Caught in the Middle Again: Accountability & the Changing Practice of Middle School Teachers

Middle schools are under increasing political pressure to establish higher standards for all students and are being closely monitored for accountability through yearly academic testing (Juvonen, Le, Kaganoff, Augustine, & Constant, 2004). This pressure may be reducing the attention given to important developmental needs of young adolescents; however, the effect of increased standards and accountability practices on the teaching of diverse middle school student populations is largely unknown. Lack of agreement over the goals and philosophy of middle grades education poses a major challenge to the future of the middle school movement (Hunt, Wiseman, & Bowden, 2003). At issue is whether the cornerstone principles of middle grades education that include a developmental focus on meeting the needs of the whole child (Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, 2002; National Middle School Association [NMSA], 2003) should take precedence over an approach that stresses the academic needs of the child (Hunt et al., 2003). The current federal education policy in the United States emphasizes student test performance with rewards and sanctions based on annual results. The controversial expansion of test-based accountability leads to assertions that schools have responded in undesirable ways (Hoover, 2004).

This study investigated influences of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) on the everyday practice of middle school teachers. Specifically, this study addressed two research questions: (1) What influence have current state and national education policies had on how teachers view the purpose and nature of their work? and (2) How have high stakes accountability measures based on yearly academic testing influenced teachers’ curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices?

Growing evidence (Dalton, Samek, Olson, Greene, Caskey, & Musser, 2004) suggests that middle schools are abandoning or compromising instructional practices advocated widely in the middle grades reform movement of the last 20 years (e.g., Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 2003) as a new emphasis on adequate yearly progress filters into states and school districts through the layers of academic requirements spelled out in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). As parents, educators, and policy makers continue to negotiate what it means for middle school students to succeed, a debate over priorities seems to be re-emerging (Dalton et al., 2004). On what basis are middle level teachers abandoning or compromising practices forged in an era of unprecedented focus on the most effective ways to teach young adolescents? Is NCLB’s requirement of adequate yearly progress on content area tests incompatible with the recommendations of middle level leaders?

This review of literature begins with a brief look at the key ideas shaping middle grades practice in recent years and provides a context for understanding tensions that surface with raised accountability stakes. On one hand, an expanding research base validates claims that schools implementing recommended middle grades practices post higher gains in student achievement (Backes, Ralston, & Ingwalson, 1999; Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, & Flowers, 1997; Lee & Smith, 1993; Mertens & Flowers, 2003; Mertens, Flowers, & Mulhall, 1998) than schools that compromise those practices. On the other hand and adding to the confusion over what works in the middle grades, a report from 49 states and 314 school districts on the impact of NCLB suggests that student achievement is on the rise (Center on Education Policy, 2005). In fact, most states and districts in the report “say that the achievement gaps are narrowing between white students and other key subgroups” (p. 1). The report also highlighted the increased time many districts allocate for tested areas like reading and math, while cutting back on social studies, science, and other curricular areas. However, Bracey (2007) argued that the impact of NCLB has to be considered with a fair amount of skepticism given the uneven results in achievement scores and the vast amount of time and resources expended over the last five years. Bracey concluded, “results look especially disappointing” (p. 130).

Historically, the framework of the middle school philosophy was articulated in the writings of Alexander (1964). The philosophy was advanced by an early position statement of the National Middle School Association (NMSA, 1982) and by the recommendations of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). During the past ten years, this focus on middle grades education continued as evidenced by the work of Jackson and Davis (2000), NMSA (2003), and The National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform (2002). According to This We Believe: Successful Schools for Young Adolescents (NMSA, 2003), the components of a successful middle school include:

… curriculum that is relevant, challenging, integrative, and exploratory; multiple learning and teaching approaches that respond to their diversity; assessment and evaluation programs that promote quality learning; organizational structures that support meaningful relationships and learning; school-wide efforts and policies that foster health, wellness, and safety; and multifaceted guidance and support services. (p. 7)

Importantly, these middle school components are interdependent; therefore, full implementation is required to operate a successful middle school. Additionally, NMSA (2003) delineates cultural characteristics for successful middle schools, such as educators who value working with young adolescents; courageous, collaborative leadership; and, students and teachers engaged in active learning.

Several studies documented the impact of this middle level framework on student achievement. For example, one longitudinal study found that schools with high implementation of the framework had higher student achievement scores than schools that did not implement or only partially implemented the framework (Felner et al., 1997). Another longitudinal study examined the relationship between middle school practices and student achievement (Mertens et al., 1998). This study reported that students in schools that implemented teaming and common planning time had higher scores in reading and math achievement than students in schools without these middle school practices. Additional studies (Backes et al., 1999; Lee & Smith, 1993; Mertens & Flowers, 2003) provided more evidence about the effectiveness of the middle school model. Lee and Smith investigated the impact of attending a restructured middle school on student achievement and engagement. Their findings revealed positive effects of middle school practices on both student achievement and engagement. Similarly, Backes and colleagues examined the effect of the middle school model on student achievement. They found that overall student achievement scores were higher in schools implementing the recommended middle school practices. In their large- scale regional study, Mertens and Flowers analyzed the relationship between middle school practices, especially teaming, and student achievement in high poverty schools. Not only did they find that teachers engaged more frequently in middle school practices when teaming, but they also found improved levels of student achievement. Nevertheless, the scarcity of systematic research in middle grades education, inadequate funding, insufficient sponsored research, and the lack of a national database for middle level education resulted in a shallow research foundation. In addition, challenging a clear analysis of the effect of middle school tenets on student achievement is the extent to which recommended changes were implemented—or whether changes to the older junior high model were implemented at all.

In Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21^st Century, Jackson and Davis (2000) reorganized and revised the language of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development’s (1989) original recommendations. First, the overarching goal was to ensure student success. Next, the report called for greater attention to curriculum and instruction. Two specific recommendations were to (1) teach a curriculum grounded in standards, the concerns of young adolescents, and how students learn best, and (2) to use instructional methods that prepare all students to achieve high standards. Interestingly, the middle school movement intertwined with the nation’s standards-based reform movement and its emphasis on testable academic outcomes (Juvonen et al., 2004). This standards-based movement, fueled by NCLB, contributed to middle level research on raising standardized test scores (e.g., Bailey, 2003; Faulkner & Cook, 2006), though few studies addressed successful middle grades models, “such as student engagement, aspirations, school climate, or disciplinary issues” (p. 115). Thus, a growing concern surrounds the effect of standards-based reform on middle grades teaching practices and teacher preparation.

Middle school teachers in Oregon, like their counterparts in other states, face the challenge of complying with federal, state, and local accountability mandates, while doing the very complex and important work of teaching young adolescents. Oregon began current school reform efforts with the passage of House Bill 3565 in 1991. The state implemented standards for grades 3-8 and high school along with statewide assessments in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in literacy, mathematics, science and social studies. Many practicing teachers were involved in development of both standards and assessments. The assessments included authentic writing, speaking, and mathematics performance measures among others. Oregon teachers were then and still are under intense scrutiny by stakeholders to teach academically rigorous and developmentally responsive curricula. Middle school practitioners are expected to address both cognitive and social-emotional needs of young adolescents, who are transitioning from childhood to adolescence. Most recently, these middle school teachers are dealing with the effects of NCLB on classroom and school practices as well as their professional status. This study seeks to understand how Oregon’s middle school teachers perceive changes in their practice and in the nature of their work under policies stemming from NCLB legislation and increased state accountability measures. It addresses the dearth of research on how federal legislation has affected the day-to-day practices and priorities of middle school teachers throughout Oregon.

To align with the research goal of examining the influence of increased accountability on teacher practices over a period of time, we selected only schools retaining principals for five or more years to control for changes in teacher practice influenced by changes in school leadership. We felt that teachers’ responses from such schools would be more likely to reflect changes influenced by factors external to the school such as state and national policies as opposed to internal changes influenced by a new principal. Thus, while 26 of the 104 principals participating in a previous study indicated a willingness to have their schools participate in this study, only 13 of them had 5 or more years of experience as the principal of their current school. Consequently, the researchers targeted those 13 middle schools for inclusion in this study. The schools varied in size and demographic diversity (see Table 1).

Participants targeted for survey completion were teachers of one or more of the core subject areas (English/language arts, social studies, science, or math) since it was felt the impact of accountability requirements would be greatest among this group. One hundred sixty-two core middle school teachers completed the survey. Nearly 60% of them had more than 10 years of middle school teaching experience, while 21% had five or fewer years teaching in middle schools. Twenty percent of the participants had been in middle school teaching between 6 and 10 years.

A 45-item survey, Middle Level Teacher Survey (Appendix A), was developed by the researchers to probe teachers’ perceptions about middle school beliefs and practices. The survey’s construction drew on widely agreed upon components of successful middle schools (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, 2003; NMSA, 2003). The researchers conducted a pilot study of the survey instrument at a middle school with a principal who has four years of experience. The principal distributed the surveys to the teachers in her middle school. A cover letter accompanied the survey to describe the pilot study and to solicit teachers’ suggestions and comments regarding the clarity of the questions. Following an analysis of feedback from the pilot group, the researchers made minor word changes to the instrument.

The final version of the survey was mailed or hand-delivered to each school along with a cover letter explaining the research and ensuring confidentiality. Principals distributed and collected the survey that was comprised of four sections: (1) background information, (2) beliefs about content and academic preparation, (3) beliefs about school organization and curriculum, and (4) perceptions of the influence of educational reform efforts. Survey items included multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-response questions. Quantitative data, the closed response items, were analyzed using frequency counts and correlational statistics. A reliability coefficient of .74 was calculated for all scaled items using Cronbach’s alpha.

Three open-response prompts produced narrative data that were analyzed qualitatively using category construction resulting from content analysis. The following open-response categories generated the qualitative data gathered in this survey: (1) Teachers who reported changing their instructional strategies to focus on preparing students to succeed on state exams and grade level benchmarks were asked to describe the changes they were making; (2) Teachers who commented on the effect of state and national regulations on improving their teaching practices; and, (3) Teachers who shared one or more educational policy changes leading to a positive difference in their work with students. Teachers’ hand-written responses to these three questions resulted in 27 pages of transcription. After reading and discussing these qualitative data, the team constructed initial categories to reflect the themes observed by each researcher. The broad categories were the purpose and nature of teaching; curriculum; instructional practices; and assessment. As the researchers subdivided the categories, they developed a coding scheme to identify specific information about the data. See Appendix B for a complete list of the coding schema applied.

Using numerical codes, four researchers read the transcribed data again and coded each teacher’s response in one or multiple categories. Afterward, the four researchers compared each other’s coding response-by-response via a series of five 1-hour telephone conference calls. This approach helped to clarify category meanings and produced consensus in the coding process. School personnel and the state department of education’s public web site provided additional demographic data used in the analysis that included math and reading achievement scores, number of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches, and minority enrollment statistics. The research team used QSR NVivo (Version 2.0) qualitative analysis software to search, collate, and compare data categorically and demographically. School names are reported here using pseudonyms, and comments from each participant were coded using a four-digit number with the first two digits identifying the school and the second two digits identifying the individual teacher (see Table 1). Participant quotes are identified in the text using these four-digit numbers.

The first research question in this study asked how state and national education policies are affecting the way teachers view the purpose and nature of their work. Table 2 ranks nine traits by the percentage of respondents who rated each as essential or important for middle school teachers.

