Problems in American Education - Part 22: Competition

Sometimes as Americans we seem to feel that we have the corner on the free enterprise system and on the concept of competition as a cornerstone for progress. Perhaps its the Puritan in us that still surfaces, but we want to believe in an underlying theme that implies that success in a free system is evidence of virtue and that only those who deserve to succeed will succeed.

I too have to admit that I am a big fan of competition. I love sports, for instance, and, as a long-suffering Red Sox fan, I am still floating on the romance of what happened last year. Moreso, I believe that competition in a free system can bring out the best in children as they strive to realize potential. There is a nobility and esprit d’corps benefits in demonstrating competitive effort and I believe that nobility is one of the finest by-products we can hope to have surface in the learning process. When I was very young, idealistic, and somewhat naive, I did have some concerns about the lack of a level playing field that led me to pursue some socialistic inclinations in the way I thought; but as I grew older, while I still seriously regretted our tendency to let that playing field slope, I came to realize that ours was still the most effective of all systems as far as affording opportunity for all.

As an educator and also as a coach, I realized that fair and clean competition offered a great chance for students to have fun while striving to do their best in matching their skills against others. In many ways, it looked like, and still looks like, a great motivational tool and very close to a win/win way to approach learning.

The key problem, however, is that, as public educators in what is supposed to be an egalitarian society, we always have to remember that we have a responsibility to teach both the winners and the losers in a competitive environment. One of the unspoken whispers that you hear if you are a thinking educator is the one that says losers don’t count anymore after they have lost. Actually, by definition, it is the system itself that promotes that notion by saying that winning means you go on to a higher level, or a higher grouping, or a better team, or whatever. The trap is one in which educators are told that the kid who wins deserves the fruit of victory while the losers are sharply dismissed to much lower expectations. There are precious few opportunities for comebacks in our system. Very few do what the Red Sox did - win the wild card and then beat the Yankees after being down three games to none. Sorry - had to get that one in.

But I repeat, one of the most important contentions of this series is that winning does not make a child more worthy for ultimate success, just as having wealthy parents does not make him or her more worthy. Conversely, losing at an immature age should not condemn a child to a lower bracketing that forecloses opportunities to step up to that level playing field in the future.

As educators, we do not have the dubious luxury of labeling our students so quickly. We must remember that we are still dealing with children. The nature of children is to make mistakes. That means that sometimes they will lose in the game of competition. Our job in education is, to the best of our ability, to take those losses and turn them into victories - creating steps on which students can rise up to overcome.

This installment is admittedly very philosophical and abstract; but it is not too difficult to take the thoughts and see their application in daily school activities and programs. It covers an underlying principle we see as operative in American education and it is one of those principles that deserves some examination. On one level, it is a principle that can serve a purpose if used in moderation and with good judgement. On another level, one that can be seen to surface a bit too often, it can lead to excess and self-service for those who enjoy early success or who seek to stratify our schools, something that ironically seems to represent the antithesis of what our country is supposed to represent. Think about it and think about what you have seen for yourself in observation of American education. Competition is clearly one of those methodological tools in which you can have too much of a good thing.

Problems in American Education - Part 21: Home and Parents First

I have recently had some conversations about this series with people I respect. They contend that, while they believe I make some good points, many of the reforms I suggest won’t work unless changes first take place in the American home. Parents, they feel, are the keys to change, and without parental cooperation and commitment, there is not much that is possible.

I really don’t have much of an argument with that point of view. It makes common sense and forging an alliance with parents is certainly a major objective that we must clearly keep in mind as we work on these problems. There is a danger in it, however, and it is a danger I have feared for quite some time.

My experience has been that educators (and I have worked with many who fall into this trap) often use this caution of my friends as an excuse for inaction. If you do nothing about these problems, in other words, it is a little too easy to rationalize your passivity by contending that parents must be on board first. It’s like the old comic routine where something has gone wrong and the group is approached to see who is responsible. As soon as they are confronted, everybody simultaneously points their fingers to blame someone else. The result is that the status quo is maintained and no one takes responsibility for taking the first step in the right direction.

