The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades

Education 2nd Ed 1st Edition Steven B.

Mertens
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-encyclopedia-of-middle-grades-education-2nd-ed-
1st-edition-steven-b-mertens/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Encyclopedia of Soil Science 2nd Edition Rattan Lal

(Ed.)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/encyclopedia-of-soil-science-2nd-
edition-rattan-lal-ed/

The Math Pact Middle School Achieving Instructional

Coherence Within and Across Grades 1st Edition Sarah B
Bush

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-math-pact-middle-school-
achieving-instructional-coherence-within-and-across-grades-1st-
edition-sarah-b-bush/

The SAGE Encyclopedia Of Research Design 2nd Edition

Bruce B. Frey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-research-
design-2nd-edition-bruce-b-frey/

The Sage Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology 2nd Edition Steven G. Rogelberg

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-
industrial-and-organizational-psychology-2nd-edition-steven-g-
rogelberg/
Encyclopedia of Caves 3rd Edition William B White David
C Culver Tanja Pipan Ed

https://ebookmeta.com/product/encyclopedia-of-caves-3rd-edition-
william-b-white-david-c-culver-tanja-pipan-ed/

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Contemporary Early Childhood

Education 1st Edition Donna Couchenour

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-
contemporary-early-childhood-education-1st-edition-donna-
couchenour/

The American Psychiatric Association Publishing

Textbook of Mood Disorders, 2nd Ed Charles B. Nemeroff

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-american-psychiatric-
association-publishing-textbook-of-mood-disorders-2nd-ed-charles-
b-nemeroff/

American Psychiatric Association Publishing Textbook of

Mood Disorders, 2nd Ed 2nd Edition Charles B. Nemeroff

https://ebookmeta.com/product/american-psychiatric-association-
publishing-textbook-of-mood-disorders-2nd-ed-2nd-edition-charles-
b-nemeroff/

Encyclopedia Britannica 9th Ed 9th Edition

Encyclopaedia Britannica

https://ebookmeta.com/product/encyclopedia-britannica-9th-ed-9th-
edition-encyclopaedia-britannica/
The Encyclopedia
of Middle Grades
Education
2nd edition

A volume in
The Handbook of Resources in Middle Level Education
Steven B. Mertens and Micki M. Caskey, Series Editors
 THE HANDBOOK OF RESOURCES IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION
Steven B. Mertens and Micki M. Caskey, Series Editors

Clinical Preparation at the Middle Level: Practices and Possibilities (2016)

Edited by Penny B. Howell, Jan Carpenter, and Jeanneine Jones

Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. and Steven B. Mertens, Series Editors

The Legacy of Middle School Leaders: In Their Own Words (2011)

Edited by Tracy W. Smith and C. Kenneth McEwin

THE HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION

Steven B. Mertens and Micki M. Caskey, Series Editors

Research on Teaching and Learning With the Literacies of Young Adolescents (2015)
Edited by Kathleen F. Malu and Mary Beth Schaefer

Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., Series Editors

Common Planning Time in Middle Level Schools: Research Studies From the MLER SIG’s National Project (2013)
Edited by Steven B. Mertens, Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., Micki M. Caskey, and Nancy Flowers
Voices From the Middle: Narrative Inquiry By, For, and About the Middle Level Community (2010)
Edited by Kathleen F. Malu
An International Look at Educating Young Adolescents (2009)
Edited by Steven B. Mertens, Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., and Kathleen Roney
The Young Adolescent and the Middle School (2007)
Edited by Steven B. Mertens, Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., and Micki M. Caskey
Making a Difference: Action Research in Middle Level Education (2005)
Edited by Micki M. Caskey
Reforming Middle Level Education: Considerations for Policymakers (2004)
Edited by Sue C. Thompson
Leaders for a Movement: Professional Preparation and Development of Middle Level Teachers and Administrators (2003)
Edited by P. Gayle Andrews and Vincent A. Anfara, Jr.
Middle School Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (2002)
Edited by Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. and Sandra L. Stacki
The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education (2001)
Edited by Vincent A. Anfara, Jr.
The Encyclopedia
of Middle Grades
Education
2nd edition

edited by
Steven B. Mertens
Illinois State University

Micki M. Caskey
Portland State University

Nancy Flowers
CPRD, University of Illinois

M
MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION RESEARCH
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC.
Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
http://www.loc.gov

ISBN: 978-1-68123-569-1 (Paperback)

978-1-68123-570-7 (Hardcover)
978-1-68123-571-4 (ebook)

Copyright © 2016 Information Age Publishing Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

 This edition of The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education
is dedicated to our beloved middle grades leaders, mentors, colleagues, and friends:
Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. and Thomas O. Erb
 MMIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION RESEARCH
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP

The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education is endorsed

by the Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group,
an affiliate of the American Educational Research Association.

As stated in the organization’s bylaws, the purpose of MLER

is to improve, promote, and disseminate educational research
reflecting early adolescence and middle-level education.
 Contents

List of Entries ........................................................................................ix

About the Editors ................................................................................xiii

List of Contributors.............................................................................. xv
Foreword ..............................................................................................xix
John H. Lounsbury
Introduction to the Second Edition...................................................xxi
Micki M. Caskey, Steven B. Mertens, and Nancy Flowers
Entries .....................................................................................................1
Index ................................................................................................... 441

vii
This page intentionally left blank.
 List of Entries
A Brain Development................................................................. 67
A Curriculum for the Middle School Years .................................... 1
A Middle School Curriculum: From Rhetoric to Reality ................ 2
Ability Grouping ....................................................................... 2
Academic Achievement ............................................................ 5
Academic Excellence ................................................................ 9
Accelerated Schools................................................................ 12
Accountability ......................................................................... 12
Accreditation and Middle Level Teacher Preparation
Programs ....................................................................... 16
Achievement Gap.................................................................... 19
Achievement Tests .................................................................. 22
Adaptations, Accommodations, and Modifications ............ 25
Administrators: Middle Level Principals .............................. 28
Advisory Programs ................................................................. 31
Affective Development ........................................................... 35
After School Programs........................................................... 38
Alexander, William M. ........................................................... 42
Alternative Middle Schools.................................................... 43
American Educational Research Association ...................... 46
American Federation of Teachers ......................................... 47
American Institutes for Research.......................................... 47
AMLE Magazine....................................................................... 48
Anfara, Vincent A., Jr. ............................................................ 49
Arnold, John ........................................................................... 50
Arth, Alfred A. ....................................................................... 50
Arts Education ........................................................................ 51
As I See It .................................................................................. 55
Assessment: Formative Evaluation ........................................ 55
Assessment: Summative Evaluation ...................................... 57
Association for Middle Level Education............................... 59
Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development ................................................................. 60
Authentic Assessment............................................................. 61
B
Beane, James A. ...................................................................... 65
Bergmann, Sherrel ................................................................. 66
The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages ix–xi
Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Brain Growth Periodization .................................................. 70
Breaking Ranks Framework ..................................................... 72
BRIDGES Project.................................................................... 73
Briggs, Thomas ....................................................................... 74
Bullying ................................................................................... 75
C
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development ................... 79
Caught in the Middle ................................................................. 80
Center for Early Adolescence ................................................ 81
Center for Prevention Research and Development ............. 81
Charter Schools ...................................................................... 82
Classroom Management ........................................................ 86
Cognitive Development.......................................................... 89
Collaborative Decision Making ............................................. 92
College and Career Readiness .............................................. 94
Collegiate Middle Level Association .................................... 97
The Committee of Ten Report ..................................................... 97
Common Planning Time ....................................................... 98
Community ........................................................................... 100
Comprehensive School Reform ........................................... 103
Cooperative Learning .......................................................... 106
Council of Chief State School Officers ............................... 109
Counseling ............................................................................ 110
Curriculum Alignment ........................................................ 112
Curriculum: Core ................................................................. 116
Curriculum Development .................................................... 119
Curriculum Integration ....................................................... 122
Curriculum: Interdisciplinary Unit .................................... 125
D
Democratic Classrooms ....................................................... 131
Developmental Responsiveness ........................................... 133
Dewey, John ........................................................................... 137
Dickinson, Thomas S. .......................................................... 137
ix
x ◾ List of Entries
Doda, Nancy M. .................................................................... 138
Douglass, Harl R. .................................................................. 139
E
Early Awareness .................................................................... 141
Early Indicator Systems ........................................................ 144
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation .................................... 148
Effective Schools ................................................................... 148
Eichhorn, Donald H............................................................. 152
The Eight-Year Study ............................................................ 153
The Eight-Year Study Revisited: Lessons from the Past
for the Present ................................................................ 153
Eliot, Charles W. ................................................................... 154
English Language Learners ................................................ 154
Erb, Thomas O...................................................................... 159
Erikson, Erik ......................................................................... 160
The Exemplary Middle School .................................................. 161
Exploratory Curriculum ...................................................... 161
F Learning Forward ................................................................ 230
Family Involvement and Partnerships................................. 165
The Forgotten Middle: Ensuring that All Students Are on
Target for College and Career Readiness ........................ 169
G Looping ................................................................................. 242
Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools
Do Better ....................................................................... 171
Garvin, James P. .................................................................... 172
Gatewood, Thomas E. .......................................................... 172
George, Paul S. ..................................................................... 173
Gifted Students/Programs ...................................................174
Grade Configuration: K–8 Versus Middle Grades ............. 177
Grade Configurations at the Middle Level ........................ 181
Growing Up Forgotten: A Review of Research and Programs
Concerning Early Adolescence........................................ 185
Gruhn, William T. ................................................................ 186
H Mindset: The New Psychology of Success ................................... 261
Hall, G. Stanley ..................................................................... 187
The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education ............. 188
The Handbook of Resources in Middle Level Education ........... 189
Health: Comprehensive Health Programs ......................... 190
Health: Mental Health and Young Adolescents ................. 194
Historical and Influential Publications in Middle
Level Education .......................................................... 195
I Education .................................................................... 274
Identity Development ........................................................... 199
Inclusion ................................................................................ 202
Inclusion: Students with Disabilities ................................... 204
Institute for Education Sciences.......................................... 207
Instructional Methods: Differentiated Instruction ........... 207
Instructional Methods/Strategies ....................................... 211
Interdisciplinary Team Organization ................................. 213
J
Johnston, J. Howard ............................................................. 219
Journal of Adolescent Research ................................................. 220
Journal of Early Adolescence .................................................... 220
Junior High School............................................................... 220
K
Kilpatrick, William H. .......................................................... 223
Koos, Leonard V. .................................................................. 224
L
Leadership ............................................................................ 227
Learning Styles ..................................................................... 231
Lilly Endowment, Inc. .......................................................... 233
Limited English Proficiency ................................................ 235
Lipsitz, Joan S. ...................................................................... 238
Literacy .................................................................................. 238
Lounsbury, John H. .............................................................. 246
M
McEwin, C. Kenneth ............................................................ 249
Melton, George E. ................................................................ 250
Mentoring and Induction .................................................... 250
Middle Grades Research Journal .............................................. 253
Middle Level Education—Origin of the Term .................. 254
Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group.... 256
Middle Level Leadership Center......................................... 257
Middle Level Literature ....................................................... 258
Middle School Journal ............................................................. 260
Motivation ............................................................................. 262
Multicultural Education ...................................................... 266
Multiple Intelligences........................................................... 268
N
National Adolescent Literacy Coalition.............................. 273
National Association of Elementary School Principals ..... 274
National Association of Professors of Middle Level
National Association of Secondary School Principals ...... 275
NASSP National Middle Level Studies ............................... 276
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards ....... 277

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
Middle Level Studies .................................................. 278
National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School
Reform ........................................................................ 278
National Education Association .......................................... 279
National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform ..... 280
National Middle Grades Research Project on
Common Planning Time ........................................... 280
New American Schools ........................................................ 282
New Literacies ....................................................................... 282
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ...................................... 286
O
Online Learning................................................................... 291
Organizational Structures ................................................... 294
P Technology Integration ....................................................... 391
Parents for Public Schools ................................................... 299
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College
and Careers .................................................................300
Peer Tutoring ........................................................................ 301
Piaget, Jean ........................................................................... 303
Professional Learning Communities .................................. 304
Program of International Student Assessment .................. 307
Progressivism ........................................................................308
R 21st Century .................................................................. 414
Relationships......................................................................... 311
Research and Resources in Support of This We Believe
(2nd edition) .............................................................. 314
Research in Middle Level Education Online ............................ 314
Research to Guide Practice in Middle Grades Education .......... 315
R 3 = Research, Rhetoric, and Reality: A Study of Studies ......... 316
Response to Intervention ......................................................317
Rural Middle Schools ........................................................... 320
S
Scheduling: Flexible Interdisciplinary Block Schedules ..... 325
School Culture ...................................................................... 331
School Size ............................................................................ 335
Schools to Watch .................................................................. 338
School-Within-School Organization ..................................340
Self-Concept/Self-Esteem .................................................... 343
Service Learning .................................................................. 346
Shadow Studies ..................................................................... 349
Shooting for the Sun: The Message for Middle School Reform ... 351
Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium.......................... 352
Social and Emotional Learning .......................................... 353
The Society for Research on Adolescence .......................... 356
Soundings: A Democratic Student-Centered Education............. 357
Southern Regional Education Board ................................. 357
List of Entries ◾ xi
Special Education in Middle Schools ................................. 358
Sports in Middle Schools ..................................................... 361
Standards .............................................................................. 365
STEM—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math..... 369
Stevenson, Christopher ........................................................ 372
Student-Led Conferences .................................................... 373
Successful Schools for Young Adolescents .................................. 377
Swaim, John H. ..................................................................... 377
Swaim, Sue ............................................................................ 378
T
Taking Center Stage................................................................. 381
Teacher Certification ........................................................... 382
Teacher Preservice Preparation .......................................... 385
Teacher Professional Development ..................................... 388
Teaching Middle Years: Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy
and Assessment.............................................................. 390
Testing ................................................................................... 394
Testing: High Stakes ............................................................. 396
Thematic Units .....................................................................400
Third International Mathematics and Science Study ....... 402
This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents ............. 403
Title I .....................................................................................404
Toepfer, Jr., Conrad F. ..........................................................406
Transition Programs ............................................................ 407
Transitions ............................................................................ 411
Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the
Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the
21st Century .................................................................. 415
21st Century Skills ................................................................ 416
Tyler, Ralph W. ...................................................................... 418
U
U.S. Department of Education ............................................ 421
Underachievement ............................................................... 422
Urban Middle School ........................................................... 426
V
Vars, Gordon F. ..................................................................... 431
Vygotsky, Lev ......................................................................... 432
W
W. K. Kellogg Foundation .................................................... 433
We Gain More Than We Give: Teaming in Middle Schools....... 434
What Works Clearinghouse ................................................. 434
Y
Young Adolescent Development .......................................... 437
This page intentionally left blank.
 About the Editors

Steven B. Mertens is associate professor of middle level education in the School of Teaching
and Learning at Illinois State University. He has authored or co-authored more than 60 pub-
lications and has presented papers at 80 international, national, and state conferences ad-
dressing varying aspects of middle level education and reform. Together with Micki Caskey, he
serves as co-editor of the book series: The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education and The
Handbook of Resources in Middle Level Education. Steve is a former chair of AERA’s Middle Level
Education Research SIG, a former member of AMLE’s Research Advisory Board, and a mem-
ber of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grade’s Reform. Email: smertens@ilstu.edu

Micki M. Caskey is associate dean and professor in the Graduate School of Education at Port-
land State University. She serves as co-editor of the book series, The Handbook of Research in
Middle Level Education and The Handbook of Resources in Middle Level Education. She is the author
or co-author of more than 60 publications and 100 conference presentations. Micki is former
chair of AERA’s Middle Level Education Research SIG, former chair of Association for Middle
Level Education’s Research Advisory Board, and past editor of Research in Middle Level Educa-
tion Online. She is also a former public school teacher who taught young adolescents for more
than 20 years. E-mail: caskeym@pdx.edu

Nancy Flowers is Assistant Director of Research Programs at the Center for Prevention Re-
search and Development (CPRD) in the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois in
Urbana-Champaign. For 20 years, Nancy has served as a principal investigator and project di-
rector of research and evaluation projects related to middle grades education and reform. Her
work includes large-scale evaluations of comprehensive middle-grades reform efforts. Most
recently, she serves as lead evaluator for two U.S. Department of Education Investing in Inno-
vation (i3) grants which are focused on working with middle-grades schools. Nancy has nu-
merous publications, reports, and presentations on topics related to middle-grades research.
She has served on the board of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, as a
Council Member for AERA’s Middle Level Education Research SIG, and as a co-leader for the
AERA Middle Level Education Research SIG’s National Middle Grades Research Project on
Common Planning Time. Email: nflowers@illinois.edu

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, page xiii

Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. xiii
This page intentionally left blank.
 List of Contributors

Maud Abeel Peter Boedeker

Contributor from 1st edition Texas A&M University
Patrick Akos Michelle E. Boyer-Pennington
The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Middle Tennessee State University
Gail Anderson Gena M. Bramlett
Canby School District Contributor from 1st edition
P. Gayle Andrews Kathleen Brinegar
The University of Georgia Johnson State College
Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. Thomas M. Brinthaupt
Contributor from 1st edition Middle Tennessee State University
Melissa Baker Dave F. Brown
The University of Georgia West Chester University
Meghan E. Barnes Alison Buehler
The University of Georgia Contributor from 1st edition
Dan Bauer Ann Bullock
Georgia Southern University East Carolina University
Candy Beal Mary Margaret Capraro
North Carolina State University Texas A&M University
James A. Beane Jan Carpenter
Marylhurst University
Stephanie M. Bennett Micki M. Caskey
Mississippi State University Portland State University
Dana L. Bickmore Donald C. Clark
University of Nevada, Las Vegas University of Arizona
Allison Reagan Bisel Sally N. Clark
The University of Georgia University of Arizona
Penny Bishop Chris M. Cook
University of Vermont Appalachian State University

