The professional preparation of middle level teachers
=========================
Thomas S. Dickinson is Associate Professor, College of Education, Indiana
State University,
Terre Haute. C. Kenneth McEwin is Professor, Reich College of Education,
Appalachian State
University, Boone, North Carolina.
=========================
There have been many calls for the specialized professional preparation
of teachers of young
adolescents (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Dickinson
& Butler, 1994;
Douglass, 1920; McEwin, 1992a; Van Til, Vars & Lounsbury, 1961). The
majority of teacher
preparation institutions, however, have not heeded these calls. The reasons
for this failure are
powerful and complex. Although many reasons are based on false information
and stereotyped
myths, they remain powerful and must be debunked. Factors that complicate
this issue include:
* ignorance about young adolescents' special characteristics and needs
* insufficient advocates in the profession
* desire for a plentiful supply of teachers who are licensed to teach any
age group
* lack of public knowledge about middle level curriculum, teaching and schooling
* expense of new teacher preparation programs in a time of too few resources
* limited number of model middle level teacher preparation programs
* problems, real and / or perceived, with other teacher preparation programs
* willingness of schools to settle for hiring teachers who are only prepared
to teach in settings
other than middle schools
* licensure regulations that do not require special middle level preparation
* lack of prestige for teaching this "difficult and crazy age group"
* undiminished appeal of teaching younger children interest in teaching
a single subject area "in
depth"
* lack of confidence among teachers about effectively teaching this age
group
* general tendency to ignore the needs of young adolescents and their teachers.
A major reason for the lack of teachers with special preparation to teach
young adolescents lies
not in the unwillingness of prospective and practicing middle level teachers
to enroll in these
programs, but in the unavailability of undergraduate and graduate middle
level teacher
preparation programs. In a 1993 study of 2,139 middle school teachers, researchers
found that
71 percent did not know a special middle level teacher preparation program
was available when
they began their professional preparation (Scales & McEwin,1994).
Other studies reveal that the majority of institutions in the U.S. with
teacher preparation
programs have not established specialized middle level programs (Alexander
& McEwin, 1988;
McEwin, 1992b). In his 1991 study of institutions with special middle level
teacher preparation
programs McEwin (1992b) found that only 31 percent of all institutions had
undergraduate
middle grades teacher preparation programs, and 91 percent of the institutions
with a specialized
middle level program at the masters or doctoral level also had an undergraduate
one. The
master's degree was the second most frequently offered (McEwin, 1992b).
At institutions with middle level teacher preparation programs, the major
specialization, one
equivalent to a full degree program in elementary or secondary education,
is the most popular
undergraduate plan. Even at this basic teacher preparation level, however,
43 percent of
programs consisted only of add-on requirements or special middle level courses.
The same
pattern existed for the other degree levels (McEwin, 1992b).
Progress in establishing special middle level teacher preparation programs
has been steady, but
extremely slow. The percent of institutions that offer undergraduate middle
level teacher
preparation programs has increased from 23 percent in 1973 (Gatewood &
Mills, 1973) to 38
percent in 1991 (McEwin, 1992b), a gain of only 15 percent in 18 years!
At this rate, a long time
will pass before all teachers of young adolescents have the opportunity
to receive professional
preparation focused on middle level teaching (McEwin,1992b).
Special Preparation and the Middle Level Teacher
It is not surprising that the majority of middle level teachers received
no special preparation for
teaching young adolescents, considering the scarcity of specialized preparation
programs for
middle level teachers and the licensure requirements that sustain them.
A survey of 5th- through
8th-grade teachers from eight states conducted in 1991 (Scales, 1992) revealed
that most middle
level teachers have been prepared in elementary education programs that
focus on teaching young
children, or in secondary ones that focus almost exclusively upon content
area knowledge. As a
result, many middle level teachers' interests and professional preparation
are focused on other
grade levels and other developmental groups.
In the aforementioned 1993 study (Scales & McEwin, 1994), which examined
the impact of high
quality middle level teacher preparation programs, the researchers sent
survey instruments to
middle schools (serving grades 6-8) in five states. These states offered
"authentic" (Valentine &
Mogar, 1992) middle level teaching certificates. Even in these states (which
contained 57 percent
of the special middle level teacher preparation programs in the U.S.), however,
only 22 percent
of middle school teachers reported receiving specific undergraduate professional
preparation for
middle grades teaching. Fifty-six percent of teachers with graduate degrees
in these states
indicated that their most recent preparation was for the middle level. When
both undergraduate
and graduate degrees were considered, approximately 55 percent of middle
school teachers in
these five states had some special middle level teacher preparation at some
degree level.
