**National Conference on**

**Curriculum, Instruction, and** **Assessment**

**in the Middle Grades: Linking Research and Practice**

# July 24-25, 2000

# Washington, DC

## PROCEEDINGS

# Sponsored by the

**National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board**

**U.S. Department of Education**

![](media/image1.png)

Table of Contents

Letter from Kenji Hakuta, Chair, NERPPB i

**Conference Summary**

> I. Introduction [1](#i.-introduction)
>
> Origins of the Conference [1](#origins-of-the-conference)
>
> The Importance of Early Adolescence
> [2](#the-importance-of-early-adolescence)
>
> About the Conference [3](#about-the-conference)
>
> Agenda [4](#agenda)
>
> II\. Summary of Conference Strands
> [10](#ii.-summary-of-conference-strands)
>
> The State of Middle Grades Achievement
> [10](#the-state-of-middle-grades-achievement)
>
> The State of Literacy [17](#the-state-of-literacy)
>
> The State of Mathematics [24](#the-state-of-mathematics)
>
> The State of Professional Development
> [30](#the-state-of-professional-development)
>
> III\. Themes and Recommendations
> [37](#iii.-themes-and-recommendations)
>
> Literacy [37](#literacy)
>
> Mathematics [40](#mathematics)
>
> Professional Development [42](#professional-development)
>
> IV\. References [45](#iv.-references)

**Commissioned Papers**

> Where Are We Now? Taking Stock of Middle grades Education
> [47](#taking-stock-of-middle-grades-education)
>
> Grappling with the Big Issues in Middle Grades Literacy Education
> [78](#grappling-with-the-big-issues-in-middle-grades-literacy-education-1)
>
> Mathematics in the Middle Grades: Linking Research and Practice 94
>
> Teachers' Professional Development for Vital Middle Schools:
>
> What Do We Know and Where Should We Go? 109

Appendices

> Appendix A: Presenter Biographies 130
>
> Appendix B: Resources 154

# I. Introduction

On July 24-25, 2000, the National Educational Research Policy and
Priorities Board (the Board) convened a group of researchers, policy
makers, and practitioners to share the latest research and craft
knowledge on what works in helping young adolescents meet high academic
standards. Participants were charged with identifying concrete
suggestions for future research, policy, and practice. This paper
describes the organizing and purpose of the conference; its organizing
questions, a synthesis of the conference presentations; and
recommendations for policy and practice.

## **Origins of the Conference**

The conference grew out of the work of the Board which was established
by the Educational Research, Development, and Improvement Act of 1994.
The Board\'s primary focus is to promote research that leads to higher
achievement for all students, especially those who are poor. Of
particular concern to the current Board is accelerating student
performance in language arts and mathematics.

The Board's major responsibilities include the following:

-   Working collaboratively with the Assistant Secretary to determine
    priorities to guide the work of OERI.

-   Providing recommendations for translating research findings into
    adaptable models for use in policy and practice across different
    settings.

To assist the Board in developing research priorities that carry out
this agenda, the Board contracted with the National Academy of Education
(NAE) to develop a set of recommendations on research priorities and
specific research questions in each priority area. NAE identified three
focus areas:

-   Critical transitions in the lives of students.

-   Teacher professional development.

-   Expanding the link between research and practice.

This conference addressed the Board's research priority in the area of
critical transitions by linking educational research and the practice of
schooling in a critical transitional period in the lives of students:
the middle grades.

The conference built on an earlier Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (OERI) Conference on Early Adolescence that was held in May
1998. That conference brought together about 40 researchers, policy
makers, and practitioners to address critical issues in serving young
adolescents. Five papers were developed for that conference, which
resulted in a set of broad recommendations for policy, research, and
practice. These recommendations covered several areas including school
size and structure; parent/community involvement; youth development; and
curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

Broad recommendations can serve an important purpose in setting a
context for work that needs to be done. However, without additional
focus, they rarely affect practice. What the Board wanted now was a more
in depth look at the Board's priorities, with specific recommendations
generated for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. To this
end, this conference focused almost exclusively on curriculum,
instruction, and assessment.

## **The Importance of Early Adolescence**

Researchers and educators have come to view early adolescence as a
unique period of development in all domains---cognitive,
social-emotional, and physical (Ames & Miller, 1994). Young adolescents
are living through some of the most important and drastic changes in the
entire life cycle.

For years, scholars have documented the developmental challenges of this
stage of development. Recent brain research reveals that during the teen
years up to age 15, the areas in the middle and back of the brain
associated with associative thinking and language reach their peak
growth rates. During these years, schools can play a critical role in
helping young adolescents develop a positive self-image and the skills
they need to deal with the enormous new pressures they face. The way in
which curriculum is organized and instruction is delivered---as well as
the manner in which schools are organized and function---can have an
important impact on students\' academic growth and personal development.
There is a need to combine knowledge about early adolescent development
with educational practices that enhance learning and achievement.

While many schools have embarked on reform efforts to take into account
middle grade\'s students unique strengths and challenges, there is still
much to be done. As Urdan and Klein (1998) point out, in many
middle-level schools a disjunction exists between the teaching methods
and materials and the cognitive developmental advances, learning
preferences, social development, and rapid physical changes that occur
during early adolescence. Ames (1999) draws attention to a similar
disconnect that exists between the new type of instruction called for in
national standards documents and the type of instruction that is found
in many middle grades classrooms.

Moreover, there is an urgent need to make changes in middle grades
schools and classrooms now. According to the 1998 *National Assessment
of Educational Progress* (NAEP), 62 percent of fourth graders, 74
percent of eighth graders, and 77 percent of twelfth graders did not
reach proficiency levels in reading. The numbers look similarly bleak in
writing with 77 percent of fourth graders, 73 percent of eighth graders,
and 78 percent of twelfth graders performing below proficiency.
Furthermore, the NAEP 1996 *Trends in Academic Progress* report shows
that little to no gains have been made in reading scores since 1973.
Likewise, writing scores have not shown significant changes, with the
exception of eleventh graders whose overall performance declined.

The complex issues associated with early adolescence suggest a vision
for research and practice that takes into account the complex interplay
between students, curriculum, and instruction, human resources, and
environmental contexts. The purpose of this conference was to identify
what we know from research and craft knowledge about how to chart a
course for significantly enhancing the achievement of middle grades
students, particularly those who are most at risk due to poverty and
other factors. It was also to define the research questions we still
need to answer.

## **About the Conference**

The Board convened approximately 200 researchers, practitioners and
policy makers, including Department of Education and other federal
staff, legislative leaders and foundation representatives for the
purposes of sharing the latest research and craft knowledge on what
works in helping young adolescents meet high academic standards. The
ultimate goal of the conference was to identify concrete suggestions for
future research, policy, and practice. Secondary goals included:

-   Capturing the attention of policy makers about middle-level
    education and giving them the knowledge and tools they need to take
    appropriate action.

-   Informing those practitioners who are ready for action about the
    latest research and knowledge of best practice.

-   Strengthening links between the research, policy, and practice
    communities.

-   Expanding the network of those committed to middle grades reform and
    providing members with the knowledge and skills they need to
    exercise greater leadership.

The conference was organized around four essential questions (see agenda
below):

1.  What do we know about student achievement in the middle grades?

2.  What curriculum, instruction, assessment, and environmental factors
    support middle grades students' literacy development?

3.  What curriculum, instruction, assessment, and environmental factors
    support middle grades students' development in mathematics?

4.  What kinds of professional development and organizational support
    improve teaching and learning in language arts and mathematics?

The conference began with an initial welcome and context setting. The
format for the remainder of the conference involved a plenary
presentation, followed immediately by a panel response and moderated
commentary involving audience participation. Following this plenary
session were five concurrent sessions that explored the essential
questions in more depth, drawing on both research findings and best
practice. The final session on day 2 involved discussion of policy and
research recommendations.

National Conference on Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in the
Middle Grades: Linking Research and Practice

## Agenda

July 24-25, 2000

Renaissance Washington DC Hotel

Washington, DC

A Conference Sponsored by:

**The National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board
(NERPPB)**

**The U.S. Department of Education**

Monday, July 24, 2000

+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **7:30 | R |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | B |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | k |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **8:30 | P |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | S |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | : |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | W |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | O |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | w |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | K |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | j |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | H |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | k |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | N |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | R |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | P |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | P |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | B |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | . |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | K |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | M |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | G |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | A |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | S |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | O |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | R |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | I |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | O |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | w |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | J |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | Z |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | D |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | I |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | . |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **9:00 | P |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | S |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | : |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | K |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | A |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | I |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | : |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | J |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | L |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | z |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | N |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | F |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | A |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | M |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | G |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | R |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | W |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | A |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | W |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | N |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | w |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | ? |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | W |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | I |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | M |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | G |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | ? |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | K |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | H |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | k |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | T |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | T |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | N |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | A |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | D |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | I |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | . |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | P |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | b |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | N |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | A |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | T |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | k |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | w |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | : |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | ; |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | w |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | ; |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | . |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        | R |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | : |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | J |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | . |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | B |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | S |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | R |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | B |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | H |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | M |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | z |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | M |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | k |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | F |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        | M |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | Q |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | & |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | A |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| *      | B |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| *10:30 | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | k |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| *      | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| *10:45 | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | S |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | I |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | ' |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | D |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | C |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | U |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | : |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | A |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | A |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | V |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | w |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | L |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | L |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | L |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | N |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | L |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | S |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | R |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | b |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | J |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | z |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | U |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | I |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | T |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | x |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | w |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | f |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | b |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | m |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | , |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | w |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | u |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | z |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | o |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | E |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | g |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | S |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | c |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | p |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | a |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | y |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | d |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | n |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | t |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | h |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | r |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | > |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | l |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | i |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | v |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | e |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | s |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | . |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        | * |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Mathematics: Caught in the Middle**     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Thomas A. Romberg, University of          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Wisconsin-Madison                         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This presentation shows how middle     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > schools, students, teachers, and        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > mathematics are all, for different      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > reasons, "caught in the middle." It     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > looks at the historical context of      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > mathematics instruction, teacher        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > preparation, and assessment; the        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > challenges of standards-based reform    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > and accountability; the need for staff  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > development; and results that guide     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > practice and identify key resources.*   |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Middle School: New Opportunities or     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Dead Ends**                               |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Gloria Ladson-Billings, University of     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Wisconsin-Madison                         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This session presents a conceptual     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > framework necessary for successful      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > teaching of middle-level students.      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Issues of academic achievement,         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > cultural competence, and                |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > socio-political consciousness will be   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > explained and illustrated as a rubric   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > for effective middle-level teaching.*   |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Teaching Middle Schoolers in a Writing  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Workshop Approach**                       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Nancie Atwell, Center for Teaching and    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Learning                                  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This session will demonstrate how      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > middle school students learn to write   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > with clarity, logic, and passion in a   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > writing workshop. The students draft,   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > revise, edit, and publish their writing |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > for audiences within and beyond the     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > classroom. Ms. Atwell will discuss her  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > roles in the workshop as instructor,    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > responder, and collaborator.*           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **     |   | Lunch and Reflection (Lunch provided)     |   |   |   |   |            |
| 12:00- |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| 1:00** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **1:00 |   | Plenary Session: Literacy                 |   |   |   |   |            |
| p.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Introduction: Nancy Doda, National-Louis  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | University                                |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | **Grappling with the Big Issues in Middle |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Grades Literacy Education**               |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Donna Alvermann, University of Georgia    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This session will examine several      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > timely issues in middle grades literacy |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > education, what research has to say     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > about them, and the implications of     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > this research.*                         |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | Response: Leah Meyer Austin, W.K. Kellogg |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Foundation, and                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Lea Schelke, Trenton High School          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | (Trenton, MI)                             |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | Moderated Q and A                         |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **2:30 |   | **Break**                                 |   |   |   |   |            |
| p.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **2:45 |   | Concurrent Sessions                       |   |   |   |   |            |
| p.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | **Designing Questions toward Thinking and |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Understanding**                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Margaret McKeown, Learning Research and   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Development Center,                       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | University of Pittsburgh                  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This session deals with the kinds of   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > questions usually asked in classrooms   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > and suggests how designing questions    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > that promote thinking and understanding |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > rather than eliciting "right answers"   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > could improve the dialogue in           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > classrooms.*                            |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Reversing Reading Failure in At-Risk    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Youth**                                   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Mary E. Curtis, Lesley College            |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This session explores the reading      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > strengths and needs of at-risk          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > adolescents; methods and materials      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > effective in improving reading skills;  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > and the factors that promote reading    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > improvement.*                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Standards-Based, Results-Driven         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Professional Development**                |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Stephanie Hirsh, National Staff           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Development Council                       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This session will discuss the basics   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > of standards based, results-driven      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > professional development for teachers,  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > administrators, and other school system |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > personnel, and issues that arise in its |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > implementation*                         |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **4:00 |   | Adjourn                                   |   |   |   |   |            |
| p.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| Tu     |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| esday, |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| July   |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| 25,    |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| 2000   |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **7:30 |   | Registration and Continental Breakfast    |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **8:00 |   | Welcome                                   |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Nancy Ames, Education Development Center, |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Inc.                                      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Overview                                  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Judith Zorfass, Education Development     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Center, Inc.                              |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **8:15 |   | Plenary Session: Mathematics              |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Introduction: Robert Marley, Wichita      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | State University                          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | **Mathematics in the Middle Grades:       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Linking Research and Practice**           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Judith Sowder, San Diego State University |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This presentation discusses what we    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > can reasonably expect from research;    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > issues concerning middle school         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > mathematics curriculum; and links from  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > research into practice.*                |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | Response: Glenda Lappan, Michigan State   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | University, and                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Terri Mozingo, Charlotte-Mecklenburg      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Schools                                   |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | Moderated Q and A                         |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **9:30 |   | Break                                     |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **9:45 |   | Concurrent Sessions                       |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | **NCTM's Principles and Standards for     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | School Mathematics: Overview and          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Implications**                            |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Michigan State        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | University                                |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This session will provide an overview  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > of the key features of* Principles and  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Standards for School Mathematics *as    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > well as its relations to previous       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Standards documents. Implications for   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > various groups invested in mathematics  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > education will be discussed.*           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Achieving Systemic Middle School Change |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | in Mathematics**                          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Diane Briars, Pittsburgh Public Schools   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This session will examine efforts by   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > the Pittsburgh Public Schools and other |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > urban districts to institute systemic   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > reform in middle school mathematics.    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Student achievement data, key           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > implementation issues, and their        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > implications for future systemic reform |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > efforts will be presented.*             |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Recent Progress in the Teaching of      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Critical Topics in Middle Grades          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Mathematics**                             |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | James Fey, University of Maryland         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *Standards-based middle school          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > curricula have drawn on recent research |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > in mathematics education to produce     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > curriculum materials, teaching          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > strategies, and assessment practices    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > that promise radical change from        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > traditions of U.S. mathematics          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > education. Core middle grades topics    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > like measure, proportionality, and      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > algebra are now being taught with       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > considerable success using new          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > curriculum structures and classroom     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > learning environments. This session     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > will describe and illustrate some of    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > the key innovations.*                   |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Closing the Achievement Gap: An         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Asset-Based Approach to Urban             |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Restructuring**                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Belinda Williams, University of         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Pennsylvania                            |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | >                                         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *Despite the reform efforts of the      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > 1990's, a large gap separates the       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > academic performance of urban and       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > suburban students. Recent research and  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > theory have identified conditions       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > (cultural environments, current         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > understandings of intelligence,         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > resilience, etc.) that affect success   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > in urban schools. This interactive      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > session will examine these conditions,  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > an emerging vision, and implementation  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > strategies supported by recent          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > research.*                              |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| *      |   | Plenary Session: Professional Development |   |   |   |   |            |
| *11:00 |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
| a.m.** |   | Introduction: Ann B. Clark, Vance High    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | School, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | **School Systems and Professional         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Development for the Middle Years**        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Karen Seashore-Louis, University of     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Minnesota                               |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | >                                         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This presentation argues that we know  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > a good deal about effective             |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > professional development for middle     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > schools, but that our knowledge is      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > incomplete. In order to move forward,   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > educators must adopt an approach to     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > professional development which is       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > integrated with school change models,   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > and which assumes that many types of    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > professional development must coexist   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > in a turbulent change environment.*     |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | Response: Patrick Montesano, Academy for  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Educational Development, and              |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Ken McEwin, Appalachian State University  |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | Moderated Q and A                         |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| *      |   | Lunch and Reflection (*Box Lunch          |   |   |   |   |            |
| *12:15 |   | Provided*)                                |   |   |   |   |            |
| p.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **1:15 |   | Concurrent Sessions                       |   |   |   |   |            |
| p.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | **A Research Agenda to Support Improved   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Academic Achievement in High Poverty      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Schools**                                 |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Joseph Johnson, University of             |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Texas-Austin                              |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *This session will explore what has     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > been learned about highly successful    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > high poverty schools and how to help    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > low performing schools improve.*        |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **How We Can Create Whole School          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Environments to Support Literacy          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Development of Diverse Students**         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Catherine Cobb Morocco and Nancy        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Clark-Chiarelli, Education Development  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Center, Inc., with Sharonica Hardin,    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Colleen Peters, and Andrea Walker,      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Compton-Drew Middle School (St. Louis,  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > MO)                                     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | >                                         |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *Compton-Drew Investigative Learning    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Center, a middle school in the St.      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Louis, Missouri, Public Schools, draws  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > on the philosophy of research-based     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Schools for Thought. Compton-Drew       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > English/Language Arts teachers will     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > share two literacy practices,           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > cross-talk and independent pod work,    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > which structure learning in every       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > content area and give every student a   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > voice as they work together to          |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > understand how texts such as folktales  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > convey messages about a culture.*       |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Baby Steps and Slight Nudges Can Move   |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Mountains -- How to Accomplish            |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | School-wide Change**                      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Michelle Pedigo, Barren County Middle     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | School (Glasgow, KY)                      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *School-wide change is difficult and    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > takes time to accomplish. This session  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > provides stories from real schools      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > about continuous staff improvement      |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > through professional development.*      |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Lessons Learned: Leadership Development |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | that Fosters Shared Leadership and        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Results**                                 |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Susan E. Galletti, GALEF Institute        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > *When the learning community of adults  |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > in a school is strengthened, both       |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > teaching and leadership improve.        |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > Participate in a discussion of best     |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | > practices in professional development.* |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **2:30 |   | Concurrent Sessions: Implications for     |   |   |   |   |            |
| p.m.** |   | Future                                    |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Research, Policy and Practice             |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Implications for Literacy**             |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Implications for Mathematics**          |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   | **Implications for Professional           |   |   |   |   |            |
|        |   | Development**                             |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
|        |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+
| **3:30 |   | **Adjourn**                               |   |   |   |   |            |
| p.m.** |   |                                           |   |   |   |   |            |
+--------+---+-------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+------------+

#  

# II. Summary of Conference Strands

This section synthesizes information from the National Conference on
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in the Middle Grades: Linking
Research and Practice. The summary is divided into the following
sections: the state of middle grades achievement, the state of literacy,
the state of mathematics, and the state of professional development. In
each section we follow the same format. We begin with a summary of the
keynote or plenary presentation, follow with highlights of respondents'
comments, and end with summaries of the related concurrent sessions.

## **The State of Middle Grades Achievement**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Where Are We Now? What is the Challenge for Middle Grades          |
| Education?***                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Kati Haycock, The Education Trust                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Nancy Ames, Education Development Center, Inc.                        |
|                                                                       |
| ***Respondents***                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Gene Bottoms, Southern Regional Education Board                       |
|                                                                       |
| Hayes Mizell, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation                         |
|                                                                       |
| ######### Related Concurrent Sessions                                 |
|                                                                       |
| *Middle School: New Opportunities or Dead Ends*                       |
|                                                                       |
| Gloria Ladson-Billings, University of Wisconsin-Madison               |
|                                                                       |
| *A Research Agenda to Support Improved Academic Achievement in*       |
|                                                                       |
| *High Poverty Schools*                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Joseph Johnson, Jr., University of Texas, Austin                      |
|                                                                       |
| *Closing the Achievement Gap: An Asset-Based Approach to Urban        |
| Restructuring*                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Belinda Williams, University of Pennsylvania                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

###### Keynote

Students in the middle grades are not meeting the standards of
performance expected of them, according to national and international
assessments of educational progress. A combination of factors including
low expectations, watered-down curriculum, inadequately prepared
teachers, and inadequate resources have prevented many young students
from learning to use their minds well. To date, reforms at the middle
level have not produced more growth in student learning, concluded Kati
Haycock and Nancy Ames.

Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show
that students completing middle grades education today know somewhat
more in core academic subject areas than their predecessors did in the
70s. By the end of the 90s, however, less than 40 percent of all
students reach the proficient level in any academic subject. Moreover,
patterns of achievement differ across subjects, as well as among
students of different racial and economic backgrounds. Middle grades
students made cumulative advances in mathematics through all the
decades. While they made gains in reading during the 70s, their scores
remained stable during the 80s and 90s. And, their performance in
science has been inconsistent over time---down in the 70s, up in the
80s, and then down again in the 90s. When the data over time are
disaggregated by race, the authors noted that the pattern is clear:
while the achievement gap between whites and minority students narrowed
in the 70s and early 80s, it widened again in the 90s.

The authors attributed much of the increase in middle grades student
performance over the last three decades to improvements in elementary
education. That is, when one takes into account the gains made by
students in the earlier grades, the "value added" in grades 5-8 has
declined over time in mathematics, remained stable in reading, and
declined in science. Thus, virtually all of the growth in eighth-grade
achievement, where it exists, is due to better preparation in grade 4
and below. These data are consistent when disaggregated by race.

Data from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study show
that international comparisons are equally discouraging. When compared
to students in other countries, American students do relatively well in
reading and mathematics at grade 4. In fact, they are near the top in
science, and they are in the upper middle tier in mathematics. By eighth
grade, however, their relative position has fallen rather dramatically.
While American student performance improves from grades 5 through 8,
student improvement in other countries is considerably more.

Using data from a variety of sources, the authors described the factors
that appear to be associated with higher student achievement. These
include rigorous curriculum, challenging lessons and assignments,
well-educated teachers, and adequate instructional resources. In a
review of which students are most likely to have the opportunity to
learn, the patterns are consistent across all subjects and grades. Poor
students, minority students, and lower-achieving students of all races
are far more likely than other students to receive a watered-down
curriculum, less qualified teachers, and inadequate resources.

Haycock and Ames concluded: despite the fact that middle grades students
are exiting eighth grade with somewhat higher skills, many are trapped
without the skills necessary for high school success, and perform well
below their counterparts in other nations. The problem is exacerbated
for students from poor families, students of color, students with
disabilities, and other students who are traditionally overlooked in our
nation's schools. Unless we work hard to improve middle-level education,
especially for those who are most at risk of educational failure, we
will be limiting the future life and career options of another
generation of young people.

Pockets of excellence, however, exist in districts throughout the
country. In several states, districts, and schools across the country,
administrators, staff, and parents are working together to provide young
adolescents with the kind of schooling they will need for success in the
21st century. These schools have benefited from the middle grades reform
movement that began in the 70s and gained increased momentum in the 80s
and 90s. The National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform is one
example of the movement's thriving activity. The 43 leaders of the
National Forum have adopted a shared vision of high-performing middle
grades schools that are academically excellent, developmentally
responsive, and socially equitable. Forum members are working together
to make that vision a reality in many more schools across the country
(for more information on the National Forum, see
http://www.mgforum.org).

Haycock and Ames cited data from North Carolina, Texas, and Kentucky to
show how students in grades 6-8 can make significant progress when
states adopt and implement reform policies such as

-   Setting statewide academic standards by grade level for clear
    teaching objectives;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Holding all students to the same high standards;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Conducting statewide assessments closely linked to the academic
    standards;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Creating accountability systems with clear consequences for results;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increasing local flexibility for administrators and teachers in
    meeting the standards;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Computerized feedback systems, including data for continuous
    improvement;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Shifting resources to schools with more disadvantaged students;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Creating an infrastructure for reform (Grissmer and Flanagan, 1998).

Increased student achievement is also evident in major middle grades
initiatives funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, W.K. Kellogg
Foundation, and Carnegie Corporation. These initiatives share a common
goal of improving the educational programs and learning environments for
the most vulnerable middle grades students. In addition, they each seek
to promote comprehensive school improvement by using data to inform
decision-making, building a strong learning community, and forming
partnerships with families and community members. With sustained funding
and ongoing technical assistance, schools in all three initiatives have
demonstrated significant improvements in school organization and
culture, classroom practice, and student performance. Of course, the
more these schools implement the key features of effective middle grades
schools, the better their student outcomes.

Finally, Haycock and Ames described what high-performing middle grades
schools look like in practice, drawing upon case studies prepared by the
National Forum's Schools to Watch (STW) Committee and the Beacons of
Excellence project.[^1] After a lengthy nomination, application, and
selection process, the four STW and the three Beacons schools were
chosen by their respective research teams because they met the National
Forum's criteria for high-performing middle grades schools. That is,
each school had made significant progress in all three areas: academic
excellence, developmental responsiveness, and social equity. In
addition, each school had created the infrastructure necessary to
support continuous improvement over time. The authors provided brief
vignettes from all seven of these middle grades schools organized around
the following topics:

-   A shared vision or philosophy;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   High expectations for all students;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Challenging and engaging curriculum and instruction;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A focus on accountability;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Intensive and ongoing professional development;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Support for students at risk of educational failure;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Active family/community involvement;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Strong instructional leadership.

####### Respondents

Following the Haycock and Ames presentation, Gene Bottoms identified
four issues raised by the paper:

-   *The mission of middle grades education is not clear*. Focusing on
    the developmental needs of young adolescents has become an excuse
    not to figure out how to teach all students using a rigorous
    curriculum. A greater effort must be made to give all students an
    opportunity to pursue a college preparatory program in high school.
    This effort should be led by school principals who encourage their
    teachers to revise the curriculum and figure out how to teach more
    rigorous content to their students.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *We need to strengthen teacher certification requirements and
    in-service training*. Many middle grades teachers hold an elementary
    or a general education certificate. Middle-level teachers are also
    less likely to have had in-depth subject area preparation. A greater
    effort needs to be made to provide in-service training focused on
    content knowledge.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *The majority of teachers in the middle grades continue to emphasize
    lower-level academic tasks in their lessons*. Teachers who have
    students in lower academic tracks often have low expectations for
    what their students can accomplish.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *A large resource allocation gap exists between education in the
    middle grades and other grade levels*. We need to understand and
    help communicate to policymakers why fewer dollars are spent per
    student at this level.

Bottoms also remarked that schools must pay more attention to
connections with families and the communities. The support provided by
these two groups can be the key to success in meeting the school's
instructional goals. Schools must also explore ways to utilize time
better during and outside the school day.

In his response, Hayes Mizell highlighted two challenges to the progress
of middle grades reform. The first challenge is the deep disagreement
among educators about the purpose and desired results of middle-level
education. One faction believes that middle grades teachers and
administrators should provide students with safe and supportive learning
environments, and then "hope for the best" academically. Another faction
has little regard for students' personal development, believing that
students in the middle grades should transition into an adult-centered
environment and learn to respond to adults' preferred methods of
instruction. Until more schools adopt a vision that captures the
*interaction* between students' personal and intellectual development,
educators will not have the consensus of conviction and action necessary
to significantly improve student learning.

The second challenge is that, while much is known about practices that
are effective in increasing student achievement, very few educators are
seeking out and using this readily available knowledge. Teachers and
administrators are not the only groups who are not taking the initiative
to find, learn, and apply these effective practices. For example, by
promoting sloppy staff development programs, school boards,
superintendents, key central office staff, and teacher unions
communicate their lack of interest in changing the current state of
knowledge and practice. Many districts send out an implicit message that
participation in these programs is not expected to result in academic
benefits for students. We need to examine the reasons why middle-level
educators are *not* using what is already known about practices that
increase student learning. Until these two problems are addressed, the
focus of middle grades education will continue to be on the challenges
rather than on the accomplishments.

###### Related Concurrent Sessions

In her concurrent session, Belinda Williams noted that reading and
mathematics scores in both poor and higher income schools improved from
1992 to 1999, coinciding with the introduction of standards. Yet the
achievement gap between poor and high-income students remains, and is
actually widening. Williams recommended that researchers examine the
factors that contribute to this gap. Otherwise, a lot of resources,
time, and money will continue to be spent on standards, even though
there is no real evidence that they are making a difference for students
from low income families.

Our policies thus far contribute to the development of a permanent
underclass of people, Williams argued. We need to move beyond our
current approach to "educating all children," which usually means
regular education, remediation, or special education. Once students are
removed from the regular education classroom, they don't receive the
same curriculum. We need to give teachers the training they need to
understand why these children are not succeeding in the regular
classroom and the instructional strategies that improve learning for all
in the regular classroom. Furthermore, to close the gap, we must:

-   *Broaden our theoretical understanding of all human development and
    learning* drawing upon the latest information from at least three
    areas: biology, psychology, and sociology. Of critical importance is
    an understanding of the culturally diverse environments from which
    our children come.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Change the system* of education in this country, not just add a few
    programs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Engage in more comprehensive planning* to change the system and
    structure of education, including teacher preparation, so that they
    address all the complexities of human development.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Engage in whole-school reform*, an approach that has demonstrated
    success in closing the achievement gap.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Know the learner* and provide the resources and opportunities to
    make connections, which we all know is the most powerful way for
    learning to occur.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Examine the research on resilience in* order to find out what
    factors strengthen outcomes for socio-economically disadvantaged
    people.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Redefine outcomes.* If we aim to prepare citizens to be competitive
    in society, our reform goals must focus beyond the school and
    academic performance.

Gloria Ladson-Billings pointed to data that show we are not getting much
"bang for the buck" in urban middle-schools, where a lot of students are
not doing well. She suggested taking a look at the students who have
traditionally struggled, finding where schools are doing a good job, and
sharing that information to help everybody. Ladson-Billings' research
focuses primarily on African-American boys, who seem to be doing worse
than anybody else. She suspects that if we find out how to help these
students, we can probably help others as well.

Rather than focusing on the fallacy of "raging hormones,"
Gladson-Billings believes that educators must understand young
adolescents as complex human beings with social, cultural, and
intellectual dimensions. She argues that every student must be known
well by at least one adult in the school environment and that every
student should also acquire a functional body of knowledge. Effective
middle schools, therefore, include a comprehensive curriculum plan and
an advisory team.

In a positive learning environment, the teacher presumes the educability
of all children and clearly delineates what students should know and be
able to do. The teacher knows the lesson content, the learner, and how
to teach the content to the learner. The teacher considers academic
achievement a complex notion, not measurable by a single, static gauge.
Rather than "just managing bodies," the teacher must (1) understand
culture and its role in education; (2) take responsibility for learning
about the students, the culture, and the community; and (3) use
students' culture as a basis for learning at the local, national, and
global level.

Often young African-American students feel that they must choose between
being good students and being themselves. Disengagement from school
actually raises their status among their peers. African-American females
may define themselves purely in sexual terms. Some African-American
students who are gifted and do well in school do so at great cost,
including derision and isolation from friends. To help these students,
teachers need to know the larger socio-political context of the school
and the community and plan academic experiences that connect them to the
larger community. While they must be passionate about content, they must
also take student diversity and individual differences into account.

Joseph Johnson described research conducted by the Charles A. Dana
Center, which focuses on improving education in high poverty schools in
Texas. Schools in the study had high concentrations of students eligible
for free or subsidized lunches who were also successful on the state
tests. In examining these schools, the researchers focused on how
schools fared with specific groups such as children with disabilities
and children whose first language was not English. Johnson's findings
mirror those in the Haycock and Ames presentation:

-   *Successful middle schools aim for clear, challenging academic
    goals*. The successful schools could articulate and set precise
    goals that necessitated a stretch on the part of students and
    teachers. A strong vision-driven principal who has the support of
    others is key.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Successful middle schools have a "no excuses" attitude*.
    Low-performing schools present many excuses that have nothing to do
    with instruction. Educators at successful schools assume that all
    students can achieve at very high levels. They use state-level
    assessments, disaggregated by type of student, to help understand
    and improve teaching.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Successful middle schools focus on improving instruction*. Teachers
    at these schools constantly monitor their own teaching and strive to
    make it better. They also focus on improving learning beyond what is
    necessary for the students to pass the state tests. They encourage
    collaboration and trust among teachers, allowing teachers to learn
    from each other, continue to improve, and support each other.
    Educators in these schools persist through difficulties and are
    resilient in the face of obstacles and challenges.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Successful middle schools also make students, parents, and
    educators feel valued*. These schools not only create a positive
    environment within the school, they also recognize the importance of
    engaging parents in the school program. Johnson told of one
    principal who went to students' homes, knocked on doors, and began
    by telling the parents how happy he was to have their children in
    his school. This led to greater parental involvement, which was a
    factor in the school's success.

