This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 04 November 2014, At: 03:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Effects of Eighth-Grade Transition Programs on HighSchool Retention and ExperiencesJulia B. Smith aa University of RochesterPublished online: 14 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Julia B. Smith (1997) Effects of Eighth-Grade Transition Programs on High School Retention andExperiences, The Journal of Educational Research, 90:3, 144-152, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1997.10543770

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1997.10543770

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Effects of Eighth-Grade Transition Prograins on High School Retention and Experiences JULIA B. SMITH University of Rochester

ABSTRACT The effectiveness of middle school transi­tion programs on high school retention and student perfor­mance are explored in this study. From a nationally represen­tative sample of public school students, results suggest that programs targeting a combination of students, parents, and school staff in assisting students to make this transition have a measured impact, even after accounting for student demo­graphics, family characteristics, and student behavior. Fur­ther, there is some indication that the best results may be achieved in a combination of program commitment and other middle school characteristics focused on attaining a more per­sonal adult commitment to student success.

A !though student retention has been a concern of pub­lic schools throughout this century, dropout rates for

high school students have been increasing since the 1970s. This increase has led to renewed interest and concern over how to keep children in school through graduation. Recent information from the U.S. Census Bureau (1992) noted that high school dropouts overwhelmingly tend to work at low­paying jobs, averaging less than $13,000 a year. Nationally, the dropout rates for young people between 16 and 24 years of age is about II %, with much higher rates reported in urban areas (Hess & Lauber, 1985; McMillen, Kaufman, Hausken, & Bradby, 1993). As researchers turn increasing­ly to the problem of understanding why students drop out of school, there exists a parallel policy concern over whether the programs that schools have developed to get students into high school are effective. In this study, I investigated the lasting effects that transition programs offered in middle schools have on students' dropping out of high school and their performance in high school, as measured by their grades. In addition, using a nationally representative sample of public school eighth graders, I investigated differences that grade span, cohort size, and supportive learning climate in these schools have on students as they move into high school.

144

Theoretical Perspective

Definitions

The most basic idea behind a transition is that one trav­els between definable and different points . For human development, two such points are childhood and adulthood; the transitional time between them is called adolescence. Recently, there has been more attention focused on different times in adolescence that also are marked by transition. For example, between childhood and late adolescence is a tran­sitional period called early adolescence. Wattenberg (1974) defined childhood in terms of a person 's dependence on adults, both financially and socially, within the culture, whereas he said that an adolescent is

a young person whose reproductive system has matured, who is economically dependent upon adults, whose chief source of need gratification is his peers, who has open inter­est in the opposite sex, and for whom status and roles as defined for children and adults in his culture are confused. (p. 141)

Preadolescents are characterized primarily by their place in transition between these two states. It is this transition that educators have in mind when researching the role of school­ing in the middle grades (including ages I 0-14-most often Grades 7 and 8; sometimes Grades 6 and 9) .

Middle Schools and Student Transition to High School

The question of whether transition programs made avail­able as part of middle-grade schooling aids students in get­ting to, staying in , and performing well in high school has concerned educators since the creation of separate schools for young adolescents. Developed first in Denmark in 1903,

Address correspondence to Julia B. Smith, University of Rochester. Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Lattimore Hall, Rochester. NY /4627.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

36 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

January/February 1997 [Vol. 90(No. 3)]

the primary goal of a separate organization for early ado­lescents was to encourage larger numbers of elementary school students to remain in school by preparing them for the rigors of high school while maintaining the structure of social closeness found in elementary schools (Ayres, 1909; Popper, 1967; Weet, 1916). A century later, retention is still an important goal. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development ( 1989) stated that "middle grade schools­junior high, intermediate, and middle schools-are poten­tially society's most powerful force to recapture millions of youth adrift. . .. " The early aims of middle-grade schooling, even given some variation in the span of grades included in such schools, remain .

Although interest in structural school reform has been directed at all levels of schooling, concern over education for young adolescents (ages 10-15) has increased in recent years . Psychologists point to this period in the life cycle­encompassing puberty, value formation, and social-group identification, as well as marked shifts in learning-as a critical stage in human development (Ausubel & Ausubel , 1966; Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Cohen & Frank, 1975; Dusek, 1987; Hill, 1980; Lipsitz, 1984). Focusing on schools that serve students in this age range, the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989, pp. 12-13) argued that such schools " ... have the potential to make a tremendous impact on the development of their students-for better or for worse-yet they have been largely ignored in the recent surge of educational reform."