Additional findings from this study also strongly support comprehensive
middle level teacher
preparation programs. These findings show:
* teachers prepared in special middle grades programs were more likely to
have had program
components considered in the literature to be essential for successful middle
grades teaching
* the more middle level courses taken by preservice teachers, the more likely
they were to rate
their preparation program highly
* teachers who held the authentic middle level teaching license were significantly
more likely to
have participated in comprehensive programs and to rate those programs more
favorably than
teachers whose certificates were not as authentically focused on the middle
level.
Middle Level Licensure
The failure of most states to design and implement licensure regulations
that promote the
specialized knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to successfully teach
young adolescents is
a major reason for the dearth of specially prepared middle level teachers.
A national study of
licensure practices found that only 33 states had specialized middle level
teacher licensure
(Valentine & Mogar, 1992). Although this represents a substantial increase
from previous years,
many of these states have overlapping licensure regulations that fail to
encourage prospective
teachers to choose middle level preparation.
The fact that compliance with middle level licensure regulations is frequently
not required
weakens their impact. Only 11 of the 33 states in the 1992 study required
middle level teachers to
have special licenses. Furthermore, overlapping grade levels included in
many plans discourage
many undergraduates from specializing in middle level education.
A close relationship exists between the type of licensure available and
the number of teacher
preparation institutions that offer special middle level teacher preparation
programs. Eighty-two
percent of all middle level teacher preparation programs in 1991, for example,
were found in
states where middle level licensure/endorsements were available. In addition,
57 percent of all
special middle level teacher preparation programs were found in only five
states (Georgia,
Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia) states where special licensure
is required for
middle level teaching (McEwin, 1992b). The authors' message here is straightforward:
special
mandatory middle level teacher licensure leads to the development and implementation
of special
middle level teacher preparation programs.
Profiles of Successful Programs
Two excellent middle level teacher preparation programs will be profiled:
an undergraduate
program at a major state institution, and a graduate program at a small,
private liberal arts college.
The authors hope that these programs will serve as models for educators
who are planning new
middle level teacher preparation programs or revising existing ones. These
two programs and 12
others are portrayed in The Professional Preparation of Middle Level Teachers:
Profiles of
Successful Programs (McEwin & Dickinson, 1995). Each of these programs
reflects the kind of
dedicated, courageous professionals who make good things happen for young
adolescents and
their teachers.
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
The original Middle Grades Education Program at the University of North
Carolina at
Greensboro (UNC-G) began as a series of courses and internships that encouraged
development
of accepted middle level teaching competencies. Many aspects of this program
were successful
and preservice teachers began to develop a middle grades identity. Even
so, much more
integration between courses and internships was needed. An intensive program
review identified
six key areas that needed to be better addressed:
* most undergraduate students did not begin intensive internships until
late in their junior year
* some students were assigned to teachers more oriented toward secondary
education
* much more integration between courses and internships was needed
* students needed to make enlightened career decisions by their sophomore
year
* the faculty desired the opportunity to develop close, ongoing relationships
with their students
* an ongoing collaborative set of relationships with public school teachers
and administrators for
exemplary middle level teaching preparation was deemed desirable and necessary.
Program administrators explored ways to extend the developmental emphasis
and attend to the
areas of concern, and developed a series of new courses and related internship
experiences. The
new Inquiry Team Middle Grades program was approved in 1990. Preservice
teachers now
spend extensive blocks of time in classrooms, beginning in the sophomore
year. They become
members of a cohort team when they are admitted to the program and stay
with that team until
graduation. To facilitate greater collaboration with middle school teachers,
a consortium of
Professional Development Schools (PDS) was initiated in which teachers and
administrators act
as teacher educators. Genuine public school partnerships are considered
by most to be essential
to meaningful teacher preparation programs.
The Selection Process. To be admitted to the middle grades program, students
must successfully
complete two prerequisite courses as sophomores and have a 2.75 cumulative
grade point
average. In addition to rigorous academic expectations, students enroll
in "Curriculum and
Instruction (CUI) 202: Human Development" and "CUI 250: Teaching
As a Profession." The
human development course examines early adolescence through developmental
psychology
research and a careful analysis of young adolescent literature and case
studies.
The second course, Teaching As a Profession, is structured to help prospective
majors
understand, through immersion, what teachers do on an ongoing basis. Students
work at a
school under the direction of a classroom teacher. They also participate
in a myriad of activities
that include observing, tutoring, teaching small groups, analyzing management/discipline
systems, providing ongoing instruction that is videotaped and evaluated,
and keeping a journal of
reflections. These activities reflect what teachers do in reality and the
workload is very
demanding. Consequently, by the end of the semester, prospective majors
know quite well what
middle school teachers do. About 60 percent of the students in sophomore
classes apply for
admission and are accepted into the professional program.
An Experiential Overview of the Program. From the time of their first experiences
with the
program as sophomores until the time they graduate, students are exposed
to a set of critical
themes woven into the program's activities. These themes are: teaching of
and learning by young
adolescents, multicultural education, working with exceptional students
and using technology.