The majority of respondents considered all nine of the abovementioned traits (survey items 27-35) as essential or important for middle school teachers, though varying degrees of emphasis are discernable. The highest ranked trait, the ability to connect positively with students, achieved a combined total of 99%. Eighty-nine percent viewed this trait as essential, underscoring teachers’ strong feelings about this item and their beliefs about the nature of their work. Other traits in the top three rankings were a willingness to collaborate and having strategies to measure learning gains, each with combined totals of 94%. Less priority was placed on integrating curriculum and content area expertise with totals of 76% and 85%, respectively.

Teachers who indicated in item 36 that the nature of their work had changed in positive ways (n = 16) were outnumbered by teachers who expressed the change in negative terms (n = 98). Nearly 60% of the 162 teachers indicated that increased accountability policies (state and/or national) had a negative impact on the nature of their work or on their roles as teachers. Interestingly, the highest number of negative comments clustered in two of the thirteen schools (17% and 13% of the comments). Both schools, Timmons and Hearty, are among the lowest in median household income of the thirteen, and they are ranked 12^th and 13^th (the two lowest rankings) among the thirteen schools in reading achievement. Timmons is also ranked 13^th in math achievement.

The distribution of positive comments revealed no particular pattern in the economic status or minority statistics among the schools. Teachers’ remarks in this category acknowledged such things as the positive effect of accountability on their teaching efficiency, curriculum organization, and better general alignment between standards and practice as well as among teachers. An analysis of teaching beliefs based on years of middle school teaching experience did not produce discernable differences in the qualitative data.

Likewise in the quantitative data analysis, years of middle school teaching experience did not correlate significantly with any of the items (36-42, 44) measuring state or national policy impact (see Appendix C). However, the newest teachers had slightly higher means for statements that validated state and national policies and standards, though overall they still disagreed with the statements (see Appendix D). Newest teachers had the lowest mean in response to the statement, “I am changing in my instructional strategies to focus on preparing students to succeed on state exams and grade level benchmarks.” This suggests that, compared to more experienced teachers, new teachers came into the profession expecting to implement instructional strategies that focused on preparing students for state exams and grade level benchmarks and therefore had fewer changes to make.

The qualitative data set came from core subject teachers responding to three open-ended prompts following items 37 (“I am changing my instructional strategies to focus on preparing students to succeed on state exams and grade level benchmarks.”), 44 (“My responses to state and national regulations are improving my teaching practices.”), and 45 (an invitation to comment on policy changes that would make a difference to the teacher’s work). Most survey participants responded to all three open-ended items. These responses were assigned to appropriate categories for analysis (see Appendix E) based on the coding schema (see Appendix B).

Statements lamenting a decline in the sense of feeling connected with their students reverberated through teachers’ comments. Seven comments referred specifically to the importance of relationships. One Timmons teacher’s remark captures what others also had to say. “The regulations don’t make people better teachers. In middle school, there must be a balance between knowledge and heart. We must be experts in our field, but we must also be experts at connecting with kids. State and national regulations don’t care about the ‘heart’ of the matter” (2316). Another teacher at Horizon referred to the social needs of their students that were not being met and that “students’ creativity, self-expression, personality, and many other social components have been systematically taken out of the education process” (3203).

Eight teachers talked about the unrealistic requirements for special education students to meet the same criteria of achievement as students in other categories. Some of the teachers wrote disparagingly of a climate that was causing many to leave or consider leaving the profession. One Hoffman teacher wrote, “NCLB… has caused much concern about teaching as a career for me” (2213). Another teacher at Hearty said that state and national regulations were “driving good people out of teaching” (2107) and a Hill teacher mentioned, “it is discouraging to see quality educators leave the field due to present expectations” (1204).

Several teachers (n = 19) waxed philosophical about doing their best to meet the needs of students in spite of state or national mandates. The following comments exemplify this observation:

• I have a strong commitment to teaching my students in a creative pedagogical manner while assisting them to reach state benchmarks. Regulations do not change my teaching ethics in the classroom. (Oak, 1115)

• I fight to keep regulations from detracting from my students’ learning. It’s a difficult fight! (Timmons, 2314)

• My teaching practices are based on my students. State and national standards know nothing about the Joe’s and Susie’s in my classroom. My teaching must be developed only for the needs of each of my students and where they are developmentally: academically, socially, and emotionally. (Hearty, 2122)

• I’m a competent teacher and I watch educational trends. I follow state standards. All these changes rarely change how I approach teaching…! do what’s best for my class of kids at the time, and that varies from year to year based on their needs. (Pine, 1306)

Teachers appear adamant about the failure of state and national policies to address both the cognitive/academic needs and the social/emotional needs of adolescents. This is also reflected clearly in survey items 41 and 42 (see Table 3). Their comments reflect confidence and commitment to their own professionalism but also a high level of discontent with factors that interfere with their ability to deliver the curriculum and employ effective teaching strategies that they feel best supports students’ academic and social needs in the current climate of high-stakes testing. It seems obvious to these teachers that the nature of their work is defined, at least in part, by what they want for their students and that they are driven by a philosophical commitment that guides their practice even as accountability mandates swirl around them.

While most teachers value curriculum integration and feel it is encouraged in their schools, the majority agreed that state assessments influence them to reduce the amount of curriculum integration they do. Interestingly, while teachers approve and support the concept of curriculum integration, it was ranked lowest of the nine traits of effective teaching (see Table 2). Teachers seem to view curriculum integration as a good idea but, given the testing, class sizes, and curriculum mandates, it simply is not their highest priority. Teachers may not have a sufficient grounding in curriculum integration to make it a part of their practice.

Both the quantitative and qualitative data provide evidence that teachers care deeply about students’ academic and cognitive needs as well as their social and emotional needs. What is also clear in teachers’ written comments is that they believe national policies work against those needs and hinder them from doing the job they want to do, feel prepared to do, and believe they were hired to do. Many felt that while teaching to standards and monitoring students’ learning gains are important, the high stakes demands and limitations imposed by current national policies are hindering the potential benefits.

