Home | Latest Updates | Newswatch | MiddleWeb Index | Reforming Schools | Links | Search



Revitalizing The Middle School:
The Guilford County Process

Paul George, Professor of Education, University of Florida

Jerry Weast, Ed.D., Superintendent
Lillie Jones, Ed.D., Associate Superintendent
Mike Priddy, Ed.D., Executive Director, Curriculum and Accountability
Larry Allred, Ed.D., Director, Secondary Achievement
Guilford County (NC) School District

Middle Schools or Sand Castles

In many school districts, the implementation and operation of middle schools may have had much in common with the building of sand castles (Tye, 1985). The transition to middle school and the construction of sand castles both require a great deal of effort and planning, inspire a great deal of enthusiasm, generate high levels of creativity, involve many people often working together in teams, and both middle schools and sand castles frequently produce new structures and strategies that are exciting to behold. Creation of such structures, whether sand castles or middle schools, can be great fun.

Unfortunately, as with sand castles, in too many school districts the creation of middle schools has eventually yielded to the educational equivalents of wind, pounding waves, marauding teenagers, and too little attention to maintenance after the excitement of creation passes. In dozens of districts, the result has been the eventual erosion of the components of the middle school concept and the reappearance of an organization and school program that resemble older and less effective educational structures. It is also true that, like a half-finished and abandoned sand castle whose creators have turned, too soon, to other activities, in many districts the transition to middle schools may never have been effectively completed during the initial implementation process.

The outcome is that, while there may be nearly 15,000 schools that carry the designation of middle school by the end of the century, far fewer are likely to exhibit the core traits that make them effective learning environments for young adolescents. Sadly, this situation has occurred at the very time when impressive evidence to support the effectiveness of the middle school concept continues to accumulate ( E.g., Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, and Flowers, 1997; George & Shewey, 1994).

The evidence for the effectiveness of middle school concepts
suggests that such a second effort can provide an extremely
high return on the initial investment.

Another exceedingly important factor influencing the development and maintenance of high quality middle school programs, and pointing to the need for careful revitalization efforts, is the fact that a large number of the twelve to fifteen thousand middle schools in America are contained within the 130 largest school districts (National Center for Education Statistics,1997). A relatively small number of middle school and district office leaders, therefore, has influenced, positively and negatively, the education of millions of young adolescents. While the quality of programs in many so-called middle schools in these districts may have been subject to erosion over the last decade, or may have never been implemented effectively, it is also true that a relatively few well-designed efforts to revitalize middle schools in these large school districts could have dramatically positive effects on great numbers of young adolescents.

Much of the most difficult aspects of the transition to middle schools, the "educational infrastructure" of middle school, has already been accomplished in these large districts. The enormously high costs of school reorganization efforts that are required when reorganizing and moving entire grade levels within a district, for example, have already been paid. The remodeling of dozens of buildings, reassignment of large numbers of staff members, the redesign of transportation plans, report cards, computer services, shifting library and media services, shuffling of textbooks and learning materials--all of this has been completed. The costs associated with garnering both public and professional support for the transition has been paid.

In fact, the costs of such basic transition efforts (financial and human) in many large districts has been so high that this fact, in itself, may have contributed heavily to the lack of additional funds and energy for the staff development and other activities that were necessary for full and effective implementation of the middle school concept in large school districts. With millions of dollars spent on the logistics of transition, few districts may have had the resources, it seems, to complete the transition effectively.

With such a phenomenally high investment already made in the transition to middle schools around the nation, however, it is incumbent upon educators in those districts to ensure that the components of effective middle school programs are implemented broadly and permanently. Fortunately, the evidence for the effectiveness of middle school concepts, referred to above, suggests that such a second effort, an attempt to revitalize middle schools in large school districts, can provide an extremely high return on the initial investment. Educators in Guilford County, North Carolina, the nation's 60th largest school district, have taken that investment seriously.



Sand Castles, Middle Schools, and Guilford County

As in many other parts of the nation, the middle school concept came to the Piedmont area of North Carolina in the early '80's, for a combination of reasons (George & Alexander, 1993). Educators there discovered that racially desegregated middle schools could enhance the extent to which a district could be desegregated, while permitting elementary schools to remain as neighborhood schools. Opening middle schools also made it possible to avoid closing high schools where enrollment was down, by moving the ninth grade from former junior high schools into the high school building. Enrollment pressures of a different kind in the elementary schools could be eased by moving the sixth grades to newly organized middle schools. State legislation following the explosion of the Nation at Risk report (1983) may have also prompted the reorganization of middle level education there. By the end of the decade of the '80's, middle schools were widespread in this area of North Carolina.

