Literature Review Divergent orientations to educating America s youth lie at the heart of the struggle to reform middle level schools in ways that best serve the needs of adolescents. Who are these children? What do they need? And what can they learn? Answering these questions is essential if parents and educators are to create the schools adolescents need and deserve. Adolescent education became a focus of study in 1986 when the Carnegie Corporation of New York established the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (CCAD) to highlight the challenges of the adolescent years. In turn, the council established a task force to identify promising practices for the health and education of youth. Their findings, published in Turning Points (1989) were not positive, however, and led to the conclusion that: Middle grade schools junior high, intermediate, or middle schools are potentially society s most powerful force to recapture millions of youth adrift. Yet all too often they exacerbate the problems that youth face. A volatile mismatch exists between the organization and curriculum of middle grade schools and the intellectual, emotional and interpersonal needs of young adolescents. (p. 32) Just as academics start to get complex, school is the last thing on their minds. Vicki Clarke, College Place Middle School. In Competing Forces, by Jessica Portner, Education Week, October 2000. This mismatch impedes learning and preparation for adult life; it increases adolescents levels of risk and their vulnerability to a wide array of social-emotional problems and self-destructive behaviors. A Brief History of Middle Level Reform The Early Middle Level Movement Unlike the high school or elementary school, the junior high or middle school historically has operated without a firm philosophy, vision or direction. In 1900, the dominant grade level configuration for elementary and high schools in the United States was grades one through eight, and grades nine through 12. Unfortunately, as students graduated from the child-centered elementary school, they often failed to enter the subject-centered high school and instead simply dropped out to join the work force. With a high dropout rate and a surge in immigration, administrators in increasingly crowded city schools, legislators, school board members, and local officials considered alternative ways to house and educate the youth of the day. From the mid 1910 s through the 1920 s, many cities experimented with the junior high school, a grade seven through nine institution that was designed primarily to drive academic rigor down to the seventh grade and to discourage students from dropping out of school. The hope was that students who finished ninth grade the first official year of high school would be more likely to continue on to the tenth and eventually eleventh and twelfth grades. 7
By 1930, much had been written about the components of an exemplary junior high school but few innovations were in fact carried out. Also, the junior high in 1930 was plagued by the same problem that it faces today: matching appropriate programs for ninth graders with the requirements that the Carnegie Unit method of acquiring credits for high school graduation places on the system. In short, junior high administrators historically have found the practice of scheduling seventh and eighth graders into individual courses like high school easier than creating a separate program for pre-ninth graders. The net effect of this practice was that the junior high program, forced to accommodate ninth graders, typically followed a high school organizational model. There were some exceptions. Some schools adopted age-appropriate programs, such as exploratory experiences designed to allow a sampling of subject areas and skills; others emphasized guidance services to aid in academic, vocational and personal matters; still others offered participatory athletic and activity programs. However, these innovative practices represented the exception rather than the rule. This development was aided by the unfortunate, if not destructive, choice of the name junior to describe this middle level school. According to Melton (1984) using junior as an adjective practically assured that the school would become a miniature version of the real thing. The Middle Level in Mid-century Despite these obstacles, by 1950 the junior high school was here to stay. The number of junior high schools in the U.S. jumped from 2,268 in 1925 to 10,322 in 1947 and the movement solidified, although the curriculum, instructional practices and vision of the junior high school were topics of lively debate. The 1950 s was a difficult decade for American education. The post-war baby boom filled schools to capacity, often taxing the resources of communities as new schools were built rapidly and inexperienced teachers were hired to fill available teaching positions. Many previously accepted procedures were found badly in need of reform. Scientific discoveries, computer technology and defense-related needs focused the nation s attention on the problems and potential solutions for the crisis in public education. The launching of the Russian satellite, Sputnik, in 1957 and the accompanying cold war paranoia transformed educational reform from a societal problem to a public cause. The reaction to Sputnik was speedy and decisive. The most vocal educational reformers called for an academic response to the crisis: drive down quality curriculum to lower grades, step up academic requirements, increase the available pool of scientists and engineers, assure subject-matter competence of teachers, and construct teacher-proof lessons and curricula. Needless to say, this atmosphere was not one in which the whole child was considered important. Instead, emphasis was on knowledge acquired, skills learned, and concepts mastered. Predictably, some of the junior high reforms of the 1950 s, such as multi-period core blocks and teacher-student guidance programs, were discarded 8
in favor of departmentalization and a driving vision of content acquisition. Moreover, junior high schools became larger as administrators strived to meet the perceived need for specialized educational services, especially in fields such as science and mathematics. In short, schools were charged with producing scientists and engineers. Unfortunately, this effort was undertaken at the expense of assisting the underachiever, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the vocationally bound student. Perhaps unwittingly, these reforms established schools that were ripe for change as the political climate reversed direction in the 1960 s. While the theory behind departmentalization makes intuitive sense, the reality is that students are less likely to receive individual attention in academic and non-academic matters in a departmentalized model. This is especially true for younger students. With a six-period day with six subjects and six teachers, the twelve-year old entering junior high school is often shocked and bewildered. The child s home base, the selfcontained classroom of sixth grade, is gone in the departmentalized world of junior high school. Needless to say, many seventh graders are not successful in this type of