Interesting, provocative article - Why Middle Schools should be Abolished

[3andme]

Interesting article suggesting that the current middle school model does not serve it's student population well - either academically or socially. It seems to capture the feeling of some postings I've read on here that middle school is three years of treading water between elementary and high school.

 

Why Middle Schools should be Abolished

[Hunter]

I think it's dangerous here in the USA. I think it can work to just have 2 schools for private schools and in cultures outside of the USA, but not here for public school.

 

I went to a 7-11 school in another country. It worked there. I was a 12 year old little girl, going to school with grown men. One of the other little girls pushed me down and the head boy saw what happened and picked me up off the ground, and took me over to the snack shop and bought me potato chips, and I was FREAKING out because I was viewing all of this from an American attitude and didn't understand his protective feelings and responsibilities for the little ones.

 

Do we really want 18 year old men shooting and raping little 12 year old girls? Or do we want 14 year olds riding the bus with 5 year olds? Even with just 12 year olds riding the bus with my K's, they learned some vulgar vocabulary, and were exposed to conduct and paraphernalia that was unsafe and beyond their ability to understand.

[Tanaqui]

Do we really want 18 year old men shooting and raping little 12 year old girls?

 

If somebody is so determined to harm another person, I don't think being in a different school will stop them. Quite aside from which, I don't want anybody being raped or shot by anybody. It's not any better if a 13 year old rapes or shoots a 12 year old, or if that 18 year old rapes or shoots a 16 year old.

[Hunter]

The majority of school shootings and rapes take place in the high schools. It's rare for that to happen at a middle school. I don't want to see 12 and 13 year olds placed in that danger. Yes, I do think it's worse for 12 and 13 year old's to be exposed to those dangers, than older children. They have less ability to defend themselves and problem solve.

[Joker]

I don't really know what to think. I read the article earlier today. I had a great middle school experience and am glad I was separated from elementary and high school kids. My own dds didn't start ps until middle school and it's been a great experience. There has been none of the nastiness I hear about and they have made amazing friends, learned a great deal, and found a few teachers to be great mentors. I'm glad they have had their experience. The only person I know that went to a school that was K-12 was my dh and he does not have good things to say about that experience.

 

I know there must be some really bad middle schools out there, but I also think there are some really bad elementary and high schools out there. We're fortunate in our area and I know that but it definitely makes me realize there are others out there with our same experience so I would be extremely hesitant to say all middle schools should go away.

[Arcadia]

Do we really want 18 year old men shooting and raping little 12 year old girls?

There are quite a few places here where the K-8 school is just next door to the high school. In fact my district just bought a plot of land to build a K-12 school. It would be a few buildings but one campus.

So logistic wise, 18 year old boys can look at 12 year old girls if they want to. Also so many K-5 schools aren't fenced and any stranger can easily walk through the school as a shortcut.

 

ETA:

 

I don't agree with the article though. My local K-8 school is okay for k-5 but the mean behavior comes out in the 6-8th grades. Some people end up transferring their kids to chartered or private because of the bullying. So going k-8 doesn't solve the problem.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I think middle school is mostly wasted time in America, a missed opportunity, generally speaking. I do not necessarily think it should be eliminated. I think it should be fixed, made into a meaningful stepping stone to high school. I think middle school kids should be actively engaged, given meatier subjects, purposefully taught executive function and study skills, and held to a much higher standard.

[Joshin]

Someone once told me that middle schools were modeled after prisons because Americans are so terrified of kids in the initial throes of puberty we had to corral them in a separate building. Funny thing is, when I think of the four cities I have lived in, all the middle schools had small, high up windows and really did resemble prisons, while the elementary and high schools had big windows and open floor plans. Coincidence probably, but the image has stuck with me.

 

Personally, I would prefer smaller K-12 schools with classes differentiated by ability rather than age. We have experience with a local K-12 enrichment program, and it's amazing how well kids do when they work at their level with kids off all ages, instead of being stuck only with age mates of varying abilities all day. At the 8-12 level, I would like to see options for kids on a trades path and those on the college path.

[kiwik]

We have a variety. I went to a Y1 to 8 followed by a Y9 to 13 because I was in a semi rural area. Some rural areas have Y1 to 6 followed by Y7 to 12. Most cities though have Y1 to 6, Y7/8 and Y9 to 13. There are some Y1 to 13 as well. They all work in different ways but I am not sure one is intrinsically any better than the other. It depends almost entirely on the culture of the school. You can have 12 year olds bullying 5 year olds or you can have 12 year olds nurturing 5 year olds. The same goes for 12 year olds and 18 year olds.

