Home | Back to the Hayes Mizell Reader Index


[Remarks of Hayes Mizell as a member of the panel, "Middle School Reform: A Critical Look at Our Progress," at The William Winter Principals' Leadership Institute on March 23, 2000. Other panelists were Sue Swaim, Executive Director of the National Middle School Association, and Leah Austin, Program Director for Youth and Education at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The Institute was sponsored by the Foundation for the Mid South as part of its Middle Start Initiative for Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Approximately 180 representatives from the 288 Middle Start Partner Schools participated in the Institute that was held at the Grand Casino Convention Center in Robinsonville, MS. Mizell is Director of the Program for Student Achievement at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.]

Middle School Reform:
Where Are We Now?

By some measures, we can judge the middle school movement a success. Among adults who work with young adolescents, there is broad, widely shared philosophy about the needs of these youth and how best to meet these needs. To educate these young people between the ages of 11 and 15, there are now at least 12,000 schools, more than half with 6-8 grade configurations. Conversely, during the past 30 years there has been a dramatic decline in junior high schools with 7-9 grade configurations.

To lead and teach middle school youth, there are tens of thousands of principals and teachers who must hold special credentials mandated by state laws or regulations. Thirty-five states require some kind of specific preparation to teach in middle schools, and there are hundreds of institutions of higher education that train prospective teachers and administrators so they can qualify for the credentials they must have to seek employment at the middle level. In addition, there are also countless entities -- textbook and magazine publishers, professional organizations, independent consultants, non-profit organizations, etc.-- that develop and provide goods, services, and programs targeted to the schools, teachers and administrators, and families of young adolescents.

Disquiet in the middle school community

There is no question, then, that middle level education is now firmly established as an important link in the chain of young people's educational experiences. Yet, there is disquiet in the middle school community. Due largely to the visibility that demanding state accountability and assessment systems have given to middle school students' performance on standardized tests, there are serious questions about the students' achievement levels and the capacities of middle schools to challenge these students academically. There are still many school board members and superintendents who have little or no practical understanding of the purpose of middle schools, or the levels of supervision and support necessary for middle schools to operate effectively. It is no surprise that with this leadership deficit, many middle schools are virtually ignored by their school systems while others are little more than middle schools in name only.

Too many middle level teachers continue to buy into the myth that young adolescents are so distracted by their social, emotional, physical, and psychological development that they have no interest in learning, and that there is no point in challenging them. This view alone is dangerous, but it is even more pernicious when it is but one part of a belief system that middle school students cannot perform at higher levels because of their race, language, culture, or family income or background. There are also too many middle school teachers who not only lack the necessary subject matter knowledge necessary to engage students in higher levels of learning, but who demonstrate little interest in their own professional development to acquire the content knowledge and pedagogical skills they need.

Finally, many families regard middle schools as unfocused, dangerous places where their children are not safe from physical violence, disrespect, bullying, and the myriad manifestations of a risk-taking peer culture. This is one of the reasons why in some communities there is growing interest in abandoning middle schools that include grades six through eight and replacing them with schools that include kindergarten through the eighth grade. Families are increasingly afraid of losing their connections with their young adolescent children, and they believe an elementary school environment will be more protective, nurturing, and conducive to the maintaining positive family relationships.

There is, then, a rising tide of doubt about the viability and effectiveness of middle schools. Some of this concern is due to ignorance. Some of it is because people are genuinely troubled by how some middle schools operate and the results they do not achieve.

There is, then, a rising tide of doubt about the viability and effectiveness of middle schools. Some of this concern is due to ignorance. Some of it is because people are genuinely troubled by how some middle schools operate and the results they do not achieve. It will be a mistake if middle school educators and advocates dismiss these concerns or attempt to characterize them as ill-founded. Assuming a defensive posture is not the way to improve middle school education or increase the credibility of middle schools. That will only occur when leaders at all levels identify and acknowledge the real problems of middle schools, and take actions that result in solving these problems.

There is evidence that this is beginning to occur. Increasingly, we find educators focusing on the issue of "middle school reform" and feeling comfortable with that term and that goal. There is less nervousness about embracing the task. Fewer people suggest that if they use the term "reform" it will be a self-indictment, or an admission that previous educational practices were not effective. More people recognize that while the terms "middle school transformation" or even "middle school improvement" may be less threatening, they also do not communicate the urgency or the truth of what is required -- literally re-forming middle schools so they serve students more effectively.

Middle school reform is not about a few changes at the margins. It is about putting students first and the prerogatives and convenience of adults second, changing how the school functions and how students are taught so they learn more and become partners in developing and sustaining a caring school community.