The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages xv–xviii

Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. xv
xvi ◾ List of Contributors

Sondra S. Cooney Casey D. Gilewski

Contributor from 1st edition University of Memphis
Stephanie Croneberg Sheila Rogers Gloer
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Baylor University
Larry G. Daniel Elsa Andreasen Glover
The Citadel Kaneland Harter Middle School
Kaneland Community Unit School District 302
Erika Daniels
California State University, San Marcos Carol Goldfus
Levinsky College of Education
Trina J. Davis
Texas A&M University Dianne Goldsby
Texas A&M University
Robin Dever
Kent State University–Geauga Matthew D. Goodman
Contributor from 1st edition
Kevin Duquette
Phillips Middle School Jennifer S. Goodwin
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Contributor from 1st edition
Cheryl R. Ellerbrock Tammy J. Graham
University of South Florida The Citadel
Kristina Falbe Melanie Greene
Georgia College & State University Contributor from 1st edition
Francine Falk-Ross Shannon Grey
Pace University West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District
Shawn A. Faulkner Linda Haling
Northern Kentucky University Illinois State University
L. Mickey Fenzel Lisa M. Harrison
Loyola University Maryland Ohio University
Carolyn Grim Fidelman Sara Hartman
National Center for Education Statistics Ohio University
U.S. Department of Education
Heather Rogers Haverback
Christine Finnan Towson University
Contributor from 1st edition
Kristina K. Hill
Janis D. Flint-Ferguson Texas A&M University
Gordon College
Linda Hopping
Nancy Flowers National Forum to Accelerate
CPRD, University of Illinois Middle-Grades Reform
Sejal Parikh Foxx Brittany L. Hott
University of North Carolina, Charlotte Texas A&M University, Commerce
Dana Pomykal Franz David Hough
Mississippi State University Missouri State University
Daniel M. Frederking Penny B. Howell
Illinois State University University of Louisville
Adria Gallup-Black Gail Ingwalson
FHI 360 University of North Dakota
Pat George Virginia M. Jagla
Association for Middle Level Education National Louis University
Paul S. George Leah M. Jorgensen
University of Florida University of North Carolina, Wilmington
 List of Contributors ◾ xvii

Janet Josephson Richard L. Mehrenberg

Millersville University Millersville University
Barbara A. Kalina Elliot Y. Merenbloom
Educational Consultant Educational Consultant
Anit Karni-Tagger Steven B. Mertens
Levinsky College of Education Illinois State University
Deborah Kasak Carla K. Meyer
National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform Duquesne University
Kriss Y. Kemp-Graham Jim Miller
Texas A&M University, Commerce Contributor from 1st edition
Brianna L. Kennedy-Lewis Nicole C. Miller
University of Florida Mississippi State University
Louise Kennelly Nancy B. Mizelle
Contributor from 1st edition Georgia College & State University
Shea N. Kerkhoff Clarice M. Moran
North Carolina State University North Carolina State University
Patti Kinney Matthew J. Moulton
Educational Consultant The University of Georgia
Mahati Kopparla Peter Mulhall
Texas A&M University CPRD, University of Illinois
James Lane P. Maureen Musser
University of Phoenix Contributor from 1st edition
Amanda Latimer William J. Rodriguez Nieves
The University of Georgia Illinois State University
Mark L’Esperance Alyssa D. Nucaro
East Carolina University University of Memphis
Courtney Lewis Nickolaus Ortiz
University of North Carolina, Wilmington Texas A&M University
Emily S. Lin Nita A. Paris
University of Nevada, Las Vegas Kennesaw State University
Richard P. Lipka Donna Pendergast
St. Bonaventure University Griffith University, Australia
John H. Lounsbury Sara Davis Powell
Georgia College & State University Contributor from 1st edition
Diana B. Lys Joanne L. Previts
East Carolina University Georgia College & State University
Katherine Main Donna Davenport Price
Griffith University, Australia Contributor from 1st edition
Monica Martinez Laurie A. Ramirez
Contributor from 1st edition Appalachian State University
C. Kenneth McEwin Brandi R. Ray
Appalachian State University Baylor University
Molly Mee Cynthia C. Reyes
Towson University University of Vermont
xviii ◾ List of Contributors

Mary Rice April Tibbles

University of Kansas Association for Middle Level Education
Lourdes M. Rivera Carol Ann Tomlinson
Queens College, City University of New York Contributor from 1st edition
Sarah A. Rozny Jerry W. Valentine
Illinois State University University of Missouri
Besty Rymes David C. Virtue
Contributor from 1st edition
University of South Carolina
Risa Sackman
Jennifer D. Walker
FHI 360
University of Mary Washington
Mary Beth Schaefer
St. John’s University Temple A. Walkowiak
North Carolina State University
Michelle Schwartze
Illinois State University Amanda Wall
Georgia Southern University
Nelly Shora
Texas A&M University, Commerce Hersh C. Waxman
Contributor from 1st edition
Michele Jean Sims
Contributor from 1st edition Gary Weilbacher
Jennifer Smith Illinois State University
Monticello Middle School Christopher S. Weiler
Monticello Community Unit School District 25 Kutztown University
Tracy W. Smith Alicia Wenzel
Appalachian State University Western Oregon University
Frances R. Spielhagen Marcus Wenzel
Mount Saint Mary College Western Oregon University
Hiller A. Spires
Katie Wester-Neal
North Carolina State University
The University of Georgia
Sandra L. Stacki
Hofstra University Barbara L. Whinery
Contributor from 1st edition
Cody Stephens
Contributor from 1st edition Allison M. Wilson
Appalachian State University
Mark Stevens
George Mason University Gretchen Wolfram
Contributor from 1st edition
David Strahan
Contributor from 1st edition Brandi Wade Worsham
Janet K. Stramel The University of Georgia
Fort Hays State University Tabitha J. Wurster
John H. Swaim University of Virginia
University of Northern Colorado Carl A. Young
Shirley Theriot North Carolina State University
Contributor from 1st edition Bryan D. Zwemke
Nicole L. Thompson Rotolo Middle School
University Memphis Batavia Public School District 101
 Foreword
T he middle school movement is now 53 years old. Yet,
in the long history of American education, “mid-
dle school” is a late entry on our education timeline
where it carries an asterisk followed by the words “in
progress.” The middle school movement, despite more
than a half-century of existence marked by remarkable
growth, from a historical perspective, is still relatively
young. Though we speak of the middle school move-
ment as an entity that began in 1963, it is really just
the latest chapter in the Reorganization of Secondary
Education initiated by the Commission of the Reorga-
nization of Secondary Education, Cardinal Principals of
Secondary Education (1918).
In this landmark report, grades 7 and 8 were re-
moved from elementary education and claimed as part
of secondary education where they could serve the col-
lege preparation goal that was, initially, the sole motive
for reorganizing. The report also suggested that the six
high school grades might now be divided into junior
and senior periods. This suggestion was immediately
followed, thus establishing the junior high school as
an independent entity. The subsequent growth of the
junior high school as an administrative unit of grades
7–9 was remarkable. By 1946, just 37 years after it was
initiated, the junior high school was the centerpiece of
the 6–3–3 organization plan that had become the pre-
dominate organizational pattern in America, replacing
the traditional 8–4 plan.
The college preparation motive was soon put on the
back burner as public school leaders became involved
in the movement. The new 7–9 unit might then become
the means for advancing a more progressive, child-cen-
tered education, which was envisioned by two founders,
Leonard Koos and Thomas Briggs. Koos, a Professor of
Education at the University of Minnesota and Briggs of
Teachers College, Columbia University, both published
books entitled simply, The Junior High School in 1920. In
The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages xix–xx
Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
their books, they called for what we would now label a
developmentally responsive school. They advocated for
a varied and exploratory curriculum and pointed out
the need for teachers who were prepared for work at
this level. Unfortunately, the junior high school as it
was being made operational was unable to escape the
domination of its parent, the high school. So it became
what its name implied, a junior version of the senior
high school, featuring high school practices of depart-
mentalization and homogeneous grouping among oth-
ers. However, even as its rapid growth numerically was
on-going, criticism of the junior high began to appear,
thus, perhaps preparing the way for the middle school
concept. The exclusive academic program, it appeared,
was leaving little room for attention to other develop-
mental needs. Thus, a climate was forming that would
be receptive to the coming middle school idea.
The term “middle school,” entered the arena in 1963
and the middle school grew at such a phenomenal rate
that by 1983 the new 5–3–4 pattern had become the
dominate organizational plan in the United States, and
is now almost universal. Further, it should be noted that
the concept of having an intermediate institution based
on principles of human growth and development was
unique to our country.
However, without a history of its own, having gone
through developments marked by conflicting views and
still being a work in progress, the middle school has
been somewhat of a mystery to many and inadequately
understood by most educators and the general public.
Fortunately, The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education
was published in 2005 (Anfara, Andrews, & Mertens)
and made available the authoritative information that
was needed to explain the middle school idea and its
practices as well as guide its further development.
Encyclopedias, by their nature, are not designed to
be read page by page, cover to cover. They are reference
xix
xx ◾ Foreword
materials, sources that one goes to secure information
on a topic and are organized to facilitate a search for
desired information. Now, a decade after the publica-
tion of The Encyclopedia of Middle Level Education comes
a second edition, where the original entries have been
reviewed and revised and new entries included, there-
by bringing the whole field of middle school education
up to date. The second edition offers brief, but ample
descriptions of over 210 middle level education topics,
including people, publications, organizations, and re-
search studies. The scope and coverage is, as young ad-
olescents might say, awesome.
A copy of this resource should be housed in the li-
brary of any institution that has a teacher preparation
program. In addition, copies must be available in the
appropriate department or in the offices of middle level
education faculty members where they can be consult-
ed on a moment’s notice. While this resource will be
used primarily to provide information on a particular
topic at a particular time, I believe every middle level
educator would be well-advised to spend an hour or so
browsing through this volume, to get a feel for its cover-
age, stopping to read entries that catch your attention,
and perhaps critiquing the treatment given topics that
are of particular interest to you. Recognizing that all of
the 133 contributors are bona fide middle level experts;
you can conclude that The Encyclopedia of Middle Level
Education is, indeed, authoritative!
The editors, Steven B. Mertens, Micki M. Caskey,
and Nancy Flowers are to be commended for planning
and executing this major resource. Its development
was, indeed, a daunting and often thankless task, but it
resulted in a professional publication that is timely, of
genuine significance and lasting importance, and can
already be considered a classic.
REFERENCES
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Andrews, G., & Mertens, S. B. (Eds.). (2005).
The encyclopedia of middle grades education. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age.
Briggs, T. H. (1920). The junior high school. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education.
(1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education. Bulletin
1918, No. 35. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Education.
Koos, L. V. (1920). The junior high school. New York, NY: Har-
court, Brace, & Howe.
—John H. Lounsbury
Georgia College and State University
 Introduction to the
Second Edition
Micki M. Caskey
Portland State University
Steven B. Mertens
Illinois State University
Nancy Flowers
CPRD, University of Illinois
Middle grades education is schooling for students in
the “middle.” These students in the middle are young
adolescents—10- to 15-year-olds—who are undergoing
a distinct period of human growth and development
between childhood and adolescence. They experience
rapid and significant developmental changes, which
in turn, require knowledgeable educators and respon-
sive schools. Regardless of the school (e.g., junior high
school, K–8 school, middle school) or grade configura-
tion (e.g., grades 5–8, grades 6–8, grades 7–8), young ad-
olescents deserve education—schooling—designed for
their unique developmental characteristics and needs.
After all, young adolescents are still in the middle.
The idea of education for young adolescents is not
new. At the beginning of the 20th century, the junior
high school emerged as a model for educating young
adolescents. The junior high model arose in response
to societal pressures (i.e., immigration, industrializa-
tion, college preparation) and frustration with the tra-
ditional schooling model (i.e., irrelevant curriculum,
low student retention rate). This new model was to in-
clude disciplinary education, exploratory curriculum,
vocational education, recognition of students’ individ-
ual and socialization needs, and extra-curricular activ-
ities as well as teachers and principals dedicated to the
junior high school.
Then, in the 1960s, dissatisfaction with the junior
high school model grew. Critics lamented that junior
high schools were too much like senior high schools
The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages xxi–xxiii
Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
(i.e., miniature high schools) and that they failed to
provide student-centered education. The attempt to of-
fer a richer curriculum than the elementary school and
a more personal atmosphere than the high school had
not materialized. Eventually, the call for reform of the
junior high school model changed to a call for a new
school model—the middle school. The middle school
would be “the school which stands academically be-
tween elementary and high school, is housed separately,
and offers at least three years of schooling beginning
with either grade five or six” (National Educational As-
sociation, 1965, p. 5).
In the 1980s, attention for a school in the middle ac-
celerated. Alexander and George (1981) described the
middle school in The Exemplary Middle School, advanc-
ing the middle school concept. National Middle School
Association (NMSA) offered a position statement, This
We Believe, (NMSA, 1982), articulating a focus on the
distinct developmental needs of young adolescents and
describing programmatic components (e.g., interdisci-
plinary teams, flexible organizational structures, varied
instructional strategies, exploratory curriculum, adviso-
ry programs) for middle schools. NMSA also highlight-
ed the importance of educators who were knowledge-
able and committed to teaching young adolescents.
The middle school concept has had numerous cham-
pions—associations, funders, and researchers—across
the past five decades. Associations advocating for mid-
dle grades education included Association for Middle
xxi
xxii ◾ Introduction to the Second Edition
Level Education (AMLE, formerly National Middle
School Association), the Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development (ASCD), the National
Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP),
the National Association of Secondary School Principals
(NASSP), and the National Forum to Accelerate Mid-
dle-Grades Reform. Foundations supporting middle
grades education have been Carnegie Corporation of
New York, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, the
W. K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Lilly Endowment,
Inc. Researchers studying middle grades education
have included members of the Middle Level Education
Research Special Interest Group (MLER SIG) of the
American Educational Research Association (AERA),
the Center for Prevention Research and Development
(CPRD), and an array of independent researchers. Nu-
merous publications have documented the importance
of the middle grades including The Middle School We Need
(ASCD, 1975), This We Believe (NMSA, 1982, 1995, 2003,
2010), An Agenda for Excellence in Middle Level Education
(NASSP, 1985), Turning Points: Preparing American Youth
for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent
Development, 1989), Turning Points 2000: Educating Ad-
olescents in the 21st Century (Jackson & Davis, 2000) and
the Vision Statement of the National Forum to Accelerate
Middle-Grades Reform (2014). Notably, these distinc-
tive publications share common principles—ones that
undergird middle grades education. Together, they de-
scribe ongoing work to improve education for young
adolescents.
The purpose of the second edition of The Encyclope-
dia of Middle Grades Education is not only to build on the
aforementioned knowledge base, but also to update the
first edition (Anfara, Andrews, & Mertens, 2005). These
encyclopedias respond to the need for clear and con-
cise information about middle grades education. They
provide a jumping off point, an introduction, or broad
overview of a selected topic in middle grades education.
The first edition of The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades
Education was designed to be a comprehensive overview
of the field. It included seven anchor essays (5000 words)
that addressed a variety of broader topics (e.g., histo-
ry of the middle school movement; developmental re-
sponsiveness and social equity in middle grades schools;
future directions in relation to the movement, practic-
es, and policy). In addition to the anchor essays, the
Encyclopedia contained 156 alphabetically organized
entries (500 word short entries and 2000 word long en-
tries) that addressed important concepts, ideas, terms,
people, organizations, and seminal publications related
to middle level education. The entries were introduc-
tory with an overview of the topic followed by more de-
tailed information and references. Such an encyclope-
dia of middle grades education, the first in the field, was
beneficial to teacher preparation programs, graduate
level programs, higher education in general, advocates,
practitioners, and others.
Ten years following the publication of the first edi-
tion, the editors decided to update and expand the en-
tries in The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education. This
led to the development of the second edition, which
builds on the foundation of the inaugural edition. We
engaged in a deliberate process to update and expand
the Encyclopedia. To begin, we examined the content of
the first edition of the Encyclopedia to identify which en-
tries were current and still relevant to the field. Then,
we developed a list of new topics for entries that should
be added to expand the Encyclopedia. We decided to
forego the inclusion of anchor essays in the second edi-
tion of the Encyclopedia as these appeared as reprints or
updated versions in Research to Guide Practice in Middle
Grades Education (Andrews, 2013). Prior to sending out
a general call for submissions, the authors of first edition
entries were contacted and invited to revise their entry
for the second edition. Using a systematic approach of
soliciting entries on the identified topics, we collected
and edited nearly 200 entries on middle grades topics.
The result is a second edition of The Encyclopedia of Mid-
dle Grades Education with 212 entries (a 26% increase).
A number of entries in the first edition of the Encyclo-
pedia were not updated or revised for this edition. When
the original authors were not available to revise their en-
try, we were unable to solicit revised submissions from
them. Because these original entries were important for
a complete and comprehensive volume, we decided to
include reprints of several first edition entries. Entries
reprinted from the first edition of the Encyclopedia are
noted as such at the end of the entry.
As the current editors, we want to recognize and
thank the many individuals and groups who contribut-
ed to this edition. First and foremost, we acknowledge
Vincent A. Anfara, Jr. who identified the need for an
encyclopedia about middle grades education. Vince’s
vision became reality with the publication of The Ency-
clopedia of Middle Grades Education (Anfara et al., 2005).
He enlisted two co-editors, Gayle Andrews and Steve
Mertens to collaborate on the development and pro-
duction of the first edition of The Encyclopedia of Middle
Grades Education. Second, we thank all of the authors
who contributed their entries—long and short—that
provide the substantive content of the Encyclopedia.
Third, we applaud the members of Middle Level Ed-
ucation Research Special Interest Group (MLER SIG)
of the American Educational Research Association who
support this initiative. Last, we offer special thanks to
George Johnson and his company, Information Age
Publishing, for their enduring support of middle grades
education.

