Mainely Middle
Journal of the Maine Association for Middle
Level Education
|
|
|
|
|
Volume 10, Number 1
|
Academic Orientation of Middle SchoolsDissension In The MiddleEffective middle schools work toward implementing school structures and instructional approaches responsive to the developmental characteristics of young adolescents. The innovations have always met with mixed reviews, some praising their developmental responsiveness, and others complaining about the "fun and games" or "touchy-feely" environment of middle schools. The criticisms have intensified in the last few years, as exemplified by the high profile article, "Muddle in the Middle" (Bradley 1998). Bradley examines the tension between parents and the middle schools in Howard County, Virginia. Parents launched a review of the middle schools based on their concerns. Bradley points out how middle school students seem to have attendance and discipline problems, view school and grades as being unimportant, and demonstrate academic underachievement especially in math and science. Parents "condemned the emphasis on self-esteem," and worry about their children being ready for high school. Bradley writes: Some also fault middle schools' emphasis on the developmental characteristics of young adolescents - their growth spurts, forgetfulness, disorganization, fear of failure, moodiness, and attachment to their peers - as providing an excuse not to teach them very much (1998, p. 40). She also writes, "While there is no single explanation for the disappointing performance of young adolescents, one thing is clear: The middle school movement is on the defensive" (Bradley 1998, p. 40). A Historical Context In order to understand what may be going on with middle schools, it is important to look at them within the historical context of their inception and evolution. The notion of adolescence did not develop until the mid-1800s. Many children did not go to school and began work as soon as physically able. At the end of the nineteenth century, compulsory education was becoming a national institution and, as the industrial revolution was changing the nature of work, economists were finding a correlation between higher earnings and prolonged schooling. "Nineteenth-century school administrators wanted an "8-4" plan (that is, eight years of elementary school followed by four years of high school), which would accommodate the many students who dropped out after the eighth grade" (Kellough & Kellough 1996, p. 5). The events that led to the establishment of junior high schools did not focus on curricular needs. In the 1890s, Harvard University President Charles Eliot let the reorganization of the American elementary and secondary structure from an 8-4 to a 6-6 balance. Maintaining that seventh and eighth grade students were ready to study secondary school content, his goal was to shorten elementary school so that seventh and eighth grade students could study secondary school content in a high school environment. (Toepfer 1997, pp. 163-164). Over the next three decades, school systems converted the seventh and eighth grades into a mini version of the high school, but school systems still operated in the dual system of elementary and secondary schools. In the 1920s, however, educators started to see the need for a third component to the system. "Van Denburg recommended that junior high schools 'develop their own rationale and regimen rather than imitating or modifying high school practices'" (Toepfer 1997, p. 165). This sentiment began the "Junior High Movement," an attempt to better meet the needs of early adolescents. The emergence of the junior high school in the 1920s and again in the 1940s reflected a growing recognition among educators that younger adolescents were somehow different from older teenagers. Despite the intent of the earliest junior high pioneers to create a school that truly responded to the developmental realities of young adolescents, the junior highs familiar to most Americans largely remained a miniature version of the high school, treating young adolescents more or less as smaller versions of older youth. (Scales 1996, p. 8) The movement was revived again in the 1960s, this time under the heading of the "Middle School Movement." Educators had returned to questions of whether there were developmental differences between middle school students and high school students. Do early adolescents, 11-14, and later adolescents, 15-19, generally have systematic differences? If they do, then it is essential that schools serve the educational, social, and emotional needs of youth. If there is no difference (how anyone can credit that viewpoint psychologically is difficult to comprehend), then it really doesn't matter whether we have junior high schools or not. (Tompkins 1960, p. 44) The central questions became, "Who are these young people?" and "Given the answer to the first question, how can we better engage them in learning?" The movement got a strong boost when the Carnegie Corporation's Council on Adolescent Development consolidated and applied research on the characteristics and needs of young adolescents. The Council's report, Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (1989) called for changes in both the structure and practice of their educational experience:
What grew from the movement are the organizational and structural changes that we now come to expect in middle level schools: interdisciplinary teaming, looping, multiyear teams, advisory programs, and exploratory or allied arts programs, integrative curriculum, project-based and field-based learning, and alternative assessment. This has led key professional middle school organizations, such as the National Middle School Association (1995), to offer their own recommendations to middle schools:
Developmentally Responsive Middle Level Schools Are Characterized By:
Therefore, Developmentally Responsive Middle Level Schools Provide:
"High expectations for all," "Curriculum that is challenging, integrative, and exploratory," "Varied teaching and learning approaches," and "Assessment and evaluation that promote learning." These aren't recommendations which lend themselves to a weak focus on academics and achievement. These are recommendations which place a strong focus on scholastic achievement. These ideas are consistent with recommendations from the Maine Department of Education (1997), the National Association of Secondary School Principals (1985), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989), the National Commission on Social Studies in Schools (1989), the National Council of Mathematics Teachers (1989), the Search Institute (Scales 1996), and the National Commission of Music Education (1991). The NMSA curriculum recommendations are also consistent with the research on what motivates students to learn (see Muir 1998a and 1998b, and Anderman & Midgley 1997), and on the research on closing the achievement gap for at-risk and underachieving students (see North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 1997, or Williams 1996). The curriculum recommendations are in line with those suggested by other Middle Level educators. When Arnold (1990) closely examined 80 exemplary middle level projects, he found at least eight principles of solid middle level curriculum development:
When Jim Beane (1993) conducted a scholarly examination of purposes and aims of schools for early adolescents, he concluded that the following guidelines should govern middle level curriculum:
Similarly, John Arnold's (1993) theory of an empowering middle school curriculum included the following principles:
It is important to remember that middle level educators explore the intellectual, moral, physical, emotional/psychological, and social changes their students go through, not as an excuse to teach less, as Bradley fears, but as a framework from which they can teach more. Middle level teachers do this by identifying and applying practices compatible with those changes. If students are at a time in their lives when they are trying to figure out who they are, then give them assignments which let them explore their family histories or their future careers. If they are at a time in their lives when they are beginning to want the responsibilities of adulthood, then give them significant choices and responsibilities in the classroom, or let them identify and help solve problems within their own communities. If their bodies are changing, making it uncomfortable to sit still, use teaching activities which allow them to move around. If students are developmentally interested in social interactions with their peers, then let them work together in small groups where that interaction can be purposeful. In the middle level classic Young Adolescent Development And School Practices: Promoting Harmony, Van Hoose and Strahan (1988) identify the following school practices which promote harmony with early adolescents: Competence and Achievement
Self-exploration and Definition
Social Interaction with Peers and Adults
Physical Activity
Participation in School and Community Activities
Routine, Limits, and Structure
Diversity
Opportunities to Explore Concepts and Generate Ideas from Concrete Experiences
Opportunities to Explore Values and Decision-making
The ideas in these curriculum recommendations are not new to education. In the 1930's, 30 high schools were given license to experiment with their programs. In what Ellis and Fouts (1993, p. 155) refer to as "what is generally considered to be the best program evaluation ever conducted," the Commission on the Relation of School and College conducted the Eight Year Study (1932-1940), following the schools and their students. The study closely matched the 30 progressive or experimental high schools with traditional comparison schools. The findings (Aikin 1942) concluded that students from the schools were as prepared, or better, for college than their traditional classmates. In fact, the more the experimental schools had programs like those described in NMSA's curriculum recommendations, the better the students did. The Commission's list of recommendations based on the findings of the study include the following (Aikin 1942, p. 138):
College officials also followed the students from the 30 schools throughout their college careers. [S]o far as these data are significant, the students from the schools whose pattern of program differed most from the conventional were very distinctly superior to those from the more conventional type of school.... It looks as if the stimulus and the initiative which the less conventional approach to secondary school education affords sends on to college better human material than we have obtained in the past. (Hawkes 1940, p. 150, emphasis added). Does It Work? The real question, of course, is does the Middle Level concept really work. Is it so much philosophy and wishful thinking, or does it really impact the academic achievement of early adolescents? Is there any recent evidence for Middle Schools? Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, and Flowers (1997) explored these questions. They closely examined Illinois schools involved in school reform around the Turning Points recommendations. They started with 11 schools in 1991 and, as the project grew, were studying 73 schools by 1996. This figure represents nearly 35,000 students. Breaking schools into one of three levels of implementation (low, intermediate, and high), the study examined each categoryÕs performance on achievement tests, teacher ratings of student behavioral problems, student self-reports of worry, fear, and self-esteem, and improvement in achievement test scores from the sixth to the eighth grade. On all four measures, intermediate level of implementation schools performed better than low implementation schools, and high implementation schools performed better than intermediate implementation schools. "[I]t does appear that our most fully implemented schools are dramatically different - and better - places for students to learn and teachers to teach than those at lower levels of implementation" (Felner, et. al. 1997, p. 543). This was especially clear for at-risk students. The achievement and adjustment scores for high-risk students dropped by half a standard deviation in low implementation schools, but gained almost three-quarters of a standard deviation in