Revitalization Prompted by the Merger of Three Districts

In 1994, three central North Carolina school districts (Greensboro, Guilford County, and High Point) merged to form the current Guilford County Public Schools, with approximately 60,000 students, one of the largest school districts in the nation. Guilford County includes urban, suburban, and rural housing, a wide range of socioeconomic levels, and a school population that is approximately 60 % white and 40% minority. The new school board and district superintendent were dedicated to creating one comprehensive and unified district in place of three very different school systems. The highest priority was placed on the establishment of public confidence in the new school system. Schools in the new district would be safe, equitable, fiscally responsible, and places where academic achievement would reach new heights.

It quickly became clear, when the commotion connected to the merger began to pass, that among the many ways in which the three former districts had differed, the middle school concept had been implemented in each of the three former districts, but with widely varying degrees of success. Some middle schools had interdisciplinary teams; some did not, and where teams were in place, they often functioned minimally. Some schools had teacher-based advisory programs; some did not, and where they existed, most educators were dissatisfied with that aspect of the program. Some middle schools in the new Guilford County had successfully implemented heterogeneous grouping; many retained a system of strict ability grouping.

A number of the middle schools were giving large portions of the school day to exploratory curriculum; at the same time, academic achievement scores in the basic components of the curriculum were below state averages. This disparity led to confusion and dissatisfaction among parents, board members, and educators. Clearly, a common or unifying vision for seventeen middle schools was needed, one which was congruent with the drive to establish public confidence in the new system as a whole. This need led to the commitment for a comprehensive review and a plan for the revitalization of the middle school concept in Guilford County Schools.

Revitalization Strategy One:
A Middle School Task Force is Formed

In the spring of 1995, the Board of Education of Guilford County Schools adopted a plan and approved a timeline for assessing and revitalizing its middle schools. To achieve this common vision, however, required lengthy discussions among members of the community and school system. The Board of Education called for the creation of a Middle School Task Force two years earlier which included teachers, administrators, and parents. Considerable time was spent in staff development for the members of the Task Force, focusing upon the middle school concept as well as emerging trends in areas of education that would affect middle level schools. Achievement patterns in each school, and across the district, were examined and probed for underlying factors. Numerous periodicals and books were reviewed, with subsequent discussions regarding equity and access for all students to a rigorous curriculum. A commitment to balancing equity and opportunities for excellence began to emerge. Various models of school organization, schedules, and components (e.g., advisory) were examined. In particular, considerable time and energy focused upon the pros and cons of curriculum tracking and ability grouping.

Revitalization Strategy Two:
Development of a Guilford County Middle School Revitalization Plan:
Seven Central Elements

After several months of intense dialogue and debate among the members of the Task Force, a common vision statement was adopted. That vision for all 17 Guilford County middle schools was, it turns out, an affirmation of the central components of the middle school concept (George & Alexander, 1993). The statement included these seven central elements: Increased student academic achievement was to be the primary objective of middle school revitalization efforts; it had already became the central focus of the superintendent and the Board. Test scores in the newly created district were lower than anyone wanted them to be, and the scores were distributed across the district in a way that correlated far too closely with the socioeconomic status of the students attending particular schools. The superintendent, the school board, and middle school educators in the district were committed to increasing student achievement and decreasing the variability of academic achievement on the basis of socioeconomic status within the district. Every component of the middle school concept in Guilford County was, therefore, expected to focus on, support, or at least not to detract from the emphasis on increasing academic achievement for all students.

The extent to which other six components of the new plan were already in place, in 1995, was difficult to describe. The teacher advisory program was totally absent in some schools, in place only in name and time in others. Interdisciplinary teams were organized in most schools so that teachers on teams shared a common group of students, in the same area of the building, and had a common schedule allowing for team planning. But teams seemed to be accomplishing very little else. Few teams worked together to improve student behavior management; few attempted to create a sense of community on their teams; and fewer worked together to integrate the curriculum. Flexible, team-controlled schedules were in place in a number of the schools, but few teams made any attempts to modify or adapt the schedule to student-oriented uses.