REFERENCES
Alexander, W. M., & George, P. S. (1981). The exemplary middle
school. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Andrews, P. G. (Ed.) (2013). Research to guide practice in middle
grades education. Westerville, OH: Association for Mid-
dle Level Education.
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Andrews, G., & Mertens, S. B. (Eds.). (2005).
The encyclopedia of middle grades education. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
(1975). The middle school we need. Washington, DC: Author.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turn-
ing points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century.
New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000:
Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Introduction to the Second Edition ◾ xxiii
National Association of Secondary School Principals Council
on Middle Level Education. (1985). An agenda for excel-
lence at the middle level. Reston, VA: Author.
National Education Association. (1965). Middle schools. Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (2014).
Vision and mission. Retrieved from http://middlegrades-
forum.org/vision-mission/
National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe.
Columbus, OH: Author.
National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe:
Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus,
OH: Author.
National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe:
Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH:
Author.
National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys
to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
This page intentionally left blank.
A CURRICULUM FOR THE
MIDDLE SCHOOL YEARS
A domains—captured nicely by the quote: “A teacher
Gary Weilbacher
Illinois State University
Published in 1978, A Curriculum for the Middle School Years
is a collaborative effort written by John H. Lounsbury
and Gordon F. Vars, two founders of the modern mid-
dle school movement. While the almost “psychedelic”
orange and blue cover is a function of its publication
date, the words inside provide a timeless framework for
planning the kind of curriculum that all young adoles-
cents deserve.
Unlike recent versions of curricular reform that min-
imize the influence and skills of the teacher, Lounsbury
and Vars begin their book by emphasizing the impor-
tance of staffing middle schools with a “special breed of
teacher” (1978, p. 1). From their perspective, teachers
need to not only be leaders in curriculum planning, but
they should genuinely like middle school students and
take the time to build a positive, caring environment
by forming authentic relationships with their students.
This emphasis on the importance of the relationships
among the human inhabitants of the school is a con-
sistent theme throughout the book, as Lounsbury and
Vars clearly describe the roles that teachers, adminis-
trators, students, and parents should play in creating a
relevant curriculum.
In order to build a relevant curriculum, teachers
need to have an advanced understanding of how ado-
lescents learn and where their interests lie. The third
chapter, “Curriculum Foundations,” details the impor-
tance of recognizing the dynamic changes that contin-
ually occur within the intellectual, social, and physical
The Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edition, pages 1–64
Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
quite literally faces a different group of children each
time he meets a particular class” (p. 36). In addition
to these constant changes, Lounsbury and Vars point
out the influence of the social and cultural milieu in
the lives of young adolescents. A considerable part of
the curriculum needs to assist students in their deci-
sion-making as they are faced with social situations in-
volving sex, drugs, violence, and additional issues that
challenge their safety and value systems. Finally, the
curriculum needs to provide students with an idea of
how knowledge is organized, but the authors shy away
from a disciplinary organization, indicating “that [the]
senior high school and college levels are quite early
enough to begin direct orientation to the scholarly dis-
ciplines” (p. 39).
In subsequent chapters, Lounsbury and Vars provide
detailed descriptions for the three components that
form their vision of a middle school curriculum: Core,
Continuous Progress, and Variable. The core is a prob-
lem-centered time block program that takes seriously
the questions and concerns of young adolescents by us-
ing those concerns as the organizing centers of units.
Unlike more current definitions of core (math, lan-
guage arts, science, and social studies) the disciplines of
language arts, social studies, and often science are used
to help the students study their concerns. Continuous
progress involves individualized, non-graded instruc-
tion in the “skills and concepts that have a genuine se-
quential organization” (p. 47). The disciplines of read-
ing, math, science, and foreign languages are included
in the continuous progress component. Finally, the vari-
able component contains, but is not limited to fine arts,
industrial arts, family consumer science, physical educa-
tion/health, and an array of options that are intended
to meet the individual interests of the students.
1
2 ◾ A MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM: FROM RHETORIC TO REALITY
REFERENCES
Lounsbury, J. H., & Vars, G. F. (1978). A curriculum for the mid-
dle school years. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
A MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM:
FROM RHETORIC TO REALITY
Janis D. Flint-Ferguson
Gordon College
In the 1993 second edition of James Beane’s ground-
breaking book on middle school curriculum, he re-
minds readers that real reform in the middle level has
yet to address reformation of the curriculum and that
it should: “After all, it is the curriculum, rather than
the grade level reorganization or teaming that defines
the value of schools for early adolescents” (Beane, 1993,
p. 107). He is right, of course, and Turning Points 2000:
Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century (Jackson & Da-
vis, 2000) picks up where he and Turning Points: Prepar-
ing American Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council
on Adolescent Development, 1989) leave off, calling for
a middle level curriculum that is based on essential con-
cepts, reflecting concerns of the young adolescent, and
linked to the ways in which student knowledge would
be assessed (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 43). Despite the
changes since 1993, Beane’s discussion on curriculum
remains an essential aspect of middle level education.
The text begins with a discussion of the question of
middle school curriculum and the various pressures
that come to bear on curriculum development. Beane
lists and defines the guidelines that need to be used in
addressing curriculum development. These guidelines
begin with a focus on general education, that which
is common for all students. Such a focus is in keeping
with education in the 21st century and the work to en-
sure success for all students through the Common Core
State Standards (National Governors Association Cen-
ter for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2010).
Beane’s curriculum adheres to the philosophy that
middle school is not the “‘farm system’ for high school,”
but rather a time in adolescent lives that should be fo-
cused on what they need to understand about them-
selves and others; he calls for the curriculum to “respect
[their] dignity” (Beane, 1993, p. 18). His guidelines go
on to call for curriculum that is “grounded in democra-
cy,” “honor[s] diversity,” “of personal and social signifi-
cance,” “lifelike and lively,” and finally “should enhance
knowledge and skills for all young people” (pp. 18–21).
His guidelines function as a mission statement, not
just middle school talk but truly those principles that
middle level reform efforts need to begin with and re-
turn to, as curriculum is written and delivered. As such
they stand up in discussions on curriculum reform. In
Beane’s model the curriculum is organized around the-
matic units “drawn from the intersecting concerns of
early adolescents and issues in the larger world” (p. 68).
He does not set the specific concerns that need to be
addressed but holds to the developmental concerns and
issues of the young adolescent, recognizing that those
issues, subjects, skills, and concepts may be different for
different groups of students. Although written 25 years
ago, Beane’s proposal advocates for responsive teach-
ing; curriculum planning that aligns with young adoles-
cents themselves, their unique needs and development.
So it is that Beane’s call for a middle level curriculum
remains as timely as ever. With standards and new, na-
tional, standardized tests, the central focus on the devel-
opmental needs of young adolescents remains the heart
of the middle level and good education. Beane’s epi-
logue still rings true; it is always best practice “to put our
efforts squarely where our rhetoric has been” (p. 107).
REFERENCES
Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric
to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle
School Association.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turn-
ing points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century.
New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000:
Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common
Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
ABILITY GROUPING
Kevin Duquette
Phillips Middle School, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Ability grouping is the practice of separating students
into homogenous learning groups based on real or
perceived academic ability. Students are commonly
grouped by: classroom grades, standardized test scores,
locally or nationally developed achievement tests, and/
or teacher recommendation. Supporters of ability
grouping believe that students learn best surrounded
by students of similar academic ability, while opponents
of the practice believe that it creates and perpetuates
achievement gaps.

Grouping students can occur within-class or be-
tween-classes. Within-class grouping includes students
from a heterogeneous class separating into smaller
groups within the same classroom. Within-class group-
ing is most commonly used for reading and math in-
struction, and is generally found in elementary schools
where one teacher covers all core subjects (Loveless,
2013). Grouping allows the teacher to float around the
room and deliver targeted instruction based on group
need rather than providing whole class instruction.
Between-class grouping, also known as “tracking” sep-
arates students into homogenous classes based on abil-
ity. Between-class grouping is seen in middle and high
schools, where students have multiple teachers, and may
include students across different grade-levels. Separating
classes based on ability allows teachers more time to cre-
ate curricula centered on the needs of each class: deliv-
ering remediation and additional practice for low-ability
level classes and providing enhancement and enrich-
ment activities for students in higher ability classrooms.
Since its inception, ability grouping has been a point
of controversy and experienced an ebb and flow of pop-
ularity and support. The public attitude towards ability
grouping has often shadowed the educational ideology
of the time.
HISTORY
The earliest instances of tracking students were in the
late 19th and early 20th century. With the industrial
revolution in full swing, schools began funneling stu-
dents into academic or vocational educational tracks
(Rosenthal, 2008). Ability grouping rose in popularity
in the first quarter of the 20th century alongside the
use of intelligence testing in public education. In the
1930s and 1940s, the effectiveness and fairness of abil-
ity groups were called into question and they became
less common.
In the mid-20th century, foreign and domestic fac-
tors brought changes to public education. The civil
rights movement and Supreme Court decisions such
as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) desegre-
gated schools, which led to some districts using ability
grouping as a form of de facto segregation. Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act (1964), and numerous court cases
throughout the 1950s and 1960s challenged the use of
ability grouping in this manner. In 1957, following the
launching of Sputnik, fear of the United States falling
behind foreign countries’ technological achievements
placed emphasis on science and math instruction, and
led to an increase in student grouping (Vergon, 2008).
The prominence of grouping peaked in the 1960s
during which roughly 80% of elementary schools re-
ported using within-class grouping (Loveless, 2013).
ABILITY GROUPING ◾ 3
In the 1970s, the practice fell in popularity, a trend
that continued into the 1980s and 1990s and became
known as the “de-tracking movement.” This movement
was supported by studies criticizing the use of abili-
ty groups as discriminatory, and the tendency for low
SES and minority students to be over-represented in
low-ability groups.
In recent years, ability grouping has seen a surge in
popularity. This may be due in part to the increased fo-
cus on standardized testing brought on by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). Recent data show that
the use of ability grouping is at the highest it has been
since the 1960s, with 71% of elementary schools report-
ing their use in 2009 (Loveless, 2013).
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABILITY GROUPING
Though ability grouping has been utilized in the Amer-
ican education system for over 100 years, the research
continues to paint a conflicting picture on whether it
is effective for students. Some studies show grouping
to be beneficial for all students (Kulik & Kulik, 1989;
Moses, 1966; Provus, 1960; Puzio & Colby, 2010; Slavin
& Karweit, 1984) while others show a negative effect of
ability grouping (Davis & Tracy, 1963). Perhaps most
controversially, some studies show a benefit for students
of high-ability and a detriment to students of low-ability
(Condron, 2008; Hoffer, 1992; Lleras & Rangel, 2008;
Lou et al., 1996).
The research results are further complicated be-
cause many studies examined within-class grouping
only, which is often done at the elementary level and
typically isolated to reading and mathematics instruc-
tion. Additionally, many of studies are very old, so their
generalizability to today’s youth remains in question.
The research on middle-school specific ability grouping
found the practice to benefit advanced students while
being detrimental to slower students, though research
in this area is limited (Hoffer, 1992).
ABILITY GROUPING IN MIDDLE SCHOOL
There are limited studies that examine the effects of
ability grouping on early adolescence. It is postulated
that being tracked will raise the self-esteem of high-abil-
ity students while lowering the self-esteem of low-ability
students. The research, though limited, shows the op-
posite to be true, however the overall effects of ability
grouping on self-esteem are small (Kulik, 1993). In ad-
dition, ability grouping in early adolescence is connect-
ed to a number of other factors including: peer group,
parent and teacher expectations, and general school
anxiety—which make it more difficult to isolate and
measure the effects of ability grouping.
4 ◾ ABILITY GROUPING
Ability grouping may also affect students’ social de-
velopment. Unlike heterogeneous classes, students in
tracked classes will be surrounded by students of sim-
ilar academic ability. Noting the tendency for ability
grouping to stratify along socioeconomic and racial
lines, students in a tracked class will also have a high-
er likelihood of being surrounded by students who are
similar to them demographically (Schofield, 2011).
Middle school is a time in which friendships are most
influential to students’ lives, and hold implications for
school adjustment and levels of emotional distress (Ber-
ndt, 1979; Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004). The use
of ability grouping may artificially narrow students’ so-
cial circles and social interactions, which affect other
aspects of student well-being.
ATTITUDES TOWARDS ABILITY GROUPING
Support for ability groups has often come from par-
ents of high achieving students who argue that being
in a heterogeneous learning environment negatively
impacts their children’s education, and that the slow-
er pace leads to boredom and disinterest. There is also
some research to suggest that high-ability students do
benefit from being in separate “higher track” classes, es-
pecially when the curriculum is better designed to meet
their needs (Kulik & Kulik, 1991).
Teachers in favor of ability grouping believe that
“mixed ability” classes lead higher achieving students
to feel bored, and struggling students to feel lost (Bur-
ton-Szabo, 1996). Teachers have even gone as far as
stating that whole class instruction of heterogeneous
classes is at times, “impossible” (Loveless, 2013, p. 20).
Admittedly, between-class grouping of students may
make planning easier for teachers, as they can better
differentiate their lesson plans to meet the needs of
students in each class, rather than teaching across the
ability spectrum in all classes. However, despite support
from both teachers and parents, the practice of ability
grouping is often criticized.
The main criticism of ability grouping is that it pro-
motes and maintains inequality between groups of stu-
dents that only grow over time. Opponents cite the role
of teacher expectations on student achievement, argu-
ing that grouping students based on perceived ability
changes student and teacher expectations, creating a
self-fulfilling prophecy of low-achievement. Addition-
al research has also shown that students in low-ability
groups get taught by less qualified teachers than those
in high-ability groups (Education Trust, 2004).
Other criticisms target the make-up of ability
groupings, calling them inequitable. Students may be
grouped as early as the beginning elementary school
years, a time at which many students, especially those
of minority backgrounds, have not yet mastered funda-
mental math and reading skills. As a result, low-ability
groups tend to have an overrepresentation of impover-
ished and minority students. The composition of ability
groups is not revisited on a regular basis, so mobility
between groups is difficult, and becomes nearly impos-
sible as students get older. Students who start off in a
lower-track are typically stuck in that track for the re-
mainder of their school careers.
The content of classes has also come under fire. De-
spite being separated by ability, students in between-class
groupings are commonly taught from the same curric-
ulum, meaning that teachers cannot truly differentiate
instruction based on student-need. When all students are
required to use the same curriculum, but are split into
different ability groups, it leads to low-ability classes fo-
cusing on menial tasks and behavior management while
high-ability classes move quickly through material and
work on enrichment activities (Education Trust, 2004).
THE FUTURE OF ABILITY GROUPING
As the history of ability grouping shows, what is heav-
ily practiced in one decade may become seldom used
in the next. The future of ability groupings is unclear,
but given the current emphasis on standardized testing
and data driven instruction, and with no viable systemic
alternative, it appears that they will continue to be an
important part of the public school system. However,
the recent adoption of the Common Core standards
(National Governors Association Center for Best Prac-
tices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010),
and the movement towards standardizing curriculum
nationwide may have an effect on the prominence of
ability grouping.
Theoretically, if all students are held to the same
standard and expected to meet the same expectations
with appropriate supports, the need for ability groups
would diminish. In the mean time, it is important that
teachers continue to differentiate instruction to meet
student needs whether classes are grouped heteroge-
neously or homogeneously. Regardless of what schools
decide, the use of ability groups holds implications for a
child’s school experience and should not be used hap-
hazardly. If they are to be used, they should be re-visited
regularly, and allow for flexibility between groups as to
not perpetuate a cycle of inequity that exists in our na-
tion’s schools.
REFERENCES
Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity
to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15(6),
608–616.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Burton-Szabo, S. (1996). Special classes for gifted students? Ab-
solutely. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 19(1), 12–15, 50.
Condron, D. (2008). An early start: Skill grouping and un-
equal reading gains in elementary years. The Sociological
Quarterly, 49(2), 363–394.
Davis, O. L., & Tracy, N. H. (1963). Arithmetic achievement
and instructional grouping. Arithmetic Teacher, 10(1),
12–17.
Education Trust, The. (2004). The real value of teachers. Re-
trieved from http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/pdf/Ed%20
Trust.pdf
Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and stu-
dent achievement in science and mathematics. Educa-
tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 205–227.
Loveless, T. (2013). How well are American students learning?
(2013). Brown Center Report on American Education, 3(2),
12–21.
Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping:
Historical and contemporary perspectives (RBDM 9204).
Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Re-
search Center on the Gifted and Talented. (ERIC Docu-
ment Reproduction Service No. ED 367 095). Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367095.pdf
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1989). The effects of ability group-
ing on student achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23(1–
2), 22–30.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik C. L. (1991). Ability grouping and gifted
students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Hand-
book of gifted education (pp. 178–196). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Lleras, C., & Rangel C. (2008). Ability grouping practice in
elementary school and African American/Hispanic
achievement. American Journal of Education, 115(2),
279–204.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers,
B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping:
A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),
423–458.
Moses, P. J. (1966). A study on the effects of inter-class group-
ing on achievement in reading. Dissertation Abstracts 26,
4342 (University Microfilms No. 66-741).
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common
Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-
110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Provus, M. M. (1960). Ability grouping in mathematics. Ele-
mentary School Journal, 60(7), 391–398.
Puzio, K., & Colby, G. (2010). The effects of within class
grouping on reading achievement: A meta-analytic syn-
thesis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
514 135). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/full-
text/ED514135.pdf
Rosenthal, J. (2008). Ability grouping. In V. Parillo (Ed.), En-
cyclopedia of social problems (pp. 1–3). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Schofield, J. (2011). Ability grouping. In S. Goldstein & J. A.
Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and develop-
ment (pp. 3–5). New York, NY: Springer.
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ◾ 5
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. (1984, April). Within-class ability
grouping and student achievement. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 794(a).
Vergon, C. (2008). Ability grouping. In C. Russo (Ed.), Ency-
clopedia of education law (pp. 2–5). Thousand Oaks. CA:
SAGE.
Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships
in middle school: Influences on motivation and school
adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2),
195–203.
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Mark L’Esperance
East Carolina University
Academic achievement may be the most sensitive of
all middle level topics. From the initial days of William
Alexander’s (1963) paper articulating the vision and
components of the “middle school of the future” that
centered on meeting the developmental needs of early
adolescence, the movement has evolved into the four
essential attributes and 16 characteristics of a successful
middle level education outlined in This We Believe: Keys
to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School
Association, 2010). In his 1990 landmark book, A Middle
School Curriculum: From Rhetoric to Reality, Beane posited
the following question: “What ought to be the middle
school curriculum?” (p. 1). Twenty-five years later as
public schools navigate the Common Core curriculum
era, the issue of P–12 accountability creates a new ques-
tion to consider. The question now becomes to what ex-
tent, if any, are middle level students’ academic achieve-
ment impacted by the curriculum and other middle
level components? The answer to this question will have
a major bearing on the future of the movement.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
In this “manifesto,” Lounsbury (2009) summarized mid-
dle level research studies related to academic achieve-
ment. He stated:
Major research studies, including some involving net-
works of schools that have practiced the middle school
tenets sufficiently, have made it possible to claim with
confidence: When the middle school concept is imple-
mented substantially over time, student achievement,
including measures by standardized tests, rises, and
substantial improvement in fulfilling the other broader,
more enduring goals of an education results. (p. 34)
6 ◾ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
The reality of the middle level movement is that specific
studies that align with agreed upon components or char-
acteristics of middle level education that impact academ-
ic achievement haven’t been conducted at a national lev-
el. Analyzing the 1964–1984 period related to research
on middle level education, Johnston (1984) outlined
nine conclusions in which effective schools share certain
characteristics that may be replicated in other school set-
tings, but with uncertain success. Johnston stated,
Effective schools emerge from a complex set of cultural
and social factors that focus attention on academic per-
formance, support academic growth in a manner con-
sistent with the developmental stage of the youngster,
and build an intellectual community that rewards and
reinforces academic pursuits in its public rituals and
private interactions. (p. 152)
Over the period of the next several years following
Johnston’s research, middle level researchers contin-
ued to examine components of the middle level mo-
ment that were published in Transforming Middle Level
Education: Perspectives and Possibilities (Irvin, 1992). The
20-chapter volume provided a synthesis of conceptual
and research based discussions by leaders of the middle
level movement. The chapters ranged from the middle
level developing a sense of identity, responsiveness and
relevance to support systems for continued improve-
ment. David Strahan’s (1992) chapter, Turning Points
and Beyond: Coming of Age in Middle Level Research was
developed to provide a research framework for the mid-
dle level movement to consider. Strahan proposed the
following framework to improve middle level research
that included:
1. We need to accelerate our efforts to develop an
agenda for research to guide our agenda for
action.
2. We need to be more innovative in investigating
the “intangibles” of middle schooling.
3. We need to continue to articulate more explicit
standards for conducting and reporting research.
The quote above by Lounsbury (2009) makes reference
to the Felner et al. (1997) research that used the Turn-
ing Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century
(Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989)
framework to study a network of schools in Illinois. Ad-
ditional studies were able to replicate many of these
findings with larger samples of middle level schools
in other states and regions (Flowers, Mertens, & Mul-
hall, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). The research studies found
that students attending schools that have made the
highest levels of structural changes consistent with the
Turning Points framework achieve at higher rates than
other schools with less structurally embedded changes.
These studies has become arguably the most cited that
supports the middle level movement in relation to aca-
demic achievement. Additionally, Mertens and Anfara’s
(2006) research summary, Student Achievement and the
Middle School Concept (2006) and Trimble’s research
summary, What Works to Improve Student Achievement?
(2003), reports the research in relation to schools and
achievement. Trimble (2003) stated:
A prodigious amount of literature exists on middle level
schools and practices, however, far less research exits
that documents improved student achievement and
school variables. No national study has been conducted
of the relationships between student achievement data
and middle school factors. However, regional studies of
whole-school reform initiatives that examined multiple
school sites and achievement first appeared in 1997
(Backes, Ralston, & Ingwalson, 1999; DePascale, 1997;
Felner et al., 1997; Felner, Lipsitz, & Mertens, 1998, Mac
Iver, et al., 2001; Mac Iver, Mac Iver, Balfanz, Blank, &
Ruby, 2000; Mertens, Flowers, & Mulhall, 1998). Oth-
er types of studies included case studies of high-per-
forming middle schools (Miles & Darling-Hammond,
1998; Trimble, 2002), and school-wide factors, such as
climate, as they related to math achievement and atten-
dance (Phillips, 1997). (¶ 12)
The historical research theme of the middle level has
centered on case studies of schools, districts, and/or
networks that plan, implement and intentionally focus
on key components of middle level education. These
case studies provide evidence that there is a variance of
academic achievement depending on the depth of im-
plementation of a particular component (L’Esperance
et al., 2003; L’Esperance, Farrington, & Fryer, 2005;
L’Esperance, Lenker, Bullock, Jackson, & Mason, 2013).
By working with several schools and school districts in
North Carolina, L’Esperance and his colleagues have
created a framework that supports middle level schools
with a best practice implementation process that empha-
sizes instructional leadership and collaboration at every
level. The descriptor used to define these cases of effec-
tive schools or districts became known as “Schools of Sig-
nificance.” L’Esperance and colleagues, (2003) stated:
They have been transformed and empowered by the
collective vision of entire school communities. Their
cultures are rich with indicators of broad and deep re-
newal with data to support the focus on both academics
and community. Schools of Significance have destina-
tions in mind that are constantly articulated by school
leaders who have developed a model that serves as a
“road map” to bring the vision into more concrete and
understandable terms. Schools of Significance are in a
constant mode of reflection, and numerous data sourc-
es provide a check on the pulse of these schools. Schools
of Significance are data directed not data driven. These

