I've had little to no experience with middle schoolers, so I'm completely unfamiliar with middle school education. Apart from my experience as a middle schooler myself, I was completely unaware of what goals and ideals guide middle grades programs.
After a little research, I found that before the 1960s, there wasn't anything that differentiated middle school in preparing young minds for higher learning. At the time of the start of the middle school movement, psychologists and educators realized that middle schoolers were not "simply older elementary students nor younger high school students" (Armstrong, 2006). Instead, they were in a class all their own, with different needs, goals, and inevitable developmental milestones. The emergence of puberty, coupled with the increased rigor created a perfect storm for these students, ultimately resulting in requiring a different approach to their education. Specific changes to the instruction, curriculum, and administration were recommended, all to contribute to the academic, social, and emotional maturation of these children (Armstrong, 2006).
In order to reach these developing students, a great middle school will establish opportunities for middle school students to find mentors among the faculty. They will also give students flexibility with regard to their academics and the opportunity to work between disciplines. Most of all, though, these schools attempt to create "small communities of learners" to focus on the unique needs of each student.
To me, this sounds a lot like the ideals of a gifted program. So what is it about these two fields colliding that causes discord?
The problem lies in heterogeneous grouping—a technique that middle schools use to address the developmental needs of their students (Willard-Holt, n.d.). Unfortunately, in this setting, the needs of gifted students are not addressed. By taking a cooperative learning approach, it's likely that gifted children will not feel challenged, will end up doing all of the work, or teaching the rest of their group. Although the needs of middle schoolers are unique, the needs of a gifted middle schooler require even more attention and support. Without challenging material, gifted students feel like they are wasting their time and could potentially become behavioral issues. In addition, by being grouped with students that are so unlike them, gifted students could lose or become detached from their gifted peers (Willard-Holt, n.d.).
Although Rosseli and Irvin refer to a type of flexible grouping, ultimately gifted students would spend the majority of their day in a heterogeneous setting, working with students that are likely well below their ability level (Rosseli & Irvin, 2001). For many gifted students, ability levels are well beyond their years. And in my experience specifically, students who are identified as gifted and are challenged in the right environment typically behave well beyond their years, too. If education has anything to do with age, I believe it is important to take this into consideration.
Gross examines this in her article when she says, "It is now generally understood and accepted that a child's level of social and emotional development is more highly correlated with his mental age than with his chronological age" (Gross, 1989). This quote resonated with me, specifically because I've had this feeling all my life; I've always felt a little too old for my peers. This made relating to them difficult and isolating and, in my opinion, caused more social and emotional distress than anything else. By forcing gifted students to be in heterogenous groups with students that are far below their mental age, schools are doing a disservice to the children who require more than the average amount of rigor and challenge to grow. Because these students' mental ages do not match their chronological ages, they technically should not be grouped with peers that do not match their educational, social, and emotional growth rates (Gross, 1989).
From my experience, I benefit from working with like-minded people. That's not to say that there isn't anything to gain from working in a heterogenous group, but homogenous groups challenge you to be better, instill a healthy competitive spirit, and cause less social stress on students that may not know their place, yet.
Another potential rift between the middle school philosophy and the gifted philosophy is that some middle school programs slightly shift their focus from critical, abstract thinking to social and emotional development. This means that schools allow teachers to move away from challenging students too much in order to preserve "self-concept" (Rosseli & Irvin, 2001).
In my opinion, this seems like an awful idea. Although middle school self-concepts are more delicate than those of other age groups, it is a school's priority to focus on the educational development of a student. By not challenging students, asking them involved questions, and encouraging them to think critically and abstractly, teachers put their students at a disadvantage. Despite their unique emotional needs, middle schoolers need to progress educationally in order to meet the challenges in high school. With regard to gifted students, this philosophy just does not work. Research has shown that gifted students not only benefit from, but also enjoy a challenge (Willard-Holt, n.d.). In fact, more often than not, their self-concept is based entirely on their academic achievements and abilities.
So what is equity in education? And excellence? In my opinion, equity in education means that every student is provided with a fair education without bias. Fair has multiple meanings, but for educational purposes I think that it means every child is provided with an educational environment that meets their unique and specific needs. Excellence also has to do with fairness and making an effort to make our instruction accessible but individualized. When schools do not recognize that their definition of excellence is too rigid, they assume that success and excellence among their student body is expecting the same results from every student, regardless of their ability level.
Instead, it is important for educators and administrators to understand the fluidity of excellence within an educational environment. Excellence for an average student is not the same as excellence for a gifted student. What's more, levels of excellence might even be measured differently when it comes to these students.
So fair doesn't necessarily have to mean equal, and I think that's entirely acceptable! Instead, I think that, in practice, fairness and excellence means teachers differentiate their instruction to meet the unique needs of every child in their class—even if they aren't gifted—and I think that the middle school philosophy encourages teachers to do this. Because middle schoolers have such unique needs, it is important to consider those needs individually. However, it is also important to take it a step further and recognize when the fundamental ideals of a philosophy are not working for your students. If gifted students are not challenged by their teacher, this is not an equitable or excellent environment. Instead, it is a detrimental situation that could negatively influence a child's educational, social, emotional and behavioral development.
Resources
Armstrong, T. (2006). Middle Schools: Social, Emotional, and Metacognitive Growth. In The Best Schools. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Willard-Holt, C. (n.d.). Middle School Programs for Gifted Students. In PAGE Bulletin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Penn State University.
Rosseli, H. C. & Irvin. L. (2001). Differing perspectives common ground: The middle school and gifted educational relationship. The Middle School Journal 32(3). pp.
26-35.
Gross, M. (1989) The search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11(4). Roeper City and county School.
No comments:
Post a Comment