For most of this century, the most common reform for middle-grade schools has been to alter who attends, typical­ly by altering grade span (cf. Ayres, 1909; Blyth & Karnes, 1981; Briggs, 1927; Conant, 1960; Popper, 1967; Romano, Georgiady, & Heald, 1973). Currently in the United States, schools enrolling seventh graders offer about 30 different grade spans (Epstein, 1990). Much research at this level aims to establish the ideal combination of grade levels to affect optimal student learning (Blyth, Hill, & Smyth, 1981; Eccles, Lord, & Midgley, 1991 ; Epstein, 1990; Kohut, 1976). Two weaknesses typify these studies. First, they usu­ally employ homogeneous and limited student samples (pri­marily White and middle class). Second, they do not differ­entiate programs designed to facilitate school transition from other structural and cultural characteristics that are likely to confound findings about influences on students' transition into high school. Finally, until now, there has been no way to examine the lasting effects of specific mid­dle-grade school transition programs on a nationally repre­sentative sample of eighth graders prepared to make this transition .

Research Questions

In this study I evaluated the effectiveness of high school transition programs on the educational progress of a nation­ally representative sample of young adolescents. In addition to the fundamental retention dynamic of keeping students in

145

school to graduation, I also explored the potential for such transition programs to facilitate student performance in high school. The comparison groups for this study were defined by the type of transition programs available to stu­dents in their middle schools-students in schools with no such program, in schools with partial programs, or in schools that address student, parent, and staff issues in the transition process. From these comparison groups, I evalu­ated the high school retention and high school experiences of students as a function of the type of transition program to which they had access. Because schools that do not provide high school transition programs may serve a demographi­cally different set of students, family background and mid­dle school experience of the students was taken into account. Finally, I investigated whether the observed effects of high school transition programs persist after taking into account other characteristics of the students' middle school.

Method

Sample and Data

I used the base-year, first and second follow-up data from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS) col­lected in 1988, 1990, and 1992 by the National Center for Educational Statistics (Ingels, Abraham, Spencer, & Frankel, 1989; Ingels, Dowd, Taylor, Bartot, & Frankel, 1994; Ingels, Scott, Lindmark, Frankel, & Myers, 1992). From a nationally representative sample of I ,035 public, Catholic, and private schools, approximately 30 eighth­grade students were selected at random from each school (N = 26,200). The NELS included data from eighth graders and from their parents, teachers, and schools. In addition, stu­dents completed a cognitive test battery developed by the Educational Testing Service. The follow-up surveys identi­fied which of these students were no longer in school 4 years later and again provided survey and test data on stu­dents, as well as information about the high school attend­ed. From this larger sample, I examined only data on public school students, and I limited the middle-grade span so that all the students in the sample made a transition to a separate high school. These data restrictions reduced the original sample size to 7,924 students from 702 middle-grade schools (excepting those that include high school).

Measures

Dependent and treatment measures. 1 The two outcome measures were generated from information collected 4 years after students were in eighth grade. Dropout status was derived from the supplemental dropout file provided by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), combined with the regular second follow-up file. Students who stopped out (dropped out and then enrolled in high school) were not considered as having dropped out. The GPA measured was generated by OERI based on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

36 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

146

grades through the last year that a student was enrolled in high school. Students who never made it to high school are missing on this measure and thus were left out of the analy­sis on this outcome.

The two treatment comparisons were dichotomous mea­sures derived from a set of questions asked by the Hopkins Enhancement Survey of middle school administrators (Epstein, McPartland, & Maciver, 1991). From the original set of 13 possible programs offered to aid students in their transition to high school, I first grouped the programs according to the target audience-parent, student, or school staff. From this grouping, a school was identified as having a full transition program if it offered programs involving all three groups in the process of making this critical transi­tion. Schools that provided programs targeting only one or two of these groups were identified as having a partial tran­sition program in place. The contrast in both cases was with schools that offered no transition programs.

lndependenr measures. The independent measures con­sidered in this analysis fell into three groups-background and home environment, eighth-grade behavior, and charac­teristics of the middle school attended. For home environ­ment and demographic background, students' gender, eth­nic minority status, family socioeconomic status, and parental supp011 for learning were considered. Student behavior in and through eighth grade included whether they were ever held back, their level of misbehavior in school , their interest in or engagement with school , and their acad­emic background (a combination of grades and standard­ized test performance). Finally, the characteristics of the school included the average socioeconomic status of the students, whether the school enrolls a high percentage (over 40%) of minority students, whether the school is an ele­mentary school or a stand-alone middle school, cohort size , and the level of positive learning environment as reported (in aggregate) by the students and the teachers of the school.

