The last piece of research that I saw made the case that there is nothing specific that makes Middle Schooling work. Most of the things cited by schools and experts come back to good teaching which would produce improvements in any context. I am inclined to believe this and would add the following observations:
In a dedicated Middle School you don’t have the Y12 Assessment Program, formats etc. etc., driving everything. Likewise without the Junior Primaries you can focus energies on the Middle Years. Teachers who are employed in a boy’s Middle School must love working with boys. Teachers have a singular focus, boy’s learning is their priority. This may be hard for some teachers.
Structurally, Middle Schooling allows you to group teachers so that students are exposed to fewer people than in a typical secondary school. For example, one teacher for Maths. Science and Physical Educ. The idea being that the teacher gets to know each student because of greater contact time. Likewise the students (and parents) get to know their teachers better which can have great benefits. However, if you have a poor performing teacher the opposite effect is also true. When supporting the development of this I was influenced by the small schools movement in the US that argues, ‘ I cannot teach a child whom I do not know well’. This fits well with our Middle School approach.
My school does not have graded classes as this works against the type of relationships noted in the previous paragraph. When extension Maths was offered as an elective it was never taken up. As you can imagine this was not without many arguments with staff and parents. We tracked the subject selection of the boys in Maths and Sciences to see if ungraded classes in the Middle Years had a negative effect. The two years we studied, the numbers of boys studying higher levels of Maths increased. This would be consistent with some of the research about boys’ (childrens’) self concept in Maths being more important than graded classes. In short, I would argue that the structures, staffing and programs fostered the enhancement of boys’ self concept in Maths during these years. No uniquely middle school methodology, just removal of some out-of-date constructs and a focus on teaching all students well.
Recruitment and staff expectations are critical. My school initially suffered from low expectations of students and a glut of under-performing teachers. A slogan was developed, ’Our Boys can do anything!’ Although this school was a place where boys were loved and supported everyone knew the academic program was suspect. Curriculum and pedagogical change was put in place.
One great aspect about Middle School is that staff from secondary, primary and middle-school were attracted thus creating a more dynamic mix. It generated many arguments because staff viewed issues from very different perspectives. This was particularly important for pedagogy as the primary and middle trained staff challenged the chalk and talk and exam driven approach of the secondary trained staff.
The Constructivist approach is well suited to the Middle School environment. With a greater emphasis on Inquiry based learning, we saw some of the best teaching and learning. A huge thing for boys education is that it must remain relevant.
As time progressed I was beginning to wonder about the relative importance of any Middle School structures to the quality of teachers employed and the ways in which they worked together. When recruiting, we had the luxury of over 120 applicants for any permanent position. In approximately five years there was a 52% turnover of staff which aided our recruitment. A strategy we used was to pair, for example, a highly relational young male teacher who was still learning how to program, teach and assess with a highly skilled older female. The aim was to develop good professional skills quickly. A good mix of teaching styles was also valued. Whether to employ male or female teachers boiled down to employing the best teachers regardless of gender. We were mindful of the fact that most boys may not have experienced a male teacher in the primary years. Male teachers in Year 6 is what parents wanted. For females with not much experience with males, their experiences in sport seemed to be a factor that worked well. Some beginning female teachers adopted a ‘big sister’ style with great effect.
Underpinning everything was ‘getting to know the boys’; their uniqueness. This happened outside the classroom and also the use of Restorative Practices which set values (e.g. respect, participation, honesty) that guided the interrelated parts of a school - teaching, learning and nurturing. This supports staff, students and the school community as a whole, it brings together people of different backgrounds and supports feelings that the system is their own rather than one that is imposed. ‘Closer and Quieter’ is always better when dealing with behaviour issues with boys. Not easy for those of us who grew up in other environments and who possess loud voices!
On reading this piece by this principal I felt, this is truly from the heart – this is truly from actual experience. I have altered a few expressions but hopefully kept the complete gist of the principal’s message. What appealed to me were his view that ‘good teaching produces the greatest effects’ and that a principal strives to put in place effective, wanting-to-continually-learn teachers on his staff. Of course, I recognize that not all systems allow choice of staff. In this context, it would be interesting to hear from a principal what he or she has done to get under-performing teachers using more satisfactory practices.
Liz