The Interplay Between Adolescent Needs and ...

The Interplay Between Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures: Fostering Developmentally Responsive Middle and High School Environments Across the Transition Cheryl R. Ellerbrock University of South Florida [email protected]

Sarah M. Kiefer University of South Florida [email protected]

Understanding the developmental responsiveness of secondary school environments may be an important factor in supporting students as they make the transition from one school to the next. Students’ needs may or may not be met depending on the nature of the fit between their basic and developmental needs and secondary school structures at the middle and high school levels (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Eccles, Wigfield, Midgley, Reuman, Mac Iver, & Feldlaufer, 1993). Continued research on secondary school structures and how middle and high school environments support students’ needs is warranted (Caskey, 2011). Specifically, there is a need for research that investigates students for an extended period of time across school contexts to gain a more detailed understanding of how their needs are met within structured and unstructured aspects of both environments. Listening to the voices of those intimately involved in the middle-to-high school transition, including students along with their teachers and school administrators, may help to extend the literature on how such environments are responsive to the needs of today’s adolescents. The current qualitative, constructivist, multi-site case study focused on how students’ needs are met within school environments as they make the transition from middle school to high school.

School Environments Across the Transition The transition from middle to high school is often a seminal and challenging transition and is referred to in the literature as “one of the defining parameters of development in the second decade of life” (Barber & Olsen, 2004, p. 3) and “the most difficult transition point in education” (Southern Regional Education Board [SREB], 2002, p. 24). This school transition may be especially difficult for young adolescents due to the organization of such schools (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Eccles, et al. 1993). As students advance through the K-12 educational system, schooling often becomes increasingly impersonal and developmentally unresponsive (Felner, Favazza, Shim, Brand, Gu, & Noonan, 2001). School environments that are larger, increasingly complex, and teacher-centered may not be responsive to adolescents’ developmental needs (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 2006). Compared to their elementary and middle school © 2013 The University of North Carolina Press

1

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 counterparts, high school students often perceive teachers as more impersonal, matterof-fact, and quick to administer consequences (Cushman & Rogers, 2008). This perception of teachers at the high school level runs counter to adolescents’ developmental needs for socio-emotional support, personal relationships, relatedness, community, and autonomy (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association [NMSA], 2010). Developmentally responsive secondary school environments meet students’ needs and promote a smooth transition from one school to the next (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles, et al., 1993; Felner, et al., 2001; Felner, Seitsinger, Brand, Burns, & Bolton, 2007). Although such environments can take on many forms, they tend to be strategically organized to promote a sense of personalization, competence, relatedness, autonomy, and care (Kiefer & Ellerbrock, 2012; Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997; Eccles et al., 1993; Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Osterman, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is increased and a true sense of connectedness between students and their school is experienced when the environment is responsive to students’ basic and developmental needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Secondary School Structures In line with Turning Points (n.d.), we define structured aspects of the school environment as components of the school day that organize students and teachers and guide the daily operation of the school. These structures include scheduling, grouping of students and teachers, and the allocation of resources. We refer to unstructured aspects as nonacademic times of the school day that students navigate on their own and experience minimal supervision. Unstructured aspects of the school day, including before school, lunch, classroom interchanges, and end of school, have been examined far less than structured aspects and may play a key role in the promotion of responsive secondary school environments (Canady & Rettig, 1995; Eder, 1985; Espelage & Asidao, 2001). Middle school interdisciplinary teaming and its complimentary structures are aspects that organize students and teachers and may influence the responsiveness of school environments (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; NMSA, 2010). Interdisciplinary teaming, typically consisting of two to five teachers from various subject areas and the students they share, is considered the “signature component” of middle school organization (NMSA, 2010, p. 31). Team classrooms are often located in close proximity to one another where students move from class to class with the same group of teammates, and teachers meet frequently during common planning time to focus on curricular, team, and individual student-related needs (Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 2010). Jackson and Davis (2000) stated that interdisciplinary teaming promotes “a psychological home within the school that helps reduce the stress of isolation and anonymity” (p. 125). Teaming fosters opportunities for students to belong to a community (Pate et al., 1993), become affiliated with a peer group (Jackson & Davis, 2000), and develop deep connections with teachers and classmates (Arhar, 1990; George & Alexander, 2003). According to NMSA (2010), middle schools can use extended blocks of time, including homeroom period, as a way for educators to fulfill an advisory-like role, act as a mentor, and advocate for their students. Effective teams utilize structures, like advisory, to “offer students and teachers a dynamic structure for forging close relationships” (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 142). Structures at the high school level may also influence schools’ ability to foster an environment responsive to students’ needs. Although high school structures are in many ways similar to middle school structures (e.g., organizing the school day into separate classes, adhering to a bell schedule), structures may take on a new and 2

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures intensified meaning at the high school level. Most traditional high school schedules include an early start time, a series of separate periods of equal length for each subject along with lunch, and a short period of time allocated for changing classes (George, McEwin, & Jenkins, 2000). Early start times often cause students to attend school before their “circadian wake-promoting process is fully engaged” (Kirby, Maddi, & D’Angiulli, 2011, p. 57), resulting in sleep deprivation that may negatively impact attendance, engagement, and school performance (Hanson, Janssen, Schiff, Zee, & Dubocovich, 2005; Owens, Belon, & Moss, 2010). Early school start times promote what Eccles and Roeser (2011) called a “developmental mismatch” (p. 234) between students’ needs and the organization of their school environments. Later school start times are associated with improved student outcomes, including decreased depression and increased attendance (Tonn, 2006). Further, the traditional high school schedule may inhibit the establishment and maintenance of high quality teacher-student and student-student relationships (Canady & Rettig, 1996). Many high schools do not arrange students and teachers into smaller groups or teams. Rather, incoming ninth-grade students often find themselves in classes across campus and have many new, frequently older peers as classmates, which may not foster a responsive environment (Cushman & Rogers, 2008; George et al., 2000). Recent high school reform initiatives, such as small learning communities, include interdisciplinary teaming and academies along with alternative forms of scheduling to increase personalization and connectedness (Cotton, 2001; Felner et al., 2007; Sammon, 2007). Unstructured aspects of the school day are relatively under-studied and have rarely been examined in tandem with structured aspects at the middle and high school level. Unstructured times of day such as before school, lunch, classroom interchanges, and end of school may play a role in meeting students’ needs and promoting a developmentally responsive school environment. These are often chaotic and crowded times that students navigate on their own (Eder, 1985). Negative peer interactions such as teasing, fighting, humiliation, and spreading rumors often occur during these times. Such interactions may occur when students have the opportunity to interact across grade levels and are not closely monitored by teachers and school personnel (Eder, 1985; Espelage & Asidao, 2001; Merten, 1997). Many teachers view aggression or meanness as a developmentally normal part of peer relations during adolescence (Jeffrey, Miller, & Linn, 2001) and may be less likely to intervene and communicate that these behaviors are unacceptable (Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000; Yoon, Barton, & Taiariol, 2004). Students themselves may perpetuate and reinforce negative peer interactions that occur during unstructured times of the school day. A prominent theme in adolescent peer culture, resistance to and challenging of adult rules and authority, may be played out during these times (Corsaro & Eder, 1990). Students may experience and reproduce salient peer values and behaviors as they interact with peers. During adolescence, peer status becomes increasingly associated with aggression, and individuals may use the peer system as a point of reference for acquiring and mimicking antisocial, aggressive behaviors (Cillessen & Mayeau, 2004). This may be a result of a maturity gap between adolescents’ physical maturity and when they are granted adult rights and responsibilities by society (Moffitt, 1993). Unstructured aspects of the school day may be a critical context for adolescents to establish and reinforce salient values and behaviors within the peer system, as students are able to interact with one another with relatively minimal adult supervision and intervention. Lunch serves as a salient unstructured time of the day that allows students to interact with one another and may be a rich context to investigate both negative and positive 3