Analvtic Model and Technique

This study was structured as an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); the effect of type of program was estimated on a set of outcome measures net of variables that might con­found those findings. 2 Although the data from NELS are structured hierarchically, with students nested in schools , the effects of concern are based in student experiences after Grade 8. Thus, the research focused on students as the pri­mary unit of analysis -' This analytic choice requires that, in the explanatory analysis focusing on middle school charac­teristics, these measures must be merged with student-level characteristics in the analytic process. In this process, there is some concern that the effects of school characteristics on student outcomes may be underestimated (see, for further discussion , Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).

There is , in addition, some difficulty in the use of pro­gram availability as a proxy for program participation; the

The Journal of Educational Research

effects of the program may have been underestimated be­cause no comparison was drawn between students who par­ticipated and students who were in the school but did not participate. This decision was based in large part on reports and experiences from principals and staff that transition programs are typically (though not uniformly) designed as an obligatory activity, reducing the variability in that part of students' middle school experience.

In the analytic models, I focused on the effects of two dummy variables that define transition programs (full pro­gram vs. no program and partial program vs. no program) on each student outcome. The first model positions these effects with no covariates, the second model incorporates the potential confounding effects of family background and demographics, and the third model takes into account student differences in school engagement and academic background (as reported in Grade 8). The fourth model is provided as a companion to this program evaluation frame­work , taking coexisting school characteristics (that could arguably be part of the program as well as confounding features) into account and thus disaggregating the relative impact of programs for transition from other more general characteristics of middle schools .

Results

Transition Programs Present in Middle Schools

The distribution of different types of programs in the overall sample of schools is shown in Figure I. The first set specifically targets students; the second, parents; and the last, school staff members. In each case, the comparison provided is between those schools that offered at least one of each type of program (the full transition approach) and those that offered programs targeting only one or two of those possible audiences.

The most prevalent practice, for both full and partial tran­sition programs, was to have high school counselors meet with the eighth graders ; 83% of the full program schools and 74% of the partial program schools reported doing this. The least prevalent practice was to have big brother/big sis­ter programs matching up high school students with eighth graders to help them through the transition period-about 15% of the schools in each category reported doing this. The largest difference between the full and partial programs in use of different practices appears in those targeting par­ents or staff. For instance, whereas 78% of the schools with a full transition program in place permitted eighth-grade parents to visit the high school, only 35% of the schools with a partial set of programs did so. Similarly, 63% of the schools with full programs had middle and high school teachers meet with each other, but only 14% of those with partial programs did so. In general, the primary difference between these groups of schools appeared in the level of adult support for the transition process that occurred as stu­dents moved from middle schools into high schools .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

36 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

January/February 1997 [Vol. 90(No. 3)] 147

Figure 1. Prevalence of Different Types of Transition Programs in Schools Which Target Either All Three or Only Two of the Three Audiences

Percentage of Schools Using this Program

100 Student Parent Audience Audience

Staff Audience

80

60

40

20

0 Big brthr/ HS Parents Parents visit 8th grdrs

attnd HS class

HSStd present info to 8th grdrs

Big sistr counselors visit HS fall Mid & HS Mid & HS Mid & HS tchrs mt admin . mt cnslrs mt

program meet HS orientation 8th graders

Type of Program

KEY

• Full Transition

5a One or Two Audiences

Observed Student D(fferences

Means and standard deviations on all student back­ground differences are presented in Table I. In addition to descriptions of the total sample of eighth graders (column I). these descriptive statistics are provided separately for students who attended schools with no transition programs, with partial programs (targeting students or parents or staff), and with full programs for high school transition (targeting students and parents and staff) . I used orthogonal contrasts within a one-way analysis of variance to test for differences between these groups of students.

