The purpose of this study was to determine the level of implementing a middle school concept in three private Christian schools. Each of the schools of this study have implemented middle school programs to meet the unique developmental needs of
adolescents, and to this point no formal evaluation had taken place to determine the level of fidelity with the essential characteristics of the middle school concept. The schools that implement the characteristics of effective adolescent education, including team teaching, common planning time, and adolescent-appropriate classroom instruction have demonstrated higher student achievement and improvements in achievement scores over time (Flowers et al., 2003). In addition to measuring middle school concept
implementation, this study had a secondary purpose of measuring cognitive student engagement and GLS levels. Research demonstrates that higher levels of implementing a middle school concept should be accompanied by higher self-appraisal of the school and life experiences of adolescents as the linking of life satisfaction with cognitive
engagement gives increasing strength to the middle school concept (Lewis et al., 2011). The middle school movement remains unequalled as the most powerful factor for improving the performance of young adolescents (Erb, 2006), and these academic and behavioral improvements should correlate with optimal mental health of middle school students (Gilman & Huebner, 2003). The findings were organized by evaluation questions as applied to each school individually.
Findings
Evaluation Question 1. What were the perceptions related to adolescent needs that led to the establishment of a distinct middle school program? In collecting
demographic information and researching the history of each middle school, the Head of School was asked how many years their school had been operating a middle school program and the reasons for creating separate programming for adolescents. Additionally, each administrator was asked if this was created independently by the administration or mandated by a school board or other governing bodies that existed at the time of establishing a distinct middle school program. In response to these questions, the administration of each school claimed to be unaware of any records related to the original perceptions of adolescent needs or intentions of previous administrators and/or governing bodies in developing a distinct middle school program. Each school has had a middle school program in existence for multiple decades and was created either as a decision of administration due to the popularity and widespread acceptance of the middle school concept at that time, as advocated by parent groups in each school, or as a result of merging preexisting schools.
Administrators of all three schools responded that due to multiple changes to school leadership and a lack of maintaining written records, the justification for implementing original middle school programming has not been found. Each school lacked a comprehensive record of the changes to middle school practices and the justification for the adoption of a middle school program. As an example, one administrator responded, “I have gone back through the records and I cannot find this information . . . I could not find anything about when the ‘middle school’ came distinct.” Previous middle school programming was described by school leaders and faculty to be disconnected from current practices that result from the need to continually adapt to the unique needs of adolescents from one year to the next. Apart from accreditation self- study requirements, the following study was the first formal program evaluation specific
to middle school practices conducted in any of the three schools, or as described by an administrator, “If there were squeaky wheels, that would get some grease, but for the most part just maintain status quo . . . now it’s middle school’s turn to do some self- reflection.”
Evaluation Question 2. What opportunities were afforded teachers to receive training in the process of implementing components of the middle school program? To collect qualitative data in answer to Evaluation Questions 2 and 3, middle school administration, faculty, and support personnel (academic services and guidance
counseling) consenting to participate were interviewed individually according to faculty and administrative interview protocols (Appendices F and G). As it relates to Evaluation Question 2, faculty and administration were asked, “Has sufficient opportunity been provided to teachers to receive training in implementing the essential components of the middle school program? (Provide an example.)” Additionally administrators were asked, “Who has input into the topics, planning and delivery of professional development in your middle school? (Provide an example.)” A summary of administration and faculty perceptions of professional development/training is shown in Table 6. Characteristic responses for Table 6 were selected due to their repetition and development of themes confirmed by data collected from administration and faculty surveys of middle school practices. The perceptions of faculty and administration of each school in receiving specific professional development or training in the use of technology and 21st century learning are presented under Evaluation Question 4 as these data were collected as part of the National Middle School Survey.
Table 6
Characteristic Responses of Administration and Faculty for Training/Professional Development in Implementing Components of the Middle School Program
Administration Faculty
School A Faculty meetings are for the purpose of professional development.
More than in the past, now more intentional.
Total involvement and gathering collective input.
Principal demonstrating new teaching techniques.
Dramatic change from previous years.
Consistently suggesting resources and teaching strategies.
School B Currently focused on technology implementation.
A lot of time focused on mission and Biblical integration.
Teacher surveys to identify important issues.
On and off, spotty at times. Training only using webinars, none for several years.
Not geared specifically for middle school.
School C Teachers learning about middle school programming by having two teachers with extensive experience. Professional development
improvement a major
recommendation of accreditation. Teachers would say that the
principal wants our help and values our opinion.
Is stressed depending upon which administrator.
Training not a necessity.
Will be done more in the future.