## **The State of Literacy**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #                                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| ####                                                                  |
| ##  Grappling with the Big Issues in Middle Grades Literacy Education |
|                                                                       |
| > Donna Alvermann, University of Georgia                              |
| >                                                                     |
| > ***Respondents***                                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > Leah Meyer Austin, The W.K. Kellogg Foundation                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > Lea Schelke, Trenton High School                                    |
|                                                                       |
| #                                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| ###### Related Concurrent Sessions                                    |
|                                                                       |
| > *Designing Questions Toward Thinking and Understanding*             |
| >                                                                     |
| > Margaret McKeown, Learning Research and Development Center          |
|                                                                       |
| It's a Difference that Changes Us: An Alternative View of the         |
| Language and Literacy Learning Needs of Latino Students               |
|                                                                       |
| > Robert Jimenez, University of Illinois                              |
| >                                                                     |
| > *Reversing Reading Failure in At-Risk Youth*                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > Mary E. Curtis, Lesley College                                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > *Teaching Middle Schoolers in a Writing Workshop Approach*          |
| >                                                                     |
| > Nancie Atwell, Center for Teaching and Learning                     |
| >                                                                     |
| > *How We Can Create Whole-School Environments to Support Literacy    |
| > Development of Diverse Students*                                    |
| >                                                                     |
| > Catherine Cobb Morocco and Nancy Clark-Chiarelli, Education         |
| > Development Center; Sharonica Hardin, Colleen Peters, and Andrea    |
| > Walker, Compton-Drew Middle School                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

###### Plenary Session

Donna Alvermann identified four key issues in middle grades literacy
education that practitioners, researchers, and policymakers are
grappling with today:

-   Concern for the young adolescent who struggles with reading. They
    struggle for different reasons and are given a plethora of labels
    (e.g., learning disabled, second language learners, "at-risk,"
    unmotivated, disenchanted).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The perceived need to accelerate students' reading achievement and
    academic learning in the subject matter areas, such as social
    studies, science, and English language arts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The potential for using adolescents' out-of-school interests in
    computers and the media to foster their in-school subject learning.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Concerns about whether the knowledge base in middle grades literacy
    education is being translated into practice.

After identifying these issues, Donna Alvermann discussed what research
says and does not say with respect to these four areas.

*Readers who struggle*: Focusing on second language readers and
monolingual, unsuccessful readers who struggle, she noted that research
on these two types of readers generally explain the struggle in three
ways:

-   The *deprivation approach* assumes that there is a stable set of
    tasks, deemed milestones by a particular culture, to which all its
    members must respond if they are to qualify as developmentally
    competent on those tasks. For example, being able to decode,
    comprehend, and summarize large chunks of informational texts would
    qualify as one such set of tasks in the middle grades. Students'
    below-average performances on these tasks are taken as evidence that
    these students have not yet developed the requisite set of skills
    necessary for reading competently at a particular grade level or in
    a particular set of texts. Regardless of where the research is
    carried out, the findings are remarkably similar. While the
    instructional intervention is in progress, students who are
    struggling with reading show marked improvement in reading
    performance and their self-esteem also improves. What the research
    does not tell us is whether these changes are long lasting and
    transfer to situations beyond the research setting or specific
    subject matter area under investigation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the *difference approach,* the ways in which young adolescents
    develop competencies as literate beings will vary according to the
    demands of their particular cultures. Although there is some
    research (e.g., Brozo, Valerio, & Salazar, 2000) to suggest that
    bilingual middle grades students can benefit from literacy
    instruction that takes into account their cultural funds of
    knowledge, much more work needs to be done in this area.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The *culture-as-disability approach* assumes that all cultures teach
    people about what is worth working for, how to succeed, and who will
    fall short. Using the culture-as-disability approach to
    understanding struggling readers in the middle grades, one might
    argue that the school curriculum disables some students by mandating
    what is assumed to be a stable (though arbitrary) set of reading
    tasks against which they can be measured, and perhaps helped, but if
    not, then pushed aside. Research conducted within a socio-cultural
    framework would tend to support this kind of approach---a focus on
    at-risk environments, rather than at-risk students.

Alvermann also discussed research on accelerating students' reading
achievement. She related that members of the National Reading Panel
(NRP) had identified seven strategies that have been found to improve
students' reading comprehension of specific academic areas, such as
social studies. They include:

-   *Comprehension monitoring*, which teaches readers how to be aware of
    their understanding of the material;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Cooperative learning*, where students learn reading strategies
    together;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Use of graphic and semantic organizers (including story maps)*,
    making graphic representations of the material to assist
    comprehension;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Question answering*, in response to questions posed by the teacher
    who gives immediate feedback;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Question generation*, where readers ask themselves questions about
    various aspects of the narrative;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Story structure,* which teaches students to use the structure of
    the story as a means of helping them recall story content; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Summarization*, which teachers readers to integrate ideas and
    generalize from the text information

Alvermann noted that further research on the application of these
various approaches within the framework of developmentally responsive
middle grades education will be valuable.

She discussed research on the use of computers to foster subject matter
learning, by summarizing the NRP's general statements about the
potential for using computer technology in reading instruction:

-   The addition of speech to on-screen text promises to enhance the
    versatility of technology in reading instruction;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The use of hypertext---text that links to supporting information and
    audiovisuals---may enhance traditional methods of reading
    instruction; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The use of word processing technologies may be advantageous, as
    reading instruction is known to be most effective when integrated
    with writing instruction.

Alvermann noted implications for literacy practice, policy, and future
research. Regarding literacy practice, she cautioned that the report of
the NRP must be read with a clear understanding of its limitations in
two areas: the panel did not address issues relevant to second language
learners and did not consider research that fell outside the
experimental and quasi-experimental designs of quantitative research.
Thus a large body of potentially rich findings was overlooked.

She discussed the danger of allowing literacy advances to be gauged only
by traditional standardized tests. Comparing scores on standardized
tests of one group to another will always result in inequities because
all students don't follow the "normal curve." Schools must also develop
a realistic attitude about alternative curricula, which often leave
students ill prepared for the demands of the larger culture.

Alvermann recommended that future qualitative research zero in on
reading comprehension and that findings be analyzed in a way that makes
them available (and interpretable) through cross-case comparisons. Also,
she recommended that new experimental or quasi-experimental research be
designed to address hypotheses that arise from more in-depth and
close-up qualitative work. Research is also needed on computer
technology and the media and its relation to young adolescents'
out-of-school interests in computers and in-school subject matter.
Further, researchers must study the degree to which the knowledge base
in middle grades literacy education is being translated into practice
and to what effect.

The members of the National Reading Panel had located only four studies
that met their research design criteria on the topic of teachers'
implementation of comprehension strategy instruction. Although limited
in what they could say based on this small number of studies, the panel
released two general statements:

-   Teachers require instruction in explaining what they are teaching,
    modeling their thinking processes, encouraging student inquiry, and
    keeping students engaged.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In order for teachers to use strategies effectively, extensive
    formal instruction in reading comprehension is necessary, preferably
    beginning as early as preservice. (Report of the National Reading
    Panel, 2000, p. 16)

Alvermann closed by posing a number of thought-provoking questions. What
is real reading? What counts as reading when reading really counts? What
is the danger in continuing to view literacy as a set of "neutral"
psychological skills that are easily, if narrowly, measured rather than
as a complex mixture of social and political practices through which to
work toward equality and social justice for all?

***Respondents***

Speaking from the practitioner's perspective, Leah Meyer Austin
identified four issues that were slightly different from Alvermann's:
resources, professional development, time, and high stakes testing.

-   *Resources*: First, school and public libraries have a dearth of
    compelling, timely reading materials that appeal to the diversity of
    students' cultural backgrounds, interests, and reading levels.
    Perhaps, in many districts, technology purchases have usurped
    purchases of reading materials. Second, middle grades class sizes
    are generally too large, which diminishes reading instruction.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Professional Development*: Teachers are still not prepared to teach
    reading in their language arts classes, let alone in the subject
    areas across the curriculum.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Time*: First, students spend far less time practicing and using
    their reading skills. Second, teachers have little time to plan with
    one another; therefore, "reading across the curriculum" becomes
    another empty phrase.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *High-Stakes Testing*: Unfortunately, the high standards we all want
    for all students are not yet matched by high support. In some cases,
    students---especially those from low-performing schools---spend more
    time on skill and drill and less on reading.

Austin concluded by drawing implications for research. The NRP should
reconsider its stance on qualitative research, she recommended. She
called for "practice-driven research." In addition, more impact studies
are needed to assess middle grades literacy, professional development,
resources, time, high-stakes testing, and community involvement. Austin
called for an agenda for research, practice, and policy that goes beyond
the battles of either-or. For example, we must consider both whole
language and skills; qualitative and quantitative research, technology
and print materials, not be forced to choose between them.

Lea Schelke responded to Alvermann's four main points. She described a
typical classroom that includes a variety of "struggling readers,"
general education students, special education students, bilingual and
gifted students. Many teachers work hard to prepare for them all.
Accelerating students' reading achievement in the future will require
teachers to have a huge portfolio of reading strategies because what
works with one student today will not work tomorrow. In using computers
and other media to address literacy, she urged caution to ensure that
technology does not interfere with reading or take time away from
discussion. If we were to translate research into practice, she called
for qualitative research that considers the whole society, the
community, the parents, and what is going on in students' lives. She
also urged the research community to pursue studies about how
practitioners utilize education research in their classrooms. Schelke
ended her remarks by talking about the important roles played by the
media center librarian, the principal, and the curriculum director.

###### Related Concurrent Sessions

In his concurrent session, Robert Jimenez focused on literacy learning
needs of Latino students and emphasized the importance of considering
cultural differences. Current efforts overlook the linguistic and
cultural riches, knowledge, and information that students from
linguistic-minority backgrounds bring to the classroom. He described his
qualitative research project with the formative experiment approach
(combining equal methods of investigation with intervention to improve
instruction) that involved competent, average, and low-performing groups
of bilingual readers in grades 6-7. He shared with the low-performing
readers the kind of strategies used by the high-performing readers.
Using cultural props to elicit language and culturally relevant text, he
taught students the think-aloud procedure and assisted them with word
recognition skills. His preliminary findings indicate that after the
intervention students were more focused on school-centric literacy
tasks. They recognized similarities in the processes used in reading
Spanish and English. But he also found that students might see learning
to read in English as being asked to give up a part of their linguistic
identity. While students wanted to be literate, schools were not
necessarily providing effective opportunities.

Margaret McKeown's concurrent session focused on two of the seven
strategies identified by Alvermann: question answering and question
generation. The point of asking questions, she said, "is to help
students understand what they don't know and to reveal what they do
know. McKeown focused on several productive strategies:

-   Questioning the author allows students to grapple with and respond
    to the ideas they read about. Typical questions are "What is the
    author trying to say?" and "How does that connect with what we read
    about before?"

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Open questions are implemented in the classroom through predictions
    and eliciting prior knowledge. Typical questions are "What's this
    about?" and "What's going on?"

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Follow-up questions are directed toward building meaning. Sample
    questions are: "Do you want to add to what \[x\] said?" "What does
    \[x's\] statement mean?" "What do you think will happen next?"

McKeown strongly recommended that students should be asking questions
that foster thinking. She reported that she and her colleagues found
changes in the roles in the classroom when questioning was implemented.
For example, teachers' questions changed from asking students to
retrieve information to focusing on considering and extending meaning.
Students' responses began to focus on constructing meaning and
integrating ideas. Student-to-student interactions became more common.

During her concurrent session, Mary E. Curtis recounted her experiences
at Boys Town in Nebraska. She translated research into practice by
implementing Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR) to assess word
recognition, oral reading, silent reading, spelling, word meaning, and
word analysis. Relying on Chall's six stages of reading development,
Curtis created the following courses that met the diagnosed needs:

-   *Foundations of Reading*---provided an analytical approach to
    teaching phonics and spelling while making the students apply the
    phonics through collaborative reading of novels;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Adventures in Reading*---promoted word recognition and
    understanding of meaning through software, games, and collaborative
    oral reading;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Mastery* *of Meaning*---focused on learning vocabulary through
    direct instruction and include developing concepts; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Explorations*---involved study skills and developing efficient
    problem-solving skills incorporating reading and writing in the
    content areas.

Curtis found that two-thirds of the Boys Town students had accelerated
growth (more than one year of growth for a year of school). Longitudinal
studies showed that students were most successful in developing basic
reading comprehension and vocabulary.

Catherine Cobb Morocco and Nancy Clark Chiarelli, in collaboration with
staff from Compton Drew Middle School, provided an example of a whole
school literacy program that sought to translate research into practice.
The program built on research that showed the importance of active,
intentional learning; distributed expertise; reflective, metacognitive
learning; deep content knowledge; discourse; and systems and cycles.
Students, heterogeneously grouped, work in groups of five or six. The
work is inquiry-based with a shared outcome. The learning process moves
through three phases:

-   Dilemma phase: anchor, generate and categorize questions;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Research phase: reciprocal teaching, cross-talk (circle format,
    large and small groups, more or less structured), knowledge forum,
    benchmark, calling in experts; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sharing knowledge: cross-talk, jigsaw.

Compton-Drew uses a school-wide approach, where the staff has ownership
of professional development. Videotapes are part of professional
development. Many teachers have published to disseminate their ideas.

Nancie Atwell's concurrent session addressed one of the main elements of
overall literacy programs: writing. She described the Writing Workshop
approach where students write about meaningful topics, and their
teachers act as writing coaches. Teachers also provide informative
lessons about practical matters, such as language conventions. The goal
is purposeful expository writing, where students learn that writing is
thinking and that multiple attempts at thinking are expected. In terms
of defining features, the writing workshop:

-   Creates a physical sense of community;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Enables students to talk as writers and readers;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requires students to present status reports;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provides time for students to write, first by hand, then on a word
    processor using resources such as a thesaurus and character
    worksheets;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requires students to prepare a cover sheet for each piece of
    writing, create personal writing folders, develop a personal
    proofreading list, and use books for research;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provides places for student peer writing conferences with question
    lists; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Includes student-teacher conferences where teachers ask leading
    question, make suggestions, give advice and collaborate with
    students.

## **The State of Mathematics**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##                                                                    |
| ####  Mathematics in the Middle Grades: Linking Research and Practice |
|                                                                       |
| > Judith T. Sowder, San Diego State University                        |
|                                                                       |
| ######## Respondents                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| > Glenda Lappan, Michigan State University                            |
| >                                                                     |
| > Terri Mozingo, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools                        |
|                                                                       |
| ######## Related Concurrent Sessions                                  |
|                                                                       |
| > *Achieving Systemic Change in the Teaching and Learning of Middle   |
| > School Mathematics*                                                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > Diane J. Briars, Pittsburgh Public Schools                          |
| >                                                                     |
| > *Recent Progress in the Teaching of Critical Topics in Middle       |
| > Grades Mathematics*                                                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > James T. Fey, University of Maryland                                |
| >                                                                     |
| > *NCTM's Principles and Standards for School Mathematics: Overview   |
| > and Implications*                                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Michigan State University                       |
| >                                                                     |
| > *Mathematics: Caught in the Middle*                                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > Thomas A. Romberg, University of Wisconsin Madison                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

###### Plenary Session

Much is known about the learning process in mathematics in the middle
grades, said Judith Sowder. While values deeply affect our
decision-making about what mathematics education should look like in
today's schools, their role is not fully appreciated. Values function as
the "criteria people use to select and justify actions and to evaluate
people and events" (Schwartz, 1992, p. 1). All decisions and standards
concerning mathematics are founded on values, even when they are not
made explicit. For example, the new NCTM *Principles and Standards of
School Mathematics*, recently published in 2000, represents a particular
set of values which differ from materials published by, for example, the
group known as "Mathematically Correct.".

Sowder reviewed some important issues relating to curriculum and
instruction in mathematics, highlighting the role of values. She focused
on three key topics:

-   *Number and number relations.* In the middle grades, students make
    important conceptual shifts. They move from manipulating whole
    numbers to working with signed numbers and rational numbers and from
    a focus on addition and subtraction to multiplication and division.
    When teachers do not understand the significance of these subtle
    changes in how numbers are used, students can become very confused.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Extended reasoning power*. Almost all situations dealing with
    growth comparisons require multiplicative reasoning. The ability to
    reason multiplicatively is basic to proportional reasoning. The
    development of this skill is one of the major mathematical hurdles
    of the middle grades.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Algebra*. Algebra, when approached as a natural extension of
    arithmetic, can be thought of as generalized arithmetic. It provides
    a symbolic language used to represent and analyze quantitative
    relationships. While school districts require that all students take
    algebra in eighth grade, many questions remain about whether this is
    the developmentally appropriate time.

Sowder discussed instruction in the classroom environment, focusing on
three areas:

-   *Teaching problem solving*: It is not enough to be able to carry out
    paper-and-pencil long division. A student needs to know when to
    divide or what the results mean. Solving story problems means
    sorting out some ambiguity, which can elicit frustration and anxiety
    before a solution is reached. However, solving these challenging
    problems can be the source of considerable pride and a feeling of
    mathematical power.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Motivating students to learn*: Research tells us five key facts
    about motivation:

\(1\) Motivations are learned. (2) Motivation hinges on students'
interpretations of their successes and failures. (3) Intrinsic
motivation is better than engagement for a reward. (4) Inequities are
influenced by how different groups are taught to view mathematics. (5)
Teachers matter.

-   *Tracking students by ability*: Tracking (grouping students by
    ability) has not been shown to improve outcomes for all levels.

Sowder concluded by listing the implications for linking research to
practice, drawing on the work of Kennedy (1997). First she said that our
research is considered by many to be neither authoritative nor
convincing. Many of the questions being asked today relate to values and
cannot be answered with research. Research results that do exist but
that do not coincide with one's value system are often considered
unauthoritative and unconvincing. We need to do more to help parents,
teachers, and policy makers understand the role of values in making
decisions, and we need to provide opportunities for reflection and
discussion of what is valued. Research can be persuasive and
authoritative only when people are fully aware of what they value, and
when they are willing to consider evidence that refutes those values.

Second, Sowder said that many teachers and policy makers believe that
most research has little relevance to the decisions they must make**.**
Many research studies in mathematics education offer sound principles
for the practice of teaching mathematics. But not only research
*finding*s have relevance to the classroom. Many times the theoretical
constructs that underlie the research or the tasks used in a research
study can prove useful in practice.

Research can affect practice only if the research is *accessible* to
teachers and policy makers*.* Unfortunately, research published in
research journals is not written to be easily accessible to teachers.
Much research is considered to be irrelevant simply because of this
problem of accessibility. Some bridge is needed between research reports
teachers and policy makers.

###### Respondents

In her response, Glenda Lappan noted that developing both motivation and
a disposition toward tackling mathematics is one of our biggest
challenges during the middle grades. If young adolescents do not connect
to mathematics, they have made a key decision about themselves as
learners that will influence their future educational and employment
choices.

Lappan's approach is to look at teaching mathematics through the lens of
problem solving. Problems should be front and center in the curriculum.
What we have been doing for the past 50 years doesn't work; we have
broken down mathematics into small pieces, teaching ideas one at a time,
and expecting students to figure out the big picture of what mathematics
is about from those small pieces. The result is that students do not
have the big picture. Over the past 10 years, the shift has been to
create a new kind of environment for teaching mathematics. Today
students have an opportunity to interact with each other, give and
receive help from peers, and interact while solving challenging
problems. In comparison studies with traditional approaches, students
using this approach make more gains.

Picking up on Sowder's perception that algebra should be thought of as
generalized mathematics, Lappan sees algebra as a deep study in
variation and change. Lappan argued that we must offer students a number
of ways to show their mathematical talent. New kinds of learning
opportunities that allow students to demonstrate their abilities in
broad, meaningful ways can positively affect teacher and student
understanding of what constitutes mathematical ability.

Terri Mozingo, drawing on comments from mathematics specialists, said
she was intrigued by Sowder's remarks about the role of values in
educational curricula. The values "war," she said is between the
traditional perspective which advocates a pure mathematical approach
(rote arithmetic, no calculators, paper and pencil approach to
computation) vs. the standards-based approach where students learn
computation in a meaningful context, understanding why calculations
work. Students need more than a traditional understanding of
mathematics, especially in light of a changing society and the role of
technology.

Mozingo pointed out some implications affecting practice, research, and
policy. First, the majority of today's teachers have learned mathematics
using a traditional approach. Second, most curricula emphasize skills,
not methods of instruction. While teachers say they teach the
curriculum, they may not be conveying how and when to use the skills.
Third, to teach problem solving, educators and policymakers must help
parents and others see the value in teaching problem solving and
thinking mathematically. Fourth, policy should acknowledge that
mathematics curriculum is value-laden. We need input from a diverse
group of stakeholders. In addition, we must close the gap between the
concepts that drive research and implementation in the classroom.

###### Related Concurrent Sessions

Joan Ferrini-Mundy drew on her experience as the chair of the writing
council for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The new
NCTM standards acknowledge that as the world changes, math instruction
is not giving students what they need. The standards also note that
while children can compute, they cannot solve problems as well as they
should. The NCTM *Principles and Standards* of 2000 differ from those of
1989. They present less focus on "real world" problems and include a
more timely, extensive discussion of technology. The standards for
grades 6 through 8 take a stand in three areas: rational numbers, linear
functions, and proportionality, with the goal of developing flexible
problem-solvers. She emphasized the importance of the new standards'
becoming part of textbooks. Textbook companies are driven by the market,
so a grassroots interest will steer them to try out elements of the new
standards. NCTM held a publishers conference and is also producing some
materials on its own in order to drive this process.

Thomas Romberg addressed the challenges of standards-based reform.

-   Educators must create a coherent vision of what it means to be
    mathematically literate in a rapidly changing world.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Math literacy applies to four domains: number, algebra, geometry,
    statistics/probability.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "Literacy" means the human use of language and relies on the design
    resources of the language for different social functions. Therefore,
    math literacy implies that students learn the design of math to
    solve the social functions of non-routine problems in a variety of
    situations.

    Based on the work of other researchers in the field, Romberg
    characterized understanding in five integrated forms of mental
    activity:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   construction of relationships;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   application of math and science knowledge;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   reflection about math and science experiences;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   articulation of what one knows; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   incorporation of math and science knowledge into one's life.

    Romberg explained that virtually all complex ideas in math are
    understood at different levels in different ways. The level of
    understanding will change with the level of classroom experiences.
    There is a development process from informal to formal in each
    domain, as well as a balance between learning concepts and
    procedures and using them to solve non-routine problems.

    Student achievement comes from instructional quality, a strong
    curriculum, instructional techniques, and assessment. In a case
    history detailing the experience of one school transferring to a new
    curriculum, Romberg demonstrated how initial results can be
    deceiving. In this case, an Iowa school followed a cohort through
    curriculum implementation. While the children had good scores
    initially, they dropped across the board during the first year of
    the new curriculum, especially in the area of computation. Despite
    criticism, the school stuck with the program. The next year, the
    scores rose in all three measured areas: concepts, problem solving,
    and computation. This upward trend continued during the final two
    years of the study, by which time the students were scoring at
    double or more than double the national average on standardized
    tests. More than anything, the study showed the need for time in
    implementing a new curriculum.

    Romberg noted that school capacity develops through the interplay of
    the teacher's knowledge, skills, and disposition; technical
    resources; program coherence; teacher access to a professional
    community; and leadership by the principal. Curriculum is only one
    feature; no curriculum is "teacher-proof" or "school-proof." The
    need for teachers to meet and plan together cannot be overstated,
    Romberg pointed out, but it is often understated.

Diane Briars focused on the practitioner perspective and community
connections. She described the Pittsburgh Reform in Mathematics
Education (PRIME) project, which involves a systemic approach to change
based on national (NCTM) standards. Key elements include:

-   Support from the community/educational system;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The math classroom as part of the larger community;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Parent involvement; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Clear roles for all stakeholders.

She also described the instructional design principles of a
research-based mathematics curriculum---Connected Mathematics---to show
what curriculum and instruction should do:

-   Identify big math ideas around which to focus instruction;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Build on big ideas---making connections;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Teach to support student development of deep understanding of and
    skill in using

concepts and strategies; and

-   Assess student understandings in multiple ways

Connected Mathematics encompasses number, algebra, geometry,
probability/statistics, etc. There are eight units (big ideas) at each
grade level.

In his concurrent session, James Fey stated that computational skills
are not as important as they used to be simply because people aren't
doing mathematics the way they used to. The critical issues for
mathematics are procedural and conceptual routines to help students
understand the subject and why they are doing mathematics. Materials
should be written in such a way that both teachers and students could
learn from them. The goal in a classroom is an environment to help
students think and to analyze their work.

Fey illustrated ways in which interpreted research could be taken back
to the classrooms. He provided a number of examples of teacher resources
and children's work related to the following instructional themes:

-   Deep conceptual understanding;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ideas encountered first in problem-solving;

1.  Concepts before systematic procedures; and

2.  Connections among content strands.

He also described an instructional model that includes the following
process::

Launch: Pique interest in a mathematical situation.

Explore: Search for patterns that yield numerical and visual data.

Summarize: Articulate patterns and generalizations.

Fey also identified on some of the ideas that influence constructivist
pedagogy.

-   Instruction should engage students in experiences that challenge
    their prior conceptions and beliefs about mathematics.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Instruction should encourage student autonomy and initiative. The
    instructor should be willing to let go of classroom control.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Instruction should encourage the spirit of questioning by posing
    thoughtful, open-ended questions and encouraging discussion among
    students.

-   Instruction should use interactive physical materials, authentic
    data, and primary sources.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Instruction should not separate knowing from the process of finding
    out.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Instruction should insist on clear expression from students, based
    on the assumption that when they can communicate their
    understanding, they have truly learned.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The instructor should become one of many resources that students may
    learn from, not the primary source of information.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The instructor should allow student responses to drive lessons and
    seek elaboration of students' initial responses. Allow students some
    thinking time after posing questions.

There is no simple answer, Fey said, to the question of how to educate
the public and policy makers about what needs to be done to educate
students. Accountability, however, will not simply go away. A lot of
tests, he suggested, have little to do with mathematics.

## **The State of Professional Development**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > ***Teachers' Professional Development For Vital Middle Schools:     |
| > What Do***                                                          |
| >                                                                     |
| > ***We Know And Where Should We Go?***                               |
|                                                                       |
| Karen Seashore Louis, College of Education and Human Development,     |
|                                                                       |
| University of Minnesota                                               |
|                                                                       |
| ######### Respondents                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| Patrick Montesano, Academy for Educational Development                |
|                                                                       |
| Ken McEwin, Appalachian State University                              |
|                                                                       |
| ######### Related Concurrent Sessions                                 |
|                                                                       |
| *Standards-Based Results-Driven Professional Development*             |
|                                                                       |
| Stephanie Hirsh, National Staff Development Council (NSDC)            |
|                                                                       |
| *Lesson*s *Learned: Leadership Development that Fosters Shared        |
| Leadership*                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| *and Results*                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Susan Galletti, GALEF Institute                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Baby Steps and Slight Nudges Can Move Mountains: How to Accomplish    |
| School-wide Change                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Michelle Pedigo, Barren County (KY) Middle School                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

##### *Plenary Session*

Karen Seashore-Louis argued that we *do* know a lot about how to provide
good professional development to support changes in schools for young
adolescents. However, she claimed that we have not yet put these pieces
together in ways that sustain the broad changes that are demanded. It is
premature to come up with "a solution" that blends what we know about
effective middle schools, effective staff development, and effective
"large scale change," because we still must rethink how the puzzle
should be approached.

Currently, two paradigms prevail. First is professional development as a
component of school reform. This approach claims that (1) schools need
to change because they are currently inadequate; (2) change must be
stimulated by widely agreed-upon standards, developed by the profession
or by the profession in conjunction with scholarly collaborators; (3)
new standards demand development to bring teachers' beliefs and skills
in line with emerging pedagogic demands; and (4) development must be
*professionalized*; that is, it must build capacity for change within
and among teachers rather than through older models that emphasize the
transmission of knowledge from experts to passive teacher-consumers. A
large number of approaches to professional development emerged in
conjunction with the systemic reform paradigm. For example, Corcoran
(1995) identified a number of promising approaches, based on preliminary
research evidence, such as teacher networks, school--university
collaborations, professional development schools, and national board
certification of teachers. These strategies, which continue to be
explored in the research literature, not only have a shared goal of
teacher learning, they also have in common a focus on providing
stimulation from outside the school for teacher learning.

The second paradigm is professional development as a component of
teacher improvement. This approach emphasizes both increased individual
skills and knowledge and the development of supportive school cultures
and school leadership**.** A number of specific proposals for
professional development strategies that can change teachers' cognitive
models about content and pedagogy in middle school settings have found
solid support: enhancing skills and understanding through participation
in materials and instructional design, encouraging and providing
opportunities for reflection, teacher as researcher, and
interdisciplinary teaming.

Louis pointed out the limits of the existing approaches: lack of robust
data on adolescents' need for unique environments, relatively weak
conclusions on professional development, lack of knowledge about what
staff development should consist of in the middle grades, teachers
expectations for professional development to provide pragmatic,
immediately useable information, and the need for reallocation of
resources.

Louis provided a vision of how we can approach the problem with a new
map that goes beyond managed change and teacher professionalism in staff
development. The reform model and the improvement model have an uneasy
co-existence in the lives of most practitioners, who are subjected to
state and local policies that incorporate both images without
reconciling their differences (Louis, 1998). Yet, it is unlikely that
the policy environment will change sufficiently or that a simpler or
more coherent reality will emerge.

Louis discussed the elements of change in professional practice in
middle schools.

Middle school development is a result of a variety of influences, each
of which will affect the kind of professional development that is most
appropriate. These include:

-   An autonomous developmental process (organizational life cycles)
    including the acknowledged, but unplanned for, enormous increase in
    new teachers in most systems, due to retirements;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Deliberately directed attempts (from within and from outside) to
    bring about educational and organizational changes; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Unanticipated events or "normal crises," both positive and negative,
    such as leadership turnover, changes in state policy that must be
    factored into the development process.

This set of factors, in which non-planned change dominates all planned
change processes, leads to the following conclusion: Effective
middle-school development is an ongoing process in which the
simultaneous effects of autonomous, coincidental, and deliberately
directed changes that affect the functioning of schools converge. Every
professional development program must be attuned to the developmental
issues facing the school.

The implication is, of course, that most schools will need to blend
models in a continuously evolving effort to provide support for a
"vision" that is also evolving based on school's current conditions.
This matching process is not a "science" but the art of adjusting action
to the combined influence of autonomous, planned, and unplanned changes
within the school and its context.

Louis asserts that the tools we need are mental models, not techniques.
The beliefs/mental models that are particularly relevant to middle
grades education are: learning as constructed; learning as
self-regulated; learning as contextual; and learning as social. While
most teachers who have been exposed to middle-school models in
professional development settings are aware of what is expected of them
and can articulate these concepts, they are still torn between their
belief in structure and order, and the newer constructivist models. In
other words, skills in concrete classroom practices (such as cooperative
learning) do not necessarily translate into a persistent effort by
teachers to organize their work in new ways. The issue, then, for
professional development is to move beyond knowledge and skills that are
appropriate for implementing *Turning Points* to the larger issue of
creating fundamental dispositions to teach and work in new ways.

In order to do this, Louis suggested several strategies. First, schools
must promote the development of professional communities within schools
by creating organizational conditions that promote joint problem solving
among teachers on how to create new models of schooling. Professional
development by itself does not lead directly to improved teaching unless
the overall organizational conditions promote risk-taking and collective
responsibility for student success.

The second strategy is to create teacher-principal teams and provide
parallel professional development for administrators. The needs of
school leaders and their central role in encouraging and creating
standards for school development must be part of a professional
development model.

In conclusion, Louis said, "Middle schools must address not only the
need for new skills and knowledge, but also their embedded,
dysfunctional learning habits." The implications include:

-   The middle school vision will continue to evolve in highly
    politicized settings in which external and internal demands will
    shift and will sometimes be incompatible.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Teacher change and school reform strategies for professional
    development tend to proceed from different assumptions, but both
    should be incorporated into our thinking about professional
    development for middle schools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Our knowledge about staff development strategies to promote
    effective middle schools is just beginning to emerge---we know
    enough to set out on the journey, but not enough to develop simple
    plans for how to do it right.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Changing teachers' beliefs, knowledge and skills is central and
    difficult---but it is not enough. Attending to professional
    development without considering the context of organizational and
    leadership cultures is likely to result in superficial change, as is
    the reverse.

####### Respondents

Patrick Montesano responded to Louis's connection between professional
development and whole school reform and elaborated with a discussion of
the contextualized nature of professional development. He identified
some challenges and raised some questions. One challenge is that
job--embedded professional development often does not address the larger
context. For example, middle school professional development does not
always encompass the new standards in English language arts, the latest
research on early adolescence, knowledge about local cultures and
customs, and data on structure learning and achievement. If professional
development does not take these into account, it will fall short. He
offered recommendations for the audience to consider.

-   Professional development should begin with a careful assessment of
    what students need to know and be able to do.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Teachers should figure out what they need to know and be able to do
    in instruction, student assignments, and school organization in
    order for every student to succeed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   We should support professional development in the short and long
    term, as part of the way the school does its business.

Reform efforts that collaborate with professional development programs
should create a comprehensive school reform model. The Middle Start
Initiative, for example, links the expertise of national groups with
local knowledge and skill to build public awareness of and engagement in
regional and local middle grades reform efforts. Preliminary research
suggests that this collaborative approach has already contributed to
progress and is promising approach for other schools.

Ken McEwin emphasized the critical need to improve middle level teacher
preparation and staff development. He claimed that we have been engaged
in "malpractice" for 100 years, allowing anyone with a degree to teach
young adolescents. The problem is not with the teachers, he added, but
the preparation we give them.

