Looping, a school structure where students remain with one group of teachers for two or more school years, is used by middle schools to meet the diverse needs of young adolescents. However, little research exists on how looping effects the academic performance of students. This study was designed to determine if looping influenced middle school students' mathematical academic achievement. Student scores on the Mississippi Curriculum Test (MCT) were compared between sixth and eighth grade years for 69 students who looped during the seventh and eighth grades with a group of 137 students who did not loop. Looping students achieved statistically significantly greater growth on the MCT than their nonlooping counterparts between sixth and eighth grades. Further, the data were disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Findings indicate that looping may academically reengage students during the middle school years. Advantages and disadvantages of looping at the middle grades are discussed.

Recent federal legislation is affecting how special educators assess students, select curricula, document growth, teach, and consult—in short, how they spend their time during a school day. This study empirically measured special educators’ use of time over the course of several weeks. It compared actual time use with its perceived value by both the teachers and their principals. Congruence between actual time use and its valuation was generally high but not so in select areas. Likewise, special education teachers and their administrators largely agreed in valuation but were far apart in some areas. A better understanding of the administrative duties required of teachers may help administrators appreciate the scope and demands of such nonteaching duties. A new level of communication may lead to more administrative support, as related to prioritizing administrative duties, thereby allowing teachers the time to engage in the tasks they value most.

The middle school concept, aimed at creating a more developmentally responsive learning environment for young adolescents, gained a stronghold in the later part of the 20th century. Proponents of this concept have argued continually for the holistic implementation of its six key characteristics if its benefits are to be realized. These characteristics include: (a) a challenging, integrative, and exploratory curriculum; (b) varied teaching and learning approaches; (c) assessment and evaluation that promote learning; (d) flexible organizational structures (i.e., including the physical space, scheduling, and grouping of students and teachers); (e) programs and policies that foster health, wellness and safety; and (f) comprehensive guidance and support services. Recently, Ellerbrock, Falbe, and Pomykal Franz identified key middle school organizational structures of people, place, and time as being interconnected and integral to effective middle school practices. Main also demonstrated the interconnected nature of these key characteristics and how organizational structures of people affected the successful implementation of other characteristics. Thus, how these organizational structures can and are being implemented has implications for our understanding of the effectiveness of other middle school practices. In this paper, researchers from both the United States and Australia examine and compare literature published between 2000 and 2018 addressing ways in which middle school/middle years organizational structures have been reported and categorized by structures of people, place, and time in these two countries. Pertinent literature related to organizational structures of middle schools in the United States and to middle years education in Australia was examined. Findings from studies and evaluations from each country are reported to provide an international perspective on the organizational structures of middle schools/middle years education across the two countries. Overall, since 2000, the body of knowledge about middle schools/middle years organizational structures has been surprisingly limited in comparison to their perceived importance in the field. This lack of research is concerning in the midst of educational reform in both countries, resulting in questions about the impact of school organizational structures on young adolescent development and learning.

This paper presents the results of a Q‐sort activity in which 38 grades 4–10 mathematics teachers reflected on their classroom teaching and ranked a set of teaching actions that support high‐leverage mathematics teaching from most to least characteristic of their classroom teaching. Data analysis included examining the overall ranking of each teacher action as well as the overall ranking of the associated high‐leverage teaching practice. Examination of the rankings indicated that teachers identified actions associated with the practices of supporting productive struggle in students' learning of mathematics and posing purposeful questions as most characteristic of their teaching. Teachers identified actions associated with the practices of eliciting and using evidence of student thinking and establishing mathematics goals to focus learning as least characteristic of their teaching. Thematic networks were created to represent the teachers' rationales for their priorities regarding implementation of high‐leverage teaching practices. We share the implications of our findings for the mathematics education field and professional development leaders.

No abstract