This paper examines the origins and purpose of middle schools in the United States and the growing gap between the philosophy behind middle school education and current classroom realities. It discusses the shortage of specially certified middle school teachers, using New York City as a case study, and analyzes competing reform approaches — including standardized testing under No Child Left Behind, advisory and mentorship programs, and team teaching. The paper argues that effective middle school reform must account for the unique intellectual, social, emotional, and developmental challenges faced by early adolescents, and that no single solution has yet resolved the tension between subject-area proficiency and holistic, student-centered learning.
The paper demonstrates effective use of direct quotation integrated with analytical commentary. Rather than letting quoted sources speak for themselves, the writer consistently follows each quotation with a sentence that advances the argument — for example, noting that reading score declines across grade levels confirm the urgency of the certification problem. This quotation-then-analysis pattern gives the paper argumentative momentum throughout.
The paper opens with a definitional and historical introduction, moves into a problem statement built around teacher certification data, then evaluates three reform strategies in sequence: standardized testing, independent/advisory learning, and team teaching. A brief concluding paragraph acknowledges the unresolved debate and affirms that national awareness of the issue is itself meaningful progress. The structure is linear and thesis-driven, appropriate for an undergraduate essay on education policy.
When addressing the concept of middle school reform, the first question that arises is: what is a middle school, and what was the original purpose of creating such an institution? At the beginning of the 20th century, schoolchildren in the United States attended two types of schools — elementary and secondary. Educators developed the specific concept of special schooling for students in grades 7–8, or junior high schools, as a method of preparing students for high school. American middle schools today usually encompass grades 6–8. Middle schools were created to meet the unique needs of young people who are neither young children nor sexually mature adolescents. Thus, a middle school is not merely a school designed to house certain grades. It is a relatively recent innovation that is supposed to address specific developmental and academic needs of prepubescent students (Friedman, Hartshorne, & Algozzine, 2005).
Although the age range middle schools cater to is relatively narrow and the original concept of a middle school is highly specialized, around the country "middle school teachers are often trained as elementary school generalists or as high school subject specialists, with little understanding of young adolescent psychology" (Gootman 2007:1). While "46 states offer some sort of credential specifically for middle school teachers, only 24 require" such specific certification (Gootman 2007:1). Middle schools are supposed to serve the special needs of students, yet teachers are not specifically trained in those needs.
In New York City, where middle school policy has undergone substantial revision — ending social promotion and mandating proficiency tests at critical junctures of student education — "of New York City's 13,296 middle school teachers, only 82 are certified as 'middle school generalists'" (Gootman 2007:1). Some policymakers fear that stricter credentialing requirements could further narrow the pool of potential middle school teachers (Gootman 2007:1). However, the fact remains that in grade-by-grade testing conducted across New York State, "reading scores plunged from fifth to sixth grade, when most students move to middle school, and continued to slide through eighth grade" (Gootman 2007:2).
To remedy the gap between the philosophy of middle schooling and the reality, many "states and school districts looking to strengthen their teachers are trying a variety of approaches, among them offering special certifications for middle school teachers, paying them extra to work in tough schools, or having them cover two subjects instead of one to let them develop closer relationships with students" (Gootman 2007:1). Schools struggle with striking a delicate balance between fostering mentoring relationships — which middle school students require to gain a sense of security — and preparing students for the subject-specific academic rigors of secondary school.
The education of middle-school-aged children across the nation has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, particularly with the No Child Left Behind Act and its use of standardized testing as a means of measuring objective school performance. However, many educators fear that this emphasis on individual performance assessment through testing does not suit the developmental needs of middle school children, nor does it help them transition into the more competitive environment of junior or senior high school.
Instead, a better approach to teaching middle school students might be to encourage them to pose questions, tackle open-ended problems beyond what they faced in elementary school, learn to research subjects of personal interest, debate and defend their beliefs, and try to find solutions to problems they themselves pose. Although measuring performance through standardized assessment is more difficult with this approach, these techniques teach students to learn and think independently — which many believe is a more important goal for students of this age than meeting standardized proficiency benchmarks.
All of these approaches can help teachers meet the difficulties presented by this age group. "Part of the challenge of middle school is the breathtaking range of student ability, more pronounced than in elementary schools, where one can only fall so far behind, or high schools, which generally offer tracked classes" (Gootman 2007:2). Although a perfect solution has not been achieved, and the debate continues as to whether it is more important for students to acquire basic skills in individual subject areas or to benefit from more open-ended approaches, at very least a national conversation has begun among educators about a recognized need presented by this age group.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.