These themes are covered in a spiral fashion, with depth increasing as students
advance through
the program. In addition, one theme receives particular emphasis each semester.
For example, a
specialist in the area of exceptionalities or multicultural education works
with the cohort teams as
part of his/ her teaching responsibilities for one semester. The assignments
also reflect that
semester's major theme. Through this dual coverage approach, these critical
areas are addressed
developmentally across a span of two years and in depth for a minimum of
one semester.
Students in the professional preparation program, beginning in their junior
year, are assigned to
an inquiry team of about 25 students. For the next two years their team
operates under the
guidance of a cohort leader (a full-time faculty member) and a part-time
assistant. At least one of
these staff members visits each student each week and coordinates closely
with the on-site
teacher educator. Weekly, open-ended seminars held at one of the public
school sites address
students' most pressing concerns. Guests at the seminars usually include
teachers, administrators
and university staff with special expertise. The students also routinely
discuss successful
approaches or helpful resources. These seminars are a consistent base of
support, and they help
maintain a sense of community.
Students teach three half-days a week during the first semester of their
junior year. Beginning
with their second semester, students teach even more extensively, and conduct
all instruction for
at least one half-day. In the first semester of their senior year, they
teach several half-days and at
least one full day. This gradual immersion into instructional planning and
delivery, based on
recommendations from on-site teacher educators, is designed to provide maximum
preparation
for full-time teaching for several months during student teaching.
The professional development school staff, the university cohort staff and
the students
themselves all examine these student teaching experiences. Each student's
"living" portfolio
contains written plans, materials, resources, videotapes and verbal portrayals
that become
vehicles for extensive reflection. Students are not only on a journey of
self-discovery, but also
are learning from their interactions with fellow students and professionals.
By the time they
complete their program, they should realize that their journey of reflection
and discovery is a
lifelong pursuit.
The Role of the Cohort Leader. Coordinating a team of students is very labor
intensive. Cohort
leaders must be willing to be in schools and interact extensively with teachers
and administrators.
Forging new relationships is exciting and worthwhile. Faculty members must
have educators'
respect and trust to be effective, however.
The cohort leader also is the students' key contact person. As close relationships
develop,
students interact more frequently and seek guidance on a range of concerns.
Issues about
program experiences emerge through numerous discussions. Cohort leaders
must be sensitive
and supportive. This may call for the occasional candid, yet professional,
discussion that
challenges a student to alter his / her perceptions and behavior.
The cohort leader also orchestrates students' overall set of experiences
over the two years. Close
coordination with the methods course instructors, as well as onsite teacher
educators, ensures
that students' diverse needs are met.
Clearly, cohort leaders are central figures in the program. The wide range
of human challenges
requires a great deal of strength in interpersonal relations and an inordinate
investment of time
and energy. The success of the program is contingent on this investment.
Maryville University
Maryville University, located in St. Louis County, Missouri, offers a Master
of Arts in
Educational Processes. Since its development in 1982, program designers
have added more
specific areas of study. Areas of concentration now range from early childhood,
gifted and
middle level teaching, as well as environmental education and multicultural
education.
A Middle School Task Force, composed of several middle school teachers,
building and district
level administrators, and Maryville faculty, spent more than a year designing
the middle school
teacher preparation program. The following development strand provides a
sample of the
competencies that were crafted as initial program guidelines.
Development StrandThe Young Adolescent
The student will:
* understand the cognitive, affective and physical development of the preadolescent
* explore how the preadolescent learns, and adapt curriculum and instruction
to meet the profiles
of this age group
* explore strategies that facilitate the preadolescent guidance programs,
exploring the advisor /
advisee roles, as well as the teacher/ pupil roles and how they affect all
development
* develop strategies for assessing middle level students' growth and development.
Faculty began to understand how to best configure the program's coursework
as the
competencies for middle level teachers emerged. Working from competencies
specified for all
middle level teachers, the Task Force focused upon already licensed teachers
seeking a second
area of licensure. These teachers arrive at Maryville with a variety of
backgrounds and licenses,
yet the Task Force developed a body of coursework that would become the
common core of the
program. This core was a sequence of three semesters of coursework and experiences,
with
accompanying field work:
* Introduction to Middle School (2 semester hours): An understanding of
the philosophy,
history, structure and future direction of middle level education, as well
as how these topics
relate to young adolescents' characteristics.
* The Middle School Child. Curriculum and Instructional Strategies (4 semester
hours): An
integrated exploration of the cognitive, affective and psychomotor growth
of the young
adolescent, as well as the appropriate curriculum and instruction for meeting
their needs.
* The Middle School Teacher (3 semester hours): The role of the middle school
teacher, with an
emphasis upon teaming, collaboration, integrated curriculum and participatory
classroom
management.