This does not mean that educators are always wrong when they blame parents. Quite to the contrary, they are often correct - maybe most of the time they are correct; but that does not excuse inaction on the part of educators. One of the basic rules of golf is that you play the ball where it lies. You have to work with what you have, not what you wish it would be. If we have problems in education, we cannot afford the luxury of analyzing what other groups need to do. Certainly we can do whatever we can to push those groups in the right directions, but we need to attack the problems directly with all the tools (and resources) we have at our disposal. Ultimately, it is a matter of credibility.

Problems in American Education - Part 20: Progressive vs. Permissive

I used to argue all the time with an old principal of mine about what it meant to be a progressive person or (shudder the thought) a liberal in education. He was very conservative by nature and application and was not ashamed to admit that he thought of liberals as being permissive and indulgent, the kind of educators who had allowed the state of education to get to the point where standards were eroding or were already destroyed.

Actually, we got along just fine and enjoyed a relationship of mutual respect, but he loved to needle me on this issue. He knew that I was proud to be considered a progressive and that I embraced change and tended to look askance at the kind of daily pragmatism that I felt was the default stance of traditional administrators. I believed that good educators needed to stand for something more than just doing things the way they always had been done; and, although I thought he was a good principal, he did get to me when he took a stubborn stance or did what was expedient when it was time for examination of new ideas.

In an attempt to avoid drifting too far from the question at hand, I do contend that it is very possible to be progressive without being permissive. Progress when applied to education, it should be remembered, simply means a state of willingness to accept change and a new and better way of doing things than the way they were done before. It has nothing to do with being permissive.

Actually, I was and still am quite far from being permissive. While I do embrace change, I am a great supporter of structure as part of that change. Children do need structure in order to ground themselves in the learning process and in all of the other foundations that are necessary to grow up.

That structure, however, is not the sole property of “traditionalism,” to brand a term. It is a somewhat aphilosophical state or reality that we should promote in schools to help students to learn self-discipline and direction creation in their lives.

Once again, this story cites an example of the evil we do when we label people and then draw conclusions about them and their motives derived from expectations associated with the label. Education is often plagued by such faulty reasoning and the malady has had a tendency to slow process and even lead educators and parents down roads that are counterproductive and divisive.

Problems in American Education - Part 19: Some Good Ideas from the Recent Past

We really should not talk about the tendency to reject innovative ideas if we do not have a list of innovative ideas to promote as good ones that would represent significant progress in education if used in a widespread manner. The purpose of this essay will be to examine and summarize some of the best ones observed over the past couple of decades. All of these, if applied assiduously, consistently, and with commitment, hold promise for the future in that they fit the needs of what students will find in the world of the 21st century and because they imply the flexibility for change that has become such an important part of our lives. None of them are radical, or even very new. You will recognize most and some you will note have been around for a long time. The trick is, as asserted, to consistently apply them and to promote widespread and sincere use. These are some of the things your public schools should already be using if they are employing best practices.

Heterogeneous grouping as much as possible - especially in grades elementary through grade 9

This concept has already been beaten to death in these blogs. ‘Nuf said,’ but it is crucially important.

Performance Based Assessment

My senior project program is a great example of this, but it is something that should be employed in many other programs at all levels. It’s beauty is in its simplicity; but, unfortunately, that simplicity is still lost on some school systems. The idea stresses that students should not be evaluated only on what they know and what discrete skills they have. They also should be evaluated on how well they can apply what they know in order to get a job done. Why? Because that is the “way of the world” and that is what we should preparing students to do in order to be successful in the real world.

Cooperative Learning and Student Team Learning

The concept of cooperative learning has been around for a long time, but many teachers feel they do it when they just tell kids to break down into small groups of three or four in order to try something or work on a project. A more significant commitment to this great idea is necessary in most schools in order to gain its full benefit. As was the case with Performance Based Assessment, use of cooperative learning is based on the desire to create an environment similar to the adult work place and to encourage student interaction. In the adult work place, however, it is rare that people are asked to break down into small groups for just a few minutes, or even just for a few days. Rather, the more frequently used business model is one in which workers are assigned to teams of workers for longer periods of time in order to complete a task or to set procedures for repeated completion of similar tasks. There is very little of that kind of thing done in most schools, with the possible exception of on athletic teams.