middle schools are driven by a clear purpose—to be-
come student-centered communities that provide aca-
demic achievement for all students! In Schools of Sig-
nificance, students are engaged in relevant learning
opportunities every day. Teachers collaborate to provide
integrated instruction with a variety of age-appropriate
activities. They share in the school’s decision-making
process and involve parents in the school’s achievement
efforts. Students in Schools of Significance take pride
in the concepts of respect, safety, and learning. (p. 5)
CURRENT PUSH BACK ON THE MIDDLE LEVEL
Over the past 10 years, two federal initiatives, No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) and Race to The Top
(U.S. Department of Education, 2009) have accelerat-
ed the culture of accountability on public school dis-
tricts. A number of studies focusing on the economic
viability of middle school (Goodman, 2012), or how to
determine the appropriate configuration to place fifth
through eighth graders (Rockoff & Lockwood, 2010;
Schwerdt & West 2011), drew conclusions that question
middle schools ability to raise academic achievement
and act as an appropriate setting in the transition of
students entering sixth grade or exiting eighth grade.
The narrow focus of each of the above studies appears
to directly align with what Andrews, Caskey, and Anfara
(2007) warns researchers to examine the characteristics
of exemplary schools in that:
Two dangers are associated with any list purporting to
include the characteristics of exemplary schools for
young adolescents. One danger is a perception that
the list is exhaustive—that it includes everything that
needs to be considered. In reality, a list cannot capture
the subtleties and complexities of schooling. A second
danger is that each component will be seen as somehow
self-contained, something that can be addressed in iso-
lation. (p. 4)
THE CONSIDERATION
The question the middle level movement must ask itself
is how can we as a movement balance the characteris-
tics of This We Believe (NMSA, 2010) while addressing
the critics of the middle level movement that argue that
middle schools fail to raise academic achievement. A
promising study that looks at academic achievement
also provides some clear direction for future middle
level researchers (Williams, Kirst, & Haertel, 2010).
Throughout the 2008–09 school year researchers con-
ducted a large-scale study of middle grades schools in
California. The team surveyed 303 principals, 3,752
English language arts and math teachers in grades 6–8,
and 157 superintendents of the districts and charter
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ◾ 7
management organizations that oversee the schools.
Several key findings and implications included:
• An intense school-wide focus on improving aca-
demic outcomes most distinguishes higher- from
lower-performing middle grades schools.
• Higher-performing schools use assessment and
other student data extensively to improve stu-
dent learning and teacher practice.
• Higher-performing middle grades schools
emphasize early identification and proactive
intervention for student academic needs.
• Every role in a professional community of edu-
cators is important to making gains in middle
grades student outcomes.
• Leadership of the superintendent and support
from the district were strongly associated with
higher student outcomes.
• The changing role of the principal in driving
student outcome gains, orchestrating school
improvement efforts, and serving as the linchpin
between district and teaching staff members was
documented in multiple ways in this study.
• Teachers with strong competencies, substan-
tive evaluation of their practice, and adequate
availability of support, time, and resources work
collectively to improve student outcomes school-
wide and individually to improve instruction.
• The school’s environment and organization of
time and instruction were not strongly associated
with improved student outcomes, although some
practices were associated with higher-performing
schools. (Williams, Kirst, & Haertel, 2010).
Implications for districts and schools included:
• Superintendents and boards overseeing grades
6–8 students should discuss the priority they give
to academic improvements in the middle grades.
• The results of this study should encourage prin-
cipals to engage their staff members and their
teachers in conversations about their mission for
the middle grades in their schools. Educators
in the middle grades have long believed that re-
sponsiveness to young adolescent developmental
issues and strong adult-student relationships are
a central part of the middle grades imperative.
They are, but so is academic learning.
• Prioritize strategies for helping students make
gains on standards-based exams in the context of
the middle grades’ unique position in the K–12
hierarchy to prepare all students to succeed in
high school.
• When hiring middle grades principals, districts
should consider looking for the kind of skills
8 ◾ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
and competencies found in principals of the
higher-performing schools in our study.
• When hiring middle grades teachers, districts and
principals should consider looking for the kinds
of interests, skills, and competencies that princi-
pals in higher-performing schools report about
their teachers (Williams, Kirst, & Haertel, 2010).
THE FUTURE
Revisiting Strahan’s (1985) framework for future mid-
dle level research, as outlined above, may be the key
to supporting the middle level movement during the
new age of accountability. There needs to be a specific
AMLE research agenda that addresses the area of aca-
demic achievement. The middle level movement needs
to develop a framework that establishes “a fidelity of
implementation” of the essential attributes and charac-
teristics outlined in This We Believe (NMSA, 2010). The
framework would include the minimum context, con-
tent, and competency of each attribute and character-
istic that middle level schools and researchers can use
to ensure appropriate implementation is taking place.
Researchers can then begin to categorize networks, dis-
tricts, and/or schools that provide evidence of embed-
ding and begin to look at the “intangibles” or variance
that exist amongst schools. Finally, in order to make
the case that true middle level schools raise academic
achievement; we must as Strahan stated “continue to
articulate more explicit standards for conducting and
reporting research” (1985, p. 395).
REFERENCES
Alexander, W. M. (1963). The junior high school: A changing
view. Paper presented at Tenth Annual Conference for
School Administrators: A National Conference on the
Junior High School, Nashville, TN.
Andrews, P. G., Caskey, M. M., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2007).
Research summary: Characteristics of exemplary schools for
young adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.amle.
org/Portals/0/pdf/research_summaries/Exemplary_
Schools.pdf
Backes, J., Ralston, A., & Ingwalson, G. (1999). Middle level
reform: The impact on student achievement. Research in
Middle Level Education Quarterly, 22(3), 43–57.
Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric
to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle
School Association.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turn-
ing points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century.
New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
DePascale, C. A. (1997). Education reform restructuring network:
Impact documentation report. Data Analysis & Testing As-
sociates, Inc. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of
Education.
Felner, R., Jackson, A., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand. S., &
Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of school reform for the
middle years: A longitudinal study of a network engaged
in Turning Points-based comprehensive school transfor-
mation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 528–532, 541–550.
Felner, R. F, Lipsitz, J., & Mertens, S. B. (1998). The Middle
Start Initiative, Phase I: A longitudinal analysis of Michigan
middle-level schools. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. (1999). The impact
of teaming: Five research-based outcomes of teaming.
Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57–60.
Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000a). How
teaming influences classroom practices. Middle School
Journal, 32(2), 52–59.
Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000b).What
makes interdisciplinary teams effective? Middle School
Journal, 31(4), 53–56.
Goodman, J. (2012). Gold standards?: State standards reform and
student achievement. Program on Education Policy and
Governance Working Papers Series 12-05. Cambridge,
MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance.
Irvin, J. (1992). Transforming middle level education: Perspectives
and possibilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnston, J. H. (1984). A synthesis of research findings on
middle level education. In J. Lounsbury (Ed.), Perspec-
tives: Middle school education 1964–1984 (pp. 134–156).
Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
L’Esperance, M., Strahan, D., Farrington, V., & Anderson, P.
(2003). Raising achievement: Project genesis, a significant
school model. Columbus, OH: National Middle School
Association.
L’Esperance, M., & Farrington, V. T. (2007). The search for
significance: Leadership lessons from the field. North
Carolina Middle School Journal, 22(1), 1–5. Retrieved
from http://www.ncmle.org/journal/archives.html
L’Esperance, M., Farrington, V. T., & Fryer, A. (2005). Creat-
ing significant middle schools in the age of accountabil-
ity. Middle Ground, 10(9), 35–39.
L’Esperance, M., Lenker, E., Bullock, A., Jackson, B., & Ma-
son, C. (2013). Creating a middle level environment
that significantly improves student achievement. Middle
School Journal, 44(5), 32–39.
Lounsbury, J. H. (2009). Deferred but not deterred: A middle
school manifesto. Middle School Journal, 40(5), 31–36.
Mac Iver, D., Mac Iver, M., Balfanz, R., Blank, S. B., & Ruby, A.
(2000). Talent development middle schools: Blueprint
and results for a comprehensive whole-school model.
In W. M. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk:
Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and
minority students (pp. 261–288). Mahwey, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mac Iver, D., Young, E., Balfanz, R., Shaw, A., Garriott, M., &
Cohen, A. (2001). High-quality learning opportunities
in high poverty middle schools: Moving from rhetoric
to reality. In T. Dickinson (Ed.), Reinventing the middle
school (155–175). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Mertens, S. B., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2006). Research summa-
ry: Student achievement and the middle school concept. Re-
trieved from http://www.amle.org/Portals/0/pdf/re-
search_summaries/Student_Achievement.pdf

