotional or learning disabilities, or resort to violence to resolve conflicts.
FALLING BEHIND THE WORLD
Hayes Mizell, director of Programs for Student Achievement at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, describes the pressing needs for better middle grade education this way:
"If all students in the middle are going to achieve at significantly higher levels, they will have to participate in very different and more effective educational experiences than is now the case. . . The majority of sixth, seventh, and eighth graders continue to attend regular public schools. Most of these schools have yet to demonstrate that they can provide the very different and more effective educational experiences that enable all students to perform at higher levels."
A review of recent national and international performance of students in the middle grades reveals the depth of the academic problems and declining performance between fourth and eighth grades:
- Only 29% of the eighth grades participating in the 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) scored at the proficient level in reading.
- The 1996 NAEP for writing shows no significant difference in performance between the average scores for eighth graders and their counterparts in
1984.
- The 1996 NAEP demonstrates that white students outperform Black and Hispanic students in all areas. The magnitude of the gap in science, reading,
and mathematics between Hispanic students and white students is increasing.
- The 1996 National Assessment of Education Progress for science shows no significant difference in the average scores from those attained by
13- year-old in 1970.
- 8th grade students scored below the international average of the 41 countries participating in the 1995 Third International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) despite the fact they spend more time in mathematics and science classes than their international counterparts.
- In sharp contrast, 4th grade students are outperforming their international peers in every one of the 41 TIMSS countries except South Korea. Nine-year-olds
taking the National Assessment of Educational Progress are increasing their performance in science and mathematics.
The TIMSS research also found important differences between the lessons taught in American schools and those taught in other nations. The content taught in an 8th grade mathematics class in the United States is comparable to the content taught in 7th grade classes in other countries. In addition, TIMSS found that the content of U.S. 8th grade mathematics classes is not as challenging as that of other countries, and teachers and students here are forced to cover many more topics in a single year.
MINDING THE CLASSROOM
Unfortunately, the statistics about middle grade teachers can be as troubling as the results their students get. The Carnegie Council reported that many teachers of middle school students dislike their work. Other studies have concluded as well that middle grade teachers are less satisfied than their peers in elementary and high schools.
This disenfranchisement may not be surprising considering few teachers have the specialized preparation to teach in the middle. Since the U. S. middle school movement is relatively new, and three-quarters of all teachers have been on the job for at least 10 years, most middle grade teachers were prepared in college for either for elementary or secondary schools. A 1994 study found that nearly half of the nationÕs middle school teachers had no special training for teaching young adolescents; 60 percent of those surveyed said they had not even had a college student teaching assignment in a middle school. (Scales, 1994)
Few states recognize middle schools in teacher licensure. Most of the teachers surveyed three years ago had elementary teaching certificates, which could make them familiar with few developmental issues affecting 10- to 15-year-olds and less knowledgeable about academic content.
Even those middle school teachers with secondary certification may be teaching outside their field of study. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that nearly one-fourth of all secondary teachers did not minor in college in their main teaching field. This is true for more than 30 percent of math teachers and 17 percent of science teachers. The number of teachers teaching out-of-field classes is significantly higher in lower track classes, high poverty schools, and high minority schools.
BUILDING TEACHERS' KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL
Research has confirmed what we have known all along: The better the teacher, the more successful the student.
For decades the U.S. educational system has tried to improve student achievement through tinkering with "the great machinery of education."
(Darling-Hammond and Ball,1997). New management schemes, curriculum packages, testing policies, centralized initiatives, decentralized initiatives, new
regulations, elimination of regulations, and special programs had little or no effect on student success What matters most are the proximal factors - what occurs each day in every classroom between teacher and student. It is the knowledge, skills, and commitment of those who work most closely with students each day that makes the greatest difference in their achievement.
Several studies have concluded that teacher expertise is the most important factor in determining student achievement. Forty-two percent of the variation in student achievement is explained by teacher qualifications, almost double the next closest factor - the level of parents' education - and other background factors such as poverty and home. Size of school and classes accounted for 10 percent of the variation (Ferguson, 1991; Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine 1996). In a similar study in New York, 90 percent of the difference in student achievement was attributed to teacher qualifications (Armour-Thomas, Clay, Domanico, Bruno, & Allen, 1989).
Content knowledge, understanding of the learning process and child development, and pedagogical skills contribute to teacher effectiveness. Not surprisingly, a 1985 study found that students performed better in classes taught by teachers who had solid preparation in math methods, curriculum and teaching than those taught by teachers teaching out of their license or certification area or who were uncertified or licensed. (Hawk, Coble, and Swanson, 1985) Another study found that science teachers' effectiveness depends on the amount of discipline-specific training included in the pre-employment preparation program and on the quality of the staff development opportunities they experienced later in their careers. (Druva and Anderson, 1983)
Despite this link between content knowledge and teacher effectiveness, most U.S. 8th grade math teachers do not receive as much practical training and daily support as their counterparts in countries such as Japan and Germany, TIMSS found.
