The purpose of this study is to describe an alternative means of estimating school effectiveness, referred to as an “absolute year” of schooling and demonstrate its usefulness as a measure of school effectiveness in the middle grades. More specifically, the study investigated (a) whether the absolute schooling effect in math and reading outcomes varied across a statewide sample of 53 secondary schools (e.g., middle, intermediate) and (b) whether differences in school variables explained the variability in the absolute-schooling effect.
AlspaughJ. W. (1998). Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school and high school. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 20-26.
2.
ArciaE. (2007). A comparison of elementary/k-8 and middle schools’ suspension rates. Urban Education, 42, 456-469.
3.
BalfanzR.LegtersN.WestT. C.WeberL. M. (2007). Are NCLB’s measures, incentives and improvement strategies the right ones for the nation’s low-performing high schools?American Educational Research Journal, 44, 559-593.
4.
BarthR. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
BeaneJ.LipkaR. (2006). Guess again: Will changing the grades save middle-level education?Educational Leadership, 63(7), 26-30.
6.
BirnbaumR. (2000). Policy scholars are from Venus: Policy makers are from Mars. Review of Higher Education, 23, 119-132.
7.
BloomH. S.HillC. J.BlackA. R.LipseyM. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational evaluations. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1, 289-328.
8.
BoskerR. J.ScheerensJ. (1994). Conceptual and methodological advances in educational effectiveness research. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 123-231.
9.
ByrnesV.RubyA. (2007). Comparing achievement between K-8 and middle schools: A large scale empirical study. American Journal of Education, 114, 101-135.
10.
CahanS.CohenN. (1989). Age versus schooling effects on intelligence development. Child Development, 60, 1239-1249.
11.
CahanS.DavisD. (1987). A between-grades-level approach to the investigation of the absolute effects of schooling on achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 1-12.
ChristieK. (2005). Providing the facts. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 341-342.
14.
CoeR.Fitz-GibbonC. (1998). School effectiveness research: criticisms and recommendations. Oxford Review of Education, 24, 421-438.
15.
CohenD.RaudenbushS.BallD. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 1-24.
16.
ColadarciT.HancockJ. (2003). The (Limited) evidence regarding effects of grade-span configurations on academic achievement: What rural educators should know. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-2/rural.html
17.
ConnollyF.Yakimowski-SrebnickM. E.RussoC. V. (2002). An examination of K-5, 6-8 versus K-8 grade configurations. ERS Spectrum, 20(2), 28-37.
18.
CookT. (2002). Randomized experiments in education: A critical examination of the reason the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing themEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 175-200.
19.
CookT. D. (2008). Waiting for life to arrive: A history of the regression-discontinuity design in psychology, statistics and economics. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 636-654.
20.
CreemersB. P. M.KyriakidesL. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London, England: Routledge.
21.
DavisonM. L.SeoY. S.DavenportE. C.Jr.ButterbaughD.DavisonL. J. (2004). When do children fall behind? What can be done?Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 752-761.
22.
EcclesJ. S.LordS.MidgleyC. (1991). What are we doing to early adolescents? The impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of Education, 99, 521-542.
23.
ErbT. O. (2006). Middle school models are working in many grade configurations to boost student performance. American Secondary Education, 34(3), 4-13.
24.
GamoranA.AyalonH. (2000). Stratification in academic secondary programs and educational inequality in Israel and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 44, 54-80.
25.
GoldsteinH. (1997). Methods is school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 369-395.
26.
GomezM. O.MarcoulidesG. A.HeckR. H. (2012). Examining culture and performance at different middle school level structures. International Journal of Educational Management, 26, 205-222.
27.
GronnaS. S. (1998). Effects of grade of school transition and school characteristics of eight-grade achievement: A multilevel analysis(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest ID No. 733030101)
28.
HammondD. H. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13-24.
29.
HeckR. H. (2006). Assessing school achievement progress: Comparing alternative approaches. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 667-699.
30.
HeckR. H. (2009). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a multilevel cross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 227-249.
31.
HeckR. H.HallingerP. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 659-689.
32.
HellerR.CalderonS.MedrichE. (2003). Academic achievement in the middle grades: What does research tell us? A review of the literature. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED478009.pdf
33.
HillH. C. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers: Implications for the No Child Left Behind policy initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 95-114.
34.
HillP. W.RoweK. J. (1996). Multilevel modeling in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 1-32.
35.
HowleyC. B. (2002). Grade-span configurations: Where 6th and 7th grades are assigned may influence student achievement, research suggests. The School Administrator, March, 1-6.
36.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
ImbensG. W.LemieuxT. (2008). Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 615-635.
38.
