Capacity Building Is a Key to the Radical Transformation of Middle Grades Schools

Abstract

What Research Says Vincent A. Anfara, Jr.There is a wealth of empirical, historical, and theoretical literature on school reform, types of reform initiatives, and educational change process. Middle grades practitioners and advocates are intimately familiar with list of essential components that must be present for schools to effectively educate young adolescents. Over years, that list has become known as middle school philosophy or middle school concept. One version, explicated by National Middle School Association (NMSA, now Association for Middle Level Education [AMLE]) in This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (NMSA, 2010a), includes 16 characteristics of successful middle level education (Figure 1).A surprising but tremendously powerful observation is that same recommendations are, in slightly varied format, identified by National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) (2006) in Breaking Ranks in Middle, National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (NF) (2003) in Schools-to- Watch Criteria, and Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989) in Turning Points and Turning Points 2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Indeed, a consistent list of middle grades reform elements has surfaced from a variety of professional organizations.While we know much about what needs to be done, we have not been successful in implementing these recommendations with fidelity in middle grades schools across nation. There is no question that many middle grades schools and school districts have embraced middle school concept and that we have some exemplary schools throughout country. Some of these schools have been identified as Schools to Watch by NF. Still, too frequently we have heard saying: The name of school above schoolhouse door was changed, but what happens inside still looks like a junior high or miniature high school. As middle grades practitioners, researchers, and policymakers, we need to better understand how to implement and institutionalize what we know from research works best for education of young adolescents (see NMSA, 2010b). A key part of understanding how to implement sustainable middle grades reform involves a critical look at concept of capacity building-an essential component of educational change process.Capacity building definedA number of researchers focused their attention on concept of capacity building (Borko, Wolf, Simone, & Uchiyama, 2003; Cooter, 2003; Cosner, 2009; Earl & Lee, 2000; Fullan, 2006, 2007; Hughes, Copley, & Meehan, 2005; Knapp, 1997; Newmann, King, & Youngs, 2000; Youngs, 2001; Youngs & King, 2002), and several definitions have emerged from this literature. Fullan (2007) defined capacity building as the policy, strategy, or action taken that increases collective efficacy of a group to improve student learning through new knowledge, enhanced resources, and greater motivation on part of people working individually and together (p. 58). Echoing collective aspect of Fullan's definition, Newmann and associates referred to school capacity as the collective power of full staff to improve student achievement school-wide (p. 261). Hughes and associates defined school capacity as the presence of characteristics needed to support development of a thriving learning community (p. 10). Common to all three definitions is a set of five components: teacher knowledge, skill, and disposition; professional communities; program coherence; technical resources; and leadership.With current emphasis on accountability in education, research has increasingly focused on how specific reforms impact student achievement, and researchers have found that increasing school capacity is associated with both success of reform efforts and increases in student achievement (Borko et al., 2003; Cosner, 2009; Newmann et al. …