Organizational Health Directly Influences Student Performance at the Middle Level May 2003 Volume 34 Number 5

May 2003 • Volume 34 • Number 5 • Pages 5-15

Organizational Health Directly Influences Student Performance at the Middle Level

Kathleen M. Brown, Kathleen Roney, & Vincent A. Anfara, Jr.

According to a research summary published by National Middle School Association (NMSA) (2001), schools that implement more Turning Points recommendations show greater gains in student outcomes. We disagree. While trying to link the middle level concept to heightened student achievement is not new, we posit that it may be misdirected. Findings from this study suggest that elements of the middle school concept are "necessary but not sufficient" for high student achievement. They are a means to an end, not an end in themselves as Backes, Ralston, and Ingwalson (1999) contend.

According to NMSA (2001), the interrelationship of many factors affects student outcomes. We agree. Findings from our study substantiate Lipsitz, Mizell, Jackson, and Austin's (1997) claim that "the critical components of the reform process enable deeper instructional changes to occur" (p. 535). Erb (2000), commenting on the work of Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, and Flowers (1997), further noted that "school reform, such as the Turning Points recommendations, involves the presence of a 'black box' between the implementation of innovations on one side and student outcomes on the other" (p. 194). Erb directs researchers to "unravel what happens in the black box" (p. 194).

According to NMSA (2001), there is a strong link between socioeconomic status and achievement. We agree. Findings from this study corroborate Hough and Sills-Briegel's (1997) assertion (a) that socioeconomic status is the most significant correlate to student achievement; (b) that schools serving large numbers of economically disadvantaged students provide a much less supportive learning environment, and, therefore, lower student achievement (Stephens & Jenkins, 1994); and (c) that previous student achievement is a powerful variable whenever predictions are made about subsequent achievement (Russell, 1997).

In response to Erb (2000), the purpose of this qualitative, multi-site case study was to get inside the "black box" of middle level reform. While some middle level researchers have been able to connect "best practices" to intermediate outcomes, our study attempted to connect intermediate outcomes to student achievement. Designed in two phases, our initial purpose was to explore the implementation of middle level reform components in both high and low performing middle schools. Findings from this initial study led us to the second phase, which had as its purpose the identification of factors linked to student achievement.

The theoretical framework utilized in Phase One followed Felner and associates' (1997) five-part model designed to guide research regarding the effects of Turning Points reforms on middle level schools. Our interview protocol, specifically designed to address these five categories (structural, attitudinal, skill, interactive, and instructional features), probed the implementation of elements necessary for change.

The theoretical framework utilized in Phase Two applied the work of Parsons, Bales, and Shils (1953) and Hoy and his colleagues (1986, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1997, 1997) related to organizational health. Research (Bossert, 1988; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Stedman, 1987) demonstrates that organizational health (i.e., school climate) influences school environment and student achievement. For example, Andrews and Morefield (1991) noted the positive correlation that exists between teachers' satisfaction with the workplace and students' performance in reading and mathematics. The five dimensions of climate that define the health and general well-being of middle schools are interactive, "intermediate outcomes" along the pathway to improved student performance. According to Felner and associates, and Stevenson and Erb (1998), a pathway exists that starts with the implementation of Turning Points recommendations, travels through intermediate outcomes, and ends in effects on students' academic, socio-emotional, and behavioral outcomes. It is the acknowledgement of this developmental reform process that forces one to recognize the "necessary but not sufficient" nature of Turning Points constructs. In other words, implementation elements first result in intermediate outcomes that in turn lead to better student achievement. These intermediate outcomes have been identified to include: teacher quality of life and job satisfaction; school and classroom climate; and student and school supports, resources, and stressors.