KlumpJ. (2006). What the research says (or doesn’t say) about K-8 versus middle school grade configurations. Changing Face of the Classroom, 11(3), 1-4.
39.
KonstantopoulosS. (2006). Trends of school effects on student achievement: evidence from NLS:72, HSB:82 and NELS:92. Teachers College Record, 108, 2550-2581.
40.
KyriakidesL.LuytenH. (2009). The contribution of schooling to the cognitive development of secondary education students in Cyprus. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 167-186.
41.
LeeV. E.BrykA. S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, 172-192.
42.
LeeV. E.BurkamD. T. (2003). Dropping out of high school: The role of school organization and structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 353-394.
43.
LinnR. L.BakerE. L.BetebennerD. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.
44.
LinnR. L.HaugC. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 29-36.
45.
LuytenH. (2006). An empirical assessment of the absolute effect of schooling: Regression discontinuity applied to TIMSS-95. Oxford Review of Education, 32, 397-429.
46.
LuytenH.PescharJ.CoeR. (2008). Effects of schooling on reading performance, reading engagement, and reading activities of 15-year olds in England. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 319-342.
47.
LuytenH.TymmsP.JonesP. (2009). Assessing school effects without controlling for prior achievement?School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 145-165.
48.
MossB. G.YeatonW. H. (2006). Shaping policies related to developmental education: An evaluation using the regression-discontinuity design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 215-299.
49.
MurdockT. B.MillerA. (2003). Teachers as sources of middle school students’ motivational identity. Variable-centered and person-centered analytic approaches. Elementary School Journal, 103, 383-399.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Original work published 1985)
52.
OffenbergR. (2001, March). The efficacy of Philadelphia’s K-to-8 schools compared to middle grades schools. Middle School Journal, 32, 23-29.
53.
OpdenakkerM. C.Van DammeJ. (2007). Do school context, student composition, ands school leadership affect school practice and outcomes in secondary education?British Educational Research Journal, 33, 179-206.
54.
PedhazurE. J.SchmelkinL. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55.
PeughJ. L.EndersC. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74, 525-556.
56.
RoeserR.EcclesJ. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of middle school: Relation to longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 123-158.
57.
SammonsP.LuytenH. (2009). Editorial article for special issue on alternative methods for assessing school effects and schooling effects. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 133-143.
58.
SammonsP.NuttallD.CuttanceP. (1993). Differential school effectiveness: Results from a re-analysis of the Inner London Education Authority’s junior school project data. British Educational Research Journal, 19, 381-405.
59.
ScheerensJ. (2012). Anatomy of some representative school leaders’ effectiveness studies. In SheerensJ. (Ed.), School leadership effects revisited: Review and meta-analysis of empirical studies (pp. 45-64). London, England: Springer.
60.
ScheerensJ.BoskerR. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
61.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
62.
TeddlieC.ReynoldsD. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London, England: Falmer Press.
63.
ThistlethwaiteD.CampbellD. (1960). Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to ex post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 309-317.
64.
ThomasS. L.HeckR. H. (2009, December31). Hawaiian Cultural Influences in Education (HCIE) multilevel statistical analyses. Report prepared for Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate, Honolulu.
65.
TrochimW. M. K. (1984). Research design for program evaluation: The regression-discontinuity approach. London, England: Sage.
66.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Scientifically based evaluation methods (Notice RIN 1890-ZA00). Federal Register, 70, 3586-3589.
67.
ViaderoD. (2008). Evidence for moving to K-8 not airtight. Education Week, 27(19), 11-13.
68.
WeissC. C. (2008). Re-examining middle school effects: What the research says. Principal, 87(3), 60-61.
69.
WeissC. C.KipnesL. (2006). Reexamining middle school effects: A comparison of middle grades students in middle schools and K-8 schools. American Journal of Education, 112, 239-272.
70.
WhitleyJ.LupartJ. L.BeranT. (2007). Differences in achievement between adolescents who remain in a K-8 school and those who transition to junior high school. Canadian Journal of Education, 30, 649-669.
71.
WilliamsT.KirstM. W.HaertelE.LevinJ.PadiaB.BalfanzR.. . . WoodwardK. M. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades: Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/middle-grades-summary.html
72.
WillmsJ. D.RaudenbushS. W. (1989). A longitudinal hierarchical linear model for estimating school effects and their stability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26(3), 209-232.
73.
YeckeC. P. (2006). Mayhem in the middle: Why we should shift to K-8. Educational Leadership, 63(7), 20-25.
74.
ZanobiniM.UsaiC. M. (2002). Domain-specific self-concept and achievement motivation in the transition from primary to low middle school. Educational Psychology, 22, 203-217.