He reported on certification research carried out by Peggy Gaskill. She
found that 45 states now have some kind of endorsement for middle level
teacher preparation standards. He called for people to pay attention to
the five sets of standards produced by the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards aimed at teachers of young adolescents.
These should be considered in planning teacher preparation and staff
development programs. He recommended that it would be beneficial for
school districts (teachers and administrators) to collaborate with
university faculty to create professional development schools and/or
other initiatives. In discussing the effect of regulations at the state
level, he warned that we must be very careful that states not have
overlapping licensure. We need a separate program and license for
teaching young adolescents.

His recommendations also included the following: (1) Professional
development needs improvement, both for those preparing to teach and
those currently on staff. (2) Presenters must discuss the needs of young
adolescents and not assume that participants have this background
knowledge. (3) Teacher educators need to develop team--oriented staff
development.

###### Related Concurrent Sessions

Stephanie Hirsh outlined the core components of powerful staff
development:

-   Builds a culture that supports innovation, experimentation, and
    collegial sharing;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Engages teachers in daily planning, critiquing, and problem solving;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Deepens teachers' content knowledge (e.g., content colleges in South
    Carolina);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Expands teachers' instructional skills in content areas (pedagogy
    connected to content);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Teaches classroom assessment skills that allow teachers to regularly
    monitor gains in student learning (assessment literacy);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provides ongoing classroom-based ("at-elbow) assistance; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Connects teachers and schools to reform networks.

For Hirsh, a model professional development program, where substantial
learning occurs daily, would involve 8--10 teachers convening for at
least an hour daily to discuss the following questions:

-   What are the standards for our students?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How are students doing?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What do we need to do next?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What do we need to learn together?

Reflecting on Louis's call for school leaders to play a key role in
professional development, Hirsh emphasized the following leadership
responsibilities:

-   Promote standards for student learning, teaching, leadership, and
    staff development;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Be data-driven;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Advocate for adequate resources (at least 10 percent of budget, 25
    percent of time);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Seek compensation for knowledge and skills, not seat time (change in
    practice, results for students);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Strengthen school improvement plans;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Evaluate the impact and quality of staff development (for teachers
    and students), and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ask tough questions.

Sue Galletti also discussed the importance of leadership. She asserted
that if we want school leaders to be engaged in a professional learning
environment, we need to engage the principals in the same kind of
professional development that we expect the principals to engage the
teachers in. She outlined several skills, attitudes, and dispositions
that can be nurtured in principals to produce results. These include:

-   Development of shared leadership;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ability to building structures that allow the good things to work
    together---common planning time, and teachers talking about learning
    rather than discipline;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Curriculum leadership--- understanding what is being taught in
    school and why;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Assertive instructional leadership---knowing how to get job done
    quickly, believing that people are capable;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Organization and delegation skills;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   High expectations;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Clear goal and task orientation---being clear about what needs to be
    done and how to make it happen;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ability to communicate policies clearly;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Visit classrooms frequently;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   High visibility and availability; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Aptitude for parent and community relations.

Michelle Pedigo's concurrent session, based on her experience as a
principal, supported these key ideas. She related how she worked to
translate these ideas into practice by setting standards for her school
to meet the national and county standards. She adopted a leadership
strategy that was well--developed, based on multiple intelligences, and
arts--infused.

As a principal, she established a multi--faceted professional
development program and devised a results--based plan. Instead of
faculty meetings, she held content and team meetings for teachers. The
meetings focused on data or a document, based on success with high,
medium, and low achieving students. Ms. Pedigo used team meetings
facilitated by team leaders for planning, and reduced the meeting times
from twice to once a week to give teachers more time for other
responsibilities and professional development.

Other changes at her school included the use of a school--wide
instructional specialist, leadership development strategies, and
attendance at national conferences for teachers. The implications for
research, she says, are a whole school change model. She believes that
implementing curriculum mapping and looping are the next steps for
schools in transition.

How do these guidelines manifest themselves within the content areas? In
her paper on mathematics, Diane Briars from the Pittsburgh Public
Schools, listed key features of professional development around
mathematics.

-   Content is aligned with the curriculum that teachers have to teach.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It addresses subject matter knowledge and pedagogy.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Those who design, lead, and do follow-up have appropriate expertise
    in subject matter, pedagogy, and children's learning.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It offers teachers a "safe zone" to ask questions, risk failing, and
    try out new approaches and practices.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It incorporates follow-up, including on-site support (e.g., coaching
    or study groups).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It provides organizational support for desired practice.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is extended over time so teachers have opportunities to deepen
    their understanding, reflect on practice, extend applications, etc.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is directly related to practice and makes an explicit connection
    to standards, instructional materials, and assessments.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The focus progresses, e.g., curriculum "walk throughs" (50--60 hours
    in year one); content strands, pedagogy, assessment (25--30 hours
    per year); reflection on practice (seminars, 24 hours each).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It encompasses workshops (after school, Saturday, summer) that are
    both central and site-based.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Demonstration teachers provide in--class support: demonstration
    lessons, coaching, co--planning, and parent/community workshops.

# III. Themes and Recommendations

A panel of distinguished researchers, policymakers, and practitioners
(see Figure 1) issued recommendations on literacy, mathematics, and
professional development to the National Educational Research Policy and
Priorities Board.

Two questions guided the panel's work:

-   What research questions must be answered to accelerate literacy,
    mathematics, and professional development in the middle grades?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What policies can support young adolescents' literacy and
    mathematics learning and teachers' professional development?

Each panel member was assigned to one of the conference strands:
literacy, mathematics, or professional development. Each panel drafted a
set of recommendations that were presented to conference attendees in a
concluding session. During that session, conference attendees offered
comments, additional recommendations, and suggestions. Panel members
drafted final recommendations after the conference. Rather than
recommend specific actions, the panel chose to identify needs that must
be addressed from both the research and policy perspective. This
approach reflects the complexity of needs and the mandate for
researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to work together on behalf
of middle grades students' learning. Recommendations for each of three
areas are presented below.[^2]

## **Literacy**

The literacy strand featured presentations from practitioners and
researchers involved in developing theories and approaches for enhancing
teaching and learning in English language arts: reading, writing,
listening, and speaking. While each session highlighted a different set
of issues and strategies, they were linked by several overarching
themes, all of which directly affect policy, research, and practice. The
themes are:

***Curricular and Organizational Structures*.** How do the
organizational structures found in today's middle grades schools help or
hinder students' literacy development? Pressed to make the most of the
time available during a school day, schools make decisions that have a
significant---but often unintended---impact on students' literacy
development. For example, reading may be dropped as a separate class, or
standardized test preparation may take time away from reading. Built--in
planning time is often lacking, preventing teachers from collaborating
on reading efforts. Without that, high--profile initiatives such as
"reading across the curriculum" become empty phrases, raising hopes that
may never be fulfilled.

***Teacher Preparation, Qualifications, and Professional Development*.**
The most promising literacy approaches depend upon skilled professionals
who are avid learners and readers. Many middle grades teachers want but
lack training in how to help teach students of varied abilities and
needs. Teachers often are not prepared to teach reading in their
language arts classes, let alone in other subject areas.

***Scarce Resources*.** The middle grades receive fewer resources than
any other school level in both state and federal funding. Such funding
often goes primarily to math and science programs, leaving little for
literacy initiatives. School libraries often lack compelling, timely
reading materials that appeal to diverse cultural backgrounds,
interests, and reading levels, and the school librarian position is
disappearing in all too many middle grades schools. Funds that once
would have been used to purchase books are often spent on hardware and
software. While resources cannot cure every ill, a solid base of
materials is needed to sustain efforts to enhance students' literacy.

***Knowledge about Effective Practices*.** Much of the current research
seeks to answer questions about theoretical constructs and the effects
these have on learning. We do not know enough about why some practices
or models are effective and how implementation affects outcomes.

These five themes served as a structure for the closing session about
the literacy strand and guided the recommendations outlined below.

#### 

###### Research Needs

-   Encourage practitioners to contribute to the research agenda.
    "Research-driven practice" receives a lot of attention but we also
    need "practice-driven research." Teachers, principals, and parents
    want to know more about what is working in classrooms and why.

-   Conduct more impact studies to determine the effects of professional
    development and the impact of resources, time, and high-stakes
    testing on middle grades literacy.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Assess the degree to which the research in middle grades literacy
    education is being translated into practice. We need quantitative
    and qualitative studies that investigate the characteristics of
    schools that effectively apply relevant findings to their curriculum
    and instruction, especially to teaching reading across the content
    areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop a clear understanding of how different curricular and
    organizational structures can promote literacy development. We need
    to examine how schools can be organized so that they devote more
    time to reading. We also need to understand whether reading is best
    taught as a separate class or in conjunction with literature and
    other subjects. Another research question is how to give teachers
    more time to discuss instructional issues and examine student work
    during the school day.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Examine student assignment patterns (heterogeneous versus
    homogeneous grouping.) in relation to literacy development. If
    flexible grouping and regrouping of students works, under what
    circumstances and for whom? There is currently no research that
    addresses this question satisfactorily.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increase our understanding of how culture and issues of identity
    affect the literacy development of students, including those who are
    Limited English Proficient (LEP) or those who are placed in English
    as a Second Language (ESL) programs. What programs effectively
    develop the literacy skills of these students? What makes these
    programs effective? Can multicultural literature help promote
    literacy development?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Pay greater attention to the role of the community in middle grades
    literacy. Parents, public libraries, youth-serving organizations,
    churches, and others all can play a role in encouraging young
    adolescents as readers and thinkers. In what ways can schools
    partner with families and the community to create literacy--rich
    environment for children? How can we all encourage young people to
    read more?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Enhance university preparation of teachers to teach middle grades
    students with diverse needs, e.g., study effective teacher
    preparation programs and follow teacher performance over time.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Examine the dynamics of the widening achievement gap between poor
    and higher income students. We need to understand where the specific
    gaps exist and why. Research on improving achievement and
    identifying the sources of the achievement differential has rarely
    included the role of culture. Further, we need to examine the
    effectiveness of standards in raising achievement for students from
    low--income families.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Examine literacy development in the context of comprehensive school
    reform. What are the characteristics of the school organization and
    culture that foster improvement in literacy, teaching and learning?
    How can school restructuring enhance students' literacy development?
    Are specific models more effective than others?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Focus research on "struggling readers" by identifying which
    programs/strategies work best with which students under what
    circumstances.

###### Policy Needs

-   Refocus Title I funds so that the middle grades have the resources
    needed to help students who have not learned to read. We need to
    identify other types of resources that can support the development
    of literacy in the middle grades. For example, some schools hire
    literacy coaches who work with teachers to improve curriculum,
    instruction, and assessment. About 20 states are using this
    approach.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Formulate consistent policies that do not pit purchasing books
    against purchasing technology equipment. We must restock libraries
    and classrooms with *both* reading materials and computers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop a clear policy on teacher qualifications, certification, and
    the role of professional development in literacy. Should pre-service
    teachers at the middle level be required to receive formal reading
    instruction? Should certified teachers be required to receive
    training in strategic reading skills? Policies should also support
    the recruitment and retention of effective school-based
    professionals.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Focus on building links between technology and the media programs at
    school and young adolescents' interests in computers outside of
    school.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Engage in more comprehensive planning to change the system and
    structure of education, so that it addresses all the complexities of
    human development. We need to ensure that we truly work toward
    "educating all children," not just those in the regular education
    classroom. We need to train teachers to understand why all children
    are not succeeding in the regular classroom and to use the
    instructional strategies that will enable them to be more successful
    with all students.

## **Mathematics**

The mathematics strand featured presentations from practitioners and
researchers involved in developing theories and approaches for enhancing
teaching and learning in mathematics. In discussions about various
problems, issues, and curricular approaches, several overarching themes
emerged:

***Values**.* Decisions in mathematics about what to teach, when to
teach, and how to teach are driven primarily by values, a reality that
few acknowledge or recognize. Unlike social studies or language arts,
where the influence of values is widely accepted, mathematics seems to
carry a veneer of objectivity that often precludes reflective discussion
and constructive debate.

***Mathematics as a Language***. To support and promote mathematical
literacy, we must view mathematics as a language with an intricate
design, not a series of unrelated procedures and formulas. Mathematics
includes both concepts and procedures. A person who is mathematically
literate can use those concepts and procedures to solve problems in a
variety of situations. This approach is analogous to moving beyond
memorization of the rules of English grammar to understanding the
subtleties and nuances of conversation and correspondence.

***Reciprocal Relationship of Assessment and Instruction***. To target
and design instruction appropriately, teachers should use a variety of
assessment methods to determine the nature and extent of student
progress in understanding mathematics.

***Integration of Math Concepts and Processes***. Teachers should help
students learn every area of mathematics in all grades. Instead of
addressing algebra only in 8th grade or geometry only in 10th, geometric
and algebraic concepts should be introduced in pre--kindergarten, using
developmentally appropriate curriculum and instruction. This integration
of concepts and topics would revolutionize mathematics curricula and
instruction, bringing educators and students closer to using mathematics
as a language.

***Motivation***. Motivation is critical to students' success in
mathematics and can be easily undermined. For example, tracking students
in mathematics, a frequent (if often disguised) practice, can affect
teachers' expectations and students' motivation to work hard and perform
at high levels.

***Adaptation***. Well-designed curriculum materials serve as useful
prototypes that can enhance teaching and learning. The question is
whether adaptation is beneficial or harmful, as teachers seek to make
the curriculum their own.

***Learning Communities***. Bringing teachers together to learn new
approaches to curriculum and instruction, try out new practices, and
reflect on student performance is a powerful strategy for professional
development.

These key themes served as a structure for the closing session on
mathematics and informed the development of the recommendations outlined
below.

###### Research Needs

-   Explore strategies for helping parents, teachers, and policymakers
    understand the role of values in making decisions. How can schools
    and communities provide structured opportunities for reflection and
    discussion? How can we help key stakeholders understand the
    difference between the current working world and the world of work
    that today's children will confront?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What curricula, instruction, and assessment best support the
    teaching of mathematical literacy? Research is needed to answer
    questions such as: What strategies are successful? What professional
    development is required to support educators in helping their
    students become mathematically literate?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Conduct a longitudinal analysis of the academic achievement of
    students who have been taught to be mathematically literate based on
    NCTM's *Principles and Standards*. In addition, conduct a
    longitudinal study of the effects of tracking on student achievement
    in mathematics.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Explore how institutions of higher education can best prepare
    preservice teachers to foster mathematical literacy.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Determine the effects of Universal Design for Learning---designing
    curriculum, instruction, and assessments in mathematics that are
    accessible to all students.

As a practical issue, researchers should work with policymakers and
educators to make research---both findings and theoretical
constructs---accessible to practitioners so they can see the potential
implications for practice. Also, research should address all students,
including those with disabilities, second language learners, and
minority students. Disaggregated data that show results for each group
would be invaluable.

###### Policy Needs

-   Broaden the discourse about what it means to be literate and make
    explicit the values underlying decisions in mathematics. For
    example, at the local level, such policies could require the
    district office to allocate time for educators, parents, and
    community members to discuss what students should know and be able
    to do in mathematics.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Encourage professional development in promoting mathematical
    literacy. For example, educators need support in looking at student
    work as a tool for analyzing what students are actually learning.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Promote student assignment patterns other than tracking. Encourage
    integration of mathematical concepts and procedures across the K--12
    pathway

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Engage in communication and marketing practices that educate
    policymakers, parents, educators, and students about mathematical
    literacy, integration, motivation, and other timely issues.

## **Professional Development**

The performance of middle-level teachers in this country is inhibited by
the lack of high-quality preservice and by the plight of professional
development in general. A consensus is emerging: The "old" days of
periodic, hit-or-miss professional development must be left behind. We
must embrace new, integrated strategies that provide educators with both
content knowledge and pedagogy if we want to produce results for young
adolescents. Discussion about new strategies for professional
development touched on several key themes.

Current research in education argues that teacher expertise is one of
the most important factors in determining student achievement. In order
for middle grades teachers to be effective, they need content background
(what to teach) and pedagogical knowledge (how to teach). Additionally,
teachers need to be trained and certified in the subject areas that they
will be responsible for teaching. There are a significant number of
middle grades teachers teaching outside their preservice area of
training (this is particularly true for mathematics and science).
Finally, middle grades teachers require specialized preparation and
training to deal with the unique needs of young adolescents. These
teachers need to understand and appreciate the social, emotional, and
cognitive needs of middle grades students.

***Networking***. We must create collaborative learning environments
that bring together educators, students, and community members.

***A Culture of Learning***. We must build a culture of learning by
providing more time within the school day for reflection and
collaboration (i.e., job-embedded professional development). The focus
of teachers' time together should be on improving teaching and assessing
student learning.

***Continuum of Professional Development***. We must consider
professional development as a continuum that encompasses preservice
education, licensure, induction, ongoing professional development, and
advanced certification.

***Teachers at the Center of Their Own Learning.*** To ensure quality,
teachers need to be involved in all aspects of professional development.
Furthermore, inservice education should be job-embedded, including
ongoing learning, action, and reflection.

***Professional Development*** is also a central feature of
comprehensive school reform***.*** Schools must take into account
individual needs and school priorities. The "content" of professional
development should encompass at a minimum: (a) knowledge of young
adolescents, (b) knowledge of subject matter, (c) developmentally
appropriate curriculum, instruction, and assessment, (d) meeting the
needs of diverse learners, (e) integration of technology.

***Focus on Results***. Professional development should not be measured
by "seat time" or courses taken, but rather on changes in teacher
behavior and student results.

***School-University Partnerships***. Schools and universities must work
closely together to ensure that both preservice education and ongoing
professional development support teachers' growth and efficacy.

###### Research Needs

-   Discover what works, and what doesn't. Well-designed studies of
    professional development, models and strategies will benefit middle
    grades teaching and learning. We must evaluate both the quality of
    staff development and its impact on teacher behavior and student
    learning. To date, there is very little good research to demonstrate
    a link between quality professional development and student
    achievement.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop a deeper understanding of the professional development needs
    and strategies specific to the middle grades.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Examine the impact of middle grades licensure on teacher performance
    and student success. What types of preservice programs are likely to
    have the greatest impact?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Conduct research on the role of teacher leaders and learn more about
    their responsibilities, and impact.

-   How can we learn from successful schools and districts that foster
    continuous learning? Conduct in-depth studies of such schools and
    share results widely.

###### Policy Needs

-   Expand opportunities for teachers to embrace new behaviors and
    practices. They need dedicated time for discussion, practice,
    reflection, and refinement, as well as opportunities to see beyond
    their own classrooms and learn from one another.

-   Making sure that the content of professional development focuses on
    academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, and social
    equity. Political pressures---not educational expertise---often
    determine aspects of content.

-   Share and incorporate known, effective practices into the everyday
    life of schools. Teachers need to have research-based knowledge of
    best practices, and then they need assistance in making the
    practices their own. This cannot be left to chance.

-   Secure a place for professional development as a continuous part of
    every professional's on-going plan for improvement. Learning must
    continue throughout the life of educators, and more schools must
    build cultures that foster that approach.

-   Develop and implement certification standards at the preservice
    level (i.e., universities and colleges) specific to middle grades
    education.

**Policy Panel Members**

######## Literacy Strand

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Sondra Cooney, Facilitator**    | **Leah Meyer Austin**             |
|                                   |                                   |
| Director, Middle Grades Education | Program Director                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Southern Regional Education Board | W.K. Kellogg Foundation           |
|                                   |                                   |
| Atlanta, Georgia                  | Battle Creek, MI                  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Nancy Doda**                    | **David Hough**                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Consultant                        | Director, Institute for School    |
|                                   | Improvement                       |
| Burke, VA                         |                                   |
|                                   | Southwest Missouri State          |
|                                   | University                        |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | Springfield, MO                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Joan Lipsitz**                  |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Consultant                        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Pittsboro, NC                     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

###### Math Strand

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Gayle A. Davis**,               | **Ann Blakeney Clark**            |
| **Facilitator**                   |                                   |
|                                   | Principal, Vance High School      |
| Faculty Research Associate        |                                   |
|                                   | Charlotte, NC                     |
| University of Maryland            |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| College Park, MD                  |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Barbara Hunter-Cox**            | **Richard Mainzer**               |
|                                   |                                   |
| Program Director                  | Assistant Executive Director      |
|                                   |                                   |
| Foundation for the MidSouth       | The Council for Exceptional       |
|                                   | Children                          |
| Jackson, MS                       |                                   |
|                                   | Reston, VA                        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

######### Professional Development Strand

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Deborah Kasak**,                | **Steven Mertens**,               |
| **Co-Facilitator**                | **Co-Facilitator**                |
|                                   |                                   |
| Executive Director                | Senior Research Scientist         |
|                                   |                                   |
| A.I.M.S.                          | University of Illinois            |
|                                   |                                   |
| Champaign, IL                     | Champaign, IL                     |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Cassandra Countryman**          | **Paul Hood**                     |
|                                   |                                   |
| Principal, Muirlands Middle       | Director of Planning and          |
| School                            | Evaluation                        |
|                                   |                                   |
| La Jolla, CA                      | WestEd                            |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | Oakland, CA                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Henry Meares**                  |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Assistant Dean                    |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| University of Michigan            |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Ann Arbor, MI                     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

# IV. References

Academy for Educational Development. \"Progress of Middle Start
Comprehensive School Improvement Schools,\" Working Paper No. 4,
Washington, DC, December 1998.

*Adolescents in the 21st Century.* New York: Teachers College Press.

Ames, N. (1999). Middle grades curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
In N. Paulu (Ed.), *U.S. Department of Education Conference on Early
Adolescence: Papers and Final Report*. Washington, DC: OERI.

Ames, N., & Miller, E. (1994). *Changing middle schools: How to make
schools work for young adolescents.* San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

California Department of Education. *Caught in the Middle.* Sacramento,
CA: CDE Press, 1987.

Carnegie Corporation. *Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the
21^st^ Century.*

Focused Reporting Project. "Progress toward LBUSD's Student Achievement
Goals: 1999 Middle School Assessment Data." *Changing Schools in Long
Beach*. Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2000.

Grissmer, D. and Flanagan, A. *Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains in
North Carolina and Texas*. A report of the National Education Goals
Panel, November, 1998.

Jackson, A.W. & Davis, G.A. (in press). *Turning Points 2000: Educating
Adolescents in the 21^st^ Century. New York: Teachers College Press.*

Kentucky Department of Education. *Results Matter: A Decade of
Difference in Kentucky's Public Schools, 1990-2000.* Kentucky Department
of Education's Office of Communications, 2000.

Lipsitz, J. and West, T. "A Construct for Identifying Excellence in
Schools from the National Forum to Accelerate Middle grades Reform."
Unpublished Manuscript, 2000.

Lipsitz, J. *Successful Schools for Young Adolescents*. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction, 1984.

Mertens, S., Flowers, N., and Mulhall, P. *The Middle Start Initiative,
Phase I: A Longitudinal Analysis of Michigan Middle-Level Schools.*
Urbana--Champaign: Center for Prevention Research and Development,
University of Illinois, August 1998.

National Middle School Association. *This We Believe.* Columbus, OH:
Author, 1982.

Southern Regional Education Board. "High Schools that Work."
\<http://www.sreb.org/ programs/hstw/about/high_abt.html\>

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics (1999). *The NAEP
1998 Reading Report Card Highlights.* Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics (1999). *The NAEP
1998 Writing Report Card Highlights*. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics (1997). *NAEP 1996
Trends in Academic Progress*. Washington, D.C.

Urdan, T., & Klein, S. (1998). Early adolescence: A review of the
literature. Paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement. Unpublished.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. *Middle Start: Revitalizing Middle grades
Education for Students, Teachers, Schools, and Communities.*
\<http://www.wkkf.org/ Publications/MiddleStart/midstart_0600.htm\>

Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989.

# [Where are we now?]{.smallcaps} 

# [Taking stock of middle grades education]{.smallcaps}

Kati Haycock

Director, The Education Trust

Nancy Ames

Convenor, The National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform

Vice President, Education Development Center, Inc.

Keynote Address

*National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board's Conference
on*

*Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in the Middle Grades:*

*Linking Research and Practice*

July 24--25, 2000

Washington, D.C.

**Acknowledgements**

This paper draws heavily on case studies prepared by the National Forum
to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform's Schools to Watch Committee. The
objective of the Schools to Watch Committee was to identify and describe
middle grades schools that meet the Forum's criteria for high
performance: academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, and
social equity. The authors especially wish to thank Joan Lipsitz, Nancy
Brigham, Teri West, and Amy Clark for their generous contributions to
this text. Also thanks to Catherine Morocco, Cindy Aguilar, Nancy
Clark-Chiarelli, and Nancy Brigham for their descriptions of the Beacons
of Excellence Schools. The Beacons of Excellence is a project of
Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), funded by a grant from the
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

Brooke Haycock at The Education Trust spent many hours researching the
national and international data on middle grades student performance and
preparing the paper's many graphic displays. Judith Zorfass, Amy Clark,
Antonio Viva, and Daphne Northrop of EDC all made significant
contributions to this manuscript through various stages of editing. And,
finally, thanks to SooKim Rosch for her patience during many rounds of
revision and production.

Where Are We Now? Taking Stock of Middle Grades Education

**Kati Haycock**

**The Education Trust**

**Nancy Ames**

**The National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform**

**Education Development Center, Inc.**

**Executive Summary**

Beginning in the 70s and gaining momentum through the 80s and 90s,
middle grades reform has ascended as a priority---even a linchpin---in
the nation's education goals. Several influential publications have
helped pave the way; for example, *Successful Schools for Young
Adolescents* (Lipsitz, 1984), *This We Believe* (NMSA, 1982), *Turning
Points* (Carnegie Corporation, 1989), and *Caught in the Middle*
(California Department of Education, 1987). All have contributed to a
clear vision: high-performing schools are academically excellent,
developmentally responsive, and socially equitable. Such schools ensure
the academic learning and healthy development of all their students.

At first glance, the middle grades reform movement is energized,
growing, and seems to be showing modest overall gains. A closer
inspection of assessment data through the last three decades, however,
reveals little change in student performance. In most subjects, racial
gaps are widening. Yes, on the whole, students exiting middle school
know and can do a bit more than their predecessors in the early 80s.
Virtually all of the improvement we see, however, appears to be
attributable to gains in the early elementary years. While they exit the
middle grades with somewhat higher skills, many young adolescents are
without the skills necessary for high school success---and well below
their counterparts in other nations.

This paper provides an overview of national data and international data
on the results and practices of middle grades education. It also
identifies schools and strategies that are bucking the downward trends.
Part One provides a summary of results over time; it focuses not just on
students in general, but on what we know about achievement patterns for
different racial and economic groups. Part Two examines what we know
about the practices associated with improved results. Part Three shares
some examples of states, districts, and schools that are showing good
results. Part Four describes what high-performing middle grades schools
look like.

**Part One: A Look at Results**

While middle-school graduates today know more in core academic subject
areas than did their predecessors in the 70s, striking disparities exist
among subjects, as well as among students of different racial and
economic backgrounds.

***Achievement in Subjects***

-   In **reading**, eighth grade students---the only middle grade level
    for which national achievement data are consistently
    available---improved slightly during the 70s, but then plateaued
    through the 80s and 90s. By the end of the 90s, eighth grade reading
    was at the

1980s level, only slightly better than where it was in the early 70s
(see Figure 1).

-   In **mathematics**, middle grades students made slight advances
    during all three decades. Students today are performing above their
    predecessors in both the 70s and 80s, gaining the equivalent of
    about two-thirds of a grade level during this period (see Figure 2).

-   **Science** performance is perhaps the oddest case of all: students
    declined during the 70s, gained during the 80s, and declined again
    during the 90s (see Figure 3). The net effect has been little or no
    improvement on student science scores from the 70s to the 90s (see
    Figure 3).

#### 

#### *Patterns by Race*

When the data are disaggregated by race, the overall pattern is
indisputable. Minority students made real progress during the 70s and
early 80s, substantially narrowing the gap separating them from other
young Americans. In the 90s, however, that gap grew wider again.

-   ***Reading.*** Between 1975 and 1988, African American and Latino
    students significantly improved their skills. Indeed, during that
    period, the gap between African American and White eighth graders
    declined by about half and the gap between Latinos and
    whites---which was a bit smaller to begin withdeclined by about one
    third. Beginning in 1990, however, the gap began to widen again.
    Reading performance among white students began to increase, while
    performance among African American and Latino students declined. The
    downward trend turned around again in 1994, with results improving
    for all groups since that time. The gap between groups, however,
    still remains substantially larger at the eighth grade level than it
    was a decade ago (See Figure 4).

-   ***Mathematics.*** Between 1973 and 1986, African American and
    Latino eighth graders made significant gains in mathematics
    knowledge, while performance among White students remained
    essentially flat. During this period, the gap between African
    Americans and whites declined by about half, the gap between Latinos
    and whites by a little bit less. Progress in narrowing the gap
    stopped in 1986, however, with no significant reductions in the
    years since that time. All three groups were doing slightly better
    in 1996 than 10 years earlier, but the gains among white eighth
    graders were larger (see Figure 5).

-   ***Science.*** Between 1977 and 1990, students in all three groups
    improved their performance in science. The gains among African
    Americans and Latinos, however, were considerably larger than those
    among white students, so the gap between groups narrowedthough not
    nearly as much as in other subjects. The gap between groups widened
    slightly during the 90s (see Figure 6).

#### 

#### *Proficiency Levels at the End of the 90s*

By the end of the 90s, virtually all eighth graders could carry out
simple reading and mathematics tasks and understand very basic
scientific procedures. Many, however, could not complete the more
complex tasks expected of the age group. Less than one third of all
students reached the proficient level in any academic subject. Among
minority students, the numbers were worse.

-   ***Reading.*** About one third of middle school graduates reached
    the proficient level in reading. Strikingly different patterns
    emerged, however, for students of different races. Approximately
    four in ten White and Asian eighth graders scored at or above the
    proficient level. Among African Americans, the number dropped to one
    in eight; among Latinos, the number was one in six. Many Latinos and
    African Americans did not even reach the basic level. Almost half of
    Latino and African American eighth graders read below the basic
    level. Among Whites and Asians, the number below basic was less than
    one in five (see Figure 7).

-   ***Mathematics.*** In mathematics, about one in four students
    reached the proficient level. But the numbers differed markedly
    among the races, with about one in three White students, one in
    eleven Latinos, and one in 25 African American students at or above
    proficient. At the opposite end of the spectrum, about four in ten
    eighth graders did not reach even the basic level. Again, however,
    the numbers below basic differ markedly among the races, with about
    one in four Whites, six in ten Latinos, and seven in ten blacks
    below basic (see Figure 8).

-   ***Science.*** In science, the performance of whites and Asians is
    similar: approximately one third at or above proficient, one third
    at basic, and one-third below basic. Once again, however,
    significant differences occur among the races. Among African
    American students, for example, only one in twenty perform at or
    above proficient, while more than three-quarters perform below
    basic. Among Latinos, about one in nine perform at or above
    proficient, and two-thirds perform below basic (see Figure 9).

***Growth between Grades 4 and 8***

Though some are clearly struggling, today's eighth graders nevertheless
are performing somewhat better than did their counterparts during the
70s and 80s. It is important to ask how much---if any---of this
improvement can be attributed to improvements in middle grades (or even
upper elementary) education. How much can be attributed to earlier
dramatic increases in kindergarten and preschool attendance and upgraded
elementary school programs? The answers are sobering.

Figure 10 shows the gains between grades 4 and 8 made by students in
several different time periods. As is evident in those displays, student
achievement grows in reading, writing, mathematics, and science between
grades 4 and 8. The growth is biggest in writing, and smallest---by a
long shotin science.

However, the "value added" in grades 5-8 has actually declined over time
in mathematics, remained stagnant in reading, and declined in science
(see figures 11, 12, and 13.) All of the growth in eighth-grade
achievement in the core subjects, then, is attributable to better
preparation in grade 4 and below. *In other words, reforms at the middle
level have not produced more growth in student learning* *to date*. On
the contrary, the data seem to reveal that reforms have had little or no
effect on reading achievement, and perhaps a negative effect on
mathematics and science learning.

***International Comparisons***

Many Americansand many middle grades educatorswouldn't be terribly
surprised by these data. They've succumbed to a widespread view that
young adolescents are incapable of sustained intellectual activity, at
least in part because of "raging hormones." In other countries, however,
young adolescents are expected to make considerably more progressand
they do so with great regularity.

These differences are clear in Figures 14 and 15, where we have compared
the performance of American students in science and mathematics at three
benchmark grade levels to that of their counterparts in other developed
and developing nations. As is clear in these displays, American students
do relatively well in both subjects at grade 4near the top of the pack
in science and in the upper middle tier in mathematics. By eighth grade,
however, their relative position has fallen rather dramatically. This
relative decline is not because they showed no growth, but because their
counterparts made considerably more during grades 5 through 8.

**Part Two: What Do the Data Tell Us about the Practices Associated with
Higher Achievement?**

Research in American schools and comparisons to other countries clearly
reveal a handful of practices that improve middle grades achievement:
rigorous curriculum for all, high expectations, improved teacher
qualifications, and adequate materials.