Most 8th grade mathematics teachers report familiarity with reform recommendations, yet only a few apply them in their classrooms. These reform recommendations
are applied more consistently in Japan, the third highest ranking country in TIMSS.
The dramatic changes in student population and public demands for school reform and increased student performance on tests create an overwhelming need for renewal of all educators. Coupled with recent research on brain functions and learning at various stages of human development which challenge many assumptions about teaching and learning, these expectations produce a sense of urgency for "the creation of a staff development system that affects student learning" and "requires the coordination of the renewal of individual practitioners, school faculties, the district, and governing agencies." (Sparks, 1995) Middle grade students exhibit a range of physical, intellectual, emotional, and social development unmatched in other grades. To meet these developmental demands, their teachers must engage in staff development that increases their knowledge and skills, challenges their beliefs and assumptions about education, provides support and coaching to develop comfort with new practices, and engages them as active participants in the study and reform of the school culture.
LEARNING WHAT STUDENTS MUST LEARN
Schools and school districts have an obligation to provide a staff development program that engages educators in continuous renewal to ensure that each student receives the best possible education regardless of his or her race, ethnicity, gender, handicapping condition, family circumstance, where he or she lives, level of income, or any other factor. Educators cannot afford to squander the future of middle school students; the students' success rests with educators' ability to learn and work collaboratively.
Teachers who are life-long learners are more likely to adapt to the growing demands and challenges of educating middle grade students. Teachers who continue to extend their content knowledge and instructional strategies are better equipped to accommodate the diverse needs of middle grade learners. Teachers and other staff who collaborate with their peers conducting research, sharing ideas, planning together, and analyzing student work are able to solve the problems they face in educating young adolescents.
Particularly effective for middle grade teachers are content-specific learning experiences designed to extend teachers' content knowledge and instructional strategies. A survey of elementary mathematics teachers suggested "that when teachers have significant opportunities to learn the content that students will learn in ways that seem to enable them to learn more about teaching the material - and when assessments are linked to the students' and teachers' curriculum - teachers' opportunities to learn pay off for their students' learning." (Cohen and Hill, 1997) Generic staff development unrelated to the specific standards for students is less likely to affect
classroom practice or student achievement.
FINDING SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS
The National Staff Development Council sees professional learning experiences directed toward teachers' content knowledge as crucial for middle grade teachers as well. This thrust marks a critical turning point for the design of staff development.
As many middle grade teachers are teaching out of their area of content expertise, and have little specialized preparation for working with early adolescents, their staff development must be tied directly to the content standards and the instructional strategies necessary to support student learning. Teachers need more practical knowledge and skills and more frequent support to increase student results. This wake-up call for more content-specific staff development has as its single goal improving the achievement of every student.
With this research in mind, the national advisory panel to the Results-Based Staff Development for the Middle Grades Initiative established preliminary, working criteria for identifying exemplary staff development programs. They are:
- Results measured in terms of student performance
- Well-defined program
- Content- specific staff development designed to improve teaches' content knowledge and pedagogical skills
- Multiple schools, within or across districts, state, or a regional area take part
TEACHER LEARNING, STUDENT LEARNING
The first factor may be the most difficult to assess. Drawing a connection between staff development and student achievement is a daunting venture. Traditional research designs fall short of demonstrating the relationship between staff development and student learning. Educators must be prepared to devote considerable effort and resources to demonstrating the link between teacher learning and student achievement.
A key to demonstrating the link between staff development and student achievement is change in teacher behavior and attitudes that result. (Hein, 1997) Changes in behavior and attitude must be documented. Evaluators must be able to ask what changes are evident in teachers as a result of the staff development program and how those changes have influenced student learning. This type of research is time consuming and costly - a likely explanation for the virtual absence of data that establishes a relationship between teacher and student learning.
Another benchmark will be teachers' acquisition and use of content knowledge. Teachers who demonstrate a deeper understanding of content will be able to pass on that content more readily.
Beyond research that more definitely connects staff development and student achievement, other obstacles have emerged that hold back efforts to build the capacity of middle grade teachers.
As a discipline, the middle school movement is relatively new. It has succeeded in producing reliable research, but that knowledge is not yet widespread. This allows a fragmentation of effort, with any good idea seeming worthy - even if unsubstantiated by good evaluation.
In addition, emphasis on team teaching and learning and interdisciplinary curriculum have tended to rob instruction of some of its academic rigor.
Finally, the sufficiency of resources allocated to staff development remains in question. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education has found that roughly 1 percent of education spending goes toward staff development. That group recommended tripling that figure, although the private sector average for training is about 7 percent of total budgets.