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 peer interactions in middle and high school. Lunchtime may serve as an opportunity for students to engage in negative peer interactions, such as gossiping, teasing, and fighting, as well as a time for students to gain a sense of autonomy (Eder, 1985; Merten, 1997). Students are given increased freedom due to the unstructured nature of high school lunch (e.g., where and with whom to sit with). High school teachers and staff may perceive entering ninth-grade students as adults, transformed from their child-like personas held in middle school just a few months prior (Queen, 2002). Many ninth-grade students may not be ready for the increased freedom and responsibility that characterize unstructured aspects of high school. Given that incoming students often navigate the values, norms, and behaviors associated with the peer culture at their new school on their own, they may need time to adjust to new norms held by peers and school personnel. Thus, unstructured aspects may be relatively unresponsive to students’ needs at the middle and high school level (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; NASSP, 2006; NMSA, 2010). Theoretical Underpinnings of Study In the current study, we utilized the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and the stage-environment fit theory (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993) to inform our understanding of students’ basic and developmental needs and how such needs may be met within secondary school structures. According to the selfdetermination theory, individuals have basic psychological needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy that throughout a lifetime help intrinsic motivation and higher quality learning to flourish (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Competence involves feeling effective in one’s interactions within the social environment and experiencing opportunities to express one’s capabilities (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Harter, 1983). Relatedness involves feeling a sense of connectedness to others in one’s social group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Autonomy involves experiencing one’s behavior as an expression of the self (Deci & Ryan, 1985). According to this theory, supporting students’ basic psychological needs is central to promoting a developmentally responsive school environment. In addition to basic psychological needs, adolescents have unique developmental needs that must be addressed within the school setting. The stage-environment fit theory focuses on the extent to which adolescents’ developmental needs are met within the school environment, including how schools are structured. Eccles (2004) elaborated on the necessity of fostering a developmentally responsive secondary school environment: Individuals have changing emotional, cognitive, and social needs and personal goals as they mature…. [S]chools need to change in developmentally appropriate ways if they are to provide the kind of social context that will continue to motivate students’ interest and engagement as the students mature. (pp. 125–126) Adolescents’ developmental needs for greater psychological or behavioral autonomy, inclusion among peers, and connections with non-parental adults are often in conflict with the less personal, more controlling nature of secondary school environments (Eccles, 2004). Students may experience difficulty when moving from one school to another due to the differing nature of environments, including school structures (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Adolescents who transition into a larger, more traditionally organized, complex, and isolating secondary school environment may experience a mismatch between their developmental needs and the opportunities afforded by their school, resulting in decreased motivation and engagement (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Eccles et al., 1993). Together, these two frameworks 4

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures provided an interconnected theoretical foundation and guided the current investigation of how secondary school structures meet students’ basic developmental needs and help to promote responsive school environments as they make the middleto-high-school transition. The Current Study The middle-to-high-school transition is relatively under-studied compared to other school transitions (Barber & Olsen, 2004). Examining how secondary school environments and their structures affect students’ transition into high school is an important part of schooling that merits increased attention. Although often acknowledging the responsibility of both the sending and receiving schools, most transition studies examine secondary school environments individually rather than in tandem (e.g., Ellerbrock, 2012; Kiefer & Ellerbrock, 2010; Legters & Kerr, 2001; McIntosh & White, 2006; Mizelle, 2005). However, Hertzog, Morgan, and Borland (2009) stated this transition is an ongoing process, not a single event, which unfolds over time and across school sites. This viewpoint suggests transition research should be longitudinal in nature, spanning across schools in order to unpack the interplay between adolescent needs and secondary school environments and structures. One noteworthy exception is Barber and Olsen’s (2004) quantitative investigation of school environment factors and student functioning. Barber and Olsen found that adolescents report a decline in the quality of their school environment along with a decline in academic, personal, and interpersonal functioning at each grade transition as they move from one grade level to another and across school sites. However, that study did not include the voices of students and school personnel involved in each grade transition. There is a need for in-depth longitudinal transition studies that investigate the interplay between students’ needs and school structures that make up secondary school environments. Listening to those who are intimately involved in the transition to high school, including students, teachers, and school administrators, may provide insight into how school structures may meet students’ needs and foster developmentally responsive school environments. For example, Smith, Akos, Lim, and Wiley (2008) conducted a mixed methods longitudinal study in order to investigate student and school staff academic, social, and organizational perceptions of the transition to high school before and after the move. Survey results suggested students were concerned with organizational issues such as finding their way around school and course difficulty. Students anticipated the increased freedom, choice, and extracurricular activities associated with high school. Interviews with school staff revealed concern around students’ lack of knowledge about credits, attendance policies, and academic expectations. However, their investigation only included student survey data and did not include interviews with students. Although research investigating student voice has provided insight into students’ needs and concerns regarding the transition to high school, additional longitudinal research is needed. Morgan and Hertzog’s (2001) mixed methods investigation of eighth (middle school) and ninth (high school) grade students’ transition-related concerns revealed five areas of unease associated with high school: the curriculum, the school facility, safety and discipline rules, school staff, and the nature of high school life. The authors suggested secondary schools develop transition programs that address these concerns. Additionally, Cushman’s (2006) qualitative study investigated ninth-grade student perceptions of what they needed to make a successful transition into high school. Cushman found entering ninth-grade students want to belong to a small intimate community, take classes located close together, have a mentor, 5

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 and engage in personally meaningful classroom activities. Although both studies included student voice, they did not document student experiences as they navigated from one school to the next. The current study directly responds to Hertzog and colleagues (2009) claim that the transition is a process that unfolds overtime and addresses the aforementioned gaps in the literature by investigating students’ transition across school sites and by focusing on the voices of those most directly involved in the transition process. Method Purpose The aim of this qualitative, constructivist, multi-site case study was to gain a detailed understanding of the interplay between adolescent needs and secondary school structures that may promote developmentally responsive school environments. This study was part of a larger qualitative study that investigated the developmentally responsive nature of the transition from middle school (eighth grade) into high school (ninth grade). In the current investigation we wanted to know: “How may secondary school structures meet students’ basic and developmental needs and help promote developmentally responsive school environments as they make the transition from Ford Middle School into Westshore High School1?” Studying both structured and unstructured aspects of the middle and high school environment provided a holistic picture of what students experienced as they entered high school. From a constructivist perspective, multiple realities exist that are each uniquely created by individuals within a context and, through their realities truth can be uncovered (Hatch, 2002; Patton, 2002). Thus, this constructivist, multi-site case study highlighted student and school personnel voices that expressed their realities of how both Ford and Westshore fostered school environments that supported adolescents’ needs. Context The two schools represented in this study are located within a large socio-economically and ethnically diverse school district in the southeastern United States. The school district is one of the top 10 largest districts in the nation with over 254 schools, including 44 middle schools and 27 high schools. Ford Middle School and Westshore High School are located adjacent to one another (the schools are approximately 100 feet apart), separated by a private road that leads to the back side of the high school. Approximately 95% of Ford’s eighth-grade students transition to Westshore for high school. During the 2008–2009 school year, Ford had a total student enrollment of approximately 1,559 students, including 480 eighth-grade students. Sixty percent of Ford’s population was minority, and 53% of students received free or reduced lunch. During the 2009–2010 school year, Westshore had a total student enrollment of approximately 1,957 students, including 557 ninth-grade students. Fifty-four percent of Westshore’s population was minority, and 42% of students received free or reduced lunch. The demographics were relatively representative of the school district (56.5% minority and 54% free or reduced lunch). Identification of Participants Participants were selected using purposeful sampling to help ensure an “informationrich” case (Patton, 2002, p. 46). A total of 23 people participated, including four students, four middle school teachers, 13 high school teachers, one middle school principal, and one high school principal. Pseudonyms were used in place of actual participant names to ensure confidentiality. The middle school principal selected 1

6

Pseudonyms were used to remove any identifying factors.

