Did Maine ever have a "golden age" of middle level education? At the risk of remembering a series of events that might be stronger in my perception (and memory), I would have to say that the years from 1985 - 1995 were pretty good ones for middle level schools in Maine.
Many middle level schools were on the move...investing in professional development by sending teams to a number of professional development experiences— Middle Level Education Institute at UMaine, MAMLE Conference, NELMS Annual Conference, and many others. Schools were also bringing in many national consultants to work in their districts...John Lounsbury, Nancy Doda, Sue Swaim, to name just three...on a variety of issues and programs from advisory to teaming to integrated curriculum to parent involvement. Graduate classes at UMaine and (I assume other colleges and universities) were full with students pursuing a concentration in middle level education. In short, a bustling, forward-thinking time for middle level teachers and their schools.
And Maine was on the national (middle level) map; first for not getting bogged down in the middle school versus junior high school argument, then later, ignoring the K-8 versus middle level controversy. No big deal here...we've always had more K-8 buildings than stand alone middle level schools and we have always understood that the grade configuration in a particular building was NOT the deciding factor!
With a number of excellent teachers and principals in Maine leading the charge, Mainers were responding to the challenges of providing schools for a student population that had been largely ignored... and trying to do it right. Perhaps the fact that most Maine middle level schools are relatively small gave us a leg up on others states with schools with 1500 to 2000 students. Or maybe it was simply that Maine middle level schools, no matter what they are called, have always been student-centered?
This time of heightened middle level growth was characterized by three distinct areas of focus (ok, not in every school, but in enough schools to make it noticeable). And these three areas were recognized nationally during this time.
1. Schools moving to the middle school model worked very hard to balance both learning and the personal development needs of young adolescents. At a time when middle schools were getting heavy criticism for too many emphasis on the personal development side, teachers and administrators recognized that these two sides of the coin were really one coin after all. (In spite of the persistent stereotype of middle level schools as "soft on academics" there has been no research evidence that this is accurate.)
2. What was called the "curriculum conversation" really took off in the early 1990s with Jim Beane's book, The Middle School Curriculum—From Rhetoric to Reality." Curriculum integration in Maine's middle level schools was right at the forefront of these ongoing "conversations" and Mainers contributed greatly to both the research and the discussion. Unfortunately, just as schools were doing more curriculum integration with greater success, the standards movement, common assessments, NCLB, changed schools dramatically. And curriculum integration faded from our memory...in favor of increased time for test preparation.
3. A third contribution that Maine made to the national scene was in promoting and using smaller, partner teams (as Chris Stevenson at UVM) called them. The four or five-person team in a typical middle school never reached its promise of collaborating beyond administrivia, particularly to develop deeper levels of curriculum integration. But, teams of two or three teachers working together were able to move past separate subject stubbornness to create teams where students focused on learning...and not merely subjects.
One more very important point about all of this early work. I believe that much of the middle school program work done between 1985-1995 set the stage for the biggest challenge of all—the Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI). Middle level schools were ready for this huge opportunity, recognizing that MLTI would change middle level education in Maine forever...as it certainly has done. There is a reason why MLTI started with 7th and 8th grades...young adolescents and their teachers and administrators were ready because they are risk takers, enthusiastic, committed to learning, and forward thinking.
But, where are we now? Are we headed back up or are we on a plateau waiting for better days ahead? And what can each of us do to make sure that we provide the type of learning situations that each and everyone of our students need?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
What's in a name?
It's happening again. The same tired stereotypes, cliches, and lack of knowledge about middle school history and research has hit the newsstands and the blogosphere. As an example take a look at this article by Jay Mathews, education writer for the Washington Post. And for even more interesting reading, read some of the 175 responses, including letters from our own Chris Toy in Maine and Rick Wormeli. On the positive side, in these letters you begin to see the fantastic misunderstanding of middle level education in this country. But apparently, no one wants to do any homework to find out the truth. And if you wonder what middle schools Mathews refers to, an even more incredible article is found in Educationnext, "The Middle School Mess."
Both authors base their arguments on the oldest of middle school cliches, that the middle school concept has depressed student learning, at least according to standardized test scores, because middle schools have focused on personal development rather than academics. Or as Peter Meyer, author of "The Middle School Mess," states, "Academic mediocrity was not a hard case to make, since middle-school proponents had given, at best, lip service to academics almost from the inception of the model."