One of the best procedures I ever used that incorporates this attempt to institutionalize teamwork was developed by a man named Robert Slavin of Johns Hopkins University back in the ‘70s. It was called Student Team Learning. Student Team Learning was orginally devised to promote racial and ethnic integration in schools, but its benefits, once developed, touched many other areas of learning. In terms of cooperative learning, what it did was structure team assignments in such a way that all the teams assigned were characterized by total heterogeneity and a mission that lasted for a while. Students were encouraged to get to know each other and were required to find ways to work with one another even if teammates were not students who would normally be in association with one another. Teachers intentionally structured teams in such a way that races, genders, and perceived ability levels would need to work together on the same team and would need to support each other as much as possible.


Differentiated Instruction

This used to be called individualized instruction. The basic idea is to assess the current needs of individual students and design instruction to flexibly meet those needs. Many teachers have feared this approach for as long as it has existed because they understandably worry about how difficult it would be to devise plans for so many different students, particularly in the kind of heterogeneous classes emphasized in these essays. This is one of those ideas that is obviously a good thing but that requires some creative thinking to employ. Passive individualization is one way to do it that gains the benefit while minimizing teacher fears.

Passive Individualization

One of the great things about Student Team Learning mentioned above is that it allowed for passive individualized. Rather than attempt to devise different programs for all students, an impossible task, Student Team Learning simply offered the same material to all students in the class, but it structured a way to individualize expectations and the pace students would learn. It was a little complicated to plan at first, and it was sometimes difficult to explain to parents in the way different results were expected from different students, but it worked beautifully. Much of the beauty came from the fact that it was unbelievably flexible. Students learned at their own rate and were challenged daily to stretch themselves to higher levels, exactly what every teacher should hope for in his or her classroom. It also took away the excuse for failing to individualize.

Block Scheduling

Ever since classes were scheduled, especially on the middle school and high school levels, there has been a debate about how long those classes should be. Compromise has almost always been the rule of the day - compromise between the opinions of the teachers and administrators involved and compromise designed to meet other scheduling priorities in the school. Seldom has the decision been made based on learning theory and the needs of students.

Predictably this has led to some of the worst possible choices in regard to the length of classes. Most middle school and high school classes are 45 to 50 minutes long, too long to sustain student interest in traditional “I talk, you listen” classes and not long enough to sustain continuity in project-oriented classes in which students learn effectively by actually doing something, sequential activities, instead of listening and taking notes. The 45-50 minute time slots allow for just enough time to squeeze in the number of courses that satisfy traditional values and political concerns, and they also satisfy the need for the unions to get their teachers into a measureable and discrete modular day that can be easily negotiated.

One of the best innovations I have seen that deals with this issue is block scheduling. When I was finishing my teaching career and just before I went into administration, I had the opportunity to participate with a team of educators who were investigating block scheduling for possible implementation in our high school. We visited two high schools on Cape Cod and found that everyone loved it. It was later implemented in my school after I left.

Block scheduling calls for a program in which students attend classes that may be as long as 1-1/2 to 2 hours long, but the classes do not meet every day. The total number of hours is about the same, but much more continuity is possible in each class because students are given the opportunity to immerse themselves in the work for substantial amounts of time. There are some shortcomings related to logistics, but the overall effect is very positive.

Perhaps the most significant consideration in moving to block scheduling is that if forces teachers to teach in a different way. Traditional teachers find it very difficult to do if they fail to make significant changes in the way they deliver their subject matter. Long lectures simply do not work because students cannot maintain focus for that length of time. Teachers, therefore, are forced to make their classes much more activity oriented and must plan for projects and for student involvement in performance-based assessments. If you think about it, that is not such a bad corollary benefit. An honest assessment here would need to admit that this perceived beneficial change is a large reason for our support of this idea. It changes teaching in a way that is much needed. You can easily predict which teachers will oppose this idea and which ones will embrace it, but there is little doubt that it is advantageous if strong school leadership can stick with it and make the necessary adjustments.


