Ghost Children: Invisible Middle Level Students Free

Ghost children who hover on the fringes of a middle level classroom could possibly become relegated to the periphery of the teachers’ consciousness. Therefore, ghost children present unique challenges for middle level preservice and in-service teachers. The present study sought to answer the following questions that should be of interest to in-service and preservice middle level educators and educational researchers:

1. What are the characteristics of this specific subpopulation of students?

2. How can teacher preparation programs assist teacher candidates and middle school teachers to ensure that no ghost child is left behind?

The middle grades or young adolescent years are often regarded as challenging for teachers, parents, and the students themselves. These young adolescents wobble back and forth between childish and immature actions to demonstrations of empathy and mature reasoning. Juggling the variability of middle level student personalities is simultaneously challenging and rewarding for the educator. However, ghost children appear to be an especially vulnerable population who warrant further investigation because of the difficulty in meeting needs of students who prefer to fade into the background of the classroom.

This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (National Middle School Association [NMSA], 2010) identified 16 characteristics of successful middle schools. Those characteristics include: (a) educators value young adolescents and are prepared to teach them, (b) the school environment is inviting, safe, inclusive, and supportive of all, and (c) every student’s academic and personal development is guided by an adult advocate. While it can be argued that teacher preparation programs have primarily focused on the development of the teacher candidates’ content knowledge and effective pedagogical strategies, effective middle level educators must also “understand the developmental uniqueness of this age group” (NMSA, 2010, p. 15). Furthermore, teachers should be able to successfully interact with students from a wide variety of cultures, as well as knowledgeable about how to simultaneously challenge and support the wide range of students’ abilities and skills. Therefore, the teacher’s knowledge of students must be a primary impetus for actions by the preservice or in-service teacher. That knowledge is further demonstrated through developing and maintaining both a positive learning environment and a caring professional relationship with the student.

The framework for this study was influenced by constructivism, a paradigm that proposes that learning is an active process and that knowledge is constructed, not acquired. Individuals such as Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky have been important in the development of constructivist theory. The constructivist framework appeared particularly applicable to this study, as the teacher candidates were required to make meaning of their experiences in the field. Dewey believed that one acquiring knowledge required participation, in other words, to learn by doing (Dewey, 1938). The task given to the middle level teacher candidates concerning ghost children supported Piaget’s assertion “that knowledge does not result from a mere recording of observations without a structuring activity on the part of the subject” (Piaget, 1980, p. 23). The intent of the assignment was to actively engage the teacher candidates in learning about the unique characteristics of ghost children in the classroom. Therefore, the teacher candidates were tasked to observe and interact with the ghost child. Additionally, they were asked to consider the perspectives of colleagues, mentor teachers, and the peers concerning the ghost children. Subsequently, in their reflections on the ghost child activity, the teacher candidates ended up relating their findings to what they knew about young adolescents.

The label of “ghost student” has been used in a few investigations related to school funding issues, such as in requesting additional funding based on attendance fraud or asking for reimbursement for student services and other resources (Belur, 2009; Johnny, 2010). An examination of existing educational literature resulted in finding a wide range of studies focusing on “invisible children,” which has been summarized in the review of literature. The term ghost child/children has been most frequently used in fictional works. For example, ghost children appeared in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Whedon, Greenwalt, & Badiyi, 1997) episode entitled “Out of Sight, Out of Mind.” In that episode, high school students who were chronically ignored by their peers and teachers ultimately became invisible.

Researchers in the fields of psychology and sociology have conducted studies about invisible children (e.g., Boshier & Steel-Baker, 2007; Curio, 2004). Educational researchers have focused on the invisible student population that has historically underperformed on performance assessments, such as English language learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities or exceptional needs (e.g., Haycock, 2006; Meyer, 2005; Naylor & Prescott, 2004). Several educational researchers have focused on the plight of the invisible child with physical or learning disabilities (Clark, 2005; Hourigan, 2009; National Institute for Mental Health, 2008; Pavri & Luftig, 2000). The various editions of Invisible Children in the Society and its Schools (Book, 1998, 2003, 2006) have addressed other populations of invisible children, as have members of the media (Brenner, 1999; Frankel, 2007).

The term ghost children will be used in this study in order to differentiate from the diverse body of research focused on various social or psychological issues impacting invisible children. This study was framed around the concept that the students observed by the teacher candidates were typical middle school students who, for their own unvoiced reasons, have selected to become as invisible as possible in the classroom.

Educational researchers have documented common characteristics of invisible children (i.e., Byrnes, 1984; Morgan & Dunn, 1988). For some students, their ethnicity and/or geographic location was a factor that contributed to their invisibility. This has been noted of black children who have been integrated in predominantly white schools (Rist, 1978), Asian American students (Hu, 2007), and Appalachian children (Book, 1998, 2003). For others, special circumstances such as homelessness, domestic violence, teen pregnancies, mental illnesses, incarcerated or chemically dependent parents, or being a juvenile offender, have contributed to their invisibleness in public school settings (see Book, 1998, 2003; Tikkanen, 2005).

Children raised in nurturing environments may also become ghosts. As noted by Byrnes (1984), invisible elementary age children often exhibited “self-doubts, anxiety, insecurity, frustration, and hopelessness” (p. 279). Lewin (1999) noted that invisible high school students “suffer in silence, alienated and without any real connection to any adult” (para. 2). Ghost children may also act out in class or exhibit violent behaviors (Bender, Shubert, & McLaughlin, 2001).

Morgan and Dunn (1988) found that elementary invisible children provided “few cues to their thoughts, feelings or level of understanding … rarely draw attention to themselves, and their presence seldom makes any visual or audible impact on the classroom” (p. 9). Morgan and Dunn (1988) were able to distinguish specific subgroups of these children: (1) shy, (2) marginal survivors, and (3) the anxious (pp. 9–11). Shy children were quiet, content, calm, completed assignments, and engaged in conversations when spoke to. However, they were not active participants in class activities, although they were liked by peers and teachers, they avoided attention. Those designated as marginal survivors often struggled academically and had learning difficulties. Anxious children avoided interactions with peers, did not participate in group work or other class activities, and disliked attention from peers or the teacher.

British researchers Myhill and Jones (2004) found that girls were more likely than boys to be identified as invisible. They noted “underachieving girls appeared to be almost invisible, with no typical description attributed to them” and “whose needs are not recognized” (p. 20). Such individuals may eventually become “invisible strugglers, falling through the cracks and being written off as not needing the extra effort and intervention that educators can provide” (Sherer, 2006, p. 7). Low achieving students were not the only ones that became invisible within classrooms. While school systems appeared concerned with improving the grades of lower performing students, average students were not encouraged to perform at a higher standard. Frankel (2007) noted that average students were at risk because “they work quietly and conscientiously, get their homework in on time and are barely noticeable in class. By definition, they become invisible” (p. 15) or may not receive as much attention from the teacher (Pye, 1989).

The results from a study of 240 students and teachers in 39 classrooms (19 for English, 20 for mathematics) conducted by Britain’s Department for Education and Skills (DfES) found that underachieving males were twice as likely to be invisible than females (DfES, 2007; Milne, 2007). The DfES study reported that males were well behaved, had a positive attitude toward learning, and exhibited perseverance, but in mathematics classrooms, the invisible student was a well-behaved, quiet girl who lacked self-confidence and did her work neatly. She was also characterized as an underachiever whose mother was not very good at math. The DfES report suggested early identification of, and interventions for, invisible students.

There were a few notable differences between those research studies already mentioned and the present study. For example, many of the educational studies concerning invisible children have been conducted in primary and elementary grade levels, while the present study focused on middle school ghost children in Grades 6 through 8. Educational researchers who were trained observers conducted the previously cited studies. However, for this study, middle level teacher candidates collected data during their field placements in middle school classrooms. Although the teacher candidates were not trained researchers, this should not be considered a limitation. Instead, their comments are valuable because a trained researcher’s presence in a middle school classroom would have been more disruptive to the teacher and students. Middle school students can be an especially vulnerable population because many of them are socially awkward, sensitive to peer pressure, and exploring their roles within the community. An outside observer closer in age, without the authority role of the teacher, has more freedom to engage a student in conversations during class activities without raising suspicions.

The investigation of the middle level ghost children incorporated observations conducted by teacher candidates in middle school classrooms. The teacher candidates served as participant observers during the data collection phase of the qualitative study. The teacher candidates were able to “hear, see, and begin to experience reality” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 141) with the ghost children over several weeks. The teacher candidates’ field notes were integral to understanding how others perceived the ghost children, as well as document key characteristics. In this study, the teacher candidates recorded the data concerning ghost children and the author conducted the data analysis.

Teacher candidates who were seeking certification in middle level mathematics (Grades 4–8) collected the data for this study during the field-based portion of a mathematics methods course. The teacher candidates were enrolled in a middle level mathematics methods course at a large public university in the southwestern United States. As part of their education studies, the teacher candidates were required to complete at least 32 hours of field observation in local middle schools during the semester. School placements included both rural and urban settings. Most students completed their field component by observing in 2-hour segments on two different weekdays, for an 8-week time period.

There were 119 (16 males, 103 females) middle level teacher candidates seeking mathematics certification in Grades 4 through 8 who observed the ghost children. The teacher candidates were from four different cohorts (20, 40, 30, and 29 members respectively) who took the middle level mathematics methods course in the spring semester. The teacher candidates selected and started observing a ghost child during the third or fourth week of the 8-week long observation period. This allowed the middle school students to become accustomed to the teacher candidates’ presence in the classroom prior to the data collection period.

There were 124 ghost students observed. Most of the teacher candidates (119 or 96%) observed only one ghost child, however three teacher candidates (2.4%) observed two ghost children, and two teacher candidates (1.6%) observed three ghost children.

The primary data source was the teacher candidates’ field notebooks. The teacher candidates had a written prompt either the third or fourth week of their field placement that asked them to “focus on a student who seems to be a “ghost”—just vanishes into the background of the classroom. Make an effort to engage the student in a conversation about the class. What reaction did the student have? What did you learn about the student?” Teacher candidates in cohorts two through four were also asked to provide updates about their ghost child during the remainder of their field placement. The teacher candidates in the first cohort suggested the additional days of observation in order to document changes in the ghost child’s behavior.

The written prompts for the field-based portion of the methods course were provided to the teacher candidates at the beginning of the semester. Most prompts were directed toward topics covered in the methods course, such as scripting the questions asked during an instructional activity so that the questions could be analyzed as to whether they were divergent or convergent in nature. The teacher candidates were also allowed to change the sequence of the assignments depending on the activity planned for the day. For example, the scripting of questions would not be appropriate on an assessment day. The teacher candidates were encouraged to write notes while observing and then to retype them into a Microsoft Word document so they could be submitted in electronic form. However, some teacher candidates scanned their handwritten notes and submitted the assignment in PDF or JPG format. Teachers also submitted copies of lesson plans, worksheets, and other written materials. The teacher candidates were instructed that the actual names of the ghost child and the cooperating teacher were to be altered to protect the identity of the individuals.

Data about ghost children that were submitted in handwritten or scanned formats were transcribed into a Microsoft Word document. This data was transferred to Excel spreadsheet document. The pertinent sections concerning the observation of the ghost child submitted as a Word document were also copied and pasted into the Excel document and pseudonyms were assigned in order to de-identify the teacher candidates. The identity of the ghost children had already been changed, per activity instructions.

The written comments were analyzed qualitatively. Such analysis requires the researcher to engage in several steps, including “working with data, organizing it, breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and what is to be learned, and deciding what you will tell others” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982, p. 145). In order to organize the data, the written excerpts were read holistically and themes were written down. This is a process which Corbin and Strauss (2008) called open coding. Four main topics emerged during this initial reading: (1) characteristics of ghost children, (2) approach used by the teacher candidate to engage the ghost child, (3) reactions/responses of the ghost child, and (4) important insights gleaned by the teacher candidate concerning ghost children or the classroom environment (Matteson, 2012).

The first and fourth topics, characteristics of ghost children and important insights gleaned by the teacher candidate, were most applicable in answering the research questions for this study. For example, this study focused on the characteristics of the ghost children because of the importance of being able to identify these children so that appropriate and effective interventions can be developed and assessed. Additionally, the characteristics of the ghost children were reviewed and compared to those determined a priori by Morgan and Dunn (1988). Such a comparison was used to determine the similarities and differences of the characteristics of the ghost and invisible children. The important insights by the teacher candidates were used to frame suggestions for teacher preparation programs.

One technique that assisted in the data analysis was the use of the Microsoft Word “Find Tool” to search for the frequency of specific words. Words such as quiet or shy often appeared within phrases such as extremely shy. Besides examining the teacher candidates’ writings for similar uses, the Find Tool also helped to eliminate when words were not used in a similar context. The data was read repeatedly for this analysis. Using an analysis technique called axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) the key words and phrases were continually compared. This reorganized the data into specific subcategories, which was aided by adding specific terms to the Excel spreadsheet. These keywords and phrases were recopied into category specific columns on a spreadsheet for manageability, which is similar to Richards and Richards (1994) code-and-retrieve process. For example, the regrouped subcategories that emerged concerning student characteristics in this phase of data analysis included (a) classroom demeanor, (b) classroom interactions, (c) attitudes toward school activities, and (d) academic ability. The Excel spreadsheet also facilitated counting the frequency of occurrence of specific subcategories.

The demographical, attitudinal, and academic characteristics of the ghost children observed for this study were used to answer the question of “What are the characteristics of this specific subpopulation of students?” There were several important characteristics of ghost children that emerged from the analysis of the comments the teacher candidates wrote in their field notebooks. These characteristics were regrouped and/or merged into the themes of (a) classroom demeanor, (b) classroom interactions, (c) attitude toward school activities, and (d) academic ability.

Most of the teacher candidates indicated the gender of the ghost child through their comments. Gender was often easily determined by an overt statement or through the pronoun used in the field notebook. Only two teacher candidates did not indicate the gender of their ghost child. Of the 124 ghost children observed, 79 (63.7%) were male, 43 (34.7%) were female, and 2 (1.6%) were not identified by gender. Nine (7.3%) of the teacher candidates wrote down the visually determined ethnicity of their ghost child, which included five Hispanic, three White, and one African American student. For comparison purposes the female and unidentified gendered student characteristics have been combined. This practice did not significantly change the percentage of ghost students being male or female.

Although few of the teacher candidates addressed ethnicity, the school districts in which they observed were culturally diverse (see Table 1). Over the four years of collecting data for this study, the cohorts of teacher candidates have conducted their observations in either urban or rural settings in a specific geographic region of the United States. As Table 1 indicates, the student population has been culturally diverse, with the percentage of ethnicities changing minimally in the region from the first cohort to fourth cohort of teacher candidates. The teacher candidates were not asked to notate the ethnicity of the ghost child largely because determining the ethnicity of a student is a task that even accomplished educators can struggle with. The challenge of determining a student’s ethnicity has been reflected in the addition of two or more races in describing ethnicity of students by the state’s recording standards.

The teacher candidates’ statements describing the ghost child they observed were sorted into four major categories (a) classroom demeanor, (b) classroom interactions, (c) attitudes toward school activities, and (d) academic ability (see Table 2). Some of these descriptors were similar to those made in prior studies by educational researchers, such as Morgan and Dunn (1988).

The teacher candidates most often remarked about the classroom demeanor of their ghost child. Demeanor comments were made for 97 (78.2%) of the 124 ghost children. In order of frequency of a particular attribute, ghost children were quiet or very quiet (60); shy, very shy or reserved (35); preferred a seating location at the back or side of the room (33); and avoided eye contact (19). The teacher candidates also made notations concerning the classroom interactions for 83 (66.9%) of the ghost children. Notes concerning classroom interactions described the reluctance of the ghost child to talk to peers or the teacher (54), behaviors that indicated feeling uncomfortable or anxious around peers, teachers, and even the teacher candidate (24); a preference to work alone or sit in an isolated area (15); peer avoidance of speaking or interacting with the ghost child (14); and isolated instances of engaging in peer interactions (11).

The teacher candidates noted the attitudes held by 35 (28.2%) of the ghost children toward school and/or classroom activities. More ghost children displayed attitudes of being bored, disinterested, or disengaged (28) than motivated, interested, and engaged (14). However, seven ghost children did exhibit both positive and negative attitudes toward school. Generalizations about ghost children attitudes cannot be made because less than one third of the teacher candidates made an attitudinal comment.

Just under half of the teacher candidates provided their opinion concerning the academic ability of 58 (46.8%) of the ghost children. The teacher candidates reported 44 of those 58 students were academically capable and 14 were low performing or might have a learning disability.

A more complete breakdown of the subcategories within classroom demeanor, classroom interactions, attitudes toward school activities, and academic abilities by gender of the ghost children has been provided in Table 2. Additional information concerning the observed behaviors of the ghost children was elaborated upon in a related study (Matteson, 2012).

All of the 119 teacher candidates were required to take a course focusing on foundational issues of middle level education during their first semester of education classes, which occurred the semester just before the middle level mathematics methods course. One of the key topics during that course, which was reinforced throughout several class activities and discussions, addressed the S.P.I.C.E. characteristics of middle level students (see Caskey & Anfara, 2007; Powell, 2011). The acronym S.P.I.C.E referred to the Social, Physical, Intellectual, Character (Moral), and Emotional development of middle level learners. Several comments documented by the teacher candidates in the field notebooks seemed particularly insightful in regards to their understanding of the S.P.I.C.E. characteristics.

Social. Social skills development has been noted as a critical aspect to middle level students’ peer acceptance and interactions (Caskey & Anfara, 2007). Many ghost children described in this study were described as quiet or shy, reluctant to talk with peers or teachers, lacking social relationships, and avoiding eye contact (see Table 2). These descriptions applied to both male and female students, although more male students were chosen as ghost children. There were some ghost children who appeared socially accepted, while others were comfortable with their peers, but preferred to not interact with them. One teacher candidate documented a typical description of ghost children in this study.

Physical. There were relatively few teacher candidates who provided information as to the physical characteristics of ghost children. However, six teacher candidates specifically mentioned that the ghost child they observed was regularly tired or sleepy. In some cases, there were extenuating circumstances that provided insights as to why students were tired. Kadija W. insightfully noted how much her ghost child’s physical development affected other areas.

Intellectual. The teacher candidates’ perceptions concerning intellectual ability were recorded for 58 (46.8%) of the 124 ghost children. The teacher candidates were not required to find out their ghost child’s current class average. Although not directly responsible for submitting grade reports, several individuals noted in their field notebooks that they graded homework, quizzes, or tutored students as part of their field experiences. The comments made of the 58 ghost children were general impressions, such as Leslie N’s comments that her ghost child “is exceptionally intelligent and I would definitely classify him as a gifted/talented student” (Wk 3, Day 1). This contrasts with Amelia C’s comments that “Hood … has problems with his intelligence level, and is part of the group of kids that are given special testing [accommodations]” (Wk 3, Day 2). Of the 58 ghost children that had comments made of them regarding their intellectual ability, 44 (69.0%) were identified as academically capable. There were 14 (31.0%) who were described as low performing or struggling in their classwork. For example, Becca I. noted her ghost child was “just a little slower than most students and may need a little extra explanation in order for him to fully understand certain concepts” (Wk 4, Day 1). Only a few of the students were identified as a special needs, although sometimes a teacher candidate thought there might be a learning disability. Usually the teacher candidates needed multiple observations in order to ascertain if a ghost child needed assistance, was just apathetic, or was hiding their intellectual ability. Kelsie Y. observed her

Character. The teacher candidates reported only a few incidents in which it appeared the ghost child was dealing with a moral dilemma or character development issue. Only two teacher candidates noted physical confrontations or bullying situations, with both individuals being male. One teacher candidate documented an opportunity to become a role model for acceptance and tolerance of a special needs student.

Emotional. The teacher candidates also recorded relatively little in regards to the emotional development of the ghost children, which was surprising, given the emotional ranges that middle level students experience. This paralleled the findings of Morgan and Dunn (1988) who noted invisible children “give few cues to their thoughts, feelings or level of understanding” (p. 9). Teacher candidates documented three male and two female ghost children who appeared happy during the observation period. Five teacher candidates’ comments suggested a lack of emotion in the male ghost child they observed. For example, Tracie U. wrote, “My ghost student did not seem excited about spring break. He seems very emotionless. He never shows any type of emotion. He is just sort of blank all of the time” (Wk 5, Day 2). Two teacher candidates referenced ideas of negative emotions and Caleigh D. noted her male ghost child’s emotions were “all over the place” (Wk 3, Day 1).

The descriptions of the ghost children in this study were similar to those observed by other educational researchers. For example, the characteristics noted by Morgan and Dunn (1988) regarding invisible children hiding their “feelings and level of understanding” (p. 9), being shy and anxious, not actively participating in the classroom, and avoiding attention were confirmed in this study. On the other hand, some teacher candidates reported middle grades ghost children were sometimes isolated by their peers, which differed from Morgan and Dunn’s (1988) finding that peers liked invisible children. This difference may simply reflect that this study was conducted with middle level children in contrast to Morgan and Dunn’s (1988) study with primary children. Middle level educators understand that middle level students face increasing issues of peer pressure and frequently struggle with socialization skills as they mature.

In this study, more male students were identified as ghost children than female students. Previous studies had been contradictory in regards to the gender of invisible children. For example, Morgan and Dunn (1988) found more invisible girls than boys, but a 2007 British DfES study noted both invisible male and female children. However, the findings of that study (DfES, 2007) noted a majority of those invisible male students were academic underachievers. About 75% of the teacher candidates in this study, who provided comments concerning intellectual ability, indicated their ghost child was academically capable. As noted before, the lack of data such as standardized assessment scores or end of term grades, limits further generalizations concerning the academic abilities of the ghost children observed for this study.

This study adds to the description of ghost children because the analysis of the teacher candidates’ comments for this study revealed other characteristics in regards to classroom demeanor, social skills and interactions, and attitudes toward school and school related activities. For example, some of the ghost children observed in this study appeared to be unmotivated, disengaged, or bored with school, which was not emphasized in previous studies of invisible children. However, because less than 30% of the ghost children had comments made about his or her attitude toward school/activities, the results of the study should not be generalized to the entire population of ghost children that were observed. Furthermore, the seemingly interchangeable use of the terms engagement, interest, and motivation by the teacher candidates suggest the need for clarification of these terms with the observers before further studies are conducted regarding the attitudes of the ghost children toward school/activities.

Limitations addressed a related study (Matteson, 2012) elaborated on possible concerns by readers because of the use of teacher candidates to collect the observational data for this study, as well as the potential bias of participant observers on data collected in classroom observations (Angrosino, 2005). Admittedly, the teacher candidates were not trained in qualitative research procedures and simply observed and recorded their thoughts. In fact, this lack of assumptions concerning what they should record was beneficial, as their comments were candid and uncensored. The teacher candidates did not have extended time to develop preconceptions about the students they observed or about the teachers under which they did their field based activities, so the potential for such biases were minimized. Furthermore, a trained observer or educational researcher may have been more intrusive because his or her purpose in the classroom would have been regarded as more suspicious by the middle school students, especially when those observers started interacting with the students.

Trustworthiness or the rigor and quality of the research may also be questioned (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The teacher candidates’ field notebooks provided rich descriptions of the ghost children they encountered during their field placements. The similarity in comments about ghost children from the four different cohorts of teacher candidates lends to the credibility of the data. However, there was a lack of opportunity to engage in member checks with the ghost child about what had been observed about him or her. Given the ghost children’s general shyness and reticence to talk, this limitation would be difficult to overcome.

Others may see a limitation in regards to transferability. Quoting directly from the teacher candidates’ field notes observations, which took place in multiple middle school classrooms, was an attempt to adequately address this issue. However, we acknowledge that this study should also be expanded to other geographic areas in order to ascertain if the findings can be generalized. If ghost children exist across the nation, and even in other countries, this would be an area worthy of further exploration.

The teacher candidates’ use of subjective criteria in choosing the ghost child is another possible limitation. The participants rarely recorded the ethnicity, grade level, and subject area in which the ghost child was observed. Also the teacher candidates had limited access to formal academic records. Debriefing a small group of the teacher candidates may have helped in determining why so little demographic information was recorded and what criteria was used in deciding the academic ability of the student. Future studies could be enhanced by the collection of such data. However, this study sought to uncover the characteristics of ghost children, so the observation activity was vaguely worded to allow for individual interpretation of the task.