Background d(fferences. Possibly the most important difference between students who attend schools with and without full transition programs rests in their family so­cioeconomic status. The students who have these programs available are also more advantaged by family income, parental education, and occupational status. This relation­ship suggests the possibility of differential support for such programs through aggregate community resources from parents.

Student d(fferences. Interestingly (and most important for this set of analyses), there are no significant initial dif-

ferences between students' measured eighth-grade character­istics-academic background, level of misbehavior, or histo­ry of being held back-that would indicate that transition programs are differentially available to students who are either more or less likely to stay in school. Although these analyses cannot determine whether students uniformly took advantage of the available programs, the potential for equi­table administration was present.

School d(fferences. Finally, as was suggested by the indi­vidual student SES differences, there were marked differences between schools in the average SES of students. Schools that offered full transition programs also had more aggregate resources from parents. In addition, students in those schools reported much more positive learning relationships with teach­ers. The schools offering full transition programs were also those with the largest cohort of eighth graders on average, sug­gesting that the programs may have been implemented in part to compensate for the greater organizational demands involved in keeping track of large numbers of eighth-grade students. Finally, from a structural standpoint, the stand-alone middle schools clearly made the strongest commitment to helping stu­dents' transition to high school , supporting the historical basis for developing these schools.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

36 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

148 The Journal of Educational Research

Table I.-Means and Standard Deviations of Model Variables for Students Attending Schools With or Without Transition Programs

No transition Partial transition Full transition Variable N program program program

Sample size'

Students Schools

7,924 702

1,980 60

1,982 3,962 155 487

Variable Backgroundh

Minority status Female Family SESe Home support for learning'·

Student characteristics Ever held back 7

Misbehavior index (Grade 8)< Engagement index (Grade 8)' Academic performance in

(through) (Grade 8)<

Middle-grade school characteristics Average SES' High percentage minority Cohort size Elementary school Positive learning climate'

Outcomes Dropped out7

School performance (GPA) in (through) high school

.2 1

.5 1 0 0

.20 0 0 0

0 .23

243 .06

0

.1 5

2.25

.23 .19 .20

.51 .5 1 .5 1 -.08 -.08 .12 - .05 -.01 .05

.22 .18 .16

.01 - .02 .005

.04 - .03 - .02 -.05 -.03 .06

-.43 -.20 .23 .22 .27 .22 179 2 11 278 .18 .12 .o3

- .21 .0 1 .06

.18 .14 .10

2.01 2. 12 2.43

"Sample sizes were unweighted. The NELS:88 student design weights were used to compute means and stan­dard deviations. hBecause the measures are either dichotomous or standardized composites, no standard devia­tions are provided. ' This measure was standardized to have an overall mean of 0, with a standard deviation of I.

Logistic Regression Results

Model structure. I used logistic regression in an ANCO­VA structure to examine whether there are unique residual relationships between access to a full transition program to high school and the likelihood that a student has dropped out of high school 4 years after eighth ·grade. The first model essentially replicated the differences noted in Table I between dropout rates and school performance for students attending schools with no, partial , and full transition pro­grams avai lable. An underlying assumption was that no other differences between students or schools are operative in the relationship. In the second model , I tested the possi­bility that differences among students' home and back­ground may contribute to retention and performance, and thus be a factor in the covariance model. In the third model , I tested the possibility that student behavior differences through and during eighth grade may also play a covarying effect on the likelihood of dropping out, and on subsequent high school performance. Finally, the fourth model func­tions less in the covariance structure than as a possible part of the treatment effect itself, because it accounts for the fact that schools offering these various programs are different in

ways that may further contribute to the likelihood of stu­dents' retention and influence their grades while attending high school.

Effects of transition programs on student retention. Through each stage of the covariance structure, programs specifically designed to aid in student transition to high school appear effective. In the preliminary effect, which assumes no other differences between students or schools, students who had access to a full and a partial transition pro­gram show a reduced tendency to drop out when compared with students who did not have such a program in their mid­dle-grade school (see Table 2). Covarying out student back­ground differences negates the effect of partial , but not of full, transition programs, though this effect is largely reduced. However, after first taking into account the eighth graders' school behaviors and then the characteristics of the school attended, the residual effect of full transition pro­grams becomes more pronounced, with a final significant effect of reducing the likelihood of dropping out by about 20%. Of equal note is the fact that partial programs to aid students in their transition to high school appeared less effective and showed no independent effect on student retention after other characteristics were taken into account.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