The district did have a time-honored commitment to a rich and exciting unified arts, or exploratory curriculum, but there were real questions about the extent to which this aspect of the curriculum was actually contributing to increased academic achievement. Differentiated instruction may have been discussed, but traditional secondary large group, whole class, teacher-directed instruction was the norm. And, in a number of the middle schools, a rigid ability grouping plan was as dominant as it ever had been.

The establishment of these seven common components for all 17 schools was, given the immense diversity of the district, a bold and courageous move, both pedagogically and politically. As always, leadership was a crucial, and complicated, factor in determining the extent to which a new vision becomes reality. The new superintendent brought a fierce and uncompromising commitment to the creation of district unity, a non-negotiable demand for increased student achievement, and an unwavering insistence on new fiscal responsibility. In the district office and within the middle schools in each of the three former districts, however, there was a sizable group of professional educators who, as a result of years of experience with middle level education, were deeply committed to that concept.

Such situations have created volatile mismatches in other districts, where unresolved conflicts have led to the collapse of momentum for change. In Guilford County, fortuitously, the vision of the board and the superintendent coalesced with the deeply felt and knowledgeable commitment to middle school education and to the specific components of the Middle School Plan. This happened in a way that created an even sharper focus on needs at the middle level, brought a commitment of resources for revitalization, and heightened the sense of importance and accountability that gave force to the revitalization effort.

Tracking and ability grouping: An "incident"

An incident connected to the early efforts at implementation of the new middle school plan, specifically the component of heterogeneous grouping, brought an increased sense of urgency to the revitalization effort. As a part of the development of the new vision by the school board, a review of instructional grouping practices had brought the members of the board, and the superintendent's staff, to an endorsement of increased heterogeneous grouping in all of the district's middle schools(Wheelock, 1992). A sense of the importance of equity accompanied the new board's realization of the immense diversity that the new district represented.

As a result of earlier attempts at implementation of the middle school concept, all but three of the new district's middle schools had attempted a considerable amount of heterogeneous grouping. Three schools representing historically high-achieving areas of the district had not yet been "detracked." Unfortunately, in a classically bi-modal distribution of achievement, high achievement growth in these schools had been restricted to the upper range of the ability grouping classes, and students in low tracks maintained a level of comparatively low achievement. Furthermore, the three schools were caught up in a grouping plan that resulted in having the upper tracks composed predominantly of white, upper-middle class students and lower tracks comprised mainly of children from minority, lower socioeconomic groups. Thus, the schools were in a potentially combustible situation when asked to begin the detracking process.

When the district commitment to increased heterogeneous grouping
in the middle school was announced, teachers and parents
of students in high track classes in these three traditional,
racially-diverse schools were less than enthusiastic.

When the district commitment to increased heterogeneous grouping in the middle school was announced, teachers, and parents of students in high track classes in these three traditional, racially-diverse schools were less than enthusiastic about the change. One of the three school principals embraced the change to heterogeneous science and social studies classes ; two others kept a "low profile" hoping, perhaps, that this might be one more dictate that they could eventually ignore.

Eventually, rumors mixed with district guidelines to the point that a group of parents of advanced students at one school, where the principal supported the changes, became alarmed at what they believed might be the elimination of gifted programs at that site. A relatively impromptu public meeting held at the school drew a group of nearly 500 concerned parents, teachers, students, and community members. During the meeting, angry, nearly physical, confrontations occurred between advocates for various positions as audience members literally wrestled for the microphone. The local media became involved, and alarming reports of the meeting spread quickly throughout the district. Board members immediately received dozens of phone calls from alarmed citizens and educators representing both sides of the grouping issue.

School board members, having earlier made a public commitment to equity in all its school programs, and having endorsed the middle school grouping strategies related to it, became openly concerned about the divisions within the community over ability grouping. Individual board member's clarity about what "the research" said seemed less certain in the midst of public furor. The members of the board were also concerned about whether teachers and school leaders had the "instructional prowess" to implement the new grouping policy effectively. Instructional grouping was clearly as political a component of the revitalization plan as it was a pedagogical one.