The second research question in this study explored the impact of high stakes accountability on curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices in middle school teaching. The majority of respondents (70%) agreed that state and national policies are changing how they view the nature of their work, and 72% agreed that they are changing their instructional strategies to focus on preparing students to succeed on state exams and grade level benchmarks. Only 15% of respondents agreed and 1% strongly agreed with the statement, “My responses to state and national regulations are improving my teaching practice.” While practices appear to be changing, 84% of the teachers responding to this item did not feel their teaching has improved as a result of state and national mandates (see Table 3).

While most respondents agreed that current accountability policies were affecting how they viewed their work, a strong majority of teachers disagreed that state and national reform efforts were improving the quality of teacher preparation or teacher quality in general, and they also felt that state and national efforts were not improving their own teaching practices. Additionally, most teachers indicated that state and national policies were ineffective in producing learning gains or meeting the cognitive and psychosocial needs of their students.

Additional comments as to what changes they were making revealed that more teachers felt negative toward those changes than positive. Of the 71% who agreed with and commented on the statement, “My responses to state and national regulations are improving my teaching practices,” only 6% implied that the change was good as in one teacher’s remark that “Teaching the [writing] process is actually good” (Ocean, 3301). In contrast, 32% implied that the change was negative, as represented by this comment from a Timber teacher where almost half of the students received free or reduced-price lunches and adequate yearly progress was not met at the time of the survey: “I’m spending more time teaching to the test instead of real curriculum!” (4203). Most statements (62%) were neutral, such as: “[I am] focusing more on materials covered in these types of exams” (Westberg, 4103).

Both quantitative and qualitative data indicate a strong commitment toward collaboration, teamwork, and curriculum integration. Helping students to meet high standards and benchmarks is also rated high. Many teachers comment, however, that the focus on testing and teaching for testing interferes with their ability to collaborate and to provide a more stimulating, discovery-based, critical, and creative thinking curriculum. Many comments reflected feelings from teachers that they are no longer able to teach in ways that they find most rewarding and useful to students. The open-response questions accompanying items 37 and 44 provided an opportunity to look deeper at specific examples of teachers’ changing practices. In their comments, a majority of teachers indicated that accountability pressures influenced their practice; however, the changes they made are not generally talked about as positive. When asked about changes in their classrooms, responses fell into three broad categories: curriculum, instructional practices, and assessment.

Middle school teachers in this study reported how consequencebased accountability influences their specific subject area curriculum. Their responses clustered into four categories, including general curricular practice, depth v. breadth, pace, and intellectual expectations. Of the 115 responses, 74 comments addressed general curricular practices.

Teachers indicated that they adjusted their curriculum in response to state content standards. Twenty-four teachers made specific reference to aligning their subject area curriculum with state content standards and benchmarks. Teachers viewed this increased attention to the standards of what students should know and be able to do as a positive change, as exemplified by one Horizon teacher: “The new content standards help me to focus even more clearly on what I need to be teaching in order to help my students be successful” (3200). Another constructive trend cited by the teachers was that they were doing more in their content areas to support students’ efforts to reach writing, reading, and speaking benchmarks.

Twenty-six middle school teachers reported shifting the emphasis of their curriculum to match the content of state tests rather than on student learning. As one teacher at Hill (the smallest school in the study and second highest in median household income) characterized, “The focus [is] more on preparation for success on state exams and grade level benchmarks—more reading tests, more writing work samples, and basic grammar” (1203). A teacher at Timmons stated, “I teach what is tested. No more poetry, plays, autobiographies” (2317), or as a Timber teacher explained, “I’m spending more time teaching to the test instead of real curriculum” (4203). Teachers in this study expressed their annoyance with teaching to the test. As one teacher at Basalt, a school that had not met adequate yearly progress, wrote, “State and national regulations only result in fragmented content [and a] ‘teach to the test’ philosophy. It has added stress and frustration as we cope to deliver more with less” (4301).

Additional comments about preparing students to pass state tests revealed teachers’ concerns. They noted an increased emphasis on testtaking strategies and asserted that teaching test-taking strategies takes away from their curriculum. Other teachers expressed concern that state tests caused them to do less student-centered curriculum. One Basalt teacher exemplified this belief, "I have eliminated many projects and areas of studies that I used to do with students [because there is] no time” (4307). Another Basalt teacher lamented, "I used to be a much better teacher before our administration got so focused on ‘passing the test.’ We did wonderful interdisciplinary units. Kids liked school" (4206).

Many teachers referenced the effects of accountability regulations on students and teaching practice. For example, an Ocean teacher remarked, "The regulations are forcing me to drive my students through more content. Their social skills are suffering because of this" (3303), and a Timmons teacher said, “They detract from the teaching process. I don’t have the time I need to bond with kids. I feel pressure to meet content standards, no matter where my students really are or what they really need” (2315). Timmons and Ocean had the lowest median household incomes of all 13 schools; Timmons had met and Ocean had not met adequate yearly progress. Teachers asserted the need for a personal connection with their middle school students. A representative comment made by a Timmons teacher was, "I really feel it is my connection to kids that improves my teaching practices. When I feel close to them, when I care about what/how they are learning, I then do what's best or seek to find what is better practices and curriculum" (2310). In these examples, middle school teachers expressed how relationships with their students could be both a source of tension as well as an anchoring point in dealing with the increased pressure of accountability.

The teachers noted how accountability demands affect the scope of the curriculum and commented explicitly about the curricular tension of depth versus breadth. They reported spending less time on thinking skills, application, and analysis in order to cover the content for state exams. A teacher at Westberg (the largest and most ethnically diverse school in the study and also the one with the highest median household income) asserted, “Best teaching practices are taking a back seat to meeting standards for a curriculum of breadth, rather than depth in my area. Test preparation cuts into the best teaching times, in the spring, when we would rather focus on application of attained knowledge” (4113). An Ocean teacher explained, “Rather than spend time on constructivist math activities that teach for depth, I now practice more 'drill and kill' techniques to rehearse for state tests, which test breadth" (3307). Evidently, these teachers felt pressure to change their curriculum to meet the demands for more coverage.