####### Rigorous Curriculum

In high school data, it has been clear for some time that students who
take more rigorous courses perform at higher levels, no matter what test
is used. A similar pattern seems to exist at the middle grade level
(comparisons in math are most reliable, because course titles are more
uniform and less ambiguous across the grades).

Figure 16 presents data from the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) on eighth graders who are taking different levels of
mathematics, from general mathematics through algebra. Clearly, students
in the more rigorous courses perform at higher levels on NAEP than
students in the basic courses. Some would argue the causality of these
relationships; in most schools, students have to be scoring higher to be
placed in the more difficult courses to begin with. While this is
undoubtedly true, careful research shows very clearly the positive
impact of more rigorous coursework on even traditionally low-achieving
high school students. For example, vocational students who are required
to complete college prep courses do better on reading and mathematics
assessments than students without the requirement. And low-achieving
high school students assigned to chemistry and physics courses[^3] show
accelerated growth in science knowledge. Unfortunately, few high schools
seem to be acting on this research. In science, for example, when
compared with high achievers, low-achieving eighth graders are:

-   five times more likely to take fewer than two years of high school
    science;

-   one fourth as likely to take four years of high school science;

-   one third as likely to take chemistry; and

-   one fourth as likely to take physics.

In other words, instead of providing *more* content, we seem to be
giving our lowest achieving students *less*.

These curricular differences appear to explain at least part of the
achievement differences between students of different races. Figure 17
shows that in mathematics approximately 27 percent of white eighth
graders are enrolled in algebra, compared to only 20 percent of African
Americans and Latinos. The patterns are similar for pre-algebra, while
in general eighth-grade mathematics classes, the pattern reverses, with
African Americans and Latinos overrepresented.

####### Challenging Lessons and Assignments

Researchers in both the U.S. and overseas have amassed considerable
evidence on the critical importance of high expectationsin the form of
challenging lessons and assignments. Indeed, one need not look far in
national achievement data to see ample reminders of the relationship
between more rigorous assignments and student achievement.

-   ***Mathematics.*** Figures 18 and 19 show the relationship between
    instructional focus and achievement in mathematics: the more focus
    on higher order thinking, the higher the student scores---and the
    reverse is true of an emphasis on simple memorization. Homework,
    too, seems to matter: the higher achieving students do considerably
    more (see Figure 20). And despite the importance of strong content,
    U.S. schools do not perform well on this measure in international
    studies. In mathematics, more than 80 percent of eighth grade
    lessons in the U.S. were rated as low on content, while fewer than
    30 percent of German lessons and fewer than 10 percent of Japanese
    lessons were similarly rated (see Figure 21).

-   ***Science.*** In science, the data point in similar directions.
    Instruction focused on problem solving (see Figure 22) produces
    higher scores, while students whose teachers focus primarily on
    memorization (see Figure 23), score less well. Homework contributes
    to science achievement as well (see Figure 24).

-   ***Reading and Writing.*** American middle grades students do
    surprisingly little reading in school and for homework. Only about
    one in seven read more than 20 pages per day, with about the same
    number reading 16 to 20 pages. Interestingly, more 9-year olds than
    13-year olds read this many pages a day. At the other end of the
    spectrum, more than half of all 13-year olds read 10 or fewer pages
    per day for school---including one in four who reads fewer than five
    pages (see Figure 25). The data on writing assignments show equally
    lax expectations. Far more students have no writing assignments
    during a given week than have one or more such assignments (see
    Figure 26).

####### Well-Educated Teachers

Middle grades students need teachers who have deep knowledge of their
subject. However, middle grades teachers often lack a strong subject
background. Although the problem is worse in mathematics and science, it
is also pronounced in English and social studies.

-   ***Mathematics.*** Students whose teachers hold a teaching
    credential perform considerably higher than those whose teachers are
    uncertified (see Figure 27). The teacher's major in college makes a
    difference as well, with students taught by mathematics majors
    outperforming those taught by others---including education majors.
    Both of these relationships hold true even within courses of the
    same name. For example, students taught algebra by uncertified
    teachers perform considerably below those taught the same subject by
    certified teachers. Likewise, students taught algebra (or, for that
    matter, pre-algebra or general mathematics) by mathematics majors
    outperform those taught the same classes by other majors. In
    general, students in the lower level courses are more often taught
    by the non-mathematics majors, with the mathematics majors more
    likely to be teaching the higher level courses (see Figure 28).

-   ***Science.*** As with mathematics, teacher background makes a
    difference in student achievement in science. In general, students
    taught science by uncertified teachers perform below those taught by
    certified teachers, and those taught by science majors do better
    than those taught by education or other majors (see Figures 29 and
    30). Even if non-science majors could be trained in science content
    to improve their teaching, very few participate in professional
    development in science (See Figure 31).

Across all subjects, the patterns are very clear. *Poor students,
minority students, and lower achieving students of all races are far
more likely than other students to be taught by undereducated teachers.*
Basically, the pattern is a simple one: we take the students who are
most dependent upon their teachers for academic learning and assign them
teachers with the weakest academic base (see Figures 32, 33, and 34).

####### Adequate Instructional Resources

In addition to having better-educated teachers, high-achieving students
are more likely to attend schools where teachers have the textbooks,
laboratory supplies, computers, and other instructional aids that they
need. On the whole, students in well-resourced classrooms perform better
than those in under-resourced classrooms (see Figure 35, 36, and 37).

**Part Three: Schools with Promising Results**

The story is not altogether bleak. A number of middle grades schools
across the country are making progress in accelerating learning for all
students. For example, in a report commissioned by the National
Educational Goals Panel, Grissmer and Flanagan (1998) find that students
in both North Carolina and Texas have made rapid achievement gains based
on both the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and state
assessments. These gains are both significant and sustained, and they
hold true across subjects and grade levels.

###### Gains at the State Level 

From 1992-1998, North Carolina students made significant gains in both
reading and mathematics at each grade level from grade 3 to grade 8,
although the gains in mathematics were larger than those in reading. The
scores show gains of .1 to .35 standard deviations in reading scores
across the grades, and .2 to .5 standard deviations in mathematics (see
Figures 38 and 39). According to the authors, this means that students
in 1997/98 would score, on average, about 8--9 percentile points higher
than their counterparts in 1992-93.

Figures 40 and 41 present the results from the Texas state assessments
from 1994 to 2000. The results show large gains in both reading and
mathematics for eighth graders. Similar patterns hold for sixth and
seventh graders. Although the percentage of white eighth graders passing
the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills in reading improved from 86
percent to 95 percent, the results show even larger gains for Latino and
African American students. Whereas 55 to 62 percent of African American
and Latino students passed the state reading assessment in 1994, fully
85 percent of both groups passed in 2000. Thus, the achievement gap
between the White students and their peers has narrowed significantly
during this time period. The results in mathematics are even more
dramatic. The percentage of white students passing the state mathematics
assessment increased from 70 to 95 percent, while the percentage of
Latino and African American students passing more than doubled (from 40
to 85% and from 32 to 81%, respectively).

Both Texas and North Carolina also made the largest average gains in the
nation on the seven state NAEP assessments given from 1990 to 1996
(Grissmer and Flanagan, 1998). When the seven NAEP scores were compared
for each racial/ethnic group, white, black, and Latino students in Texas
ranked above the average for all states. (Scores for each racial/ethnic
group in North Carolina continued to rank at or below the cross-state
average, however.) According to the authors, these sizeable gains were
due primarily to business and political leadership which helped to
create and sustain the following state reform policies:

-   Setting state-wide academic standards by grade level to establish
    clear teaching objectives;

-   Holding all students to the same high standards;

-   Conducting statewide assessments closely linked to the academic
    standards;

-   Creating accountability systems with clear consequences for results;

-   Increasing local flexibility for administrators and teachers in
    meeting the standards;

-   Providing computerized feedback systems, including data for
    continuous improvement;

-   Shifting resources to schools with more disadvantaged students; and

-   Creating an infrastructure for reform.

Kentucky's state assessment data lend additional support to these
findings. In this state, which also places a heavy emphasis on high
standards, statewide assessment, and school-level accountability, middle
grades student performance increased dramatically from 1993 to 1998. For
example, the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System reading
index (a weighted average of the number of students meeting different
levels of proficiency) increased from 38.4 to 47.0, while the
mathematics index increased from 22.8 to 51.4 during this time period.
Furthermore, NAEP data confirm a significant increase in eighth-grade
mathematics performance from 1992-1996 (Kentucky Department of
Education, 2000).

###### Gains at the District Level

In addition, a number of large urban school systems have seen
significant improvement in student achievement. Many schools in Long
Beach, Corpus Christi, San Diego, and Louisville (who receive support
from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation's Program for Student
Achievement) can point to substantial improvements in student
performance.

According to data supplied by Policy Studies Associates, the program's
independent evaluator, participating districts made substantial gains in
reading over the last three years. In Louisville, Long Beach, and San
Diego, the proportion of students who scored at or above the Basic level
in 2000 was larger than the proportion who attained that level in 1998,
by an average of almost five percentage points. In those same districts,
the proportion of test-takers scoring at the two highest levels of
performance (Proficient and Advanced) also increased, by almost six
percentage points. In mathematics, there was little change in the
proportion of students scoring at each performance level in Long Beach
or Jefferson County, the two districts for which data were available.

According to data collected by San Diego's Office of Standards,
Assessment, and Accountability, the percentage of students who scored at
or above the 50th percentile (the national average) in reading jumped
four points, from 43 to 47 on the SAT-9. Since San Diego students first
took the test in 1998, scores in reading have increased a total of six
points. The district also saw good gains in mathematics, with 54 percent
of the middle grades students scoring above the 50th percentile. This
represents a five-point improvement over 1999 and a nine-point
improvement over 1998. At 11 of the 26 middle grades sites, 50 percent
or more of fluent-English students achieved the 50th percentile or above
(the District Accountability System\'s six-year goal) in all three SAT 9
subject areas (total reading, language, total mathematics). Three middle
schools in particular, Farb, Keiller and Roosevelt, demonstrated strong
percentile gains in Total Reading and Language, while maintaining or
making slight gains in Total Mathematics.

In Long Beach, although district and school averages are generally low
on the SAT-9, in 1999 scores at six of the district's middle grades
schools were consistently high, regardless of the test or content area.
Four of these six schools have high concentrations of students from
low-income families (45% or more), while three have more than 30 percent
limited English proficient students. Moreover, according to an
independent analysis conducted by Policy Studies Associates, Inc.,
approximately half of the students in Long Beach middle schools can meet
NAEP's level of proficiency in both reading and mathematics, despite the
fact that its students are far poorer than the national average
(Changing Schools in Long Beach, Spring 2000).

###### Gains by Schools

Under the sponsorship of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, hundreds of urban
and rural middle grades schools are striving to improve the life chances
of young adolescents from low-income families. For example, Michigan
Middle Start began with a long-range goal of improving educational
programs and learning environments for middle grades students. It has
since expanded to encompass three states in the Mid South: Arkansas,
Louisiana, and Mississippi. All grantee schools in the South are located
within the Delta region and have at least 40 percent of students
eligible for free or reduced lunch.

According to the program's evaluators, Middle Start has demonstrated
positive outcomes for both students and schools:

-   Students show improvement in academics as well as behavior and
    attitude.

-   In Michigan Middle Start schools, student reading and mathematics
    scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment of Progress (MEAP)
    test indicate greater progress than those of students in comparable
    non-grantee schools.

-   Teachers in Middle Start schools also report better classroom
    behavior among students. And, in surveys, students show evidence of
    improved attitudes---stating, in fact, that they believe if they try
    harder, they will succeed in school (AED, 1998; Mertens, Flowers,
    and Mulhall, 1998).

Teachers and administrators in Middle Start schools link team teaching
and common planning time to improved student performance. Michigan
Middle Start grantee schools using both team teaching and common
planning time saw the percentage of \"satisfactory\" scores in reading
increase from 17 to 31 percent in only two years. In math,
"satisfactory" scores jumped from 24 to 33 percent in the same period
(Mertens, Flowers, and Mulhall, 1998).

Still other middle grades schools representing 15 different states have
made fundamental changes in their organizational structure and
instructional practice, using the recommendations from Carnegie
Corporation's *Turning Points* (1989) as their guide. Early research
findings suggest that the more these schools implement the features of
high-performing middle grades schools, the better their students perform
on standardized tests of achievement (Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall,
Brand, and Flowers, 1997). For example, schools with interdisciplinary
teams and common planning time tend to do better than those without
them. Lessons learned from these schools will soon be available in
*Turning Points 2000: Educating Young Adolescents in the 21^st^ Century*
(In Press).

##### Part Four: What Do High-Performing Middle Grades Schools Look Like?

The above data suggest that some states, districts, and schools are
achieving success with middle grades students. What do high-performing
middle grades schools look like in practice? According to the National
Forum to Accelerate Middle grades reform, a group of 43 educators
dedicated to improving schools for middle grades students across the
country, excellent middle grades schools have a common vision that
drives every facet of the school improvement program. Drawing on theory,
research, and best practice, the members of the National Forum assert
that such schools focus on three interrelated priorities: academic
excellence, developmental responsiveness, and social equity. (See the
National Forum's vision statement,
[www.mgforum.org.](http://www.mgforum.org./))

Being an academically excellent school means that all students are
learning to use their minds well in challenging classrooms whose
curriculum, instruction, and assessment help all students meet rigorous
academic standards. But such schools are also responsive to the unique
developmental needs of young adolescents. They recognize that early
adolescence is characterized not only by dramatic physical, social, and
emotional growth, but also by cognitive growth, which allows students to
think in more abstract and complex ways. High-performing middle grades
schools are also social equitable, democratic, and fair. They provide
every student with high-quality teachers, resources, learning
opportunities, and supports. They keep positive options open for all
students. The National Forum has identified 37 criteria that reflect its
vision of high performing middle grades schools.

It is not difficult to find middle grades schools that are
developmentally responsive or schools with a strong academic focus. All
too often, however, these schools overlook social equity, by providing a
challenging curriculum to some students and a watered-down curriculum to
others. It is extremely difficult to find schools that excel in all
three areas. Both the National Forum's Schools to Watch (STW) Committee
and the Beacons of Excellence Project[^4] used a rigorous nomination,
application, and selection process to identify promising middle grades
schools that meet these criteria. Such schools submitted written
applications, were the subject of intensive site visits, and provided
state and/or local achievement data demonstrating improved student
performance over time.

The STW Committee identified four such schools: Barren County Middle
School in Glasgow, Kentucky; Thurgood Marshall Middle School in Chicago;
Jefferson Middle School in Champaign, Illinois; and Freeport
Intermediate School in Freeport, Texas. These schools are
demographically diverse, representing a small, rural area; a large city;
and two small urban centers.

The Beacons of Excellence project identified three urban middle grades
schools that meet the Forum's criteria and other set forth by the
project's research team. These schools are Christopher Columbus Middle
School in Union City, New Jersey; Compton-Drew Investigative Learning
Center Middle School in St. Louis, Missouri; and Manatee Middle School
in Naples, Florida. These schools are distinctive in serving low-income,
culturally diverse populations. Both the STW and the Beacons schools
have worked hard to include students with disabilities in heterogeneous,
general education classrooms.

In the remainder of this paper, we provide a brief overview of the
strategies that all seven schools have used to achieve the Forum's
vision and, in the process, to improve student performance. We have
organized them into eight categories that elaborate on the practices
identified in Part Three above. The eight categories consist of vision,
expectations, curriculum and instruction, accountability, professional
development, support for students at risk, family/community involvement,
and leadership. This section draws heavily on the work of Nancy Brigham,
Joan Lipsitz, Teri West, and Amy Clark, along with the Forum's entire
STW Committee. It also encompasses key findings from the Beacons of
Excellence project led by the following researchers: Catherine Morocco,
Cindy Aguilar, Nancy Clark-Chiarelli**,** and Nancy Brigham.

####### A Shared Vision or Philosophy

All seven schools have a bold vision for the future, typically developed
by the principal and then shared with the entire school community. In
some cases, such as Barren County Middle School in Kentucky and Freeport
Intermediate School in Texas, the vision focuses primarily on state
standards. The schools in these states are committed to helping all
students in their schools meet the performance standards set for them.
In Kentucky, Barren County Middle School also adopted the *Different
Ways of Knowing* educational program, which provides a coherent approach
to curriculum and instruction involving the arts. The two Illinois
schools are both active members of the AIMS network, which offers a
strong vision of middle grades education based on the *Turning Points*
recommendations.

Each of the Beacons schools has a different philosophy based on a
different educational theory . One school adheres to the philosophy of
Schools for Thought (John Bruer); another has integrated into its own
philosophy the principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools
(Theodore Sizer); and a third bases its educational program on brain
research (Susan Kavalik). Yet, despite their differences, each
philosophy provides "a set of shared values, concepts, and directions to
guide the school." Furthermore, that philosophy leads to "a coherent set
of organizational structures to support equity and excellence,
professional development supports for teachers, curriculum and
instruction addressing high standards, and school-community
relationships that align parents and practitioners around safety and
academic excellence" (Morocco, Aguilar, Clark-Chiarelli, and Brigham,
2000).

####### High Expectations for All Students 

At high performing middle grades schools, curriculum, instruction, and
assessment are aligned with high standards, and all students are
expected to meet or exceed those standards. According to the Forum's STW
researchers, teachers in the selected schools believe that all their
students can master the curriculum, and they push their students to
achieve at high levels.

All seven schools provide a coherent vision for what students should
know and be able to do. The curriculum is organized and sequenced, so
that students' knowledge and skills build systematically over time. In
many schools, the curriculum makes important connections across the
disciplines. Teachers spend a great deal of personal and common planning
time aligning what they teach with professional and state standards
within and across their content areas. As a result, when surveyed,
nearly all parents, teachers, and students in the Beacons schools agree
with statements like these: "There is a strong sense of academic purpose
at this school"; "The curriculum includes important knowledge, concepts,
and facts in each curriculum area"; or "There are clear standards for
students, which are communicated to students and families."

These teachers perceive standards as a valuable tool in planning their
curriculum and instruction, rather than a burden or a distraction from
the real work of teaching and learning. One of the Schools to Watch, for
example, focuses a great deal of attention on the state accountability
system and its high-stakes testing program. Yet, according to the STW
researchers, "teachers insist that they are not 'teaching to the test'
but rather 'teaching to the standards' when they prepare students for
the state test, because the test is based on state and national
standards" (Lipsitz and West, 2000).

#### 

#### *Challenging and Engaging Curriculum and Instruction*

Each of these schools encourages students to think rather than to simply
memorize facts. Indeed, one of the Beacons schools is a member of the
Schools for Thought (SFT) network. According to Beacons researchers,

> Compton-Drew ILC Middle School is unique in the SFT network in that it
> is implementing a philosophy of investigative learning across the
> entire school, and in the related arts (music, art, physical
> education) as well as the major content areas. In sixth through eighth
> grade classrooms, teachers, students, staff from the St. Louis Science
> Center, university researchers, and parents are co-investigators,
> creating a community of learners. Students develop their own theories
> and research the big questions they develop as they work to understand
> critical issues and problems. Learning extends beyond the traditional
> resources of the classroom, textbook, and library to include
> investigative resources available throughout St. Louis and in global
> communities through use of the World Wide Web (Morocco et al, 2000).

All of the schools work hard to ensure that the curriculum is aligned
with national and/or state standards. In one School to Watch, for
example, teachers work collaboratively to design interdisciplinary units
that address a number of different content standards. In another, the
mathematics teachers wanted their curriculum to match the state learning
goals, which encourage a balance of skill building and application.
After working together to align the curriculum with the state standards,
they piloted three textbooks. None of the textbooks fully matched their
learning goals, however. In the end, they decided to use a combination
of teacher-developed curriculum units, a pre-algebra textbook, and
"Connected Math," which offers a range of hands-on activities.

According to the STW researchers, "Teachers in these schools use
instructional strategies that include a variety of challenging and
engaging activities that are clearly related to the concepts and skills
being taught. Students are excited about what they are learning and want
to talk about what they are doing. They are able to describe the content
and the purpose of the lesson and to reflect on what they are learning"
(Lipsitz and West, 2000).

"Each of the Beacons schools has a 'signature practice' that reflects
the school's core philosophy and helps to tell the story of what is
important in that school," according to the Beacons researchers.

> For example, faculty at Christopher Columbus Middle School value
> PowerPoint presentations because they provide the large concentration
> of Spanish-speaking students practice in integrating information and
> demonstrating their learning to their peers in English. In Manatee
> Middle School, interdisciplinary teams include a special education
> teacher, who co-teaches with the content teachers. The Beacons
> researchers describe the goal of co-teaching as assisting students
> with learning needs in the regular classroom setting, while modeling
> effective teaching and learning strategies for the teacher. Finally,
> in Compton-Drew ILC Middle School, students in all grades and content
> areas actively engage in "crosstalk." Crosstalk is a highly structured
> conversational practice in which students hand off the speaker role to
> one another in order to give everyone a chance to participate in the
> discussion. Beacons researchers assert that crosstalk encourages
> deeper thinking by helping students link information, argue different
> perspectives, and engage in self-assessment (Morocco et al., 2000).

####### 

####### A Focus on Accountability

In high performing middle grades schools, teachers, parents, and
students alike are aware of and understand the performance standards.
Teachers make their goals and expectations clear, including the criteria
by which they will assess students' work. Often, scoring rubrics are
posted on the walls, or students will pull them out of their notebooks
when asked what is expected of them. Whether students help generate the
rubrics or not, the assessment criteria are explicit and make sense to
the students. As Lipsitz and West (2000) point out, "The criteria for
good work are not a mystery."

According to the STW researchers,

> "These schools also hold themselves accountable for their students'
> success rather than blaming others for their shortcomings. They
> collect, analyze, and use school-generated evaluation data to identify
> areas for more extensive and intensive improvement. They delineate
> benchmarks and insist upon evidence and results. These schools
> intentionally and explicitly reconsider their vision and practices
> when data call them into question. When we asked how they know if they
> are meeting their behavioral and academic goals, their answers
> invariably have to do with 'sleuthing their data.' The data the
> administration and staff collect and analyze serve as the basis for
> decision-making about areas needing more focused attention and changed
> practice" (Lipsitz and West, 2000).

For example, STW researchers describe one school's use of an innovative
"crate system" to determine whether its school improvement plan is
leading to higher student achievement. Periodically, teachers place
examples of high, medium, and low student work and accompanying lesson
plans into a crate. A curriculum committee meets monthly to evaluate the
content of the crates. This information is then summarized in what the
school calls a "Vital Signs Report." In addition, at least once every
nine weeks, subject area teachers attend meetings facilitated by their
"content leader." During these sessions, they evaluate student work and
assess student progress. The school-based decision-making council uses
this information, along with the "Vital Signs Report," to make decisions
leading to continuous school improvement. According to the STW
researchers, "The teachers' collection of data not only improves their
classroom practice, but also links the school's governance structure to
the school's student achievement goals" (Lipsitz and West, 2000).

####### 

####### Intensive and Ongoing Professional Development

The adults in these schools have opportunities to plan, select, and
engage in professional development aligned with nationally recognized
standards. They have regular opportunities to work with their colleagues
to deepen their content knowledge and improve their practice. According
to the STW researchers, "When asked what they think professional
development is, teachers and administrators invariably say first what it
is not." In the words of one STW principal, "It does not come once in
the summer and go away. It keeps coming back and back and back."

Teachers in these schools frequently work together to design curriculum
units around the statewide academic standards. In Compton-Drew ILC
Middle School, for example, all sixth through eighth grade teachers work
together with science specialists and university researchers to design
12-week interdisciplinary units. According to the Beacons researchers,
"Each unit is structured around a challenging topic, cooperative
learning activities through which students rotate, 'consequential tasks'
(culminating projects and assessments), and guidelines for assessment
that include student self-assessment." Through this ongoing
collaboration, teachers not only strengthen their curriculum but also
share effective strategies for improving student learning.

***Support for Students Who Need Special Help to Meet the Standards***

In high performing middle grades schools, all students have equal access
to valued knowledge in all school classes and activities. Faculty and
administrators expect high-quality work from every student, and they are
committed to helping each student produce it. Among the many supports
provided are tutoring, mentoring, special adaptations, extended
opportunities for learning, use of technology, and health and social
services tailored to individual needs.

According to STW researchers, one of the Schools to Watch instituted a
program called "Academic Connections" to help students achieve to and
beyond the standards. "In this otherwise heterogeneously grouped school,
the principal divided students into three groups according to their
scores on standardized tests so that they receive instruction
specifically geared to their skill levels" (Lipsitz and West, 2000).

In another School to Watch, two after-school programs provide additional
instructional time to students who are not meeting academic standards.
According to the STW researchers, "The student-teacher ratio in these
classes is small---about 12 to 1---so that teachers can provide more
individualized instruction. They meet with one another to determine
which students will receive additional tutorial time based on the
greatest needs." At another school, the resource room is open to all
students for additional tutorials in reading and math. Although some
students are assigned to the reading and math resource tutorials,
students can also drop in voluntarily.

Christopher Columbus Middle School has a special program for "over-age,"
at-risk middle school students in which they accelerate their academic
learning while also serving in responsible jobs in local hospitals and
child care centers. Most of the students in this program enter the tenth
grade of their local high school having successfully caught up with
their peers after one intensive year in middle school. Student support
goes beyond specific services, however. The STW researchers note:

> It begins with a set of attitudes and relationships that adults
> establish with students. These relationships are evident as visitors
> walk through the halls and sit in classrooms. Students have smiles on
> their faces, laugh with their teachers and each other, and exchange
> friendly salutations. During the change of classes, students are eager
> to share something about themselves or their families (Lipsitz and
> West, 2000).

Survey data from the Beacons schools reveal that teachers, parents, and
students in these schools find the schools to be safe and caring.
Approximately 90 percent of all three groups respond affirmatively to
the following statements: "The school is a safe place;" "Teachers and
staff at the school care about students;" "Students feel like they
belong in this school;" "Teachers and other staff respect me (students)"
(Morocco et al, 2000). This "personalization" is as important to
students' learning and development as the curriculum that these students
receive. Without it, their capacity for learning is severely limited
(Ames and Miller, 1994).

####### Family/Community Involvement

High-performing middle grades schools also develop alliances with
families to enhance and support the well being of their children. They
involve families as partners in education, keeping them informed,
engaging them in their children\'s learning, and involving them in
decision-making. In each of the three Beacons schools, a core of parents
is deeply connected with the school. In fact, survey data show that most
parents find their schools welcoming, respectful, and accessible. Most
parents report that "my child's teachers view me as a partner or team
member in educating my child." They also believe that "the school staff
understand the problems I face as a parent" (Morocco et al., 2000). Yet
all schools, including the seven described here, face a challenge in
reaching out beyond a core group, especially where parents are facing
economic stress.

##### 

##### *Instructional Leadership*

All seven principals know how to set clear goals and establish
priorities. None has trouble articulating the goals they had when they
first came to the school. For example, the STW researchers report the
following:

> One STW principal had three major goals: to strengthen academics,
> improve the school climate, and increase parent participation. Over
> the course of the first year, she met with her staff to turn these
> goals into manageable objectives for the school improvement plan. She
> wanted the staff to see the big picture, but also to focus on what was
> doable. In the second year, she and the staff arrived at specific
> goals in all three areas, goals that continue to shape the school's
> improvement efforts (Lipsitz and West, 2000).

These schools do not have multiple programs that are disconnected from
one another; the principals work hard to integrate all elements of the
school program. Furthermore, in each school, they have helped foster a
spirit of collaborative leadership in which administrators, teachers,
parents, and students hold themselves collectively accountable for the
quality of the educational program and its impact on student
performance.

In response to the question, "What are the top three to five things you
would do if you moved to another school?" one STW principal answered:

-   Communicate a vision for student success very early on. Continually
    articulate that vision throughout the year, and have a plan for
    reaching that goal. Staff need to see very early on how high the bar
    is raised, what the expectations are, and what needs to be done to
    get there.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Look at how the school collects data, in which areas, and how those
    data are used for planning purposes. What guides the initiatives
    being undertaken at the building level? It is extremely important to
    collect data, formally and informally, to support the school's
    goals. There is no other way to be able to accurately assess the
    strengths and areas in need of improvement without having data for
    analysis and reflection.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Look at how each initiative undertaken at the building level is tied
    into the school improvement plan. It is easy to go off track
    quickly. Before you know it, there is so much going on in the
    building that things can quickly become disconnected.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Continually reaffirm to the staff the great things they are already
    doing, and give them the latitude and flexibility to try something
    new and different. We are encouraging staff to be risk-takers, to
    try new ideas and expand their knowledge and skills. They will be
    much more likely to do so knowing that the administration already
    recognizes their contributions and efforts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Open your school and its classrooms to external critical friends. We
    constantly talk about the need for accountability as well as the
    need for continuous school improvement. What a great way to achieve
    both by having professionals in the field with specific expertise
    come in to provide feedback through observation of teaching
    practices in the classroom and review of our supports for students
    (Lipsitz and West, 2000).

#### 

#### Conclusion

In general, both national and international assessments of educational
progress suggest that middle grade students are not performing well. Low
expectations, watered-down curriculum, and inadequately prepared
teachers prevent all too many young adolescents from learning to use
their minds well. For students from poor families and students of color,
the problem is exacerbated. Yet there is some reason for optimism. In
certain states, districts, and schools across the country,
administrators, staff, and parents are working together to provide young
adolescents with the kind of schooling they will need for success in the
21^st^ century. We must learn from these successful middle grades
schools, or else we will be limiting the future life and career options
of another generation of young people.

# ![](media/image2.wmf){width="4.75in" height="3.444488188976378in"}  {#section-11 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image6.wmf){width="4.7in" height="3.545138888888889in"}  {#section-12 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image8.wmf){width="4.583333333333333in" height="3.361111111111111in"}  {#section-13 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image12.wmf){width="4.083333333333333in" height="2.902083333333333in"}  {#section-14 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image15.wmf){width="4.581889763779528in" height="3.436220472440945in"}  {#section-15 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image19.wmf){width="4.498425196850394in" height="3.5779527559055118in"}  {#section-16 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image23.wmf){width="4.581889763779528in" height="3.436220472440945in"}  {#section-17 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image28.wmf){width="4.416666666666667in" height="3.201388888888889in"}  {#section-18 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image34.wmf){width="4.416666666666667in" height="3.2381944444444444in"}  {#section-19 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image36.wmf){width="4.333333333333333in" height="3.1055555555555556in"}  {#section-20 .unnumbered}

# ![](media/image39.wmf) {#section-21 .unnumbered}

###### References

Academy for Educational Development. "Progress of Middle Start
Comprehensive School Improvement Schools," Working Paper No. 4,
Washington, DC, December 1998.

California Department of Education. *Caught in the Middle.* Sacramento,
CA: CDE Press, 1987.

Carnegie Corporation. *Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the
21^st^ Century.*

Washington, DC: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989.

Focused Reporting Project. "Progress toward LBUSD's Student Achievement
Goals: 1999 Middle School Assessment Data." *Changing Schools in Long
Beach*. Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2000.

Grissmer, D. and Flanagan, A. *Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains in
North Carolina and Texas*. A report of the National Education Goals
Panel, November, 1998.

Jackson, A.W. & Davis, G.A. (in press). *Turning Points 2000: Educating
Adolescents in the 21st Century.* New York: Teachers College Press.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. *Middle Start: Revitalizing Middle Grades
Education for Students, Teachers, Schools, and Communities.*
\<http://www.wkkf.org/ Publications/MiddleStart/midstart_0600.htm\>

Kentucky Department of Education. *Results Matter: A Decade of
Difference in Kentucky's Public Schools, 1990-2000.* Kentucky Department
of Education's Office of Communications, 2000.

Lipsitz, J. *Successful Schools for Young Adolescents*. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction, 1984.

Lipsitz, J. and West, T. "A Construct for Identifying Excellence in
Schools from the National Forum to Accelerate Middle grades Reform."
Unpublished Manuscript, 2000.

Mertens, S., Flowers, N., and Mulhall, P. *The Middle Start Initiative,
Phase I: A Longitudinal Analysis of Michigan Middle-Level Schools.*
Urbana-Champaign: Center for Prevention Research and Development,
University of Illinois, August 1998.

Morocco, Catherine C.; Aguilar, Cynthia M.; Clark-Chiarelli, Nancy; and
Brigham, Nancy (2000). Beacons of Excellence Technical Report No. 1,
Education Development Center, Inc.

National Middle School Association. *This We Believe.* Columbus, OH:
Author, 1982.

Southern Regional Education Board. "High Schools that Work."
http://www.sreb.org/ programs/hstw/about/high_abt.html

# [Grappling with the Big Issues in Middle Grades Literacy Education]{.smallcaps}

Donna E. Alvermann

Research Professor in Literacy Education, University of Georgia

Plenary Address

*National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board's Conference
on*

*Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in the Middle Grades:*

*Linking Research and Practice*

July 24--25, 2000

Washington, DC

Grappling with the Big Issues in Middle Grades Literacy Education

Donna E. Alvermann

University of Georgia

This is an exciting time to be in middle grades education. I do not need
to tell you of the numerous professional groups and other organizations
that are hard at work ensuring that middle grades schools are
academically excellent, developmentally responsive, and socially
equitable. In fact, many of you in the audience represent these very
groups. However, I do want to tell you how I see literacy research and
practice fitting into and affecting the larger picture of middle grades
education. To do this, I have divided my talk into four parts.