Nevertheless, the district leaders and the board maintained their commitment to detracking in science and social studies. That decision was not capricious or made too quickly, and it entailed extensive staff development for decision-makers. Effective implementation of more heterogeneous grouping would, it seemed clear, also require extensive staff development for those who would implement it in schools and classrooms. In addition to workshops, district leaders contracted with two universities to deliver additional services, including a course from High Point University leading to certification in teaching the academically gifted. Professors from the School of Education at UNC-Greensboro also observed in classrooms and offered assistance in the area of multiple intelligences. Other prominent national consultants also visited teachers in their classrooms, to offer specific strategies and increase confidence in this area.

Parental understanding was just as crucial. Several public forums were conducted. These forums focused upon the characteristics and needs of adolescent learners, elements of exemplary middle schools, and differentiated learning. A luncheon meeting with PTA presidents was typical of the opportunity for discussion and dialogue with parents.

Ultimately, public communication and staff development made it possible to keep the commitment to increased heterogeneous grouping. Staff development was supported by central office members' in-depth knowledge of the political maneuvers required to increase acceptance of heterogeneous grouping by members of the school and the community. School board members were pleased that heterogeneous grouping would focus primarily on science and social studies classes, not language arts or mathematics. They were also pleased to learn that grouping within classes could occur when appropriate, and that gifted programs would not be dismantled.

Teachers were relieved when staff development workshops centered on the skills for differentiating instruction that they would need to be successful in heterogeneous classrooms. Parents were pleased when they learned that their bright children would not be held back, or that their children would not be relegated to a school-based underclass. Eventually, test scores would affirm the effort.

Having experienced the positive resolution to the grouping incident produced by the combination of effective staff development and determined, skillful leadership, central office leaders moved ahead with the implementation of the other components of the new middle school revitalization plan. A common understanding and effective programmatic implementation of teacher advisory, interdisciplinary team organization, flexible scheduling, curriculum enrichment, and differentiated instruction became the next targets. Increased academic achievement would be the most important measure of the successful implementation of these program components. Staff development and a comprehensive model of program evaluation became center pieces in the strategy to implement the revitalization plan.

Revitalization Strategy Three: Staff Development

Comprehensive staff development was and continues to be necessary in middle level education, because middle schools are truly emergent , developing and evolving as time passes. Staff development for middle school educators in Guilford County focused sharply on the seven components of the middle school revitalization effort, constantly keeping in mind the goal of restoring public confidence through increasing academic achievement. Professional development activity was characterized by variety and involvement, important elements for teachers and principals as well as students. Teachers and principals are adults; as adult learners, staff developers presumed, they must have variety as well as relevancy embedded within their staff development.

In the Guilford County School System, staff developers worked to make this premise an operational reality. Each middle school leader was required to submit a detailed staff development plan that included participation in system-wide initiatives as well as in building level staff development directly related to the seven components of the Middle School Revitalization Plan. In addition, through the efforts of the Associate Superintendent for Educational Program Services, Director of Staff Development , the Executive Directors, the Director of Middle Schools, as well as a partnership with the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, teams of teachers and principals formed a task force that has planned and delivered several summer institutes.

Public communication and staff development
made it possible to keep the commitment to
increased heterogeneous grouping.

These institutes have focused upon strategies for strengthening and revitalizing Guilford County middle schools by the renewing of everyone's understanding of fundamental elements. In many cases, teachers and principals have led or presented at these sessions. In other cases, our university partnership afforded an expanded menu of consultants and services. Teams of local educators, formed at the institutes, have assumed leadership for subsequent training in their respective buildings. They had a common understanding and the necessary commitment, developed as a result of the district efforts. Their colleagues were receptive to training provided by colleagues from the classroom next door or down the hall.

Following the initial summer institutes, in 1995 and 1996, the district was divided into quadrants, for further training in new middle school initiatives. Each quadrant was made up of at least two of the three former districts; in this way some degree of district-wide uniformity would emerge along with overall middle school revitalization. Informal meetings of middle school teachers and administrators from each quadrant continued to cement their knowledge of the pace of program implementation, and permitted them to share their knowledge, concerns, and best practices with each other. These quadrant meetings were well attended and afforded another opportunity for sharing, building a district-wide sense of momentum regarding the implementation of the components of the middle school plan.

Revitalization Strategy Four: Focus on the Principalship

"Sooner or later, every middle school takes on the characteristics of its leadership." (George & Anderson, 1989). Numerous sources cite the unparalleled importance of the principals' leadership on the establishment and maintenance of long-term high quality school programs. Because the middle school movement is uniquely based on the characteristics and needs of young adolescents, effective leadership in those schools is predicated upon a continuing understanding and commitment to the middle school concept and to young adolescents these schools serve.