Related to the coverage issue was the pace of implementing the curriculum. Teachers expressed dismay at having to cover more content in less time. Examples included a Timmons teacher who explained, "I am doing less in-depth and slow study of concepts. I feel I am rushing to cover what will be on tests as opposed to what will help kids succeed" (2310), and an Ashford teacher who stated he was “not spending as much time on a topic as I would otherwise" (2410). A Westberg teacher noted how the pace influences her teaching practice, "I'm also shoving through curriculum to ‘cover’ all benchmarks by April 1st, so the pace of instruction negates the strategies I use" (4104). These teachers shared a common sentiment, that is, the state mandates require them to hurry through the curriculum and limit their instructional choices.

The majority of the comments about the intellectual level of the curriculum referred to the tendency toward lower level expectations. Teachers explained the effects of state testing requirements and implications for their curriculum. For instance, a Pine teacher mentioned, "Teaching to the test-rote memorization and basic skills rather than spending time on critical thinking and depth of knowledge" (1309). One Ashford teacher concluded, “I feel the state and national regulations put way too much emphasis on testing. It ignores authentic assessment and treats children as numbers rather than individuals. It requires me to emphasize test passing skills and test remediation rather than on innovative ways to enhance students' higher thinking skills” (2404). While a few teachers noted that they planned curriculum to tap higher levels of math, the majority of teachers stressed a reduction in creativity, critical thinking, analysis, metacognition, and deeper understanding.

Forty-two comments made by teachers directly or tangentially addressed changes in teaching practices. Of these comments, 12 were clearly positive in nature. Typically, positive change comments related to use of state adopted content standards and problem scoring rubrics as guidelines for classroom practice. For example, a Horizon English teacher explained, "I make sure students practice different modes of writing and that their papers are scored according to state standards" (3207). Similarly, a Timmons math teacher’s comment highlighted the positive influence of teaching to the standards, "My teaching has changed to a more 'problem-solving' focus with an emphasis on concepts rather than calculations" (2313). These teachers appeared to use educational standards as criteria for determining curricular content and instructional practice.

A related positive change noted by multiple teachers is an increase in students' opportunities to process content in peer tutoring and student self-reflection situations. One Ashford teacher stated, "Using the material for writing scoring has helped me help my students become more effective self- and peer tutors" (2414). Additional comments about positive changes in teaching practice include: inclusion of scientific inquiry in curriculum, integration of more reading and writing across content areas, and provision of funding for integration of technology into teaching practice. No positive comments connected to national policies or requirements.

Negative or no changes in teaching as a result of accountability practices occurred in 30 of 42 comments. The most common response as evidenced by 11 comments was some form of "teaching to the test.” Other comments included a long list of qualities that teachers believe they have lost or diminished in their classrooms. These included fun (n = 7), excitement, discovery, modes of displaying learning other than visual, creativity, critical thinking (n = 3), content integration, depth of content (n = 4), applications, enjoyment, extended projects (n = 6), hands on activities, authentic curriculum, and constructivist teaching practices.

Teachers made 115 comments under the overarching category of testing. The survey asked teachers to describe the changes they are making in their instructional strategies to focus on preparing students to succeed on state exams and grade level benchmarks. Further examination of the data resulted in the development of three subcategories grouped under test preparation: (a) how teachers changed the format of their teaching to prepare students for tests (n = 56); (b) how teachers changed the content of their teaching to prepare students for tests (n = 32); and (c) how time is spent in the classroom (n = 27).

Items coded under changes in format included ways that teachers changed what and how they teach to prepare students for the yearly tests required by NCLB. Similar to curricular and teaching practices, the responses indicated that more teachers focused on "teaching to the test." In addition, teachers placed emphasis on specific test taking skills and changed the format of their teaching to include more practice tests. Some representative comments on the use and format of assessments included: "More emphasis on test taking skills" (Hearty, 2118), "More focus upon test-taking techniques as compared to other evaluative strategies" (Timmons, 2305), "Teach more strategies on ‘how’ to take tests along side teaching the content" (Hill, 1205), and "More practice in standard testing situations/more testing situation simulations" (Horizon, 3201). Twenty-three of the teachers viewed the changes as negative, 1 as positive, and 31 of the comments were neutral. A discussion of changes made in the content that teachers present as a result of preparing students for tests follows in the next section.

The establishment of state mandated testing influenced the curricular content in the classroom. Teachers focused more on the state benchmarks and the "eligible content" of the tests. Many of the teachers viewed the establishment of benchmarks for student mastery as taking away from other valuable learning activities. Five middle level teachers perceived teaching the required content as taking away from what they describe as "fun" activities. This representative comment came from a teacher at Chapman, a school with the third highest median household income: "All my curriculum is test-preparation based. I don't have much time for fun, creative lessons" (3105). For these teachers, fewer fun activities meant spending less time on thinking skills and analysis, doing fewer "creative" projects, and too much emphasis on test-related content. One Hearty teacher stated, "It seems to me it [testing] will Accountability & Change MGRJ Vol. 3 (4) drive me more [into] trying to teach to a test rather than making science fun, exciting, and discovery. Too much emphasis on content" (2106).

Twenty-seven of the middle school teachers made comments regarding the influence of test preparation on classroom teaching time. Teachers spent more time on test preparation and teaching to standards. However, 18 teachers indicated that there are fewer project oriented assignments and hands-on-enrichment activities and that there is less time spent on in-depth teaching and less time to focus on students’ social and emotional needs. As one Pine teacher remarked, "The amazing amount of time taken away from actual teaching to prepare students for tests and to test them has a negative impact on a host of academic areas. Students and teachers suffer the consequences of the well-meaning (perhaps) but badly planned effort" (1308).

