CIMLE Current Issues in Middle Level Education (2013) 18 (2), 14-20 In the Middle: Do We Share the Vision? Do Principals and Teachers Agree about the Middle School Concept? Cherry Watts, Ph.D. University of Tennessee at Martin Allen H. Seed, Ph.D. Retired from University of Miami Louis A. Franceschini III, Ph.D. University of Memphis In 2009, the Tennessee Professors of Middle Level Education (TPOMLE) examined how Tennessee schools implemented the middle school concept. Of concern was the impact that emphasis on accountability and achievement had on the middle school concept which emphasizes the development of the whole child. A survey was developed based on the tenets of middle level reform presented by George and Anderson (1989). The survey was then distributed to all Tennessee schools which contained middle level grades. The intent of the survey was to determine the degree to which the principles and tenets of the middle school concept were considered important and implemented in Tennessee schools. The results indicated that middle level educators considered the principles of the middle school concept to be important and that most felt that their school implemented these principles. The researchers then examined if teachers and administrators agreed or disagreed on the importance and implementation of the middle school concept. This study addressed the extent to which the stakeholders in Association of Middle Schools (TAMS) examined how Tennes- middle level education agree with the importance of the middle see schools implemented the middle school concept. Of con- school philosophy and support its precepts in schools. This We cern was the impact that emphasis on high academic achieve- Believe, the mission statement of the Association of Middle Level ment from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation had on the Education, articulates 16 characteristics and four essential attrib- middle school concept which emphasizes the development of the utes as the vision for successful middle level schools (see Table whole child (Watts & Seed, 2010). It was hypothesized that 1). Without a clear vision of educational pathways, teachers lose “many middle level administrators and teachers feel pressured to direction and students do not achieve (DuBois, 2012). The key focus on improving test scores rather than on integrating curric- to implementing this vision is the principal of the middle school. ula, developing strong teams, or providing for the emotional and Principals, as leaders of schools, provide the leadership in physical well-being of their students” (Watts & Seed, 2010, middle level education. Research on middle level schools sup- p.61). By using The Exemplary Middle School (2003) as a guide, a ported the importance of the shared vision of the organization survey was developed based on the tenets of middle level reform and role of middle level education (George & Anderson, 1989). presented by George and Alexander (Watts & Seed, 2010). The Foundational to promoting this shared vision is school leadership middle school concept was defined using 17 themes cited by which promotes middle level organization, keeps the school fo- George and Alexander. These characteristics were compared to cused on instructional and learning improvement, and promotes the position statement from the Association of Middle Level collaboration among educators (Epstein & Mayers, 2002). The Educators, This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents role of the principal is essential to the success of middle level (2010). schools. It is important to have all stakeholders with eyes on the This survey distributed to all Tennessee schools which con- same vision. tained middle level grades. The initial intent of the survey was In the summer of 2009, the Tennessee Professors of Middle to determine the degree to which the principles of the middle Level Education (TPOMLE) in collaboration with the Tennessee school concept were considered important to middle level educa- Current Issues in Middle Level Education (2013) 18 (2), 14-20 14 tors (Watts & Seed, 2010). The second area of interest was the the principles of the middle school concept to be important; the “degree to which those concepts are implemented into the re- second set of results indicated that these middle level educators spondents’ school settings” (Watts & Seed, 2010, p. 62). The felt that their school implemented these principles (Watts & Seed, results generally indicated that middle level educators considered 2010). Table 1 Characteristics Compared Exemplary Middle School Characteristics This We Believe Characteristics (2010, p. 2-3) Curricular Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Characteristics  Curricula that integrate multiple academic disciplines  Educators value young adolescents and are prepared to teach  Articulation of middle level curricula with high school them. curricula/expectations  Students and teachers are engaged in active, purposeful learn-  Exploratory/encore courses in the arts, athletics, or ing. careers  Curriculum is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant.  