While similar to Felner and associates' (1997) "growth-inducing" elements, we found Hoy and Hannum's (1997) organizational climate framework to be more encompassing. As a result, we purposely chose to present the findings from Phase Two according to Hoy and Hannum's (1997) technical, managerial, and institutional levels. Two aspects of teacher and student behaviors—academic emphasis and teacher affiliation—chart important aspects at the technical level; two aspects of principal behavior—collegial leadership and resource support—outline important administrative functions at the managerial level; and one aspect of the school-environment relationship—institutional integrity—is explored at the institutional level. Each of these dimensions is defined in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Index of Organizational Climate
Level Emphasis Description
Technical Academic The extent to which the school is driven by a quest for academic excellence. High but achievable academic goals are set for students, the learning environment is orderly and serious, teachers believe in their students' ability to achieve, and students work hard and respect those who do well academically.
Teacher Affiliation A sense of friendliness and strong affiliation with the school. Teachers feel good about each other, their job, and their students. They are committed to both their students and theirs colleagues and accomplish their jobs with enthusiasm.
Managerial Collegial Leadership Principal behavior that is friendly, supportive, open, and guided by norms of equality, But, at the same time, the principal sets the tone for high performance by letting people know what is expected of them.
Resource Support Refers primarily to the availability of classroom supplies and instructional materials. Sufficient materials are readily available; indeed, extra materials are supplied if requested.
Institutional Institutional Integrity The degree to which the school can cope with its environment in a way that maintains the educational integrity of its programs. Teacher are protected from unreasonable community and parental demands.

Research Design
Twelve public middle schools in the Greater Philadelphia area served as the sites for this case study. Through convenience sampling the six low performing schools (LPS) were chosen from the urban Philadelphia school district; the six high performing schools (HPS) were chosen from the neighboring suburban area of Montgomery County. The Report Card on Schools (2000) and data from the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment made available from the Department of Education were used to distinguish high performing from low performing middle schools. Additional demographic data, (e.g., per pupil expenditure, average teacher salary, and years experience), were also examined. The descriptive statistics found in Figure 2 highlight stark demographic disparities between the two types of schools.

Figure 2. School Information

Schools	Percent of Low Income Students	Percent of Minority Students	1999 PSSA Math Scores	1999 PSSA Reading Scores	Instructional Spending per Student
Low Performing	88%	82%	1065	1065	$4,512
High Performing	3%	12%	1445	1430	$8,548

The selection of teachers to be interviewed employed a purposive sampling strategy. Twenty-four middle level teachers, representing both high and low performing schools, were interviewed. Semi-structured interview questions were developed based on Turning Points and This We Believe components of middle level reform to probe areas including curriculum, exploratory programs, flexible scheduling, and teaming of teachers. The structural, attitudinal, skill, interactive, and instructional features of each component were explored (see Felner et al., 1997). A coding system (identifying participants and their affiliation with a high or low performing school, e.g., H9, L19) was created for the identification of participants' verbatim comments (Figure 3). We acknowledge that the analysis that is presented is based on data reported by teachers. No observations were conducted. In an effort to "check" the self-reported nature of these data, two teachers from each school were interviewed and their responses were compared.

Figure 3. Teacher Participants' Profiles

Participant Number	Race	Gender	Age	Years of Teaching Exp.	Middle School Rating	Middle School Location
H1	White	Female	34	3	High	Suburban
H2	White	Female	24	1	High	Suburban
H3	White	Male	28	7	High	Suburban
H4	White	Female	39	17	High	Suburban
H5	White	Female	63	30	High	Suburban
H6	White	Male	26	5	High	Suburban
H7	White	Male	34	10	High	Suburban
H8	White	Male	37	11	High	Suburban
H9	White	Female	48	18	High	Suburban
H10	White	Female	42	15	High	Suburban
H11	White	Male	31	8	High	Suburban
H12	White	Female	34	8	High	Suburban
L13	Black	Female	55	4	Low	Urban
L14	Black	Female	45	22	Low	Urban
L15	White	Female	63	24	Low	Urban
L16	White	Female	46	14	Low	Urban
L17	Black	Female	50	18	Low	Urban
L18	Black	Female	53	6	Low	Urban
L19	White	Male	53	28	Low	Urban
L20	Black	Female	40	15	Low	Urban
L21	Black	Female	45	21	Low	Urban
L22	Black	Female	40	19	Low	Urban
L23	Black	Female	36	5	Low	Urban
L24	White	Male	27	5	Low	Urban

Phase One Findings
The results from Phase One, shown in Figure 4, reveal very few differences between high performing, suburban schools (HPS) and low performing, urban schools (LPS) with regard to implementation of middle school reform components (see Roney, Anfara, & Brown, 2001). When asked about the structural, attitudinal, skill, climate, and practice features of 11 middle school constructs, study findings indicate evidence of eight in both high performing and low performing schools. While the eight components are not the same, nor are their degree of implementation the same, the overall findings indicate a 73% rate of implementation in both high and low performing schools. Despite the great disparity in socioeconomic status, PSSA test scores, and funding between the two types of schools, these findings verify the claim that middle school reform components, as articulated by national organizations and research studies (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 1995), are not sufficient for high student achievement.