In many school districts, however, quality middle school programs may fail to survive over the long term because dedicated school leaders who initially establish middle school programs are eventually replaced by principals who have no training, little experience, or long-term career interest in middle school leadership. After a period as short as five to seven years after establishing middle schools, a school district may find itself with a whole new leadership team in place in its middle schools, a group of principals who may have come from the elementary principalship or high school assistant principalship.

In either case, too many of these new middle school leaders have never had the opportunity to learn about the uniqueness of young adolescence or the special nature of the middle school. Succession planning in large school districts too rarely includes selection and training procedures that guarantee that new middle school leaders have what it takes to maintain high quality programs. School district leaders in Guilford County understood that middle school revitalization simply would not occur without the right kind of leadership in every school.

New middle school principals would no longer
be selected on the basis of time spent in
elementary and high school buildings.

The courage to act. The initial and crucial step was for central office leaders to realize, themselves, the critical aspect of selection and training of new middle school principals and to commit to wrenching around the selection process in several important ways. First, central office leaders conducted a careful and confidential assessment of school principals in place at the beginning of the revitalization effort. As a result, more than a third of the middle schools received new leadership within the first year of the revitalization process. The message to those who remained was that the school district was, indeed, committed to the middle school concept and to retaining only those principals who fit the middle school well. New middle school principals would no longer be selected on the basis on time served in elementary or high school buildings.

Staff development for principals. To achieve a new level of principal's understanding and commitment to the revitalization effort required more than careful selection. Regular, frequent, and sharply-focused principals' meetings became another important source of staff development. Beginning in 1995, and extending through each month of 1996 and 1997, a major portion of the district middle school principal's meeting focused upon components of exemplary middle schools, the accompanying research findings, and the implications for school leaders in Guilford County.

Most importantly, these sessions were an opportunity for the district superintendent and other highly placed central office leaders to voice their firm commitment to the middle school concept and to endorse the direction in which the district was moving to implement the seven central components of the middle school plan. There was no doubt about where schools were expected to go and who was expected to lead them there.

Examples of topics from district principals' meetings during the 1995-96 school year include:
September-The Middle School Student: Implications for Curriculum, Organization, and Instruction

October - Team Organization: Effective Practices

November - Teacher Advisory: Building Relationships and Character Education

December - Differentiated Instruction

January - Explorations/Encore

February - Assessment and Evaluation

Jawbone. Large group meetings of middle school principals, of the sort described here, are necessary but not sufficient. In our experience, it is also almost always necessary for central office leaders to engage in a considerable amount of what Lyndon Johnson called "jawboning." To "jawbone," in this situation, is to meet one-on-one, face-to-face, with individual school leaders to reinforce the message and to make it eminently clear that one's current position and possible future in district leadership is related to the degree to which the principal can bring his or her school into compliance with the district commitments.

Over a period of two years, several middle schools experienced additional changes in leadership when it became clear that the principal in place could not or would not exert the sort of leadership that was necessary to bring about the revitalization happening elsewhere in the district. Education is always and everywhere a complex dance between the pedagogical and the political, and middle school revitalization efforts clearly reveal this truism.

Revitalization Strategy Five: Regular, Public, Evaluation of Middle Schools

As a part of the middle school revitalization plan, the Board of Education committed the district to an annual evaluation of its middle schools, in part because members were anxious to determine that effective implementation of the revitalization plan was occurring, and also because they believed that frequent feedback from such an evaluation would spur additional efforts to succeed. Considerable time and effort were required to develop what has become a comprehensive survey instrument for middle school teachers, parents, and students (Ward, 1998). A combined effort by the district Office of Assessment and Evaluation as well as the Office of Curriculum and Instruction enabled us to develop and implement a comprehensive evaluation system that provides feedback for annual school improvement plans. This assessment effort included a careful examination of academic achievement in each school, and a comprehensive survey of parents, students, and teachers.

