Believing in Ourselves: Urban Middle School Reform

Believing in Ourselves

Part III

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Five years of experience and many evaluations later, these 12 schools in five urban sites had much to share. Moreover, their attempts to improve life chances for urban young adolescents were the first in the country to be connected into a national network around more than a single project. They bit into the whole apple. Thus their stories, enriched by each others' experiences, provide valuable insights into whole-school, whole-district change under the very trying circumstances of our inner cities. This writer's interpretation of those insights are scattered throughout the text.

But there are some policy implications broader than those discussed or so crucial as to need emphasis again.

KEEP THE VISION
ABOVE THE WATER

One can wish fervently for stability in people and financing of urban districts, but it is not going to happen under our current governance system. Therefore, when a school board and district administration adopts a course of action to improve middle grades, or any aspect of their work for that matter, they should put in place assurances that the district will stay the course, no matter who is in charge. There is no other reasonable hook for this than much higher achievement by all students.

The move toward content and performance standards is a step in that direction, provided it is backed up by sufficient resources for professional development and strong accountability measures. Districts should get it right the first time, developing plans based on a wide inclusion of teachers and parents guided by expert help. Once adopted, such plans ought to be open to modifications, but not shelved for what seems to be a better idea.

MAKE SURE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROFESSIONAL

If urban districts want to assume responsibility for professional development, then, again, they should make sure they get it right. To provide a few scattered days during the year as set-asides for professional development and call it done is irresponsible. Every school in the Clark network now faces accountability measures, either locally or from the state, that require new skills and greater knowledge of content. Anyone who teaches at the middle grades ought to be thoroughly steeped in early adolescent development. Teachers need time and consistent opportunities to learn from the changes they make in their classrooms, learning that should be deepened by sharing with their colleagues.

The silver-bullet expert no longer will suffice. Urban districts need to conduct audits of their professional development programs, set principles for school professional development plans, evaluate funding resources and commit the necessary resources to what needs to be done, and allow flexibility in the use of time by schools. Then they should expect results from professional development.

TREAT PRINCIPALS
AS PRECIOUS RESOURCES

As important as principal leadership is to middle school improvement, most Clark districts exhibited very unsophisticated strategies for selection or support of their principals. It is legitimate to send in a disciplinarian "Joe Clark" when the adults in a school have lost control of the students, but a principal who can right such a school in the water and then move it forward needs a bagful of skills. Strict discipline goes only so far.

Middle grades students, whose testy nature comes with their developmental stage, will become engaged more eagerly when they believe teachers and administrators care enough about their learning that they are willing to change their attitudes and habits, too. Principals must know enough about content, instructional strategies, and adolescent development to create that kind of environment. However, it is not only principals in the most troubled schools who need support and professional development from their districts. They all do, if the district is sincere about improving student achievement. (They also need a salary schedule commensurate with the leadership required, surely as challenging as that of high schools.)

Teachers and principals ought to move together on instructional changes, with principals providing the link to district accountability and available resources.

BRING HIGHER EDUCATION
INTO THE ACCOUNTABILITY LOOP

No group was more conspicuously absent from the middle grades improvement table during the Clark initiative than higher education. Students spend at least one-fourth of their precollegiate years in the middle grades. Yet, universities focus little time on middle grades teacher education, often because state licensing and certification policies do not support separate attention. Nonetheless, urban campuses could be a strong sustaining force for urban middle grades reform.

Beginning teachers who want to teach this age group need both theory and practice tailored to the middle grades. Those now teaching need access to appropriate research. They should learn about high content from content scholars, not just instructional experts. [As a group, middle school teachers are less prepared than high school teachers in the content areas, although they are expected to teach content at some depth.]

More important, as urban middle schools expand their support network to include the community, urban universities have the resources across many relevant departments (sociology, urban planning, ethnic studies) to help teachers and administrators acquire collaborative understanding and skills. Such an approach, of course, would mean that responsibility for providing such professional resources to educators moves out of isolated education programs and into a university-wide commitment.

FIND THE PRESSURE POINTS
FOR FAILING SCHOOLS

No school district should think it is performing adequately as long as any school is allowed to continue to slide downward. In the Clark network, literally hundreds of young people entered the middle grades and moved on to high school from schools unable to add much to their education as they passed through, except perhaps bitterness and anger. Until the district or the state finally acted, the schools could not internalize their failure to a point where they were willing to undertake profound changes.

Waiting until the last resort wastes valuable time and young lives. Either districts or states need to identify such schools early and do something about them. They should intervene with technical help, timetables, and data that tracks progress more frequently than for other schools. In the end, however, parents and communities ought to have the power to demand and get improvements -- or be able to make other choices.

If the district leadership is not focused
on student success and cannot demonstrate that
it understands and can act on systemic reform, its promises and plans ought to be seriously questioned.

TO THE FOUNDATIONS:
CAVEAT EMPTOR

Foundations, or any sources of outside support for urban school reform, need to know the challenges within each individual urban district and assess the possibilities for making a difference. And be hard-headed about it. If the district leadership is not focused on student success and cannot demonstrate that it understands and can act on systemic reform, its promises and plans ought to be seriously questioned. Likewise, the relationships between the central office and the schools ought to be respectful and mutually supportive. There will always be some grumbling at both levels, but that should not get in the way of a willingness to work together on the same goals.

Next section of Believing in Ourselves

Return to Believing in Ourselves contents page

from Believing in Ourselves: Progress and Struggle in Middle School Reform. By Anne C. Lewis. Published in 1995 by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.