The amount of time expended on test preparation also influences teacher morale and creativity. A teacher at Timmons stated, "I feel like I spend more time testing than teaching. I also feel that creativity is inhibited. I also sense greater stress from students. I love teaching, but with the new regulations, I feel limited and frustrated" (2306). Another Pine teacher asserted, "Time constraints and the need to focus toward benchmarks make me feel restrained in [the] teaching options I might explore. The days are too short and the school year is too short to achieve all that is expected" (1301).

The middle school teachers in this study voiced their perceptions of how national and state mandates and accountability measures are influencing their profession. They reported tension and changes in their beliefs about teaching and in their curriculum, instructional practices, and assessment. After summarizing these tensions and changes, a set of educational implications is offered for consideration.

Society’s lack of agreement over the goals and philosophy of middle level education, over prioritizing a holistic focus versus the academic needs of the child (Hunt et al., 2003), is a clear concern or frustration expressed by teachers in this study. For most who addressed this issue in their comments, there seemed to be general agreement that part of being a professional educator is making decisions for your students based on who they are. “I practice excellence as a professional. My students excel because I choose to connect personally with individuals and have a highly engaging curriculum” (Horizon, 3204).

Teachers wrote of the importance of “looking at the whole child” (Chapman, 3104) and of the need for “more concern about the ramifications of failure” (Ashford, 2406). Whether schools and teachers responded in undesirable ways, as some asserted (e.g., Hoover, 2004), may depend on how questions about the ultimate goals of education are answered.

The comments of middle school teachers echoed the discussion in the research literature regarding a developmentally appropriate curriculum. Jackson and Davis (2000) stressed that middle grades curriculum needs to be grounded in academic standards, relevant to adolescents' concerns, and attentive to how students learn best. A number of the middle school teachers surveyed expressed success with implementing the standards and doing so in an engaging manner. Similarly, Pate (2001) found some teachers making sense of the standards and dealing with the standards in a responsive and relevant manner. Teachers in this study largely agreed with middle level curricularist Vars (2001) in acknowledging the challenge of coping with the pressures of standards-based reform and state tests while attending to the needs and interests of young adolescents. Further, many teachers echoed the concerns of Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, and Manning (2001) who warned that standards-based reform could lead to a curriculum that is over-standardized, under-resourced, deprofessionalized, and narrow.

Teachers in this study were aware of the importance of clearly defined content standards and aligned assessments. Darling-Hammond et al. (2005) support the need for aligned assessment:

There is a recent awareness that assessments are also a part of learning experiences, as they both guide the teaching and learning process-operationalizing learning goals and making clear the criteria for good performance-and provide opportunities for feedback about how students can improve their learning. (p. 186) Recall that Oregon began working on statewide content standards and benchmarks with attending assessments after a 1991 legislative session mandated these changes. Testing was required at grades 3, 5, 8, and in high school. Evidence from the survey responses indicates that teachers responded positively to elements of NCLB that were in place in Oregon prior to implementation of that legislation. Standards, writing traits, and math problem solving processes are examples of things that positively impacted classroom practice. Generally, teachers responded to these requirements with positive changes in teaching practices and attention to curriculum alignment, scope and sequencing, and performance assessments in the classroom. Other processes that were mandated by NCLB (e.g., yearly testing for grades 3-8, public posting of results, AYP requirements, and highly qualified teacher regulations) tended to receive negative comments from teachers in the survey. Negative comments in the present study appear to be tied closely to annual testing, pressure from administrators to achieve NCLB-mandated "adequate yearly progress" measured by standardized tests, and a lack of resources to address the needs of all children.

The relatively few teachers who reported using peer tutoring and self-assessments to regulate the acquisition of content knowledge among their students have found a way to match developmentally appropriate instruction with the requirements for meeting state benchmarks. At the same time, these practices are in line with The National Middle School Association (2003), which notes that assessment needs to emphasize individual growth and "student selfassessment helps develop a fair and realistic self-concept” (p. 28).

The pattern of negatively tainted responses in regard to instructional practices is evidence that teachers were troubled by the behaviors of students caught between active and passive learning structures. Mirroring these teachers’ concerns, Gross (2005) pointed out “creativity entails active learning in both process and product. In contrast, preparing for standardized testing leads to passive learning and memorization rather than to critical thinking and ingenuity" (p. 103). Teachers feel “caught in the middle” between what they know is best for student learning—active engagement—and the movement to passive instructional approaches.

This study indicates that pressure to prepare students for annual tests is leaving teachers with less support and motivation to pursue teaching within the framework of the middle school model. Shifting instructional priorities and the perceived need to raise test scores have left most of the teachers in the study feeling much less satisfied and less student-centered in their practice; at the same time, teachers are spending more time on test-taking strategies and have reduced time they spend on curriculum they see as meaningful. Many felt they did not know how to both prepare their students for the required testing and provide them with a rich educational experience. As the middle school movement is intertwined with the nation’s standards-based reform movement and its emphasis on testable academic outcomes (Juvonen et al., 2004), the emphasis in Oregon middle schools remains, at least for the time being, on testable academic outcomes.

Teachers in this study explicitly and implicitly expressed their support for developmentally appropriate practices and approaches with young adolescents, aspects of which are reflected in the framework of the middle school philosophy (e.g., Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2003). However, the daily practice of teaching and middle school organization appear to be moving reluctantly away from a commitment to the tenets of the framework. If middle schools are to provide students with a developmentally supportive environment and prepare them academically, there must be a stronger emphasis on doing both while meeting required accountability measures. Teacher educators and those in positions of influencing policy and practices could (should) lead the way in supporting teachers in continuing best middle level practices. An important aspect of this support begins in strong preservice preparation programs that build knowledge, skills, and commitments to these practices.