Mertens, S. B., & Flowers, N., (2003, February). The impact of
middle grades certification on student performance: The proof
is in the practices. Paper presented at the Symposium on
Middle Level Teacher Preparation, National Middle
School Association, Charlotte, NC.
Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., & Mulhall, P. (1998). The Middle
Start Initiative, Phase I: A Longitudinal Analysis of Michi-
gan Middle-Level Schools. Champaign: Center for Preven-
tion Research and Development, University of Illinois.
Miles, K. H., & 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.
National Middle School Association (2010). This we believe: Keys
to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–
110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Phillips, M. (1997). What makes schools effective? A compar-
ison of the relationships of communitarian climate and
academic climate to mathematics achievement and at-
tendance during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 34(4), 633–662.
Rockoff, J. E., & Lockwood, B. B. (2010). Stuck in the middle:
Impacts of grade configuration in public schools. Jour-
nal of Public Economics 94(11–12), 1051–1061.
Schwerdt, G., & West, M. (2011). The impact of alternative grade
configuratons on student out-comes through middle and high
school. Working Paper 11-02. Cambridge, MA: Program
on Policy and Governance.
Strahan, D. (Ed.). (1985). Middle school research: Selected studies
1985. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Strahan, D. (1992). Turning points and beyond: Coming of
age in middle level research. In J. Irvin (Ed.), Trans-
forming middle level education: Perspectives and Possibilities
(pp. 381–399). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Trimble, S. (2002). Common elements of high performing,
high poverty middle schools. Middle School Journal,
33(4), 7–16.
Trimble, S. (2003). Research summary: What works to improve
student achievement? Retrieved from http://www.ncmle.
org/research%20summaries/ressum20.html
Williams, T., Kirst, M., & Haertel, E. (2010). Gaining ground in
the middle grades: Why some schools do better: A large-scale
study of middle grades practices and student outcomes. Moun-
tain View, CA: EdSource.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top exec-
utive summary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
Gena M. Bramlett
Contributor from 1st edition
The term “academic excellence” refers to one of the
four essential components of high-performing middle
grades schools. In order to achieve its goal of improved
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE ◾ 9
academic and developmental outcomes for all young
adolescents, the National Forum to Accelerate Mid-
dle-Grades Reform articulates best middle grades prac-
tices through this evaluation criteria. According to the
National Forum, “high performing schools with middle
grades are academically excellent. They challenge all
students to use their minds well” (National Forum to
Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, n.d.a). As its vision
emerged, the National Forum sought to impact class-
rooms with schools to model exceptional middle grades
instruction and structures. In 1999, a new initiative,
Schools to Watch, emerged leading to what is now a na-
tionallyendorsed recognition system for middle schools
(National Forum, n.d.b).
To transport the vision into fruition, members of the
National Forum further developed these four essential
concepts: academic excellence, developmental respon-
siveness, social equity, and effective organizational struc-
tures and processes. Through its Schools to Watch pro-
gram, the National Forum has determined the criteria
for identifying high-performing middle-grades schools,
forged tools so that schools could utilize the criteria,
selected and honored four high-performing schools
across the country, made on-line tours to showcase those
schools’ successful practices, and then expanded the se-
lection program to individual states (National Forum,
n.d.b). Therefore, numerous schools and educators
have been able to seek recognition, to self-assess school
practices, and to pursue effective educational structures
to support young adolescents through the use of the cri-
teria. Ultimately, academically excellent schools aspire
to lead all young adolescents to educational success.
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
AND SCHOOL CURRICULUM
A significant component of academic excellence is
the notion that all students are expected to meet high
academic standards. Middle level education in the
21st century warrants a careful understanding of local,
state, and federal standards, yet high achievement for
all students supersedes mere standardized test scores.
According to This We Believe, Successful Schools for Young
Adolescents (2003), the National Middle School Associa-
tion (NMSA) advocates that if all members of a school
are expected to meet high standards—adults and young
people alike—high achievement results. Schools that
meet the needs of young adolescents conscientiously
dedicate themselves to analyzing such standards and,
consequently, augmenting a meaningful curriculum.
For example, by providing students with exemplars of
high quality work that meet the academic standard,
teachers can guide students to achieving academic ex-
cellence and provide them with clear expectations. In
10 ◾ ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
such a way, educators translate expectations into tangi-
ble products (NMSA, 2003). Teachers can also utilize
scoring guides like rubrics and checklists for projects
and activities. Likewise, high-performing schools en-
courage students to consistently revise their work based
on teacher and peer feedback until they meet or exceed
the established performance standards. In such ways,
educators inspire their students to perform well and
lead them to greater academic achievement.
Academic excellence is highly reliant on a school’s
curriculum, instruction, and assessment simultaneous-
ly aligning with high standards. According to Turning
Points 2000: Education Adolescents in the 21st Century, “cur-
riculum defines the specifics of what students should
learn: the concepts and generalizations, the related top-
ics and facts, and the skills and habits of mind that will
enable learning” (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 40). As edu-
cators work to develop an academically excellent curric-
ulum, assessments should determine what students real-
ly know. With a developmentally appropriate rigor and
an avoidance of repetition, a curriculum should propel
young adolescents through their middle school years.
Ideally, the level of student work should increase from
the school year’s beginning to end and from one grade
to the next. Therefore, schools seeking academic excel-
lence carefully align their curriculum, instruction, and
assessment tools to ensure that their students’ learning
is intentionally and meaningfully developed.
An academically excellent curriculum emphasizes
the deep understanding of important concepts, devel-
opment of essential skills, and the ability to apply new
knowledge to real-world problems. Concepts are those
“big picture ideas” that are the foundation for a unit of
study and draw connections across the disciplines (Jack-
son & Davis, 2000). Furthermore, by linking curriculum
across the disciplines, such important concepts are re-
inforced; a relevant curriculum depends on an integra-
tive approach. Likewise, students learn problem-solving
skills in order to critically examine skills; they learn how
to perform research and analyze. For instance, students
may use writing skills in math and science class to explain
their approaches to problem solving. In high performing
schools, both strategies and content evolve while class-
rooms purposefully adapt to the ever-changing needs of
students. A relevant curriculum is a vehicle that moves
students beyond mere memorization and isolated facts
into an analysis of overarching ideas (Anfara et al., 2003).
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE IN THE CLASSROOM
By employing both challenging and engaging instruc-
tional strategies, important concepts and skills can be
taught more effectively. Although each young adoles-
cent is developmentally unique, vast cognitive growth
occurs between the ages of 10 and 15 (NMSA, 2003).
Therefore, students are capable of being active partic-
ipants in the learning process. An academically excel-
lent classroom should encourage students’ abilities to
hypothesize, organize information, and analyze cause-
and-effect relationships. Teachers dedicated to academ-
ic excellence invite students to critically process their
own learning, so that they are able to explain learning
goals for all classroom projects and activities. Such au-
thentic learning occurs when students are genuinely
excited about learning and want to talk about it. Many
times students may participate in activities that person-
ally interest them, and their teachers allow them to de-
sign their own projects. Using a variety of instructional
approaches, teachers can incorporate the use of tech-
nology, the arts, the media, and group work. In fact,
many schools have embellished the notions of hands-
on learning activities and embraced what is known as
“hands-joined” activities that promote the collaboration
of teachers and students (NMSA, 2003). Ownership and
choice motivate young adolescents, and they master
standards when teachers utilize a variety of methods to
capitalize on those classroom attributes.
Academic excellence is also apparent in exemplary
classrooms which utilize a variety of quality methods to
assess student performance. According to This We Be-
lieve: Successful Schools for Young Adolescents, assessment
is “the process of estimating a students’ progress to-
ward an objective and using that information to help
students continue their learning” (NMSA, 2003, p. 27).
Although traditional quizzes or tests may be used fre-
quently, they are not the sole means for assessing stu-
dents’ critical thinking, independence, responsibility,
or other life-long skills (Anfara et al., 2003). Teachers
can assess student learning in the classroom on a daily
basis with informal checks for understanding like oral
questions, classroom discussions, and general observa-
tions. Additionally, projects and performance tasks pro-
vide students with meaningful opportunities to demon-
strate learning and offer their teachers greater insight
into both their own practice as well as students’ intel-
lectual growth. Portfolios, or accumulated collections
of student products and reflections, provide evidence
of a student’s academic accomplishments. In high-per-
forming schools, students can explain their products
and compare them to performance standards. They can
use scoring to critique their own work as well as that of
their classmates (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Many times,
students are invigorated by the opportunity to present
their learning to parents and community members, too.
As middle grades educators seek to balance between the
demands of standardized tests and young adolescent
needs, varied assessment methods must be designed to
complement both curriculum and instruction in order
to promote academic achievement.

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE SUPPORTED
BY SCHOOL STRUCTURES
A school seeking academic excellence realizes the im-
portance of best utilizing its instructional minutes and al-
lows students time to meet those rigorous learning stan-
dards. A flexible time arrangement, a characteristic of
middle grades schools, allows teams of teachers to sched-
ule instructional time in flexible time periods to better
meet the academic as well as social needs of students.
Team teachers can autonomously vary both the frequen-
cy and order of classes as well as lengthen or shorten
class periods. Extending the regular schedule can offer
students more time for projects, hands-on activities, and
inquiry-based learning. Because time is such a precious
commodity in American middle schools, classroom min-
utes should be devoted to teaching and learning instead
of classroom management issues or discipline problems.
As a result, students can feel empowered to learn, not
just do as their teachers tell them to do.
High-performing schools recognize that young ado-
lescents may need significant academic support systems
in order to help students reach high academic stan-
dards. With a keen awareness that middle grades learn-
ers bring with them numerous learning styles and—in
many cases—a variety of learning challenges, teachers
should understand their modalities and offer students
different ways to learn. In order to advance academic
success for all learners, teachers should know students
have or have not learned; they work to eliminate stu-
dents falling behind in class. In the event of academ-
ic difficulty, students can get the extra help they need
in order to be successful. Many schools form support
teams comprised of school personnel like the teachers,
administrators, school nurse, social worker, guidance
counselor, and sometime community health representa-
tives. The team regularly discusses concerns and offers
recommendations to bolster student achievement and
solutions that involve the student, parents, and his/her
teachers (Jackson & Davis, 2000). If students have dif-
ficulties learning, academically excellent schools dedi-
cate themselves to offering students extra time for work
and the opportunity to revise the work. Furthermore,
many schools use advisory time to promote academic
skills and support academic difficulties. Academically
excellent schools offer students multiple opportunities
to succeed and promote various structures like before
or after school tutoring programs when students need
extra help.
In order to embed academic excellence, profession-
al development is a vital link to school-wide success.
High-performing schools esteem teacher collaboration
so that they may reflect on instruction, expand on their
knowledge, and form supporting school structures.
By working with colleagues, educators make decisions
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE ◾ 11
about their curriculum and refine their instructional
practices. Academically excellent schools value observ-
ing one another’s classrooms and invest time reviewing
various forms of pertinent student data like student
work samples or state test scores. In order to yield high-
er school performance, schools review their progress
by closely examining these data forms and then create
targeted staff learning programs accordingly. Mean-
while, the building administrator serves as an informed
instructional leader and a resource for his/her staff
’s professional growth. In a high-performing school,
school improvement and staff development are unend-
ing endeavors.
CONCLUSION
Academic excellence is a multifaceted criterion of the
National Forum’s vision statement and an essential com-
ponent of its Schools to Watch program. For schools
on a trajectory toward exemplary performance, high
academic standards lead curriculum, instruction, and
assessment efforts. Students should learn essential skills
and concepts as their teachers utilize a variety of instruc-
tional and assessment methods to ensure quality learn-
ing in the classroom. Furthermore, students should have
adequate time and multiple chances to be successful,
and they can receive academic assistance if they need it.
High-performing schools should also seek to advance the
knowledge and skills of staff members through focused
and meaningful professional development. In tandem
with the other Schools to Watch criteria—developmental
responsiveness, social equity, and effective organizational
structures and processes—schools have the opportunity
to measure their progress and guide school improvement
efforts. But ideally, these criteria exist to make middle
grades learning relevant and engaging for all students.
Educational authorities like the National Middle School
Association and the National Forum to Accelerate Mid-
dle-Grades Reform contend that academic excellence
should be the “norm, not the exception” for the young
adolescents in America’s schools.
REFERENCES
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Andrews, P. G., Hough, D. L., Mertens, S.
B., Mizelle, N. B., & White, G. P. (2003). Research and
resources in support of This We Believe. Westerville, OH:
National Middle School Association.
Jackson, A. W. & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Edu-
cating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teach-
ers College Press.
National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (n.d.a).
Schools to Watch selection criteria: Academic excellence. Re-
trieved from http://www.mgforum.org/Improving
schools/STW/STWcriteria.asp#academic
12 ◾ ACCELERATED SCHOOLS
National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform.
(n.d.b). Schools to Watch background and information.
Retrieved from http://www.mgforum.org/Improving
schools/STW/STWbackground.htm
National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (n.d.c).
Schools to Watch state program. Retrieved from http://
www.schoolstowatch.org/state/state. htm
National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe:
Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH.
Author.
ACCELERATED SCHOOLS
Sara Davis Powell
Contributor from 1st edition
Christine Finnan
Contributor from 1st edition
Accelerated Schools PLUS originated in 1986 as the
Accelerated Schools Project when Dr. Henry Levin of
Stanford University acted on his belief that all students,
especially those designated as at-risk, can thrive aca-
demically when challenged and provided with engaging
curriculum in an atmosphere of high expectations. As
founder of the Accelerated Schools Project, Dr. Levin
based his belief on the questions and challenges pre-
sented in the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk. What start-
ed with two schools in Northern California has grown
into a vibrant, systemic vehicle for school reform which
has, as of 2005, served over 1,500 elementary, middle,
and high schools in almost every state in America (The
National Center for Accelerated Schools, 2005). In
2000 the national headquarters for ASPLUS moved to
the University of Connecticut to work more closely with
the National Research Center on Gifted and Talented.
The Accelerated Schools Project became known as Ac-
celerated Schools PLUS (ASPLUS) in 2003, an acronym
for Accelerated Schools: Powerful Learning Unlimited
Success. In 2005, 90 schools were actively involved in
Accelerated Schools PLUS, including 11 middle schools
(S. Choi, personal communication, May 23, 2005).
The vision of ASPLUS is to be “recognized as an ex-
emplary process for accelerating learning of all students
through data driven inquiry, reflective teaching, and
powerful learning” (The National Center for Acceler-
ated Schools, 2005). According to two of the original
leaders, Finnan and Hopfenberg (1997), the Acceler-
ated Schools model is “a comprehensive approach to
school change that offers both a philosophy about ac-
ademic acceleration and a concrete process for achiev-
ing it” (p. 482). Each school’s unique goals are deter-
mined by an analysis of its existing culture and are set
by internal, rather than external, decision makers. The
entire school staff participates in the change process
with each individual contributing to a specific cadre ad-
dressing issues impacting student learning. The instruc-
tional focus of Accelerated Schools PLUS is based on
pedagogy most often implemented in gifted and talent-
ed programs, thus providing opportunities for all young
adolescents to experience powerful learning.
This process-oriented reform model adapts to each
school’s culture and goals requiring that they examine
data to determine a baseline on demographics, percep-
tions, student achievement, and existing programs/
processes. Based on this foundation, and consistent
with Accelerated Schools’ philosophy and commitment
to powerful learning, they form individual, classroom,
and school visions. The visions and baseline data are
compared and priorities set to address gaps between the
vision and the data collected. Cadres conduct addition-
al inquiry into why challenge areas exist and propose
solutions based on data. All of this is supported through
a collaborative decision-making process that involves all
members of the school community.
Accelerated Schools has always supported and en-
couraged research and evaluation. One of the earliest
studies, conducted in 1990–1991, was an ethnographic
study of one of the first middle schools to embrace AS-
PLUS. The study found that school reform is best seen
as a process of school culture change and that reform
is more likely to be successful when compatibility exists
between the existing school culture and the culture of
the reform (Finnan & Hopfenberg, 1997). Additional
information is available at http:// web.uconn.edu/asp
REFERENCES
Finnan, C., & Hopfenberg, W. (1997). Accomplishing school:
The journey of an accelerated middle school. Journal for
a Just and Caring Education, 3(4), 480–493.
The National Center for Accelerated Schools. (2005). ASPLUS:
Powerful learning unlimited success. Retrieved from
http://web.uconn.edu/asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A
nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Brandi Wade Worsham
The University of Georgia
Agreeing on the meaning and expectations of account-
ability within the realm of education has proven difficult
for scholars, policymakers, and educators. In the sim-
plest of notions, accountability is defined as “the quality

or state of being accountable; especially: an obligation
or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for
one’s actions” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
2015). Accountability is concerned with defining who
should be accountable, for what one is accountable,
and to whom the account should be owed (Leithwood
& Earl, 2000; Levitt, Janta, & Wegrich, 2008). Account-
ability asks the following questions:
1. What level of accountability is called for?
2. Who is expected to provide the account?
3. To whom is the account owed?
4. What is to be accounted for?
5. What are the consequences for providing an
account? (Leithwood, 2005, p. 11)
Similarly, Gariepy, Spencer, and Couture (2009) and
Harvey (2014) argued that accountability should entail
responsibility to another person or the willingness to
share one’s progress as he or she works to address the
concerns, expectations, and perspectives of others. In
this instance, accountability results from the relation-
ship between two people and their ability to undertake
and share a required task.
Specific to education, accountability refers to the un-
derstanding and implementation of effective policies
and best practices that increase student success. Conse-
quently, this notion of accountability calls for the close
examination of teaching, learning, and leading practic-
es at all levels of education. For example, Darling-Ham-
mond (1993) stated:
An accountability system is a set of commitments, pol-
icies, and practices that are designed to: (1) heighten
the probability that schools will use good practices
on behalf of students; (2) reduce the likelihood that
schools will engage in harmful practices; and (3) en-
courage self-assessment on the parts of schools and
educators to identify, diagnose, and change courses of
action that are harmful or ineffective. (p. 40)
In her definition, Darling-Hammond provided a ratio-
nale for accountability and outlined why it is import-
ant for education. However, the level and application
of accountability for schools, teachers, and students has
long been debated, historically, theoretically, and in
practice. Thus, it is important to unpack the modern
origins of accountability from a historical perspective,
examine the influence of theory on the meaning of ac-
countability, and discuss accountability in practice via
standards-based accountability. A review of accountabil-
ity practices specific to schools, teachers, and students
in the middle grades will follow.
ACCOUNTABILITY ◾ 13
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Historically, the first notions of accountability began to
emerge in the late 1960s with the Soviet Union’s launch
of Sputnik. To many Americans, the launch of the first
man-made satellite into space called into question the
nation’s lack of intellect, security, and defense (Marsh &
Willis, 2007). Consequently, those accusations targeted
schools as the primary reason for failure and in turn ini-
tiated the accountability of teachers and schools. Many
policymakers, educators, and the general public began
to question the quality and effectiveness of schools,
which subsequently, led to questions about the profes-
sionalism of teachers and their ability to successfully
prepare students for the workplace.
In the late 1970s, the expectations of schools and
teachers shifted to meet the demands of an industrial-
ized nation interested in maintaining its position as a
global leader. This era ushered in new accountability
measures that focused on assessing the basics—reading,
writing, and math—as the general public became more
skeptical of school performance (Marsh & Willis, 2007).
However, this approach consequently narrowed the cur-
riculum, increased graduation requirements, and intro-
duced a new level of accountability for schools to docu-
ment student and teacher performance (Cuban, 1992;
Marsh & Willis, 2007; Tanner, 1986).
During the 1980s, the accountability of teachers and
schools extended into new domains. Numerous reform
reports served as catalysts in the debate, such as the Na-
tional Commission on Excellence in Education’s pub-
lication of A Nation at Risk report in 1983. A Nation at
Risk blamed schools for America’s inability to compete
in the international marketplace. In response, schools
reverted to the “back-to-basics” movement of the 1970s
by requiring schools to focus on the proficiency of basic
skills and worker productivity for a better and bigger
America. In regards to accountability, this meant teach-
ers felt more pressure to increase student performance
on standardized testing.
The 1990s continued the trend of the 1980s with
such policy proposals as President George H. W. Bush’s
America 2000: An Education Strategy (U.S. Department
of Education, 1991), and President Bill Clinton’s Goals
2000 (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 1994). Collec-
tively, these proposals were crafted as not only a means
for improving the basic academic proficiency of stu-
dents through standardized curriculum and testing, but
also as a way to measure the efficiency and effectiveness
of schools. Once again, the accountability delineated
in these reports required teachers to demonstrate and
document successful student performance.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) con-
tinued the trend of basic proficiency; however, a new
14 ◾ ACCOUNTABILITY
level of high-stakes accountability was added for schools,
teachers, and students to document successes. Almost a
decade later, President Barack Obama’s A Blueprint for
Reform (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) contin-
ued to advocate for increased accountability of schools,
teachers, and students through performance indicators
and evaluations.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
OF ACCOUNTABILITY
According to Supovitz (2009), accountability theory is
supported by four underlying theories: motivational
theory, theory of alignment, informational theory, and
symbolism. First, motivational theory is based on the
idea that one can be motivated to improve, intrinsically
or extrinsically. Either way, motivational theory is often
“used to motivate school faculty members to improve
performance” (Supovitz, 2009, p. 214). Motivation the-
ory ultimately serves accountability theory because it ex-
plains why and how teachers participate in school tasks.
Second, the theory of alignment suggests that align-
ing educational reform efforts within schools will im-
prove its effectiveness and the performance of teachers.
In particular, alignment is accomplished through the
act of reinforcing common beliefs and goals (Supovitz,
2009). For example, initiatives that seek to align curric-
ulum and assessment may improve the overall perfor-
mance of students and effectiveness of teachers. Thus,
explaining accountability by suggesting how schools can
utilize alignment and organization to improve teacher
effectiveness and student achievement.
Third, informational theory contributes to account-
ability theory by explaining how schools might use stu-
dent information to guide improvement. According
to Supovitz (2009), the underlying assumption behind
informational theory is that “by providing student per-
formance information to local educators and giving
them incentives to improve it, the data will guide im-
provements in both the classroom and organizational
decision making” (p. 215). Again, informational theory
serves accountability since it defines who is responsible
for what and how it will be accomplished through the
use of data.
Fourth, the idea of symbolism informs accountability
theory since it examines the values stakeholders give to
educational components (Supovitz, 2009). For instance,
the emphasis the general public and policymakers place
on standardized, high-stakes testing indicate what they
value and consider most important when accessing the
performance and effectiveness of teachers and schools.
Accordingly, this emphasis highlights how symbolism
is connected to accountability theory. Teachers and
schools are held accountable for what the public and
policymakers value.
Each of these theories contributes to our knowledge
of how teachers implement reform strategies and expe-
rience accountability. Thus, examination of account-
ability in practice, through the lens of standards-based
accountability, is warranted to understand what tasks
are expected of teachers, by whom, and by what means.
STANDARDS-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY
Similar to accountability, determining the purpose and
meaning of standards-based accountability, or what we
expect of teachers, has been challenging for schools
and policymakers. Irons, Carlson, Lowery-Moore, and
Farrow (2007) defined standards-based accountabili-
ty as a mechanism for ensuring that “educators would
change their behavior as a result of federal and state
mandates focusing upon the requirements for estab-
lishing higher standards and greater accountability for
student achievement” (pp. 1–2). Standards-based ac-
countability intends to motivate teachers and schools to
improve their practice through the implementation of
common standards and teaching expectations.
Additionally, other scholars have argued that stan-
dards-based accountability is meant to create incentives
for teachers to change the way they think about curric-
ulum and instruction so as to ensure all students are
given access to high expectations and standards (Pa-
jak, 2001; Palmer & Rangel, 2011). In this sense, stan-
dards-based accountability is as much about the process
of improvement for students and teachers rather than
the end result. Standards-based accountability is about
monitoring the process of improvement rather than the
culminating event of standardized testing.
Arguments for Standards-Based
Accountability
There are many arguments that support stan-
dards-based accountability. For example, research
provides evidence that standards-based accountability
improves curriculum and instruction, collaboration
among colleagues as well as stakeholders, and student
achievement. First, scholars agree that standards-based
accountability can result in better teaching practice
(Donnelly & Sadler, 2009; Turner, 2009). For instance,
teachers devote more time to using standards to align
curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Specifically,
teachers consider how their instruction might be al-
tered to optimize student learning and performance
within a given time frame and context.
Additionally, standards-based accountability im-
proves and enhances collaboration among colleagues