Emphasis on students’ social and emotional growth  Educators use multiple learning and teaching approaches.  Concern for students’ health, wellness, and safety  Varied and ongoing assessments advance learning as well as  Shared responsibility for students’ literacy and numera- measure it. cy skills Leadership and Organization Characteristics  A shared vision developed by all stakeholders guides every deci- Instructing and Advising sion.  Teachers specifically interested/trained in working with  Leaders are committed to and knowledgeable about this age young adolescents group, educational research, and best practices.  Professional development explicitly focused on the  Leaders demonstrate courage and collaboration. middle school  Ongoing professional development reflects best educational  Interdisciplinary teams of teachers having common practices. planning time  Organizational structures foster purposeful learning and mean-  One or more guidance counselors working intensively ingful relationships. with students   Assessment that makes use of “real world” tasks Culture and Community Characteristics  Flexible scheduling that may span the school day/  The school environment is inviting, safe, inclusive, and support- week/year ive of all.  Heterogeneous and/or multiage student grouping ar-  Every student’s academic and personal development is guided rangements by an adult advocate.  Comprehensive guidance and support services meet the needs Governance of young adolescents.  Participatory and inclusive decision making processes  Health and wellness are supported in curricula, school-wide  Parental involvement in student learning programs, and related policies.  Parental/Community involvement in school govern-  The school actively involves families in the education of their ance children.  The school includes community and business partners. The survey was distributed to middle level teachers and admin- tion…” (p. 17). They also asserted that effective principals estab- istrators throughout the state of Tennessee. The researchers also lish “a collaborative climate in which teachers and students share wanted to determine the extent to which teachers and administra- the responsibility for determining the appropriate use of time and tors responding to the survey agreed or disagreed on the im- facilities” (p.17). portance of the middle school concept and the extent to which Recent research confirms the importance of the principal’s role those concepts are implemented in the respondents’ school. in middle level education. The role of the administrator of middle level schools is ex- Walker and Slear (2011) reported a positive relationship tremely important. As stated by Kellough and Kellough (2003), “between high levels of teacher efficacy and increased student “The effective middle level school principal is well aware of the importance and ramifications, and is a proponent of, the key achievement as well as a positive link between principal behavior components of exemplary middle level school organiza- and teacher efficacy” (p.46). They go on to assert: Current Issues in Middle Level Education (2013) 18 (2), 14-20 15 Strong principals contribute to the success of their schools, ers demonstrate courage and collaboration. Ongoing profes- in large part, through their instructional expertise, their man- sional development reflects best educational practices. Organi- agement skills, and their interpersonal skills (Ebmeier, 2003; zational structures foster purposeful learning and meaningful Hallinger, Biecman, & Davis, 1996; Holland, 2004). Principal relationships (NMSA, 2003). leadership characteristics, such as an ability to encourage feel- From these statements, it is apparent that the role of the princi- ings of effectiveness and confidence on the part of the faculty pal in middle level leadership is important. Shared vision is artic- are essential in order to maximize teacher impact on the ulated by the leader of the school; professional development is achievement of students (Barnett & McCormick, 2004, p.46). planned by the leader; the structures of the organization are The relationship between the behaviors of principals and mid- planned by the principal. Team assignments, advising, and com- dle level learning communities has been examined in multiple mon planning time are organizational structures which the princi- studies (Keys, 2010; Lovell, 2009; Frias 2010). The studies gen- pal arranges. In order to implement middle level concepts, lead- erally indicate the importance of the role of the principal in pro- ership is essential. In order to share the vision of the middle level moting teacher efficacy and student achievement. Walker and concept, principals need to articulate the vision to stakeholders, Slear (2011) identified 11 characteristics found to be important in be knowledgeable, demonstrate collaboration, and organize the improving teacher