Problems in American Education - Part 17: Middle School vs. Junior High School
Well, it has been almost two weeks now, and I am ready to go again, refreshed after fulfilling a lifetime desire to vacation in Alaska. The trip was great, including the cruise through the “inside passage,” but now it’s time to get back into harness. Let’s restart with a topic that should not be too long in explanation and get back into the “swing of things.”
Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s a movement started that made great sense. The old concept of the junior high school started to move into a period of decline and it was replaced slowly, but surely and in most school districts, with the middle school. The reason it made great sense was because it was no contest - a “no brainer” as it would be termed today. The old junior high school idea was based on just about nothing at all, no theory, no research. It existed out of confusion early in the twentieth century about what to do with the middle years. Early theorists knew we needed a primary or elementary level to teach basic skills and information. They were also pretty certain about the importance of a school that would finish the job, a high school, the culminating institution for public education, that should be designed graduate a finished product.
They were understandably confused, however, about what to do with the middle level student, the adolescent. The undpredictability of kids at that age and the widely scattered perceptions of achievement at that point made the creation of a viable model for their education next to impossible, or so they thought. They had to provide something, however, for the 13- to 15-year olds; so, lacking a better idea, they decided to take the high school model and scale it down a peg or two. Hence, we had the creation of the junior high school, a school that was neither here nor there and that tried to bridge the gap between childhood and young adulthood.
The problem was that adolescense was exactly the wrong time to artificially place an institution that was not really based on a clear mission. Aside from infancy, it was the time of the fastest and most significant growth of children - physically, emotionally, and intellectually. It was the time when most students were attempting to make that all-important jump from concrete thinking to abstract thinking. In short, it was and is probably the time when children are the most vulnerable and confused, at least as far as creating foundations for their adult lives.
The new middle school movement tried wisely to address this problem by creating schools that were particularly designed to deal with transition. In what is probably the most popular grade configuration for middle schools, the ideal school took students in grades 6 to 9 and gradually sought to bring them through the stages I just mentioned - taking a childlike student entering grade 6 and nurturing that student while moving into a position by the end of grade 8 when the student was ready for the independence and rigors of high school. Unlike the junior high school, this movement and this model were based on sound theory and research about the needs of children at the ages and grades in question. Emphasis was to be put on process education and social interaction skills, seeking to help students to become active learners and encouraging them to prepare to hit the ground running when they moved to the next level and would be faced with more advanced courses and specialization.
Without question, the middle school has been a great success in achieving the goals that were in need of mission change. Ironically, however, the movement to the middle school model was and is seriously challenged in some circles, even today - 30 to 40 years after we saw the change in names. The reluctance to move in this direction comes from several concerns. One relates to confusion about what grade levels should be included. As noted, the most common middle school structure dropped grade levels from the old junior high from 7-9 to 6-8, but politics, financial considerations (probably most common as schools struggled to fit a new concept into existing school buildings with enrollments they could not control), and other factors brought about other configurations. Some middle schools were only 7-8. Others were 5-8. Still others were 6-9. Others called themselves intermediate schools, arguing that an earlier transition needed to take place before middle school, and went with a 5-6 configuration before sending students to a 7-8 building. Later we will consider the almost obsessive reluctance of educators to embrace change, but suffice it to write here that the confusion over configuration was enough in some school districts to stop progress or very considerably slow it down.
There was more behind it though that festered beneath the surface. Keeping the sequence of years in mind is important. The middle school concept was ready to roll over the antiquated junior high school in the early ‘60s, but this was at the same time that the “back to basics” paranoia also came into vogue. There were those, and they still exist, who liked the very basic and very classic structure of the old junior high school because they believed that it put the emphasis in the right place. They liked the idea of their children studying and working like high school students in a mini-high-school clone. The fact that those children were not ready for the high school model made little difference and so did the overwhelming body of research that had been done about the learning process. Opponents of middle schools just liked the way the junior high school looked and felt it would do a better job in getting their children ready for college. It had been good enough for them, or so they thought; so it should be good enough for their children.
This mentality definitely slowed down the change. Thankfully, the battle seems almost over. Some junior highs still exist, but the school districts in which they exist are, by this time, at least offering lip service to the need to move toward the middle school concept. The greater danger in the early 21st century is in finding the energy and financial support to create and maintain “true” middle schools. Without the proper professional development, leadership, and ongoing maintenance, it is extremely easy for the modern middle school to fall into the patterns of the old junior high school - emphasizing things like ability grouping and information acquisition instead of nurturing transition and process education, helping students learn how to learn. The battle to create and maintain middle schools is ongoing and all-too-often subject to budget issues, political pressure, the aforementioned attitudes, and union restrictions, but it is clearly a positive direction that is a key to the ultimate improvement of American education.
Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s a movement started that made great sense. The old concept of the junior high school started to move into a period of decline and it was replaced slowly, but surely and in most school districts, with the middle school. The reason it made great sense was because it was no contest - a “no brainer” as it would be termed today. The old junior high school idea was based on just about nothing at all, no theory, no research. It existed out of confusion early in the twentieth century about what to do with the middle years. Early theorists knew we needed a primary or elementary level to teach basic skills and information. They were also pretty certain about the importance of a school that would finish the job, a high school, the culminating institution for public education, that should be designed graduate a finished product.
They were understandably confused, however, about what to do with the middle level student, the adolescent. The undpredictability of kids at that age and the widely scattered perceptions of achievement at that point made the creation of a viable model for their education next to impossible, or so they thought. They had to provide something, however, for the 13- to 15-year olds; so, lacking a better idea, they decided to take the high school model and scale it down a peg or two. Hence, we had the creation of the junior high school, a school that was neither here nor there and that tried to bridge the gap between childhood and young adulthood.
The problem was that adolescense was exactly the wrong time to artificially place an institution that was not really based on a clear mission. Aside from infancy, it was the time of the fastest and most significant growth of children - physically, emotionally, and intellectually. It was the time when most students were attempting to make that all-important jump from concrete thinking to abstract thinking. In short, it was and is probably the time when children are the most vulnerable and confused, at least as far as creating foundations for their adult lives.
The new middle school movement tried wisely to address this problem by creating schools that were particularly designed to deal with transition. In what is probably the most popular grade configuration for middle schools, the ideal school took students in grades 6 to 9 and gradually sought to bring them through the stages I just mentioned - taking a childlike student entering grade 6 and nurturing that student while moving into a position by the end of grade 8 when the student was ready for the independence and rigors of high school. Unlike the junior high school, this movement and this model were based on sound theory and research about the needs of children at the ages and grades in question. Emphasis was to be put on process education and social interaction skills, seeking to help students to become active learners and encouraging them to prepare to hit the ground running when they moved to the next level and would be faced with more advanced courses and specialization.
Without question, the middle school has been a great success in achieving the goals that were in need of mission change. Ironically, however, the movement to the middle school model was and is seriously challenged in some circles, even today - 30 to 40 years after we saw the change in names. The reluctance to move in this direction comes from several concerns. One relates to confusion about what grade levels should be included. As noted, the most common middle school structure dropped grade levels from the old junior high from 7-9 to 6-8, but politics, financial considerations (probably most common as schools struggled to fit a new concept into existing school buildings with enrollments they could not control), and other factors brought about other configurations. Some middle schools were only 7-8. Others were 5-8. Still others were 6-9. Others called themselves intermediate schools, arguing that an earlier transition needed to take place before middle school, and went with a 5-6 configuration before sending students to a 7-8 building. Later we will consider the almost obsessive reluctance of educators to embrace change, but suffice it to write here that the confusion over configuration was enough in some school districts to stop progress or very considerably slow it down.
There was more behind it though that festered beneath the surface. Keeping the sequence of years in mind is important. The middle school concept was ready to roll over the antiquated junior high school in the early ‘60s, but this was at the same time that the “back to basics” paranoia also came into vogue. There were those, and they still exist, who liked the very basic and very classic structure of the old junior high school because they believed that it put the emphasis in the right place. They liked the idea of their children studying and working like high school students in a mini-high-school clone. The fact that those children were not ready for the high school model made little difference and so did the overwhelming body of research that had been done about the learning process. Opponents of middle schools just liked the way the junior high school looked and felt it would do a better job in getting their children ready for college. It had been good enough for them, or so they thought; so it should be good enough for their children.
This mentality definitely slowed down the change. Thankfully, the battle seems almost over. Some junior highs still exist, but the school districts in which they exist are, by this time, at least offering lip service to the need to move toward the middle school concept. The greater danger in the early 21st century is in finding the energy and financial support to create and maintain “true” middle schools. Without the proper professional development, leadership, and ongoing maintenance, it is extremely easy for the modern middle school to fall into the patterns of the old junior high school - emphasizing things like ability grouping and information acquisition instead of nurturing transition and process education, helping students learn how to learn. The battle to create and maintain middle schools is ongoing and all-too-often subject to budget issues, political pressure, the aforementioned attitudes, and union restrictions, but it is clearly a positive direction that is a key to the ultimate improvement of American education.
posted by Friar4 at 12:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home