36 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

January/February 1997 [Vol. 90(No. 3)] 149

Table 2.-Results of Logistic Regressions of Transition Program Effects on Dropping Out of High School

Logit coefficient model (comparable OLS beta)

Variable

Full transition (vs . no program)

Partial transition (vs. no program)

Female

Minority status

Student SES

Home support for learning

Ever held back (Grades 1-8)

Misbehavior index (Grade 8)

Academic background (Grade 8)

Engagement (Grade 8)

Average SES

High percentage minority

Cohort size

Elementary school

Positive learning climate

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares. *p < .05 . **p <.O J. ***p < .001.

- .25*** (-.05***)

-.23** (-.04**)

Although the focus of this study is on those programs specifically designed to aid student transition to high school , one should note some corollary effects of middle schools. Although stand-alone middle schools were origi­nally designed to increase student retention, the national data suggest that elementary schools-schools that keep students in one building for most or all of their early school­ing through the eighth grade-do a better job at keeping students actively involved in school, as evidenced by lower subsequent dropout rates (see Table 2). Further, there are important effects of an overall positive learning environ­ment on student retention, emphasizing the role that a sup­portive adult culture can have on keeping students in school. Finally, the data suggest that larger groups of eighth-grade students in one building increase students' likelihood of dropping out in the transition to high school. Being a part of a larger group may increase the chances that individual stu-

2 3 4

-. 19* -.40* -.65** (-.03**) (-.02*) (-.02)

- .01 - . 16 - .24* (.003) (-.0 1) (.0 1)

.02 .60*** .50** (.002) (.08***) (.08***)

.20*** -.24 - .33 (.05***) (.01) (-.02)

- 1.10*** - .70*** - .72*** (-.27***) (- . 13***) (- .10***)

-.34*** -.08 -.09 (-. 13***) (-.06***) (-.06***)

.60*** .61 *** (.18***) (. 18***)

.19** .18* (.19***) (.20***)

-.76*** -.75*** (-.1 9***) 0

- .21 ** -.21 * (-.003) (-.003)

.14 (-.06**)

.02 (.04*)

.28* (.08*)

-.68** (-.01)

-.44* (-.05*)

dents get lost, ultimately opting out of the schooling envi­ronment (see Table I).

Effects of transition programs on student high school performance. Through each stage of the covariance struc­ture, programs that combined student, parent, and staff focus on the problem of student transition to high school appeared effective. In the preliminary effect, which assumes no other differences between students or schools, students who had access to a full and a partial transition program show a higher average GPA when compared with students who did not have such a program in their middle school CP = .04** for both). Covarying out student background dif­ferences negated the effect of partial, but not of full, transi­tion programs, though this effect was slightly reduced CP = .03*). This observed impact on students' high school GPA persisted even after first taking into account the eighth graders' school behaviors and then the characteristics of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

36 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

ISO The Journal of Educational Research

Table 3.-Results of OLS Regressions of Transition Program Effects on High School Performance

Variable

Full transition (vs. no program) Partial transition (vs. no program) Female Minority status Student SES

Home support for learning Ever he ld back (Grades 1-8) Misbehavior index (Grade 8) Academic background (Grade 8) Engagement (Grade 8)

Average SES High percentage minority Cohort size Elementary school Positive learning climate

Note. OLS =ordinary least squares . *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .00 1.

.04**

.04**

school attended. As was the case with student retention , par­tial programs to aid students in their transition to high school appear less effective (see Table 3) and show no inde­pendent effect on student performance in high school after considering other characteristics.•

Discussion

The fundamental question driving these analyses is one of evaluation : Are transition programs effective in getting students to high school successfully? The simple answer appears to be yes. Among a national sample of public school students, those who had full transition programs available to them in their middle school were less likely to drop out of high school and performed better in high school (as measured by student grades) than did students who had either a partial program or none at all. These effects persist­ed (and for the case of retention , become larger) after fam­ily, demographic , student, and other middle-school charac­teristics were taken into account.

However, the positive effects of high school transition programs work for students only when the school provides complete support. Programs that target only one popula­tion-student, parent, or staff-might be considered wasted because they show no independent impact on improved stu­dent outcomes. The only effective programs in this regard were those in which program participants fully committed to students' successful transition.