efficacy: communication, consideration, disci- structures to implement the concepts. pline, empowering staff, flexibility, influence with supervisors, This study is a further examination of the responses of inspiring group purpose, modeling instructional expectations, principals in relation to the middle level concept and the monitoring and evaluating instruction, providing contingent re- degree to which it is implemented. Knowing the extent of wards, and situational awareness. In order to implement the mid- the commitment of principals to the concept in relation to dle school concept as identified by George and Alexander (1989) the teachers’ commitment gives some indication of the and articulated by the Association of Middle Level Educators, health of the concept in middle level schools in Tennes- many of these same characteristics are important. Support by the see. leadership of the school is essential for the implementation of a The following questions guide this research, while the the middle school concept; leadership is also important in pro- tables display survey results: moting the vision of the middle school and including the im-  Are there significant differences in principals' and portant aspects of the concept. In This We Believe, under leader- teachers’ perceptions of the importance of middle level ship and organization the following precepts are stated: best practices in the instructional program? A shared vision developed by all stakeholders guides every  Are there significant differences in the teachers' decision. Leaders are committed to and knowledgeable about and principals’ perceptions of the implementation of mid- this age group, educational research, and best practices. Lead- dle level best practices in their schools? Table 2 Comparison of teacher and principal beliefs about curriculum Teachers Principals n M SD n M SD t g 1) Curricula that integrate multiple academic disciplines. 50 4.5 0.9 80 4.6 1.0 - -0.06 3 7 7 3 2 0.48 2) Articulation of middle level curricula with high school 50 4.6 0.9 79 4.7 0.8 - -0.08 curricula/expectations. 4 6 7 3 9 0.63 3) Exploratory/encore courses in the arts, athletics, or ca- 50 4.3 1.1 80 4.1 1.0 1.16 0.14 reers. 2 3 2 8 5 4) Emphasis on students' social and emotional growth. 50 4.5 1.0 79 4.7 0.9 - -0.17 4 9 0 6 4 1.38 5) Concern for students' health, wellness, and safety. 50 4.8 0.9 80 4.9 0.8 - -0.04 2 8 9 3 5 0.39 6) Shared responsibility for students' literacy and numeracy 50 4.8 0.9 80 4.9 0.8 - -0.15 skills. 1 1 3 5 8 1.25 Mean: Curriculum Importance 50 4.6 0.7 80 4.7 0.7 - -0.07 5 4 6 0 0 0.62 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Table 2 illustrates that teachers and principals are much in agreement about the importance of the key curricular components of the middle school concept. Current Issues in Middle Level Education (2013) 18 (2), 14-20 16 Table 3 Comparison of teacher and principal perceptions of implementation of curricular practices Teachers Principals n M SD n M SD t g 1) Curricula that integrate multiple academic disciplines. 501 4.32 1.05 78 4.71 0.79 - ** - 3.77 * 0.37 2) Articulation of middle level curricula with high school 500 4.39 1.06 77 4.55 0.97 - - curricula/expectations. 1.20 0.15 3) Exploratory/encore courses in the arts, athletics, or ca- 502 4.16 1.22 78 4.31 1.27 - - reers. 1.01 0.12 4) Emphasis on students' social and emotional growth. 501 4.37 1.14 78 4.60 0.89 - * - 2.11 0.21 5) Concern for students' health, wellness, and safety. 501 4.84 1.02 76 5.04 0.72 - * - 2.15 0.21 6) Shared responsibility for students' literacy and numeracy 491 4.50 1.14 76 4.76 0.96 - * - skills. 2.15 0.23 Mean: Curriculum Implementation 502 4.43 0.86 78 4.66 0.67 - ** - 2.72 0.28 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 While Table 3 shows that principals and teachers mainly agree about the implementation of key curricular middle level practices, there is some disagreement. Principals tend to perceive that curriculum integration is being implemented more than teachers do. Table 4 Comparison of teacher and principal beliefs concerning instruction and advising Teachers Principals n M SD n M SD t g 1) Teachers specifically interested/trained in working with young 50 5.0 0.9 80 5.1 0.9 - - adolescents. 4 0 0 1 0 1.04 0.13 2) Professional development explicitly focused on the middle school. 50 4.8 0.9 80 5.1 0.8 - * - 3 7 5 9 0 2.80 * 0.34 3) Interdisciplinary teams of teachers having common planning time. 50 4.8 1.0 80 4.9 1.0 - - 2 7 7 6 0 0.70 0.08 4) One or more guidance counselors working intensively with stu- 50 4.8 1.0 80 4.9 0.9 - - dents. 4 6 3 5 0 0.86 0.09 5) Assessment that makes use of "real world" tasks. 50 4.8 0.9 80 5.0 0.9 - - 3 5 8 0 0 1.28 0.15 6) Flexible scheduling that may span the school day/week/year. 50 4.4 1.1 79 4.6 1.1 - - 2 0 6 2 0 1.60 0.19 7) Heterogeneous and/or multiage student grouping arrangements. 