Middle+School+History

Originally the junions high was seen as a bridge school designed to help ease a student’s transition from childhood to adolescence by implementing a program adapted to the needs of young adolescent learners. Fifty years into its implementation, however, both its appropriateness and its actual implementation were being vigorously questioned. While most agreed that the junior high had provided for some of the needs of young adolescent learners better than the 8-grade elementary school or the more regimented high school, the manner in which junior highs had evolved over time was being debated. Research regarding their effectiveness revealed the vast majority had adopted the curriculum, schedule, activity program, and organization of the high schools in ways that no longer served the characteristics and needs of its learners.

It was within this context that Cornell University convened a national conference focused on junior high school education. Dr. William Alexander, an internationally recognized curriculum expert, was asked to specifically address the future of junior high education. As he addressed the implementation of the junior high he proposed, for the first time ever, the implementation of a middle school, not as a transitional or bridge school, but as part of a vertical structure in a learning continuum of primary, middle, and high schools, each of which had a program and organization appropriate to its place in a sequential educational pattern.

Alexander outlined the essential characteristics of this new middle school model. Building upon three characteristics of the junior high: a program of its own adopted to meet the needs of young adolescent learners; a program of exploratory experiences; and a continued general education which gave new emphasis to intellectual development; Alexander expanded the concept by addressing the individualization of instruction; the implementation of a flexible schedule; and an emphasis on the development of values as students begin to assume more responsibility for their own actions.

He thoughtfully recommended that the __program__ of the school have three phases: learning skills (defined in 1963 as reading, speaking, computational skills); common learnings in literature, social studies, languages, mathematics, science, and fine arts; and personal development which included health and physical education, exploratory experiences, a close relationship with a counselor-teacher, and adequate diagnostic tests, parent conferences, and other data sources. He suggested that the __organization__ of the school include interdisciplinary teaching teams of 3 to 5 teachers who were competent in their content areas; small homeroom groups for the counselor-teacher opportunities, special instructional or laboratory centers to support individualized instruction, and basic instructional units organized on a heterogeneous basis as to ability. Finally, he called for the __personnel arrangement__ to include a principal focused on the curriculum, instruction, and assessment of the school’s program, teachers with a major in their teaching field(s) specifically prepared to teach this age level, and other professional staff positions such as curriculum, research and evaluation, psychological services, and health services to meet the needs of young adolescent students.

Dr. Alexander’s recommendations resonated not only with the conference attendees but with a much larger audience. Indeed, his speech launched the middle school movement and is why he is considered one of the founders of the middle school movement along with John Lounsbury, Gordon Vars, Conrad Toepfer, and Donald Eichhorn -- each of whom made significant, foundational contributions to this emerging educational reform initiative.

In 2002, I had the opportunity to read the original transcript of Dr. Alexander’s speech and found myself re-reading it multiple times, drawn to the vision of his recommendations and their continuing impact upon middle schools today. One section in particular caught my attention as he quoted an educational belief statement from the Winnetka Public Schools where he had served as superintendent. In part it said,

“Intellectual growth means much more than an increasing competence in the academic content of the curriculum. We must endeavor to stimulate in the child a love for learning, an attitude of inquiry, a passion for truth and beauty, a questioning mind. The learning of right answers is not enough…beyond answers alone, we must help children ask right questions, and discover their answers through creative thinking, reasoning, judging, and understanding.”

The statement, “**learning the right answers is not enough**” seemed as relevant today as it was in 1963. When you consider the opportunities and challenges of helping young adolescents become healthy, productive, and ethical citizens of the 21st century, you quickly realize that a middle school focused only on //learning the right answers// would never be adequate.

It’s been more than forty-five years since Dr. Alexander first proposed the implementation of a middle school and much has happened. In 1980, the National Middle School Association (NMSA) recognized that no single comprehensive paper had been written to crystallize the recommendations of this emerging middle school educational reform initiative so they appointed a committee to write a position paper and included Dr. Alexander as a member. After a period of much discussion, debates, editing and refinement, the original //This We Believe// was released in 1982 and provided a much-needed common framework.

Since then major foundations, associations, researchers, and practitioners have continued to focus on what the characteristics of the middle school should be and how one goes about the effective implementation of them. Amazingly, when the cumulative body of work is examined, the vast majority of Dr. Alexander’s initial recommendations remains intact, if not yet fully implemented. His vision of a school that addresses both the academic growth and personal development of its students still guides our work as middle level leaders.

Yes, debates continue today regarding the roles of academic growth and personal development. Many mistakenly believe that the middle school concept has focused more on being developmentally responsive (translated more interested in emotional and social development) than being academically rigorous. Today, many middle level leaders feel genuine pressure to abandon practices they know are developmentally appropriate in order to provide an assumed stronger emphasis on “learning the right answers” for high-stakes tests. However, as Randy Jensen, the 2005 MetLife/NASSP Principal of the Year and former NMSA Board member is quick to point out, “To be truly effective, we must move beyond this either academically challenging or developmentally responsive dilemma and embrace both equally.” (Principal Leadership, Feb 2005, pg. 30 )

In the recently released 4th edition of NMSA’s //This We Believe// recommended characteristics include, among others, the following: organizational structures that foster purposeful learning and meaningful relationships, curriculum that is challenging, integrative, exploratory, and relevant; and every student’s academic and personal development guided by an adult advocate. At the same time NASSP’s //Breaking Ranks in the Middle// nine cornerstone strategies recommend such things as creating dynamic teaching teams, implementing a comprehensive advisory program or other programs that ensures each student has frequent and meaningful opportunities to meet with an adult to plan and assess the student’s academic, personal, and social development; and implementing schedules that are flexible enough to accommodate teaching strategies consistent with the ways students learn.

Can you see why Dr. Alexander had an impact on my middle level career long before I even knew the term middle school existed? It’s important for today’s middle level leaders to understand our own history as well as the current research and practice. It helps us more fully understand the importance of **leading for academic growth and personal development**. In today’s context that means we must find the balance point to successfully implement the dual purpose of middle level education: the academic growth and personal development of each of our students.