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures one eighth-grade team to be part of this study based on a set of predetermined criteria (an interdisciplinary eighth-grade team, student population of the team represented school demographics). Ford divided their 480 eighth-grade student population into five teams. The team studied in this investigation was a four-teacher team (math, science, English, social studies) that had both seventh and eighth-grade students. The team had a total of 56 eighth-grade students and approximately the same number of seventh-grade students. All 56 eighth-grade students on the team who were scheduled to attend Westshore, the primary feeder high school for ninth grade, were invited to participate. A target sample of four students representative of the overall school demographics were selected, including two males, two minorities, and two students eligible for free or reduced lunch. This desired target sample was appropriate given the intensive, yearlong longitudinal design of the larger qualitative study. Data collection included individually shadowing each student throughout his or her day at least four times at both the eighth- and ninth-grade levels and interviewing all core teachers of each student at both the eighth- and ninth-grade levels. Based on the purposeful sampling criteria and the need to keep the number of participating students low, four students were selected to participate, including Troy, Jimmy, Katelyn, and Lauren. All four middle school team teachers participated, including Mrs. Copland, Ms. Hamilton, Ms. Mirabelle, and Ms. O’Connell. Teaching experience ranged from two years (Ms. Hamilton) to nine years (Mrs. Copland). Mrs. Cramer, who had been the principal of Ford for three years, also participated. All 13 high school teachers who taught students’ core courses (English, reading, math, science, social studies, and freshman focus) participated, including Mrs. Walters, Mrs. Erickson, Mrs. Peters, Mr. Manns, Mr. George, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Crespo, Mr. Simms, Ms. Hines, Mr. Oscar, Mrs. Cartright, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Matingly. High school teaching experience ranged from one year (Mr. Oscar) to 33 years (Mrs. Peters). Mrs. Mauch, the high school principal, who had been a teacher and administrator at Westshore for 27 years, also participated (see Table 1 for participant demographics). All participants, including parents or guardians of the students, signed informed consent forms. Written and verbal assent was obtained from student participants at the beginning of each semester. Data Collection Data collection took place throughout 2009, including students’ spring semester of their eighth-grade year, summer, and fall semester of their ninth-grade year. This study utilized Merriam’s (2009) qualitative, constructivist, multi-site case study approach grounded in the self-determination theory and the stage-environment fit theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eccles & Midgley, 1989, Eccles et al., 1993). A multi-site case study approach works especially well within the constructivist paradigm when the intent is to gain a deeper understanding of participants’ lived realities across one or more bounded systems, such as two school environments (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). Designed to help uncover the complexities associated with social experiences, case studies are especially relevant for answering “how” research questions and typically consist of the collection of multiple sources of data that result in a theme-based description of the case (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002; Yin, 2003). For these reasons, the present investigation utilized a multi-site case study approach to uncover the lived realities of how students move from one school to the next. Both individual and focus group interviews along with observations served as a main source of data collection. Regarding interviews, 23 individual and group interviews were conducted (totaling approximately 12 hours), including two teacher focus 7

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 Table 1: List of Participants Student Participants Pseudonym Demographics Troy Black male; eligible for free/reduced lunch Jimmy White male Katelyn White female; eligible for free/reduced lunch Lauren Hispanic female Teacher and Administrator Participants Pseudonym Position Mrs. Copeland Eighth grade science Ms. Hamilton Eighth grade Language Arts Ms. Mirabelle Eighth grade math Ms. O’Connell Eighth grade social studies Mrs. Walters Ninth grade English Mrs. Erickson Ninth grade reading Mrs. Peters Ninth grade reading Mr. Manns Ninth grade math Mr. George Ninth grade math Mr. Leonard Ninth grade math Mr. Crespo Ninth grade math Mr. Simms Ninth grade math Ms. Hines Ninth grade science Mr. Oscar Ninth grade science Mrs. Cartright Ninth grade social studies & freshman focus Mr. Roberts Ninth grade social studies & freshman focus Mr. Matingly Ninth grade freshman focus Mrs. Cramer Middle School Principal Mrs. Mauch High School Principal

Demographics White female White female White female White female White female White female White female White male White male White male Hispanic male White male White female White male White female White male White male White female White female

group interviews, nine individual teacher interviews, two student focus group interviews, eight individual student interviews, one middle school principal individual interview, and one high school principal individual interview (see Table 2 for data collection information). One student focus group interview was conducted early in the spring semester of eighth grade and another was conducted early in the fall semester of ninth grade. Each student focus group interview was followed up by an individual student interview toward the end of each semester in an effort to build upon data received from the focus group interview, observations, and archival data. Ninth-grade student individual interviews spanned two days due to shortened class periods as a result of school-related events taking place at Westshore. All students’ core middle school teachers (N54) and high school teachers (N512) were interviewed one time either individually or as a group based on their preferences and schedules. All four middle school teachers (Mrs. Copeland, Ms. Mirabelle, Ms. Hamilton, and Ms. O’Connell) participated in one teacher focus group interview. At the high school level, two dates were provided for high school teachers to participate in a focus group interview before school. Numerous schedule conflicts (e.g., tutoring, other meetings, child care issues, and traffic) reportedly limited some teachers’ ability to meet. As a result, individual interviews were scheduled during the school day. Three 8

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures Table 2: Data Collection Information

Focus Group Interviews

Individual Interviews

Observations

Archival Data

Middle School Spring of eighth grade • 1 student focus group interview (N54 students) • 1 core teacher focus group interview (N54 teachers) • 4 individual student interviews • 1 individual principal interview

• 24 hours of student observations (N54 students, each shadowed at least twice) • Team classrooms • Lunch and in-school activities • Transition-related events • Student schedules • School policies and rules

High School Fall of ninth grade • 1 student focus group interview (N54 students) • 1 core teacher focus group interview (N53 teachers) • 4 individual student interviews • 9 individual core teacher interviews • 1 individual principal interview • 50 hours of student observations (N54 students, each shadowed at least twice) • Core classrooms • Lunch and in-school activities • School-wide events • Student schedules • School policies and rules

Total • 2 student focus group interviews (N54 students) • 2 core teacher focus group interviews (N57 teachers) • 8 individual student interviews • 9 individual core teacher interviews • 2 principal interviews • 74 hours of student observations

• Student schedules • School policies and rules

high school teachers (Mr. Manns, Ms. Peters, and Mrs. Walters) participated in one high school teacher focus group interview. Nine high school teachers (Mrs. Matingly, Mr. Oscar, Mr. George, Mr. Leonard, Ms. Hines, Mrs. Cartright, Mr. Crespo, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Simms) participated in one high school individual teacher interview at their request. One high school teacher (Mrs. Erickson) was unable to be interviewed due to multiple schedule conflicts, but was included in observational and archival data collection. The middle and high school principals each participated in one individual interview. Semi-structured interview protocols guided all interviews. Because this investigation was part of a larger study on the middle-to-high-school transition, the researchers primarily utilized a subset of questions that focused on the developmentally appropriate nature of both middle and high school environments in aiding a responsive transition. Eighth-grade student interview questions focused on students’ perceptions 9