Really! I've been in hundreds of middle schools in the U.S. in the last 35 years and have taught and talked to thousands of middle level teachers. And while the "soft on academics" argument is often dusted off and spouted as if it were true by non middle school educators, I've seen very, very few instances where a school (or a teacher) deemphasized academic outcomes. I've looked and looked and have never found any research evidence that this is true. But the myth persists.
It is highly ironic that such critics believe that any school with the descriptor "middle school" in its name is doing, has done, or will do those things that the middle school concept calls for. National Middle School Association (www.nmsa.org), National Association for Secondary School Principals (www.nassp.org), and the National Forun for Accelerating Middle Grades Progress (www.mgforum.org) all speak with one voice about what middle level schools should be. Separately, they have defined the essential qualities of middle level schools that begin with attention to high level academic learning (of course!!) but go well beyond academics to include skills and knowledge that prepares good citizens who will contribute to our country and our world in myriad positive ways. Some of those things won't show up on the NCLB-mandated test results, but they are essential nonetheless.
Ok, let's be honest about this. Middle schools (and junior high schools before them) have been the unwanted siblings of the K-12 education system. Elementary schools with innocent, cute, and interested children and high schools with adolescents whose sports provide many enjoyable hours of diversion for local communities, are the darlings of the K-12 system. Critics, unable or unwilling to find out what middle level schools are really all about, land on middle schools without really knowing the purposes, functions, and roles of such schools.
While critics insist that middle level schools have failed because they have adopted the tenets of middle level schools—a rigorous and integrated curriculum, team organization, and a culture of advocacy for every student (among others)—the irony is that lowered achievement on standardized tests has happened EXACTLY because thousands of middle level schools while taking the name middle school, have not adopted its essential components.
But this is ancient history. What can we do about this? What are our responsibilities? What can we do in our schools to turn this around? In the next installment, we'll answer each of these questions.
Both authors base their arguments on the oldest of middle school cliches, that the middle school concept has depressed student learning, at least according to standardized test scores, because middle schools have focused on personal development rather than academics. Or as Peter Meyer, author of "The Middle School Mess," states, "Academic mediocrity was not a hard case to make, since middle-school proponents had given, at best, lip service to academics almost from the inception of the model."
Really! I've been in hundreds of middle schools in the U.S. in the last 35 years and have taught and talked to thousands of middle level teachers. And while the "soft on academics" argument is often dusted off and spouted as if it were true by non middle school educators, I've seen very, very few instances where a school (or a teacher) deemphasized academic outcomes. I've looked and looked and have never found any research evidence that this is true. But the myth persists.
It is highly ironic that such critics believe that any school with the descriptor "middle school" in its name is doing, has done, or will do those things that the middle school concept calls for. National Middle School Association (www.nmsa.org), National Association for Secondary School Principals (www.nassp.org), and the National Forun for Accelerating Middle Grades Progress (www.mgforum.org) all speak with one voice about what middle level schools should be. Separately, they have defined the essential qualities of middle level schools that begin with attention to high level academic learning (of course!!) but go well beyond academics to include skills and knowledge that prepares good citizens who will contribute to our country and our world in myriad positive ways. Some of those things won't show up on the NCLB-mandated test results, but they are essential nonetheless.
Ok, let's be honest about this. Middle schools (and junior high schools before them) have been the unwanted siblings of the K-12 education system. Elementary schools with innocent, cute, and interested children and high schools with adolescents whose sports provide many enjoyable hours of diversion for local communities, are the darlings of the K-12 system. Critics, unable or unwilling to find out what middle level schools are really all about, land on middle schools without really knowing the purposes, functions, and roles of such schools.
While critics insist that middle level schools have failed because they have adopted the tenets of middle level schools—a rigorous and integrated curriculum, team organization, and a culture of advocacy for every student (among others)—the irony is that lowered achievement on standardized tests has happened EXACTLY because thousands of middle level schools while taking the name middle school, have not adopted its essential components.
