January 10, 2007--Hormones, Hormones

Everyone’s talking again about Middle School.

In recent decades considerable attention has been turned to improving elementary and high schools. Literally in the middle, and largely forgotten as various waves of reform have swept through the schools below and above them, middle schools are now back on people’s minds. Because there is overwhelming evidence that they don’t work—whatever academic gains that have resulted from improved primary schools (sadly very little) and whatever has been improved at the secondary level (even less), these schools in the middle are generally agreed to be unmanageable (the students run wild) and the kids unteachable (blame it on raging hormones). (See linked NY Times story for the latest.)

In fact, historically, middle schools, or junior high schools if you prefer, were all about hormones. They began to come into existence, they were invented during the first decade of the 20th century (the first one opened in 1909 in Columbus, Ohio) as a result of the “scientific evidence” that children between the ages of 12 to 15 were so distinctly biologically and emotionally different than younger and older students that they would benefit by being in a school of their own that was dedicated to them and which employed pedagogical methods and provided emotional support that would take this biology and development psychology into consideration.

Sounds good so far, but why then have they turned out to be such an academic wasteland?

It might help if you were to begin by taking a quick look at some of the educational rhetoric and ideology that has guided their organizational structure, influenced the shape of their course of study, and influenced their methodology. (Fair warning—before proceeding, check your gag reflex to be certain it’s working.)

Between ages 12 and 15, students need to develop their identity, take risks (and yet be confident there is a safety net), and be challenged to become more independently organized.

Thus, the Middle School is--

--Learner Centered: focused on needs and interests of students, with co-constructed learning Collaboratively-organized: team-teaching, with strong pastoral connections to students
--Outcome-based: explicit expectations of what skills, knowledge and values are required to be demonstrated
--Flexibly-constructed: learning contextualized in the needs of the local community, with creative organization of resources, timetabling, and rooms
--Ethically-aware: values are foregrounded in relationships between teachers, students and the wider school community.
--Community-oriented: partnerships between the school and parents, local organizations and businesses
--Adequately resourced: skilled teachers have the support of quality facilities
--Strategically linked: interactively occupying the space between the primary and secondary phases of schooling.

Perhaps lost in translation, but I suspect more lost in reality, does any of this sound familiar to you? If you went to middle school or have had children in enrollment, I suspect that what is called for was totally absent from the middle schools with which you are familiar. “Learner-centered”? Hardly. Collaboratively-organized”? I’ve never witnessed that. “Learning contextualized”? Assuming I knew what this means, again, I’ve never seen this in practice. Nor have I encountered anything that was “values foregrounded,” much less “adequately resourced” or “strategically linked” to the elementary and high schools.

In other words, whatever the validity of the claim that there should be middle schools in the first place (and even that is being called into question), I’ve visited dozens and none of what was supposed to be happening there ever was.

So what are our educators thinking now that they, after 98 years, have “discovered” we have a problem? Some are suggesting that we disestablish them altogether and go back to a K-8 elementary school where graduates move directly to high school since the evidence shows that middle schools sap self-esteem and foster bullying. Others claim that the problem is with adolescence itself—there is very little that can be done to effectively engage and thus teach these biological creatures.

But since we unfortunately can’t disestablish adolescence, these educators call for us to figure out a way to make the middle school curriculum compete more effectively with the allure of pop culture. They thus call for more academic rigor, higher standards, and more qualified teachers. Rigor versus YouTube and My Space and iPods? What do you think?

Maybe some of our education leaders and policy makers should take a drive up to Canada, being sure to take their passports with them, to take a look at what they’re doing with kids of this age since there is strong evidence that they are doing a much better job than we.

And while up there they could pick up a supply of Lipitor for me—as you know it’s less than half the price than at my local Duane Reade.