Systemic, Whole-School Reform of the Middle Years of Schooling

  • Peter W. Hill
  • V. Jean Russell
Chapter

Abstract

A large scale longitudinal study into the cognitive and affective development of pupils in Australian schools between kindergarten and grade 11, shows stagnation both in math and language in the middle years of schooling. Moreover, attitudes towards schools are rapidly declining during this stage. Building on the educational effectiveness knowledge base guiding principles for a reform of the middle years are outlined, and it is advocated that a whole school design instead of an incremental approach is needed to bring about the desired changes.

Keywords

Young Adolescent Professional Learning Educational Leadership School Effectiveness Teaching Efficacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Institutes for Research (1999). An educator’s guide to schoolwide reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Google Scholar
  2. Anderman, E.M.M. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287–309.Google Scholar
  3. Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Curriculum Studies Association (1996). From alienation to engagement: Opportunities for reform in the middle years of schooling Canberra: National Advisory Committee for the Student Alienation During the Middle Years of Schooling Project.Google Scholar
  5. Barratt, R.E. (1998). Shaping middle schooling in Australia: A report of the National Middle Schooling Project. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Systematic,Whole-school Reform of the Middle Years of Schooling Google Scholar
  6. Batten, M., & Russell, J. (1995). Students at risk: A review of Australian literature 19801994 Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  7. Beane, J. (1991). The middle school: The natural home of the integrated curriculum. Educational Leadership,49(2), 9–13.Google Scholar
  8. Beane, J. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality Columbus, Ohio: National Middle School Association.Google Scholar
  9. Braggett, E. (1997). The middle years of schooling: An Australian perspective Cheltenham, Victoria: Hawker Brownlow Education.Google Scholar
  10. Brennan, M., & Sachs, J. (1998). Integrated curriculum. In J. Cumming (Ed.), Extending reform in the middle years of schooling: Challenges and responses (pp. 18–24). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Google Scholar
  11. Brooks, M., Milne, C., Paterson, K., Johansson, K., & Hart, K. (1997). Under-age school leaving: A report examining approaches to assisting young people at risk of leaving school before the legal school leaving age. A report to the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme Hobart: National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies.Google Scholar
  12. Caldwell, B.J., & Spinks, J.M. (1998). Beyond the self-managing school London: Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, P. (1997). Making classrooms collaborative. EQ Australia (1), 41–42.Google Scholar
  14. Cormack, P., Johnsson, B., Peters, J., & Williams, D. (1998). Authentic assessment. In J. Cumming (Ed.), Extending reform in the middle years of schooling: Challenges and responses (pp. 25–31). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Google Scholar
  15. Clay, M.M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Education.Google Scholar
  16. Crévola, C.A.M., & Hill, P.W. (1998a). Evaluation of a whole-school approach to prevention and intervention in early literacy. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crévola, C.A.M, & Hill, P.W. (1998b). Children’s literacy success strategy: An overview Melbourne: Catholic Education Office.Google Scholar
  18. Cumming, J. (1993). Middle schooling for the twenty-first century (Seminar Series No. 28). Melbourne: Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria.Google Scholar
  19. Cumming, J. (Ed.). (1998a).Extending reform in the middle years of schooling: Challenges and responses Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Google Scholar
  20. Cumming, J. (1998b). Challenges and responses. In J. Cumming (Ed.), Extending reform in the middle years of schooling: Challenges and responses (pp. 5–13). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Google Scholar
  21. Cumming, J. (1998c). Support and evaluation. In J. Cumming (Ed.), Extending reform in the middle years of schooling: Challenges and responses (pp. 51–55). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Google Scholar
  22. Dryfoos, J.G. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth and families San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Eyers, V., Cormack, P., & Barratt, R. (1992). The education of Young adolescents in South Australian government schools: Report of the Junior Secondary Review Adelaide: Education Department of South Australia.Google Scholar
  24. Forte, I., & Schurr, S. (1997). The middle years of schooling: A handbook for success Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.Google Scholar
  25. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  26. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  27. Galton, M., & Willcocks, J. (Eds.). (1983).Moving from the primary classroom London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  28. Goertz, M.E., Floden, R.E., & O’Day, J. (1996). Studies of educational reform: systemic reform Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  29. Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 525–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (1996). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An assessment of methodological progress, 1980–1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A Hart, International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 723–783). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hargreaves, A., & Earl, L. (1990). Rights of passage: A review of selected research about schooling in the transition years Toronto: Ministry of Education, Ontario.Google Scholar
  32. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for change: Reinventing education for early adolescents London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1991). Understanding teacher development London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  34. Heck, R.H., Larsen, T.J., & Marcoulides, G.A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly,26(2),94–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hill, P.W., & Crévola, C.A.M. (1997). The literacy challenge in Australian primary chools. IARTV Seminar Series, no. 69, November, 1997.Google Scholar
