Here's an interesting article that looks at two different middle schools with two different approaches. Both share a philosophy that middle schools should be done away with, but disagree in how to approach that. This article focuses on the unique transitional period of middle school students. To me, this is an example of In This We Believe's idea of an authentic and ongoing assesment of what works and what doesn't work for students. These educators have to come a belief that it is better to avoid one of the two large educational transition period for kids (whether it be at 6th or 8th grade, respectively). This process is still ongoing and presents more questions than answeres, however. Does this give the students the educational environment they need? Does this allow them the relationships they need with both educators (adult role models or coddlers?) and peers (should they be exposed to students they can model from or is there a danger mixing them with students that are physically and emotionally beyond them?).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/education/22middle.html?pagewanted=1&ref=thecriticalyears
In This We Believe feels that educators need to care about kids and have the right motivations for getting into this line of work. It also stresses that everyone (from student to teacher to administration to policy) be on the same page and have the same common goal. How do we accomplish this when no one can seem to agree on common standards or whether a middle school should even exist? It seems like there is a wonderful philosophy behind the system but no one agrees on how to impliment the ideals (or what the ideals really even mean). I love the ideals that I read about but I am left wondering what exactly the job is?
ReplyDelete