But this is ancient history. What can we do about this? What are our responsibilities? What can we do in our schools to turn this around? In the next installment, we'll answer each of these questions.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Emptying the inbox...hoping for someone to try out one of these ideas
Just back from NMSA's 37th annual conference, held this year in Baltimore. The conference is always a good time to think and reflect and I often come back with several pages of things that must be done. Here are a couple of my 2010 NMSA thoughts...
• We need to figure out a way to use the terrific expertise of retired teachers in our communities. I spoke with a friend at the conference who is two months into her retirement (as an excellent middle school math teacher) and is at loose ends...trying to adjust to retirement. She taught for 39 years for heaven's sake and still has a passion for kids, teaching, and schools. How can we use her to help us in schools. Not teaching kids everyday...she has done this, but perhaps by serving as mentor to younger teachers, maybe as liaison with parents and community, or curriculum writer. Would someone pick up on this idea in your community and try it out. This is urgent! We need these people...and they still want to contribute.
• Is anyone talking about FUN anymore? Certainly not in schools where testing, preparing for tests, test scores, resting up to take another test, test score comparisons, and narrowing the curriculum so more tests can be given are all the rage. Ok, you get the idea. We need to bring back fun to schools—for students, teachers, principals, and parents. In New England where the Puritan Ethic still rules, we often don't talk about schools as fun places, but it has gotten even worse than that. While NCLB and the testing movement are easy targets (and so richly deserved), we have to accept some of the responsibility ourselves for putting fun back into learning. You know how to do it...so try something out and tell me what you did. Please...
• You've heard about slow eating, slow exercising, and even slow driving. I think we need a new initiative in schools and I am calling is "SLOW DAYS". A slow day is a relaxed, but purposeful day at school that does not feel like a sprint. At its basic level, a slow day allows students and teachers to do what they need to do—learn, explore, interact, collaborate, and produce great work—but in a manner that allows thinking, reflection, and calm. I know this is counter-intuitive to the acceleration that we usually call for and perhaps slow has too many negative connotation. But you get the idea. Let's slow things down, perhaps do fewer things, have fewer classes, but meet longer with them, have fewer projects where subjects work together, and time for students and teachers to work together. This can be done in nearly any school. How might you get this started in your school?
Please let me know what you think about these "great" ideas and more importantly, tell me what you have done to try one or more of them out.
• We need to figure out a way to use the terrific expertise of retired teachers in our communities. I spoke with a friend at the conference who is two months into her retirement (as an excellent middle school math teacher) and is at loose ends...trying to adjust to retirement. She taught for 39 years for heaven's sake and still has a passion for kids, teaching, and schools. How can we use her to help us in schools. Not teaching kids everyday...she has done this, but perhaps by serving as mentor to younger teachers, maybe as liaison with parents and community, or curriculum writer. Would someone pick up on this idea in your community and try it out. This is urgent! We need these people...and they still want to contribute.
• Is anyone talking about FUN anymore? Certainly not in schools where testing, preparing for tests, test scores, resting up to take another test, test score comparisons, and narrowing the curriculum so more tests can be given are all the rage. Ok, you get the idea. We need to bring back fun to schools—for students, teachers, principals, and parents. In New England where the Puritan Ethic still rules, we often don't talk about schools as fun places, but it has gotten even worse than that. While NCLB and the testing movement are easy targets (and so richly deserved), we have to accept some of the responsibility ourselves for putting fun back into learning. You know how to do it...so try something out and tell me what you did. Please...
• You've heard about slow eating, slow exercising, and even slow driving. I think we need a new initiative in schools and I am calling is "SLOW DAYS". A slow day is a relaxed, but purposeful day at school that does not feel like a sprint. At its basic level, a slow day allows students and teachers to do what they need to do—learn, explore, interact, collaborate, and produce great work—but in a manner that allows thinking, reflection, and calm. I know this is counter-intuitive to the acceleration that we usually call for and perhaps slow has too many negative connotation. But you get the idea. Let's slow things down, perhaps do fewer things, have fewer classes, but meet longer with them, have fewer projects where subjects work together, and time for students and teachers to work together. This can be done in nearly any school. How might you get this started in your school?
Please let me know what you think about these "great" ideas and more importantly, tell me what you have done to try one or more of them out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)