environment. Predictably, the 1960 s reformers focused on organizational structure as fundamental to any significant improvement in the junior high school. The Modern Middle School To combat the perception of the junior high school as representative of a harsh climate of curricular and social rigidity, middle school proponents of the 1960 s suggested a number of organizational changes. The first proposals focused on grade level configuration. Eichorn s seminal work, The Middle School (1966), is often cited as the launching point of the middle school movement. Eichorn argued that the rapid physical, social, and psychological maturation of adolescents in the mid-20th century compared to maturation rates at the beginning of the century called for a reanalysis of the 6-3-3 grade level configuration. He advocated a 5-3-4 configuration with ninth graders (and their required Carnegie Units) moving to the high school. While Eichorn supplied the physiological and psychological rationale for change, several other scholars provided the organizational and policy details. Researchers including Alexander (1968; 1989), George (1993), Van Til (1967), and Erb (1987) suggested a number of significant middle level program changes, all of which were adopted in some form or another by scores of schools throughout the nation. First, interdisciplinary teams were created to match students with teachers who would share instructional duties. Second, advisor/advisee programs were established to treat the social and emotional development of children as a 9
separate, non-academic subject and to create a bond between each student and an adult advisor. Third, competitive interscholastic sports were trimmed down or replaced by no-cut, intramural sports. Fourth, the number of exploratory courses was expanded, but the depth and scope of many were reduced. Consequently, more students were allowed to sample a greater variety of course offerings. Fifth, modular schedules enabled teams of teachers to plan activities that exceeded the traditional 50-minute period, allowing for greater lesson depth. Last, teaching strategies were expanded to meet the needs of young adolescent learners. Cooperative learning; interdisciplinary units; hands-on, lab-oriented lessons; and field experiences in the community are examples of activities advocated by proponents of middle school reform. Middle schools, uncommon in 1960, have grown steadily since then. Eighty percent of seventh through ninth graders in 1960 were enrolled in a junior high school. By 1986 that figure had dropped to 29 percent and has continued to drop since then. Middle school proponents have convinced the majority of practitioners, academicians and researchers that a tri-level system of common school operations elementary, middle level and high school is the most appropriate arrangement for meeting the unique needs of children at all three levels. Middle Schools in the Spotlight With the publishing of Turning Points in 1989, the middle school movement turned a corner. By securing the support of the prestigious Carnegie Corporation, middle school proponents moved from the fringes to the mainstream of educational reform. Turning Points (1989) lent credibility to the work of the previous 20 years by legitimizing ideas such as interdisciplinary teaming, advisor/advisee programs and exploratory classes. It also offered essential principles for improving middle grades education. A school following these principles focuses: squarely on the characteristics and needs of young adolescents. It creates a community of adults and young people embedded in networks of support and responsibility that enhance the commitment of students to learning. In partnership with youth-serving and community organizations it offers multiple sites and multiple methods for fostering the learning and health of adolescents. The combined efforts create a community of shared purpose among those concerned that all young adolescents are prepared for productive adult lives, especially those at risk of being left behind. (Turning Points, 1989, p. 36) The updated Turning Points 2000 combines research on middle grade school improvement since 1989 with wisdom from practice to set forth a comprehensive model of 10
effective schooling for adolescents. Seven principles underlying this model, summarized in Turning Points 2000, are presented below: 1. Teach a curriculum grounded in rigorous, public academic standards for what students should know and be able to do, relevant to the concerns of adolescents and based on how students learn best. Considerations of both excellence and equity should guide every decision regarding what will be taught. Curriculum should be based on content standards and organized around concepts and principles. A mix of assessment methods should allow students to demonstrate what they know and what they can do. 2. Use instructional methods designed to prepare all students to achieve higher standards and become lifelong learners. To be effective, instruction should mesh with three other aspects of teaching and learning: the standards and resulting curriculum outlining what students should learn; the assessments students will use to demonstrate their knowledge and skills; and the needs, interests and learning styles of the students themselves. Classes should include students of diverse needs, achievement levels, interests, and learning styles, and instruction should be differentiated to take advantage of the diversity, not ignore it. 3. Staff middle grade schools with teachers who are experts at teaching young adolescents, and engage teachers in ongoing, targeted professional development opportunities. Schools should hire staff specifically trained for the middle grades and should provide mentors and induction to teachers new to the profession or the school. Schools should also engage teachers in ongoing professional development driven by results, based on standards, and embedded in their daily work that yields improvements in student learning. A facilitator, either full- or part-time, should coordinate professional development opportunities. 4. Organize relationships for learning to create a climate of intellectual development and a caring community of shared educational purpose. Large schools should be divided into smaller learning communities, with teams of teachers and students as the underlying organizational structure. To ensure strong teams, schools must pay attention to the nature and quality of interactions among teachers and student team members, ensuring that teams continually concentrate their efforts on achieving high standards for both teaching and learning. Schools should also attend to critical elements affecting team success, such as team size, composition, time for planning, and continuity. 5. Govern democratically, through direct or representative participation by all school staff members, the adults who know the students best. All decisions should focus relentlessly on attaining the goal of success for every student and should be based on data drawn from various sources. Schools should be proactive, not reactive, in their efforts to ensure every student s success, using a living school improvement plan to direct actions in both the short and the long term. 11