I've been thinking a great deal about our first face-to-face (F2F) class and the responses you all have made to several Moodle forums, the original VoiceThread, your blogs, and comments in class. Very interesting how major themes migrate to the top of any discussion...and the topics that you all care about—individually and collectively—did just that. So, at the risk of being redundant (since I mentioned these in my week #4 podcast), I will talk about each of them here because I think they DO represent some of the major questions about middle level education in 2010. The order here is strictly random, although by the end of our study together this semester, I think we will have an order for this list.
• How could we ignore technology and learning, especially given our involvement in MLTI since 2002. MLTI has changed middle level education in Maine more than any other event, initiative, or program. Hands down! No question. MLTI has changed how we teach, how our students learn, and it has raised our expectations for student learning along the way. Lots of issues in this large umbrella topic, of course, but one is more important than all the lessons we've learned from MLTI. Want to know what it is? When MLTI was rolled out, the time from roll-out to implementation was very, very short. Under Bette Manchester's direction (with lots of help from Maine educators) we mounted a massive and effective professional development effort that prepared middle level teachers to (happily) embrace and use the laptops to further learning. This was a huge lesson to learn...that with a singular purpose...and a sharp focus on a goal...we could make such a huge improvement in learning in a relatively short time. What if we applied this "get it done" mentality to every problem/issue we have in education?
• A number of you noted the lack of Maine middle level certification...and that surprised me. Not that it isn't important, middle level teacher certification underlies everything else in this post, but that it so rarely comes up. Several groups over the last 25 years have proposed a ml certificate but that suggestion has gone nowhere! We did have a Middle Level Endorsement for a number of years and that included knowledge about curriculum, instruction, assessment; knowledge of the young adolescent...and several other topics in four different courses. But, the ML Endorsement morphed into something totally different with the advent of NCLB when it became strictly a content issue. Now, ml teachers need 24 credits in a content area to be "highly qualified"...but no more concern that they also know about the students they teach or any of the rest of the ml focus.
• The third theme is the sticking point. How do we fulfill the goals of middle level education AND respond to all the (seemingly separate and sometimes contradictory) initiatives and mandates that are thrown at us from our school districts, the state, and federal requirements? Simply stated, how do we compromise essential middle level practices with NCLB and state testing requirements? At a time when schools are cutting anything that doesn't directly "prepare" students for the many tests they are required to take, where is there time in the day for advisory programs, common planning time for teaching teams, integrated curriculum...and so much more? Can we do both? Should we do both? Or, are these two totally different directions? I think there are many points of compromise here...and I also think that these two points of view can work together. Let's find out how.
• Given the three previous themes, what is the future trajectory of middle level education? Where has it been? What has it accomplished? Where is it going? When we talk about the middle school concept (or ml philosophy) what do we mean? Why are some districts abandoning the ms concept while others eagerly embrace it? Middle school is often referred to as the "bridge" between elementary and secondary education. Why are we unwilling to pay attention to the unique needs of young adolescents, as we so readily serve the needs of children and older adolescents?
• And here is where the rubber meets the road— leadership and advocacy. What can each of us do in our schools, districts, and communities to further the cause of education...to provide the best possible learning for every student. We are finishing an incredible week with the release of Waiting for Superman and the nationwide conversations stimulated by the many activities of Education Nation. Will this impetus die on the vine...or will we take the initiative and move ahead? We need both advocacy for and leadership in middle level education more than ever before. We need you to be an advocate for young adolescents in your own school and district, but we also need you to be a voice of leadership at the state and national levels as well.
What themes would you add to this list?
1 comment:
Theme # 3 is one that gets my blood roiling. Student achievement and ML philosophy are not an antithesis of one another. Ten years ago and prior to NCLB, the authors of Turning Points 2000 were very clear that job # 1 of middle grades schools was to ensure each student’s success. They also recognized that achieving this goal was a complex process. Their schema contained seven components:
• Curriculum grounded in standards and relevant to students: We y have a lot of standards, but the delivery of the curriculum is rarely relevant to students. (See the Common Core’s Reading List-- http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards Appendix B) Bright Futures Core Practice # 1
• Instructional methods that prepare all students to achieve at all levels: How much time do districts spend developing effective instructional practices in middle grades classrooms? I see a lot of money being spent on” fix-it” programs rather than making the initial instruction more effective. Bright Futures Core Practices2,3,4 & 5.
• Organize relationships for learning: Teaming has been and remains a powerful practice when teachers collaborate in meaningful and systematic ways to address learning needs of their students. Again we’ve had research for years that shows that students on teams achieve at higher levels than others. (http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/Summary21/tabid/250/Default.aspx and http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/StudentAchievement/tabid/276/Default.aspx) Bright Futures Core Practice # 8
• Govern democratically involving all school staff members: In schools with a top-down, my-way or the-highway attitudes, a lot of staff and community energy is spent in going underground to fight change. When the leadership team exhibits courageous and collaborative leadership, change happens. Bright Futures Core Practice # 6.
• Staff is expert in young adolescent development and participates in on-going professional development: With all of the recent cognitive and brain research why is understanding your students’ development stage still not considered important in the hiring process? To paraphrase Chris Toy—I didn’t go to a pediatric dentist to have a new crown put on my back molar, nor do I go to a pediatrician for health care? Bright Futures Core Practice # 10 & 12.
• Safe and healthy school environment: Stress leads to the excretion of cortisol; cortisol can block the retrieval of information and affect the ability to organize ideas and concepts. Emotional well being is linked to achievement, relationships are important, feeling connected is imperative—why would we cut aspects of ML programs that work to create safe and healthy school environments? Bright Futures Core Practice 7.
• Involve parents and community: The newest issue of NMSA’s Middle Ground has several good articles on this topic. Too often parents are seen as adversaries—that attitude needs to be turned around. Bright Futures Core Practice 11.
I didn’t start out to write a comment longer than the original post, but this is such an important topic. Middle level publications (This We Believe, Turning Points, & Breaking Ranks in the Middle and now Maine’s Bright Futures), middle level leaders, and the results of a multitude of studies have been pointing out effective practices for schools educating young adolescents for years. Unfortunately too many policy and decisions makers, administrators and teachers either chose to ignore or were uninformed of this information. So student achievement and learning in the middle grades has remained static overall. We missed the boat too often in developing good educational programming for our 10-15 year olds. It’s time to launch a new ship appropriately designed. In closing I would suggest that the question is not whether middle level goals and the current push for success for each child are compatible, but how can we update effective middle level practices to be responsive to the realities of the 21st century?
Post a Comment