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 of their middle school, including its organization of teachers and students, their experiences as an eighth-grade student, and their thoughts regarding how best to support the transition into high school. Ninth-grade student interview questions focused on students’ perceptions of their high school, including its organization of teachers and students, their experiences as a new high school student, and their thoughts regarding how to support the move into high school. Teachers at both levels were asked about their perceptions of their school, including its organization of teachers and students, students’ experiences as they make the transition to high school, and how their school or team or themselves may support students during this time. Both the middle and high school principal interviews primarily addressed how each school is organized and how students are supported as they make the transition to high school. Examples of eighth-grade student questions included, “Describe your typical day at Ford,” and, “If you were to describe Ford Middle School to an eighth-grade student who doesn’t go to school here, what would you tell them?” Sample ninth-grade student questions included, “If you were to go back to Ford Middle School and talk to eighth-grade students about Westshore, what would you say?” and “Describe your high school lunchtime experiences.” Sample middle and high school teacher questions included, “In your opinion, what aspect(s) of the transition into high school are the easiest or hardest for students to adjust to?” and “Describe how your school may support students’ needs in an effort to ease the transition.” Examples of middle and high school principal questions included, “Explain how your school organizes eighth/ninth-grade students,” and, “How might the way your school organizes its eighth/ninth-grade students affect their transition into high school?” See Appendix for a list of semi-structured interview questions. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed (totaling 141 single-spaced pages). At Ford and Westshore, a total of 74 hours of observations were conducted (24 hours in middle school and 50 hours in high school). Each individual student was shadowed or followed throughout his or her day at least four times during this study (at least twice during eighth grade and twice during ninth grade, totaling 18–19 hours per student). Team classes in eighth grade and core classes in ninth grade along with various unstructured portions of the day (i.e., lunch and in-school activities) were observed. Additionally, observations were conducted of the eighth-grade team endof-year luau party, the eighth-grade send off event, a summertime high school parent open house, and a high school pep assembly. Archival evidence, including students’ schedules, school policies, and rules, were collected and used to help triangulate data. Numerous methods were used to ensure confidentiality and limit the amount of bias, including the use of pseudonyms for participant and school names and member checks where participants validated whether the researchers represented their voices accurately. Further methods included peer reviews where researchers trained in the qualitative methods used in this study supervised the data analysis process to confirm the trustworthiness of the findings, the use of a researcher journal to minimize researcher bias, and the use of analyzed data to aid in the continual data collection process. Data Analysis This study utilized the inductive approach to data analysis advocated by Hatch (2002). Most qualitative research is analyzed inductively for a variety of reasons, including its ability to work flexibly within multiple qualitative paradigms, including constructivism, and its ability to focus deeply on a particular entity allowing participants’ stories to emerge from the data (Hatch, 2002; Mayan, 2009). Similar 10

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures to other inductive models, Hatch’s version involves looking at particular pieces of data for patterns and formulating a whole so that general statements regarding the phenomena can be made. It involves a series of steps that begins with reading and rereading the data to acquire a deeper understanding and separating the data into analyzable parts, referred to by Hatch as frames of analysis. Frames included all data directly related to the main research question. Researchers individually coded all transcribed interview data into analyzable parts and then compared these parts and discussed discrepancies until a consensus was reached on exactly what aspects of the data merited further investigation. The agreed upon frames were then reread and domains, or categories of meaning that have a semantic relationship with one another, were created. The domains that emerged from these data include a middle school and a high school structure domain. Using the main research question as a guide, both domains along with their cover and included terms were refined until a consensus was reached between researchers. Data were then recoded to reflect the consensus and a domain sheet was formed (see Figure 1). Domains were then inspected to ensure there was enough support in the data for its inclusion, and disconfirming evidence was examined. A theme that emerged was that structured and unstructured aspects at the middle and high school level may have promoted and hindered a responsive school environment that met students’ needs as they made the transition to high school. Lastly, excerpts from the data were chosen to include in this article. Results Findings indicated secondary school structures may have served as a way to promote a developmentally responsive school environment at the middle and high school level (Figure 1). Results from the middle school structures domain suggested interdisciplinary teaming and its complementary structures promoted a developmentally

Figure 1: Master outline of relationships that may have served as a ways to promote developmentally responsive secondary school environments at the middle and high school level. Middle School Structures –

Structured aspects of the school day may have served as a way to promote a developmentally responsive middle school environment • Interdisciplinary teaming and its complementary structures (e.g., flexible block scheduling, homeroom, and extended teacher planning time) – Unstructured aspects of the school day may not have served as a way to promote a developmentally responsive middle school environment • Lunch High School Structures –

–

Structured aspects of the school day may not have served as a way to promote a developmentally responsive high school environment • The school schedule (i.e., early start time, number and nature of classes, and daily course schedule) Unstructured aspects of the school day may have served as a way to both promote and hinder a developmentally responsive high school environment • Class interchanges • Lunch • Clubs and extracurricular activities

11

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 responsive environment, whereas unstructured aspects may not have served as a way to promote a responsive environment. Results from the high school structures domain suggested that the structured aspects might not have served as a way to promote a developmentally responsive environment, whereas unstructured aspects may have served as a way to both promote and hinder a responsive environment. Middle School Structures This section describes how interdisciplinary teaming and its complementary structures along with lunch, an unstructured aspect of the school day, may have met students’ needs and promoted a responsive middle school environment at Ford. However, not all structured and unstructured aspects may have fostered a developmentally responsive middle level environment. Structured aspects of the school day. Interdisciplinary teaming and its complementary structures such as flexible block scheduling, homeroom, and extended teacher planning time fostered an intimate setting that supported eighth-grade students’ needs for personalization, connectedness, positive peer relations, and community, noted in the literature as outcomes of effective teaming (Arhar, 1990; George & Alexander, 2003; Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 2010). Although this team was multi-age, students from the seventh and eighth grades intermingled for any school-based events or instruction. The 56 eighth-grade students were divided into two smaller groups of 28 students each for a blocked period of 131 minutes for the regular schedule or 160 minutes for the extended homeroom schedule in the morning. This unique organization allowed each small group to spend the first two periods (social studies and science) plus homeroom together and move together from one class to another. Although eighth-grade math and English classes were grouped by ability in the afternoon and slightly differed from small groups in the morning, groups remained relatively intact throughout the day. All team teachers, students, and principal articulated the overall importance of teaming in meeting students’ needs. Teachers, like Ms. Mirabelle, spoke fondly of their team, as they believed it promoted personalization and connectedness among teachers and students: “I do feel that when we have those 56 kids, they know each other better, they see the same faces all day. I think we are lucky to have a tighter knit group than other teams.” All eighth-grade students expressed that teaming enabled teachers to know them and their friends well. Lauren shared, “They know me personally. They know who my friends are. That’s why they let Jocelyn and I sit together. They know that we won’t talk, we won’t be loud, so they can put us together.” Mrs. Cramer, Ford’s principal, shared teachers’ sentiments regarding interdisciplinary teaming and its importance in fostering relationships: Teaming is very important to me. It’s the whole child that we look at in middle school. We are looking at building relationships, a lot of physical and social things going on. Things that they don’t always share with their parents. Things that they share with a friend and hopefully with teachers through relationships. The continuity of peer relationships that resulted from flexible block scheduling and student grouping was perceived to be highly valued by students as such structures provided increased periods of time with the same group of peers. Students viewed the smaller group of eighth-grade students they spent most of their morning with as their “homeroom team,” or team within their eighth-grade team, increasing their sense of relatedness. For example, Lauren, who transferred to Ford at the beginning of her eighth-grade year, stated she valued teaming as it afforded students a sustained amount of time together in an intimate and consistent group of peers, 12