It is encouraging, therefore, that there is now the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, a group of approximately 60 practitioners, representatives of national education organizations, researchers, advocates, and foundation officials. What is remarkable is that this diverse group of leaders agrees that middle school reform is necessary and they even agree on a vision and criteria for what constitutes a high-performing middle school. The National Forum has even identified four "Schools to Watch" that are well on their way towards fulfilling the Forum's vision and meeting its performance criteria. The Forum has also organized an affiliate, the Southern Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform that includes 50 middle school educators and organizational representatives from nine states. Another indication that more school systems are embracing middle school reform is the existence of the National Urban Middle Grades Reform Network, a support group composed of central office administrators who have primary responsibility for coordinating middle school reform in their respective school systems.

But using the word "reform" and actually reforming middle schools are two different things. Where does one begin? Using the Middle Start self-assessment process is certainly a logical place to start, and if schools use it well it should help them take the first important steps towards reform. However, it is necessary to move simultaneously on many fronts. I want to discuss only several of these.

The communications challenge

Middle school advocates face a major communications challenge. Most people simply do not understand why middle schools exist and why the opportunities they should provide for young adolescents are different from those at the elementary and high school levels. Even knowledgeable middle school practitioners lack a common language for clearly communicating the practical strengths of middle schools. Instead, their rationale for middle schools is rooted in a philosophy they find difficult to articulate.

The result is that for most people, including many teachers, the purpose of middle schools is fuzzy, clouded by jargon that, to them, has little relevance to the day-to-day challenges of teaching and learning. Perhaps this is why for many people middle schools are not very compelling, they have not been described in ways that speak to the core concerns of most families and educators. More importantly, too many of these schools have not functioned in ways that address those concerns.

For example, teams are an important component of most middle schools. To operate effectively, teams have to be carefully developed and function as a team, not as a group of several individuals who happen to occupy the same space and share responsibility for the same group of students. If schools make sure that teams operate as they should, and that is a big, big "if," the teams should be an asset that not only benefit students but are one manifestation of the strength of middle schools. There is potential to describe teams to a school board or a parent this way:

"Our school doesn't just throw the sixth graders into a situation where they run from one class to another, banging into each other in the halls and dealing with a different teacher and a different group of students in each class. Instead, we assign our young people to a family of students supervised and taught by several teachers working together. This way, the students get to stay with the same classmates and the same teachers for most of the school day.

"They get to know their classmates and their teachers really well, they get to develop sustained and positive relationships, and the teachers collaborate to understand and address the learning needs of each student. When the teachers agree that some students need additional help in developing a particular skill, they have the flexibility to work with those students in a small, temporary group. Each team of teachers meets at least once a week to examine the students' work and discuss the students' progress, their problems, and how to address them. They work together to figure out the best ways to help students progress towards meeting our state's academic standards."

As I said, this means nothing if it does not reflect the reality of what is happening in the school and in the teams, but if it does, it may illustrate how to communicate one of the strengths of middle schools. In any case, the middle school movement and middle school leaders need to hone their messages so that both policymakers and the public understand the tangible, not the philosophical, benefits middle schools offer, and what they should expect from middle schools.

Reform is more about changing people than programs

But even compelling descriptions of effective middle school practices are no substitute for the hard work of reform that often is more about changing the attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, and skills of teachers than it is about new programs or school structures.

This hard work is somewhat less burdensome because of the evolution of what we might call the technology of middle school reform. There are now resources and tools that middle school leaders can use to advance reform that did not exist just a decade ago. For example, the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) has its "Standards for Staff Development ­p; Middle Level Edition." Using the study guide for the standards, school administrators no longer need to fly blind in planning and managing staff development for their faculties. They now have a resource to help them know potentially effective staff development from that which is ineffective. And just last year NSDC published "What Works in the Middle: Results-Based Staff Development." This guide describes a total of twenty-six staff development programs in language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and interdisciplinary programs that can help increase student achievement.

For principals and teachers who want to know which staff development programs have the greatest potential to improve teachers' knowledge and skills and increase student learning, the NSDC guide is a useful resource. And within a few months the Education Development Center will publish guides to help middle schools identify curricula in math, science, and language that teachers can use to help students progress towards performing at standard. There is even an Internet site, MiddleWeb that provides a wealth of information of middle school reformers, but its potential has not been fully tapped by teachers and administrators.

The major development in the technology for middle school reform is the creation of designs for whole-school reform. Pioneered by New American Schools (NAS), each design is a blueprint for reorganizing an entire school rather than a single program or grade level within it, and providing technical assistance to help schools implement these designs successfully. All NAS designs have been validated through extensive research and testing. The NAS-authorized designs now include one specifically focused on middle schools; it is the Turning Points design based on the report issued by the Carnegie Corporation in 1989. In addition to the NAS designs there are whole-school reform models worth considering, most notably the Talent Development Model Middle School.