50 3.9 1.3 79 4.1 1.3 - - 1 8 1 3 5 0.91 0.11 Mean: Instructional Importance 50 4.6 0.7 80 4.8 0.7 - - 4 9 9 5 7 1.71 0.21 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Table 4 again displays much agreement between teachers and principals about the importance of recommended middle level instruc- tional and advising practices. The most significant difference concerns professional development explicitly focused on the middle school with principals ranking its importance higher than teachers. Current Issues in Middle Level Education (2013) 18 (2), 14-20 17 Table 5 Comparison of teacher and principal perceptions of implementation of instruction and advising Teachers Principals n M SD n M SD t p g 1) Teachers specifically interested/trained in working with young ado- 50 4.7 0.9 80 4.7 0.8 - - lescents. 3 4 9 8 9 0.27 0.03 2) Professional development explicitly focused on the middle school. 50 4.4 1.1 80 4.6 1.0 - - 4 8 5 6 4 1.37 0.16 3) Interdisciplinary teams of teachers having common planning time. 50 4.4 1.3 80 4.8 1.2 - * - 3 8 9 0 3 2.12 0.23 4) One or more guidance counselors working intensively with students. 50 4.1 1.3 80 4.4 1.1 - - 3 7 5 5 7 1.75 0.21 5) Assessment that makes use of "real world" tasks. 50 4.0 1.1 79 4.2 0.9 - - 2 1 2 4 2 1.76 0.21 6) Flexible scheduling that may span the school day/week/year. 50 3.7 1.3 79 4.1 1.3 - * - 3 9 8 5 5 2.19 0.27 7) Heterogeneous and/or multiage student grouping arrangements. 50 3.7 1.3 79 4.0 1.4 - - 3 8 7 5 0 1.63 0.20 Mean: Instructional Implementation 50 4.2 0.9 80 4.4 0.7 - * - 4 1 1 5 7 2.26 0.27 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Principals and teachers are also concur about the implementation of middle level instructional and advising best practices as shown in Table 5. Table 6 Comparison of teacher and principal beliefs on governance Teachers Principals n M SD n M SD t p g 1) Participatory and inclusive decision making processes. 50 4.6 0.9 80 4.8 0.9 - - 3 8 8 3 0 1.28 0.15 2) Data-driven and evidence-based school improvement planning. 50 4.8 1.0 80 5.4 0.7 - * - 3 1 7 0 9 5.86 * 0.57 * 3) Parental involvement in student learning. 50 5.0 1.0 80 4.9 0.9 0.32 0.04 3 1 0 8 7 4) Parental/Community involvement in school governance. 50 4.5 1.1 79 4.4 1.0 0.88 0.11 0 4 8 2 7 Mean: Governance Importance 50 4.7 0.8 80 4.9 0.7 - - 3 7 4 1 5 1.43 0.17 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Table 6 again illustrates much agreement between teachers and principals about the importance of recommended middle level govern- ance practices. A significant difference arises over the importance of data-driven and evidenced-based school improvement planning with principals ranking its importance significantly higher than teachers. Current Issues in Middle Level Education (2013) 18 (2), 14-20 18 Table 7 Comparison of teacher and principal perceptions of implementation of governance principles Teachers Principals n M SD n M SD t p g 1) Participatory and inclusive decision making processes. 50 4.2 1.2 80 4.9 0.9 - * - 3 0 2 0 2 6.03 * 0.59 * 2) Data-driven and evidence-based school improvement planning. 50 4.9 1.0 80 5.3 0.8 - * - 3 3 4 6 2 3.52 * 0.42 * 3) Parental involvement in student learning. 50 3.8 1.2 80 4.2 1.0 - * - 2 9 0 9 6 2.77 * 0.33 * 4) Parental/Community involvement in school governance. 50 3.8 1.2 78 3.9 1.1 - - 1 5 9 4 5 0.53 0.06 Mean: Governance Implementation 50 4.2 0.9 80 4.6 0.7 - * - 3 2 7 2 8 3.53 * 0.42 * *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Table 7 reveals the most disagreement between teachers and principals. Discrepancies exist on the implementation of data-driven plan- ning and parental involvement in student learning. The largest discrepancy however, centers on the implementation of participatory decision making where principals rate this higher than teachers. Generally, teachers and principals tend to agree about the im- because of the unique needs of this group of students. Adminis- portance of the middle school concept. In the area of curricu- trators often see patterns and problems that teachers may miss. lum, instruction, and assessment, both school leaders and teach- Data-driven and evidence based school planning originally fell to ers supported the integration of curriculum, high expectations the leadership of the school, but is now the purview of the entire for students, exploratory opportunities for students, concern for school. Teachers now must use data and evidence to inform wellness, and shared responsibility for literacy and numeracy. their instruction; schools take that data to develop plans and This convergence of educational focus is helpful in promoting measure progress. What was once the responsibility of the prin- instructional practices across schools which foster student learn- cipal is now the responsibility of all the educators in the school. ing and growth. Table 2 does indicate that there is a divergence There is also much agreement between principals and teachers in teacher and principal perceptions of actual implementation in about the implementation of the middle school concept in their the area of curriculum integration. Principals perceive