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures helping her to develop a robust peer network: “I think it’s good because we have all gotten to know each other in our classes. It is easy to talk to [students] because you have the same classes with them. So you get to know them well.” Katelyn shared, “It’s cool. We have fun students and cool teachers.” When asked to elaborate, she responded, “It’s cool because you get to see them [the same peers] all day.” Lauren explained how this unique use of teaming and its complementary structures helped to foster peer relationships: “Our entire class from this class [first period social studies] will all go to second period [science]. So I think that is nice.” Further, she stated that a majority of her friends are from her team, specifically, from her small group of 28 students that are together throughout the morning: These two classes [science and social studies] are the ones that I am mostly friends with. There are some kids in the other classes, but it’s not like these classes…. Yes, I’m more friends with my homeroom team. We spend first period and second period together. Although all students spoke favorably of this teaming structure in promoting peer relationships and connectedness, Jimmy also believed that such a structure may limit opportunities to interact with new peers: “I think it’s good because you have your friends going with you to the next period. But in a way it’s also bad because you won’t be able to meet new people in the classes.” Homeroom was perceived as the heart of this unique teaming structure, which was frequently used as a pseudo-advisory period during extended homeroom schedule. Homeroom provided increased time for teachers to focus on supporting students’ individual needs, teambuilding, and promoting a sense of connectedness, noted as byproducts of an effective middle school advisory program (George & Alexander, 2003; Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 2010). All eighth-grade students made reference to homeroom as their “homeroom team” or simply “their team.” Lauren elaborated on the connections she developed with students in her homeroom: “I do like the kids in my homeroom…I think that [students in] this class, on the outside, they would look really tough, but on the inside we know what they are really like.” Often team teachers would use the 131- or 160-minute blocked period of time in the morning (social studies, science, and homeroom) to engage students in team bonding events and school-related activities such as pasta for pennies, homeroom competitions, and burying a time capsule. Students reported the time capsule was one of the most fun and memorable events of their eighth-grade year. As Lauren shared: I really liked the time capsule because we all got to put something in it, all the eighth graders on our team. If someone dug it up we would want them to remember us by the little items that we put in there…we went out and Mrs. Copeland brought a rose bush, bought a gate to put around it, and brought a stone. I got to hold the stone and put it on the ground. So we all took a class picture of that. I think that by her taking the time to make all that stuff and get all that stuff for us was really special. Such memorable events and activities that promote a sense of connectedness are noted as one of the potential outcomes of having an extended, flexible block schedule (NMSA, 2010). Due to an extended block period of time for common teacher planning and lunch, team teachers were able to meet for 90 minutes every day. Teachers were witnessed using this time to plan events and activities for the team, talk about students’ needs, and bond socially. All teachers believed students recognized and benefited from 13

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 having time during the day where teachers could work together as a team. As Ms. O’Connell shared: I feel that we help instill that [a sense of team] in them, too. Because we meet every day at lunch [joint common planning and lunch period], we know that so and so was having a bad day this morning and then they see you and you say, “I heard that you were having a bad day this morning.” “How did you know that?” It’s because we are tighter as a team, so the students realize that we are working as a team to try and help them. During each visit to the school site, numerous students, including Jimmy, would join the teachers during this time to talk about schoolwork and their personal lives, and solicit advice. Through in-class announcements and providing passes, team teachers encouraged students to visit with them during this time of day. Affording team teachers an extended period of time to meet and plan as a group each day is noted as an important middle level organizational structure (NMSA, 2010). This may have helped to promote a developmentally responsive middle school environment for eighth-grade students, although it may have potentially limited students’ ability to interact with a larger number of peers. Students’ basic and developmental needs, including the need for personalization, positive peer relations, and connectedness may provide a strong foundation as students make the transition to high school. Unstructured aspects of the school day. Despite having a fairly structured school day, eighth-grade students did experience unstructured portions of the day, including before school, lunch, classroom interchanges, and end of school. The most salient unstructured aspect was lunch, where eighth-grade students reported a large amount of negative peer interactions such as gossiping, fighting, and teasing. Katelyn attested to gossiping with friends during lunch: Researcher: What do you guys talk about? Katelyn: School, next year, and what you are doing on the weekend. Researcher: When you talk about school, what do you talk about? Katelyn: Other kids, just gossip. All students attested to frequent fights during lunch, including food fights and acts of physical aggression. When asked to recall the worst memory of their middle school years at Ford, Lauren responded with a lunchtime experience where she was hit with juice: White shirt and red juice, I had to keep rolling it to make sure that no one would look at it…I’ve actually been hit with juice before [at Ford] from food fights, twice. My friends have been hit and had to go home because it was all over their clothes. Eighth-grade students contributed to negative peer interactions by teasing younger students. Jimmy discussed how picking on students is unacceptable, yet he perceived it to be permissible for him to do as an eighth-grade student: “Yeah. I’ve grown to like it [teasing]. I didn’t like it at the beginning. As a sixth grader, the eighth graders would pick on us.” Aligning with Corsaro and Eder’s (1990) theory of adolescent peer cultures, students experienced and reproduced salient behaviors such as teasing through interacting with peers during lunchtime. Thus, lunch, an unstructured aspect of the school day, may have not fully met the needs of eighth-grade students, especially their need for relatedness and positive peer relationships. 14

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures High School Structures This section describes how a structured aspect of the high school environment, the high school schedule, and unstructured aspects of the school day, including class interchanges, lunch, clubs and extracurricular activities, may have met students’ needs and fostered a developmentally responsive environment. Such aspects may also have supported or hindered incoming ninth-grade students’ transition into high school. Structured aspects of the school day. Structured aspects of the high school schedule, such as an early start time, number and nature of classes, and daily course schedule, may have played a role in how Westshore’s environment met incoming ninth-grade students’ needs. These aspects of the schedule were perceived by participating students and teachers as being unresponsive. Students viewed the early morning start time (7:20 a.m.) as too early to begin school, reporting difficultly waking up as early as 5:30 a.m. to get ready for school. Aligning with research on school start times and the sleep-wake cycle of adolescents, the early start time of many high schools may not adequately fulfill adolescents’ biological needs (Kirby et al., 2011). All participating students stated the first few classes were their least favorite primarily due to the early start time. When asked what his least favorite part of the day is, Troy responded, “First period, because I’m always sleepy.” Katelyn responded similarly, stating first period is her least favorite because, “I don’t like science and it’s too early in the morning.” Although Lauren thought the start time was too early, she also reported enjoying getting out of school earlier, “I like that you get out earlier than last year. I like that we get out at 3:00 instead of 4:00.” Westshore operated on an eight-period schedule that required teachers to teach six classes bell-to-bell. This is in contrast to the flexible block scheduling with fewer classes and longer class periods in middle school. Mrs. Mauch, principal of Westshore, shared attempts made to organize students, teachers, and classes similar to middle school teaming: We tried for a very long time to model ourselves after the eighth-grade team, but that doesn’t work in high school. There are too many student electives. The sheer size is part of it and the different levels [of classes]. A student can take Geometry, Algebra, Algebra 1 Honors, or Algebra 1A. There are too many different variables in a schedule in high school. Students and teachers alike viewed that the number and nature of classes in high school produced a sense of increased isolation compared to middle school. High school classes were perceived as having more work, increased difficulty of work, and more severe consequences than middle school classes. When asked in a focus group interview what they would tell eighth-grade students at Ford about Westshore, Katelyn and Lauren both responded, “A lot more work than Ford.” Although Jimmy did not find the work to be more difficult, Troy, Lauren, and Katelyn perceived high school work to be harder compared to the work in middle school. As Katelyn stated, “You are learning a lot of different stuff. The information is harder than it was last year [in eighth grade].” All students attested to more severe academic consequences. As Troy shared, “One of my teachers, as soon as the bell rings, if you don’t have your book open and homework out, it’s considered late. And if you don’t turn in your homework that day, the next day it’s 50% off.” As witnessed in observations and attested to in high school teacher interviews, teachers, like Ms. Hines, spoke to the nature of high school courses: “I expect that 15