Standards need to be addressed in a responsive and relevant manner. This entails selecting role models within the field who are already managing to balance priorities along with the academic and psychosocial needs of middle school students. Once identified, they need opportunities to serve as mentors and supervisors. They need to be encouraged to take leadership roles in faculty development, teacher preparation programs, and committee work. However, these role models should not be expected to do more with less time but should be fairly compensated for their contribution.

Recommendations for how teacher educators and others could provide support include the following.

1. Additional research on effective models of teacher preparation should be conducted. Results of that research should be accessible and widely disseminated to all educational stakeholders for open and critical dialogue with the goal of maintaining and exploring practices appropriate for middle grades education. Teacher preparation programs should re-think and expand their role beyond licensure to include or place greater priority on collaboration with schools and school districts.

2. A stronger emphasis on leadership in pre- and inservice teacher preparation programs is a critical developmental avenue for empowering teachers to participate actively in shaping educational policy and priorities. Teachers need the confidence to see themselves as self-determined and capable of making decisions, a necessary ingredient to guard against the deprofessionalism of education.

3. Teacher preparation programs should actively participate in the induction of new teachers, especially during their first three years. Special attention should be paid to providing new teachers opportunities to reflect on and develop approaches for meeting both academic and non-academic needs of middle school students.

These suggestions recognize possibilities for subtle shifts in focus and implementation that preserve the priorities of middle grades practice while upholding equally important values represented by content and performance standards. In retrospect, we realized that combining state and national mandates in a single survey item limited the opportunity to attribute change in middle grades practices to one or the other source. However, it was clear in the data that the climate created by some combination of high stakes state and national education policies was driving changes in teachers’ practices and beliefs. A promising direction for future research would be an in-depth investigation of teachers who did not abandon effective practices with young adolescents (e.g., NMSA, 2003) yet who managed to meet the requirements of state and national policies.

The results of this study point to a need for renewal and refocus on middle grades practices potentially threatened by high stakes tests in specific content areas. By increasing flexibility, expanding possibilities, and shifting burdens of accountability, we believe there is a way to renew and restore the hearts and minds of highly dedicated middle school teachers.

The Oregon Middle Level Consortium sponsored this research study with additional support from the Oregon Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (OACTE) and Willamette University.

1. School Name __________

2. District Name __________

   Please check the appropriate box(s) below:

3. What degree(s) do you have? (Check all that apply and write the name of your academic area. For example: BS Math or MAT)

   ❑ Bachelors (Major) ❑ Masters (Major) ❑ Doctorate in

   ___ ___ ___

4. How many years have you completed as a teacher in this middle school?

   ❑ 1-2 ❑ 3-5 ❑ 6-10 ❑ 11-20 ❑more than 20

5. How many total years have you completed as a middle level teacher (Grades 5-8) including this middle school?

   ❑ 1-2 ❑ 3-5 ❑ 6-10 ❑ 11-20 ❑more than 20

Please mark the box or boxes that best describe your current instructional assignment.

(Check all that apply.)

• 9.

  I hold an Oregon license to teach the following level(s): (Check all that apply.)

  ❑ Early Childhood  ❑ High School

  ❑ Elementary   ❑ Other______

  ❑ Middle Level

• 10.

  Indicate the subjects you teach, the endorsements you have, the content preparation you have, and the tests you have passed: (Check all that apply.)

  Check all content areas that you teach:	I have an endorsement in the following content area(s):	Degree or 45 credits (30 Semester) in content area:	Passed PRAXIS Content Specialty Test in:
  ❑ English/Language Arts ❑ Mathematics ❑ Science ❑ Social Studies ❑ Other, please specify:	❑ English/Language Arts ❑ Mathematics ❑ Science ❑ Social Studies ❑ Other, please specify:	❑ English/Language Arts ❑ Mathematics ❑ Science ❑ Social Studies ❑ Other, please specify:	❑ English/Languagec Arts ❑ Mathematics ❑ Science ❑ Social Studies ❑ Other, please specify:

  Check all content areas that you teach:	I have an endorsement in the following content area(s):	Degree or 45 credits (30 Semester) in content area:	Passed PRAXIS Content Specialty Test in:
  ❑ English/Language Arts ❑ Mathematics ❑ Science ❑ Social Studies ❑ Other, please specify:	❑ English/Language Arts ❑ Mathematics ❑ Science ❑ Social Studies ❑ Other, please specify:	❑ English/Language Arts ❑ Mathematics ❑ Science ❑ Social Studies ❑ Other, please specify:	❑ English/Languagec Arts ❑ Mathematics ❑ Science ❑ Social Studies ❑ Other, please specify:

  View large

• 11.

  I have been notified I ❑ am ❑ am not “highly qualified” under the No Child Left Behind Act to teach one or more content areas at the middle level.

• 12.

  All middle level teachers should have specific instruction in how to teach reading and writing.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 13.

  I feel well prepared for the subject(s) I am assigned to teach.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 14.

  I would like more training in the subject(s) that I teach.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 15.

  I would like more instruction in methods to effectively teach my subject(s).

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 16.

  I would like more instruction in how to teach: (Check all that apply.)

  ❑ Critical Reading    ❑ Expository Writing    ❑ Math    ❑ Science    ❑ Social Studies    ❑ Other _____     ❑ None

• 17.

  My teaching improves when I collaborate with other teachers.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 18.

  I am a member of an assigned teaching team consisting of:

  ❑ One other teacher    ❑ Two other teachers    ❑ Three other teachers    ❑ More than 3 other teachers    ❑ Not Applicable If you checked this box go to question 22

• 19.

  My teaching team has common planning time scheduled:

  ❑ Daily    ❑ Weekly    ❑ Monthly    ❑ As Needed    ❑ No scheduled planning time

• 20.

  My teaching team meets primarily to: (Check all that apply.)

  ❑ Plan/organize curriculum    ❑ Discuss student needs/progress    ❑ Share instructional ideas & resources    ❑ Just check in

• 21.

  My teaching team consists of teachers in (Check all that apply.)