In fact, there are so many whole-school reform designs that there are also guides that schools can use to learn more about them and assess their potential use. Under contract from a coalition of major national education organizations, the American Institutes for Research conducted a study of various whole school reform models and produced a report, "An Educator's Guide to Schoolwide Reform" (1999), published by the Educational Research Service (ERS). The ERS has also published three other helpful guides: (1) "Blueprints for School Success: A Guide to New American School Designs" (1998); (2) "Comprehensive Models for School Improvement: Finding the Right Match and Making It Work" (1998); and (3) the "Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement" (1999).

These and other resources are not "cookbooks." They are not the "Idiots' Guide to Middle School Reform." If principals and teachers are waiting for that, we will probably never have the reforms that will cause young adolescents to perform at the levels of proficiency of which they are capable. But there are now many very useful resources middle level educators can use to reform their schools. One can no longer say that there are no models, no best practices, no strategies, no techniques, no assistance, or no high performing schools to see or from which to learn. The issue now is whether middle level educators have the will and determination to use available resources to reform their schools so they more demonstrably benefit students.

The issue of results

The last challenge to middle school reform centers on this issue of results. How will principals, teachers, and communities know whether students are performing at higher levels and whether they are becoming more caring and responsible young people?

We know that the letter grades teachers give do not mean much because they reflect individual teacher judgment and are often based as much on whether a student completes an assignment or on the teacher's perception of the student's effort as on the quality of the student's work. We know that students' scores on state tests are one indicator of what students know and can do, and that the numerical score reports that appear in newspapers and even the disaggregated scores that states send back to schools are confusing both to the public and teachers. The ways in which these scores are reported and interpreted do not help either the public or educators truly understand whether middle school students are learning more and, more importantly, whether students can remember and apply what they learn.

The effect is that middle schools are captive to assessment systems that may be useful to states for accountability purposes, but which do not present a more complete picture of how well students are learning. It is as if states are using out-of-date x-ray technology to track a young adolescents' growth over time. You can see the skeleton develop, but you cannot see the muscles, the brain, and the values develop. You can tell whether a certain type of growth is taking place, but you cannot tell whether and how the young person is growing in ways that benefit himself or others.

Most middle schools are not able to demonstrate that
they are more successful than other middle level schools
in causing all students, in every quartile, to learn at higher levels, identify and develop their God-given talents, and apply both their learning and their talents to strengthen their school communities.

As a result, most middle schools are not able to demonstrate that they are more successful than other middle level schools in causing all students, in every quartile, to learn at higher levels, identify and develop their God-given talents, and apply both their learning and their talents to strengthen their school communities. Instead, the schools are scrambling to satisfy demands for what is often a higher, single numerical score that represents aggregate student performance. These demands will not subside, nor should they so long as middle school are unable to provide more compelling evidence that student performance at all levels is increasing significantly.

This is a major unmet challenge of middle school reform. There is a lot of work to do to develop and use processes that can produce clear evidence of the effects of reform. Some elements for doing so exist now but are rarely used. Student work that is tightly linked to standards -- particularly student writing, science and social studies projects, and solutions to challenging mathematics problems -- can be more visibly displayed throughout schools and in the community. Schools can bring in small groups of business leaders to see students engaged in applying their learning. Students can lead parent-teacher conferences to show and discuss what they are learning and how they are seeking to improve their performance.

The models and experiences for how to do these things are available, but I know of few middle schools that have gone beyond the state test to weave such demonstration and assessment methods into a coherent strategy to provide evidence of the school's benefit to students. This is an issue that middle schools and the movement for middle school reform must address. If they do not, middle schools will continue to be on the defensive and will fail to get the support they need to meet the education challenges that seem to increase each year.

A critical missing ingredient: Leadership

There is no question that the hope for middle school reform is more promising than it has been at any time during the past decade. There is growing consensus that reform is necessary. There is more certainty about the reforms that are necessary, and there are more resources for implementing the reforms. But there is a critical missing ingredient. There are not enough leaders to mobilize all the people necessary to bring middle school reform to fruition. I hope that during this Institute, and as you continue to work with Middle Start, you will embrace the vision of middle school reform, and provide the leadership your teachers and your students need to understand and act on that vision.
The fundamental message of that vision is that middle schools can be more rewarding for administrators, teachers, and students, but for that to occur the performance levels of administrators, teachers, and students must increase concurrently.

This will only happen through thousands of individual actions and just as many collaborations. I do not have to tell you that many people who must act and collaborate -- administrators, teachers, and students -- merely want to get out of bed every morning, come to school, and do their job pretty much as they have always done it, without any greater inspiration or effort. These people need you. They need you to help them learn and grow and become more powerful and effective than they ever thought possible. They need you to provide the support and safety that makes it possible for them to learn and change. This is a prerequisite for middle school reform, but it will not happen without your leadership.

Thank you.