School A. Seventeen faculty members and four administrators of the middle school program were interviewed at School A. Faculty members overwhelmingly agreed that opportunities have been afforded teachers to receive training in implementing
components of a middle school program. Middle school faculty repeatedly stated that there has been a significant change in the past year with the addition of new
ways. For example, according to teachers, the administration used weekly meetings for the purpose of demonstrating various teaching techniques and bringing their attention to various topics in adolescent literature and research, or as described by a faculty member,
Our principal right now is doing a really good job of helping us learn ways to teach in the classroom and the way he does that is he runs his faculty meetings that way . . . demonstrating something he wants us to know . . . something you can use in the classroom.
Another faculty member stated that administration “does a great job of giving us what we need, the tools and the toolbox . . . to be effective at what we do.” The middle school administration has developed a system of individual workgroups covering various aspects of best practices in adolescent education to initiate overall program improvement by each work group presenting their findings to the whole faculty to facilitate self-refection and further discussion. Although various teachers stated they were hired already possessing a certain skill set and do not consider the training to have significantly influenced their own instructional strategies, faculty were nearly unanimous in agreeing that ideas and
discussion concerning implementation of program components consistently occurred across middle school faculty, grade level, and subject team meetings but could be improved with more individualized training as a follow-up to initial training sessions. The administration, according to faculty, embraces and pursues the role of instructional leaders and additionally provides sufficient training by exposing the faculty to resources assisting in the implementation of middle school program components.
Individual interviews of administrators of School A revealed a consensus that weekly meetings have the primary purpose of professional development and training in implementing middle school practices more effectively. The faculty is encouraged to
pursue individual interests for the benefit of the whole group, and administration admitted to being intentional in empowering teachers to share knowledge of best
practices between one another, looking to the skills and experience of faculty as a major resource in providing necessary training and program improvement. Throughout the interviews there was a stated need and desire to continually improve and take advantage of more opportunities for professional development in the years to come, and
administration detailed anticipated improvements based on the gathering and evaluation of ideas and data throughout the past school year.
When specifically asked who has input into the topics, planning, and delivery of professional development, administrators of School A responded that there is a collective input in identifying topics and accommodating teacher interests before decisions are made administratively. As stated by an administrator in describing the middle school principal, “Done a great job of expanding the sphere . . . gets the teachers feeling like yeah, my input is valid.” As described by administration, input is gathered mainly through use of faculty surveys and observations before moving in a more unified direction but remaining flexible to introduce additional training if the need arises.
School B. Fifteen middle school faculty members and two administrators were interviewed at School B. From faculty interviews, it was repeatedly stated that training was not consistent nor was it always applicable to the specific needs of adolescents. As stated by a faculty member on having received training in implementing a middle school concept, “Not really, that’s probably one thing where it’s kind of been a struggle here.” There was agreement among faculty that training did take place throughout the year, but it was sporadic and had been singularly focused over the past year on implementing new technology into classroom practices, predominantly being limited to whole group
webinars that insufficiently addressed individual needs. Training was described by faculty as being varied and more used at the beginning of the year in standardizing the practice of middle school policy and communicating general expectations of
administration.
A significant number of teachers described the process of training as being initiated more by teachers and occurring in less formalized ways among grade-level teams due to a strong sense of community among grade-level teams and the ability to implement components of a middle school program and meet the unique needs of adolescents independent of administration. A faculty member described the
independence of grade-level teams by stating, “We are a tightknit group, we work very well together . . . it’s not faculty and administration, it’s faculty.” In addition to
technology training, teachers stated that the administration was responsive to the needs of faculty if a particular policy or practice needed to be addressed with additional training, yet faculty commonly stated that most needs were addressed within grade-level teams before seeking support from administration and that professional development or training is minimal. As stated by another faculty member, “Middle school specific, I don’t know that we have really had anything directed toward us professionally.”
The administration of School B described training of faculty in implementing middle school program components as having had strengths and weaknesses from year- to-year and the current weakness is an overemphasis on technology implementation, but administration anticipates focusing on instructional strategies and classroom management in the coming year. As stated by an administrator, “There’s years where we’re focused primarily on certain things and other things just kind of get done when they get done.” Administrators stated that there was designated professional development that was
scheduled monthly along with training that takes place at the beginning of the year during teacher in-service days.
For School B, the identifying of professional development topics was described by administration as a cooperative process between the administrative team in setting a schedule before the school year begins and dividing faculty into designated work groups between middle and high school to focus on appropriate topics for each department. It was repeated by administrators of School B that teacher input was highly valued in addressing topics relevant to faculty needs through the use of teacher surveys and
standardized testing results. The primary focus of professional development according to each administrator was to reinforce the larger mission of the school and improve upon Biblical integration across all levels and departments. As stated by an administrator, “I think our teachers understand, I mean definitely we spend a lot of time talking about mission . . . keeping everything focused on Scripture and on preparing students.”