that it is schools. However, there are some significant differences in the being implemented more frequently than do teachers. This dif- teachers' and principals’ perceptions of the implementation of ference might be attributed to the ability of the principal to ob- middle level best practices in their schools. Discrepancies also serve what is going on in the whole school; teachers may only exist in relation to parental involvement in student learning. This know what is happening in a few classrooms. An interesting discrepancy again may be the result of perspective. Principals are follow up question to principals would be to ask what evidence often aware of the involvement of parents in the school and the they used to make their rating on this issue. overall parent involvement in student learning. Teachers may There are some significant differences in principals' and teach- not have the pertinent information. ers’ perceptions of the importance of middle level best practices The largest discrepancy found focuses on the implementation in their schools. Significant differences concern the importance of participatory decision-making. Principals rate each of these of professional development explicitly focused on the middle items higher than teachers. Teachers are often not aware of the school and data-driven and evidenced-based school improve- influence they may have in the decision-making process. Princi- ment planning. Principals rank the importance of these practices pals may not communicate to teachers the reasons for specific higher than teachers. A possible reason for this divergence may decisions. Unless there are specific organizational structures in be the result of these items more often being in the purview of place, the school may not have true participatory decision- administrators. The leadership of a school has responsibility for making. Consultation with stakeholders without the structure to seeing and articulating the direction of the school. Professional support participatory decision-making is probably not considered development focused on middle level education is important the sharing of the decision making process. Current Issues in Middle Level Education (2013) 18 (2), 14-20 19 In summary, this study found that principals and teachers in Tennessee both support the middle school philosophy and imple- ment those practices in their schools. There are perceptual dis- crepancies about the degree of implementation and importance of some elements. For the most part, it appears that principals and teachers in Tennessee middle level education share a vision of middle level education which supports the middle school con- cept and its implementation in schools. References DuBois, L. (2012). Principals’ leadership and leadership princi- ples: Creating professional development to help principals form a unified vision for schools. Peabody Reflector, 16-21. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School, family, community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.Phi Delta Kappan,76, 701-706. Frias, G. (2010). High performing schools in high risk environments: A study on leadership, school safety, and student achievement at two urban middle schools in Los Angeles County (Doctoral dissertation). Re- trieved from Proquest. George, P.S., & Anderson, W.G. (1989). Maintaining the middle school: A national survey. NASSP Bulletin, 73(521), 67-74. George, P., & Alexander, W. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomas Learning. Harrison, J. (2010). What are schools to watch? National forum to accel- erate middle-grades reform. Retrieved from www.schoolstowatch.org . Kellough, R.D., & Kellough, N.G. (2003). Teaching young adoles- cents (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrell-Prentice Hall. Keys, M.R. (2010). The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors of middle school principals, the development of learning commu- nities, and student achievement in rural middle schools in the Mississippi Delta (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. Lovell, C.W. (2009). Principal efficacy: An investigation of school princi- pals’ sense of efficacy And indicators of school effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. Minus, E.L. (2010). Leading in the middle: Leadership behaviors of middle level principals that promote student achievement (Doctoral dis- sertation). Retrieved from Proquest. National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Suc- cessful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: National Mid- dle School Association. Walker, J., & Slear, S. (2011). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on the efficacy of new and experienced middle school teachers. National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 46-65. Watts, C., & Seed, A. (2010). The middle school concept in prac- tice: How Tennessee schools do it. Current Issue in Middle Level Education, 15(1), 61-68. Current Issues in Middle Level Education (2013) 18 (2), 14-20 20