http://www.nmsa.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/RMLE/rmle_vol34_no9.pdf
The above article by John Huss and Shannon Eastep (titled “A Tri-State Study: Is the Middle School Movement Thriving…or Barely Surviving?”) appears in the journal Research in Middle Level Education Online. I thought it was interesting in that it was a direct examination of the organizational structures we read about in chapter 3 of our textbook. Not only that, but it makes multiple explicit reference to the tenets of a quality middle school outlined in “This We Believe”.
The central question of the article is to what extent the characteristics of an “ideal” middle school (flexible scheduling, active learning strategies, interdisciplinary teaching teams, etc.) are actually implemented in middle schools. The authors found that several of the traits outlined in “This We Believe”, such as developmentally responsive curriculum and active learning strategies were present in a majority of cases. It did indicate that some of these, however, might be declining or not implemented as well as “This We Believe” would have envisioned.
However, something I noticed was that the quality of school leadership came up several times in this article. Administrators were cited as being unsupportive and unhelpful. Many of the shortcomings of the schools, such as de-emphasis on advising programs and affective development, were attributed to the need to perform well on state assessments. The “ideal” middle school model as described in “This We Believe” (developmentally responsive, active and engaged learning, teaching to the whole student) seem to be perceived as not in alignment with state testing requirements. Time for electives, exploratory, or advising was found to be in decline, in favor of more teacher-centered instruction on test-taking skills.
If middle schools are to be in complete alignment with “This We Believe”, administrators are going to have to support teachers as they take the risk of departing from traditional test-prep in hopes that a more “ideal” middle school model will prepare students adequately for state tests. I know I resorted to “drill it and kill it” strategies in the weeks before the Benchmark. This fear of poor performance seemed to be the main thing holding teachers back from fully implementing the middle school model.
Amanda, this article was very timely in that it coincides with Chapter 4 and our discussion from today. I am reading through our text, and gaining a much better understanding of how to teach to the middle school student. At the same time I'm asking myself, "How will I ever have time to incorporate all of these aspects into my teaching?" I agree with the results from the article, which is basically that the test is driving our instruction, not the child and their needs. It's as though everything we have learned about the middle school child is put aside and sacrificed for the test. I hope we can move away from this with the Common Core, and get back to a focus on the student and their needs. Good article choice!
ReplyDelete