Figure 4. Evidence of Middle School Reform in Six High and Six Low Performing Schools

Success for All/Every Student	6 HPS	6 LPS
1) Standards-based Curriculum?	Evidence	Evidence
2) Exploratory Courses?	No Evidence	No Evidence
3) Varied Assessment?	Evidence	Evidence
4) Varied Teaching & Learning Approaches?	Evidence	Evidence
5) Flexible Scheduling?	No Evidence	Evidence
6) Experts at Teaching Adolescents?	Evidence	Evidence
7) Team Teaching?	Evidence	Evidence
8) Advisory Programs?	?	?
9) Administrators Govern Democratically?	Evidence	Evidence
10) Promote Good Health?	Evidence	Evidence
11) Involve Families and Communities?	Evidence	?

Phase Two Findings
Since findings from Phase One indicated that the degree of implementation was similar, Phase Two investigated plausible explanations of the difference in student achievement between the two types of schools. Figure 5 summarizes the major findings from Phase Two of the study. The verbatim quotes of the middle school teachers bring to light the stark contrast between the high and low performing schools at all three levels (technical, managerial, and institutional).

Figure 5. Organizational Health in Six High and Six Low Performing Schools

	High Performing School	Low Performing Schools
Technical Level
*Academic Emphasis*
1) High but achievalbe goals?	1) High academic expectations and stadards met and exceeded	1) Academic expectations lowered to give students a sense of success
2) Orderly learning enviroment?	2) Active involvement in development and implementation of curriculum	2) Curriculm and school programs are stagnant and sometimes ineffective
3) Students ability to succedd?	3) Confidence in students' ability to succedd	3) Lack of confidence in students' ability to succeed
*Teacher Affiliation*
4) Commitment?	4) Committed to students	4) Committed to students
5) Enthusiasm about job?	5) High job statisfaction	5) Low job satisfaction
6) Collegiality?	6) High sense of collegialty	6) Low evedience of collegialty
Managerial Level
*Collegial Leaderhsip*
1) Principal behavior?	1) Instructional leadrship	1) Limited instructional leadership
2) Principal expectations?	2) Shared vision—growth and development	2) Narrow focus—test scores
*Resource Support*
3) Availability of materials and supplies?	3) Abundant resources	3) Adequate to limited resources
4) Sufficiency of materials and supplies?	4) Lack of time	4) Lack of time
Institutional Level
*Istitutional Integriity*
1) Typical parentl involvement?	1) Attending and volunteerying	1) Attending and volunteering
2) Typical community?	2) What schools do for community	2) What community does for school
3) Degree of parental involvement?	3) High level of involvement	3) Low level of involvement
4) Acceptance of outside involvement?	4) High level of resistance	4) Low level of resistance

Academic emphasis
The technical level defines issues related to a school's academic emphasis and the affiliation of its teachers. An analysis of participant comments surfaced glaring differences between responses from teachers in the HPS and those in the LPS regarding such things as the establishment of high but achievable goals for students, the creation of an orderly learning environment, and the belief in the student's ability to succeed. Teachers from HPS typically responded that they were cognizant of curriculum standards, but most felt that the standards merely reflected what was already taking place in their classrooms. According to one teacher, "In fact, our curriculum actually goes well beyond what's contained in the standards for grades 6, 7, and 8" (H1). Teachers in HPS reported being actively engaged in curriculum development and program update. They indicated enthusiastic, proactive involvement in curricular planning, implementing, and assessing, and readily remarked about their students' active engagement in the learning process. "Our kids are very capable and because of that the teachers here challenge their students and hold high expectations. The kids are honest, too, about telling you what works for them and where they need additional help" (H3).