The investment made by schools, particularly larger mid­dle schools , to aid students in making a transition to high school is critical. However, it must be considered within the context of other school characteristics. The fact that stu-

Beta model

2

.03*

.01

.II*** -.09***

.24***

.05***

3

.03*

.004

.05*** - .04***

.06***

.02 - .003 - .08***

.44***

.04**

4

.03*

.002

.05*** -.33

.06***

.02 -002 -.08***

.45***

.04**

-.02 -.01

.001

.01

.01

dents from elementary schools have higher retention rates than those from stand-alone middle schools cannot be over­looked. Further, the increased presence of such programs in schools with larger eighth-grade cohorts appears designed to compensate for the negative effects of being in that less personal context. Although it is comforting that these pro­grams do appear to counteract the effect, there is clearly greater good to be gained by reducing the contextual prob­lem initially-by reducing the numbers of students for which school staff must be responsible. This result is sup­ported by the positive effects on retention noted by the pres­ence of a supportive school learning environment. The best results for students, then , would come from the combination of these factors , rather than from the use of one to overcome the other.

NOTES

An earlier version of this research was presented at the American Edu­cational Research Association conference in San Francisco. I am indebted to comments from Valerie Lee and Brian Rowan concerning revisions and add itional ana lyses for this study.

I. Additional information on the constructi on and vari able names used in these measures is provided in Appendix A.

2. This design is described more fully in Anderson et al. ( 1980). The use of this analys is technique requires no interac ti on effects between the treat­ment-in thi s case. transition program full and partial compared wi th no program-and the other covariates in the model. This assumpt ion was test­ed using constructed interaction terms. and no significant inte racti ons were found.

3. The ideal approach to this problem would involve a cross-effec ts study, taking into account the combi nat ion and crossed interaction poten­tial of students' middle school with high school characteri sti cs. However, the programming technology for this type of study is not yet functional and may not be available for severa l years. Thus , thi s analysis should be con­sidered the baseline on which later examinations of the problem can be addressed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

36 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

January/February 1997 [Vol. 90(No. 3)]

4. Because grades are context driven, it is not surprising that school effects do not appear to make a lasting impact on student performance. The contextual argument , however, is a large part of the support for transition programs, because their goal is to aid students ' adjustment to high school to help them perform better in that context.

REFERENCES

Ausubel, W. M .. & Ausubel , P. (1966). Cognitive deve lopment in adoles­cence. Reviell' of Educarional Research, 36, 403-413.

Ayres. L. P. ( 1909). Lag{?ards in our schools. New York: Russe ll Sage Foundation.

Blyth. D. A., Hill. J. P. , & Smyth, C. ( 1981 ). The influence of older ado­lescents: Do grade level arrangements make a difference in behaviors , altitudes, and experiences? Journal of Early Adolescence, / , 85-110.

Blyth. D. A., & Karnes, E. L. (Eds.) ( 1981 ). Philosophy, policies, and pro­grams for e{ll·/.v adolescenr educarion: An annorated bibliographv. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Briggs, T. H. ( 1927). The junior high school. Boston: Ginn & Co. Bronfenbrenner. U. ( 1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human

development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-31. Bryk, A. S ., & Raudenbush. S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models:

Applications and data analvsis methods. Newbury Park , CA: Sage. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. ( 1989). Turning points:

Preparing American youth for the 2/st century. Washington , DC: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.

Cohen, D. , & Frank, R. ( 1975). Preadolescence: A critical phase of bio­logical and psychological developme nt. In D. V. Siva (Ed.), Mental Health in Children, (Vol. 1). New York: PJD.

Conant, J. B. ( 1960). Recommendations for education in rhe junior high school years: A memorandum to school boards. Princeton. NJ: Educa­tional Testing Service.

Dusek, J. B. ( 1987). Adolescent development and behavim: Englewood Clitfs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Eccles, J. S. , Lord , S. , & Midgley, C. ( 1991 ). What are we doing to early adolescents ') The impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of Education, 99(4) , 521-542.

Epstein, J. L. ( 1990). What matters in the middle grades-Grade span or practices? Phi Delta Kappan , 71(6). 438-444.