Structural Systems Approaches

Structure is a good thing. That may sound a little surprising to some coming from a writer who admits to a progressive philosophy, but that’s why labels don’t work when it comes to categorizing people.

When I first started to teach middle school in the late ‘70s, I thought I might leave the field of education at the end of the year. I tried to teach my eighth and sixth graders the same way I taught my high school students in my previous job, and it simply did not work. As so often happens in life, the trauma I experienced that year actually led to something good in that it forced me to reassess my teaching to make significant changes.

I spent a great deal of time thinking through the problem. What did my students need and how could I meet those needs in a more effective manner? Some of the answers came from ideas I have already explored in these pages; but another significant adjustment came in the form of understanding their need for structure. Like most human beings, and perhaps to a greater degree, adolescents are insecure and need the stability provided by knowing what to expect, by repetition of structured process that allows them to comfortably transition from one day to another knowing that they can be successful in what they are doing in a class. By introducing a very organized systems approach in my classes, I was able to promote that comfort level that allowed me to relate to my students and for them to relate to me in my attempts to make intellectual contact. In the eighth grade many of them were still struggling with the classic middle school transition from concrete to abstract thinking, and systemized structure and organization made that possible and comfortable.

I designed my courses in such a way that students could systematically and measureably accumulate points toward their grade. I introduced repetitive approaches to use in sequencing their work and assessments that allowed them to easily predict how to approach their study. We introduced high-interest media presentations about the subject matter and supported those presentations with consistent media evaluation tools that students could learn how to use and then use again in predictable formats. The significant impact on the classes was one in which stability and comfort were promoted and the volatility normally associated with adolescents was largely replaced with focus and purpose. It worked and, quite frankly, it helped me to become a better teacher - a fact that I am quick to use when teachers tell me that they cannot make the transition from being high school teachers to being middle school teachers. A peripheral thought here is that I sincerely believe that one of the best things that ever happened to me in my career was that I was forced to teach at so many different grade levels. That experience made me learn how to teach and afforded me the opportunity to see the big picture, something that many teachers never have the opportunity to observe.

Computer Assisted Instruction

Although this has been an important part of education for close to 30 years, it is still new in relationship to traditional approaches used for many years before computers were invented. Once again, the computer revolution was an event to which education was slow to react. As with so many other transitions, it was obvious to everyone in the late twentieth century that the computer was taking its place with telephones, radio, television, automobiles, and other advances as an instrument that would change the world; yet many educators were skeptical. Some interpreted it as a toy that would not represent substantial and meaningful progress; yet others felt that it would be counterproductive in their attempts to have children master basic skills and understand traditional subject matter. Unfortunately, these were rationalizations for inaction and only served to slow what was inevitable.

Eventually, however, the transitional importance of computer technology took on such massive proportions that virtually all educators were forced to realize that computer literacy was about as important as reading, writing, and simple computation when it came to establishing skills required for all teachers. We are still, however, sorting out how to most effectively use this technology in the classroom. Some of this indecision is due to the complexity of the technology, but a more important reason for hesitation now has to do with the need to think in different ways.

The most important understandings that need to used in meshing computer approaches with traditional curricular offerings are (1) that the computer has to be seen exclusively as a tool (or a means) to achieve goals or ends of educational programs, not as an end in itself, (2) that it should be seen as something that accelerates learning, (3) that it makes certain extended and sophisticated processes possible that would otherwise not be possible, and (4) that it creates opportunities for creativity in learning that need a kind of attention and planning never seen before.

Yes, there are great dangers associated with opening the door to cyberspace for our children. We cannot watch them every second and assure ourselves that appropriate use is always the norm. We have seen a terrible problem with the use of the Internet, for instance, that rears its ugly head almost daily in our schools and spills over back and forth between the school and the home. As a junior high assistant principal, that problem nearly drove me crazy. Nevertheless, we cannot allow these distractions to keep us from making progress in this extremely important area of 21st century education and preparation for adulthood. Children make mistakes. That is part of growing up. The computer, just by its nature, expands the playground opportunity for those mistakes to take place; but that does not give us an excuse to deny access to this critically important tool.