highly implemented schools. So What's Going On? It's hard to tell exactly what the source of the difficulties are in the districts highlighted in Bradley's article. One source may be issues of instructional strategies. Both followers and critics of the middle school movement recognize that "change in instructional and curricular practices in schools has moved forward far more slowly than change in structural areas" (Felner, et. al. 1997, p. 528). Clearly, this is the case in Howard County. As Bradley (1998, p. 41) points out: "We have not had the quality of instruction in Howard County,Ó [K-12 instructional coordinator, Alice] Haskins says bluntly. ÒItÕs not the middle school movementÑitÕs the people. You can go into classroom after classroom and see teachers say, 'Open the book and read the problems.'" In fact, the lack of instructional changes may explain why "middle school teachers complained that students thought school and grades didnÕt matter" (Bradley 1998, p. 41). Muir (1994) reported that conventional teaching strategies led bright eighth graders to believe:
Even nearly 70 years ago, there was concern that schools didn't apply to practice what was known about how people learn. In 1930, the Commission on the Relation of School and College examined secondary school performance (Aiken 1942). Although the Commission was fully aware of the achievements of America's (then fairly new) high schools, their study revealed numerous areas needing improvement. Among other things, the study noted how there was little connection between teaching and what was known then about learning: Schools failed to create conditions necessary for effective learning. In spite of greater understanding of the ways in which human beings learn, teachers persisted in the discredited practice of assigning tasks meaningless to most pupils and of listening to recitations. The work was all laid out to be done. The teacher's job was to see that the pupil learned what he was supposed to learn. The student's purposes were not enlisted and his concerns were not taken into account. All this was in violation of what had been discovered about the learning process. The classroom was formal and completely dominated by the teacher. Rarely did students and teacher work together upon problems of genuine significance. Seldom did students strive ahead under their own power at tasks which really meant something to them. (Aiken 1942, pp. 5-6) Instructional changes are our best hope of improving achievement. Dewey recognized this at the turn of the century: Our whole policy of compulsory education rises or falls with our ability to make school life an interesting and absorbing experience to the child. In one sense there is no such thing as compulsory education. We can have compulsory physical attendance at school; but education comes only through willing attention to and participation in school activities. It follows that the teacher must select these activities with reference to the child's interests, powers, and capacities. In no other way can she guarantee that the child will be present. (Dewey 1913, p. ix) But if conventional practice does not achieve this, then teachers need to be shown how. Teacher training becomes the critical component to making instructional changes. Teachers can hardly be expected to adopt new strategies without adequate models and training in their use. Bradley points out that the Howard County instructional coordinator "faults the district for not spending enough on professional development" (Bradley 1998, p. 41). Even the parents critical of the county's middle schools recognize that the teachers haven't gotten enough training: The committee took a dim view of the countyÕs generally heterogeneous classes, arguing that both gifted students and those needing remediation were getting short shrift and that teachers had never been trained to group an academically mixed population for instruction. (Bradley 1998, p. 41) Training is also critical because the scientific evidence (Felner, et. al. 1997) points at comprehensive implementation of the Turning Points recommendations as having much higher achievement gains in Reading and Math (almost half a standard deviation higher!) than schools which have little or no implementation of the recommendations. In fact, Felner and his associates warn against a superficial approach to implementing middle level concepts: One of the clearest patterns that has emerged from our data is the difference between a "checklist"-based implementation of structural changes and implementation that is "idea-driven" - that attempts to reflect the underlying constructs and issues in the Turning Points recommendations. (Felner, et. al. 1997, p. 547) They go on to point out the problems which arise: Our findings indicate that, when these variables are inadequately implemented, they are associated with a variety of problems. If the parents of Howard County are interested in academic achievement, then perhaps they should not look to doing away with middle level initiatives, but rather to a more thoughtful and comprehensive implementation. In fact, implementing more Middle Level practices appears to be the solution in Howard County. Burke, the Patuxent Valley principal in Bradley's article used key middle level innovations (block scheduling, common planning time, and enrichment classes) as interventions to improve discipline and achievement. But Burke's work was presented as movement away from middle level concepts. Perhaps parents just don't like that with which they are unfamiliar. One of the two consultants mentioned briefly in the Bradley article, has told me that it almost seemed that the parents had made up their minds about middle schools before ever conducting their study (E. Brazee, personal communication, May 22, 1998). He says that he wishes now that the two groups had worked together from the beginning. Brazee reports that the consultants found evidence of academic focus (at times too strong) and it was only at the conclusion of the two studies that the parents even began to ask questions about instructional issues, like tracking. Bradley makes no mention of the findings of the two consultants. |