In sharp contrast, teachers in LPS consistently reported that the curriculum standards were imposed on them by the school district, expressed concern about the ability of their students to achieve these standards, and uttered confusion due to poorly documented and articulated curriculum.
"I teach a standards-based curriculum because I am told to. I'm not sure there is any value in doing this, but I do what I'm told to do. I guess it's good in theory. Nobody seems to know what we are supposed to teach in sixth, versus seventh or eighth grades" (L24).

Teachers in LPS relayed stories of being involved in implementing programs that are ineffective. For example, they discussed advisory periods in relation to taking attendance, serving breakfast, watching Channel One, as a "total waste of time" (L15). Teaming was viewed by some teachers as a way to protect themselves from students, while cooperative learning was seen as a waste of time.

Teaming is good because you can send children to someone else for a period so you can cool down and children can have their time-out. Teaming is also better for documentation reasons, so people don't think that it's just one teacher hating children and the world. That there is another teacher who has the same impressions is very important (L24).
Teaching methods tell us to use groups and let students instruct each other. I find they are on such a low level that group work is a waste of time, total chaos (L23).

Teacher affiliation
Also at the technical level, teacher affiliation spotlights issues related to job satisfaction and commitment to colleagues and students. Teachers in both HPS and LPS spoke of their commitment to students, but, beyond this common thread, vast differences were obvious between teachers in the two types of schools regarding enthusiasm about their jobs and a sense of collegiality in their schools. The degree of enthusiasm surrounding their work and their school was clearly evident when teachers answered the questions concerning teaming and working with their school administrators. Comments from teachers in HPS indicated much enthusiasm, positive school climates, and feelings of security (e.g., willing to take risks, be creative) and satisfaction. They "like to team teach" and "think it's a good idea" (H1).

I've learned so much from the other teachers in this school; not only subject matter, but also the approaches they take in teaching the content. (H5)
All I need to say is that we are encouraged to be creative, to work together, to take risks. Other teachers and the administration are supportive of this kind of teacher behavior. We refer to our school as "one big family." (H7)

In contrast, listen to the lack of fervor in the responses from teachers in LPS:

Not every team works as a team. It depends on the personalities. Teachers say, "I'm going to close my door and what you do in your room is your business. If it happens to tie in with what I'm doing, we're lucky. But other than that I don't want to hear about what you are doing." This example gives you a sense of how fun it is to be here. (L14)
Our principal is incompetent. This ruins the spirit of many of the teachers. It makes coming to work rather negative and depressing. The lack of vision creates a leadership void. I don't think he knows very much about education—at least he doesn't appear to. This is not a place many people want to be. The number of teachers that leave each year is almost greater than the number that stays. (L15)
I think you will find a lot of competition among teachers or else there are the teachers who have done the same thing for the past 30 years without deviating. They don't care if it works with the students; it's what and how they do it. (L13)

Collegial leadership
At the managerial level, the person responsible for the internal coordination of the school's vision is the principal. Balancing collegial friendliness with expectations for high levels of teacher performance, the principal deals with such issues as teacher loyalty, resource allocation, and hierarchical structures. Overall, a surface analysis of the data regarding collegial leadership indicated that teachers in both types of schools reported similar levels of democratic leadership on the part of their principals. Likewise, teachers in both HPS and LPS confirmed similar levels of respect and understanding from their administrators. According to one account, "He [the principal] has an open door policy. He is always available" (H12). Another remarked:

It's pretty much an open door. Sometimes you might have to wait if she's really busy, but she's always receptive to hearing whatever the problem is and helping to obtain some kind of solution to whatever the request is. (L18)

A deeper assessment of the data surfaced differences in how principals provide help when needed. In HPS, many of the teachers viewed their principals as experts who collaborate with them as they seek to improve their instruction. The teachers don't always "see the administrators as administrators" (H3), but more as true instructional leaders. In contrast, although teachers in LPS reported some level of administrative support, they viewed their principal's time and availability as limited. Many felt as though the help and guidance offered was from someone other than their administrator.

While many teachers in HPS discussed principal expectations and shared vision in terms of a bigger educational picture concerning growth and development, comments from the teachers in the LPS seemed to focus on the more visible bottom line—the test results. One teacher reported, "it's an obstacle to some degree. Parents want to see a piece of paper where children have done certain problems and received a grade. Administrators come into our classrooms and they want to see children's work. They too want to see something visible and tangible" (L13).