and stakeholders (Donnelly & Sadler, 2009). Stan-
dards-based accountability seeks to overcome teacher
isolation by fostering conversations about what works
in classrooms and how curriculum and instruction can
be improved for maximum student achievement. Fi-
nally, standards-based accountability improves student
achievement (Donnelly & Sadler, 2009; Louis, Febey, &
Schroeder, 2005).
Arguments Against Standards-Based
Accountability
Conversely, there are many arguments against stan-
dards-based accountability. For instance, Donnelly and
Sadler (2009) argued that standards-based account-
ability narrows the curriculum, causes instruction to
focus on test preparation, encourages a teacher-cen-
tered classroom, increases the achievement gap, and
decreases teacher professionalism. In support, one of
the most prevalent arguments against standards-based
accountability is concerned with the narrowing of cur-
riculum. Clark and Clark (2000), Darling-Hammond
(2004), and Herman and Dietel (2005) asserted that
standards-based accountability ignores non-core sub-
jects, such as art and music, and overemphasizes basic
skills within the core subjects of math, science, and lan-
guage arts.
Additionally, experts contend that standards-based
accountability leads to instruction that focuses on test
preparation and teacher-centered classrooms. For in-
stance, Clark and Clark (2000) and Musoleno and
White (2010) have documented how test preparation
overshadowed best practices in middle school. Further,
Donnelly and Sadler (2009) argued that standards-based
accountability increases the achievement gap between
students of minority and majority while Darling-Ham-
mond (2004) has noted how standards-based account-
ability has decreased the professionalism of teachers as
opportunities to contribute to the creation and imple-
mentation of curriculum is minimal.
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE MIDDLE GRADES
A collective consideration of the meaning and expec-
tations of accountability in education—historically, the-
oretically, and in practice via standards-based account-
ability—offers insight into the roles and responsibilities
of educators. Specific to the middle school, account-
ability requires examination of the organizational struc-
ture, culture, and practices of schools. Middle schools
are accountable to the public and should make every
attempt to implement and support best practices out-
lined in This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adoles-
cents (National Middle School Association, 2010) and
ACCOUNTABILITY ◾ 15
Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st
Century (Jackson & Davis, 2000). For instance, middle
schools should: regularly submit to school quality re-
views to evaluate the implementation and success of its
organizational structures, leadership, teacher quality,
and student achievement; review assessment data from
locally administered tests, state-mandated tests, and na-
tional standardized tests to plan for continued teacher
and student growth; and establish a plan for sharing in-
dicators of accountability with the general public.
In summary, the notion of accountability is rooted
in the culture of education and requires all stakehold-
ers to regularly examine their teaching and leader-
ship practices with the end goals of creating effective
schools, increasing teacher quality, and raising student
achievement at the forefront.
REFERENCES
Clark, D. C., & Clark, S. N. (2000). Developmentally respon-
sive curriculum and standards-based reform: Impli-
cations for middle level principals. NASSP Bulletin,
84(615), 1–13.
Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P.
W. Jackson, (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum
(pp. 216–247). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Creating standards of practice
and delivery for learner-centered schools. Stanford Policy
and Law Review, 1(4), 37–52.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability,
and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6),
1047–1085.
Donnelly, L. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). High school science
teachers’ views of standards and accountability. Science
Education, 93(6), 1050–1075. doi: 10.1002/sce.20347
Gariepy, K. D., Spencer, B. L., & Couture, J-C. (2009). Educa-
tional accountability: Professional voices from the field. Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227. 103rd
Cong., 2d sess. (1994).
Harvey, L. (2014). Analytic quality glossary. Quality Research
International. Retrieved from http://www.qualityre-
searchinternational.com/glossary/
Herman, J. L., & Dietel, R. (2005). A primer on accountability.
American School Board Journal, 192(12), 26–28.
Irons, E., Carlson, N. L., Lowery-Moore, H., & Farrow, V. R.
(2007). Standards and accountability implementation,
why, how, where: Teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Edu-
cational Research & Policy Studies, 7(2), 1–19.
Jackson, A., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educat-
ing adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational accountability: Issues and
alternatives. Saskatchewan School Boards Association,
Research Report #5-01. Retrieved from http://www.
saskschoolboards.ca/research/governance/05-01.pdf
16 ◾ ACCREDITATION AND MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS
Leithwood K., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability
effects: An international perspective. Peabody Journal of
Education, 75(4), 1–18.
Levitt, R., Janta, B., & Wegrich, K. (2008). Accountability of
teachers: Literature review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/ technical
_reports/TR606
Louis, K., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated
accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations
of a new era. Educational Evaluation And Policy Analysis,
27(2), 177–204. doi: 10.3102/01623737027002177
Marsh, C. J. & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative ap-
proaches, ongoing issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2015). Accountability.
Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/accountability
Musoleno, R. R., & White, G. P. (2010). Influences of high-
stakes testing on middle school mission and practice.
Research in Middle Level Education Online, 34(3), 1–10.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A
nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe:
Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH:
Author.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-
110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Pajak, E. (2001). Clinical supervision in a standards-based
environment: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of
Teacher Education, 52(3), 233–43
Palmer, D., & Rangel, V. S, (2011). High stakes accountabil-
ity and policy implementation: Teacher decision mak-
ing in bilingual classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy,
25(4), 614–647. doi:10.1177/0895904810374848
Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage edu-
cational improvement? Prospects from the last de-
cade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of
Educational Change, 10(2/3), 211–227. doi:10.1007/
s10833-009-9105-2
Tanner, D. (1986). Are reforms like swinging pendulums? In
H. J. Walberg & J. W. Keefe (Eds.), Rethinking reform:
The principal’s dilemma (pp. 5–17). Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
Turner, S. L. (2009). Ethical and appropriate high-stakes test
preparation in middle school: Five methods that matter.
Middle School Journal, 41(1), 36–45.
U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An edu-
cation strategy. Sourcebook. Washington, DC: Author. Re-
trieved from ERIC No. ED 327 985.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform:
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Edu-
cation Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education,
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
blueprint/blueprint.pdf
ACCREDITATION AND MIDDLE LEVEL
TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS
Penny B. Howell
University of Louisville
For more than 80 years advocates for specialized mid-
dle level teacher preparation have called for educator
preparation grounded in the development of young
adolescents and focused on the structures, practices,
and pedagogy honoring their needs (McEwin & Smith,
2013). Numerous individuals and organizations have
worked consistently within the field of teacher edu-
cation policy and research to increase the number of
education professionals specifically prepared to teach
young adolescents. Through the accreditation process
of educator preparation programs in the United States,
advocacy efforts have led to an increasing number of
specialized middle level teacher preparation programs.
COUNCIL FOR THE ACCREDITATION
OF EDUCATOR PREPARATION
In 2010, the boards of the National Council for Accred-
itation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher
Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) unanimous-
ly agreed to create a new accrediting organization to
consolidate the work of both councils. This new orga-
nization is the Council for the Accreditation of Educa-
tor Preparation (CAEP). Becoming one association al-
lowed the education profession to speak with one voice
about the preparation of teachers, administrators, and
other P–12 professional educators. CAEP is the govern-
ing body for the professional accreditation of educator
preparation providers in the United States and seeks to
improve the quality of teacher education through the
accreditation process by establishing goals for contin-
uous improvement to ensure growth in P–12 student
learning (CAEP, 2015a).
Accreditation requirements for educator preparation
providers differ from state to state and are governed by
state departments of education. Given the recent merg-
er of NCATE and TEAC, CAEP is currently renegotiat-
ing partnership agreements with all stakeholders. The
procedures for accreditation that develops from these
renegotiated partnership agreements will determine
the options allowed in each state regarding program
approval and will consider the needs of states, commu-
nities, and institutions. States are allowed to choose how
they engage in this partnership and the method of eval-
uation used for educator preparation providers. In all
cases, the focal point of the partnership is the teacher
education standards used by CAEP and individual states
 ACCREDITATION AND MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS ◾ 17
to evaluate quality and continuous improvement of ed-
ucator preparation providers.
ACCREDITATION OF MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER
PREPARATION PROGRAMS
In 1995, NCATE, one of the original accreditation or-
ganizations of CAEP, requested preparation standards
for teachers seeking certification to teach young ado-
lescents. This development legitimatized specialized
middle level teacher preparation as a distinct part of
the landscape of teacher education. The Association for
Middle Level Education (AMLE) (called the National
Middle School Association at the time) and NCATE
jointly established seven standards focused on middle
level teacher knowledge, dispositions, and performanc-
es in 2001. These standards have led many institutions
with educator preparation programs to design and es-
tablish specialized middle level teacher preparation
programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
While not all states or institutions have utilized these
standards to make changes in educator preparation for
middle level teachers, the partnership with CAEP and
the adoption of AMLE standards has helped ensure an
increasing number of teachers entering middle level
classrooms have specialized knowledge and skills to ef-
fectively teach young adolescents.
AMLE is one of several member organizations of
CAEP and works closely to ensure the quality of middle
level teacher preparation programs through the accred-
itation process (CAEP, 2015b). AMLE’s partnership with
CAEP supports the specialized professional preparation
of teachers through the voluntary decision by states to
adopt AMLE/CAEP-Approved Middle Level Teacher
Preparation Standards as state certification/licensure
standards or credentialing regulations. When states
adopt or utilize these standards in the evaluation of ed-
ucator preparation providers’ middle level programs, it
wields a powerful influence, helping shape the nature
of middle level teacher preparation programs and le-
veraging this influence to make the desired changes ac-
tually happen.
States have two options for institutional approval
through CAEP. The first option is for institutions to
proceed with program review through Specialized Pro-
gram Associations (SPA) such as AMLE to determine
if programs within the institution’s education unit are
meeting the established standards and making contin-
uous improvement in the preparation of educators in
those specialized areas. When states select this option,
it means all institutions in the state preparing educa-
tors for the middle level grades must provide evidence
of meeting the five AMLE-CAEP-Approved standards
for middle level teacher preparation. Upon successful
review and accreditation, these programs are deemed
nationally recognized by AMLE. If programs are not
approved, the institution must discontinue the middle
level educator preparation program.
The second option states have for program review is
to conduct the accreditation process at the state level
with state education officials reviewing educator prepa-
ration programs’ evidence for quality and continuous
improvement. In many cases, state review boards will
choose to use standards from SPAs such as AMLE’s
Teacher Preparation Standards and rely on them as
benchmarks during the accreditation process. While in-
stitutions with middle level programs in these states will
not be nationally recognized by AMLE, they will still be
required to show evidence of meeting the AMLE stan-
dards through their state review process.
MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION
STANDARDS
In 2010, AMLE tasked its Professional Preparation Ad-
visory Committee to revise the Middle Level Teacher
Preparation Standards in an effort to make them cur-
rent and consistent with national trends in teacher ed-
ucation and accreditation. Multiple drafts were shared
on the AMLE website and communicated through
AMLE publications starting in 2011. The final version
was approved by the AMLE Professional Preparation
Advisory Committee, the AMLE Board of Trustees and
NCATE/CAEP in early 2013. The new standards share
the same format with CAEP to focus only on initial cer-
tification programs and be performance-based. These
standards reflect a strong commitment to the essential
components of middle level teacher preparation (McE-
win, Dickinson, & Smith, 2003). Other components of
effective teacher preparation (e.g., field and clinical ex-
periences, content knowledge) are not included explic-
itly in these standards as they are required through unit
level standards for all educator preparation programs
seeking national accreditation from CAEP.
The current AMLE-CAEP-Approved Middle Level
Teacher Preparation Standards for middle level teacher
preparation programs consist of five performance-based
standards and center around four principals: (A) The
Learner and the Learning; (B) Content; (C) Instruc-
tional Practice; and (D) Professional Responsibilities.
All of the standards have specific elements to assist in
better understanding the intent of the standard and are
accompanied by research-based supporting explana-
tions, references, and rubrics for each respective stan-
dard (AMLE, 2012). For a complete list of standards,
elements, and supporting explanations, see http://
www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/ProfessionalPreparation/
AMLEStandards.aspx
18 ◾ ACCREDITATION AND MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS
The standards are designed to ensure middle level
teacher preparation programs are providing coursework
addressing middle level philosophy, effective organiza-
tional structures for middle schools, young adolescent
development, and middle level curriculum, instruction,
and assessment. The standards also explicitly require ev-
idence of field experiences with young adolescents and
in middle level schools. In order to successfully meet
the AMLE standards, programmatic experiences and
assessments must make explicit use of the content and
language of the AMLE-CAEP-Approved standards. The
standards and elements are listed below with a brief ex-
planation of each (AMLE, 2012).
PRINCIPLE A: THE LEARNER AND LEARNING
Standard 1: Young Adolescent
Development
Middle level teacher candidates understand, use,
and reflect on the major concepts, principles, theories,
and research related to young adolescent development
and use that knowledge in their practice. They demon-
strate their ability to apply this knowledge when mak-
ing curricular decisions, planning and implementing
instruction, participating in middle level programs and
practices, and providing healthy and effective learning
environments for all young adolescents.
The four essential elements of Standard 1 include:
A. Knowledge of Young Adolescent Development;
B. Knowledge of the Implications of Diversity on
Young Adolescent Development;
C. Implications of Young Adolescent Development
for Middle Level Curriculum and Instruction;
and
D. Implications of Young Adolescent Development
for Middle Level Programs and Practices.
Standard one focuses on the importance of middle lev-
el teacher preparation programs providing candidates
the opportunities to demonstrate their understanding
of the diversity of young adolescent development and
how it influences every aspect of teaching and learning
in the middle grades.
PRINCIPLE B: CONTENT
Standard 2: Middle Level Curriculum
Middle level teacher candidates understand and use
the central concepts, standards, research, and struc-
tures of content to plan and implement curriculum
that develops all young adolescents’ competence in
subject matter. They use their knowledge and available
resources to design, implement, and evaluate challeng-
ing, developmentally responsive curriculum that results
in meaningful learning outcomes. Middle level teacher
candidates demonstrate their ability to assist all young
adolescents in understanding the interdisciplinary na-
ture of knowledge. They design and teach curriculum
that is responsive to all young adolescents’ local, nation-
al, and international histories, language/dialects, and
individual identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, age,
appearance, ability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic
status, family composition).
The three essential elements of Standard 2 include:
A. Subject Matter Content Knowledge;
B. Middle Level Student Standards; and
C. Interdisciplinary Nature of Knowledge.
Standard two focuses on the importance of programs
requiring candidates have a deep understanding of
their content area(s) and opportunities to demonstrate
their understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of
the contents in the middle grades as well as develop-
mentally appropriate instruction and assessment.
Standard 3: Middle Level Philosophy
and School Organization
Middle level teacher candidates understand the ma-
jor concepts, principles, theories, and research under-
lying the philosophical foundations of developmentally
responsive middle level programs and schools, and they
work successfully within middle level organizational
components.
The two essential elements of Standard 3 include:
A. Middle Level Philosophical Foundations; and
B. Middle Level Organization and Best Practices.
Standard three focuses on the importance of middle lev-
el teacher candidates’ ability to articulate the rationale
for developmentally responsive programs and practices
such as interdisciplinary teaming, common planning
time, and advisory programs. It also requires candidates
to demonstrate their ability to participate successfully in
these best practices and use this knowledge within the
context of a range of school settings.
PRINCIPLE C: INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE
Standard 4: Middle Level Instruction
and Assessment
Middle level teacher candidates understand, use,
and reflect on the major concepts, principles, theories,
and research related to data-informed instruction and

