Lots of options. One involves middle schools. As a magnet, a choice. Or just for overcrowded elementaries’ sixth graders. Or district-wide.
It could fill a formerly half-empty elementary while eliminating overcrowding elsewhere.
District stakeholders rejected middle schools before and may again. Besides, a middle school needs to be evaluated on the merits.
So what is a middle school anyway?
"Middle school," like many educational concepts, has almost as many meanings as advocates.
[Deleted by editor: Let's start at the beginning.]
More than 100 years ago, educators recognized the special social, psychological and academic needs of young adolescents. They created separate schools for these students and reformed the curriculum.
More challenging academic content was designed to reduce dropout rates. Exploration of vocational options focused academic programs and provided guidance for students not headed to high school. Students' unique psychosocial developmental needs were addressed.
Criticism followed. Some attacked the reforms. Others complained the reforms hadn't been fully implemented.
Reformers noted the inadequacies of teachers only prepared for elementary or high schools. Such teachers lack the skills to meet middle students’ psychosocial and cognitive needs. Critics reported an overemphasis on textbooks and teachers' lectures to passive students.
By the 1960s, similar reforms recognized the earlier onset of puberty, included students in sixth (and even fifth) grades, and called the program "middle schools."
Forty years later our school district is one of the few still clinging to century-old seventh- and eighth-grade "junior highs."
[Deleted by editor: It reminds me of the story my mother used to tell of the proud mother watching her son in the marching band. "Look," she said, "everybody's out of step but Johnny."
It ill behooves me, as someone who's spent much of his life being the only one not out of step, to question our district's preference.]
It could well be that we're the only district doing it right.
But it’s also possible we should re-examine our choice in light of the last century's worth of research.
Internationally, U.S. fourth-grade students rank eighth among 26 nations in math. Not bad. By eighth grade they’re 21st. Why? Our math curriculum isn't up to that of Germany or Japan. Some teachers lack the training to teach tougher courses.
Researchers say the lack of academic rigor causes adolescents' increased alienation. Not to mention inadequate preparation for high school and college.
Too little recognition of adolescents' special needs creates problems. But too much emphasis on those needs can produce a dumbed-down curriculum.
Not surprisingly, the Carnegie Corporation's 1989 report, Turning Points, recommends both academic rigor and “a culture of caring."
Similar recommendations are found in the National Middle School Association's 1995 publication, This We Believe, and this year's report from the National Center for Education Statistics, In the Middle.
There is no agreement even as to the ages of middle school students, let alone the curriculum and practices. But here are qualities of the more successful schools:
There's no panacea for K-12 education. Certainly not middle schools. They still have many of the same problems they had 100 years ago.
But they are one of many options before us this year that just might improve the quality of our kids' education.
An improvement that can also eliminate our overcrowding and boundaries problems.
Nicholas Johnson is an Iowa City School Board member.
More information is available on his Web site www.nicholasjohnson.org.