Epstein , J. L. , McPartland. J . M ., & Maciver, D. J. ( 199 1). Hopkins en­hancement survev of NELS:88 middle grade practices: Codebook and data collection i;1strume111s. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students .

Hess, G. A., Jr .. & Lauber. D. ( 1985). Dropouts from the Chicago public schools. Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Finances.

Hill. J.P. (1980). Understanding early adolescence: Aframeu·ork. Chapel Hill : Center for Early Adolescence, University of North Carolina.

Ingels, S. J ., Abraham, B. D. , Spencer, & Frankel , M. R. ( 1989). National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. Base year: Student component data file user 's manual. Washington , DC: U.S. Department of Educa­tion , Oftice of Educational Research and Improvement.

Inge ls, S. J. , Dowd, K. L. , Taylor, J. R., Bartol, V. H., & Frankel, M. R. ( 1994). National Educational Longitudinal Srudy of 1988. Second fol­lou·-up: Transcript component darafile user's manual. Washington , DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Inge ls, S. J ., Scott, L.A., Lindmark, J. T.. Frankel, M. R. , & Myers, S. L. ( 1992). Narional Educarional Longil!ldinal Study of /988. First fol/ou·­up: Student component data file user 's manual. Washington , DC: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improve­ment.

Kohut, S. Jr. ( 1976). The middle school: A bridge between elementary and secondary schools. Washington , DC: National Educational Association.

Lipsitz , J. ( 1984 ). Succes~ful schools for voung adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

McMillen , M. M., Kaufman, P. , Hausken. E. G .. & Bradby, D. ( 1993). Dropout rates in the United States: 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov­ernment Printing Office.

Popper, S. ( 1967). The American middle school: An organizational anall'­sis. Waltham. MA: Bla isdell.

Romano, L. G., Georgiady. N. P., & Heald, J. E. (Eds.) . (1973). The mid­dle school: Selected readings on an emerging school program. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

U.S. Census Bureau. ( 1992). Workers with low earnings. Washington , DC:

151

U.S. Department of Education. Wattenberg , W. W. (1974) . Today 'sjunior high students. In R. R. Lee per

(Ed.) , Middle school in the making. Washington, DC: Association for Supervis ion and Curriculum Deve lopment.

Weet, H. S. ( 191 6). Rochester's junior high school. Educational Adminis­tration and Supervision, 2, 430-439.

APPENDIX Explanation of Variables

Dropped out Constructed using the transcript file measure F2DOSTAT, so that a ll students who were coded 4 or 5 (dropped out) are coded I, all stu­dents coded 0, 2 , 3 are coded 0 I see sample limitations on this se lec­tion of students].

High school GPA Constructed using the transcript file measure F2RGRADE, recoded to a standardized 4-point scale.

Transition program Taken from the Hopkins Enhancement survey items as fo llows: Student focused

HES21 C HS students present information to mid graders HES21 E Mid grade students attend HS class HES21 F Big brother/sister program HES21J HS counselors meet midgrade students

Parent focused HES21 G Parents visit HS HES21 H Parents vis it fall orientation

Staff focused HES21 K Mid and HS teachers meet HES21 L Mid and HS administrators meet HES21 M Mid and HS counselors meet

Schools which reported programs in all three cateogries were identi­fied as having "FULL TRANSITION PROGRAMS" ( I =yes, 0 = no). Those with programs in one or two categories were identified as having "PARTIAL TRANSITION PROGRAMS" (I = yes, 0 =no)

Gender Measure provided by OERI, F2SEX recoded I= female, 0 =male

Minority status Measure provided by OERI, F2RACEI recoded I =African Ameri­can, Hispanic , Native American. 0 = White. Asian

Socioeconomic status Composite measure provided by OERI, F2SES I

Home support for learning Composite constructed using factor analysis, using the following items (coded or recoded as given) alpha= .72 BYP68

BYP69

BYP65b BYP65a BYS50A

BYS50B

BYS38A BYS36A

BYS36B

How often parent talks to eighth grader about experiences in school ( I =not at all, 4 = regularly) How often help child with homework (I =not at all. 4 = regu ­!arlv) Fa~i l y rule about doing homework ( I =yes, 0 =no) Family rule about maintaining grade average ( I = yes, 0 =no) How often talk to father about planning HS prog (0 =never. 2 =often) How often talk to mother about planning HS prog (0 = ne1•er. 2 =often) How often parents check on homework ( I = naer. 3 = ojien) How often discuss programs at school with parents (I =never. 3 =often) How often discuss school activities with parents (I = nevet; 3 =often)