The National Staff Development Council advocates spending 10 percent of school dollars on staff development and devoting at least 25 percent of each educator's work to learning and collaborating with colleagues.
CALL TO ACT
Adoption of higher academic standards. curriculum reform, improvement is school organization, and increased resources will do little to influence student achievement if the staff working with students is inadequately prepared to face their unique demands. The National Staff Development Council's Standards for Staff Development calls for comprehensive staff development that:
- Incorporates appropriate instructional techniques and learning experiences for teachers and other staff
- Adheres to high content standards
- Provides sufficient time for learning, practicing, rehearsing, as well as time to map implementation and discuss results
Staff development that influences changes in teachers' behaviors, beliefs, and content knowledge:
- Focuses on content consistent with national standards
- Demonstrates pedagogy that reflects current research about teaching and learning
- Incorporates content-specific knowledge which relates to student experiences and environment
- Last long enough to constitute a powerful intervention
- Forms part of a long-term, systemwide effort to improve the performance of teachers, schools, and students. (National Science Foundation, 1995;
National Staff Development Council, 1994; Sparks, 1997)
The early adolescent years shape life-long habits. Improving the achievement of middle grade students remains both an urgent need and an enormous challenge.
Targeting the improvement of teacher learning at the middle grades through content-specific staff development holds promise as an intervention. By extending teachers' content knowledge and content-specific pedagogical strategies, teachers will begin to fill the middle grades crack that now swallows so many students.
REFERENCES
Armour-Thomas, E., Clay, C. Domanico, R., Bruno, K., & Allen, B. (1989). An Outlier Study of Elementary and Middle Schools in New York
City: Final Report. New York: New York City Board of Education
Ashton, P. and Webb, R. (1986). Making a Difference: Teachers' Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Campbell, J. R.. Voelkl, K. E., & Donahue, P. L. (1997). Report in Brief: NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress NCES 97-986. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Campbell, J. R., Voelkl, K. E., & Donahue, P. L. (1997). Report in Brief: NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress: Achievement of U.S. Students
in Science , 1969 - 1996 Mathematics, 1973 - 1996 Reading 1971 - 1996 Writing 1984 -1996. NCES 97-985 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. Turning Points: Preparing Youth for the 21st Century. (1989). New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Carr, J.F. (1989). By Chance and Connection, There by Choice: Teachers Who Like to Teach in the Middle Grades. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Burlington, VE: University of Vermont.
Cohen, D. K. & Hill, H. (1997, March) Teaching and Learning Mathematics in California. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Darling- Hammond, L. and Ball, D. (1997). Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need to Know and Be Able to Do. Paper prepared for
the National Education Goals Panel. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education.
Druva, C. and Anderson, R. (May 1983). Science Teacher Characteristics by Teacher Behavior and Student Outcome: A Meta- analysis of Research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 467- 479.
Ferguson, R. (Summer, 1991). Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters. Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28, 465-
98.
Greenwalt, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. (Fall 1996). The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement. Review of Educational Research,
66, 361- 396.
George, P., Stevenson, C., Thomason, J., and Beane, J. (1992). The Middle School--and Beyond. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill
Hawk, P. Coble, C. & Swanson, M. (1985). Certification: Does It Matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 13- 15.
Hein, G. (1997). The Logic of Program Evaluation: What Should We Evaluate in Teacher Enhancement Projects? in Susan N. Friel and George
W. Bright, Reflecting on Our Work: NSF Teacher Enhancement Programs in K-6 Mathematics. Lantham, MD. University Press of America.
Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1995). Student Achievement through Staff Development: Fundamentals of School Reform, 2nd edition. White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Lewis, A. C. (1995). Believing in Ourselves. New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.
Lipsitz, J. (1984). Successful Schools for Young Adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Mizell, H. (November 5, 1992). The Achieving Middle School. Remarks made at Clark Day Conference in San Antonio, Texas
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). The Condition of Education 1997. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education.
National Education Association. (September 1997). The Bottom Line. NEA Today,16, 2, p. 8. Washington, D.C., National Education Association.
National Science Foundation. (1995). Teacher Retraining: Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee fro the National Science Foundation
(Senate Report No. 103-97). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Staff Development Council. (1994). Standards for Staff Development: Middle Level Edition. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Scales, Peter. (1994). Growing Pains: The Making of America's Middle School Teachers.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Sparks, D. (1997, September). What's in a Name?. Results. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Eighth Grade Mathematics
and Science Teaching, Learning, Curriculum, and Achievement in International Context. NCES 97-198. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offices.
For more information about the Results-Based Staff Development for the Middle Grades Initiative, or to nominate a program, contact:
Joellen Killion
NSDC Director of Special Projects
10931 West 71st Place
Arvada, CO 80004-1337
(303) 432-0958
(303) 432-0959 (fax)
joellen.killion@nsdc.org