School C. Nine middle school faculty members and one administrator were interviewed at School C. Faculty interviews revealed little to no training in implementing components of a middle school program, apart from training in school management software occupying what time was set aside for professional development. As described by a faculty member, “At this point I would say no . . . it’s something we’re looking to do more of. I mean he’s new, a new principal, so sounds like he’s looking to implement a lot of that stuff.” Teachers agreed that administration supported offering opportunities for further training if so desired by any faculty, yet teachers stated that training in middle school components was only necessary as it related to their particular subject.
Additionally, teachers unanimously stated that the amount of training has fluctuated with various administrators over the past several years.
Apart from training in technology, training for Biblical integration was also stated as a significant part of any training received, but a common theme was that training in implementing middle school components was not as significant as the experience of having taught at the middle level due to the difficulty of meeting an extremely broad range of adolescent needs. As stated by another faculty member, “It’s more or less a learn from experience kind of thing . . . there’s just no way a classroom or any type of training can get you ready for the age group . . . definitely no.” Training was limited, according to teachers interviewed, to specific subject area needs with the possibility of being expanded in the future.
The administration for School C stated that due to financial constraints,
professional development has been hampered and would be the major recommendation to emerge from accreditation self-studies over the past school year. As stated by the
administrator, “On a range of one to ten, ten being effective, excellent and one being non- existent were about a four.” Concerning the impact of limited finances, this same
administrator stated, “Professional development took a huge hit.” To supplement the lack of training specific to implementing a middle school concept, the administration had designated teachers with extensive middle-level teaching experience to be a source of expertise to inform and maintain best practices across middle school programming. Opportunity is provided to the faculty at the end of the school year to rate the performance of administration and the overall effectiveness of middle school programming which is jointly reviewed by the administration and School Board to identify needed areas of professional development and general program improvement. As described by administration, the main source of training relative to meeting the unique needs of adolescents happened in faculty meetings which allowed for reinforcement of
best practices and consistent implementation of school policies but lacked formalized training specific to the essential characteristics of adolescent education apart from school- wide technology implementation.
Evaluation Question 3. What opportunities were afforded teachers to have questions or concerns addressed during training and implementation of a middle school concept? Middle school faculty members were asked in individual interviews, “Did the teachers in your building have ample opportunity to have questions or concerns addressed during training and implementation of middle school program components? (Provide an example.)” Related to this, faculty members were also asked, “Would you consider the culture of your middle school one of collaboration, where the input of faculty members are solicited and valued? (Provide an example.)” Both interview questions attempted to gather qualitative data of teacher perceptions of mainly administrative efforts to elicit faculty input but also elicited perceptions on collaboration among faculty. In summary, Table 7 shows characteristic responses of faculty who were selected due to their
repetition and development of themes confirmed by data collected from administration and faculty surveys of middle school practices.
Table 7
Characteristic Responses of Faculty for Opportunity to Have Questions or Concerns Addressed and Culture of Collaboration
Faculty
School A Questions or concerns addressed quickly. My opinion matters here and is respected.
Administration wanting a conversation to discuss possible direction of program.
School B Hard to get a direct answer for middle school as there is no middle school principal.
Most collaboration is self-initiated, not necessarily solicited by administration.
Faculty concerns need a liaison to take to administrative level as decisions don’t reflect teacher input all the time.
School C Very close faculty to allow concerns to be addressed and good follow-up by administration.
Intention is there and is done informally, but needs to become a formalized practice.
Easy to collaborate in small school environment.
School A. The faculty of School A overwhelmingly agreed that questions and concerns are directly addressed and that specific time was set aside for this purpose during weekly faculty meetings. Generally faculty members were able to articulate a formal process of eliciting questions or concerns at both administrative and grade team levels and readily provided examples of each. With several teachers having indicated a need to expand opportunities to have specific questions or concerns addressed on an individual level, especially for teachers outside grade-level teams, the majority of teachers stated an improvement of response time to their concerns and improved
team.
With having new leadership at the start of the school year for the program at School A, a significant portion of teachers stated they perceived a strong, purposeful desire by administration to solicit input and create a stronger culture of collaboration. As stated by a faculty member, “With new leadership most concerns have been addressed . . . we are all working towards a common goal . . . they would all think their questions and concerns are either being or have been addressed.” The faculty stated repeatedly that their input was considered necessary and the collective experience of faculty was
considered by administration as an essential asset in meeting adolescent needs. The strongest evidence of collaboration between administration and faculty, as stated by teachers, was the use of work groups to research and propose improvements in middle school practices. As described by a faculty member when asked if the culture is one of collaboration, “Yes, this year, I would say this year, we have work groups . . . it’s very, very collaborative.” Additionally, faculty members stated that in contrast to previous administrators, current administration has intentionally established a structure that requires collaboration and enables empowerment at a program-wide level which