Resource support
Also at the managerial level, not surprisingly, teachers from HPS had positive things to say about the resources available to them. Textbooks and technology focused their reflections. One teacher revealed, "They provide us with all the necessary resources that we could ask for" (H6). Another stated, "We feel fortunate that we are in a school and in a district where we have a lot of media resources. We have computers available to us. We have projection machines that have recently been installed. We have overheads. We all have laptops" (H9). Teachers in LPS reported a mix of experiences. Some teachers use their own money to get the supplies they need to do their jobs, while others reported an availability of necessary materials and supplies.

When asked about the adequacy of materials and supplies, teachers in both types of schools remarked about the lack of time—time to learn, time to plan and implement, time to assess properly. When asked if the school supports standards-based reform sufficiently with time, one teacher from a HPS simply replied, "No" (H5). According to another respondent, "the biggest concern we have is our schedule" (H11). This lack of flexibility was frustrating for many:

We have some restraints on our time too from special education and from a special reading teacher here. So there are some things that we can't change because a couple of our students are with them. They teach all levels, so they can't switch their times around. So, we do have constraints on our time. (H9)
We have some really excellent programs for after-school, but the small percentage of students choose to go. I think some things need to be during the school day but we don't have the time. (L18)

Institutional integrity
Hoy and Hannum (1997) described institutional integrity as "the degree to which the school can cope with its environment in a way that maintains the educational integrity of its programs" (p. 294). This section of the analysis focuses on the institutional level and explores issues related to active parental and community involvement. An initial read of the data revealed very little difference between HPS and LPS with regard to "typical" modes of involvement. When asked "Do you have the opportunity to work with the families of your students?," teachers in both types of schools responded with the usual "yes." They described parent volunteers as field trip chaperones, speakers for Career Day, discussants for Book Talks, and participants for Mock Trials. Teachers in both HPS and LPS reported some parent attendance at Back-to-School Nights, Open Houses, Awards Assemblies, and Family Nights.

"Given the enormity and complexity of their mission, it is increasingly clear that if middle schools, indeed all schools, are to be successful in educating children for the future, then they need the assistance of an active and engaged community" (Sanders, 2001, p. 53). An analysis of our data exposed an interesting difference of interpretation of this quote between HPS and LPS. While neither type of school revealed notable levels of community involvement as recommended by educational associations and researchers, responses from the teachers in HPS centered around what the schools were doing for the community, while responses from the teachers in LPS referenced what the communities were doing for the school. Typical replies from HPS indicated "our community service clubs do a lot of outreach stuff" (H7), "the Honor Society went to a geriatric facility and had lunch with the people" (H2), and "our students help out at the local food shelters" (H12). A school to community outreach was noted in their comments.

In contrast, remarks from teachers in LPS denoted a sense of neediness versus helpfulness. Aside from the mention of a "Saturday School where there are all types of activities for the community" (L17), the majority of the replies to "How do you and your school work with the community?" discussed "referrals through community organizations" (L13), "we've been adopted by The Concerned Black Men and a couple of other organizations" (L15), and "those are the types of interactions we have where someone from an outside organization will come in and work with the children" (L23) or "talk to us about what they want to do for our school" (L18).

When asked about the kinds of parental involvement, responses from teachers in both HPS and LPS appeared to resemble each other. Not surprisingly, a closer analysis of the data did reveal a stark difference concerning the degree of parental involvement. Parents and family members were reported to be much more involved in HPS compared to LPS. When asked "Do you work with the families of your students?," many of the teachers in HPS replied, "Yeah, it's unavoidable, the parents are very involved" (H12). A discourse analysis of these transcripts revealed language such as "constant communication" (H5), "monthly parent meetings" (H3), "an active PTA" (H9), "my phone number is always available" (H11), "four days a year set aside for parent-teacher conferences" (H10), "I return calls promptly" (H12), "outreach to the families is definitely encouraged" (H11), and "a lot of our students have parents on the school board" (H12). Teachers in HPS were able to verbalize both the positive aspects of parental involvement as well as the purpose of such activities.

