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.