  36. Hill, P.W., & Crévola, C.A.M. (1998). Characteristics of an effective literacy strategy. Unicorn, 24(2), 74–85.Google Scholar
  37. Hill, P.W., Holmes-Smith, P., & Rowe, K.J. (1993). School and teacher effectiveness in Victoria: Key findings from Phase I of the Victorian Quality Schools Project Melbourne: Centre for Applied Educational Research, The University of Melbourne (ERIC Clearing House, Document No. ED 367 067).Google Scholar
  38. Hill, P.W., & Rowe, K.J. (1996). Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hill, P.W., & Rowe, K.J. (1998). Modelling student progress in studies of educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 310–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hill, P.W., Rowe, K.J., Holmes-Smith, P., & Russell, V.J. (1996). The Victorian Quality Schools Project: A study of school and teacher effectiveness Report to the Australian Research Council. Volume 1. Centre for Applied Educational Research, Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  41. Illman, M. (1997). Year 9 negotiators. EQ Australia (1), 43.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, V.E., Dedrick, R.F., & Smith, J.B. (1991). The effect of the social organisation of schools on teacher efficacy and sense of satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64(3), 190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66(3), 164–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Louis, K. S., & Smith, B. (1992). Cultivating teacher engagement: Breaking the iron law of social class. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 119–152). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Marks, H. M., Newmann, F. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Does authentic pedagogy increase student achievement? In F. Newmann & Associates (Eds.), Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 49–73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Pogrow, S. (1993). Where’s the beef? Looking for exemplary materials. Educational Leadership, 50(8), 39–45.Google Scholar
  47. Power, C., & Cotterell, J. (1981). Changes in students in the transition between primary and secondary school Report No. 27. Canberra: Education Research and Development Committee.Google Scholar
  48. Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Creemers, B.P.M., Cheng, Y.C., Dundas, B., Green, B., Epp, J.R., Hauge, T.E., Schaffer, E.C., & Stringfield, S. (1994). School effectiveness research: A review of the international literature. In Reynolds, D., Creemers, B.P.M., Nesselrodt, P.S., Schaffer, E.C., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Advances in school effectiveness research and practice (pp. 25–51). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  49. Roberts, J. (1997). To the 3Rs, add the 3Ds. EQ Australia (1), 23–25.Google Scholar
  50. Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organisation of schools New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rowe, K.J., Hill, P.W., & Holmes-Smith, P. (1994, January). The Victorian Quality Schools Project: A report on the first stage of a longitudinal study of school and teacher effectiveness Symposium paper presented at the 7th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, The World Congress Centre, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  52. Rowe, K.J., Hill, P.W., & Holmes-Smith, P. (1995). Methodological issues in educational performance and school effectiveness research: A discussion with worked examples.Australian Journal of Education, 39, 217–248.Google Scholar
  53. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R.J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  54. Scheerens, J., Vermeulen, C.J.A.J., & Pelgrum, W.J. (1989). Generalizability of instructional and school effectiveness indicators across nations. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 789–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott, L. (1997). Six principles for the middle years. EQ Australia (1), 12–13.Google Scholar
  56. Slavin, R.E. (1988a). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 31–33.Google Scholar
  57. Slavin, R.E. (1988b). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–77.Google Scholar
  58. Slavin, R.E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499.Google Scholar
  59. Slavin, R.E. (1997). Design competitions: A proposal for a new federal role in educational research and development. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 22–28.Google Scholar
  60. Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Stringer, W. (1997). Better connections. EQ Australia (1), 21–23.Google Scholar
  62. Stringfield, S., Ross, S., & Smith, L. (Eds.). (1996). Bold plans for school restructuring: the New American Schools designs Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  63. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1993). Towards a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research,63(3), 249–294.Google Scholar
  65. Wehlage, G.G., Newmann, F.M., & Secada, W.G. (1996). Standards for authentic achievement and pedagogy. In F. Newmann & Associates (Eds.), Authentic achievement:Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 21–48). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  66. Wehlage, G.G., & Stone, C.R. (1996). School-based student and family services: Community and bureaucracy. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(4), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson, K.G., & Daviss, B. (1994). Redesigning education New York: Henry Holt andCompany.Google Scholar
  68. Withers, G.P., & Russell, V.J. (1998). Educating for resilience: Prevention and intervention strategies for young people at risk Report prepared for the Catholic Education Office, Archdiocese of Melbourne, MacKillop Family Services, and the Department of Human Services of the Government of Victoria, Melbourne.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter W. Hill
    • 1
  • V. Jean Russell
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Applied Educational ResearchThe University of MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations