Effective

Instructional
Practices in

Middle
Schools
June 2001

This research is being conducted by the Texas Center for

Texas Center for Educational Research
P.O. Box 679002
Austin,Texas 78767-9002
512-467-3632 • 800-580-8237 • 512-467-3618 (fax)
Web site: www.tcer.org
Educational Research with the support of the following
organizations:
Texas Education Agency
Texas Mentor School Network
Texas Association of Secondary School Principals
Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association
Texas Middle School Association
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................5

Study Methods .................................................................................................................................5

Research Design................................................................................................................................5

Instrumentation ................................................................................................................................5

The EIP Sample .................................................................................................................................5

Results..............................................................................................................................................9

Instructional Practices ......................................................................................................................9

Instructional Practices and Student Performance...........................................................................14

School Resources ............................................................................................................................18

Decision-Making Authority ..............................................................................................................22

Barriers............................................................................................................................................23

Year 1 and 3 Survey Differences.....................................................................................................24

Technical Appendix......................................................................................................................31

i
Executive Summary
This publication reports findings from a multiyear study entitled Effective Instructional Practices for
Improved Student Performance: A Survey of Texas School Principals (EIP Study).The EIP Study has
three purposes: to identify the specific effective instructional practices used by Texas public schools;
to determine the extent to which these practices are adopted by elementary, middle, high, and
combination schools; and to examine the relationship between student performance and effective
instructional practices.This is the final year of the three-year study.

In the third year of this longitudinal study, 1,750 Texas school principals received surveys. From this
group, 469 surveys were returned for a response rate of 27 percent.The Year 3 respondents represent
approximately 8 percent of Texas schools. Survey respondents include 257 elementary schools, 81
middle schools, 90 high schools, and 41 combination schools (Pre-K or K-12).This report will focus
upon the Year 3 survey responses from middle school principals.

Instructional Practices

What instructional practices are used in Texas middle schools? What is the
level of use of these practices?
✓ According to middle school principals, the four most important factors guiding
instruction are student needs, district expectations for students,TAAS performance,
and the campus improvement plan.
✓ Principals are generally satisfied with the time teachers spend on instructional and
routine administrative activities; however, 25 percent of principals believe policies
and procedures require teachers to spend excessive time on administrative tasks.
Twenty-one percent of principals believe teachers should spend less time on
maintaining order and disciplining students.
✓ Fifty-one percent of principals report that students are in mixed-ability classrooms
throughout the day.An additional 37 percent identify student grouping as mixed-
ability except in reading and math.
✓ Principals identify TEKS,TAAS, district and school board policies, and teachers’
opinion about what is most important as the four main factors guiding curriculum in
middle schools.
✓ Sixty-three percent of principals label their schools’ mathematics instruction
approach as teacher-directed, while 35 percent describe mathematics instruction as
student-centered.
✓ Most middle school principals (79 percent) indicate that reading instruction is
literature-based, integrating students’ literature and writing instruction.
✓ All principals believe that at least some teachers integrate computers and other
technology into instruction.Twenty-five percent report that nearly all teachers
integrate technology into their lessons.

1
 ✓ Instruction for gifted and talented students is primarily provided through grouping
students together in all subject areas (41 percent) or in one subject area (24 percent).
✓ Special education students are most likely to be taught by regular classroom teachers
with the support and assistance of special education teachers.
✓ More than 70 percent of middle schools offer instructional activities outside of the
regular school schedule, and 44 percent of middle schools provide peer mediation
programs to assist students with conflict resolution.

Instructional Practices and Student Performance

What is the relationship between student performance and effective

instructional practices?
✓ In the core curriculum areas, teacher-made essay and short answer tests, writing
samples, and teacher-made multiple choice tests are the most frequently used
assessment instruments for middle school teachers.
✓ Middle schools use formal and informal methods to report student achievement to
parents. Eighty-five percent of principals cite the use of traditional report cards every
six weeks.Telephone calls, mail, and e-mail (more informal methods of
communicating with parents) are used at least once each six weeks in 80 percent of
schools.
✓ Eighty-seven percent of middle schools administer a standardized test (other than
TAAS) to at least a few students, and 27 percent of schools administer these tests to
nearly all students.
✓ Middle school teachers use small-group work, tutoring, and pencil and paper practice
tests most frequently to prepare students for TAAS testing. Computer practice tests
and grade-level or subject-specific workshops are less frequently used.
✓ Ninety-seven percent of principals report that teachers use student data to evaluate
classroom instruction. Standardized test data is most commonly used for schoolwide
planning and identifying individual students.
✓ The most common means for identifying students needing additional help are
teacher recommendations, low grades, and low test scores. Once identified,
intervention most often occurs through re-teaching the material or meeting with
parents.
✓ Sixty-three percent of principals report retention rates as 1 percent or less. Retention
decisions are most frequently based upon student achievement throughout the year,
teacher assessments, reading ability, and student age.

2
 School Resources

What types and levels of resources are needed to support and maintain
effective instructional practices in middle schools? How do staffing changes
influence effective instructional practice?
✓ Principals report an adequate supply of most instructional resources. Deficiencies
were most frequently noted in professional development libraries.
✓ Fifty-two percent of principals report their schools will need minor repairs in the
next five years, and 36 percent report major repairs will be needed.
✓ Daily student access to computers was reported by 60 percent of principals, and 71
percent indicate most or nearly all students use the Internet to complete classroom
projects and assignments.
✓ Fifty-seven percent use a traditional school schedule, and 41 percent of middle
schools operate on an alternative schedule (such as block scheduling,).
✓ Eighty-one percent of principals work more than 50 hours per week, and the other
19 percent work between 46 and 50 hours per week.
✓ Forty-one percent of principals reported difficulties finding qualified teachers for a
class or grade.When hiring new teachers, 62 percent of schools offer an organized
induction year program.

Decision-Making Authority

What role do campus stakeholders have in implementing effective

instructional practices?
✓ Seventy-five percent of middle school principals frequently or very often attend
meetings involving teams of teachers. In team teacher meetings, individual student
performance, discipline, and preparation for TAAS are most often discussed.
✓ More than 75 percent of principals and more than 55 percent of teachers are
involved in making decisions in all campus-related areas. SBDM teams are least likely
to be involved in teacher hiring decisions, whereas district offices are least active in
scheduling decisions.

Barriers

What are barriers to implementing effective instructional practices? What

are barriers to student learning?
✓ Middle school principals identify inadequate teacher planning time, insufficient
funding, and staff resistance to change as the greatest barriers to the implementation
of effective instructional practices.
3
 ✓ Among middle school respondents, the top three barriers to student performance are
poor motivation, lack of basic skills, and lack of additional student support.

Year 1 and Year 3 Survey Differences

What changes in principals’ perceptions and opinions on effective

instructional practice have occurred over the course of the three survey
years?
✓ Computers are becoming a more important teaching method.Teachers frequently or
very often using computers as an instructional method increased 25 percent from
Year 1 to Year 3.
✓ The percentage of principals reporting students reading 46 minutes or more
noticeably increased over the three years.
✓ The availability of a full-time reading specialist to assist students with reading
difficulties decreased from 44 percent in Year 1 down to 27 percent in Year 3.
✓ Mathematics instruction is becoming more student-centered. Over the three years of
the study, reports of teacher-directed math instruction decreased 11 percent, while
reports of student-centered instruction increased 8 percent.
✓ Teachers’ use of informal reporting methods every six weeks has increased from Year
1 to Year 3 with a 20 percent increase in parent-teacher conferences and a 12
percent increase in telephone calls, mail, and email.
✓ Moving students to a different class or level, connecting students with mentors or
mentor programs, parent meetings, retention, and referring students to health, social
service, or community agencies became more frequent means of intervention in Year
3 than in Year 1.
✓ Middle school student access to computers is increasing. From Year 1 to Year 3, 7
percent more principals reported daily student access to computers.
✓ The percent of principals reporting that most students use the Internet to complete
classroom projects and assignments markedly increased from 15 percent in Year 1 to
71 percent in Year 3.
✓ Noticeably more principals in Year 3 (30 percent) than in Year 1 (8 percent) viewed
standardized test pressure as a critical barrier to effective instructional practices.

4
Introduction ___________________________________________
This paper reports on the third-year findings of a longitudinal study entitled the Effective Instructional
Practices for Improved Student Performance: A Survey of Texas School Principals (EIP Study).This is
the final year of the three-year study.This research is being conducted by the Texas Center for
Educational Research with the support of the Texas Education Agency, the Mentor School Network, the
Texas Association of Secondary School Principals,Texas Elementary and Supervisors Association, and
Texas Middle School Association (the EIP Collaborative).This report examines study results specifically
from middle school principals.

The EIP Study has three primary objectives:

✓ Identify the specific effective instructional practices used by public schools in Texas
✓ Determine the extent to which these practices are adopted by elementary, middle,
high, and combination schools
✓ Examine the relationship between student performance and effective instructional
practices

Study Methods ________________________________________

Research Design
The EIP Study relies upon a longitudinal survey research design.A survey instrument was developed
specifically for this study. More than 1,750 school principals received the questionnaire in Years 1, 2, and 3.

Instrumentation
A questionnaire for school principals was developed through literature review, focus group research,
pilot testing, independent reviews, item analysis, and discussions with the EIP Collaborative.The
principal survey includes items in each of the following areas: curriculum and instruction, mathematics
and reading, computer and instructional technology, special education programs, student performance,
teacher issues, decision-making authority, principal issues, and barriers to student performance and to
the implementation of effective instructional practices. Demographic information was collected within
the survey and through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) data set.

The EIP Sample

The population of interest for the EIP Study is principals at the elementary, middle, and high school
levels, as well as principals serving at combination schools (Pre-K or K-12). In selecting the sample,
schools in the 1996-1997 PEIMS were considered.The following types of specialized schools were
excluded from the sample pool: alternative schools, schools serving only children in early childhood
5
 and kindergarten, and schools shared between districts.A computer software program selected a
random sample of 25 percent of the Texas school population from the adjusted pool.After sampling
adjustments were completed, the final sample consisted of 1,753 schools.

In Year 1, 1,057 principals returned surveys for a response rate of 60 percent.The Year 2 response rate
was 45 percent; a total of 786 principals responded to the second-year surveys.As for Year 3, 469
principals completed the survey yielding a 27 percent response rate.The returned Year 3 surveys
included 257 elementary schools, 81 middle schools, 90 high schools, and 41 combination schools.The
Year 3 respondents represent approximately 8 percent of Texas schools.The respondents for Years 1, 2,
and 3 are representative of the population in Texas schools, and the response rate is sufficient for the
data to be meaningful and have significance.The following information details the school
demographics of Year 1, 2, and 3 middle school respondents.

School Size
The final sample of middle schools is well balanced.Year 1 and Year 2 respondents include roughly the
same proportion of small, medium, and large schools; however,Year 3 respondents include more large
schools than small or medium schools. Detailed information on school size can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Distribution of middle school respondents, by school size

Respondents
Population Sample Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Small
(up to 430 students) 373 107 64 50 29
Medium
(431–620 students) 381 111 72 51 10
Large
(Over 620 students 379 107 56 43 42
Total 1,133 325 192 144 81

Percentage of Low-Income Students

Respondents to the survey in Years 1, 2, and 3 include a low number of principals at schools with high
concentrations of students receiving free or reduced price lunch (FRPL).

Table 2. Distribution of middle school respondents, by percentage of FRPL

Respondents
Population Sample Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Up to 33% FRPL 374 116 70 51 25
34%–66% FRPL 511 135 87 60 40
Over 66% FRPL 248 74 35 32 15
Total 1,133 325 192 143 80
Note. Data could not be obtained for one Year 2 respondent and one Year 3 respondent.

6
Geographic Area
The geographic distribution of middle school respondents corresponds roughly to the statewide
distribution of schools and students. For this study,Texas’ 20 educational regions are grouped into four
geographic areas.The distribution is displayed in Table 3.

Table 3. Distribution of middle school respondents, by area

Area ESCs Respondents
in the area Population Sample Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Central and ESC 1, Edinburg 289 91 52 40 23
South Texas ESC 2, Corpus Christi
ESC 3,Victoria
ESC 13,Austin
ESC 20, San Antonio
Gulf Coast ESC 4, Houston 357 107 65 55 25
And East ESC 5, Beaumont
Texas ESC 6, Huntsville
ESC 7, Kilgore
ESC 8, Mt. Pleasant
North Texas ESC 9,Wichita Falls 327 79 49 34 20
ESC 10, Richardson
ESC 11, Ft.Worth
ESC 12,Waco
ESC 14,Abilene
Panhandle ESC 15, San Angelo 160 48 26 15 13
And West ESC 16,Amarillo
Texas ESC 17, Lubbock
ESC 18, Midland
ESC 19, El Paso

Accountability Ratings
Table 4 shows the distribution of middle schools by accountability rating. Because only one Year 3
school rated as low performing, the study will focus on identifying the practices of schools rated as
acceptable, recognized, or exemplary.

Table 4. Distribution of middle school respondents, by accountability rating

Respondents
Population Sample Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Exemplary 36 36 26 26 16
Recognized 171 44 25 32 25
Acceptable 900 228 130 82 39
Low performing 11 11 7 2 1
Other 15 6 4 0 0
Total 1,133 325 192 142 81
Note. Population, sample, and Year 1 ratings based on 1996 ratings.Year 2 ratings based on 1999 7
ratings.Year 3 ratings based on 2000 ratings. Data could not be obtained for two Year 2 schools.
 Additional Demographic Variables
Additional demographic information for the Year 3 middle schools is presented in Table 5.

Table 5.Year 3 middle school respondents, demographic information

Demographic Average for
information respondent schools
Hispanic student enrollment 35% 210 students
African American student enrollment 10% 69 students
Economically disadvantaged students 44% 253 students
Total campus enrollment 633 students

Principal Tenure
In the Year 3 sample of survey respondents, more middle school principals had been in their current
position for four to five years than any other length of time. Principals with six to 10 years of tenure at
their current school were the next largest group. In terms of total years in principal positions, the Year
3 respondents are very experienced; 80 percent have been principals for four or more years, and 46
percent have been principals for more than 10 years.

Table 6. Year 3 middle school respondents, principal experience

Years as principal Years total
at this school as principal
Number Percent Number Percent
1 year 12 15% 8 10%
2–3 years 13 16% 8 10%
4–5 years 20 25% 12 15%
6–10 years 19 23% 15 19%
11–15 years 10 12% 20 25%
Over 15 years 7 9% 17 21%
Total 81 100% 80 100%
Note. One principal did not provide total years of principal experience

8
Results _______________________________________________
The following results pertain to findings from Year 3 middle school respondents. Differences between
Year 1 and Year 3 middle school principal responses also are reported in this section.

Instructional Practices
Data from the Year 3 surveys addressing the following two questions are reported in this section:

What effective instructional practices are used in Texas middle

schools?
What is the level of use of these practices?
Factors guiding instruction
Principals were asked to identify the most important elements or features that guide instruction at
their schools. Middle school principals most frequently cite the following:

✓ Student needs (reported by 96 percent of principals)

✓ District expectations and vision for its students (96 percent)
✓ TAAS (93 percent)
✓ Campus improvement plan (91 percent)

The least influential factors guiding instruction are instructional philosophies (e.g., behaviorism,
constructivism) and educational programs and philosophies (e.g.,Accelerated Schools).As poverty level
increases (as determined by percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch price), the
likelihood of principals identifying the campus improvement plan as guiding school instruction
increases. Middle school principals in high poverty schools are more likely to cite educational
programs and philosophies as guiding school instruction than principals at low- and medium-poverty
schools.

Teaching methods
Principals indicated the frequency of use of specific teaching methods in core curricular areas. Sixty
percent or more middle school principals report that teachers frequently or very often use the
following teaching methods:

✓ Lead students in discussion (70 percent)

✓ Students use computers (65 percent)
✓ Students write individual assignments (62 percent)

Principal reports of oral presentations by students are far less frequently mentioned.Table 7 contains a
list of teaching methods and the average use of each method; a higher average indicates middle school
teachers use the method more frequently.

9
 Table 7. Use of instructional methods
Instructional method Average use
Teachers lead class discussion 3.86
Students use computers 3.84
Students complete individual assignments 3.80
Teachers provide individual instruction 3.63
Students use manipulatives 3.59
Teachers lecture students 3.59
Students work in collaborative groups 3.53
Teachers present lessons using AV equipment 3.37
Students present oral reports 3.17
Note. Ratings based on five-point scale ranging from “not at all” (1) to “very often” (5).

At the middle school level, 76 percent of principals report that teachers use textbooks as the
framework for curriculum content at least some of the time. Five percent of middle schools do not use
textbooks to frame curriculum. Given that 47 percent of principals cite textbooks as one of the five
most important factors guiding curriculum, textbooks are clearly important in guiding curriculum at
the middle school level.

Middle school principals also were asked to report on the frequency of looping at their schools.With
this approach, students stay with the same teacher for more than one year.According to national
studies, this is not a frequently used practice in middle schools. Sixty-six percent of principals report
that no students stay with the same teacher for more than one year. Only 9 percent of middle school
principals report that most or nearly all teachers have implemented looping practices, and 25 percent
report a few or some teachers use this practice. Middle schools serving high-poverty students report
the use of looping more frequently than medium- or low-poverty schools.

Teacher time
Principals rated the amount of time teachers spend on administrative and instructional tasks. Principals
had the option of choosing whether teachers spend too much time, too little time, or the right amount
of time on each task.As the average ratings approach two, principals think teachers spend the right
amount of time.As the average approaches one, principals believe teachers should spend less time, and
as it approaches three, principals believe more time is needed.Average ratings for each teacher task
can be found in Table 8.

✓ Twenty-one percent of middle school principals feel teachers should spend less time
on maintaining order and disciplining students.While principals understand the need
for this, they would prefer more time be spent on classroom instruction.
✓ Twenty-five percent of principals believe school policies and procedures require
teachers to spend excessive time on administrative tasks.
✓ Nine percent of principals believe teachers should spend less time giving tests.
✓ Fifteen percent think teachers should spend less time checking homework, whereas
21 percent believe teachers need more time for this task.

10
 Table 8. Teacher time on activities in core curricular areas
Task Average rating
Time checking homework 2.06
Time administering tests and quizzes 1.96
Time performing routine administrative tasks 1.84
Time maintaining order and disciplining students 1.81
Note.As average rating approaches 2.00, principals think teachers spend the right amount of time.

Curriculum
Middle school principals most frequently mention the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) as the most important elements influencing curriculum.
Eighty-eight percent of principals report that nearly all teachers incorporate TEKS into their lesson
plans.Another 10 percent report that most do this. Many middle schools have also implemented new
or revised curriculum to reflect the TEKS. Seventy-five percent of schools have revised or implemented
new curriculum in the core areas, and 42 percent have done this in enrichment areas.

Other elements and features frequently identified by principals as important in guiding curriculum are:

✓ District or school board policies and decisions (64 percent)

✓ Teacher’s opinion (63 percent)
✓ Faculty vision (49 percent)
✓ Textbooks (47 percent)

Mathematics and reading

Middle school principals were asked to characterize their mathematics instructional approach as
teacher-directed or student-centered and their reading approach as code-based or literature-based.
Principals also had the option to describe their school’s instructional approach if it did not fit into the
aforementioned categories.

✓ Sixty-three percent of principals describe their math instruction as teacher-directed,

while 35 percent view the instructional approach as student-centered. Only 2 percent
report using a different instructional approach.
✓ In describing reading instruction, 79 percent of middle school principals identify
their school’s approach as literature-based, 16 percent of principals report code-based
reading instruction, and 5 percent report using a different instructional method.

On average, most middle schools offer 46 minutes or more a day of reading instruction. However, 25
percent of schools allocate 45 minutes or less to reading instruction in seventh and eighth grades.Table
9 provides data describing the amount of time spent per day on reading instruction by grade level.

11
 Table 9. Average daily time spent on reading instruction, by percentage of schools
45 minutes 46–60 61–90 More than
or less minutes minutes 90 minutes
Fourth through
sixth grades 17% 51% 22% 10%
Seventh and
eighth grades 25% 49% 22% 4%
Note: Percentages do not total 100 because the grade levels were not on the campus or because the
respondent did not provide a response.

When a student is having reading difficulties, one form of intervention involves using a reading
specialist.Twenty-seven percent of middle schools have at least one full-time reading specialist on
campus, and another 8 percent have at least one part-time specialist on campus. However, 48 percent
of middle school principals report that a reading specialist is never available for students with reading
problems.

Students needing specific reading assistance usually receive it within the regular classroom. Fifty-nine percent
of middle school principals report students who have difficulty reading receive additional help within the
regular classroom.Twenty-six percent of middle schools provide additional reading help outside regular class.

Student grouping
Fifty-one percent of middle school principals report students are in mixed-ability classrooms the entire
day.Thirty-seven percent of principals identify student grouping as mixed-ability except in reading and
math. Grouping students by ability is less common (13 percent) in middle schools. No middle schools
report multiage classes in the core curriculum areas. Small schools are more likely to report using
mixed-ability classrooms the entire day than large- or medium-size schools. Large and medium schools
are more likely than small schools to report student grouping as mixed except for reading and math.

Computer and instructional technology

The integration of computer technology into classroom instruction is becoming an increasingly
important instructional practice in middle schools.

✓ All principals report that at least some teachers integrate computers and other
technology into instruction.
✓ Twenty-five percent report that nearly all teachers integrate technology into their
lessons.

Instruction other than the regular education program

Gifted and talented instruction. Middle schools use a number of methods to serve gifted and talented
students, and occasionally multiple methods are employed to provide instruction to these students.
Forty-one percent of middle schools provide instruction for gifted and talented students through
grouping in all core academic subjects, and 24 percent report grouping students together in a class for
instruction in one subject. Instruction for gifted and talented students also may be provided through
enrichment within the regular classroom (38 percent),Advanced Placement or honors classes (35
percent), or through periodic pull-out programs (21 percent).

12
Special education programs. Special education students are most frequently taught the core subject
areas in a regular classroom where a special education teacher assists the regular education teacher.
The frequency of methods used to deliver services to special education students is profiled in Table 10.

Table 10. Frequency of delivery methods for special education instruction

Most or nearly Some A few or
all students students no students
Regular education and special
education teacher 55% 34% 11%
Regular education teacher only 36% 34% 30%
Regular education teacher and
teacher assistant 15% 36% 49%
Special education teacher only 17% 45% 38%

Special programs on campus

Schools often provide instructional enrichment through the use of special programs and memberships
in educational organizations.To assess the extent of middle school participation in these types of
programs, principals were asked to identify any programs that the school had adopted.The frequency
of program participation is displayed in Table 11.

Table 11. Special programs on middle school campuses

Name of program Number of schools
Title I Schoolwide 37
Communities in Schools 16
Junior Achievement 16
Mentor school network 15
Tech-Prep 14
Other program 6
Reading Recovery 6
Magnet program or other special theme 6
Accelerated Schools 4
National school improvement program 2
Success for All 1

Schools rated as exemplary are less likely to be a Title I Schoolwide program than schools rated as
recognized and acceptable.As poverty level increases, the likelihood of a middle school being a Title I
Schoolwide significantly increases.This is expected because Title I funding is linked to student poverty.

More than 70 percent of middle schools offer additional instructional activities outside of the regular
school schedule to at least a few grades. In addition, three schools are planning to offer these activities
in the future. In addition to these activities, many middle schools offer or are planning to offer peer
mediation programs to assist students in conflict resolution. Forty-four percent of schools currently
have a peer mediation program in place, and 18 percent of middle schools have implementation plans
for peer mediation programs. 13
 Instructional Practices and Student Performance
Data from the Year 3 surveys addressing the following question are reported in this section:

What is the relationship between student performance and effective

instructional practices?
Homework
When asked how often teachers in the school assign homework, 38 percent of middle school
principals report teachers do this very often, with another 49 percent stating that teachers frequently
assign homework.Two percent of principals report that teachers seldom assign homework.

Use of assessments
Teachers use a variety of assessment instruments to gain information about student knowledge and
comprehension of materials. Middle school principals indicate teachers use the following assessment
instruments most often in reading and mathematics:

✓ Teacher-made essay and short-answer tests (cited by 86 percent of principals)

✓ Writing samples (78 percent)
✓ Teacher-made multiple-choice tests (73 percent)

Learning logs and portfolios are identified as the least used tools for assessment.

Reporting student achievement

Middle schools rely on few formal methods to report student achievement to parents.The following
are the two most frequently used reporting methods, with the frequency per six weeks in parentheses:

✓ Traditional report cards (reported by 85 percent of principals)

✓ Narrative report cards (22 percent)

Teachers use report cards with objectives, portfolios, and developmental checklists far less frequently.
Seventy-four percent of middle school principals report that achievement test scores are sent to
parents at least once a year.

In addition to these formal means, middle school teachers also use informal reporting methods such as
conferences, home visits, telephone calls, and mail.The frequency of use of teachers’ formal and
informal reporting methods is found in Table 12.

14
 Table 12. Use of student progress reporting methods, by number of principals
Once each Once a Once a Not
Reporting Method six weeks semester year used
Report card with
traditional grades 69 2 1 8
Narrative report cards 18 0 0 58
Parent-teacher conferences 39 26 9 3
Telephone calls, mail, or e-mail 63 13 1 1
Home visits 2 6 9 57

Parent-teacher conferences are most frequently scheduled once every six weeks.As the poverty level
of the school’s students increases, the frequency of conferences with parents also increases.Telephone
calls, mail, and electronic mail are used much more frequently than conferences to keep parents
informed about their children’s progress.Almost 80 percent of middle school principals report that
teachers use these informal means to communicate with parents at least once every six weeks. Home
visits occur less frequently, with 21 percent of principals reporting that teachers use home visits at
least once a year.

Administering standardized tests other than TAAS

Eighty-seven percent of middle schools administer some type of standardized test other than TAAS to at
least a few students.Twenty-seven percent of principals report that nearly all students will take a non-
TAAS standardized test.The ways in which standardized test results are used will be discussed later in
this report.

TAAS preparation
Given the importance of TAAS to accountability ratings, schools have implemented many different
methods to help students prepare for the TAAS test. Middle schools most frequently use small-group
work, tutoring, and paper/pencil practice tests for TAAS preparation. Computer practice tests and
grade-level or subject-specific workshops are the least common methods to prepare students for TAAS
testing.The frequency of each preparation method is displayed in Table 13.

Table 13. Number of schools using TAAS preparation methods

Regularly Occasionally A few weeks Not at all
throughout throughout or months to very
the year the year before the test little
Small group work 42 13 14 11
Paper and pencil
practice tests 30 33 13 4
Tutoring 42 20 15 4
Computer practice
tests 7 22 11 39
Workshops 7 15 9 46

15
 Exemplary schools use small-group work or practice tests less often than acceptable or recognized
schools.As poverty level increases, the frequency that schools use paper/pencil and computer practice
tests increases.

Evaluation of standardized test results

Ninety-seven percent of principals report that at least some of the teachers routinely and
systematically use student data (including TAAS results, grade distributions, and failure rates) to evaluate
instruction in their classrooms. Less than 3 percent of middle school principals believe that teachers in
their schools never use student data for instruction evaluation.

Principals identify many ways that information from standardized tests (including TAAS) is used in their
schools. More than 80 percent report that these data are frequently or very often used to:

✓ Identify objectives that need improvement schoolwide (89 percent)

✓ Identify students’ individual strengths and needs (88 percent)
✓ Identify trends in achievement among special populations (84 percent)
✓ Modify campus improvement plans (80 percent)

As poverty level increases, the frequency that schools use standardized test information to identify
individual student strengths and weaknesses, to modify the curriculum, and to make student placement
decisions increases.

Students needing additional help

Identification. Principals cite several different methods used to identify students who need extra help.
The most common means for identification is teacher recommendations. Ninety-five percent of middle
schools frequently or very often use this method.The following are other means of identifying students
needing additional help commonly mentioned by middle school principals:

✓ Low grades (reported by 90 percent of principals)

✓ Low test scores (86 percent)
✓ Results of diagnostic tests (65 percent)
✓ Counselor or school nurse recommendation (57 percent)
✓ Parent request (38 percent)

Self-referrals and peer-referrals are less common methods of identification.

Interventions. Once students have been identified as needing additional help, schools may offer
interventions in many different forms.Table 14 describes the frequency of interventions used at the
middle school level.

16
 Table 14. Use of intervention methods for students not achieving
Very Hardly
often Frequently Sometimes Seldom ever
Re-teach material 43% 47% 10% 0% 0%
Meet with the parents 37% 51% 11% 1% 0%
Individual tutoring 22% 43% 30% 5% 0%
Provide access to content
mastery class 36% 36% 16% 4% 8%
Place in program with more
appropriate instruction 22% 28% 43% 7% 0%
Refer to health, social service
or community agency 5% 16% 45% 30% 4%
Move student to a different
class or level 3% 17% 53% 22% 5%
Connect student with mentor
or mentor program 9% 8% 48% 22% 13%
Retain student in grade 3% 8% 38% 50% 1%

As poverty level increases, schools are more likely to intervene through social service referrals and
student grade retention.Acceptable and recognized schools are more likely to re-teach material than
exemplary schools.

Retention
Middle school principals report very little retention in grade or placement in transition classes.

✓ Fifteen percent report no students had been retained in grade in the last year.
✓ Forty-eight percent report this rate as being up to 1 percent.
✓ Twenty-five percent of principals report between 1 percent and 3 percent of
students were retained.
✓ Six percent report a rate between 4 percent and 5 percent.
✓ Only 5 percent of middle school principals report that more than 5 percent of
students were retained in grade or placed in transition classes.

In making determinations about retentions and placements in transition classes, principals consider a
number of factors.The following are the most common factors middle school principals cite as
important or very important in determining grade retention:

✓ Student achievement throughout the year (97 percent)

✓ Teacher assessment (85 percent)
✓ Reading ability (79 percent)
✓ Student’s age (63 percent)

Although not as highly ranked as the aforementioned factors,TAAS scores (42 percent), parent requests
(40 percent), and diagnostic tests (33 percent) are labeled as an important or very important
17
 consideration by several middle school principals. Social skills and achievement on non-TAAS tests are
less important in determining grade retention according to the principals surveyed. Middle school
principals at small- and medium-size schools view parent requests as more important in determining
grade retention than principals at large schools.As school size increases, the importance of student age
in making retention decisions increases.

School Resources
Data from the Year 3 surveys addressing the following questions are reported in this section:

What types and levels of resources are needed to support and

maintain effective instructional practices in middle schools?
How do staffing changes influence effective instructional practice?
Adequacy of resources
Middle school principals were asked to rate the adequacy of instructional resources at their schools on
a three-point scale.“Very adequate” ratings (3) denote that the school has all of a resource that it needs.
“Adequate” ratings (2) show schools have enough of a resource to meet students’ basic learning needs.
If a lack of a specific resource detracts from students’ learning, it is considered “inadequate” (1). In
Table 15, principal ratings of resource adequacy are listed, including the average rating of adequacy.
Average ratings show middle school instructional resources to be adequate or better except for
professional development libraries.

Table 15. Adequacy of school resources

Very
School resources adequate Adequate Inadequate Average
Classroom supplies 55 24 2 2.65
Textbooks and instructional
materials 41 37 2 2.49
Audio-visual equipment 43 32 6 2.46
Teacher curriculum guides 40 34 7 2.41
School library and media center 40 33 8 2.40
Math equipment 30 46 5 2.31
Classroom furniture 29 41 11 2.22
Social studies materials 24 50 7 2.21
Connections for technology 30 37 14 2.20
Physical education equipment and
facilities 25 44 12 2.16
Supplementary reading materials 20 53 8 2.15
Science equipment 25 41 15 2.12
Computer equipment 23 39 18 2.06
Fine arts equipment and facilities 20 45 16 2.05
Professional development library 10 40 31 1.74
Note. Ratings made on a three-point scale.

18
Principals were also asked to report any repairs their schools will need. Fifty-two percent of principals
report their schools will require minor repairs in the next five years.An additional 36 percent believe
major repairs on their school buildings will be needed.Twelve percent of middle school principals
report that only routine maintenance will be required.

Computers and instructional technology

Middle school principals report that many of their students have frequent access to computers and
Internet technology.

✓ Sixty percent of principals report that students have almost daily access to computers.
✓ Twenty-eight percent report students having computer access at least once or twice
a week.
✓ No principal stated that computers and other technology are not available to
students.

All middle school principals report that at least a few students use the Internet to complete class
projects and assignments. Seventy-one percent report most or nearly all students use the Internet at
school to search for information for classroom assignments.

Time at school
Middle schools typically have one of three school schedule formats:

✓ Traditional schedule (reported by 57 percent of principals)

✓ Alternative schedule—block scheduling, teaming, or clustering (41 percent)
✓ Flexible schedule—organized and standard-length periods are not used (2 percent)

Principal time
Twenty-seven percent of middle school principals spend more than 60 hours a week at work.An
additional 54 percent spend between 51 and 60 hours a week working. No middle school principals
spend fewer than 46 hours per week at school.

New teachers
Sixty-two percent of middle school principals report having an organized induction-year program for
new teachers.These programs make a variety of activities available for teachers during their first year
of teaching at the school.A complete list of induction-year activities can be found in Table 16.

19
 Table 16. Induction year activities for new teachers
Induction year activity Number of schools
Additional or specialized staff development 33
Classroom observations 32
Extra preparation days before school starts 31
Formal mentoring arrangement 26
Informal pairing with another teacher 22
Work with a team of teachers 21
Peer coaching 15
Clinical supervision 15
Follow schedule of specific orientation activities 11
Observe at other schools 8
Study groups 5

Small schools are less likely to have organized induction-year programs than medium or large schools.
In small schools that do provide induction-year activities, significantly fewer offer additional staff
development, formal mentoring, or classroom observations than medium or large schools. Medium
middle schools are more likely to offer peer coaching than large and small schools.The average
number of induction-year activities that middle schools offer first year teachers is 2.7, with a range of
zero to nine. Forty-seven percent of principals (46) report that faculty members who mentor new
teachers receive a stipend or release time as compensation for their time.

Professional development
Principals. Forty-one percent of middle school principals report having participated in a formal
principal assessment through an assessment center.

Teachers.The availability of professional development is an important resource for developing effective

instructional practices in the classroom. Middle school principals reported the professional
development topics most important for their school this year.Table 17 lists the number of principals
who identify the topic as important.The average number of professional development topics identified
by middle school principals as important is 7.1, with a range of zero to 16.

20
 Table 17. Most important professional development topics for teachers
Development topic Number of schools
Strategies to help students learned concepts tested on TAAS 64
Use of instructional technology 61
TEKS 56
Strategies to promote critical thinking 54
Teaching special education students
and others who may have difficulty learning 52
Strategies to improve test-taking skills 45
Teaching gifted and talented students 36
Team building, consensus building, and collaborative
decision making 35
Subject-specific instructional strategies 34
Teaching Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students 31
Alternative assessment procedures 28
Multiple intelligences or individual learning styles 23
Developing interdisciplinary lessons 19
Working with children from different cultures and
non-traditional families 15
Peer coaching 10
Thematic instruction 8

Middle schools with high poverty rates are significantly more likely to view professional development
topics on teaching LEP students and interdisciplinary lesson development as more important than
either low or medium poverty schools. Principals at medium- and high-poverty schools are more likely
than principals at low-poverty schools to view professional development related to test-taking
strategies as important. More principals of acceptable and recognized schools view staff development
on TAAS concept strategies as important than principals of exemplary schools.

Staffing changes
Specialist staff members. Forty-nine percent of middle school principals report that no changes had
occurred in the past five years in the number of specialist staff members teaching special education or
gifted and talented students. Forty-two percent of principals report an increase in the number of
specialists, and 9 percent report a decrease.

Teaching vacancies. Forty-one percent of middle school principals report having at least one teaching
vacancy during the school year that could not be filled by a teacher qualified in the course or grade
level to be taught.As poverty level increases, the likelihood of not filling a teaching vacancy with a
qualified teacher increases.

Principals most often hire teachers not yet certified or use substitutes to fill teaching vacancies. Less
popular means of accommodating teaching vacancies include assigning teachers from another grade or
subject, canceling planned course offerings, expanding class sizes, adding sections to teacher
workloads, or using part-time or itinerant teachers. Large middle schools are more likely to use
substitutes to fill teaching vacancies than small or medium schools. Medium- and high-poverty schools
fill teacher vacancies with non-certified teachers more often than low-poverty schools.
21
 Decision-Making Authority
Data from the Year 3 surveys addressing the following question are reported in this section:

What role do campus stakeholders have in implementing effective

instructional practices?
Teacher meetings
Middle school principals were asked to report on the types of teacher meetings held in their schools.
Twenty-four percent of principals report attending teacher meetings very often, an additional 51
percent frequently attend these meetings, and 19 percent of principals sometimes attend teacher
meetings.Table 18 displays information on the purposes of teacher meetings held by teams of
teachers.Teachers meet in interdisciplinary and grade-level teams most frequently.

Table 18. Purposes for team teacher meetings, by frequency

Very Not at
Often Frequently Sometimes Seldom all
Better coordination for
interdisciplinary
instruction teams 31% 25% 26% 13% 5%
Better coordination for
grade-level curriculum
and instruction 33% 38% 24% 4% 1%
Planning for staff
development 10% 26% 50% 13% 1%
Coordination and planning
by academic subject 28% 43% 20% 6% 3%

A variety of topics are discussed at teacher meetings. Middle school principals report that the most
frequently discussed topics at meetings are the following:

✓ Individual student performance (reported by 64 percent of principals)

✓ Discipline (54 percent)
✓ Preparation for TAAS (54 percent)

Topics less frequently discussed at teacher meetings include:

✓ Test results from TAAS and other assessments (reported by 22 percent of principals)
✓ Student placement in particular classes (22 percent)
✓ Implementation of new rules and regulations (11 percent)
✓ Staff development topics or issues (10 percent)

22
Decision-making authority
Many individuals have involvement in the decision-making process at middle schools.The participation
of principals, teachers, the site-based decision making (SBDM) team, and district office in seven areas is
displayed in Table 19. More than 75 percent of principals indicate involvement in all seven areas.
Teachers are most involved in making decisions related to curriculum (88 percent), the campus
improvement plan (80 percent), developing new programs and ideas (73 percent), and professional
development (70 percent). SBDM teams are most likely to be involved in decisions related to the
campus improvement plan (94 percent) and least likely to help with teacher hiring (35 percent),
school schedule (44 percent), and curriculum (46 percent) decisions. Middle school principals indicate
that district offices are most involved in budget (74 percent) and curriculum (70 percent) decisions
and least involved in school schedule (35 percent) decisions.

Table 19. Percent involved in making decisions

District
Principal Teachers SBDM office
Teacher hiring 95% 58% 35% 62%
Budget 88% 56% 61% 74%
Professional develop,emt 89% 70% 70% 56%
Curriculum 77% 88% 46% 70%
School schedule 91% 58% 44% 35%
Developing new programs
or ideas 86% 73% 68% 52%
Campus improvement plan 93% 80% 94% 47%
Note. SBDM refers to site-based decision making team.

Barriers
Data from the Year 3 surveys addressing the following questions are reported in this section:

What are barriers to implementing effective instructional practices?

What are barriers to student learning?

Effective instructional practices

Middle school principals identify the following as significant barriers to the implementation of
effective instructional practices.

✓ Inadequate time for teacher planning and professional development (reported by 44

percent of principals)
✓ Insufficient funding (39 percent)
✓ Staff resistance to change (35 percent)
✓ Problem students (31 percent)
✓ Pressure to perform well on standardized tests (31 percent)

23
 Less important as barriers are poor school facilities, poor district communication, lack of competent
school help, management of extracurricular activities, requirements for site-based decision-making, and
internal school conflict.

Student performance
Principals identify the following as significant barriers to student performance:

✓ Poor motivation (reported by 72 percent of principals)

✓ Lack of basic skills (53 percent)
✓ Lack of additional support for students who need it (39 percent)
✓ Students not ready for school each day (30 percent)

Middle school principals report that less important barriers to student performance include teachers
not prepared to teach, lack of teacher skills, lack of consensus on what should be taught, poor student
attendance, and inadequate instructional materials. Schools with medium or high student poverty rates
are more likely to identify student mobility and students not ready for school as barriers to student
performance than schools with low rates of student poverty.

Year 1 and 3 Survey Differences

In addition to the analysis of the Year 3 results, comparisons between the Year 1 and Year 3 surveys
also were completed. Of the 192 middle school principals returning surveys in Year 1, 59 returned Year
3 surveys as well.These matched surveys were then re-analyzed, and results across all topic areas were
compared. Data from the Year 1 and 3 surveys addressing the following question are reported in this
section:

What changes in principals’ perceptions and opinions on effective

instructional practices have occurred over the course of the three
survey years?
Factors guiding instruction
Principals’ opinions concerning elements and features guiding instruction at their schools changed very
little over the three study years. However, principals’ views on how teachers should be spending their time
changed.The percent of principals who think teachers should spend less time on routine administrative
tasks and more time checking homework increased 11 percent. Five percent more principals in Year 3 (21
percent) than Year 1 (16 percent) believed teachers should spend less time on student discipline

Teaching methods
Principal opinions concerning teaching methods in the core curriculum areas changed somewhat from
Year 1 to Year 3. One teaching method that had a marked increase over the two years of the study was
students’ computer usage. In Year 1, 39 percent of principals reported teachers used computers
frequently or very often as an instructional method, whereas in Year 3, 64 percent of principals cited
this. From Year 1 to Year 3, reports of students presenting oral reports increased 9 percent, and reports
of students working in groups decreased 6 percent. Middle school students are being assigned
24 homework more often in Year 3 (87 percent) than in the first year (78 percent) of the study.
The use of textbooks as a framework for curriculum content decreased from Year 1 to Year 3. In Year 1,
52 percent of principals reported that most teachers used textbooks as a curriculum framework; in
Year 3, 46 percent reported this.

While still uncommon, the frequency of looping increased over the three study years. In Year 1, 26
percent of principals stated that at least a few teachers in their schools were involved in looping, while
in Year 3, 36 percent of principals reported that at least a few teachers use this practice.The percent of
principals reporting students being in mixed-ability classrooms the entire day increased from 42
percent in Year 1 to 53 percent in Year 3.

Reading instruction
Several changes emerged in the provision of reading instruction in middle schools from Year 1 to Year 3.

✓ Middle school students spent more time reading in Year 3 than in Year 1.The
percentage of principals reporting students reading 46 minutes or more increased 27
percent over the three years for schools with fourth- through sixth-grade students
and increased 19 percent for schools with seventh- and eighth-grade students.
✓ In Year 1, 44 percent of principals reported having a full-time reading specialist on
campus, while 27 percent reported having a full-time specialist in Year 3.
✓ The percent of principals that had no reading specialist increased from 36 percent in
Year 1 to 48 percent in Year 3.
✓ There was decrease from Year 1 to Year 3 (6 percent) of principals reporting
providing students who have difficulty reading additional help within the regular
classroom and a five percent decrease in providing these students additional help
outside the regular classroom. However, an increased percentage of principals in Year
3 (14 percent) than in Year 1 (3 percent) cited helping students in other ways.

Mathematics instruction
Mathematics instruction is becoming more student-centered. In Year 1, 74 percent of principals
identified mathematics instruction as teacher-directed, whereas in Year 3, 63 percent stated this.The
percent describing math instruction as student-centered increased from 26 percent in Year 1 to 34
percent in Year 3.

Programs supplementing regular education programs

Regular education teachers, with the assistance of special education teachers, are more frequently
providing instruction for special education students in Texas middle schools. In Year 1, 46 percent of
principals reported that the regular education teacher and the special education teacher provided
instruction in the core curriculum areas. By Year 3, the percent of principals reporting this increased to
56 percent.

In comparison to Year 1, 12 percent more principals reported that they grouped gifted students
together for instruction in all the core academic subjects or in regular classes with enrichment.
However, 24 percent fewer principals in Year 3 than in Year 1 indicated that gifted students are
grouped in a class for instruction in one subject.

25
 More middle schools are becoming Title I Schoolwide programs. Between Year 1 and Year 3, the
percent of Title I Schoolwide increased by seven percentage points, respectively. Over the three years
of the study, more middle schools reported offering instructional activities outside the regular school
schedule. In Year 1, 66 percent of principals reported offering activities at times other than the regular
schedule to at least a few students. By Year 3, the percent of middle school principals stating this
increased to 71 percent. From Year 1 to Year 3, more middle school principals reported that they had
peer mediation programs at their campuses to help students with conflict resolution; 38 percent of
principals stated this in Year 1, and 45 percent reported this in Year 3.

Reporting student achievement

Middle school principals report that the use of informal reporting methods increased from Year 1 to Year
3.Table 20 includes Year 1 and Year 3 changes in the use of informal reporting methods every six weeks.

Table 20. Methods for reporting achievement, by percent of principals

Reporting method Year 1 Year 3 Change
Conferences 33 53 + 20%
Telephone calls, mail, e-mail 67 79 + 12%
Note. Change is calculated by subtracting Year 1 results from Year 3 results.

TAAS preparation
The use of several methods for TAAS preparation changed from Year 1 to Year 3.

✓ The use of before and after school tutoring increased 7 percent over the three years.
✓ In Year 1, 73 percent of middle school principals reported that computer practice
tests were used occasionally or regularly throughout the year, while in Year 3, 46
percent of principals stated this.
✓ From Year 1 to Year 3, the use of TAAS preparation workshops declined 24 percent.

Evaluation of standardized test results

The use of information from standardized tests changed in several areas.

✓ In Year 1, 64 percent of principals cited test results as frequently or very often used
to reform established school curriculum, while in Year 3, 71 percent reported this.
✓ In Year 3, 13 percent fewer principals stated that standardized test results were
frequently used to make decisions about purchasing instructional materials.
✓ In Year 1, 49 percent of principals reported the frequent use of test results to place
students, whereas in Year 3, 40 percent reported this.

Identifying and intervening with students

Middle school principals report using a variety of methods to identify students needing additional
help.Table 21 lists changes in the of use of several of these methods from Year 1 to Year 3. Changes
reflect principal reports of frequently or very often using each method.

26
 Table 21. Methods of identifying students, by percent of principals
Reporting method Year 1 Year 3 Change
Results of diagnostic testing 53% 61% + 8%
Parent request 26% 36% + 10%
Counselor or school nurse recommendation 64% 56% - 8%
Note. Change is calculated by subtracting Year 1 results from Year 3 results.

Reports of several different intervention methods changed over the course of the three years of the study.

✓ In Year 1, moving students to a different class or level was reported by 11 percent of

middle school principals as a frequently or very often used method of intervention,
and by Year 3, the percentage increased to 23 percent.
✓ Between Years 1 and 3, reports of connecting students with mentors or mentor
programs increased 5 percent.
✓ From Year 1 to Year 3, 10 percent more principals reported that meeting with parents
was frequently or very often used as a means of intervention.
✓ Although not as frequently used, the percent of principals citing retention as a
frequently or very often used means of intervention increased from 7 percent to 14
percent over the three years.
✓ Ten percent more principals in Year 3 than in Year 1 reported referring students to
health, social service, or community services.
✓ Placing students in a program (such as special education,Title I, or ESL) with more
appropriate instruction became less frequently used and declined from 59 percent in
Year 1 to 49 percent in Year 3.

Retention
The use of several factors that determine grade retention in middle school changed over the three
years of the study.

✓ From Year 1 to Year 3, retention influenced by parent requests increased 15 percent.

✓ Retention due to TAAS scores declined from 54 percent in Year 1 to 49 percent in
Year 3.
✓ Retention based on achievement tests other than TAAS decreased from 42 percent
down to 29 percent over the three years.
✓ Principals reported determining grade retention based on social skills more
frequently in Year 3 (32 percent) than in Year 1 (24 percent).

School resources
The percentage of principals stating their school will need major repairs in the next five years
increased from 33 percent to 41 percent over the three years of the study. Principals report more
adequate connections for technology (24 percent increase) and physical education equipment (5
percent) from Year 1 to Year 3.

27
 Principal reports of the adequacy of school resources declined in some areas as well.The percentage
following each item listed below is the increase in the inadequacy of instructional resources.

✓ Science equipment (reported by 14 percent more principals)

✓ Professional development library (14 percent)
✓ Classroom furniture (12 percent)
✓ Curriculum guides (5 percent)

Computer and instructional technology

Middle school student access to computers and to the Internet is increasing. In Year 1, 52 percent of
principals stated that students had daily access to computers and other technology. In Year 3,
principals citing daily computer access increased to 59 percent. Principals also reported on the
number of students using the Internet at school to search for information for projects and class
assignments. Differences between student Internet usage in Year 1 and Year 3 can be found in Table 22.
As seen in Table 22, the percent of students having access to the Internet and using the Internet to
complete classroom projects and assignments has dramatically increased over the three years.

Table 22. Student Internet usage

80
71%
Percent endorsed

60

39%
40

22% 20% 22%

20
15%
7%
3%
0% 0%
0
Lack No students A few Some Most
technology students students students

Year 1 Year 3

28
Time at school
The percent of principals reporting using a traditional schedule increased from 59 percent in Year 1 to
64 percent in Year 3, whereas there were small decreases over the three years in the percent reporting
an alternative or flexibly organized schedule.

New teachers
As new teachers enter the education profession, induction-year activities help facilitate the transition.
Middle school principals reported that activities made available to new teachers during their first year
declined over the three years.The following activities showed decreases over the three years of the
study, with percent declines noted in parentheses:

✓ Informal pairing with another teacher (reported by 10 percent fewer principals)

✓ Classroom observations (10 percent)
✓ Work with a team of teachers (10 percent)
✓ Extra preparation and information days before school starts (6 percent)
✓ Formal mentoring arrangement (6 percent)

Five percent more principals in Year 3 than in Year 1 cited peer coaching as an induction activity
offered to new teachers at their school.The percent of principals indicating that faculty members who
mentor teachers receive a stipend or release time as compensation noticeably increased from 22
percent in Year 1 to 45 percent in Year 3.

Professional development
More middle school principals are participating in formal principal assessments through assessment
centers. In Year 1, 31 percent of principals stated they had participated in a formal assessment, while in
Year 3, 41 percent reported this.

Teaching specialists
In Year 1, 46 percent of middle school principals stated that in the past five years, the number of
specialist staff members teaching special education and gifted and talented classes had increased. By
Year 3, 36 percent reported this.The percent reporting no change in staffing increased from 46
percent in Year 1 to 54 percent in Year 3.

Decision-making authority
More middle school principals in Year 3 than in Year 1 reported attending meetings held by teams of
teachers. In Year 1, 59 percent of principals attended teacher meetings frequently or very often. By Year
3, 81 percent reported this.The topics that are discussed in teacher meetings are changing.Table 23
lists all topics with changes of over 5 percent from Year 1 to Year 3.

29
 Table 23. Teacher meeting topics
Meeting topic Percent change
Instructional materials + 6%
Individual student performance - 9%
Concerns about students and their home lives - 9%
Professional development - 5%
Test results from TAAS and other tests - 5%

Barriers to the implementation of effective instructional practices

Over the three years of the study, middle school principals reported changes in barriers to effective
instructional practices in a number of areas. In Year 1, 8 percent of principals identified standardized
testing practices as a barrier. In Year 3, the wording of this item was changed (the wording emphasis
was placed on standardized testing pressure), and 30 percent of principals stated that pressure to
perform well on standardized tests was a critical barrier to implementing effective instructional
practices.

Principals reported increases in the importance of several barriers, indicating that these barriers are
more of a factor than before in preventing the implementation of effective instructional practices at
middle schools.The increase in the percentage of principals citing specific barriers is noted in
parentheses.

✓ Overcrowding (reported by 7 percent more principals)

✓ Teacher turnover (6 percent)
✓ Problem students (6 percent)
✓ Principal time spent on management activities (5 percent)

Barriers to student performance

From Year 1 to Year 3, one barrier to student performance became less imposing to principals. In Year
1, 63 percent of principals identified lack of skills as a barrier to effective practices; however, by Year 3,
the percentage of principals reporting this decreased to 51 percent.

Principals cited increases to four critical barriers.The increase in the percentage of principals
reporting barriers from Year 1 to Year 3 is noted in parentheses:

✓ Inadequate additional support for students (reported by 12 percent more principals)

✓ Student mobility (10 percent)
✓ Teachers poorly prepared to teach content (5 percent)
✓ Teachers poorly prepared to manage classes (5 percent)

30
Technical Appendix ____________________________________

Data Analysis Decisions

The influence of demographic characteristics—school size, poverty level, and accountability rating—
upon questionnaire items was examined using analysis of variance, with alpha set at p ≤ .01 (two
tailed). Because only one respondent middle school was rated as low performing, this school was
dropped from analyses involving accountability ratings.

31