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 my students will have the maturity level to turn in their homework when it is due. I tell them that up front. I tell them that you are in high school now.” Middle school teachers also expressed a difference in the number and nature of courses in middle school compared to high school and that navigating this transition may be difficult for students: Ms. Mirabelle: I think the hardest thing for them is going to be the academics. I think it is going to hit them like a ton of bricks and they are going to freak out. Even when we try to talk to them about their workload now [in middle school], they are like, “What is it going to be like next year?” Ms. Hamilton: Not only that, but they have two extra periods, so it will be even harder. They will have eight periods a day. High school teachers, like Mr. Oscar, affirmed middle school teacher and student sentiments: “The school work and assignments have to be the hardest. The students are required to do more reading in classes, more assignments, more of everything that it has to be more difficult than middle school.” Ninth-grade teachers, such as Ms. Hines, reported difficulties with the number and nature of classes associated with the high school schedule: I don’t know how the classes are taught in middle school but all the teachers here have six classes a day. So, I think it is really difficult, time wise, to target the three students in the class when we are supposed to be actively teaching from bell to bell. It is hard for me to stop to focus on the few kids that haven’t turned in their work or haven’t done their makeup work or haven’t done this. Ninth-grade students and teachers expressed confusion regarding students’ daily course schedule, including how schedules were formed and changed. All students recalled when high school guidance counselors came to Ford to speak to them about their high school schedule. Students filled out a form requesting what classes they wanted to take in ninth grade. However, once enrolled at Westshore, students reported not being placed into classes they requested and/or being placed into classes they did not request. For example, Jimmy requested to be placed into Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) but was not, and Lauren was placed into guitar class even though she did not request this elective. Students also were uncertain of how to obtain a schedule change. For example, Jimmy was unaware of how to move into JROTC, a class he really wanted to take and had alluded to in eighth grade. Teachers at Westshore, like Mr. George, spoke of a lack of understanding of how students were placed into certain classes: I’m still trying to figure out how they are picking and placing them. There are some kids in my algebra class that shouldn’t be there. There are some kids in my geometry class that shouldn’t be there. I’m still trying to figure that out. Students expressed an increased sense of isolation due to a lack of peer consistency in their classes. On the first day of high school, all students sought out peers who were on their eighth-grade team to help ease the transition. Aligning with prior research, students depended on their middle school friendships and social networks to support the transition into high school (Cushman & Rogers, 2008). Students made initial decisions regarding which classes were their favorite based on how many eighth-grade friends and teammates were in their classes. For example, Katelyn stated her favorite classes were math and English because her friends were in those 16

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures classes. Lauren stated that science was her favorite class partially due to the fact that multiple students from her eighth-grade team were in this class: “I think it [science class] is going to be my favorite because he seems like a really nice teacher and there are five kids from my homeroom last year that are in that class, which is good.” Lauren, like all participating students, yearned for a more team-like structure at the ninth-grade level, similar to what they had experienced in eighth grade: Lauren: Last year [eighth grade] was the first school [Ford Middle School] that I went to where we actually stayed together [teaming]. So I stayed with those kids all year. Everyone would switch and we would go to the next class together. And here [Westshore High School] we are just all over the school. Researcher: Which way do you like better? Lauren: I kind of liked last year better. Researcher: Why? Lauren: Because I got to know the kids a lot better and we weren’t spread out everywhere. It was just a lot easier to meet new people and make friends. As reflected in Lauren’s quote above, students expressed concern that their high school schedule may negatively impact the social network developed in eighth grade as they no longer had classes with their close friends who were members of their eighth-grade team. Unstructured aspects of the school day. Unstructured aspects of Westshore, including class interchanges, lunchtime, as well as clubs and extracurricular activities, may have both supported and hindered the promotion of a high school environment that met students’ needs. All participating students perceived Westshore to be extremely crowded. Students mentioned crowded hallways, especially during class interchanges, caused a considerable amount of turmoil and chaos. Such congestion initially caused confusion during the first days of high school. This made it difficult for students to become acclimated to their new school. Jimmy explained, “The hallways were very crowded. It was harder [than Ford Middle School], because we could barely see around everybody. It was hard to see the plaques with the numbers on them because there were so many people.” Such difficulty fostered increased intimidation and stress. As Lauren expressed, “It’s a bit intimidating because there are all these older people and the hallways are so crowded.” Students desired increased opportunities to become more familiar with the school layout, including school tours prior to the first day of high school, noted in the transition literature as best practice (Hertzog & Morgan, 1997, 1999). Westshore had three 50-minute lunch periods that had approximately 650 ninth through twelfth-grade students in each period. In the weeks immediately following the transition into high school, this unstructured portion of the day evoked much fear and nervousness in students. Most of their fears revolved around not knowing how to navigate lunch, including where to sit, who to sit with, as well as the uncertainty of lunchtime policies and expected behaviors. All students referred to lunch as “overcrowded.” For example, Lauren expressed, “It was pretty crowded. But one of my friends, Jocelyn, was with me so if I wouldn’t have had her it would have been a little harder.” Troy stated, “The first day there were no seats, so I had to wait until a seat opened up. I was walking around for a good 10–15 minutes looking for a seat. It was packed.” Troy alluded to feeling self-conscious as he navigated lunchtime: “I felt that everyone was looking at me when I was just walking around.” In addition, 17

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 students in this investigation mentioned the differences between high school and middle school lunch. As Lauren described: I didn’t know where to sit [in high school]. We just sat down at a certain table. Because last year [in middle school] we just had little tables that we had to sit at with our class, but this year I guess you are just on your own, so we just sat wherever. Mrs. Mauch, Westshore’s principal, recognized differences between middle and high school lunch and echoed student voices in viewing this as one of the hardest parts of ninth-grade students’ day: The hardest thing [is] lunch. I know that sounds stupid but there are 600 to 700 students at a lunch and I just ring a bell and off they go. In middle school they walk to the cafeteria, they get into the lunch line, and then they sit at the same tables. Mrs. Mauch elaborated on why such an unstructured portion of the day may be difficult for incoming ninth-grade students: “I think that the freedom that a ninth grader has here during lunchtime is one of the hardest things for ninth-grade students.” Although ninth-grade students may have had difficulties navigating lunch, they also welcomed the freedom and autonomy associated with it. Students reported lunchtime provided opportunities for increased freedom and choice compared to middle school, including food selection, where they could sit, the ability to move about the school, and socializing with friends. As Troy stated, “At lunch you can just leave and just go to the library and get on the computer and stuff. At Ford, you can’t leave. You just have to stay in the room. So freedom is having the ability to move around.” Students, like Katelyn, reported that lunch became her favorite part of the day as it allowed time to interact socially with her peers: Researcher: What was your favorite part of your day? Katelyn: Lunch because I like to eat and friends. Researcher: You have friends in your lunch? Katelyn: Yeah, my friends Brooke and Kara and a bunch of other people. At Westshore, involvement in clubs and extracurricular activities were valued by school personnel and perceived as a way to connect students to their new school. Mrs. Mauch elaborated on how many ninth-grade students become involved in such activities: We have a club fair the first week of school and we encourage all kids to sign up for clubs and they just put their names down. There is no reason that a freshman can’t be in an art club or newspaper, whatever they want to do…. If a student finds their interest in class we will have a club for them. During observations, numerous ninth-grade teachers (Mrs. Walters, Mrs. Matingly, Mrs. Peters, Mr. George, Mr. Leonard, and Mr. Crespo) repeatedly encouraged students to get involved in clubs and extracurricular activities. For example, Mr. Leonard stated, “Join a club. Just don’t come here and leave. Do something extracurricular. If they could be part of the school other than just that they go here, they show up, and they go home.” Mrs. Mauch, principal of Westshore, reinforced the importance of involvement in clubs and extracurricular activities: “JROTC, they have their niche. Students that are involved in athletics, football, basketball, cheerleading. 18