First, I want to share with you my perception of the big issues in
middle grades literacy education today. These are the issues I see
practitioners, researchers, and policymakers grappling with as they go
about their work. Second, I want to put these issues into perspective by
summarizing what the research says about them and what it does not say.
Third, I want to address the implications of this research for practice,
policy, and future inquiry. Finally, I want to direct attention to some
questions concerning middle grades literacy education that I believe we
should be grappling with next---questions that are too important to
overlook if we are truly committed to making a middle grades education
socially equitable and accessible to all students.

Big Issues in Middle Grades Literacy Education

For the past three years, I served as co-chair of the International
Reading Association's newly appointed Commission on Adolescent Literacy.
In that role, I had numerous opportunities to work with middle school
educators, researchers, and policymakers from every region of the United
States. Our work focused on identifying key issues in the field of
adolescent literacy, with a special emphasis on middle grades literacy
instruction and assessment. From that work and my involvement in a
Reading Task Force recently appointed by the National Council of
Teachers of English, I became acutely aware of the issues that people
are grappling with in middle grades education.

First and foremost, there is a concern for the young adolescent who
struggles with reading. The *struggling reader* label is a contested
term (Alvermann, in press) and one that means different things to
different people. For example, a cursory analysis of the table of
contents of a recently published book by the International Reading
Association on struggling readers (Moore, Alvermann, & Hinchman, 2000)
reveals that the term *struggling* can refer to youth with clinically
diagnosed reading disabilities as well as to those who are second
language learners, "at-risk," unmotivated, disenchanted, or generally
unsuccessful in school literacy tasks. A smorgasbord of descriptors,
these labels tell little or nothing about the cultural construction of
such readers. They do, however, provide different ways of thinking about
school culture and readers who struggle---ways, in fact, that are too
seldom addressed in the literature on developmentally responsive
instruction.

Another big issue in middle grades literacy education is the perceived
need to accelerate students' reading achievement and academic learning
in the subject matter areas, such as social studies, science, and the
English language arts. In the middle grades, especially, there is
interest in developing students' abilities to comprehend and think
critically about the subject matter material that they are expected to
master as part of the regular curriculum. The rationale behind this
perceived need is that comprehension is a complex process---one that
should not be left to chance to develop. One of the ways that teachers
can ensure the comprehension process is not left to chance is to teach
students strategies for reading and studying their assignments. Another
way is to preteach the vocabulary associated with those assignments. At
issue here is not the effectiveness of such instruction, but rather, the
problems encountered when trying to determine which strategies are best
suited for which populations of students and why.

A third major issue in middle grades literacy education has to do with
finding ways to make use of adolescents' out-of-school interests in
computers and the media to foster their in-school subject matter
learning. Until recently, the technology for computer-assisted
instruction was not conducive to teaching students how to read in the
content areas. Computers that were unable to accept free-form responses
or to recognize speech were thought to be too limited in their capacity
to deliver reading instruction. Much has changed, however. Now, with
advanced speech recognition capabilities and the possibilities for
integrated multimedia presentations, middle grades educators are turning
more and more to computers (and especially the Internet) as a way of
engaging students in learning course content. Even so, among many
educators in the middle grades, there is a distinct reluctance to trust
technology to deliver an appropriate kind of literacy instruction. For
some, the computer is an unwelcome intruder in an already too-full
curriculum, while for others it is a potential threat to
school-sanctioned literacy (O'Brien, 1998; Phelps, 1998).

Finally, an issue that may hold the key to better understanding all the
issues I have raised thus far is whether or not the knowledge base in
middle grades literacy education is being translated into practice. That
is, are teachers implementing the available research on how to teach the
second language learner who struggles with reading? Are they teaching
the comprehension and vocabulary strategies that are known to be
effective in accelerating students' subject matter learning? Do they
know how to adapt those strategies so that they are responsive to *all*
students' intellectual and social growth? Do teachers view the research
on computer technology and reading instruction as being relevant to
their curriculum, and if so, do they incorporate ideas from that
research into their own teaching? Answers to questions such as these
have implications for researchers and policymakers alike, especially
with respect to policy-oriented research on literacy standards and
assessment (Valencia & Wixson, 2000).

What the Research Says and Does Not Say

The commissioning of this paper came at an opportune time. The 3^rd^
volume of *the Handbook of Reading Research* (Kamil, Mosenthal, Pearson,
& Barr, 2000) and the *Report of the National Reading Panel*, an
evidence-based assessment of the research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, 2000), were both published during the time I was
preparing this talk. The research presented here draws primarily from
those two works and from a synthesis of the literature on
*Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents' Lives* (Alvermann,
Hinchman, Moore, Phelps, & Waff, 1998), which was compiled by a group of
university- and school-based researchers at the National Reading
Research Center a few years earlier. As well, this paper takes into
account a synthesis of the research on contexts for literacy in middle
grades education (Moore, 1996) and the research on teaching literacy
through the communicative and visual arts (Flood, Heath, & Lapp, 1997;
Reinking, McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998).

### ***Research on Readers Who Struggle***

The research on struggling readers covers a broad spectrum and varies in
specificity according to the perceived reasons behind the struggle. For
example, reviews of research that take into account individuals with
clinically diagnosed reading disabilities (Shaywitz et al., 2000) focus
on the cognitive basis for the struggle. Reviews that take into account
second language reading, on the other hand, encompass a much wider view
of the reasons behind the struggle. In fact, the difficulties second
language readers experience are often spread over a vast network of
sociocultural, motivational, and linguistic factors that vary with the
population being studied (Bernhardt, 2000). These factors are also at
work (to varying degrees) in the difficulties that monolingual,
unsuccessful readers in the middle grades experience when they struggle
with their assigned texts.

It is these two latter groups---second language readers and monolingual,
unsuccessful readers---that I focus on here. Reviews of research on
these two types of readers generally fall into three categories in terms
of their approaches to explaining the struggle: the deprivation
approach, the difference approach, and the culture-as-disability
approach (McDermott & Varenne, 1995).

*The deprivation approach*. This way of thinking about the struggling
reader assumes that there is a stable set of tasks, deemed milestones by
a particular culture, to which all its members must respond if they are
to qualify as developmentally competent on those tasks. For example,
being able to decode, comprehend, and summarize large chunks of
informational texts would qualify as one such set of tasks in the middle
grades. Students' below-average performances on these tasks are taken as
evidence that these students have not yet developed the requisite set of
skills necessary for reading competently at a particular grade level or
in a particular set of texts.

By far, the bulk of the research on struggling readers in the middle
grades is grounded within a deprivation approach to explaining their
difficulties. Historically, this research has focused on ways of helping
teachers provide support to the slow, "at-risk," unmotivated, or
disenchanted reader (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Bean, 2000; Moore, 1996).
Case studies using ethnographic methods have dominated this area of
research, largely because they offer opportunities for examining a
specific problem in depth and within bounded parameters. These studies
have taken place during whole-class instruction (Dillon, 1989), in
separate pull-out literacy programs (O'Brien, 1998), and in university
reading clinics (Morris, Ervin, & Conrad, 2000).

Regardless of where the research is carried out, the findings are
remarkably similar. While the instructional intervention is in progress,
students who are struggling with reading show marked improvement in
reading performance and their self-esteem also improves. What the
research does not tell us is whether these changes are long lasting and
transfer to situations beyond the research setting or specific subject
mater area under investigation. Studies of a longitudinal and
cross-disciplinary nature are sorely lacking in the middle grades
literature on literacy instruction.

*The difference approach*. This approach argues that the ways in which
young adolescents develop competencies as literate beings will vary
according to the demands of their particular cultures. Thus, middle
grades students who struggle with school literacy tasks under the
difference approach would likely be subjected to few predefined reading
tasks; instead, they would be encouraged to focus on the literacy
activities that adults in their culture regularly perform as fully
functioning members of that culture. For example, Luis Moll's (Moll &
González, 1994) work with working-class Latino/a families provided
evidence that teachers can use the "cultural funds of knowledge" these
families possess in making connections between students' home and school
literacies. Such connections, in turn, can provide stepping stones for
filling in the gaps in students' background knowledge about
school-related reading tasks. Although there is some research (e.g.,
Brozo, Valerio, & Salazar, 2000) to suggest that bilingual middle grades
students can benefit from literacy instruction that takes into account
their cultural funds of knowledge, much more work needs to be done in
this area.

As Garcia (2000) has noted, "the instructional research on older
bilingual children's reading is meager" (p. 830). What is available is
largely qualitative in nature, such as Jiménez et al.'s (1996) study,
which indicated that less successful bilingual middle grades students
used fewer cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies than
successful monolingual readers. However, there was no difference in the
strategies used among successful bilingual and monolingual readers.

*The culture-as-disability approach*. This approach assumes that all
cultures, as historically evolved ways of doing life, teach people about
what is worth working for, how to succeed, and who will fall short. To
McDermott and Varenne's (1995) way of thinking, "cultures offer a wealth
of positions for human beings to inhabit" (p. 336). Each position
requires certain things. For example, to inhabit the position of "good
reader," one must possess certain abilities that are verifiable and
recognizable to others who occupy that same position. But how people end
up inhabiting some positions and not others is more a matter of being
put into those positions because of differential treatment than of being
incidentally born into them, according to McDermott and Varenne.

Using the culture-as-disability approach to understanding struggling
readers in the middle grades, one might argue that the school curriculum
disables some students by mandating what is assumed to be a stable
(though arbitrary) set of reading tasks against which they can be
measured, perhaps helped but if not, then pushed aside. Research
conducted within a sociocultural framework would tend to support this
kind of an argument. For example, Moje's (in press) work shows how
gang-connected youth are routinely positioned as resistant learners (and
then marginalized) rather than as learners who use alternative literacy
practices to express themselves and to make meaning of texts that are
essential to their survival. In a review of other research on resistant
adolescent readers, Moore (1996) concluded, "reports such as these...are
good reminders that a productive research focus might highlight at-risk
situational contexts rather than at-risk students" (p. 26).

### ***Research on Accelerating Students' Reading Achievement***

Members of the National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000) concluded that seven
types of text comprehension instruction met the stringent criteria they
had laid out prior to identifying over 450 studies on text comprehension
as potential contributors to a solid base of scientific evidence on
student achievement. These seven types, which appear below, were found
to improve students' comprehension in the context of specific academic
areas, such as social studies. They include:

-   *Comprehension monitoring*, where readers learn how to be aware of
    their understanding of the material;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Cooperative learning*, where students learn reading strategies
    together;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Use of graphic and semantic organizers (including story maps*),
    where readers make graphic representations of the material to assist
    comprehension;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Question answering*, where readers answer questions posed by the
    teacher and receive immediate feedback*[;]{.underline}*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Question generation*, where readers ask themselves questions about
    various aspects of the story;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Story structure*, where students are taught to use the structure of
    the story as a means of helping them recall story content in order
    to answer questions about what they have read; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Summarization*, where readers are taught to integrate ideas and
    generalize from the text information. (The Report of the National
    Reading Panel, 2000, p. 15)

Although these seven types of comprehension instruction are known to
accelerate readers' comprehension generally, they do not tell us
anything about the contexts in which such comprehension occurs. Neither
do they offer information as to how the various approaches fit within
the framework of middle grades developmentally responsive education.
Research that could answer these questions is available (e.g., Bean,
2000; Ivey, 1999; Moje & O'Brien, in press; Moore, 1996). This body of
research relies on qualitative methodologies to flesh out some of the
ways in which content area teachers are using comprehension strategies
to create academically excellent, developmentally responsive, and
socially equitable literacy instruction in the middle grades. However,
studies using qualitative methodologies were excluded from consideration
by the National Reading Panel because they did not meet the experimental
and quasi-experimental design criteria that the panel specified as
evidence of highly rigorous research.

An important aspect of accelerating middle grades students' reading
achievement that the National Reading Panel did address was the research
on vocabulary instruction. The importance of vocabulary knowledge to
subject matter reading has been recognized since the 1920s (Whipple,
1925). In determining the best approach to teaching vocabulary for
improved comprehension, the National Reading Panel evaluated 50 studies
that met their design criteria. Within those 50, the panel identified 21
different methods. Due to the relatively large number of variables
represented in the small number of studies evaluated, the panel could
not conduct a formal meta-analysis of the results of these studies.
Therefore, the information that I present here represents what the panel
called trends across studies.

Basically, the National Reading Panel found that vocabulary instruction
does lead to improved comprehension, with computer-assisted instruction
edging out traditional methods of instruction in a few studies.
Students' vocabulary can also be enhanced incidentally through reading
or listening to others read. Preteaching vocabulary found in material
that teachers assign students was shown to be effective, as was direct
instruction in how to restructure a task and instruction that provided
multiple exposures to the same word in various contexts.

Although the panel concluded that much is known about the importance of
vocabulary in accelerating reading achievement, they cautioned that the
research says little about the best instructional methods or
combinations of methods teachers should use in teaching vocabulary. This
conclusion adds to the literacy field's growing awareness of the
futility in looking for the one best "fix" or combination of "fixes"
given the complexities of classroom teaching, especially in these times
of increasing diversity and expanding technologies.

### ***Research on the Use of Computers to Foster Subject Matter Learning***

The report of the National Reading Panel (2000) indicated that the use
of computers for reading instruction is supported. Although members of
the panel were hesitant about drawing conclusions from the 21 studies
that met their criteria for inclusion in the report, they did make these
general statements about the potential for using computer technology in
reading instruction.

-   The addition of speech to computer-presented text promises to
    enhance the versatility of that technology in reading instruction.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The use of hypertext---text that links to supporting information and
    audiovisuals---may enhance traditional methods of reading
    instruction.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The use of word processing technologies may be advantageous,
    especially given that reading instruction is known to be most
    effective when integrated with writing instruction.

As the panel went on to note, "striking in its absence is research on
the incorporation of Internet applications to reading instruction" (p.
18). Also absent from the research on computer technology, as applied to
reading instruction, is the effect of speech recognition devices and the
use of multimedia presentations. Although a small number of studies
investigating these issues can be found in literature reviews that
incorporate studies using qualitative methodologies (Flood, Heath, &
Lapp, 1997; Kamil, Intrator, & Kim, 2000; Leu, 2000; Reinking, McKenna,
Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998), by and large the knowledge base on computer
technology and literacy instruction is too limited to draw many
conclusions at present.

### ***Research on Translating the Knowledge Base into Practice***

Given that there is a knowledge base (though uneven in parts) on
struggling readers, methods of accelerating students' reading
achievement, and the role of computer technology in reading instruction,
what is known in the literature that looks at translating research into
practice? This question is of considerable concern among the various
stakeholders in middle grades education. Yet, based on the most recent
reviews of policy-oriented research related to reading instruction
(Valencia & Wixson, 2000), the question seems largely unanswerable. Most
of the large-scale research projects dealing with implementation have
focused on standards-based literacy instruction, large-scale performance
assessments, or classroom portfolio assessment, and specifically,
portfolio assessment as it is implemented in the early grades. In their
review of the policy-oriented implementation research in
literacy,Valencia and Wixson (2000) reported only one case study
(Loofbourrow, 1994) at the middle grades level. That study, which
investigated how two eighth-grade teachers implemented the California
Assessment Program in writing, found that the teachers set aside many
sound curricular and instructional recommendations in order to attend to
the demands of the assessment program.

Thus, research that speaks directly to the concern for how the knowledge
base is being translated into practice---a concern that I hear being
voiced widely by middle grades educators through my work on the
International Reading Association's Commission on Adolescent
Literacy---is virtually absent from the literature. This observation is
borne out by the report of the National Reading Panel (2000) as well.
For example, the members of the panel located only four studies that met
their research design criteria on the topic of teachers' implementation
of comprehension strategy instruction. Although limited in what they
could say based on this small number of studies, the panel released two
general statements:

-   Teachers require instruction in explaining what they are teaching,
    modeling their thinking processes, encouraging student inquiry, and
    keeping students engaged.

-   In order for teachers to use strategies effectively, extensive
    formal instruction in reading comprehension is necessary, preferably
    beginning as early as preservice. (The Report of the National
    Reading Panel, 2000, p. 16)

Overall, an emerging theme is one of a growing knowledge base with
limited classroom implementation. This situation seems more apparent at
the middle grades level than at the primary or elementary levels. The
possibility exists, of course, that research is being translated into
practice at the middle grades level but that the process itself is not
being studied and formally written up for publication.

Implications for Literacy Practice, Policy, and Future Research

The implications I draw here are based on the previous section's report
of what the research had to say (or did not say) about the big issues in
middle grades literacy education, at least as I perceive them. These
implications, while aimed primarily at literacy practice, policy, and
future research, also address academic excellence, developmentally
responsive instruction, and socially equitable classrooms---the three
mainstays of high performing middle grades schools (National Forum to
Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, available at http://www.mgforum.org).

### ***Implications for Literacy Practice***

As with all reports, that of the National Reading Panel must be read
with a clear understanding as to the limitations of its findings. For
example, the panel did not address issues relevant to second language
readers. This leaves a gaping hole in the research literature necessary
for making instructional decisions about teaching reading to an
ever-increasing number of second language learners in this country's
middle schools.

Nor did the panel consider any research that fell outside the
experimental and quasi-experimental designs of quantitative research.
Thus, a large body of potentially rich contextual information was
overlooked. The absence of context means that as potential consumers of
the report we have no real sense of the teachers' beliefs and
understandings that drove the literacy instruction, which the panel in
turn studied. Because of this limitation, precaution needs to be taken
in drawing implications of the National Reading Panel's findings on text
comprehension instruction for classroom practice.

For example, six of the seven approaches that the panel concluded had a
solid research backing are representative of the methods teachers would
use if they believe reading comprehension instruction consists of
teaching strategies that enable individual students to work by
themselves in extracting information from printed texts. As Wade and
Moje (2000) pointed out elsewhere, this rather narrow view of the
reading comprehension process risks "disenfranchising large groups of
students for whom print texts are not paramount because they hold
different social or cultural values" (p. 623). Wade and Moje went on to
argue that this view of the comprehension process also "privileges the
learning and textual practices of some students and devalues the
practices of others" (p. 623). Thus, caution needs to be taken so that
in interpreting the results of the panel's findings about effective
types of comprehension instruction, one is fully aware of the
assumptions behind some of the approaches to teaching middle grades
students---assumptions that could conceivably undermine opportunities
for creating socially equitable classrooms.

### ***Implications for Policymakers***

Currently, issues of excellence rank high on policymakers' agendas in
the United States. This observation impelled Au (2000) to write, "The
danger is that challenging standards, like standardized tests, will not
have a positive effect on the achievement of students of diverse
backgrounds, but will simply serve as another means of identifying
students of diverse backgrounds as losers in the educational game" (p.
845). The possibility of this scenario playing itself out seems to be an
implication of the research on struggling readers, especially if
policymakers fail to take into account how culture---the very culture of
which they are a part---constructs readers who struggle (McDermott &
Varenne, 1995). This construction occurs in various ways. For example,
as Au (2000) has pointed out, "when the reference point for proficiency
is determined by comparing \[the scores on a standardized test of\] one
group to a second group...students of diverse backgrounds will always be
placed at a disadvantage because of the assumption that the distribution
of scores must follow the normal curve" (p. 845). Or, when an
adolescent's multiple literacies are ignored in favor of looking only at
his or her performance on conventional school reading tasks,
policymakers may not get a clear picture of that individual's
capabilities. In these ways and others too numerous to mention here,
policymakers may position some students as struggling readers, who, as
Au reminds us, ultimately become the losers in the education game.

Another implication from the research on struggling readers is that
policymakers at the school and district level could easily infer from
the literacy studies conducted within a "difference" approach that
alternative curriculums and developmentally appropriate instruction are
virtually risk free. One scenario that might follow from such an
inference would be this: a school offers literacy instruction grounded
in a curriculum that respects individual differences and feels
relatively assured that students from diverse backgrounds will succeed.
However, this would be much too simplistic a view. For as McDermott and
Varenne (1995) have pointed out, "despite a liberal lament that
variation is wonderful, those who cannot show the right skills at the
right time in the right format are considered out of the race for the
rewards of the larger culture" (p. 335). In effect, the school in
question could very well be constructing losers in the education game
that Au (2000) described earlier.

### ***Implications for Future Research***

Researchers working within both the quantitative and qualitative
paradigms have much work to do if they are to address adequately the
issues that literacy educators in the middle grades are grappling with
on a daily basis. Although large numbers of studies exist on how to
teach reading comprehension, only a few select topics within this domain
have been included in the type of rigorous meta-analyses that the
National Reading Panel (2000) recently conducted. Among those topics
that the panel did address, questions still remain as to the
applicability of certain findings for middle grades education. Partial
or provisional answers to some of those questions, however, might be
forthcoming if the findings from qualitative research on reading
comprehension instruction were to be analyzed in a way that made them
available (and interpretable) through cross-case comparisons.
Subsequently, new experimental or quasi-experimental research might be
designed to address hypotheses that arise from more in-depth and
close-up qualitative work.

Other issues pertinent to middle grades literacy instruction that have
been virtually ignored by researchers in the past include those which
involve computer technology and the media. Attempts at merging young
adolescents' out-of-school interests in computers and the popular media
with in-school subject matter learning have been documented informally
in a variety of contexts across the United States (Alvermann, Moon, &
Hagood, 1999; Chandler, 2000; Lewis, 1998; Reinking, McKenna, Labbo, &
Kieffer, 1998) and elsewhere (Buckingham & Sefton-Green, 1994; Knobel,
1999; Luke, 1997; Neilsen, 1998; Semali & Pailliotet, 1999). However,
until researchers begin to explore more such attempts in a systematic
way over a long period of time, it is doubtful that middle grades
educators will have the information they need to make informed decisions
about the wisdom of blurring the boundaries between in-school and
out-of-school literacies.

Finally, questions concerning the degree to which the knowledge base in
middle grades literacy education is being translated into practice
remain largely unanswered. Studies are needed that both quantitatively
and qualitatively investigate what characterizes a school in which
teachers, administrators, and supervisory personnel actively engage in
applying relevant findings from the available knowledge base to their
school's curriculum, and, in particular, to teaching reading in the
content areas. A major focus of any such inquiry should be on how well,
if at all, the research on bilingual students' reading development and
instructional needs is being implemented schoolwide. Concurrently,
additional quantitative and qualitative research should be designed that
would augment the rather meager (Garcia, 2000) body of literature
presently available on second language reading instruction.

**Questions that Need Grappling with Next**

Literacy is on the verge of reinventing itself. Allan Luke and John
Elkins, editors of the *Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy*, noted
in their first issue of the journal (Luke & Elkins, 1998) that the
potential for such reinvention is reflected in the way "texts and
literate practices of everyday life are changing at an unprecedented and
disorienting pace" (p. 4). Attributing these changes largely to new
information technologies and to the complex multiliteracies these
technologies entail (New London Group, 1997), Luke and Elkins
characterized the era in which we are living as New Times. It is a time
of major shifts in cultural practices, economic systems, and social
institutions on a global scale---a time when literacy educators from
around the world are speculating about the ways in which new
technologies will alter people's conceptions of reading and writing. As
Elkins and Luke (1999) went on to point out, "adolescent literacy in New
Times will require an engagement with "critical
multiliteracies"\...\[and\] new kinds of reading specialists" (p. 213)
rather than simply more of the same programs and services already in
place in today's middle and secondary schools.

I want to suggest that in thinking about the wherewithal for meeting
this requirement in middle grades education, we begin with the question,
*What counts as reading when reading really* *counts*? Exploring the
assumptions that support asking such a question in the first place could
conceivably lead to productive inquiry into the multiple literacies of
middle grades students and away from some idealized generalization about
what "real" reading is (and is not). It is conceivable that such
explorations might also lead to an increased appreciation for the
breadth of reading and writing practices in which struggling readers
engage on a daily basis.

Currently, with the greatest proportion of the professional literature
on middle grades literacy education reflecting an autonomous model of
reading and writing (Street, 1995), the assumption is that *literacy* is
singular in form and spelled with a big [L]{.underline}. The tendency to
assume that this model is also "natural" (and thus free of any
ideological positioning) is supportive, in turn, of our tendency as a
profession to reify written language. I want to argue that the
understandings to be gained from a dialogue on *what counts as reading
when reading really counts* would go far in addressing this assumption.

A second question I would like to see addressed is this: *What is our
response going to be to the literacy challenges that adolescents face in
New Times?* Now, perhaps more than ever before in the history of middle
grades literacy education, the demands of new technologies and the
complexities of living in a highly globalized society are seriously
taxing our capacities as a profession to respond to adolescents' needs
in ways that will enable them to become fully functioning citizens of
the 21st century. Part of the reason we may feel caught off guard is
that for years now the focus of attention has been on reading
instruction at the primary and elementary levels.

Years of neglect in addressing the literacy needs of older readers have
exacted their toll. Although close to 75% of U.S. adolescents can read
and write at the most minimal or *basic* level, fewer than 5% are
capable of performing at the *advanced* level (National Assessment of
Educational Progress, 1999). The polarization of these two
literacies\--basic and advanced\--reflects more than just reading
proficiency level, however. It can also establish the basis of an
individual's perceived worth, which in turn can translate into economic
and social advantages or disadvantages, as the case may be (Lankshear,
1998). And, while I have serious reservations about the narrow
perspective on literacy that the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) measures, at the same time it is the case that NAEP
reading assessment data are used to make important policy decisions that
will ultimately affect adolescents' economic and social lives for years
to come. For this reason and others that are articulated at length in
the literature on critical literacy (Gee, 2000; Moje, Young, Readence, &
Moore, 2000; Siegel and Fernandez, 2000), I think it is time for us in
middle grades education to ask a third question: *What is the danger in
continuing to view literacy as a set of "neutral" psychological skills
that are easily, if narrowly, measured rather than as a complex mixture
of social and political practices through which to work toward equality
and social justice for all?*

**References**

Alvermann, D. E., Hinchman, K. A., Moore, D. W., Phelps, S. F., & Waff,
D. R. (Eds.). (1998). *Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents'
lives*. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Alvermann, D. E., Moon, J. S., & Hagood, M. C. (1999). *Popular culture
in the classroom: Teaching researching critical media literacy*. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association and the National Reading
Conference.

Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), *Handbook of
reading research: Volume II* (pp. 951-983). New York: Longman.

Au, K. H. (2000). A multicultural perspective on policies for improving
literacy achievement:: Equity and excellence. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.). *Handbook of reading
research: Volume III* (pp. 835-851). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bean, T. W. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist
dimensions. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.). *Handbook of reading research: Volume III* (pp. 629-654).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bernhardt, E. B. (2000). Second-language reading as a case study of
reading scholarship in the 20^th^ century. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.). *Handbook of reading
research: Volume III* (pp. 791-8111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brozo, W. G., Valerio, P. C., & Salazar, M. M. (2000). A walk through
Gracie's garden: Literacy and cultural explorations in a Mexican
American junior high school. In D. W. Moore, D. E. Alvermann, & K. A.
Hinchman (Eds.), *Struggling adolescent readers: A collection of
teaching strategies* (pp. 66-73). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

Buckingham, D., & Sefton-Green, J. (Eds.). (1994). [Cultural studies
goes to school]{.underline}. London: Taylor & Francis.

Chandler, K. (2000). Rethinking the reading-writing workshop: Tensions
and negotiations between a Stephen King reader and her teacher. *Reading
Research and Instruction,39*[,]{.underline}135-159.

Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that I want them to learn and that I
care about who they are: A microethnography of the social organization
of a secondary low-track English classroom. *American Educational
Research Journal*[, 26,]{.underline} 227-259.

Elkins, J., & Luke, A. (1999). Redefining adolescent literacies.
*Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43*[,]{.underline} 212-215.

Flood, J., Heath, S. B., & Lapp, D. (Eds.). (1997). *Handbook of
research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual
arts*. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Garcia, G. E. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In M. L. Kamil, P.
B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), *Handbook of reading
research: Volume III* (pp. 813-834). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gee, J. P. (2000). Teenagers in new times: A new literacy studies
perspective*. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43*[,]{.underline}
412-420.

Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities
among young adolescent readers. *Reading Research Quarterly*[,
34,]{.underline} 172-192.

Jiménez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading
strategies of bilingual Latino/a students who are successful English
readers: Opportunities and obstacles. *Reading Research Quarterly,
31*[,]{.underline} 90-112.

Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S. M., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The effects of other
technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), *Handbook of reading
research: Volume III* (pp. 771-788). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.).
(2000*). Handbook of reading research: Volume III.* Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Knobel, M. (1999). *Everyday literacies*. New York: Peter Lang.

Lankshear, C. (1998). Meanings of literacy in contemporary educational
reform proposals. *Educational Theory*[, 48,]{.underline} 351-372.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Leu, D. J., Jr. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences
for literacy education in an information age. In. M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), *Handbook of reading
research: Volume III* (pp. 743-770). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewis, C. (1998). Rock \`n' roll and horror stories: Students, teachers,
and popular culture. *Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy*[,
42,]{.underline} 116-120.

Loofbourrow, P. T. (1994). Composition in the context of the CAP: A case
study of the interplay between composition assessment and classrooms.
*Educational Assessment*[, 2,]{.underline} 7-49.

Luke, A., & Elkins, J. (1998). Reinventing literacy in "New Times*."
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy*[, 42,]{.underline} 4-7.

Luke, C. (1997). Media literacy and cultural studies. In S. Muspratt, A.
Luke, & P. Freebody (Eds.), *Constructing critical literacies: Teaching
and learning textual practice* (pp. 19-49). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.

McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture [as]{.underline}
disability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26[,]{.underline}
324-348.

Moje, E. B. (in press). "To be part of the story": The unsanctioned
literacy practices of "gangsta" adolescents. *Teachers College Record*.

Moje, E. B., & O'Brien, D. G. (Eds.). (2000). *Constructions of
literacy: Studies of teaching and learning in secondary classrooms and
schools*. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (2000).
Reinventing adolescent literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial
issues. *Journal of Adolescent &* *Adult Literacy*[, 43,]{.underline}
400-410.

Moll, L. C., & Gonzalez, N. (1994). Critical issues: Lessons from
research with language-minority children. *Journal of Reading Behavior:
A Journal of Literacy, 26*[,]{.underline} 439-456.

Moore, D. W. (1996). Contexts for literacy in secondary schools. In D.
J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), *Literacies for the 21st
century: Research and practice* (45th Yearbook of the National Reading
Conference, pp. 15-46). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Moore, D. W., Alvermann, D. E., & Hinchman, K. A. (2000). *Struggling
adolescent* *readers: A collection of teaching strategies*. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.

Morris, D., Ervin, C., & Conrad, K. (2000). A case study of middle
school reading disability. In D. W. Moore, D. E. Alvermann, & K. A.
Hinchman (Eds.), *Struggling adolescent readers: A collection of
teaching strategies* (pp. 8-18). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1999). *The NAEP 1998
Reading Report* *Card for the Nation and the States* (NCES 1999-500).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.

National Institute of Child and Human Development. (2000*). Report of
the National Reading Panel*. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child
and Human Development.

Neilsen, L. (1998). Playing for real: Performative texts and adolescent
literacies. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F.
Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), *Reconceptualizing the literacies in
adolescents' lives* (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing
social futures. *Harvard Educational Review*[,]{.underline}
66[,]{.underline} 60-92.

O'Brien, D. G. (1998). Multiple literacies in a high school program for
"at-risk" adolescents. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore,
S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), *Reconceptualizing the literacies in
adolescents' lives* (pp. 27-49). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Phelps, S. F. (1998). Adolescents and their multiple literacies. In D.
E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff
(Eds.), *Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives*
(pp.1-2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reinking, D., McKenna, M., Labbo, L., & Kieffer, R. (Eds.). (1998).
*Handbook of* *literacy and technology*. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Report of the National Reading Panel*. (2000). Washington, DC: National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Semali, L., & Pailliotet, A. W. (1999). *Intermediality.* Boulder, CO:
Westview.

Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Jenner, A. R., Fulbright, R. K., Fletcher,
J. M., Gore, J. C., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2000). The neurobiology of
reading reading disability (dyslexia). In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), *Handbook of reading research: Volume
III* (pp. 229-249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Siegel, M., & Fernandez, S. L. (2000). Critical approaches. In M. L.
Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds[*.), Handbook of
reading research: Volume I*II]{.underline} (pp. 141-151). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Street, B. V. (1995*). Social literacies: Critical approaches to
literacy in development, ethnography, and education*. New York: Longman.

Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. K. (2000). Policy-oriented research on
literacy standards and assessment. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P.
D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds*.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III*
(pp. 909-935). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom
learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), *Handbook of reading research: Volume III* (pp. 609-627).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Whipple, G. (Ed.). (1925). *The twenty-fourth yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education: Report of the National Committee on
Reading*. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.