assessment. They employ a variety of developmentally
appropriate instructional strategies, information litera-
cy skills, and technologies to meet the learning needs of
all young adolescents (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, age,
appearance, ability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic
status, family composition).
The four essential elements for Standard 4 include:
A. Content Pedagogy;
B. Middle Level Instructional Strategies;
C. Middle Level Assessment and Data-informed In-
struction; and
D. Young Adolescent Motivation.
Standard four focuses on the importance of middle lev-
el teacher candidates demonstrating their ability to use
their knowledge about young adolescents and their un-
derstanding of their content area by employing a wide
variety of research-based instructional approaches that
are effective with young adolescents and motivate them
to learn.
PRINCIPLE D: PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
Standard 5: Middle Level Professional Roles
Middle level teacher candidates understand their
complex roles as teachers of young adolescents. They
engage in practices and behaviors that develop their
competence as middle level professionals. They are
informed advocates for young adolescents and middle
level education, and work successfully with colleagues,
families, community agencies, and community mem-
bers. Middle level teacher candidates demonstrate
positive dispositions and engage in ethical professional
behaviors.
The three essential elements for Standard 5 include:
A. Professional Roles of Middle Level Teachers;
B. Advocacy for Young Adolescents and Develop-
mentally Responsive Schooling Practices; and
C. Working with Family Members and Community
Involvement, and Dispositions and Professional
Behaviors.
Standard five focuses on the importance of middle level
teacher candidates demonstrating their understanding
of their roles as teachers, leaders, and advocates by per-
forming successfully in these unique roles through col-
laboration with colleagues, family members, and com-
munity stakeholders to advocate for young adolescents,
developmentally responsive middle level curriculum,
and instructional strategies.
ACHIEVEMENT GAP ◾ 19
REFERENCES
Association for Middle Level Education. (2012). Middle level
teacher preparation standards with rubrics and supporting
explanations. Westerville, OH: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.amle.org/portals/0/doc/standards/2012_
AMLE_Standards.doc
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation.
(2015a). History of CAEP. Retrieved from http://caepnet
.org/about/history/
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation.
(2015b). SPA standards and report forms. Retrieved from
http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/
program-review-options/spa-standards-and-report
-forms
McEwin, C. K., Smith, T. W., & Dickinson, T. S., (2003). Mid-
dle level teacher preparation: Status, progress and chal-
lenges. In G. Andrews & V. Anfara (Eds.), Leaders for
a movement: Professional preparation and development of
middle level teachers and administrators (pp. 3–26). Green-
wich, CT: Information Age.
McEwin, C. K., & Smith, T. W. (2013). The professional prepa-
ration of middle grades teachers. In P. G. Andrews
(Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education
(pp. 679–695). Westerville, OH: Association for Middle
Level Education.
ACHIEVEMENT GAP
Larry G. Daniel
The Citadel
Achievement gap is a term used to refer to differenc-
es in average (i.e., mean or median) performance of
demographic subgroups of students on various com-
petency assessments. Although achievement gaps can
be discussed across levels any possible demographic
variable (e.g., geographic region, school type), the
literature has focused primarily of achievement gaps
across ethnic and socioeconomic subgroupings. How-
ever, comprehensive studies of achievement gaps across
gender have also been conducted (e.g., Cheema & Gal-
luzzo, 2013; Doolittle, 1989). Generally speaking, the
most noticeable achievement gaps have been found
between the scores of White students and their Black/
African American and Hispanic/Latino counterparts.
Similar achievement gaps have been found consistently
between scores of students from middle income versus
poor families (Reardon, 2013).
The notion of achievement gap has been around
for at least six decades. The term seems to have been
coined during the late 1950s in news stories following
the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) mandating
desegregation of public schools (Jones, 2013). By the
20 ◾ ACHIEVEMENT GAP
mid-1960s, achievement gap had replaced earlier labels
such as “achievement lag” or “Negro lag” used to de-
scribe the tendencies of Black students to achieve lower
scores than White students in the same schools or from
similar backgrounds. Achievement gap as the primary
term for describing score discrepancies has prevailed
into the second decade of the 21st century.
Achievement gaps have served as a useful tool in con-
versations about “the equality of educational opportu-
nity,” a concept that goes back to at least the 1940s (Boy-
kin, 1947) and is still discussed and debated (Schmidt,
Cogan, Houang, & McKnight, 2009). Often computed
in terms of standardized mean differences, achievement
gaps have frequently been used to illustrate the lack of
equal results across White and Black students despite
attempts to equalize opportunity for academic success.
These standardized measures of the achievement gap
are used by some to criticize the quality of schools, cur-
ricula, or teachers and to call for decreasing funding
to schools or replacing public schools with privatized
alternatives (e.g., charter schools) where, it is argued,
more promising results in closing achievement gaps are
likely to occur. On the opposite end of the spectrum,
many have called for increases in funding and resources
to schools serving large pockets of poor and minority
students where achievement gaps have been most pro-
nounced (e.g., Grissmer, Flanagan, & Williamson, 1998;
Morris, 1954; Reardon, 2013).
The landmark report by Coleman and his colleagues
(1966) was the first wide scale national study to provide
substantive attention to links between resources and the
achievement gap. The researchers found systematic dif-
ferences in standardized achievement test scores across
race, with Black students across grade levels scoring ap-
proximately one standard deviation lower than White
students. Educational quality factors (such as curricula
offered), school facilities (such as libraries and science
laboratories), and academic characteristics of teachers
were found to have a greater impact on the education
of Black children than White children. Following the
Coleman report, actions taken to better fund schools
as well as improvements in instructional practices ac-
counted for narrowing of the gaps during the 1970s and
1980s (Grissmer et al., 1998).
Disparities between middle income and poor stu-
dents’ achievement follow a trend similar to the dis-
parities between White and Black/African American
students. In fact, it is becoming commonplace that re-
searchers focus more heavily on the income gap than
the ethnic gap when analyzing achievement data (Evans
& Rosenbaum, 2008). Reflecting on the literature over
a half century, Reardon (2013) noted:
Historically, low-income students as a group have per-
formed less well than high-income students on most
measures of academic success—including standardized
test scores, grades, high school completion rates, and
college enrollment and completion rates. Countless
studies have documented these disparities and investi-
gated many underlying reasons for them. (p. 10)
Following a review of 12 nationally representative stud-
ies, Reardon (2013) went on to conclude that the in-
come gap in achievement widened during the period
from the 1970s through the early years of the 21st cen-
tury even while the racial gap was narrowing. Hence, at
least some of the now growing disparity between White
and African American achievement test scores is due
to the correlation between ethnicity and income. This
disparity is further exacerbated when including gen-
der differences in the mix—poor Black boys often are
among the lowest scorers on educational assessments
(Ford & Moore, 2013).
A number of explanations have been proffered for
why the gap in achievement exists between White and
Black students. In the 1960s and 1970s, some research-
ers (e.g., Jensen, 1973; Shuey, 1966) chalked differenc-
es up to heredity, an explanation that met with wide-
spread disdain from the research community writ large.
A range of social factors, including family income,
home language, and level of parental involvement have
been linked to gaps in achievement (Williams, 2011).
Based on syntheses of extant research, Barton (2003)
and Barton and Coley (2009) identified a range of fac-
tors that, combined together, account for much of the
variation in achievement scores related to the racial
achievement gap. Specifically, Barton and Coley (2009)
identified 16 factors related to the achievement gap, in-
cluding seven school factors (academic rigor, teacher
preparation, teacher level of experience, teacher atten-
dance and turnover, class size, access to technology, and
fear/safety at school), parent participation, and eight
“before and beyond school” student factors (mobility,
low birth weight, exposure to environmental hazards,
hunger/nutrition, preschool exposure to language and
reading, excessive television watching, family structure,
and summer achievement loss).
In recent years, the notion of adequate yearly prog-
ress (AYP) has been a central factor in conversations
about achievement gaps. Provisions of the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (2002) required that
all students make annual yearly progress on standard-
ized achievement or end of course assessments, and
percentages of students meeting AYP are often tracked
across demographic subgroups. Schools are rewarded
for achieving AYP and penalized for failing to achieve
it. Interestingly, a school can, on the whole, achieve
AYP when all student scores are averaged, but could be
penalized under NCLB if even one subgroup (e.g., fe-
males, Hispanics, English language learners) has failed
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPTER XXII
CHANGED RELATIONS

T he relations between Dan and Walter were daily becoming more

strained. Gus Kiggins was a less frequent visitor than he had
been formerly, but Dan was convinced that this simply meant that
Walter was spending more time in the room or company of the boy
for whom Dan had formed an intense dislike. The threatened trouble
between himself and Gus apparently had vanished and even little
Carlton Hall was not troubled as he formerly had been. The lad was
a bright little fellow and in the classroom was already making a
reputation for his quickness. Now that his first feeling of
homesickness was gone and there had come a comparative
freedom from his tormentors, Carlton was entering more fully into the
spirit of the life of the school.
For Dan the little fellow’s admiration, as well as his devotion,
steadily increased. More and more Carlton sought Dan’s room and
company. If Walter objected, he did not say so, though his
unconcealed contempt was not lacking. But Dan and Walter, though
they occupied the same rooms, were no longer such warm friends as
once they had been. There were not many times when the boys
quarreled. It was rather an absence of all friendly relations that
marked their daily lives.
As the weeks passed Dan’s steady work began to tell. After the
Christmas vacation he was among the few boys of his class who
were permitted to study in their rooms instead of in the study-room,
where the other boys assembled every afternoon and evening and
did their work under the direction of a teacher, who for Dan’s class
was Mr. Sharp. At first Dan had almost decided to keep on with his
work in the study-room, because of his feeling that he could do
better work there, but his lack of respect for this particular teacher
finally led him to accept the privilege and his study-hours were
therefore spent in the quiet of his own room.
A strong friendship had sprung up between Hodge, Ned, Smith,
and Dan. At the Christmas holidays the three boys had been visitors
in Dan’s home in Rodman. The country life in winter had been so
new and novel to the visitors that the three boys had highly enjoyed
their vacation-time. The fact that Dan’s home was a humble one
apparently only served to increase the feeling of friendliness which
they had for Dan, while for his quiet little mother everyone had an
admiration that was as strong as the respect and affection for her
boy. Dan had urged Walter to come to Rodman with his friends, but
the latter had curtly declined and Dan had not repeated the
invitation.
On the train which the four boys took when the day of departure
from Rodman arrived, Dan and Ned were seated together. The
enthusiasm of Dan’s friends over their visit was keen and in course
of their conversation Ned said to Dan: “It’s simply great! I never
coasted right over the tops of fences before. The crust was hard
enough to hold up a horse.”
“The coasting is all right,” replied Dan lightly. “It is the snow-shovel
that is the instrument of torture. When you have shoveled through
two or three of those eight-foot drifts you lose a little of your
enthusiasm for snow that sometimes comes in November and stays
right with us till April. Last year we had a hundred and forty-three
days of sleighing.”
“Great!” exclaimed Ned. “That is what puts the breath of life into
you. I can understand now where you get some of the nerve you’ve
shown.”
“‘Nerve’! I don’t know that I have any nerve.”
“Well, you have, whether you know it or not.”
“I guess it’s because you’re my friend that you say that.”
“Not a bit. It takes nerve to do what you’re doing.”
“I don’t see how.”
 “Look here, Dan, I know it’s none of my business, but I’ve
sometimes been afraid you’d leave school.”
“Why should I?” asked Dan, though his face betrayed something
of his feeling, which was not altogether surprise.
“Why, we all know—it’s none of my business,” said Ned lamely. “I
don’t suppose I ought to speak of such things.”
“Go ahead,” said Dan quietly.
“Well, you know,” said Ned hesitatingly, “all the fellows understand
how it is that you are in the Tait School.”
“That Mr. Borden pays my way?”
“Yes.”
“I didn’t ask him.”
“Of course you didn’t. Everybody knows that, and what we’ve been
afraid of, now that Walter has shown himself to be such a chump,
was that you—that if he didn’t quit—that some day you’d——”
“I’d what?” inquired Dan, aware of his friend’s confusion.
“Oh, that you’d quit and call the whole thing off,” said Ned.
“Would you?”
“I don’t know,” replied Ned in a low voice.
“I have thought of it,” said Dan quietly.
“We all know that. But don’t you do it.”
“Why not?”
“We’ll need you in the pitcher’s box, for one thing.”
“That’s what Walter thought when he got his father to take me up.
You know Walter was behind the whole thing.”
“It isn’t his fault or Gus Kiggins’ either if we don’t know it,” said Ned
angrily.
“What does Gus say?”
 “You know what he says.”
“That I’m a charity patient.”
“Nobody pays any attention to what he says, anyway,” said Ned.
“I’m not so sure of that. Honestly, Ned, what would you do if you
were in my place?” asked Dan quietly.
“I don’t know, though I know what I want you to do.”
“Stay on?”
“Yes.”
“And put up with what Gus Kiggins says and does?”
“He doesn’t count for much.”
“Then, with what Walter says?”
“That’s harder, I’ll own up; but——”
“But what?”
“What does Mr. Borden say?”
“Nothing. He hasn’t said a word.”
“Have you said anything to him?”
“Not yet.”
“Then don’t.”
“Look here, Ned,” said Dan, turning about in the seat and facing
his companion, “I’ll tell you that sometimes the whole affair is more
than I can stand. I didn’t ask to come. I had a little money saved and
I was going to the normal school. I wish now I had and hadn’t taken
a cent from Mr. Borden. But he came to me and told me it was all
pure sentiment on my part that made me draw back. He went on to
say that he hadn’t any foolish notions about such things, that in his
business he depended a good deal upon the things his friends could
throw his way, and that he never refused any of them because of any
such feelings as I pretended to have. Then he told me that I could
look upon it as a pure matter of business. That Walter was a spoiled
boy and that it would be worth a good deal more to him—I mean Mr.
Borden—to pay what my term bills would cost just to have me room
with Walter. Of course, I wanted to come, and when he put it in that
light I couldn’t find any reason why I shouldn’t take up with his offer.”
“There wasn’t any reason!” exclaimed Ned warmly.
“Perhaps not—and yet as a business proposition, look at it for a
minute. It isn’t very modest of me to say so, but Mr. Borden thought
—or at least he implied—that what influence I had over Walter would
pay what it might cost his father to have me room with him. But look
at it! You all say that Walter is a ‘chump.’ He’s away down in his
classes and if I should suggest to him to do certain things that would
be the surest way of getting him to do just the opposite. Walter
doesn’t like me. He chums with Gus Kiggins——”
“He doesn’t stick to anything very long, and there isn’t any reason
for believing that Gus will be an exception.”
“I am not sure of that. Gus seems to have him under his thumb.”
“Get him out from under it.”
“How?”
“Can’t some of us help?”
“How?” again inquired Dan with a smile.
“Oh, we can have a talk with Walter, or we can put it up to Gus.”
“No,” said Dan. “Perhaps a word with Walter sometime, if it came
in all right might be a good thing, but I don’t want you to say anything
to Gus.”
“Why not?”
“It would make a bad matter worse. You see, this is a part of my
course, I guess. I’ve had to learn a lot of things——”
“You’re learning them all right,” broke in Ned. “You’re in the first
division now, and can study in your room——”
“I don’t mean that.”
“What do you mean then?”
 “Oh, some other things. I’ve had a lot to learn. I’ve lived on a farm
all my life, and there, you know, they don’t always do things just as
you fellows do who have been brought up in the city.”
“What of it?”
“A whole lot of it. You don’t understand because you’ve always
had them. But I’ve had to keep my eyes open, and even then I find
I’m doing something that makes my cheeks burn. The first night I
was in the school Walter had to tell me to put my butter on my butter-
plate, not on——”
“The chump!” broke in Ned.
“No; he meant it all right. I guess I deserved it and a good deal
more. Perhaps if I learn these little things now I sha’n’t have to learn
them later when it would be a good deal harder for me.”
“You make too much of such things.”
“Do I?”
“Yes, you do. Nobody thinks of them except you.”
“They don’t have to.”
“You’re all right now, anyway, Dan.”
Dan smiled and did not reply, though the words of his friend were
far more comforting than Ned could understand.
“There’s one way out of it,” continued Ned.
“What is that?”
“You give Gus all that is coming to him. You can do it! You——”
“What do you mean?”
“Thrash him.”
Dan threw back his head and laughed. “What good would that
do?” he inquired. “Perhaps I couldn’t do it. He’s about the best boxer
in school.”
“I’d risk it.”
 “That’s good of you,” said Dan dryly. “My grandfather told me once
that when he was a little fellow his older brothers tried to get him to
rob a bumblebee’s nest they’d found in the hay-field. When he said
he was afraid the bees would sting him, the boys told him to go
ahead, ‘They’d risk it.’”
Ned laughed as he said, “And you think I’d be willing to take the
risk if you took on Gus?”
“I didn’t say that.”
“No, you didn’t; but you implied it. I’m not afraid of Gus Kiggins.”
“I wasn’t thinking about him.”
“What are you afraid of then?”
“Myself. Suppose I should fight him, and then suppose I did
succeed in whipping him—and that’s something I’m not a bit sure of
—what would I prove?”
“You’d put him where he belongs, anyway.”
“I told you I wasn’t thinking about him. I was thinking of myself.”
“A fellow isn’t called upon to stand everything.”
“That’s right.”
“And yet you say you won’t even defend yourself.”
“Did I say that?”
“That’s what you meant.”
“Hardly,” said Dan with a smile.
“Well, whatever you decide to do, promise me you won’t do
anything before you tell me.”
“I promise you as far as Walter and Mr. Borden are concerned.”
“All right. That’s all I want. Hello, here we are at the Junction.
Some of the fellows ought to get on here. There are some of them,”
Ned added as he arose in his seat and peered from the window of
the car. “Here comes Gus Kiggins himself!” he added hastily.
 Several boys noisily entered the car, Gus leading the crowd. As he
caught sight of the four boys he hastened down the aisle and,
stopping in front of Dan, looked insolently at him and then in his
loudest tones began to shout, “Co’ boss! Co’ boss! Co’ boss!”
 CHAPTER XXIII
AN UNEXPECTED VISITOR