Programmatic Components. Not surprisingly, one of the most powerful components
of the core
sequence is the opportunity for teachers to work and plan together. This
collaboration is intended
to provide the groundwork for interactions within team settings when teachers
return to their
schools.
Programmatic components throughout this coursework include a careful, in-depth
look at issues
of equity gender, race and socioeconomic status, as well as tracking and
grouping. Other
components address structural and instructional issues for the middle school,
planning and
experience with an advisory system, flexible scheduling, exploratory cycles
and attention to
middle school students' needs and interests. A curriculum component that
has received a great
deal of attention is teaching integrated and thematic units, which forces
a close look at both
professional education and liberal arts coursework. The program mandates
that middle level
instruction model many of the recommended components of curriculum and instruction.
Beyond the core courses, each teacher's liberal arts and general education
preparation was
examined. Many teachers lacked the necessary broad-based content background
required by the
Task Force's competencies. Both the faculty and the Task Force believed
that teachers needed
preparation across disciplines to accommodate variations in team composition,
integrated
teaching and a level of generalized preparation. Furthermore, new state
licensure requirements
prescribed reading, writing and language arts competencies for all middle
school teachers. This
work was incorporated into the core courses, as well as a Reading and Writing
in the Content
Area course required for those who did not have reading and language arts
preparation. Teachers
with minimal preparation in mathematics and science were required to take
a newly developed,
integrated and team-taught course that would explore those content areas
through a constructivist
teaching model. Although requirements in both professional content and the
liberal arts could
have been a disincentive for enrollment, this has not been the case.
The keys to success in the Maryville University middle school program include:
* faculty willing to look at new programs and ideas
* two key faculty members with specific, extensive middle school experience
and preparation
* a holistic program model that focused directly on middle level students'
developmental needs
* the belief that teachers and students will actively construct knowledge
* a core of excellent middle school professionals who work closely with
the program.
The program's success has attracted a large number of graduate students.
And, by modifying the
undergraduate field experiences to include middle schools, students find
that they have developed
an undergraduate middle school program as well. A beginning core of 10 preservice
students is
now working in field sites, which are the classrooms of the graduate program
students.
Creating a Sustainable Future
Middle school teacher educators have two related missions. Their primary
mission is to prepare
students to teach young adolescents. A deeper, often unarticulated, mission
is the continuation of
the middle school movement and creation of a sustainable future for the
education of young
adolescents. No school, at whatever level, can succeed in its stated mission
without the influx of
specially prepared professionals.
The programs profiled in this article and in The Professional Preparation
of Middle Level
Teachers: Profiles of Successful Programs (McEwin & Dickinson, 1995)
successfully pursue the
two missions described above. They share other commonalities, as well as
differences. What
truly binds them together, however, is their focus on the special preparation
of middle school
teachers to teach young adolescents. In educating another generation of
middle school teachers,
these programs are helping to secure the future for the middle school movement.
References
Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1988). Preparing to teach at the
middle level. Columbus,
OH: National Middle School Association.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing
American
youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Dickinson, T. S., & Butler, D. A. (1994). The journey to the other side
of the desk: The
education of middle school teachers. In F. M. Smith & C. O. Hausafus
(Eds.), The education of
early adolescents: Home economics in the middle school, Yearbook 14 of the
American Home
Economics Association (pp. 183-191). Peoria, IL: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
Douglass, A. A.
(1920). The junior high school. Bloomington, IL: National Study of Education.
Gatewood, T. E., & Mills, R. C. (1973). Preparing teachers for the middle
school, junior high:
A survey and model. Mt. Pleasant, MI: Central Michigan University.
McEwin, C. K. (1992a). Middle level teacher preparation and certification.
In J. L. Irvin (Ed.),
Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp.
369-380). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
McEwin, C. K. (1992b). Working documents from 3rd survey of teacher education
program.
Boone, NC: Appalachian State University.
McEwin, C. K., & Dickinson, T. S. (1995). The professional preparation
of middle level
teachers: Profiles of successful programs. Columbus, OH: National Middle
School Association.
Scales, P. C., & McEwin, C. K. (1994). Growing pains: The making of
America's middle
school teachers. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Scales,
P. C. (1992).
Windows of opportunity: Strengthening middle grades teacher preparation.
Minneapolis, MN:
Search Institute (originally published by the Center for Early Adolescence,
University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill). Valentine, J., & Mogar, D. C. (1992). Middle
level certification-an
encouraging evolution. Middle School Journal, 24(2), 36-43.
Van Til, W., Vars, G. F., & Lounsbury, J. H. (1961). Modern education
for the junior high
school years. New York: BobbsMerrill Company.
Published in Childhood Education, Vol. 73, No. 5, p. 272 (1997)