# [Mathematics in the Middle Grades:]{.smallcaps}

# [Linking Research and Practice]{.smallcaps}

Judith Sowder

Professor of Mathematical and Computer Sciences

San Diego State University

Plenary Address

*National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board's Conference
on*

*Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in the Middle Grades:*

*Linking Research and Practice*

July 24--25, 2000

Washington, DC

Mathematics in the Middle Grades: Linking Research and Practice

**Judith T. Sowder**

San Diego State University

> Middle-grade students are unique. No other grade span encompasses such
> a wide range of intellectual, physical, psychological, and social
> development, and educators must be sensitive to the entire spectrum of
> these young people's capabilities. For many students the middle school
> represents the last chance to develop a sense of academic purpose and
> personal commitment to educational goals. Those who fail at the middle
> grade level often drop out of school and may never again have the
> opportunity to develop to their fullest potential. (Honig, 1987, p. v)

During their years in the middle school, many students become turned off
to mathematics. Such students are less likely to take mathematics
courses for the college bound, and thus their futures are deeply
affected. I won\'t speculate here on the many reasons this turning away
happens, but, rather, I will discuss some of what we know about
mathematics in the middle school that affects the learning process.

I begin with some comments about what research can and cannot offer us
when we consider issues related to middle school mathematics. I intend
for these comments to serve as a backdrop for the remainder of this
presentation.

Several years ago I attended a session at a National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (NCTM) conference during which the then new California
Assessment Program was being discussed. John Saxon, who published
mathematics textbooks, objected to the assessment items. I was at first
surprised, because to me the items measured the mathematics I thought
students should be learning in the middle school. I countered by asking
Mr. Saxon whether the items were inappropriate in his opinion because he
did not value the type of knowledge being assessed. This event triggered
for me an understanding of the major role that values play in our
decision-making about what mathematics education should look like in
today's schools.

What do I mean by *values?* Values function as the "criteria people use
to select and justify actions and to evaluate people and events"
(Schwartz, 1992). I strongly believe that the "math wars" now being
played out in California and in some other states are wars of values.
Values, like beliefs, are firmly held and sometimes jealously guarded,
and when they conflict, wars on some scale seem inevitable unless we
stand back and examine our values and their origins and try to
understand the values of the opposition and the origins of their values.
The new NCTM *Principles and Standards of School Mathematics*, recently
published, represents a particular set of values with regard to school
mathematics, values different from those of, for example, the group
calling themselves Mathematically Correct. As Jim Hiebert (1999) has
said,

> Standards in mathematics education, like those in other fields, are
> statements about priorities and goals. In education, they are value
> judgments about what our students should know and be able to do. They
> are chosen through a complex process that is fed by societal
> expectations, past practice, research information, and visions of the
> professionals in the field. The process is similar to the one that
> operates in selecting standards in other professional fields. Research
> can influence the nature of the standards that are adopted, but, in
> the end, research is not the sole basis for selection of the
> standards. Standards, ultimately, are statements about what is most
> valued
>
> (p. 4).

I next turn to consideration of some important issues relating to
curriculum and instruction in mathematics, keeping in mind what has just
been said about the role of values.

#### 

#### Mathematics Curriculum in the Middle School

I have recently given considerable thought to curriculum issues, but
from the standpoint of what teachers need to know to about mathematics
in the middle school, which in my mind is closely related to what
students need to know. I think you will find a considerable amount of
agreement in three recent documents delineating what should be taught in
the middle school: NCTM\'s *Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics* (2000), the benchmarks used to evaluate textbooks by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2000), and in a
document under preparation by the Conference Board of Mathematical
Sciences. In this last document, the professional preparation of
teachers and a challenging mathematics curriculum are coupled.

Let us consider just a few topics from middle school mathematics. One
topic is number and number relations. I do not believe that most people
realize the enormous changes that take place in the study of number as
children move from primary grades into the middle grades. Students move
from operating on whole numbers to operating on signed numbers and
rational numbers (that is, fractions and decimal numbers) and from a
primary focus on addition and subtraction to multiplication and division
as well. Hiebert and Behr (1988), writing about the changes that take
place when students move into the middle grades, said that "Underneath
all of the surface level changes is a fundamental change with
far-reaching ramifications: a change in the nature of the unit." Here
are three examples of this change.

-   Students move from singleton units to composite units when they
    multiply; that is, what counts as a number changes: A set of things
    can now be thought of as one whole; I have two sets of three
    pencils; I have four six-packs of Coke.

-   Students create new types of unit quantities when they divide:
    Dividing 30 cookies by 6 children yields 5 "cookies per child."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Units are partitioned to form fractions. A number, for example 1/3,
    is now part of a whole but can be thought of as a unit itself, so
    that it makes sense to talk about multiples of one-third, for
    example, "two one-thirds is two-thirds."

When teachers do not understand the significance of these subtle changes
in how numbers are used, their students can become very confused.
Thompson (1995) used the following problem in a research study with
teachers to help them understand the importance of always understanding
what the unit is.

What do you see here? Most of you will say 3/5, which is correct if you
refer to the large rectangle as your unit and consider the shaded area
as 3/5 of that unit. Can you see 2/5? Yes, if you look at the unshaded
area and use the large rectangle as your unit. But now, can you see 5/3?
Yes, if the shaded part is your unit, then the entire large rectangle is
5/3 of that unit. Can you see 2/3? Yes, if \_\_\_ is the unit, then
\_\_\_ is 2/3 of the unit. And so on. The ability to flexibly change the
referent unit is important in understanding, for example, multiplication
of fractions. If I have 3/4 of a pint of ice cream, and I give my
husband 2/3 of it and keep the rest, how much ice cream does he get? The
pint is the referent unit for the 3/4, but the 2/3 is referring only to
the 3/4 pint, not to the whole pint. And the answer, 2/4 (or 1/2),
refers again to the whole pint. To summarize, research shows that the
difficulties associated with the transition from the study of number in
the early grades to the study of number in the middle grades has been
vastly underestimated.

Another of the major areas of change in the middle school is the
extended reasoning power required of students as they move through these
grades. For example, consider this vignette from a fifth-grade class
taught by Shey (abbreviated from Sowder, Philipp, Armstrong, &
Schappelle, 1998, p. 100-101).

*Shey*: Nicole\'s a banker, and I\'m going to invest money with her. I
give Nicole \$2. At the end of the year, Nicole is going to give me back
\$8. Phi doesn\'t like to part with his money, but Nicole talks him into
a good deal. Phi\'s going to give Nicole \$6, and at the end of the year
Nicole is going to give him \$12 back. Who do you think would get the
better deal out of this? Or would we both get the same \[deal\]?

After a brief discussion, the students overwhelmingly voted that the two
were the same. Shey then revised the problem:

*Shey*: Okay, here we go again. I will invest \$1. I\'m going to invest
\$1 with Nicole. Nicole is going to give me \$20 back. Phi is going to
invest \$60. And he\'s going to get \$79 back. I invest \$1 and I get
\$20. Phi gives her 60 bucks and he ends up with 79 bucks. Who makes the
most money? Phi, who makes the most money? \[He wrote numbers on
overhead projector.\]

> The students struggled with this question until one student began to
> look at the problem differently:
>
> *Henry*: I\'d put a dollar \[in Nicole's bank\] because if I put a
> dollar in there, I\'d get 19 back; if I keep on putting more dollars
> in there, it\'ll go past 79.

Henry was beginning to understand that there is more than one way to
compare. In the first problem children were comparing
*additively*---that is, they were finding differences, and using the
differences for purposes of comparison---the difference in each case was
\$6. Using Henry\'s response, the teacher could begin to teach students
to compare *multiplicatively*---that is, to compare ratios: The ratio of
20 to 1 is much larger than the ratio of 79 to 60. Almost all situations
dealing with growth comparisons require multiplicative reasoning. The
ability to reason multiplicatively is basic to proportional reasoning.

There is a great deal of research showing that coming to reason
proportionally and understanding when proportions are appropriate is
another of the major mathematical hurdles of the middle school (e.g.,
Harel & Confrey, 1994). Yet, in many textbooks, this topic is covered in
a cursory manner. One sixth-grade teacher asked me, "How can my
sixth-grade students begin to reason proportionally if the textbook
covers this in just two lessons?" Students are taught how to set up an
equation, *a/b = c/d*, with one of the variables unknown, then to
cross-multiply and solve the resulting equation for the unknown. This is
a process; carrying it out does not necessarily lead to proportional
reasoning.

Consider another, more recent middle school mathematics topic: algebra.
Algebra is a natural extension of arithmetic; it can be thought of as
generalized arithmetic. It provides a symbolic language that can be used
to represent and analyze quantitative relationships. Many school
districts now require that all students take algebra in eighth grade.
But there is no research showing that this is when students should learn
algebra. Rather, if formal algebra is generalized arithmetic, then
students must understand arithmetic before they can make any sense of
algebra. Why has this issue become a lightning rod in curriculum
debates? Probably because algebra is seen as the gateway to further
mathematics and to college, and denying it to some students is a serious
inequity. I can agree with that reasoning, but that still does not tell
me why algebra *must* be offered in eighth grade. If students are ready
to learn algebra in eighth grade (or even earlier), they should be given
the opportunity to do so, but if they are not ready, they are being set
up for failure. I argue that the matter of what type of algebra should
be taught and learned, and when it should be taught, have become
value-laden issues. In fact, the NCTM *Dialogues*[^5] issue for April
2000 was devoted to providing a space for many views of the \"what and
when\" of algebra. Algebra is integrated into the curriculum in most
countries. Research does not tell us when students should learn algebra;
the placement of algebra should be an issue of readiness, but instead it
has, in many places, become an issue of values.

I've talked a bit about three particular curriculum areas---number and
number relations, multiplicative reasoning, and algebra. What about the
curriculum as a whole? How do (or how should) schools decide on
curriculum and textbook adoption? Is there research to guide them?
Actually, yes. Two very good curriculum-comparison studies have been
published recently, both focusing on secondary mathematics, but I
believe the messages can be carried down to the middle school. In the
first, Boaler (1998) spent three years gathering case-study data in two
secondary English schools with very different approaches to teaching
mathematics. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. This
study was possible because of some experimentation in the British
National Examinations. Schools were allowed the choice of taking a
problem-solving oriented examination, and so one school decided to
experiment with a problem-centered curriculum. The other school used a
very traditional approach to mathematics. What students learned was
quite different in the two schools. In Boaler\'s words,

> Students who followed a traditional approach developed a procedural
> knowledge that was of limited use to them in unfamiliar situations.
> Students who learned mathematics in an open, project-based environment
> developed a conceptual understanding that provided them with
> advantages in a range of assessments and situations" (p. 41).

In a second study (Huntley et al., 2000a), Core-Plus (a secondary
curriculum based on the NCTM Standards) was compared with a
"traditional" curriculum. Six sites out of 36 schools were selected,
using stringent criteria, for the study. Each school had two teachers
teaching the new program and one, two, or three control teachers. At 5
of the 6 sites, students were either randomly assigned or matched on
ability. Three assessments were administered; one emphasized
contextualized problem-solving, one focused on context-free symbolic
manipulations, and a third required collaborative work on open-ended
problems. Not surprisingly, the Core-Plus students had significantly
higher scores on the first and third assessments; the control groups had
significantly higher scores on the second assessment. The authors
concluded that "the question facing those responsible for planning
school mathematics curricula is what mathematics is most important for
students to learn" (Huntley et al., 2000b). Once again, the question is
one of values.

Both curriculum-comparison studies were long term and difficult to carry
out. Both studies represent about as much control as a researcher can
have in school settings. Establishing cooperation from schools and
parents for such studies is not a trivial matter. Randomly assigning
students to classes is rarely permissible, designing fair assessments is
very difficult, and determining implementation of the curricula is
problematic. It is no wonder that there are so few studies comparing
curricula. As an editor of a research journal, I have had to reject
several curriculum-comparison studies because of these methodological
problems. I have argued many times that all these studies really show is
that what is learned depends greatly on the curriculum selected and that
whether or not students are learning the "right things" from a
particular curriculum is a matter of what is valued. To judge any
curriculum we must first specify what knowledge we want students to
acquire, and for what reasons, and then we must determine how to assess
for that knowledge.

Many opponents of "reform-oriented" curricula argue that these curricula
teach "fuzzy math." Is this a fair accusation? It depends on what one
means by *fuzzy*. Certainly many of the problems we encounter in real
life are fuzzy, and we must have the skills to clarify a problem before
it can be solved. Is the skill of being able to carry out this
clarification more or less valuable than having the skills to carry out
procedures divorced from their context? The opponents use this term,
however, to indicate that students are not learning the mathematics they
need to learn. Yet I consider much of the learning that occurs in the
traditional curriculum to be fuzzy. For example, in a research project
at San Diego State, we recently interviewed a fifth grader, considered
to be a fairly good student, from a traditional mathematics program in
which a unit on fractions had been taught. She was asked to compare
fractions by circling the larger of two fractions and to explain her
reasoning. Here are some of her responses.

> 3/6 and 1/2: Response: "I chose 1/2, because if you change the
> denominator to one; it's one digit lower, and one is a whole number."
>
> 1/7 and 2/7: Response: "I chose 1/7 because I thought it was just the
> smallest number, and usually you go down to the smallest number to get
> to the biggest.\"
>
> 3/10 and 1/2: Response: "I chose 1/2 because I could just change the
> bottom number one more digit and it would be one."

There is some consistency to the responses. This student seemed to
remember something about reducing fractions, and was attempting to apply
this procedure to compare fractions. But the responses are too fuzzy to
tell what she was really thinking.

Here is another example in which the reasons for the fuzzy thinking are
more evident. In a research study I undertook a few years back
(Threadgill-Sowder, 1984), 29 middle school students from several
schools, in interview settings, were asked to estimate answers for
several computation problems. On one problem they were asked to tell
approximately what the answer would be for 0.52 x 789. Only 6 of the 29
students rounded 0.52 to 1/2 or 0.5 or 50%. Most of the students rounded
0.52 to 1 (using a rounding rule they had learned), then rounded 789 to
800, and said that the answer would be about 800.

I have one last example for you. In a NAEP test (1983), only 17% of
13-year-olds could answer the NAEP item "George has 3/4 of a pie. He ate
3/5 of that. How much pie did he eat?" Yet, 60% could correctly
calculate 7/8 x 3/2. More than half the students could multiply
fractions, but they could not recognize *when* fractions should be
multiplied! I could provide many more such examples of the fuzzy
thinking that occurs when students blindly learn procedures without
making sense of them.

##### 

##### Instruction and the Classroom Environment

There is much that could be discussed in this section, but I will limit
my remarks to consider research studies in three quite different aspects
of instruction: problem solving, motivation, and tracking by ability.

#### *Problem Solving*

I will begin by describing a study of the ways in which children solve
word problems (Sowder, 1988). More than 70 middle school children, most
in Grades 6 and 8, were given story problems to solve. An interviewer
observed each student\'s work and later questioned the student about his
or her thinking while solving the problems. Most of these students were
considered by their teachers to be of average or above average ability
in mathematics. The types of student thinking were categorized into
seven strategies.

-   Coping Strategy 1. Find the numbers and add (or do whatever
    computation has been most recently studied).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coping Strategy 2. Guess at the operation to be used.

These two coping strategies were used by students who simply had no idea
what to do but felt compelled to provide an answer

-   Limited Strategy 3. Look at the numbers; they will "tell" you which
    operation to use. "If it's like, 78 and maybe 54, then I'd probably
    either add or multiply. But \[78 and\] 3, it looks like a division
    because of the size of the numbers."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Limited Strategy 4. Try all the operations and choose the most
    reasonable answer. (I saw this strategy used by a seventh-grade
    student in the gifted program. She could work any one-step word
    problem using this strategy and obtain the correct answer. But when
    the problem involved more than one step there were too many possible
    choices and she was unable to find an answer.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Limited Strategy 5. Look for "key" words to tell which operation to
    use. Emmy (Grade 8) said, "Certain words like *of* is equal \[sic\],
    and *is* is to multiply, or something like that. Certain words like
    that tell you what to do."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Limited Strategy 6. Decide whether the answer should be larger or
    smaller than the given numbers. If larger, try both addition and
    multiplication and choose the more reasonable answer. If smaller,
    try subtraction or division. In one interview, the student was asked
    "Why division?" Fred (Grade 8) responded "Because it's reducing
    something. And I know that when you reduce something you're either
    taking it away or dividing it."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Desired Strategy 7. Choose the operation with the meaning that fits
    the story. Very few students used this strategy, which requires that
    one understand the appropriate arithmetical computation needed to
    solve the problem. Even when students use this strategy, they
    sometimes lack confidence in what they are doing.

> Student: I just pictured the post, how deep the water was\...
> Sometimes I picture the objects in my mind that I'm working with, if
> it's a hard problem\...
>
> *Interviewer:* Does that help?

*Student:* Yeah, it helps. That's just one way of, *kind of, cheating*
(!), I guess you'd say.

(As an aside, I find that many prospective teachers consider drawing a
diagram to try to figure out what is going on in a problem "childish"
and reflective of less understanding than giving an algebraic solution.
Where does this misconception arise?)

It is no wonder that students are unable to solve story problems
requiring more than one step, or that they cannot solve algebra problems
in which there are not enough numbers to "tinker with." Yet text
materials rarely help teachers teach well the meanings of arithmetic
operations and when each operation should be used. I know from my work
with teachers that many of them do not know when a particular operation
should be used and that some continue to teach the "key word" approach
even though it can be very misleading. *We must recognize that the
ability to perform computational operations is not sufficient; students
must know when to use particular operations. Why should a student be
expected to carry out paper-and-pencil long division but not be expected
to know when to divide or what the results mean?*

But problem solving means far more than solving story problems if we
value the ability to solve challenging problems, problems that contain
some ambiguity and that will probably elicit some frustration and
anxiety before a solution is reached but which when solved can be the
source of considerable pride and a feeling of mathematical power.
Consider next an investigation (Henningsen & Stein, 1997) of the role of
the teacher in turning good mathematical tasks into learning experiences
that require problem solving by the students. Recognizing that
mathematical tasks are "vehicles for building student capacity for
mathematical thinking and reasoning," (p. 530) the researchers analyzed
144 high level mathematical tasks used by teachers during
reform-oriented instruction. They considered (a) the task features
(e.g., the number of solution strategies, number and kind of
representations, and communication requirements) and (b) the cognitive
demands (e.g., memorization, the use of procedures connections to
concepts, the "doing of mathematics"). The gathering of classroom data
and the coding of tasks were detailed and carefully undertaken. The
researchers found that when tasks were undertaken in the classroom, the
cognitive demands of the tasks tended to decline due to several factors.
For example, the problematic aspects of the task became routinized,
either because students pressed the teacher to reduce task ambiguity and
complexity or because teachers took over the challenging aspects of the
task and performed them for the students. Task quality declined also if
the teacher shifted the focus from doing the task to the solution
process and the correctness of the answer (usually because of too little
time). Thus, very good tasks (or curricula) can get "dumbed down" and
may not be implemented in the manner intended.

In another study (Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996), the investigators
found that when tasks "work" and when students' engagement remains at a
high level, a large number of support factors were present:

-   The task built on students' prior knowledge.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Scaffolding took place.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   An appropriate amount of time was devoted to a task.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   High-level performance was modeled.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The teacher sustained pressure for explanation and meaning.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Students monitored their own progress.

Other times a task does not "take hold" for one or more reasons:

-   There was a decline into using procedures without connections to
    concepts, to meaning, or to understanding.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There was a decline into unsystematic exploration.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There was a decline into no mathematical activity.

Teaching in ways that encourage and promote problem solving can be very
difficult. But problem solving is the very heart of mathematics---we
cannot ignore it. Rather, we need to find ways to help teachers become
better at sustaining student work on challenging tasks, and we need to
help teachers and parents see its value.

#### *Motivation* 

The teacher is responsible for motivating her students. What does
research have to tell us about motivation? In a recent review of this
topic (Middleton & Spanias, 1999; 2000) as it pertains to mathematics
learning, the literature was summarized in terms of five statements
based on solid, verifiable evidence on what influences motivation:

1.  *Motivations are learned.* Although students in the early grades
    like mathematics, middle school students begin to perceive
    mathematics as a special subject area in which only students with
    special ability succeed; the rest, who merely get by or fail, tend
    to avoid mathematics because it is no longer a part of their
    academic self-concept.

2.  *Motivation hinges on students' interpretations of their successes
    and failures.* All else being equal, it is the expectation of
    success, mediated by the value placed on a task, that influences the
    effort one is willing to expend. One estimate given is that a person
    needs to be successful about 70% of the time to continue engagement
    in a task; that is, the task must not be too easy, but it must be
    sufficiently challenging for the student to feel she can succeed
    (Dickinson & Butt, 1989).

3.  *Intrinsic motivation is better than engagement for a reward.*
    Research has shown that students are less likely to engage in a task
    that is simply a means to an end such as a treat or avoidance of a
    sanction than when a task is enjoyed and valued, and provides a
    possibility of success.

4.  *Inequities are influenced by how different groups are taught to
    view mathematics*. The motivational research has stimulated change
    on equity issues in mathematics education. Women and minorities in
    general have been less likely to take the advanced mathematics that
    leads to higher paying occupations.

5.  *Teachers matter.* Students in inquiry-oriented classrooms are less
    likely to conform to doing mathematics the same way as the teacher,
    or to believe that doing so leads to success. For these students,
    success is more likely to be defined making sense of mathematics.
    These students are more likely to work cooperatively and to be able
    to explain mathematics to one another. Student performance is likely
    to increase in these classrooms, particularly performance on
    conceptual and nonroutine tasks.

In another investigation of motivation (Stipek et al., 1998), the
researchers reviewed both the literature on reforming mathematics
instruction and the literature on motivation in general. Interestingly,
they found that many of the same themes ran through both bodies of
literature:

Teachers engaged in reform-minded mathematics instruction are counseled
to increase students'

\(a\) *focus on learning* and understanding mathematical concepts as
well as on getting right answers; (b) *self-confidence* as mathematics
learners; (c) willingness to *take risks* and approach challenging
tasks; (d) *enjoyment* in engaging in mathematics activities; and (e)
related *positive feelings* about mathematics. All these motivation
objectives for students seen in the mathematics reform literature figure
prominently in the achievement motivation literature as well (p. 466).

#### *Tracking or Untracking?*

Many educators believe that both high-ability and low-ability students
in mathematics classes are better served when they are grouped by
ability level and instruction is differentiated for the ability groups.
The question of tracking, or untracking, is a pesky one and more often
than not answered in ways that tend to be self-serving. The study I
present next has addressed this question, with interesting results. The
researchers (Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998) had the good fortune to be
approached by a school in which the teachers were dissatisfied with what
their low-ability students were learning. The teachers, administrators,
and parents agreed to participate in a study of the effects of ability
grouping. When the students entered Grade 7, they were randomly assigned
to one of four groups. On the basis of their placement tests two of the
groups were then divided into three classes, a high-ability group, an
intermediate-ability group, and a low-ability group. The other two
groups were also tested, and the researchers *hypothetically* assigned
them to ability groups on the basis of their test scores, but these
students were left in their heterogeneous, mixed-ability classes. The
teachers of the mixed-ability classes were not told of the hypothetical
grouping done by the researchers. Five teachers were randomly assigned
to the five classes, the three ability groups and the two mixed-ability
groups. These classes stayed together for two years. At the end of Grade
8, students in all five classes were tested twice. One test was given to
all students. Three tests were designed to be administered to the three
ability groups, so that each student grouped by ability took the
appropriate test. But, students in the mixed-ability classes were also
tested using the ability group tests; they were given the test developed
for the ability group to which they had been hypothetically assigned at
the beginning of seventh grade, that is, they were given the same test
they would have received had they been grouped by ability.

*The average scores of high-ability students were not affected by the
ability grouping*. A study of performance on test items showed that
high-ability students from the mixed-ability classes lost some points on
formal presentation and notation, as would be expected, but overall they
understood the content as well as the students in the high ability
group. *The average scores of the intermediate- and low-ability students
showed major effects of grouping: Students in mixed ability groups, who,
at the beginning of grade 7 tested as middle and low ability students,
scored much higher than their peers of comparable ability placed in
middle- and low-ability classes.* In fact, some low-ability students
from the ability-grouped class turned in empty papers on the common
test, whereas the equivalent students in the mixed-ability classes
scored an average 54%. Apparently students in the mixed-ability classes
were accustomed to much higher demands and expectations. Fifty-four
percent may not seem like a good score, but it is certainly better than
a score of zero.

#### Implications for Linking Research to Practice

In a 1997 *Educational Researcher* article, Kennedy explored the
connections between research and practice in terms of what she
considered to be the "apparent failure" of research to influence
teaching. She hypothesized four reasons for the disjuncture between
research and practice.

> 1\. The research itself is not sufficiently *persuasive or
> authoritative.*
>
> 2\. The research has not been *relevant* to practice. It has not been
> sufficiently practical, it has not addressed teachers' questions, nor
> has it adequately acknowledged their constraints.
>
> 3\. Ideas from research have not been *accessible to teachers.*
> Findings have not been expressed in ways that are comprehensible to
> teachers.
>
> 4\. The education system itself is intractable and unable to change,
> or it is conversely inherently unstable, overly susceptive to fads,
> and consequently unable to engage in systematic change. (Kennedy,
> 1997, p. 4)

I will discuss only the first three reasons in my concluding remarks,
with some slight changes in Kennedy's wording.

**Our research is considered by many to be neither authoritative nor
convincing.** The reasons for this view go well beyond the scope of this
presentation and pertain to educational research in general. But I think
I have pointed to one basic reason why research in mathematics education
is not convincing to some people: There are too many questions that
cannot be answered by research, and the public does not understand that
fact. Many of the questions being asked today relate to values and
cannot be answered with research. Research results that do exist but
that do not coincide with one's value system are often considered
unauthoritative and unconvincing. A major implication is that we need to
do more to help parents, teachers, and policy makers understand the role
of values in making decisions, and that we need to provide opportunities
for reflection and discussion of what is valued. I suspect that many
parents who want their children's education to mirror their own have not
reflected carefully on the differences that exist in their world of work
and what their children's world of work will look like, particularly in
terms of the ubiquitous and constantly changing role of technology in
today's and tomorrow's workplaces. What is the role of problem solving
in their children's world? What types of problems will they encounter?
What kinds of mathematical skills will they need? What new arenas of
mathematics, arenas not even known to parents, are opening up and
changing the nature of mathematics and of how mathematics is used? Is a
procedure-driven curriculum sufficient for our children? *Research can
be persuasive and authoritative only to the extent that people are fully
aware of what they value, the reasons why they hold their values, and
are open to considering evidence that supports or refutes those values.*

**Many teachers and policy makers believe that most research has little
relevance to the decisions they must make.** I have tried here to point
out only a few of the many research studies in mathematics education
that offer sound principles for the practice of teaching mathematics. I
want to remind this audience that not only research *finding*s have
relevance to the classroom. Many times the theoretical constructs that
underlie the research or the tasks use in a research study can prove
useful in practice. In fact, studies of research use showed that
research was more likely to be used *conceptually* than
*instrumentally.* That is, practitioners did not take from research
tools that could be directly applied in their classrooms, but instead
took ideas: concepts that could, especially when combined with other
ideas and with their own experiences, help them understand their
situations or help them invent specific responses to local situations.
Even when teachers were trying to implement specific classroom
innovations, we discovered that they did not *adopt* innovations, but
instead *adapted* them. (Kennedy, 1997, p. 7)

**Research can affect practice only if the research is *accessible* to
teachers and policy makers*. *** Unfortunately, research published in
research journals is not written to be easily accessible to teachers,
for good reason. Cronbach and Suppes said in 1969 that research is
disciplined inquiry, that it is \"inquiry conducted and reported in such
a way that the argument can be painstakingly examined\" (p. 15). This
description of research reporting has not changed. The details that
convince the reviewer that the research has been carefully undertaken
and can be replicated are often the same details that bog down the
general reader. I think much research is considered to be irrelevant
simply because of this problem of accessibility. Some bridge is needed
between research reports and the types of reports that allow authors to
communicate with teachers and policy makers. As Kennedy (1997) has said,
research must be not merely within physical reach of teachers but also
within conceptual reach if it is to affect practice. In my work as an
editor of a research journal, I have encouraged authors of papers I have
accepted to rewrite their research reports for a more general audience
and to submit them to journals where they will reach the practitioners.
I am presently collecting many such rewritten articles into a book for
teachers. I strongly advocate funding agencies to encourage researchers
to find ways of reaching practitioner audiences with their
research---not just their results, but their frameworks, their
constructs, their tasks, and their models.

I conclude by quoting Bob Davis, a respected mathematician and
mathematics educator who saw research and practice as inseparably
linked.

> Ultimately, the two separate themes of designing learning experiences
> that meet the needs of students, and understanding more deeply what is
> involved in the way humans think about mathematics, may indeed be seen
> as intimately related. Indeed, it is hard to see how those involved in
> either enterprise can make an optimal contribution if they do not
> become allies and learn to work together in the closest possible way.
> (Davis, 1996, p. 298)

**References**

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). *Middle
grades mathematics textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation.*
Washington, DC: Author

Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and
understandings. *Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29*,
49-62.

Brophy, J. (1986). Teaching and learning mathematics: Where research
should be going. *Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17,*
323-346.

Cronbach, L. J., & Suppes, P. (Eds.). (1969). *Research for tomorrow's
schools: Disciplined inquiry for education*. New York: Macmillan.

Davis, R. B. (1996). Cognition, mathematics, and education. In L. P.
Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), *Theories
of mathematical learning* (pp. 285-299). Mahwaw, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dickinson, D. J., & Butt, J. A. (1989). The effects of success and
failure on high-achieving students. *Education and Treatment of
Children, 12,* 243-252.

Harel, G, & Confrey, J. (Eds.). (1994). *Multiplicative reasoning.*
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student
cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level
mathematical thinking and reasoning. *Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28,* 524-549.

Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM
Standards. *Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30,* 3-19.

Hiebert, J., & Behr, M. (1988). Introduction: Capturing the major
themes. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), *Number concepts and operations
in the middle grades* (pp. 1-18)*.* Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, and Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Honig, B. (1987). Forward to *Caught in the middle: Educational reform
for young adolescents in California Public Schools*. Sacramento:
California Department of Education.

Huntley, M. A., Rasmussen, C., Villarubi, R, Sangton, J., & Fey, J.
(2000a). Effects of standards-based mathematics education: A study of
the Core-Plus Mathematics Project Algebra/Functions Strand. *Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 31,*328-361

Huntley, M. A., Rasmussen, C., Villarubi, R, Sangton, J., & Fey, J.
(2000b). Effects of standards-based mathematics education: A study of
the Core-Plus Mathematics Project Algebra/Functions Strand. Manuscript
revised for teachers, in preparation.

Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between research and practice.
*Educational Researcher, 27 (7)* 4-12.

Linchevski, L., & Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me with whom you're learning
and I'll tell you how much you've learned: Mixed-ability versus
same-ability grouping in mathematics. *Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 29,* 533-554.

Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in
mathematics: Findings, generalizations, and criticisms of the research.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30,* 65-88.

Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (2000). *Findings from research on
motivation in mathematics education: What matters in coming to value
mathematics*. Manuscript in preparation.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1983). *The third national
mathematics assessment: Results, trends and issues.* Report No.
13-MA-01. Denver, CO: Educational Commission of the States.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000*). Principles and
standards of school mathematics.* Reston, VA: Author.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). The dynamics of value systems. *Advances in
Experimental Social psychology, 24,* 1.

Sowder, J., Philipp, R. A., Armstrong, B. E., & Schappelle, B. P.
(1998). Middle-grade teachers' mathematical knowledge and its
relationship to instruction. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Sowder, L. (1988). Children's solutions to story problems. *The Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 7,* 227-238.

Stipek, D., Salmon, J. M., Givvin, K. B., Kazemi, E., Saxe, G., &
MacGyvers, V. L. (1998). The value (and convergence) of practices
suggested by motivation research and promoted by mathematics education
reformers. *Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 29,* 465-488.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student
capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of
mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. *American Educational
Research Journal, 33,* 455-488.

Threadgill-Sowder, J. (1984). Computational estimation procedures of
school children. *Journal of Educational Research, 77,* 332-336.

# Thompson, P. W. (1995). Notation, convention, and quantity in elementary mathematics. In J. T. Sowder & B. P. Schappelle (Eds.), *Providing a foundation for teaching mathematics in the middle grades* (pp. 199-221). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 

# 

# 

# [Teachers' Professional Development for Vital Middle Schools: What Do We Know and Where Should We Go?]{.smallcaps}

Karen Seashore Louis

College of Education and Human Development

University of Minnesota

Plenary Address

*National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board's Conference
on*

*Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in the Middle Grades:*

*Linking Research and Practice*

July 24--25, 2000

Washington, DC

Teachers' Professional Development For Vital Middle Schools:

**What Do We Know And Where Should We Go?**

**Karen Seashore Louis**

**College of Education and Human Development**

**University of Minnesota**

Introduction: Lapsing into Clams

> "The wife, the clams...I mean maybe it's not the most exciting choice,
> but it works," the clam truck driver explained. "I wanted my own
> trucking business...I didn't want to drive for nobody else. I used to
> haul lots of things---other stuff. But it was complicated. When I saw
> I could make with just the clams, it was easier. I kind of lapsed into
> clams, you might say." (Irving, 1999, p 181)

John Irving's protagonist Eddie muses over this tortured analogy,
encountered on a ferry ride in New England, and reflects that his own
life is similar but not quite as bad as lapsing into clams. In this
paper I will argue that we have also lapsed into constrained but easy
thinking about how to make vital middle schools a reality through
teacher development. This has occurred not because the specific goals
are wrong, or even the short-term strategies, but because we have not
considered all of the larger implications.