Another limitation relates to the dependability of the data analysis. Extensive and numerous readings of the observation data allowed the researcher to become familiar with the various nuances of the use of key words and phrases and helped develop the overarching categories. The use of a spreadsheet facilitated the analysis process, as it facilitated the strategy for the coding and recoding of the data gathered from the multiple cohorts.

In summary, using teacher candidates to collect the data provided useful information about the characteristics of ghost children. One underlying goal of the assignment was to help novice educators to develop the observational insights of veteran educators, although that skill emerges with experience. The primary goal of this study was to point out the existence of ghost children in classrooms and the necessity of studying this subpopulation further.

The analysis of the teacher candidates’ field notebook comments provided a demographical, attitudinal, and academic description of the ghost children that were observed. To summarize the findings from this study concerning the characteristics of ghost children, most were male, quiet or shy in nature, lacked appropriate social interaction skills, were unmotivated or bored, but were also academically capable. Additionally, this data also was used to answer the question of “How can teacher preparation programs assist teacher candidates and middle school teachers to ensure that no ghost child is left behind?”

A critical first step in ensuring that no ghost child is left behind is for educators to acknowledge the existence of this subpopulation of students in middle level classrooms. Lincoln and Guba (1985) asked, “How can an inquirer persuade his or her audiences that the research findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to?” (p. 290). Hopefully, the teacher candidates’ comments presented at the beginning of this article will prompt teacher candidates and in-service teachers to reconsider the varying needs of that quiet student seated in the back of the room or the student who does not cause problems, but who also does not seem engaged in learning. Elliott, Fischer, and Rennie (1999) stated that qualitative studies should resonate with “readers/reviewers, meaning that the material is presented in such a way that readers/reviewers, taking all other guidelines into account, judge it to have represented accurately the subject matter or to have clarified or expanded their appreciation and understanding of it” (p. 224). Awareness and understanding are important outcomes of this study.

One goal of the ghost child observation exercise was to assist the teacher candidates in developing the dispositions of a successful middle level educator. As Hiebert, Morris, Berk, and Jansen (2007) noted, “prior experiences, acquired during years in classrooms as students, heavily influence how prospective teachers interpret what they are learning and how they end up teaching” (p. 47). Through this activity, the teacher candidates gained important insights and understandings of a specific subpopulation of middle level students, ghost children. They observed and interacted with middle school students who were disengaged from education for a myriad of reasons. This assignment, or a similar one, has the potential to help the teacher candidate value young adolescents, ensure that the school environment is inviting, safe, inclusive, and supportive of all, and advocate for every student’s academic and personal development (NMSA, 2010). Again, awareness of the existence of ghost children is a crucial first step.

In regards to valuing young adolescents, many of the teacher candidates were surprised at the impact their own interactions with a ghost child had on that specific student, but also with the other middle school students. For example, Molly B. noted a typical response from ghost child in her field notebook.

Other teacher candidates noted that talking with the ghost child seemed to help him/her learn how to initiate conversations. Modeling appropriate social skills is one way to value young adolescents, but exhibiting an understanding of the special needs some students have may also impact their peers.

The previous excerpt illustrates how Jessica was able to model appropriate social interactions, which was an important step in helping develop a safe, inclusive, and supportive learning environment for the young adolescent male. The task of observing a ghost child assisted the teacher candidates in this study in developing an awareness and sensitivity of the various characteristics and learning styles of middle level students. For example, Chloe C. lamented, “I don’t know what I can do to really help this student, but I am going to keep trying and continue to use things that he responds well to. I learned that this little guy might just need some more active learning and one-on-one time” (Wk 3, Day 1). Developing a safe, inclusive, and supportive learning environment includes more than an academic emphasis, but also “enhances physical and emotional wellbeing” (NMSA, 2010, p. 33). “Teachers who foster positive relationships with their students create classroom environments more conducive to learning and meet students’ developmental, emotional and academic needs” (Rimm-Kaufman, n.d., para. 2).

The teacher candidates incorporated their knowledge of the social, physical, intellectual, moral or character, and emotional development of young adolescents in their observation of the ghost children. They saw first hand the importance of advocating for every student’s academic and personal development (NMSA, 2010). Many of the teacher candidates were alarmed about the level of engagement of their ghost child and believed that more could be done to keep the students interested and motivated. An excerpt from Ashleigh N.’s field notebook provides insights as to her concern about the varying needs of her academically capable ghost child.

Several teacher candidates other than Chloe and Ashleigh also noted that ghost children were more engaged during labs or other activities. A varied repertoire of instructional strategies benefits all students. However, the link between instructional strategies and motivation is not always obvious (Matteson, Swarthout, & Zientek, 2011). Middle level curricula should be relevant, challenging, integrative, and exploratory (NMSA, 2003, 2010). When young adolescents experienced such curricula, they become more motivated and engaged in classroom instruction.

This study also has implications for in-service educators. The Association of Middle Level Educators (AMLE), formerly the National Middle School Association, supports “an adult advocate for every student” (NMSA, 2003, p. 7), which logically extends to advocating for ghost children. Learning how and when to address the varying social, intellectual, and emotional needs of ghost children would be a practical demonstration of what Hiebert, Gallimore and Stigler (2002) have called practitioner knowledge. Such knowledge (a) “develops in response to specific problems of practice,” (b) “is detailed, concrete, and specific,” and (c) “is integrated and organized around problems of practice” (p. 6). Again the critical first step is recognizing that ghost children exist in classrooms. In-service educators would also benefit from an opportunity to engage in extended and focused observations of ghost children in their or a colleague’s classroom. The topic of ghost children could become an action research project. The in-service educator could, for example, implement self-efficacy tests and math anxiety or similar attitudinal surveys to further identify specific characteristics of ghost children. This could possibly result in a larger student sample size, which would then provide an opportunity to compare the characteristics of ghost children with the general student population. In-service teachers could also examine educational records for indications of when the ghost child started to exhibit negative social skills or apathy toward school. They also could act as a liaison between school counselors, parents, and community resources. Additionally, a critical aspect of middle level students’ peer acceptance and interactions is their social skill development (Caskey & Anfara, 2007). One overlooked and underused opportunity is the development and implementation of social skill modules during advisory times. The in-service educator or teacher candidate could lead these type of modules.

The teacher candidates’ observations about how ghost children act in classrooms suggest there are several things that teacher preparation program and teacher educators can do to assist teacher candidates and in-service middle school teachers in order to ensure that no ghost child is left behind. The data analysis of this study found there was a frequent use of the terms of motivation, engagement and interest by the teacher candidates in describing the attitudes of the ghost children toward school or classroom activities. Even veteran educators have struggled in regards to differentiating between motivation and engagement. Frydenberg, Ainley, and Russell (2005) proposed that, “Motivation is about energy and direction, the reasons for behaviour, why we do what we do. Engagement describes energy in action, the connection between person and activity” (p. 1). Frydenberg et al. (2005) went on to state “motivation is often inferred from students’ engagement in learning activity” and that “students can be motivated but disengaged” (p. 3). Ainley (2004) noted “feeling interested in an activity leads to decisions and actions that maintain contact with the activity” (pp. 7–8) and therefore is linked to engagement. Teacher educators should include more discussions about the subtle differences between motivation and engagement and the impact on student learning in education classes and professional development sessions.

One final note, the results of this search study imply ghost children may be more prevalent in middle or high schools than has been presented in educational research literature. The teacher candidates in this study seemed to have little difficulty in identifying a ghost child. Elementary teachers generally have self-contained classrooms and therefore have extended opportunities to know and work with individual children. Middle and high school teachers may see over a hundred students on a daily basis, but have limited opportunities to create positive relationships with students, although there are exceptions, such as the fine arts teachers and coaches who are fortunate to interact with students over multiple grade levels. When teachers are responsible for educating more students, the possibility exists for ghost children to be in classrooms and potentially ignored by teachers and peers. As middle level educators, we must continue to strive to instruct all young adolescents, especially those who are more challenging to engage.