A bove the noisy greetings of the boys the sneering words of Gus
Kiggins were plainly heard. Instinctively the boys turned and
looked at Dan, but if he was aware of the taunt he did not manifest
his feelings, except that his face flushed slightly.
“How did you find the hog business, Gus?” inquired Ned angrily,
as he faced the boisterous bully.
“You’ve said enough about that,” retorted Gus hotly.
“Have I?” laughed Ned, quick to see the impression he had made.
“If I have I am glad of it. It’s about the only way one can drive an idea
into some heads, you know.” Ned spoke quietly, but his anger was
evident to all the boys.
“At any rate I don’t carry the marks of my trade around with me!”
declared Gus. “I don’t wear pigskin boots——”
“You don’t have to wear them,” broke in Ned glibly.
“What are you fellows laughing at?” demanded Gus fiercely, as he
turned to face the boys, who had broken into a shout at Ned’s words.
“I don’t see anything funny in what Ned said.”
“That’s the funniest part of the whole thing, Gus,” said Hodge.
“Well, I guess if I wanted to I could rake up some things about
every one of you that wouldn’t sound very pretty.”
“Go ahead,” called Smith.
“Is that the reason why you called out as you did when you came
into the car?” asked Ned.
“He looked the part. That’s why I said what I did.”
 “Every man does that more or less. My father says he can tell a
preacher before the man says a word. So he can pick out a lawyer or
a business man before a word is spoken. I suppose a fellow that
comes from the country does carry around with him a few of the
marks of his trade the same as everyone does, but if I lived where
Dan does I wouldn’t think of apologizing. I’d be proud of it. Gus, does
a man that makes his living sticking hogs come to look like his trade
the same as a preacher or a lawyer or a business man?”
A shout of laughter caused Ned to look about him in pretended
astonishment. Gus Kiggins settled back in his seat, his face
glowering with anger. But he soon became silent, as he well knew
that he was no match for Ned in such a contest.
“Queer about Gus,” said Ned to Dan after the journey was
resumed. “Last year he wasn’t so bad.”
“What has changed him?” inquired Dan.
“I give it up. He seems to be almost insanely jealous of you.”
“Of me?” Dan laughed a little bitterly as he spoke. “I know, of
course, that he hates me, but I hadn’t thought of his being jealous.
What have I got to make him feel that way?”
“An arm,” laughed Ned.
“You mean my pitching arm?”
“Of course. You know, he had it all fixed, as he thought, to be the
pitcher on the nine this spring.”
“He may be yet,” said Dan quietly.
“Not much!” exclaimed Ned warmly. “We’ve got a fellow to occupy
the box this spring who could give points to the best pitcher in the
country.”
“That’s what Si—he’s the harness-maker at Rodman, you know—
is all the time saying,” laughed Dan, his good nature now having
been restored. “He wants to have the New Yorks come up to play the
nine at Rodman. He seems to think they’d be surprised.”
 “Well, it’s not quite so bad as that,” said Ned lightly. “But I know
we’ve a mighty good pitcher for the Tait School nine this spring. And
don’t you forget it, either! Don’t you go into any fool business. Just
grit your teeth and hang on. Everything will come out all right this
spring. Gus Kiggins’ jealousy is not very comfortable, but it never
killed anyone yet. He hasn’t got friends enough in the school to elect
him dishwasher.”
“Probably he doesn’t want that job,” said Dan smilingly. “And yet
there isn’t a finer-looking fellow in school. Just look at his shoulders
now.”
Ned glanced at Gus, who was seated in the end of the car. “Yes,
he’s got the shoulders and the muscle. He’s all right until you get up
to his head. Last year he was a fairly decent fellow in spite of his
dirty work on the football team. This year he cut out his low-down
tricks, but he seems to be letting it out in other ways.”
“The eleven did fairly well,” suggested Dan.
“Tied the Atlas High School for third place,” laughed Ned. “We’ll
say that the St. John’s School really was lowest. They can’t deny it,
either. But when the baseball season opens, then just keep an eye
on the Tait School nine! The first game will be an eye-opener! No
one knows what a ‘find’ we have in the pitcher’s box.”
“Don’t you think the school league is a good thing?”
“Fine! We weren’t in shape for football, that’s all. We’ll make it up
though when it comes to baseball! Next year we’ll be all ready for
hockey and basket-ball. I think that we’ll be able to arrange for a
track meet this spring too. Ever do anything on the track, Dan?”
“I never did.”
“You never tried, you mean,” laughed Ned.
“I never tried, then. I guess I can ‘run’ though,” said Dan dryly.
“I guess you can too, though not in the way you mean. I don’t
believe you know how to run away. Don’t you ever learn, either. But
when it comes to running for something, that’s another story. I tell
you, Dan, there’s nothing like it! When a half-dozen fellows are all
bunched on the track and everyone is putting out every ounce of
strength he’s got and the tape isn’t more than ten yards away and
the fellows are all yelling like mad and you can feel that the sprinter
from the High School or the Military Academy is right on your heels,
even when you don’t, for the life of you, dare to look behind you—
why, I’m telling you, Dan Richards, there are mighty few things in life
to be compared with it! I think I’m a fairly good sprinter. I can do the
hundred in ten-three. But I believe you can do better than that.
You’re just built for a runner.”
“Didn’t I tell you I could ‘run’?” asked Dan dryly.
“That’s all right,” replied Ned lightly. “I know what you mean.”
“Well, I’m glad you do,” said Dan soberly. “I’m not at all sure that I
do.”
“You just keep on sawing wood, that’s all you have to do.”
“Or calling ‘co, boss,’” said Dan a little bitterly as he saw Gus
Kiggins rise from his seat.
“Don’t think of it. That pork chop isn’t worth wasting your time on!
Just leave him alone.”
“I’d like to, if he will leave me alone.”
“He will,” said Ned positively. “We’ll attend to him.”
Whether or not it was due to the “attentions” of Ned and his
friends, Dan was as pleased as he was surprised, as the days of the
winter term passed, to find that Gus Kiggins seemed to avoid him.
He seldom came to the room of Dan and Walter; and as for Walter,
although he still was much in Gus’s company, he did not often have
much to say to his roommate. Much as Dan would have liked to
enter into Walter’s life more fully, he was too proud to betray his
chagrin at the change which had now apparently become fixed in
their relations. The old friendly feeling was gone and in its place had
come a relation which simply made Walter apparently tolerate the
presence in his rooms of the boy for whose coming he had been
chiefly responsible.
 The monotony of the routine of the winter term was broken in
March by a visit from Mr. Borden. Dan, who had not been informed
by Walter of the expected visit, was surprised one afternoon when he
entered his room to find Mr. Borden seated there. His first thought
was that Walter had sent for his father and a feeling of anger arose
in Dan’s heart. Why had he himself not written before his roommate
could complain? Perhaps Mr. Borden had come for the purpose of
explaining that his promise was now void.
The greeting which Walter’s father gave him was so quietly cordial
that Dan was perplexed. He was not able entirely to conceal his
embarrassment even when Mr. Borden bade him to be seated.
“When did you come, Mr. Borden?” Dan inquired.
“I arrived this morning,” replied the visitor quietly.
“Have you seen Walter?”
“Not yet.” Mr. Borden smiled as he saw Dan’s expression of
surprise. “I had a few things to attend to first before I could give any
time to Walter or you.”
“I’ll go out and find him for you,” said Dan, hastily rising as he
spoke.
“Not quite yet, Dan. There are some things I want to say to you
when Walter is not here.”
“Yes, sir.” Dan’s face flushed and his confusion was manifest.
“Do you know where Walter is now?”
“No, sir.”
“Haven’t you any idea?”
“Probably he is with some of the boys. I’ll be glad to look him up if
you would like to have me.”
“Not yet,” said Mr. Borden quietly. “If you were to look him up for
me, where would you go first to find him?”
“Why, in some one of the fellows’ rooms,” replied Dan, looking
quickly at his visitor as he spoke. How much and what did Mr.
Borden know?
“Would you go first to Gus Kiggins’ room?”
“Why, I might,” replied Dan lamely.
“I thought so. Dan, have you had any ‘marks’ against you?”
“Yes, sir. I’ve had ten.”
“Been put on the ‘limits’?”
“Yes, sir,” answered Dan, his face flushing scarlet.
“Do you mind telling me what for? Please do not think I am too
inquisitive, but I should like to know the reasons.”
“Mr. Sharp said I was scuffling in the hall. That is against the rules,
you know.”
“Yes, I know. If there is a rule against scuffling why did you break
it?”
“I didn’t intend to break it, but I suppose I did,” said Dan lamely.
“Why?” persisted Mr. Borden.
“I haven’t any answer.”
“Would you put Gus Kiggins out of your room if the same thing
happened again?”
Dan glanced quickly at Mr. Borden, but the face of his visitor did
not betray any feeling. “I don’t know,” he said at last in a low voice.
“In which division of the class are you, Dan?” Mr. Borden next
inquired.
“The first.”
“That’s the first quarter of the class, isn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Is Walter in that division?”
“I don’t think he is—that is, he isn’t this term—I mean——”
“Will he be there next term?”
 “I don’t know.”
“Do you expect him to be?”
“He could be—he might. He has a quicker mind than I have.”
Still Mr. Borden’s face did not betray his real feelings. “Dan,” he
said abruptly, “why didn’t you write me?”
“About what, Mr. Borden?”
“Why didn’t you write me that letter you began?”
“How do you know I began a letter?” asked Dan in amazement.
“You began a letter to me in which you thanked me for what I had
done for you, but you went on to say that you could not stay in the
Tait School any longer.”
“How do you know?” asked the astounded Dan with crimson face.
“Never mind, Dan, how I know. Let me answer your unwritten letter
by word of mouth. A bargain is a bargain and you have no right to go
back upon it any more than I have.”
“But, Mr. Borden,” protested Dan, “that wasn’t it. I didn’t feel that—I
thought I couldn’t keep on—I didn’t want you to think——”
“Listen to me,” said Mr. Borden as Dan’s confusion became still
more manifest. “I understand how you feel. You thought you were
accepting favors. You thought I believed that if you roomed with
Walter he would do better work. He hasn’t done better work and you
thought you were not living up to your part. I sincerely trust that
Walter has not been such a ‘cad’ as to make you feel in any way that
you were under obligations to him or me.”
As Dan was silent, Mr. Borden went on. “Let me say right here,
Dan, that I am more than satisfied with my part. I know Walter and I
think I know you. If at any time you want to leave him and room with
some other boy, I shall not object. I don’t believe there is a better
investment than putting money into men. If I could only buy for
Walter what he needs I should not stop at the expense. And, Dan,
there’s another point.”
 “Yes, sir.”
“Sometimes I think it is a better, a truer test of a real man to
receive than it is to give. It’s harder sometimes too. But I’m talking
with you about our bargain. I want you to stick to it. You will, I know.
Ah, here comes Walter,” Mr. Borden added hastily as his boy entered
the room.
Dan at once departed and for an hour sat in the library holding a
book but not reading a word. An hour later he returned to his room.
As he entered he saw that Walter was alone, but his roommate
sprang to his feet and his face was livid with anger as he faced Dan.
 CHAPTER XXIV
THE OPENING OF THE LEAGUE GAMES

“Y ou liar! You mucker! You low-down telltale!” shouted Walter,

looking straight into the face of his roommate. “I might have
known you’d spy on me. That’s what all the fellows said you’d do!
And now you’ve done it!”
Dan rose as Walter’s tirade continued. For a moment he looked
steadily at the angry boy and, though his face was colorless, without
a word he started toward the door.
“Hold on!” shouted Walter, springing in front of Dan and closing the
door. “You don’t crawl out that way! I’d like to know what you have to
say for yourself. We’ll have this out right now while we’re at it. I’d like
to know what you have to say for yourself!”
“About what?”
“About what I’ve just said.”
“You’ll have to explain yourself.”
“‘Explain’; ‘Explain’!” retorted Walter. “I ‘explain’! You’re the one, I
guess, to do the explaining. Gus Kiggins says you can make a pet of
a toad, but a toad will still be a toad to the end of the chapter, and I
guess he’s about right.”
“How about a hog, Walter?” The sneering query escaped Dan’s
lips before he was fairly aware of what he had said. Deeply as he
regretted his momentary failure to control his tongue he was aware
that his provocation was great and that he had been most unjustly
accused.
“Who are you to talk about hogs?” demanded Walter.
“I know a little about them. We raised a few on the farm. They are
interesting animals, Walter, if you go at them in the right way.”
 “That hasn’t anything to do with this matter. What I want to know is
why you told my father.”
“Told him what?”
“About me.”
“What did I tell him about you?”
“That’s just what I want to know.”
“Did he say that I told him anything?”
“Of course he didn’t.”
“Then what are you talking about?”
“He knew a lot of things that he couldn’t have found out unless you
told him.”
“Who said so? Did Gus Kiggins?”
“I guess I know that without any of the fellows having to tell me.”
“What did your father know?”
“He knew a lot of things. He told me that if I didn’t do better he
would be compelled to take me out of school. He said he’d put me to
work in the shops!” The expression of disgust that appeared on
Walter’s face as he referred to the “shops” in his father’s factory
might have made Dan laugh at another time, but he felt no such
inclination now. The matter was too serious.
“Look here, Walter!” said Dan. “Do you mean to tell me that you
honestly believe I reported you to your father?”
“That’s the only way he could have found out some things.”
“Let me ask you a question. Do you know when your father came
here?”
“Why, this afternoon, I suppose,” replied Walter in surprise.
“No, sir. He came on the eight-thirty train this morning.”
“He did? Where was he all the forenoon?”
“I don’t know. He didn’t tell me. Couldn’t you guess?”
 “I hadn’t thought of that,” said Walter slowly. “When did you first
see him?”
“When I came into our room after the Latin hour.”
“That was only a few minutes before I came,” replied Walter,
feeling relieved.
“Yes. As far as I recall, Walter, he asked me only one question.”
“What was that?”
“He asked my opinion about Gus Kiggins.”
“What did you say?” inquired Walter, looking anxiously into his
roommate’s face.
“Nothing that amounted to anything. I didn’t have to, even if I had
wanted to, for he knew pretty much all about him. I would have just
as good a right, Walter, to say that you told him about me as you
have to say that I told, for he asked me about those ten marks Mr.
Sharp gave me and he knew too, that I’d been on the ‘limits.’ Did you
tell him, Walter?”
“Of course I didn’t. You know that as well as I do.” Walter’s voice
was different now and there were traces of a smile about the corners
of his mouth.
“I’m sure you didn’t,” said Dan warmly.
“The ‘old boy’ is nobody’s fool——”
“The who?” interrupted Dan sharply.
“Oh, my father, if that’s what you want me to say.”
“Look here, Walter, I haven’t any father. When I see some of you
fellows with yours, do you know there’s nothing in all the world that I
want deep down in my heart as I do what you’ve got and I haven’t.
But if I did have one, and he was a man as true and interested as
your father is and did as much for me as your father does for you, it
doesn’t seem to me that I’d speak disrespectfully of him or let any
other fellow do it, either.”
 “Oh, he’s all right,” said Walter flippantly. “He means to do the right
thing. I understand that as well as you do. The greatest trouble is
that he doesn’t just understand a fellow——”
“Maybe a part of the trouble, Walter, is because he does
understand. Ever thought of that?”
“No, that isn’t the way of it. My mother does.” Dan smiled as he
recalled the weak and somewhat vain little woman who thought she
was manifesting a greater love for her boy because she upheld and
defended him right or wrong. “Of course I know,” resumed Walter,
“that my father is a mighty smart man. It takes a cool hand to get
ahead of him. He’s the best business man in his line. Why, Dan, he’s
built up the business his father left him till now he has just four times
as many men in the shops as he had when he began. When you say
that he had been here all the morning, why, that puts things in a
different light. He probably ‘got busy.’ Understand, Dan, that I didn’t
really mean to accuse you of going to him with stories about me,
though you’ll have to own up that it did look a bit suspicious when I
found him alone with you and that he knew all about me.”