Over the last decade the challenges to educators, both from within and
outside the profession, have been numerous and often conflicting. Much
of the time the difficulties appear overwhelming, as schools are
confronted with the seemingly endless challenges of changing
demographics, a sense that student engagement and faith in education is
declining, and difficulty in attracting and retaining high quality
faculty and administrators to work in an embattled professional setting.
Yet this is a time when there are serious opportunities for reforming
the existing system. Much energy has gone into a wide range of
commission and research reports that delineate the problems and provide
clear images of excellence. There is strong motivation to act on these
reports at national, regional and local levels, and many countries---not
only the U.S.---are enacting educational reform efforts that demand
improvement. Moreover, we are well past the stage of good intentions. A
substantial batch of tools come in the form of well-documented,
research-based staff development programs based on the "effective
schools" and "effective teaching" programs, as well as other
research-based efforts at major reform.

Much of what we know from research about how to change schools falls
into a paradigm that might be best called *managed change*, whether it
involves people, power, a planning process, or an organizational chart.
The main focus of research and research-to-practice writing is on
identifying factors that improve the probability that an innovation,
such as reformed middle schools, will be successfully implemented and
maintained, more or less as intended by an agreed upon vision. This
paper will argue that we *do* know a lot about how to provide good
professional development to support changes in schools for young
adolescents. It will also argue that we have not yet put these pieces
together in ways that sustain the broad changes that are demanded. While
it is premature to come up with a solution that blends what we know
about effective middle schools, effective staff development, and
effective large-scale change, it is time to rethink how the puzzle
should be approached.

**What Do We Know? Some Pieces of the Research Puzzle**

The ostensible purpose of this paper was to review the existing research
on professional development in middle schools and to draw some
conclusions about effective strategies. As I reviewed the published
research, however, I was struck more by what we do not know, at least
not for certain.

***Middle Schools as Unique Contexts***

The middle school movement is fueled by research on the argument that
young adolescents profit by the development of integrated approaches to
their social, emotional and intellectual needs. I am not a psychologist,
and I will not examine this body of research with a critical eye, but
take it largely for granted. As almost everyone interested in school
reform knows, the best compilation of research-based thinking about
middle school reform was summarized in the Carnegie Corporation's (1996)
report on the topic. The principles outlined include:

-   Creating trusting, caring schools through smaller learning
    environments, teacher and student teaming, and personal adult
    advisement;

-   Encouraging critical thinking, healthy lifestyles, and active
    preparation for citizenship; and

-   Providing opportunities for all students to succeed by limiting
    rigid tracking, using cooperative, mixed ability instructional
    strategies, flexible scheduling and the use of out-of-school time to
    reinforce learning.

In order to accomplish these goals, a number of supportive conditions
are recommended, including teacher and administrator empowerment,
improved access to health services, and active parental and community
involvement.

These are commendable recommendations, although it is hard to see why
they are applicable only to students in the middle grades. But the
middle school movement may be seen as largely a response to the
pernicious development of junior high schools that, true to their name,
operate as "high schools for short people" without acknowledging the
need for guided transition from childhood into a more adult, independent
status. Nevertheless, there is little systematic research that supports
the contention that middle schools *must* be different because of
developmental characteristics. To give just one example, Phillips (1997)
finds that middle schools and high schools demonstrate the same pattern
with respect to the relationship of "caring" and "pressure to achieve"
to student achievement results. Her results suggest that, as is the case
in high schools, "caring" is not related to student achievement in
mathematics, but "pressure" is related both to achievement and
attendance. Hoy and Hannum (1997) also find that instruments developed
to measure healthy school climates in high schools apply equally well to
middle schools, while Lee and Smith (1993; 1995) find that in both
middle and high schools, smaller learning communities and efforts to
restructure are positively related to achievement. Similar findings
occur for other aspects of the middle school reform agenda, such as the
focus on teacher collaboration and teaming, and the significance of
parental involvement.

This argument does not mean, of course, that there is no need for
reform, or that middle schools do not have special characteristics. In
many countries other than the U.S., there has been a renewed interest in
changing education for young adolescents, under the assumption that it
is an age group whose needs and curriculum have been long ignored.
Getting there from a set of recommendations to changes in practice is
not, however, simple. Although middle schools may be easier to change
than high schools (Well and Oakes, 1996), the path is not smooth. Oakes,
Vasudeva and Jones (1996) end an analysis of change in 16 middle schools
with the following:

> Our findings imply that school reform movements such as *Turning
> Points* should include in their change some attention to the steps
> schools can take to develop a new culture and political environment,
> alongside a vision of new practices.... And professional development
> activities around reform should pay considerable attention to these
> aspects of reform, as well as to new organizational and pedagogical
> techniques...(p. 33)

***Professional Development as a Component of* School Reform**

The call for "systemic reform" typically defined as higher, mandatory
standards linked to new curricula and methods of assessing students'
achievement of the standards---has dominated state agendas for over a
decade. Bill Clinton, who chaired the National Governors' Council when
it developed its position on standards-driven school reform, has made it
a central feature of his educational policy efforts, assuring the
continuing prominence of systemic reform. A recent manifestation of this
line of policy development is the National Commission on Teaching, which
translates the call for higher standards in K--12 schools to a similar,
standards-based reform in teacher preparation and professional
development programs (National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future, 1996; see also Darling-Hammond, 1993 and Cohen, McLaughlin &
Talbert, 1993). Scholars, major foundations, and policy makers have
embraced systemic reform (See Resnick & Resnick, 1992).

The logic of this approach to professional development is that (1)
schools need to change because they are currently inadequate; (2) change
must be stimulated by widely agreed-upon standards, developed by the
profession or by the profession in conjunction with scholarly
collaborators; (3) new standards demand development to bring teachers'
beliefs and skills in line with emerging pedagogic demands; and (4)
development must be *professionalized*; that is, it must build capacity
for change within and among teachers rather than rely on the
transmission of knowledge from experts to passive teacher-consumers.

A large number of approaches to professional development emerged in
conjunction with the systemic reform paradigm. Corcoran (1995), for
example, identified a number of promising approaches, based on
preliminary research evidence, such as teacher networks,
school-university collaborations, professional development schools, and
national board certification of teachers. These strategies, which
continue to be explored in the research literature, not only have a
shared goal of teacher learning, they also have in common, a focus on
providing stimulation from outside the school for teacher learning.

*Teacher networks* are subject or project-based communication systems
among teachers in many schools. The purpose of the networks is to engage
teachers who have similar interests (e.g., mathematics, writing,
pedagogy for middle grade adolescents, etc.) in temporary or
semi-permanent collaboration to learn together (Lieberman & McLaughlin,
1992). The teacher network serves several functions: teachers serve as
"critical friends" in an noncompetitive environment, the focus is on
teacher-identified problems of practice, and teachers are working "to
their passion" rather than to a pre-identified agenda (Hargreaves,
1997b).

*School-university collaboration* also involves temporary but often
long-term, relationships between university faculty and teachers
(Jacullo-Noto, 1984; Huberman, 1994). These relationships are formed
around the mutual purpose of experimenting with curriculum and pedagogy,
and involve elaborating and developing shared perspectives (Miller and
O'Shea, 1996). The underlying assumption is that both educational
researchers and teachers have a great deal to learn from each other, and
that when they are engaged in the unusual activity of co-creation, they
will both be more likely to change because they will be forced to
challenge their own assumptions.

*Professional Development Schools* (PDSs) attempt to institutionalize
the model of temporary collaboration between schools and universities
(Levine & Trachtman, 1997). Collaboration goes beyond experimentation
with a small group of teachers to the involvement of all teachers and
university faculty as permanent and equal partners in pre-service
teacher education, professional development, and R&D related to new
curriculum and instructional strategies. In the early 1990s, the concept
was endorsed as a model for creating adult learning and change by
colleges of teacher education, such as the "Holmes Group" and also by
national teacher associations. However, while there were some successful
examples involving middle schools (see Dixon & Ishler, 1992 and
Rafferty, 1996), the number was never large for two reasons. The first
reason is the nature of state certification requirements for teacher
licensure, which often do not specify a special license for middle
school (see Dickinson & McEwin, 1997), and the second reason is costs of
running a PDS. Most evaluations indicated that maintaining collaboration
required more reallocation of effort than initially expected
(Metcalf-Turner & Fischetti, 1996), *National Certification for
Teachers* provides a strong external stimulus and a framework for
teacher development for all grade levels (French, 1997; Ingvarson,
1998). While not mandatory and still controversial, the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards has developed both a rubric for
measuring teacher expertise, and a portfolio-based process for obtaining
recognition. More importantly for this paper, there are unique standards
oriented to students of different ages, and five separate certificates
are offered for teachers of young adolescents. A number of districts,
particularly those that have promoted standards-based reform, have
collaborated with universities to help experienced teachers understand
and meet the goal of Board certification, and they have also provided
financial incentives for doing so. In most districts, however, the
relatively laborious process of becoming Board certified, coupled with
the uncertain professional payoffs, have limited participation, although
it is apparently growing. Middle school teachers appear to be over
represented in some states among the Board certified teachers, and
underrepresented in others. Out of 21 certificates, five deal with
students between the ages of 11--15, which is defined as early
adolescence. I randomly selected two states beginning with C (Colorado
and Connecticut) and two with M (Minnesota and Massachusetts) from the
lists published by the National Board on their website. Then I pooled
the four states, and counted the number who were middle school
certified. Overall, the proportion was 26%. These data, albeit very
preliminary, suggest two things: first, the number of teachers
participating from any given level is probably sensitive to state and
local initiatives, and second, middle school teachers are no more likely
than others to take advantage of the professional development
opportunities offered by the National Board process.

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **National Board  **Number          **Middle School   **Percent MS
  Certification in  Certified**       Certified**       Certified**
  Four States**                                         

  Colorado          65                25                38%

  Connecticut       34                12                35%

  Massachusetts     71                11                15%

  Minnesota         104               23                22%

  **TOTAL**         **274**           **71**            **26%**
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

***Professional Development as a Component of* Teacher Improvement**

Unlike the school reform movement's efforts to stimulate and support
large-scale professional development, the focus of research on school
improvement for the middle grades has emphasized a strategy of "one
school at a time" or even "one teacher at a time." A fundamental
assumption of professional development strategies that are grounded in
school improvement is that the reasons that some schools don't get
better are found in their internal conditions, which must be changed in
order to promote better teaching and learning. This does not mean that
external pressure and support are unimportant, but that "certified
courses, inspirational speeches and isolated workshops are normally much
less effective than professional learning that is at some point built
into teachers' everyday working responsibilities" (Hargreaves, 1997, p
117).

Most of the discussion of effective teacher improvement strategies thus
emphasizes a combination of increased individual skills and knowledge,
and the development of supportive school cultures and school leadership.
In doing so, they often make an explicit or implicit response to
Sarason's (1990, 1996) and Tyack and Tobin's (1994) concerns about the
"culture of the school and the problem of change"---namely that schools
cannot reform because of the unexamined attachment to a "grammar of
schooling" that is based on non-democratic classroom and school
cultures. (See Loucks-Horsley, 1995 and Hale, 1998 for a discussion of
the importance of culture in professional development programs for
middle schools.)

Nevertheless, there is solid support for a number of specific proposals
for professional development strategies that can change teachers'
cognitive models about content and pedagogy in middle school setting:

> *Enhancing skills and understanding through participation in materials
> and instructional design* serves a number of functions
> (Loucks-Horsely, 1995; Park & Coble, 1997). First, the need for
> experimental curriculum and instructional strategies in the rapidly
> evolving middle school setting virtually demands local invention. More
> importantly, it is argued that teachers who participate in curriculum
> development must, necessarily, learn more about content and "practical
> theories" of teaching. Teachers, it is argued, will also be more
> engaged in improving something that they have developed than in
> tinkering with materials that have been developed elsewhere. Note that
> this perspective rarely assumes that teachers are creating a whole
> curriculum from scratch.
>
> *Encouraging and providing opportunities for reflection* follows
> Schön's (1983) research on how professionals in practice learn best,
> and has been rapidly adopted among middle-school advocates (Fairbanks,
> 1995; Burk & Littleton, 1995; Swafford, Jones, Thorton, Stump &
> Miller, 1999). The assumption is that teachers must be more analytical
> about their own practice, including structured activities such as
> journaling, conducting pedagogical "applied experiments," and
> conducting post-hoc analyses of why classroom practice went well or
> did not (Taggert & Wilson, 1998). The introduction of reflective
> practice is frequently assumed to require new skills and
> predisposition that can be taught, either in preservice education, or
> through professional development with experienced teachers. As an
> extension of reflective practice, some have advocated long-term
> "professional development profiles" that summarize where the teacher
> has been and is going.

Reflective practice implies self-awareness about what one does. It
implies both self-critique and institutional critique as teachers work
towards discoveries concerning their own learning and practice. By
engaging in reflection teachers can become students of their craft as
they puzzle about the assumptions basic to quality practice.
Furthermore, commitment to reflection as a communal activity in which
teachers engage suggests a public activity. Public conversation
concerning the school and practice within the school may focus itself in
four traditions as identified by Zeichner and Tabachnick (1991):

-   *Academic*: The focus of reflection is on representations of subject
    matter to students to promote understanding.

-   *Social Efficiency*: The focus of reflection is on the intelligent
    use of generic teaching strategies suggested by research on
    teaching.

-   *Developmentalist*: The focus of reflection is on the learning,
    development and understanding of students.

-   *Social Reconstructionist*: The focus of reflection is on the social
    conditions of schooling and issues of equity and justice.

*Teacher*-*as*-*researcher* is a formal extension of reflective
practice, which is assumed, when learned, to be the status quo. Using
the rubric of "action research" the model assumes that teachers (usually
in small groups within schools) are trained in formal research methods,
and use them in designing and assessing their own interventions in
curriculum and pedagogy. New handbooks for teaching action research
methods continue to emerge (Schmuck, 1997; McKernan, 1996; Stringer,
1999). The role of action research as a professional development tool
has been used as a comprehensive model for improving education
(Grimmett, 1996) and has generated its own journal (*Action in Teacher
Education*), but has often proven to be more difficult to implement as a
tool for widespread change. Studies of action research efforts (Allen &
Calhoun, 1998; King, 1997) do not always support the contention that
teachers eagerly accept action research. Competing models of how to do
action research, reluctance to share practice, and difficulty in moving
from an intuitive model of reasoning to a data---based model are some of
the problems encountered. Some concerns have also been raised about the
ethics of action research in classrooms, at least in cases where
teachers deliberately alter their "treatments" and gather data on them
without oversight from a human subjects review committee.

*Interdisciplinary Teaming* originated with efforts to reform middle
grades education, and is still largely confined to middle schools,
although there has been an increasing adoption of transitional teams in
the first year of high school (McKenna, 1989; Crockett, 1994; Pollack &
Mills, 1997). While teacher teams are viewed as significant ways of
promoting reflective practice and experimentation, they are not without
problems in schoolwide change programs. In three middle schools studied
by Kruse & Louis (1997), teams were very important in providing support
for change within the team. However, communication between teams was, in
all three cases, problematic, which led to difficulties in coordinating
curriculum, student management strategies, and had serious impacts on
within-school staffing flexibility.

***The Limits of Existing Approaches***

As noted above, a significant limitation of existing research is the
lack of robust data related to the need for unique environments for
students of this age group. Another limitation is the general
ambivalence among policy makers about the wisdom of treating students of
this age group differently---an ambivalence that is shared by many
parents. Our approach to children of this age is both socially
constructed and paradoxical. The social and emotional needs of young
adolescents are, of course, not a fixed developmental characteristic but
are largely determined by the social structures and expectations
developed by adults. We in the U.S. assume, for example, that it is
natural for children of this age to turn away from their parents and
engage with their peer groups because of "raging hormones" combined with
the need to develop a differentiated identity---but, in other societies
the social expectation is that children will simply enlarge their social
and emotional support system to include additional important adults. In
the U.S., family vacations become shorter as children move into this
period, under the assumption that parents and children will have less in
common; in many European countries, however, parents and children
maintain or even increase the pattern of spending three to four happy
weeks together as a means of renewing family ties after the business of
the school and work year. As Andy Hargreaves (1997) has noted, in North
America it is a time when parents simultaneously cry out for zero
tolerance of violence in schools, but assume that it is acceptable to
buy Mortal Kombat for their 11-year olds.

Research on professional development in middle school contexts has been
developing rapidly in the past few years, but is still relatively weak
in producing unique conclusions. Middle schools are, for example,
largely ignored in most of the large-scale empirical research on school
reform. In the studies of the Chicago school reform they are ignored
because they are part of K--8 structures, although they operate
substantially separately. In the national databases, such as NELS, most
analyses are confined to upper secondary schools. The international
studies of math and science achievement pay equal attention to middle
schools, but contain virtually no information about professional
development strategies that might help to account for noted differences.
While a number of good published case studies of reforming middle
schools are emerging (Newman, 1997; Louis and Kruse, 1998; Oakes,
Quartz, Ryan and Lipton, 2000), the first extended set of (commercially
available) cases that treats middle school reform as a unique issue is
Oakes, et al., op cit. The latter is, however, hardly a simple primer
for "how to do it right" but, rather, a sympathetic account of how the
middle schools in their study struggled to achieve the vision when
surrounded by cultural and organizational contradictions. Particularly
telling is the limited exposure that the schools in the study had to
professional development that even remotely resembled the middle school
standards developed by the National Staff Development Council (NSDC)
(1994).

Even more importantly, we don't know very much about what staff
development should consist of in the middle school. NSDC's guide to
staff development for middle schools contains no references to
*processes* of change and development that give clues to the unique
characteristics and challenges facing them; when it comes to *content*,
there is excellent and practical work on early adolescent development,
some on curriculum, parent/community involvement, service learning and
advisement, but much less on specific pedagogic strategies for young
adolescents. Much of the research on instruction and assessment is still
discipline-based, in spite of the fundamental assumption that middle
school curriculum should be multi-or inter-disciplinary. On the question
of teaming---a core feature of the proposed restructuring of middle
schools---research is contradictory, with some studies finding positive
effects on students and teachers (much of which is published by the
National Middle School Association), while others observed more mixed
results (Kruse and Louis, 1995; Oakes, et al., 2000).

Another problem revealed by recent research is that while visions of
schools may have broadened and deepened, what teachers expect from
professional development has changed only slightly. Haslam's (1999)
report on the implementation of professional development in New American
Schools projects describes how the NAS models challenge teachers to take
on new roles. They are encouraged to become facilitators who can develop
the potential of individual students and they are expected to play the
role of boundary spanners between school, home, and community. They are
asked to develop curricula with enhanced subject matter expertise, and
to work in teams and through networks. Participating teachers, on the
other hand, want pragmatic, immediately useable information. Haslam
notes that "activities that do not have concrete examples and
experiences are seen as less helpful.... veteran teachers can provide
explanations of 'nuts and bolts' instructional issues." (p 4-5).
Furthermore, they also want trainers who have the same background as
they do, a significant constraint if the goal is to foster networking
and interdisciplinary approaches to new teaching. Finally, he points out
that principals in the NAS schools have a limited understanding of how
their roles need to be changed or even transformed if these major
changes are to take effect. Haslam sees the enterprise through a lens of
the enthusiasm for the task that teachers report, although he notes that
"schools rarely fully understand the meaning of whole school change..."
(p 10). On the other hand, he also sees a short-term focus on what
Huberman (1984) calls "recipes for busy kitchens" in which time-pressed
teachers want to implement major changes quickly with inadequate new
ingredients.

The limitation draws attention to another issue that arises in most of
the literature on professional development and middle schools: the need
for reallocation of resources (Miles and Darling-Hammond, 1998).
American secondary school teachers have high workloads in terms of
number of student contact hours, compared to teachers in other developed
countries (OECD Yearbook, 1997). In addition, most whole-school reform
efforts, such as moving toward a true middle-school model, are planned
with only limited additional resources for professional development
(Haslam, 1999; Oakes, et al., 2000), and states, in general, have no
consistent policies related to funding for teacher professional
development (St. John, Ward, and Laine, 1999). While it is clearly
possible to change teacher workloads and the use of time without greatly
increasing the costs of education (the much-discussed example of Central
Park East Secondary School (CPESS) is an example in which teacher-pupil
loads were as low as 36 in the middle grades), this involves thinking
far outside of the current box of block scheduling and teaming. For
example, CPESS eliminated all non-teaching positions from its
professional staff, and used non-certified instructors to cover some
service learning activities, in addition to eliminating traditional
subject-matter specialization (Miles and Darling-Hammond; Newman, 1997).
Oakes, et al. (2000) report that the middle schools in their study
consistently struggled with public perceptions that significant
structural changes of this type "watered down" educational standards and
provided inferior education, particularly from more involved and
ambitious parents.

**A New Map: Approaching "The Problem" from an Organizational
Perspective**

The very cursory review presented above does not, of course, take
account of the complexities that are acknowledged by all parties
involved in the change process---whether program developers, researchers
or educational practitioners. If Bob Slavin were reading this, his first
response would be "So, what's new?" And, my response would be, "Well
Bob, its not the ideas, its how you put them together---and you could
have told me that too!" I do not yet have an answer or a model, but will
articulate below some of the elements that need to be considered as we
move forward with the essential task of thinking about how to support
teachers in creating effective middle schools.

***Beyond "Managed Change" and "Teacher Professionalism" in Staff
Development***

Two images of how middle school staff development will support the
proposed changes of *Turning Points* dominate most of the writing on the
topic. On the one hand, the school reform literature typically adopts an
image of 'managed change' in which it is assumed that staff development
content and process will follow logically from the central reform
policies---if adequate guidance is provided (St, John, et al., 1999).
The NSDC standards are organized, for example, around the core
recommendations of *Turning Points*, implying that professional
development is in service of implementing this vision. To expand
further, classic and more recent writings on school improvement
emphasize the need for leaders to maintain at least an oversight role
throughout the change process, which involves initiating careful,
preferably data-driven problem analysis, a careful choice of solutions,
the development of explicit implementation plans, and active monitoring
of implementation (Eastwood and Louis, 1992). In each case, the role of
staff development is seen largely in a context of supporting a change
with known parameters (Louis, 1994).

The image of "managed change" as an effective strategy for school
improvement has been explicitly challenged not only by critical
theorists but also by recent empirical research on school improvement
that falls outside of a critical theory framework. In particular,
studies of restructuring schools raise questions about the degree to
which the traditional ways of thinking about change management apply to
major transformation efforts.

Elsewhere, colleagues and I have argued that our current models for
school improvement are incomplete (Voogt, Lagerweij & Louis, 1997). They
rely too heavily on the "managed change" assumption, which assumes that
policy makers, administrators, teachers, and parents are striving toward
the same ends using roughly the same means. This assumption has been
challenged by a number of important writers on organizational change
based on research in the business sector. Mintzberg (1994) described
*The Rise and the Fall of Strategic Planning*; Beer , Eisenstadt &
Spector (1990) formulated the problem as "Why Change Programs Don't
Produce Change"; and Morgan & Zohar (1997) assert that an individual's
direct leverage over work results is limited to 15%.

***Reform and Improvement---Choices for Middle Schools or a "Wicked
Problem"?***

Much of the rhetoric of school reform and school improvement literature
assumes that policy makers and practitioners who seek a "new vision" for
young adolescents are facing practical problems of making good choices
and then "sticking to the knitting" during a phase of experimentation
and implementation. I, on the other hand, would argue that the efforts
to tie professional development and middle school reform into a
relatively neat prescription for change constitute a "wicked problem"
for which there are no easy choices and no clear prescriptions. Whenever
schools tackle one set of issues facing middle school reform, they face
a new, and often competing set of pressures that make the problem of
change more and not less difficult. For example, the current systemic
and/or comprehensive reform movement makes a number of assumptions that
are critical for middle school practitioners:

-   There are well developed, research-based models for middle schools
    that can be implemented, with modest adaptation, in other contexts.

-   Professional development should be focused around key implementation
    issues for the specific model and vision for middle grades
    education.

-   Teacher professionalism and commitment will be enhanced primarily by
    deepening specific knowledge and skills in line with the *Turning
    Points* recommendations.

-   Assuming adequate leadership and parental support in the school and
    district, implementation will be time-consuming and difficult, but
    measurable and linear.

-   Reform usually implies additional resources, either as a "lump" in
    the regular budget or through subsidized external support.

The improvement models, on the other hand, imply a different but equally
reasonable set of assumptions:

-   *Turning Points* does not provide a "blueprint" for a good middle
    school, but a guiding list of concepts---some of which have a weak
    or poorly articulated research base.

-   Professional development needs to focus on developing teachers'
    analytical skills and judgment, focused on problems of practice that
    are visible and directly affect their work.

-   Teachers' professionalism and commitment will be enhanced by
    increasing the resources that are available for reflection,
    development and co-creation with colleagues, and experimentation
    stimulated by the basic framework of *Turning Points.*

-   Implementation will be time consuming and lengthy, but will be, at
    best, modestly organized. It will be affected---and sometimes even
    deflected---by local change and development, unanticipated changes
    in external policies and internal changes.

-   Change will not necessarily involve significant additional
    resources---assuming adequate current funding---and will be largely
    funded by internal reallocation within the school and district.

The reform model and the improvement model have an uneasy co-existence
in the lives of most practitioners, who are subjected to state and local
policies that incorporate both images without reconciling their
differences (Louis, 1998). Yet, it is unlikely that the policy
environment will change sufficiently or that a simpler or more coherent
reality will emerge.

In other words, middle schools, as well as developers and trainers who
are working with middle schools, have little choice: they must learn to
live with anomalies and incompatible expectations. External systemic
demands and internal developmental needs will not be reconciled, at
least not in the foreseeable future.

***What are the Elements of Change in Professional Practice in Middle
Schools?***

Based on the above analysis, middle school development is a result of a
variety of influences, each of which will affect the kind of
professional development that is most appropriate. These include:

-   An autonomous developmental process (organizational life cycles)
    including the acknowledged but unplanned for enormous increase in
    new teachers in most systems due to retirements;

-   Deliberately directed attempts (from within and from outside) to
    bring about educational and organizational changes; and

-   Unanticipated events or "normal crises", both positive and negative,
    such as leadership turnover and changes in state policy that must be
    factored into the development process.

This set of factors, in which non-planned change dominates all planned
change processes, leads to the following conclusion: Effective *middle
school development is an ongoing process in which the simultaneous
effects of autonomous, coincidental, and deliberately directed changes
that affect the functioning of schools converge. Every professional
development program must be attuned to the developmental issues facing
the school.*

The vision may guide choices of middle school professional development
programs, but many other factors will affect appropriate choices. This
conclusion is reflected in one recent but relatively obscure synthesis
of what is known about effective staff development. Gall & Vojtek (1994)
identify six research-based models for staff development that are
prominent in practice: expert presenter, clinical supervision, skill
training, action research, organization development, and change process.
They argue that schools should not choose a model, and that there is no
evidence that one is overwhelmingly more effective than another.
Further, they argue that most existing syntheses "do not take into
account the possibility that different \[staff development\] program
characteristics may be effective for different staff development
objectives (p 41)." Instead, they propose a contingency approach, in
which the needs of the school are matched to the strengths of the
professional development model.

The implication is, of course, that most schools will need to blend
models in a continuously evolving effort to provide support for a vision
that is also evolving based on school's current conditions. This
matching process is not a science but the art of adjusting action to the
combined influence of autonomous, planned and unplanned changes within
the school and its context. This little booklet is, by far, the most
sensible approach to staff development for the complex and "wicked
problems" facing middle schools, whether they are implementing a
comprehensive change model or are relying on a locally developed plan.

**Where Are We Going? Tools for the Journey**

***Mental Models---Not Techniques***

Recent research on the use of service learning indicates that teachers'
beliefs about what constitutes appropriate teaching and teacher and
student roles strongly predict whether they will be frequent users of
service learning strategies in their own classrooms (Toole, 2000). The
beliefs/mental models that are particularly relevant to middle grades
education are: learning as constructed; learning as self-regulated;
learning as contextual; and learning as social. While most teachers who
have been exposed to middle school models in professional development
settings are aware of what is expected of them and can articulate these
concepts, they are still torn between their belief in structure and
order and the newer constructivist models. In other words, skills in
concrete classroom practices (such as cooperative learning) do not
necessarily translate into a persistent effort by teachers to organize
their work in new ways.

The issue then, for professional development is to move beyond knowledge
and skills that are appropriate for implementing *Turning Points* to the
larger issue of creating fundamental dispositions to teach and work in
new ways. Changing hearts requires more effort, and a different kind of
effort, than changing minds.

***Professional Community within Schools***

An increasing body of research suggests that real change in schools
requires the development of strong professional communities (Little,
1993; Kruse, Louis & Bryk, 1995). This element is acknowledged in many
of the professional development strategies discussed above under the
section dealing with reform, but its centrality is debated. Data from a
national study of reforming schools and a large data base from the
Chicago Public Schools indicate that professional community within
schools is a vital component of change in the directions that are
advocated by *Turning Points* (Marks & Louis, 1998; Bryk, Camburn &
Louis, 1999). Yet, as noted in many studies of school change, little
attention is given to creating organizational conditions that will
promote teachers' grappling together with the knotty problems of how to
create new models of schooling. The rarely present but minimal
conditions include regular and extended time for teachers to meet and
talk, meaningful feedback on teaching performance from peers and
administrators, supportive and demanding leadership, and professional
development models that include the whole staff, working together on
common problems over a sustained period of time. Most school staffs are
cooperative, but not genuinely collaborative. If low professional
community is the problem, professional development is only one part of
the solution, albeit an important one. Professional development does
not, by itself, lead directly to improved teaching unless the overall
organizational conditions promote risk-taking and collective
responsibility for student success.

***Leading from the Center***

There is no study of school improvement and reform that does not
highlight the importance of school leadership. Yet, in virtually all of
the discussions of professional development the importance of creating
teacher-principal teams and of providing parallel professional
development for administrators is ignored. Teachers and principals do
not operate in parallel universes, although our treatment of
professional development often assumes that their work overlaps only
marginally. Middle school visions that "take" must go beyond the
fundamental assumption of "managed change" that administrators help to
guide decisions about professional development programs and recruit and
evaluate their effectiveness (see Gall and Vojtek, 1994, p 41) or the
"professional teacher" model that too often assumes that administrators
pay the bills and make sure the light bulbs are changed, but do not
contribute to effective classrooms. Instead, the needs of school leaders
and their central role in encouraging and creating standards for school
development must be part of a professional development model.

**Preparing for the Trip: Logistics or Evolutionary Planning?**

The image of educational change embodied in my book (with Matt Miles) on
urban high school reform (Louis & Miles, 1990) is that of a long journey
with only a primitive map and an explorer\'s willingness to alter
planned routes as new information becomes available. The goal does not
change, but the itinerary does. I would argue that the road to effective
middle schools must be thought of in the same way, only adding that the
explorers need an important tool---professional development. In order to
achieve this transformation toward the *Turning Points* vision of middle
grades education, schools must address not only the need for new skills
and knowledge, but also their embedded dysfunctional learning habits.
The recent history of educational reform in the U.S. is littered with
rapid "in-and-out" innovations that prevent real learning, and with the
circulation of poor but popular ideas. Some of these result from the
paucity of the R&D base that is readily available to schools and the
relative isolation of knowledge production units (universities) from the
knowledge application units (schools)---issues that are addressed in
current professional development models. But some also result from
patterns that are unrelated to the lack of useable information. One is
the over-dependence of many systems on "quick fix" solutions from
outside experts: last year a new instructional model that is touted to
fix all reading problems, this year an emphasis on "total quality
management", and next year an "outcomes based education" model.
Educators accept outside pressure to implement and "show results" in
unreasonably short time frames, rather than argue that rapid measurable
change in children as a consequence of changes that affect a small
percentage of the child\'s life are unreasonable. Unless middle schools
recognize these bad habits, restructuring to pro­vide more opportunities
for good professional development will be ineffective.

The implications of the above analysis can be briefly summarized:

-   The middle school vision will continue to evolve in highly
    politicized settings in which external and internal demands will
    shift and will sometimes be incompatible.

-   Teacher change and school reform strategies for professional
    development tend to proceed from different assumptions, but both
    should be incorporated into our thinking about professional
    development for middle schools.

-   Our knowledge about effective staff development strategies to
    promote effective middle schools is just beginning to emerge---we
    know enough to set out on the journey, but not enough to develop
    simple plans for how to do it right.

-   Changing teachers' beliefs, knowledge and skills is central and
    difficult---but it is not enough. Attending to professional
    development without considering the context of organizational and
    leadership cultures, and vice-versa, is likely to result in
    superficial change.

To return to the laconic truck driver's dilemma with which I began this
paper, it is time to move out of the clam business, and into the more
challenging and uncertain (but rewarding) work of thinking about how
best to support the evolutionary development of exciting learning
environments for teachers, administrators, and students.

**References**

Allen, L & Calhoun, E. (1998) Schoolwide action research: Findings from
six years of study. *Phi Delta Kappan, 79*, 9:706-10.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., and Spector, B. \"Why Change Programs Don\'t
Produce Change.\" *Harvard Business Review 68*, 6: 158-66.

Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Promoting school
improvement through professional communities: An analysis of Chicago
elementary schools. *Educational Administration Quarterly, 35:* 707-750.