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures I have three freshmen on the varsity cheerleading squad and we encourage those types of things. Those kids are set.” Students were repeatedly encouraged to join a club or get involved in an extracurricular activity before and after the transition. As Mrs. Mauch stated, “We talk about extracurricular activities and clubs at ninth-grade orientation, summer camp, lunch, and through Freshman Focus [a freshman transition course]…. We also talk about it at Open House before school starts. We have clubs all set up for parents to also see.” Mrs. Walters, a ninth-grade teacher and freshman sponsor stated: I think that what makes the transition easier is that there are so many things available to them outside of the classroom. I have 41 ninth-grade students in freshman steering. This is a bigger number than any of the other steering classes. So they want to get involved. Despite the numerous opportunities to get involved in clubs and extracurricular activities, Troy, Jimmy, and Katelyn did not sign up for a single club, but expressed a desire to join a club next year. Lauren, the only student in this study who joined a club as a ninth-grade student, expressed a lack of connection and confusion on how to become active in the club she joined: My friend Jocelyn and I are the only freshmen in that club [Help Save the World Club], so it’s kinda like when we go we pretty much just go to get our community service hours. But I don’t think that people would realize if we weren’t there. And I don’t know if you pick a club for the year or if it’s just for the semester. Mrs. Peters, a ninth-grade teacher, spoke to the confusion students experienced: They [ninth-grade students] might miss the sign-up and think that they can’t join a club. They don’t understand that they can talk to a sponsor and get added. I think that the information is available, but they don’t always seem to hear it or understand it. One student, Katelyn, was involved in sports, forging connections with this group during her middle school years. Jimmy, after much effort, was able to get a schedule change into JROTC. Discussion The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the interplay between adolescent needs and school structures that may promote developmentally responsive school environments as students undergo the middle-to-high-school transition. Both structured and unstructured aspects of the middle and high school environment were investigated. Two main conclusions materialized from this study. First, structured aspects of middle school, including interdisciplinary teaming and its complementary structures, may have served as a way to promote a developmentally responsive school environment, whereas structured aspects of high school, such as scheduling, may not have served as a way to promote a responsive environment. Second, middle school unstructured aspects, including lunch, may not have served as a way to promote a developmentally responsive school environment, whereas high school unstructured aspects such as class interchanges, lunch, and clubs and extracurricular activities may have served as a way to both promote and hinder a responsive environment. Findings highlight the need to recognize adolescents’ basic and developmental needs and to understand how structured and unstructured aspects of secondary school environments may support or hinder these needs as students 19

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 make the transition into high school. Implications for secondary level educators include increasing their awareness of how middle and high school environments can be strategically structured to help support students’ needs as they make the transition. Although such conclusions provide valuable insight, this study is not without limitations. Due to its epistemological focus and case study methodology, this yearlong qualitative investigation is based on the voices of 23 participants, including four students. Students were shadowed throughout their day in middle and high school, and core teachers and administrators were interviewed at both levels. Including more student participants may have provided additional perspectives. It is important to note that by eighth grade, students attended at least one year of middle school and may be more familiar with its structures compared to high school structures as incoming ninth-grade students. Some of the reported difficulties in ninth grade may be due to adjusting to a new school environment. Further, it is unclear to what extent the findings would have differed if a larger eighth-grade-only team had been selected. Despite these limitations, this study provided a nuanced understanding of how middle and high school structures may meet students’ needs and promote responsive school environments across the transition. The first conclusion is that structured aspects of middle school, including interdisciplinary teaming and its complementary structures, may have promoted a responsive school environment. In contrast, structured aspects of the high school day, such as scheduling, may not have promoted a responsive environment. After making the transition into high school, ninth-grade students yearned for the teaming structure but did not experience it. Findings from this study align with prior research that middle school structures, including teaming, are responsive to students’ basic and developmental needs (Eccles et al., 1993; George & Alexander, 2003; NMSA, 2010). However, as students advance from middle to high school, school structures and the overall environment become less responsive to these needs (Felner et al., 2001). Students may experience a mismatch between their needs and the opportunities afforded by their school as they make the transition into a larger, more traditionally organized and complex high school environment (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Findings provide insight into how one unique interdisciplinary team and its complementary structures, including flexible block scheduling, homeroom, and extended teacher planning time, worked in an interconnected fashion to foster a developmentally responsive environment. This resulted in a sense of personalization, connectedness, and positive peer relationships for its eighth-grade students. These structured aspects decreased the total number of eighth-grade students from 58 to 28, helping to promote a personalized setting where students interacted with the same peers for an extended period of time and recognized being part of a “homeroom team.” These findings align with and extend prior research, as structured aspects of the middle school worked synergistically to promote high quality relationships (George & Alexander, 2003; Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 2010). Such structures afforded students and teachers the opportunity to get to know, relate to, and connect with one another, resulting in positive social relationships and a sense of community (Kiefer & Ellerbrock, 2010; Cushman & Rogers, 2008; Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 2010). Results suggest middle school structures had a positive, lasting impact as ninth-grade students relied on the peer relationships developed in their eighth-grade team to help ease the transition into high school. Further, ninth-grade students yearned for a sense of personalization and connectedness they experienced at the middle level. Thus, this study provides a deeper understanding of how structured aspects of secondary schools work together as one interconnected structure to meet students’ basic 20

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures and developmental needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eccles et. al., 1993). Implications for secondary educators and administrators include considering ways to strategically structure school environments and think about teaming in new and different ways to promote developmentally responsive environments that meet adolescents’ needs and provide a strong foundation and continuity for students as they transition into high school. At the high school level, findings provide insight into how the schedule may not have promoted a strong sense of personalization and connection. The schedule, including its early start time and number and nature of classes promoted a sense of confusion and isolation among ninth-grade students. Findings highlight a developmental mismatch between the high school early start time and students’ delayed sleep preference, resulting in negative outcomes (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Hanson et al., 2005; Kirby et al., 2011; Owens et al., 2010). Findings contribute to prior research that indicates the traditional high school schedule, including the number and nature of classes, hinders personalization (Canady & Rettig, 1995) and disrupts peer relationships fostered at the middle level (Cushman & Rogers, 2008). The isolation often felt in high school is juxtaposed to students’ sense of connection at the middle level. It appears the high school schedule may not have fully met adolescents’ basic and developmental needs for a sense of personalization and connection (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Eccles et al., 1993). The second conclusion is that unstructured aspects of middle school, including lunch, may not have promoted a responsive school environment whereas unstructured aspects of high school such as class interchanges, lunch, clubs, and extracurricular activities may have both promoted and hindered a responsive environment. Middle school lunch promoted negative peer interactions as gossiping, fighting, and teasing frequently occurred. Eighth-grade students both recognized and contributed to the unresponsive nature of lunchtime. These findings align with prior research that suggests students experience and reproduce prominent values and behaviors through interacting with peers during unstructured aspects of the school day (Corsaro & Eder, 1990). During early adolescence, these values and behaviors often are characterized as antisocial and aggressive (Moffitt, 1993). Thus, unstructured aspects may pose challenges for secondary educators in promoting a responsive, safe, and inclusive school environment (NMSA, 2010). High school class interchanges, lunch, clubs, and extracurricular activities brought forth much confusion and stress. Students’ basic and developmental needs for connectedness and positive peer relationships (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eccles et al., 1993) may not be met in environments where ambiguity and anonymity are commonplace. Findings suggest students need additional support during unstructured times, specifically classroom interchanges, as they learn how to navigate the high school environment immediately following the transition. Although school personnel perceived clubs and extracurricular activities as ways to connect ninth-grade students to their new school, students expressed a lack of connection and confusion on how to become involved. Even though lunch may have hindered a responsive environment, it may also have promoted a responsive environment that met students’ basic needs for autonomy and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985). A key contribution of the current study is that unstructured aspects at both levels appeared to hinder students’ basic and developmental needs, with the exception of high school lunch. The findings indicate that unstructured times of the day, although relatively under-studied in comparison to structured aspects, may play a critical role in students’ experiences in school. Findings highlight the importance of secondary level educators increasing 21

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 their awareness of how such unstructured aspects may promote or hinder students’ needs in order to foster developmentally responsive school environments. In conclusion, this study underscores the need for researchers and educators to more thoroughly understand both structured and unstructured aspects of secondary school environments and how they may support adolescents’ basic and developmental needs across the transition. Additional longitudinal research examining students as they make the move from one school to the next is needed in order to understand how school environments are responsive to students’ changing needs, including the academic years prior to and after the transition. Longitudinal qualitative research that includes the voices of more participants involved in the middle-to-high school transition, including students as well as their teachers and administrators, is also needed. Further, there is a need to continue to listen to students’ voices in order for secondary educators and school environments to be responsive to their needs (Caskey, 2011). In conclusion, this study reinforces the importance of viewing the middle-to-high-school transition as a process that unfolds over time, rather than a single event (Hertzog et al., 2009). Concerted, coordinated efforts at both the middle and high school level are needed to provide students with sustained support as they move from one school to the next. References Arhar, J. (1990). Interdisciplinary teaming as a school intervention to increase social bonding of middle level students. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), Research in middle level education: Selected studies (pp. 1–10). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (2004). Assessing the transitions to middle and high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(1), 3–30. doi:10.1177/0743558403258113 Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137–151. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1996). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Caskey, M. (November, 2011). Important work ahead: Sustaining our vision and momentum. William Alexander Memorial Lecture presented at the annual meeting of the American Middle Level Education (AMLE), Louisville, KY. Cillessen, A. H., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75(1), 147–163. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x. Corsaro, W. A., & Eder, D. (1990). Children’s peer cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 197–220. Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Portland. OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000). Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21, 5–21. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cushman, K. (2006). Help us make the ninth grade transition. Educational Leadership, 63(7), 47–52. Cushman, K., & Rogers, L. (2008). Fires in the middle school bathroom: Advice for teachers from middle schoolers. New York: The New Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. Eccles, J. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 125–153). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press. Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students’ motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 553–567.