What many educators failed to recognize early on was that the computer actually solved one of our major problems of the 20th century - the evolution children as couch-potatoes. Another major invention of that century, the television, had nurtured generations of young people devoted to a very passive approach to life. Creativity and expanding horizons were stifled and we all felt helpless in our attempts to find a way to deal with the pervasive problem. The computer took that same window, the monitor, and turned it around, making it an active process in which young people were forced to interact with the machine and, the key, transform it into a tool for creation. As with all other aspects of life, it is our duty as adults to show children how to use this powerful tool tastefully and for positive purposes - to avoid excessive use of video games, for instance, and to create opportunities for academic and vocational project orientation instead. That is how the computer is and will best be used in education.

Problems in American Education - Part 18: Real Life Education

One of the great mysteries in education, in my opinion, has to do with our reluctance to readily accept even common sense, “no-brainer” solutions to problems. We tend to be suspicious of everything, no matter how pure the motive or how logical the plan. It’s like we Red Sox fans used to be before last year’s championship, always expecting that the worst is just about to happen and convinced that the worst will happen if we allow ourselves to indulge in optimism about new ideas. Most theorists believe that we must take risks to make progress, but the conservative nature and political consciousness of many educators makes them very reluctant to take even minimal steps in directions that deviate from what has been the norm. This may be the biggest single reason for the stagnation we have seen in education over the past century. It leads us to always play catch-up and, when we get there, we have failed to deal with new issues on the horizon because of the same cautions we failed to deal with them before.

Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock was one of the most popular books circulating through academia back in the ‘70s. Toffler seemed to put his finger squarely on the pulse of what was bothering us as a society and, not only did he identify what most of us had been feeling for quite some time, but he also offered a logical plan for dealing with the ailment.

It is probably unfair to capsulize Toffler’s thesis, but we need to in order to get to the point. Toffler’s contention, you may remember, was that we were being overwhelmed by the speed of change in twentieth century America and that the resulting confusion threatened to destroy many of our beliefs about how society plans to move forward into the future. Further, he quite logically concluded that his thesis, if true, had profound implications on how we needed to educate our youth if they were to lead successful lives.

As obvious as Toffler’s theories seemed to be in a newly computerized world, they were as challenging to education as they were obvious. He stated that we needed to revamp our thinking and give up many of our beliefs about what should be taught in our schools. We needed to come to the realization that it was just as important to teach our children how to learn as it was to teach them specific subject matter. The future, he said, would continue to witness accelerated change and the study of specific subject matter and even study in preparation for a particular career could actually be counterproductive in a world that would be vastly different in the near future and that would change again shortly afterward. He cited sociological and demographic studies indicating that, more and more, we would be leading lives of multiple careers, lives that required skills related to flexibility and a level of learning generalization that would allow change of direction quickly in an information age. The liberal artist and the “Renaissance Man” would be making a big comeback, and Toffler felt that education needed to respond to that reality.

It is now quite obvious that Toffler was very prophetic in what he predicted in Future Shock and in the several other books he wrote expanding and further defining his original theme. We definitely know this now and have felt the impact; but we also knew then that he was simply reading the handwriting on the wall that we all could see. Our thoughts may not have been quite as clear or coherent as his; but virtually everyone who read his work felt the phenomenon of the “oh yeah, of course” light going on in his or her head.

One of the most important of the untold stories of the late twentieth century is the one about how slowly our educational establishment reacted to the reality so clearly explained by Toffler and how resistant it was to seeing the nose sitting squarely on it’s face. The message was and is for schools to teach process in addition to subject matter. Notice, that statement did not imply that subject matter should be ignored; it indicated that mastery of process was necessary if young people were to be properly prepared to react to a rapidly changing environment. You would think that such an implication would be pretty obvious in our society; but it was remarkable to observe how that need was met with intransigence and retrenchment in the latter part of the last century. Once again, the “back to basics” movement seemed to be the culprit. No matter how pressing the need for change, reactionary forces in education argued that a better strategy would be to return to the values of life that were honored when life was more simple. They capitalized on the nostalgic premise of the simpler life in convincing many that change was a bad thing, denying the reality that change was taking place whether we liked it or not. It was difficult to argue against people who operate from such a premise because there is an undeniable charm attached to the kind of existence they remember from their childhood; but the problem is that it promotes an ostrich-like strategy that suggests burying our heads in the sand.