Burk, J. and Littleton, P (1995) Professional development: Reflective
journals. *Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,* *1*, 7: 576-83.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989*) Turning points:
Preparing American youth for the 21^st^ century.* New York: Carnegie
Corporation

Cohen, D., McLaughlin, M. and Talbert, J. (1993*) Teaching for
understanding: Challenges for policy and practice.* San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.

Corcoran, T (1995) Helping teachers teach well: Transforming
professional development. *CPRE Policy Briefs.* New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Crockett, M. (1994) Restructuring schools for early adolescent learners.
*NASSP Bulletin, 78*, 564:70-78.

Darling-Hammond, L (1993) Reframing the school reform agenda: Developing
the capacity for school transformation. *Phi Delta Kappan, 74*, 10:
752-61.

Dickinson, T. & McEwin, C. K. (1997) Perspectives and profiles: The
professional preparation of middle level teachers. *Childhood Education,
75*, 5: 272-77.

Dixon, P. & Ishler, R. (1992) Professional development schools: Stages
in collaboration. *Journal of Teacher Education, 43*, 1: 28-34.

Eastwood, K., & Louis, K.S. (1992). Restructuring that lasts: Managing
the performance dip. *School Leadership, 2*, 212-225.

Fairbanks, C. (1995) Teaching reflection: A conceptual model. Te*acher
Education and Practice, 11*, 1: 28-40.

French, V. (1997) Teachers must be learners, too: Professional
development and national teaching standards. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 585:
38-44.

Gall, M. & Vojtek, R. O. (1994) *Planning for effective staff
development: Six research-based models*. Eugene, OR: ERIC staff
development Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Grimmett, P (1996) The struggles of teacher research in a context of
education reform: Implications for instructional supervision. *Journal
of Curriculum and Supervision, 12*, 1: 37-65.

Hale, M (1998) A culture of experimentation: The change process at a
middle school*. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 22*, 1:
39-61.

Hargreaves, A. (1997) From reform to renewal: A new deal for a new age.
In A. Hargreaves & R. Evans (eds.) *Beyond educational reform: Bringing
teachers back in*. London: Open University Press, 105-125.

Hargreaves, A. (Ed.) (1997b) *Rethinking educational change with heart
and mind: The 1997 ASCD yearbook.* Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Haslam, M.B. (1999) How to rebuild a local professional development
infrastructure. www.naschools.org/resource/publications.html.

Hawley-Miles, K. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1998) Rethinking the allocation
of teaching resources: Some lessons from high performing schools*.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20*, 1: 9-29.

Huberman, M. (1994) Research utilization: The state of the art*.
Knowledge and Policy, 7*, 4: 13-33.

Ingvarson, L. (1998) Professional development as the pursuit of
professional standards: The standards-based professional development
system. *Teaching and Teacher Education, 14*, 1: 127-40.

Irving, J. (1999) *A widow for one year*. New York: Random House.

Jacullo-Noto, J. (1984) Interactive research and development: Partners
in craft*. Teachers College Record, 86*, 1; 208-22.

Kruse, S.D., Louis, K.S., & Bryk, A.S. (1995). An emerging framework for
analyzing school-based professional community. In K.S. Louis & S.D.
Kruse (Eds.), *Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming
urban schools* (pp. 2342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Kruse, S.D., & Louis, K.S. (1997). Teacher teaming in middle schools:
Dilemmas for a schoolwide community. *Educational Administration
Quarterly, 33*(3), 261-289.

Little, J.W. (1993). Professional community in comprehensive high
schools: The two worlds of academic and vocational teachers. In J.W.
Little, & M. McLaughlin (Eds.). *Teachers' work: individuals, colleagues
and contexts.* New York: Teachers College Press.

Lee, V. & Smith, J. (1993) Effects pf school restructuring on the
achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. *Sociology of
Education, 66*, 3: 164-87.

Lee, V.& Smith, J. (1995) Effects of high school restructuring and size
on early gains in achievement and engagement. *Sociology of Education,
68* 4: 241-70.

Levine, M. & Trachtman, R. (1997*) Making professional development
schools work: Politics, practice and policy*. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Lieberman, A & Miller, L. (1991) *Staff development for education in the
1990s*. New York: Teachers College Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1995) Professional development and learner centered
schools. *Theory into Practice, 34*, 4: 265-71.

Louis, K.S. (1994). Beyond \"managed change\": Rethinking how schools
improve. *School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5,* 1-22.

Louis, K.S. (1998). A light feeling of chaos: Educational reform and
policy in the United States. *Daedalus*, *127* (4), 13-40.

Louis, K.S., & Kruse, S. (1998). Creating community in reform: Images of
organizational learning in urban schools. In K. Leithwood and K.S. Louis
(Eds.) *Organizational Learning in Schools*. (pp. 17-46). Lisse, NL:
Swets and Zeitlinger.

Louis, K.S. & Marks, H.M. (1998). Does professional community affect the
classroom? Teachers' work and student work in restructuring schools.
*American Journal of Education, 106* (4), 532-575*.*

McKenna, B. (1989) Whatever happened to team teaching? *American
Educator, 13*, 2 15-19.

McKernan, J. (1996) *Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods
and resources for the reflective practitioner*. Longon: Kogan Page.

Merenblook, E. (1988) *Developing effective middle schools through
faculty participation*, 2^nd^ ed. Columbus, OH: National Middle School
Association.

Metcalf-Turner, P. & Fischetti, J. (996) Professional development
schools: practices, problems and responsibilities. *Metropolitan
Universities: An International Forum, 4*: 3-38.

Miller, L & O'Shea, C. (1996) Partnership: Getting broader, getting
deeper. In M. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (eds.) *Professional development
in the reform era*. New York: Teachers College Press.

Mintzberg, H. (1994) *The rise and fall of strategic planning*. New
York: Prentice Hall.

Morgan, G & Zohar, A (1997) Het 15 procent-principe: Geef uw wek een
hefboom-effect. *Holland Management Review*: 58. (see also
<http://www.imaginiz.com/provocative/concept/solution.html>

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (1996*) What
matters most: Teaching for America's future*. New York: Teachers
College.

National Staff Development Council (1994) *Standards for staff
development: Middle school edition.* NSCD: Oxford, OH.

Newman, F. (Ed.) *Authentic learning*. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Oakes, J., Quartz, K.H., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000) *Becoming good
American schools: The struggle for civic virtue in education reform.*
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Park, H. & Coble, C. (1997) Teachers designing curriculum as
professional development: A model for transformational science
teaching*. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34*, 8: 773-89.

Phillips, M (1997) What makes schools effective? A comparison of the
relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to
mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. *American
Educational Research Journal, 34*, 4: 633-62.

Pollack, A & Mills, R. (1997) True collaboration: Building and
maintaining successful teams. *Schools in the Middle, 6*, 5: 28-32.

Rafferty, C. (1996) Collaborating to learn. *Contemporary education,
67*, 4: 218-20.

Resnick D.P. & Resnick, L.B. (1992) Assessing the thinking curriculum:
New tools for educational reform.: In B.R. Gifford & M.C. O'Connor
(Eds*.) Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement
and instruction.* Boston: Kluwer.

Sarason, S. (1990) *The predictable failure of educational reform*. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Sarason, S. (1996) *Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem
of change*, 2^nd^ ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schön, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in
action. New York: Basic Books.

Schmuck, R. (1997) *Practical action research for change*. Arlington
Heights, IL: IRI/SkyLight Training and Publishing.

St. John, E., Ward, J. & Laine, S. (1999) State policy on professional
development: Rethinking the linkages to student outcomes. Oakbrook, IL:
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Stringer, E. (1999) *Action research*, 2^nd^ ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Swafford, J, Jones, G, Thornton, C, Stump, S & Miller, D. (1999) Impact
on instructional practice of a teacher change model*. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 32*, 2: 69-8.

Taggert, G & Wilson, A. (1998) *Promoting reflective thinking in
teachers: 44 action strategies*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Toole, J. (2000) Implementing service learning in K-8 schools:
Challenging the grammar of teaching and the grammar of school
organization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Tyack, D. & Tobin, W. (1994) The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been
so hard to change? *American Educational Research Journal, 31*, 3:
453-479.

Voogt, J., Lagerweij, N. & Louis, K.S. (1998) School development and
organizational learning: Toward an integrative theory. In K. Leithwood &
K.S. Louis (Eds.), *Organizational Learning in Schools*.*. (*pp.
237-260). Lisse, NL: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Wells, A. & Oakes, J. (1996). Potential Pitfalls of Systemic Reform:
Early Lessons from Research on Detracking. *Sociology of
Education*;(extra iss) p135-43.

Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1991). Reflections on Reflective
Teaching. *In Issues and Practices in Inquiry Oriented Teacher
Education*. Tabachnick & Zeichner Eds. The Wisconsin Series of Teacher
Education. London: The Falmer Press. p. 1-21.

# 

# 

# Appendix A: Presenter Biographies

Appendix A: Presenter Biographies

***Dr. Donna E. Alvermann*** is Research Professor of Reading Education
at the University of Georgia. Her research focuses on adolescent
literacy. Currently, she is completing data collection on a Spencer
Foundation major grant that includes a 15-week intervention aimed at
teaching media literacy to a group of 30 middle and high school
students. From 1992-1997, Dr. Alvermann co-directed the National Reading
Research Center and conducted 3 long-term studies of adolescents'
perceptions of reading and learning from text-based discussions. Prior
to that, the literature on adolescent literacy development contained
very little information on what it means to be motivated, or even
disinterested, reader from an adolescent's perspective. This perspective
is important because teachers generally tend to act more readily upon
students' perceptions than they do upon the research and theorizing of
those of us in the academy. Dr. Alvermann is past president of the
National Reading Conference and served as co-chair of the International
Reading Association's Commission on Adolescent Literacy from 1997-2000.
Currently, she is a member of the Board of Directors of the College
Reading Association, the Chair of the Board of Directors of the American
Reading Forum, and a co-editor of the *Journal of Literacy
Research*[.]{.underline} In 1997, she was awarded the Oscar C. Causey
Award for Outstanding Contributions to Reading Research.

***Nancy Ames*** is Vice President and Director of Family, School and
Community Programs at Education Development Center, Inc. Ms. Ames
coordinates the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, whose
goal is to make high performing middle grades schools the norm in this
country, not the exception. She is also the principal investigator for
"ATLAS in the Middle: Taking AIM at Middle Grades Results", a 5-year
research and demonstration project funded by OERI to develop, test and
disseminate a comprehensive school reform model. For several years, Ms.
Ames provided technical assistance to the 16 urban school systems
participating in the Lilly Endowment's Middle Grades Improvement Program
in Indiana. She co-authored with Edward Miller, *Changing Middle
Schools: How to Make Schools Work for* *Young Adolescents*, which
highlights four urban middle schools that underwent deep transformation,
as well as several articles on middle grades education, and helped plan
the current conference sponsored by the National Educational Research
Policy and Priorities Board. Before joining EDC, she spent 13 years as a
senior researcher at ABT Associates Inc., where she conducted policy
research on a variety of educational and justice issues.

***Nancie Atwell*** is best known as the author of the language arts
classic *In the Middle*, which was published in a second edition in
1998. She teaches seventh and eighth grade writing, reading, and history
at the Center for Teaching and Learning, a K-8 demonstration school in
Edgecomb, Maine. Nancie was the first classroom teacher to receive the
NCTE David H. Russell Award and the MLA Mina P. Shaughnessy Prize for
distinguished research in the teaching of English. She is also the
author of *Side by Side: Essays on Teaching to Learn (*Heinemann,
1991*)* and numerous articles. Nancie is the editor of *Coming to Know:
Writing to Learn in the Intermediate Grades (*Heinemann, 1990*),* as
well as the first three volumes in Heinemann's Workshop series (1989,
1990, 1991).

***Dr. Diane Briars*** is currently Mathematics Director for the
Pittsburgh Public Schools and Co-Director of PRIME, the Pittsburgh
Reform in Mathematics Education Project. She is responsible for all
aspects of the K--12 mathematics program, including curriculum and
assessment development, professional development, and the development of
special programs. The major focus of current district work is
implementation of standards-based instruction and assessment as called
for in the NCTM Standards documents. Dr. Briars is also involved in
national initiatives in mathematics education. She is a member of the
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21^st^
Century, headed by Former Senator John Glenn, a member of the Advisory
Committee for the Education and Human Resources Directorate of the
National Science Foundation, and is a College Board Visiting Scholar for
2000-2001. She is a former Director of the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics and has served on a number of NCTM committees, most
notably the writing groups for the NCTM *Assessment Standards for School
Mathematics* (1999) and the *Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for
School Mathematics* (1991). Dr. Briars is also active in other
organizations including the College Board, (Trustee, member, and
Chairperson of the Academic Advisory Committee and SAT Committee), the
National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and the Mathematical
Science Educational Board of the National Research Council. She is the
1994 recipient of the Pennsylvania Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Outstanding Mathematics Educator Award.

***Dr. Nancy Clark-Chiarelli*** is a senior research associate at
Education Development Center, Inc. who focuses her work on special
education and literacy in the middle grades. She serves as methodologist
and reading specialist on Beacons of Excellence, and guides the
quantitative analysis of Beacons\' survey data. She serves as
methodology consultant to EDC's five-year REACH Institute, which is
studying ways to support teaching for understanding in the content areas
with students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. She serves as
the senior methodologist for EDC's work with the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards to develop the performance assessment
for special education teachers. Dr. Clark-Chiarelli is co-founder of the
Wheelock College Literacy Lab and was part of a multi-disciplinary
assessment team in the Learning Disabilities Clinic at Children\'s
Hospital, Boston. She was a special education teacher in the middle
school and holds a doctorate from the Reading, Language, and Learning
Disabilities Program at Harvard University.

***Dr. Mary Beth Curtis*** is the founding director of the Center for
Special Education at Lesley College. Before coming to Lesley in 1999,
she was the founding director of the Boys Town Reading Center, where she
oversaw the design and development of "Reading Is FAME", the Boys Town
Reading Curriculum. After earning her Ph.D. in Psychology at the
University of Pittsburgh, Mary Beth did postdoctoral work at the
Learning Research and Development Center. She has also been an Associate
Professor at Harvard\'s Graduate School of Education, and Associate
Director of the Harvard Reading Laboratory.

***Karen Seashore Louis*** is currently Director of the Center for
Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Professor of
Educational Policy and Administration at the University of Minnesota.
Her research and teaching interests focus on educational reform,
knowledge use in schools and universities, and educational institutions
as workplaces. Her research in K-12 education has focused on school
improvement, educational reform and knowledge use in schools. Recent
publications address the development of teachers' work in schools, the
role of the district in school reform, urban education, comparative
educational reform policies, the changing role of the principalship, and
organizational learning.

***Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy*** is Associate Dean for Science and
Mathematics Education and Outreach in the College of Natural Science at
Michigan State University. Her faculty appointments are in mathematics
and teacher education. She holds a Ph.D. in mathematics education from
the University of New Hampshire and was a faculty member in mathematics
there from 1983-1991. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy taught mathematics at Mount
Holyoke College in 1982--1983, where she co-founded the SummerMath for
Teachers program. She served as a visiting scientist at the National
Science Foundation, 1989-1991. She chaired the NCTM's Research Advisory
Committee, was a member of the NCTM Board of Directors, and served on
the Mathematical Sciences Education Board. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy has chaired
the AERA Special Interest Group for Research in Mathematics Education.
Her research interests are in calculus learning and mathematics
education reform, K-14. She served as chair of the Writing Group for the
revision of the NCTM Standards 2000, which were released April 2000.

***Dr. James Fey*** is Professor of Curriculum & Instruction and
Mathematics at the University of Maryland where he teaches content and
methods courses for prospective teachers and graduate courses for
doctoral students in mathematics education. His scholarship focuses on
development, implementation, and assessment of innovative middle and
high school curricula. Recent work has included roles as principal
investigator on the Connected Mathematics and Core-Plus Mathematics
Projects.

***Dr. Susan Galletti*** has been the Vice-President of Middle Level
Research and Development of the Galef Institute since May 1, 2000. In
this role, Susan is leading the development of a middle grades
comprehensive reform model, *Different Ways of Knowing*, including
curriculum and professional development. Susan served as the NASSP
Director of Middle Level Services for the National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP). In this position, Susan provided
leadership, coordination and direction for products and services,
including publications, conferences, the convention, and other staff
development opportunities for middle level principal and assistant
principal members. Served as a middle school principal in the state of
Washington for fourteen years, a staff development specialist for five
years, and a middle school and junior high school teacher. She has been
involved in a number of change efforts as an educator, including
changing three middle schools. Her efforts as an instructional leader
have been cited in a number of publications, including *Crossing the
Tracks* (Wheelock)*, Women as School Executives: Realizing the Vision*
(Texas Council of Women School Executives)*, and Making School Reform
Happen* (Bullard and Taylor). Susan recently authored a paper for the
U.S. Department of Adolescents, and has written for various
publications. She has a Doctorate in Educational Administration from the
University of Washington, where she was also involved as a Mentor
Principal in the Danforth Education Administration Preparation program.

***Dr. Kenji Hakuta*** is chair of the National Educational Research
Policy and Priorities Board and professor, School of Education, Stanford
University. He holds a Ph.D. in experimental psychology from Harvard
University. He has done extensive research and is the author of many
publications on first and second language acquisition and cognitive
development and bilingualism.

***Sharonica Hardin*** is a fourth year Literature teacher at
Compton-Drew Investigative Learning Center Middle School. Currently, she
serves as team leader for the 6th grade team. As a teacher, she tries to
lead by example, as she says, "by demonstrating self-control,
responsibility, dedication, persistence, and positive relationships with
others." She models the behaviors she wants to see in her students.
These qualities are important for all people to possess, especially the
youth. Striving to prepare individuals for a productive role in a
democratic society is her daily goal and the leading force of her
teaching practices in and out of the classroom. In addition to teaching
she is enrolled in the St. Louis Educational Leadership Institute at St.
Louis University. This program is designed to prepare educators for
administrative positions in the St. Louis Public Schools. Ms. Hardin
will receive her Master\'s degree in Education Administration in
December of this year. She is looking forward to achieving one of her
goals of becoming a middle school principal.

***Stephanie Hirsh*** is Deputy Executive Director of the National Staff
Development Council. In that role, she is responsible for policy
development, coordination of staff development leadership councils,
state education agency relations, and NSDC partnerships. She is
currently convening a National Task Force to Revise the NSDC
Professional Development Standards. Ms. Hirsh is a valued member of the
National Forum to Accelerate Middle grades Reform, where she chairs the
Leadership Committee. She has written numerous articles and given many
presentations on results-based professional development. She is also an
active member of her local school board, where she helps translates
theory and research into policy and practice.

***Dr. Robert Jiménez*** is an associate professor at the University of
Illinois at Urbana Champaign. He teaches courses on qualitative research
methods, second language literacy, and bilingual education. Jiménez has
conducted research on the literacy instruction and learning of bilingual
Latina/o readers. He received the Albert J. Harris Research Award from
the International Reading Association, the Arnold O. Beckman Research
Award from the University of Illinois, and the Distinguished College
Scholar Award from the College of Education at Illinois. He has
published his work in several journals including the *American
Educational Research Journal*, *Elementary School Journal, Reading
Research Quarterly*, The *Reading Teacher* and the *Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy*.

***Dr. Joseph Johnson*** is Director of District Support and Services at
the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin. The
Dana Center is an organized research unit dedicated to strengthening
excellence in academic achievement for all students in Texas public
schools. Dr. Johnson organizes and directs studies of
high-performing/high-poverty schools and districts. The lessons learned
from these studies are used to shape technical assistance and other
support efforts that are helping other Texas schools improve academic
results. Dr. Johnson co-directs the Austin office of the U.S. Department
of Education's Region 8 Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center (the
STAR Center). He also provides oversight leadership to the Texas Center
for Accelerated Schools, the Texas AVID Center, the Texas Office for the
Education of Homeless Children and Youth, the Texas HeadStart
Collaboration Project, the Texas Education Improvement Network, and the
AmeriCorps for Community Engagement and Education. Dr. Johnson is a
member of the Independent Review Panel for the National Assessment of
Federal Education Programs and the National Assessment of Title I. He
has served as a consultant to several state departments of education and
many school districts. Before coming to the Dana Center, Dr. Johnson was
the Senior Director of the Division of Accelerated Instruction at the
Texas Education Agency. Also, he served as a classroom teacher in San
Diego, California. Dr. Johnson earned a Ph.D. in educational
administration from the University of Texas at Austin\'s Cooperative
Superintendency Program. He earned a Master of Arts in Education from
San Diego State University and graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor
of Science degree from the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. In 1987
Dr. Johnson received the Special Educator of the Year Award from the New
Mexico Council for Exceptional Children. In 1993 and again in 2000, he
received the Educator of the Year Award from the Texas Association of
Compensatory Education. He is the author of numerous publications
including a book recently released by the U.S. Department of Education
entitled, "Hope for Urban Education: A Study of Nine Urban Elementary
Schools."

***Gloria Ladson-Billings*** is a professor in the Department of
Curriculum & Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a
Senior Fellow in Urban Education at the Annenberg Institute for School
Reform at Brown University. Her research interests concern the
relationship between culture and schooling, particularly successful
teaching and learning for African American students. Her publications
include, *The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American
Children*, the *Dictionary of Multicultural Education* (with Carl A.
Grant), and numerous journal articles and book chapters. She is
currently the editor of the Teaching, Learning, and Human Development
section of the *American Educational Research Journal* and a member of
several editorial boards including, Urban Education, Educational Policy,
and The Journal of Negro Education. Ladson-Billings has won numerous
awards for her scholarship including: the 1989--90 National Academy of
Education Spencer Post-doctoral Fellowship; the Early Career
Contribution Award (1995) of the Committee on the Role and Status of
Minorities in the American Educational Research Association; the Palmer
O. Johnson Award (1996) for the outstanding article appearing in an AERA
sponsored publication; the Mary Ann Raywid Award (1997) from the Society
of Professors of Education; and the H.I. Romnes Award (1998) for
outstanding research potential from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

***Dr. Catherine Cobb Morocco*** designs research projects at Education
Development Center that focus on how teachers and schools can support
young adolescents in developing their reading and writing abilities.
Close collaboration with teachers, students, and administrators is at
the core of her work. She directs the Reach Institute, a five-year
partnership between EDC, three universities, and several school
districts, which is studying teaching for understanding in classrooms
that include students with disabilities. EDC's literacy research strand
within the institute is studying how students with diverse cultural and
socio-economic backgrounds and academic abilities can understand
challenging literature and express their understanding in

persuasive writing. She also directs Beacons of Excellence, which is
developing web-based and print case studies of three high performing and
inclusive urban middle schools. Dr. Morocco helped to create ATLAS
Communities and is a co-developer of an ATLAS Literacy Toolkit and
Website that will reach teachers around the country. Dr. Morocco is
author of Writers at Work and numerous articles and book chapters on
writing instruction and professional development models that support
school-wide literacy reform. She holds an Ed.D. in language and
literature from Harvard University and has taught at the middle school,
high school, and university levels.

***Michelle Pedigo*** is the Principal of Barren County Middle School,
one of four nationally recognized "Schools to Watch", and was Named
Kentucky Middle School Principal of the Year 2000 and local "Woman of
the Year". She has finished her fifth year in school administration at
BCMS and is a former high school language arts teacher, yearbook
advisor, and basketball coach. During her tenure, BCMS has also been
recognized as a "Welcoming School," received the "ERNIE" Award from the
Glasgow/Barren County Chamber of Commerce, the PEAK Award from the
Kentucky School Boards Association, and has been named a "Mentorship
School" by the Kentucky Department of Education. She has presented about
"Schools to Watch" at the National Middle School Association Conference,
the National Association for Secondary School Principals Conference,
National Association of Elementary School Principals Conference, and for
the Kentucky Department of Education. She serves on the Kentucky
Principal's Network Advisory Board and the Kentucky Forum to Accelerate
Middle Grades Reform and does consulting work through the Kentucky
Collaborative for Teaching and Learning, for the Galef Institute in
Santa Monica, California, and with administrators of St. Louis Public
Schools.

***Colleen Peters*** arrived in a Sixth Grade Literature classroom at
Compton-Drew Investigative Learning Center in 1997. Prior to that, she
earned a second degree of B.S. in Education, tutored illiterate adults,
stayed home with children, traded commodities for a investment firm, and
worked in grain merchandizing for two different corporations after
graduating with a B.A. in English. Since 1997 Colleen started work on a
M.A in curriculum, began a Community Leadership Program for Teachers,
continues spiritual development work, and tries to keep track for her
husband and two teenage daughters.

***Thomas A. Romberg*** is the Sears Roebuck Foundation--Bascom
Professor in Education at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. From
1988 to 1996 he was Director of the National Center for Research in
Mathematical Sciences Education and starting in 1996 he is the Director
of the National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in
Mathematics and Science for the U.S. Department of Education. He is also
the Principal Investigator on NSF-funded curriculum project,
*Mathematics in Context*, *a Connected Curriculum for Grades 5-8*, and
on the NSF funded Longitudinal/Cross Sectional Study of the Impact of
*Mathematics in Context* on Student Mathematical Performance. Dr.
Romberg has a long history of involvement with mathematics curriculum
reform, including work in the 1960's with the School Mathematics Study
Group, in the 1970's with Developing Mathematical Processes, and in the
1980's as chair of two commissions---School Mathematics: Options for the
1990's (U.S. Department of Education) and Curriculum and Evaluation
Standards for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics). He has served as chair of the Assessment Standards for
School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). His
research has focused on three areas: (1) young children's learning of
initial mathematical concepts (best reflected in the Journal of Research
in Mathematics Education monograph, "Learning to Add and Subtract"); (2)
methods of evaluating both students and programs (best reflected in the
books "Toward Effective Schooling: The IGE Experience," "Reforming
Mathematics in America's Cities," "Mathematics Assessment and
Evaluation," and "Reform in School Mathematics and Authentic
Assessment"); and (3) an integration of research on teaching,
curriculum, and student thinking (best reflected in the handbook
chapters, "Research on Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Two
Disciplines of Scientific Inquiry" and "Problematic Features of the
School Mathematics Curriculum"). Finally, he is internationally well
known for his study and involvement with mathematics curriculum reform
efforts. He has had fellowships to both Australia and the U.S.S.R.; has
examined current work in England, Australia, The Netherlands, the
U.S.S.R., Sweden, Norway, Germany, Spain, Japan, and Venezuela, and is
currently collaborating with scholars at the University of Utrecht.

***Dr. Judith Sowder*** is a Professor of Mathematical and Computer
Sciences and Director of the Center for Research in Mathematics and
Science Education at San Diego State University*.* She has focused much
of her research on children's development of number sense and on the
instructional effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge. She has
published over 40 papers, 19 book chapters, and 3 books, all on topics
of mathematics learning and teaching. Judy is currently working on a
project to study the effects of early field experiences on how
prospective elementary teachers view and learn from their mathematics
courses, and is in the process of establishing a Professional
Development Institute, funded by Qualcomm, to offer certification and
credentialing programs for teachers in San Diego. She has served on many
national and international committees and advisory boards and as editor
of the *Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.* She is now
serving on the Board of Directors of the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. She has directed numerous projects funded by NSF and OERI.
Judy has received awards for teaching and research, and most recently
she received the NCTM Lifetime Achievement Award.

***Andrea Walker*** been an urban educator for more than thirty years.
She has served as an elementary and middle school teacher of mathematics
and communication arts, adult educator, and administrator. She is a
certified assessor for aspiring principals in the Leadership Academy of
Missouri, a member of the Steering Committee of the National Middle
School Association, and a member of the Education Committee of the
Academy of Science, St. Louis. Since 1993 she has been involved in a
collaborative effort with universities and the St. Louis Science Center
to implement Schools For Thought, an innovative, cognitively based model
of instruction, to transform classrooms into dynamic learning
communities. As a trained practitioner of Schools For Thought, she
opened a school designed to model effective teacher and student
behaviors that create environments to move students from novice to
expert learners. Andrea L. Walker presently serves as the principal of
the Compton-Drew Investigative Learning Center Middle School, St. Louis
Public Schools, a premiere magnet school, with an emphasis on
mathematics, science and technology.

***Dr. Belinda Williams*** is currently the Managing Director for
Research and Development for the Center for Health, Achievement,
Neighborhood, Growth and Ethnic Studies (CHANGES) at the University of
Pennsylvania. Prior to accepting the University of Pennsylvania
position, she held the positions of Senior Research and Development
Specialist at the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory
at Brown University and Director of the Urban Education Project at
Research for Better Schools. Dr. Williams received her doctorate in
psychology from Rutgers University and has more than 25 years of
experience studying the academic achievement patterns of culturally
different and poor students in urban districts. Her research, recent
work, and publications focus on the impact of cultural environments on
the cognitive development and the academic achievement patterns of poor
children. She is editor of the ASCD publication, *Closing the
Achievement Gap: A Vision for Changing Beliefs and Practices.*

#  

# 

# 

# Appendix B: Resources

**Appendix B: Resources**

## 

***I. Publications***

Alvermann, D. E., Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content Reading and Literacy:
Succeeding in Today's Diverse Classrooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ambrosini, M. & Morretta, T. M. (2000). Practical Approaches for
Teaching Reading and Writing in Middle School.: International Reading
Association

Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H.C. (2000) Instructional Policy and Classroom

Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California. Teachers College
Record, (102) 2, 294-343.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Changing conceptions of teaching and teacher
development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(4), 9-26.

Elliot, P. & Garnett, C. "Mathematics Power for All." In C.A. Thornton &
N.S. Bley, (Eds.), Windows of Opportunity: Mathematics for Students with
Special Needs, (pp. 3-17). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, 1994.

Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice.
Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 1-26.

Glaser, R., & Silver, E.A. "Assessment, Testing, and Instruction:
Retrospect and Prospect." In L. Darling-Hammond. (ed.), Review of
Research in Education, pp.393-419. Washington, D.C.: American Education
Research Association, 1994.

Goldsmith, L.T. & Kantrov, I. (2000). Evaluating Middle Grades Curricula
for High Standards of Learning and Performance. National Association of
Secondary School Principals Bulletin, April, 30-39.

Goudvis, A. & Harvey, S. (2000). Strategies that Work: Teaching
Comprehension to Enhance Understanding.: Stenhouse

Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Hiebert, J., & Behr, M. (1999). Relationships between research and the
NCTM Standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3-19.

Keene, E. O., Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of Thought: Teaching
Comprehension in a Reader's Workshop. Heinemann.

Kennedy, M.M. "The Relevance of Content in Inservice Teacher Education,"
presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA, April. 1998.

Louis, K.S. , Marks, H.M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers' professional
communities in restructuring schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 33(4), 757-800.

Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in
mathematics: Findings, generalizations, and criticisms of the research.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 65-88.

Milbrey W. M., Oberman, I. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher Learning: New
Policies, New Practices. New York: Teachers College Press.

Moore, D.W. (1996). Context for literacy in secondary schools. In D. J.
Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (eds.), Literacies for the 21^st^
century: Research and practice (45^th^ Yearbook of the National Reading
Conference, pp. 15-46). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principals and
standards of school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers
take charge of their learning: Transforming Professional Development for
Student Success. Washington, DC: Author.

National Staff Development Council's Standards for Staff Development.
(1994). Middle Level Edition Study Guide. Oxford, OH: Author.

Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Solomon, M.Z. (ed.). (1999). The Diagnostic Teacher. New York: Teacher
College Press.

Sykes, G. (1999). Make Subject Matter Count. Journal of Staff
Development, spring 1999, 50-51.

Wilson, M.W. & Berne, J. (1999) Teacher Learning and the Acquisition of
Professional Knowledge: An Examination of Research on Contemporary
Professional Development. Review of Research in Education. (24),
173-209.

***II. Web Sites***

**The National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform**

-   http:// www.mgforum.org

**MiddleWeb**

-   http://www.middleweb.com

**The National Middle School Association**

-   http://www.nmsa.org

**The National Association of Secondary School Principals**

-   http://www.nassp.org/

**The National Association of Elementary School Principals**

-   http://www.naesp.org/

**The National Writing Project**

-   www-gse.berkeley.edu/Research/NWP/nwp.html

**International Reading Association**

-   http://www.reading.org

**National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)**

-   http://www.ncte.org

**The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)**

-   http://www.nctm.org

**National Staff Development Council**

-   http://www.nsdc.org

**The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future**

-   www.tc.columbia.edu/\~teachcomm

**The K-12 Mathematics Curriculum Center**

-   http://www2.edc.org/mcc/

**The Annenberg Institute for School Reform**

-   www.aisr.brown.edu

[^1]: The Beacons of Excellence project is a three-year research project
    being conducted by Education Development Center, Inc., with funding
    from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
    Programs. Its goal is to identify and describe high-performing urban
    middle grades schools that successfully include students with
    disabilities in the general education program.

[^2]: These recommendations reflect the panel's deliberations. Where
    appropriate, we have also incorporated themes and recommendations
    from the presenters.

[^3]: See, for example, the Southern Regional Education Board's *High
    Schools that Work* Initiative.

[^4]: The Beacons of Excellence project, is a three-year research
    project being conducted by Education Development Center, Inc., with
    funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
    Education Programs. Its goal is to identify and describe
    high-performing urban middle grades schools that successfully
    include students with disabilities in the general education program.

[^5]: *Dialogues* is a newsletter that allows the exploration of
    controversial issues by offering many points of view.