Ever held back (Grades 1-8) Recoded from BYS74 ( I =yes, 0 =no)

Grade 8 misbehavior index Composite constructed using principle components factor analysis, using the following items coded or recoded as given) alpha= . 71. BYS55A How often sent to office for misbehaving (0 =never. 2 =

often) BYS55B How often sent to office with school work problems (0 =

never; 2 = often)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

36 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

152

BYSSSC

BYSSSD

BYSSSE

BYSSSF

BYS75

BYS76 BYS77

BYS78A

BYS78B BYS78C

How often parents received warning about attendance (0 = never. 2 = often ) How often parents received warning about grades (0 = never. 2 =often) How often parents received warning about behavior (0 = neve1; 2 =often) How often got into fi ght with another student (0 = never. 2 = often) No. of days missed from school past 4 weeks (0 =never. 4 = more than 10 davs) How often do you cut or skip classes (0 =never. 2 = often) No. of times late for school past 4 weeks (0 = naer. 4 =more than 10 times) How often come to class w/o pencil/paper (0 = never. 4 = often) How often come to class without books (I =never. 4 = often ) How often come to class without homework ( I = never. 4 = often)

Academic background Combined (mean of z scores) from the composite test score in reading and mathematics (BYTXCOMP) and the standardized combination of students' self-reported grades in math, English, sc ience and soc ial sc i­ence from Grade 6 through Grade 8 (BYGRADS)

Engagement Composite constructed using principle components factor analysis , using the following items (coded or recoded as given) alpha= .69 BYS73 Ever feel bored in school (recoded 0 =always, 3 =never) BYS69A I usually look forward to mathematics class (I =strongly dis-

agree. 4 =strongly agree) BYS69C Math will be useful in my future ( I =strongly disagree, 4 =

stronglv agree) BYS70A I usually look forward to English class ( I =strongly disagree,

4 = strongly agree) BYS70C English will be useful in my future (I =strongly disagree, 4 =

strongly agree) BYS71 A I usually look forward to soc ial studies class (I =strongly dis­

agree, 4 =strongly agree) BYS71 C Social studies will be useful in my future ( I = strongly dis­

agree, 4 = strongly agree) BYS72A I usuall y look forward to sc ience c lass (I = strongly disagree.

4 =strongly agree)

The Journal of Educational Research

BYS72C Science will be useful in my future ( I= stronglv disagree, 4 = strongly agree)

Average SES Aggregated from individual student SES in middle school (BYSES)

High percentage minority Recoded from the school report of the percentage of African American, Asian, and Hispanic students attending given in the NELS privileged data file (PMINORP), so that over 40% is coded I, other school s are coded 0.

Cohort size Recoded from the school report of the size of the eighth grade in the NELS privileged data file (G8ENROLP), transformed using a natural log­arithm (to adjust for the positive skew) and standardized toM= 0, SD = I )

Elementary school Recoded from the grade span of the school reported on the NELS privi­leged data file (GRADSPAN), so that elementary schools are coded I, other stand-alone middle schools (7-8. 6-8. 7-9) are coded 0. High schools and K- 12 schools were not included in this analysis.

Positive learning environment Aggregated to the school level from the composite constructed using prin­c iple components fac tor analys is, using the following items (coded or recoded as given) alpha = . 79 BYSS9A Students get along well with teachers (I = strongly disagree,

4 = strongly agree) BYSS9B There is real school spirit ( I =strongly disagree, 4 = strongly

agree) BYSS9F The teaching is good ( I = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly

agree) BYSS9G Teachers are interested in students ( I = strongly disagree, 4 =

strongly agree) BYSS9H Teachers praise my efforts ( I = strongly disagree, 4 =strongly

agree) BYSS91 In class I often feel "put down" by my teachers (recoded I =

strongly agree, 4 =strongly disagree) BYSS9J Teachers li sten to what I say ( I = strongly disagree, 4 =

strongly agree)

Note. F2 refers to the Second Follow-up Survey to NELS . BYP refers to the Base Year Parent Survey. B YS refers to the Base Year Student Survey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

36 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014