One of the clearest examples I encountered had to do with the most innovative program I worked with in my career. A brilliant young principal came to our school in the late 1980’s. He understood Toffler’s ideas and was also very well versed in the strategies proposed by the best academic thinkers. He immediately formed a steering committee for the school (teachers, parents, community leaders, etc.) and charged them with the task of developing a mission for the school, a mission defined by a set of competencies that we wanted our graduates to have when they left our school.

It was obvious that he was looking at process in these competencies and, almost immediately, his initiative was met with suspicion. What was he doing? Was this some kind of liberal agenda? Was this an attempt to make a name for himself to create a stepping stone for a bigger job? Why did he want to bring change to a school that already had a strong academic reputation?

To his credit, the young principal fought through the early criticism and moved forward on the competencies that were proposed by the steering committee. One of the competencies, life-long learning, was used to form a foundation for a new program referred to as the senior project and that is where I got involved. The senior project sought to have students in their senior year (remember, the year that is quite often a largely wasted year in many high schools) take a year-long course in which they would develop a project in a field of interest, culminating with a major presentation in which they would submit their work to the educational community. He asked me to pilot the program as an elective with a small group of students with the understanding that, if it was successful, we would eventually expand it and make it a senior requirement for graduation and a model for methodologies promoting process, or performance based assessment, in all of our courses.

Well, the pilot was successful and that was when the fun began. The careful planning required by the principal and the human resources he devoted to the idea were largely responsible for its success. The most committed teachers in the school were assigned to the project and they came to believe in it in much the same way as did the principal. Wonderful projects were completed by the students, even by those who first balked at the unique and innovative approach; and there was a clear indication that the methodology was accomplishing exactly what was intended, a vehicle for demonstrating the process mastery students needed to face the real world.

Remarkably we found that an unexpected result was a marked success enjoyed by students who previously had great difficulty in school - particularly special education students. We attributed that result to the fact that their special designations over the years had led to a strategic compensation program that stressed process and better prepared them for the rigors of actually creating something in a real-life situation. Conversely, our most capable students, many of whom were accustomed to using their innate ability to just put assignments together at the last minute, resented the sequential patterns required by process orientation and had some of the greatest difficulty adapting to the requirements. Quite often, in the end, and after a tremendous amount of complaining, they tended to come up with brilliant final projects; but their resentment told a much bigger story about the state of traditional education and its connection (or lack of connection) to real life.

Anyway, our first attempts to make senior project a requirement for graduation met with tremendous resistance. The “college-bound” students described above were the first to lead the charge. Many of them felt that it was an insult to their intelligence to be forced to follow prescribed process. Their parents appeared at Board of Education meetings, claiming that senior project was just not for everyone. Their implication was clear. “Back-to-basic” board members jumped on the band wagon, ignoring the obvious success of the program in its early years, complained that it was just another liberal erosion of the academic rigor that we should be promoting in education.

In the meantime, positive reaction to the program was spreading. Teachers from other schools visited our school to see what was going on. Our own teachers, except for the most entrenched, came around to the methodology for use in their classes one at a time. A foundation was established designed to finance those projects that required materials. A popular national magazine wrote an article in which senior project was cited as one of the country’s most innovative programs.

Yes, the board eventually approved the program as a requirement for graduation, but only after numerous battles and grudging and bitter resistance from members who could not deny its popularity and clear success with the vast majority of students who were willing to demonstrate the effort that was required. The team who was involved in putting the program together was more than proud of what was achieved and the impact on the school; but the key question still remains as to why such an obviously promising idea was so difficult to implement in a community that should have embraced it with open arms. More important, what does this say about our chances for progress in the face of inevitable change in our society? The problems that were inherent and substantial in my situation are a significant part of a much bigger untold story in American education as it exists at this time. Why does a system that is so obviously in need of change so resistant to change? What is wrong with a system that so defiantly resists innovation? These are very fundamental questions and, as of now, they go largely unanswered.

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.