  ❑ Multiple grades    ❑ Same Grades    ❑ Same Subject    ❑ Multiple subjects

• 22.

  Curriculum integration across subject areas is encouraged at my school.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 23.

  Curriculum integration is encouraged through dual subject block classes.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 24.

  Curriculum integration is encouraged in my school through teacher teaming with a common planning time.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 25.

  I focus on ways to integrate content areas now more than I used to.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 26.

  I feel it is important for students to focus on one subject at a time.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

  Please rate the importance of the following for middle level teachers:

• 27.

  Content area expertise.

  ❑ Essential    ❑ Important    ❑ Nice but not necessary    ❑ Not necessary

• 28.

  Willingness to collaborate with other teachers.

  ❑ Essential    ❑ Important    ❑ Nice but not necessary    ❑ Not necessary

• 29.

  Ability to connect positively with middle level students.

  ❑ Essential    ❑ Important    ❑ Nice but not necessary    ❑ Not necessary

• 30.

  Knowledge of state content and performance standards.

  ❑ Essential    ❑ Important    ❑ Nice but not necessary    ❑ Not necessary

• 31.

  Ability to develop interdisciplinary curriculum and instruction at the middle level.

  ❑ Essential    ❑ Important    ❑ Nice but not necessary    ❑ Not necessary

• 32.

  Know strategies for monitoring and measuring student learning gains.

  ❑ Essential    ❑ Important    ❑ Nice but not necessary    ❑ Not necessary

• 33.

  Ability to organize and interpret assessment data to plan instruction and improve student learning.

  ❑ Essential    ❑ Important    ❑ Nice but not necessary    ❑ Not necessary

• 34.

  Understand early adolescent developmental characteristics and needs.

  ❑ Essential    ❑ Important    ❑ Nice but not necessary    ❑ Not necessary

• 35.

  Differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all middle level students.

  ❑ Essential    ❑ Important    ❑ Nice but not necessary    ❑ Not necessary

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

• 36.

  State and national policies are changing how I view the nature of my work as a middle level teacher.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 37.

  I am changing in my instructional strategies to focus on preparing students to succeed on state exams and grade level benchmarks.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 37a.

  If you responded Agree or Strongly Agree to Statement 37 briefly describe the changes you are making.

  _____________________

  _____________________

• 38.

  State and national efforts to raise preparation requirements for teachers are improving the quality of teaching.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 39.

  State and national efforts to set content standards for teaching and performance standards for learning are leading to greater learning gains for students.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 40.

  Subject-specific state assessments are influencing me to reduce the amount of curriculum integration I do.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 41.

  Current national efforts to set standards address students’ cognitive and academic needs.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree ❑    Strongly Disagree

• 42.

  Current national efforts to set standards address students’ social and emotional needs.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

• 43.

  I prefer that my teaching competence be recognized on the basis of: (Check all that apply.)

  ❑ University content classes ❑ Qualifying content exams ❑ Documentation of student learning gains ❑ Observations of my classroom teaching performance

  ❑ Achievement of National Board Certification ❑ Comprehensive documentation of professional development, experience, and feedback (e.g., Professional Portfolio) ❑ Other______

  ❑ University content classes ❑ Qualifying content exams ❑ Documentation of student learning gains ❑ Observations of my classroom teaching performance

  ❑ Achievement of National Board Certification ❑ Comprehensive documentation of professional development, experience, and feedback (e.g., Professional Portfolio) ❑ Other______

  View large

• 44.

  My responses to state and national regulations are improving my teaching practices.

  ❑ Strongly Agree    ❑ Agree    ❑ Disagree    ❑ Strongly Disagree

  Please comment briefly on your response to Statement # 44.

  _____________________

  _____________________

  _____________________

• 45.

  Please share one or more educational policy changes that you feel would make a positive difference in the work you do with your students.

  _____________________

  _____________________

Thank You!

Final Coding Schema, Revised 11/10/04

• 1.0 Beliefs

  • 1.1 Positive changes (valuing)

  • 1.2 Negative change (devaluing)

  • 1.3 Neutral

  • 1.4 Philosophy/idealism/leadership

• 2.0 Practices

  • 2.1 Curriculum

    • 2.1.1 Depth v. breadth

    • 2.1.2 Pace

    • 2.1.3 Intellectual expectations

      • 2.1.3.1 Lower level

      • 2.1.3.2 Higher level

      • 2.1.3.3 Other

  • 2.2 Teaching

    • 2.2.1 No change

    • 2.2.2 Change

  • 2.3 Testing

    • 2.3.1 No change

    • 2.3.2 Change

      • 2.3.2.1 Test prep

        • 2.3.2.1.1 Format

        • 2.3.2.1.2 Content

        • 2.3.2.1.3 Time spent

  • 2.4 Using assessment to inform instruction

  • 2.5 Teaming

• 3.0 Recommendations

  • 3.1 Class size

  • 3.2 Changing / abandoning No Child Left Behind

  • 3.3 Parent involvement

  • 3.4 Prep time

  • 3.5 Funding

  • 3.6 Standards

    • 3.6.1 Modify

  • 3.7 Special needs

    • 3.7.1 English Language Learners

    • 3.7.2 Talented and Gifted

  • 3.8 State-related issues

    • 3.8.1 Report cards

    • 3.8.2 Testing

  • 3.9 Collaboration/teaming

• 4.0 Other

  • 4.1 Personhood

  • 4.2 Significant comment

  • 4.3 Professional Development

  • 4.4 Special Education

Correlations between Item 5 (Years of Teaching) & Items 36-42 & 44

(Impact of State & National Policies on Teaching)

Mean Scores of Items 36-42 & 44 According to Years of Teaching

(4 = strongly agree ; 3 = agree; 2 = disagree; 1 = strongly disagree)

Categories of Coded Responses to Open-Ended Prompts for Items 37, 44, and 45^*