Annual publication of achievement scores from each school. An important part of the evaluation process has included the annual publication of how each individual middle school has fared academically. Not only were the data made available to school board members, and the local media, but colorful posters depicting the academic progress of each middle school, and of all the middle schools as a whole group, were displayed for weeks in the district office and in the chambers of the school board. Public attention and knowledge of progress, or the lack of it, has had a significant effect on the speed and energy devoted to curriculum alignment in Guilford County middle schools. Fortunately, the result has been steady upward growth, annually, of achievement in all areas measured by the state; Guilford County middle schools now exceed state averages in every area.

The Middle School Survey. The district's instrument for the annual middle school survey is quite comprehensive, focusing on all seven of the central elements of the new middle school plan (Ward, 1998). It includes these components:


Using results of the surveys. As with the achievement test scores, each year's survey results for each middle school, and for the middle schools as a group, are compiled and made public. The first two years of surveys have revealed that the basic components of the middle school concept are now in place in Guilford County middle schools, but that much remains to be done, particularly in the area of differentiation of instruction. The central office staff has used the survey data to plan annual summer middle school professional development institutes that aim to provide teachers with the skills they need to provide for a heterogeneous group of learners in virtually every class. High Point University, located in the district, has developed and delivered specially-designed courses on the topic of differentiated instruction. The district has developed a Handbook on Differentiated Instruction and distributed copies to all middle school teachers, as well as a system-wide curriculum resource guide for the Teacher Advisory program.

Survey data and continuous school improvement. Every one of the 17 middle school principals studies the data from each annual survey and then comes to the central office for a school improvement planning conference. Prior to the conference, principals have identified, along with their school leadership teams, goals and objectives for school improvement, and a plan for addressing those aims. Plans differ from school to school, but there is often common focus.

Data from this survey process has enabled the school district to create a cycle of continuous improvement in almost every area of the middle school. For example, team effectiveness has been enhanced. The data revealed the need for a curriculum guide in the area of teacher advisory. The purposes of advisory needed to be clarified. Subsequent staff and curriculum development have led to improvements in this area. The data from the surveys has also revealed the need for closer working relationships between core and encore teachers. Consequently a district-wide goal has been developed to improve the collaboration that occurred between both of these areas.

A major thrust has been to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills that are essential in working with student diversity. As previously noted, numerous workshops have occurred in differentiated instruction. In addition teachers have been given the opportunity to pursue licensure in academically giftedness with little expense. We believe that all students should be challenged and all students should access to such skills.

Summary


The revitalization of middle schools in Guilford County is, as many say, a "work in progress." The seven goals of revitalization in Guilford County middle schools have been approached, if not fully achieved. The good news, to date, is that academic achievement is climbing higher each year, and the results of the most recent annual survey are very positive. In that survey, better than 88% of the middle school teachers continue to assert their belief that educators in their school are effectively implementing the middle school concept. Ninety percent of middle school teachers agreed that their schools deserve a grade of C or better; eighty percent awarded their school an A or B.

Education is always and everywhere a complex dance
between the pedagogical and the political, and middle school revitalization efforts clearly reveal this truism.

Even better, perhaps, is that 91% of parents agreed that their child's middle school deserved a grade of C or better, with approximately 2/3rds saying that they would give the school and A or B! The students were not far behind, with 81% giving their school a C or better; 52% gave their school an A or B.

Generally, public confidence in the schools of Guilford County has risen, perhaps because of the open, candid nature of the district's revitalization effort. The district has received positive notice in other national journals, local media mare much more generous in their praise, members of the school board are pleased. Local school leaders have begun to talk about a revitalization of the high schools in the district as a next step; what more positive evidence could there be.

References


Felner, R., Jackson, A., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., and N. Flowers (March, 1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years. Phi Delta Kappan, v78, n7, pp.528-532, 541-550.

George, P. & Anderson, W. (1989). Maintaining the middle school: A national survey. NASSP Bulletin, 73, no.521 67-74.

George, P. & Alexander, W. (1993). The exemplary middle school, (2nd ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart.

George, P. & Shewey, K. (1994). New evidence for the middle school. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983, April 27). An open letter to the American people. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Tye, K. (1985). The junior high: School in search of a mission. Landom, MD: University Press of America.

National Center for Education Statistics (September, 1997). Elementary and secondary school districts. Common core of data survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Ward, M. (1998). A systems approach to middle school evaluation: Guilford County Schools Formative Approach. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 1998.

Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks. New York: The New Press.

Republished with permission of the authors from the Middle School Journal, January 2000.