In contrast, many of the responses from the teachers in LPS denoted a sense of frustration and resignation regarding the lack of substantial parental involvement in their schools. While some indicated that "I know the families, they will come in at my request" (L19), or "I visit their homes if I can" (L13), or "on occasion they show up at my door" (L24), the majority of the comments were more negative. When asked directly, "Do you work with the families of your students?," answers included "not too often" (L17), "I would say no, probably only on a limited basis but its not something I do regularly" (L18), "we don't get a lot of support from home" (L13), "we've invited the parents but they don't come out, they don't even come out to collect their child's report card" (L14), and "in middle school, parent involvement is really difficult" (L23).

Another interesting finding concerning parent-school relationships detected a subtle sense of resistance on the part of teachers from both types of schools regarding the degree of family/community involvement, regardless of whether the level was seen as substantial or not. As one teacher put it, "it's like a double-edged sword. We don't want the parents so involved that they are standing outside the door, but if we want them outside the door, they better be there" (H12). This same teacher further explained, "I try to wean the parents from that much involvement at the middle school level. They want to be here all the time, they want to be the homeroom parents, and they want to be on every field trip. We're trying to wean the kids to make them more independent, so we don't encourage it as much" (H12). While similar sentiments were echoed by teachers in both types of schools, the teachers in HPS appeared to comment on this issue more frequently than their counterparts in LPS. Some teachers view parental involvement as "just one more thing to think about … that's all well and good but I don't have the time" (H7), while others "just see the parents as enemies" (H12). Other reasons for not embracing parental involvement revolved around teacher and parent fear, lack of skill, lack of encouragement, and/or a sense that as the students mature, they do not need or want their parents involved.

Concluding Discussion
While we certainly do not disagree that "Student achievement must be given the highest priority in the mission of the middle level school" (Williamson, Johnston & Kanthak, 1995, p. 6), we did discover that unraveling the black box between the middle school concepts and high student achievement is not an easy task. The path that leads from implementation elements through intermediate outcomes to improved student performance is not well understood. Our query is similar to that of Lipsitz and associates (1997), "Among all the structural school changes, what really makes a difference in students' behavior and academic accomplishments?" (p. 518). Continuing to ask the same old questions—number of Turning Points structures implemented?, degree of implementation?, grade configuration of middle schools?—does not get at the crux of student achievement at the middle level. Even Felner and associates'(1997) five questions regarding the implementation of the Turning Points recommendations (i.e., Do we have the opportunity to do it? Do we want to do it? Do we know how to do it? Do we have a supportive environment to do it? Do we do it?) lack the all-important inquiry "Why?" Why do we do it? What is the purpose and what do we hope to achieve?

Successful reform must be comprehensive and integrative. Clear patterns of interdependence among the components must be evident. The assumption that "according to middle level theory, if the middle level philosophy is implemented, the outcomes of enhanced personal development, group citizenship, and achievement will be attained" (Russell, 1997, p. 170), is just that, an assumption. So much more needs to happen along the path from implementing structural reforms to creating "growth-inducing environments" (Felner et al., 1997) to increasing student performance. Connecting reform efforts to organizational health, and then organizational health to student outcomes, should be our focus. School culture and climate, teacher efficacy, student support and stressors, and the nature of the curriculum, (e.g., teaching and learning) are what we need to investigate. The recommendations from Turning Points and This We Believe have the potential to enhance school climate and ultimately student achievement if, and only if, the purpose for implementing them is clearly understood. Once again, teachers in both HPS and LPS need to understand why.

If the goal is "success for all," then school location, student ethnicity or race, and student SES should not be a factor, but, unfortunately, it is (see Figure 2 for descriptive statistics highlighting stark demographic disparities). By analyzing our qualitative data through the lens of organizational health, distinct differences were found when information from teachers in high performing suburban and low performing urban schools was compared. A 400-point difference in average state test scores and an 85% difference in the percentage of low-income students is remarkable in and of itself. Factor in a 70% difference in the number of white, majority students, a 10-year difference in teachers' years of experience, and notable differences in per student instructional spending, it is no wonder we found the differences we did in how HPS and LPS operate. However, while socioeconomic status cannot and should not be overstated or overlooked, Hoy and Hannum (1997) do offer us some hope:

Although the SES of the community is important in predicting student achievement, so too are aspects of the organizational health of middle schools. Teacher affiliation, resource support, academic emphasis, and institutional integrity all make significant contributions to various aspects of student achievement independently of the wealth of the district. This finding is especially important because it seems easier to improve the health of middle schools than it is to change the socioeconomic character of a community. (pp. 307-308)

Our study's findings concur and reinforce the importance of returning to the meaning and purpose of middle level schooling. Because high SES students will achieve regardless of the learning situation, we have an even greater responsibility to help the students and teachers in the low performing schools. Realizing that "large schools with high concentrations of low-income children are often among the first to implement reforms" (Felner et al., 1997, p. 43), we need to be more vigilant and judicious in our recommendations. More specific attention needs to be paid to improving school climate and culture by focusing on the technical, managerial, and institutional levels of organizational health. Outlining quick fixes and easy-to-follow reform initiatives that are not so easy to achieve is a grave disservice and, under these circumstances, promoting best practices as an ecological package promotes false hope. The power of this study encourages us to move away from the structures per se and return to the deeper meaning and purpose undergirding them, initially improved organizational health, ultimately leading to improved student achievement. We need to ask "Why?"

References

Andrews, R. L., & Morefield, J. (1991). Effective leadership for effective urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 23(3), 270-278.

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.

Bossert, S. T. (1988). School effects. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 341-352). New York: Longman.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Erb, T. (2000). Do middle school reforms really make a difference? Clearing House, 73, 194-200.

Felner, R., Jackson, A. W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle grades: A longitudinal study of a network engaged in Turning Points -based comprehensive school transformation. In R. Takanishi & D. A. Hamburg (Eds.), Preparing adolescents for the twenty-first century: Challenges facing Europe and the United States (pp. 38-69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hough, D., & Sills-Briegel, T. (1997). Student achievement and middle level programs, policies, and practices in rural America: The case of community-based versus consolidated organizations. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 13(1), 64-70.

Hoy, W. K., & Clover, S. (1986). Elementary school climate: A revision of the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22, 93-110.

Hoy, W. K., & Feldman, J. A. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its measure. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 30-38.

Hoy, W. K., & Forsyth, P. B. (1986). Effective supervision: Theory into practice. New York: Random House.

Hoy, W. K., & Hannum, J. W. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 290-311.

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open school, healthy school: Making schools work. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York & Westerville, OH: Teachers College Press & National Middle School Association.

Lipsitz, J., Mizell, M. H., Jackson, A., & Austin, L. M. (1997). Speaking with one voice: A manifesto for middle-grades reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 533-540.

National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author.

National Middle School Association. (1992). 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. (2001). NMSA Research Summary # 12: Academic achievement. Retrieved February 25, 2003, from http://www.nmsa.org/research/research.html

Parsons, T., Bales, R. F., & Shils, E. A. (1953). Working papers in the theory of action. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-453.

Report Card on the Schools. (2000, September 24). The Philadelphia Inquirer, pp. Q14-Q15.

Roney, K., Anfara, V., & Brown, K. (2001). The middle school movement and high student achievement: An oxymoron? Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the National Middle School Association, Washington, DC.

Russell, J. F. (1997). Relationships between the implementation of middle-level program concepts and student achievement. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(2), 152-168.

Sanders, M. (2001). Schools, families, and communities partnering for middle level students' success. NASSP Bulletin, 85(627), 53-61.

Stedman, L. C. (1987). It's time we changed the effective school formulas. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 214-224.

Stephens, J. C., Jr., & Jenkins, S. J. (1994). Affective middle grades program elements and criterion based achievement in Georgia schools. Reading Improvement, 31(2), 66-71.

Stevenson, C., & Erb, T. O. (1998). How implementing Turning Points improves student outcomes. Middle School Journal, 30(1), 49-52.

Williamson, R. D., Johnston, J. H., & Kanthak, L. M. (1995). The agenda: The achievement agenda for middle level schools. Schools in the Middle, 5(2), 6-9.

Kathleen M. Brown is an assistant professor of educational leadership at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. E-mail: BrownK@email.unc.edu

Kathleen Roney is an assistant professor of middle level education at Rosemont College, Rosemont, Pennsylvania. E-mail: kroney@rosemont.edu

Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., a member of NMSA's Research Committee, is associate professor of educational administration and cultural studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. E-mail: Vanfara@utk.edu