22

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58(3), 154–165. Ellerbrock, C. R. (2012). Creating a family-like ninth-grade environment through interdisciplinary teaming. Urban Education, 47(1), 32–64. doi:10.1177/004208591-1427736 Espelage, D. L., & Asidao, C. (2001). Conversations with middle school students: Bullying, victimization, and contextual variables. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 49–62. Felner, R. D., Favazza, A., Shim, M., Brand, S., Gu, K., & Noonan, N. (2001). Whole school improvement and restructuring as prevention and promotion: Lessons from STEP and the Project on High Performance Learning Communities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 177–202. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00057-7 Felner, R., Seitsinger, A. M., Brand, S., Burns, A., & Bolton, N. (2007). Creating small learning communities: Lessons from the project on high-performing learning communities about “what works” in creating productive, developmentally enhancing, learning contexts. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 209–221. doi:10.1080/004615207016-21061 George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/ Wadsworth Learning. George, P. S., McEwin, C. K., & Jenkins, J. M. (2000). The exemplary high school. Orlando: Harcourt College Publishers. Hanson, M., Janssen, I., Schiff, A., Zee, P. C., & Dubocovich, M. L. (2005). The impact of school daily schedule on adolescent sleep. Pediatrics, 115(6), 1555–1561. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1649 Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, (Vol. 4, pp. 275–385). New York: Wiley. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hertzog, J. C., Morgan, L., & Borland, K. (2009, November). What research says to the practioner about middle level to high school transition: Background and practices. Concurrent session presented at the annual conference of the National Middle School Association (NMSA), Indianapolis, IN. Hertzog, J. C., & Morgan, L. P. (1997). From middle school to high school: Ease the transition. Education Digest, 62(7), 29–31. Hertzog, J. C., & Morgan, L. P. (1999). Making the transition from middle to high school. High School Magazine, 6(4), 26–30. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press. Jeffrey, L. R., Miller, D., & Linn, M. (2001). Middle school bullying as a context for the development of passive observers to the victimization of others. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 143–156. doi:0.1300/ J135v02n02_09 Kiefer, S. M., & Ellerbrock, C. R. (2012). Caring and fun: Creating an adolescent-centered community. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(3), 1–17. Kiefer, S. M., & Ellerbrock, C. R. (2010). Understanding middle grades students’ perceptions of their peer world: Implications for teaming. Middle School Journal, 42(2), 48–54. Kirby, M., Maggi, S., & D’Angiulli, A. (2011). School start times and the sleep-wake cycle of adolescents: A review and critical evaluation of available evidence. Educational Researcher, 40(2), 56–61. doi:10.3102/ 0013189X11402323 Legters, N., & Kerr, K. (2001). Easing the transition to high school: An investigation of reform practices to promote ninth grade success. Prepared for: Dropouts in America: How severe is the problem? What do we know about intervention and prevention? A forum convened by The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education and Achieve, Inc. Cambridge, Mass. Retrieved from http:// www.law.harvard.edu/civilrights/publications/dropout/legters.html. Mayan, M. J. (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. McIntosh, J., & White, S. H. (2006). High schools working as professional learning communities. American Secondary Education, 34(2), 40–49. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70(3), 175–191. Mizelle, N. (2005). Moving out of middle school. Educational Leadership, 62, 56–60. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674 Morgan, P. L., & Hertzog, C. J. (2001). Designing comprehensive transitions. Principal Leadership, 1(7), 10–18. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2006). Breaking ranks in the middle: Strategies for leading middle level reform. Reston, VA: Author. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323–367. doi:10.2307/1170786 Owens, J. A., Belon, K., & Moss, P. (2010). Impact of delaying school start time on adolescent sleep mood, and behavior. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 608–614. Pate, P. E., Mizelle, L., Hart, L., Jordan, J., Matthews, R., Matthews, S., Scott, V., & Brantley, V. (1993). The delta project: A three-year longitudinal study of middle school change. Middle School Journal, 24(1), 24–27. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23

The High School Journal – Spring 2013 Queen, J. A. (2002). Student transitions from middle to high school: Improving achievement and creating a safer environment. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education. Sammon, G. M. (2007). Creating and sustaining small learning communities: Strategies and tools for transforming high schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Smith, J. S., Akos, P., Lim, S., & Wiley, S. (2008). Student and stakeholder perceptions of the transition to high school. High School Journal, 32–42. Southern Regional Education Board. (2002). Opening doors to the future: Preparing low-achieving middle grades students to succeed in high school. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Tonn, J. L. (2006). Later high school start times a reaction to research. Education Week, 25(28), 5–17. Turning Points (n.d.). Turning points transforming middle schools: School structures that support learning and collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.turningpts.org/pdf/Structures.pdf Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yoon, J. S., Barton, E., & Taiariol, J. (2004). Relational aggression in middle school: Educational implications of developmental research. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 303–318. doi: 10.1177/0272431604265681

Appendix Interview Questions The questions listed below are questions from the larger investigation that informed the current study: Eighth-grade Student Focus and Individual Interview Questions Describe your typical day at Ford. Describe your eighth grade team, team teachers, and fellow teammates. Describe what it is like to be an eighth-grade student on your team and at Ford. If you were to describe Ford Middle School to an eighth-grade student who doesn’t go to school here, what would you tell them? Elaborate on your favorite/worst memory of eighth grade so far. What do you think high school will be like? What do you believe will be the hardest/easiest thing about high school life that you will have to adjust to? Ninth-grade Student Focus Group and Individual Interview Questions Describe a typical day at Westshore. Think back to the end of your eighth-grade year. What did you think Westshore High School would be like? How is Westshore similar to or different from your perceptions now? Describe your high school experiences (e.g., before school, core classes, class interchange, lunchtime, and end of school). If you were to describe Westshore High School to a ninth-grade student who doesn’t go to school here, what would you tell them? Elaborate on your favorite/least favorite part of the day. What is the easiest/hardest thing about high school life that you had/are having to adjust to? If you were to go back to Ford Middle School and talk to eight-grade students about Westshore what would you say? Eighth-grade and Ninth-grade Teacher Interview Questions How would you describe Ford Middle School/Westshore High School? Explain how your school organizes eighth/ninth-grade students. 24

Adolescent Needs and Secondary School Structures Describe how your school/team/self may help students to feel part of the school and support their academic/social/personal needs in an effort to ease the transition. In your opinion, what aspect(s) of the transition into the high school environment are the easiest/hardest for students to adjust to? Middle and High School Administrator Individual Interview Questions How would you describe Ford Middle School/Westshore High School? Explain how your school organizes eighth/ninth-grade students. How might the way your school organizes its eighth/ninth-grade students affect their transition into high school? Describe how your school/teams/self may help students to feel part of the school and support their academic/social/personal needs in an effort to ease the transition. In your opinion, what aspect(s) of the transition into the high school environment are the easiest/hardest for students to adjust to?

25