 

That said there has been some concern about creating a large school in a fairly poor area of Christchurch that would contain primary, intermediate and secondary schools. But that is because of potential gang and drug problems that might be hard to keep away from the little kids.

[UmMusa]

This makes my stomach churn seeing as I have 2 kids in junior high (grades 7 and 8).

[Korrale]

I went to. 1st to 7th grade primary school and then an 8th to 12th grade highschool. Kids from 4 years old to 17 years old rode the same bus. Obviously I didn't go to school in the US. I never really understood the need for a middle school, unless it was due to population and them keeping the schools smaller.

We never had issues with 17 year olds attacking 12 year olds. We didn't have a mass group in the throws of puberty.

[Tanaqui]

 

The majority of school shootings and rapes take place in the high schools. It's rare for that to happen at a middle school. I don't want to see 12 and 13 year olds placed in that danger. Yes, I do think it's worse for 12 and 13 year old's to be exposed to those dangers, than older children. They have less ability to defend themselves and problem solve.

 

 

I can't speak for the stats on rape, but school shootings, period, aren't terribly common. A quick google search tells me that there have been "74 since Sandy Hook". 74, and there are nearly 100,000 public schools in the US, not to mention all the private schools.

 

If we're just talking high schools, google tells me the following:

 

In 2001 there were 26,407 public high schools and 10,693 private schools in the United States, although this figure may be inflated somewhat by the U.S. Department of Education's definition of high schools as "schools with secondary grades", which could include junior high schools with 9th and 10th grades.

 

That's still a lot of schools for a very small number of shootings. It's not reasonable to make state or national policy choices like whether to fold middle school into high school or keep it separate based on statistically rare events. (Of course, it's still about 74 more shootings than I, or I think anybody, would like. But gun control is a separate discussion.)

 

[Ausmumof3]

Aus has a kto7 then 8 to 12 model. I have never heard of issues with older and younger students though I guess it's possible. The bigger schools often have segregated areas for different grades.

[TammyS]

I don't know what part of America that you live in, but where I live K-5/6-12 schools are common.  Many of our school districts are too small to support 3+ schools, and high schoolers do right the bus with little kids, all the time.  I can't say that the schools around here are good, particularly, but when they have problems, it isn't because of the age difference. 

 

Older children feeling protective of younger children isn't a non-American thing.  It's a child rearing thing.  All of the families that I know teach their older children to be protective of younger children. 

 

As for little girls getting raped....there was a rape in a local high school recently.  It was during the school day, in the hallway, and the boy was the same age as the girl.  So supervision and age separation did nothing to protect that girl.

I think it's dangerous here in the USA. I think it can work to just have 2 schools for private schools and in cultures outside of the USA, but not here for public school.

 

I went to a 7-11 school in another country. It worked there. I was a 12 year old little girl, going to school with grown men. One of the other little girls pushed me down and the head boy saw what happened and picked me up off the ground, and took me over to the snack shop and bought me potato chips, and I was FREAKING out because I was viewing all of this from an American attitude and didn't understand his protective feelings and responsibilities for the little ones.

 

Do we really want 18 year old men shooting and raping little 12 year old girls? Or do we want 14 year olds riding the bus with 5 year olds? Even with just 12 year olds riding the bus with my K's, they learned some vulgar vocabulary, and were exposed to conduct and paraphernalia that was unsafe and beyond their ability to understand.

 

[TammyS]

So, I just read the article, and I have to say that while I think corralling kids in middle schools where the only other kids are people just as hormonal and stupid as they are is a bad idea, culturally, I don't really agree with this guy's assessment, either.

 

I have two sons.  One 15 and one 3.  One of the things that I plan to do differently with my 3 year old is to take an academic break for 2-3 years during middle school.  My 15 year old is very smart (just to give an idea, he's taking AP Latin and Bio this year and is more than 1/2 done with Saxon Adv. Math), but the middle school years were a total waste of time for both of us, and really painful for both of us.  He was smart and plenty ready for academics, but not nearly mature enough to handle the workload.  11-13 was mostly wasted time.  At the time, I really despaired that he would ever be able to finish an algebra lesson or get a job, because he wouldn't do the work.  I believe now what he needed was just some time to grow up.

 

If I had it to do over (and I sort of do) I will mostly put academics on hold and have him do lots of "boy work", like building stuff, robotics, 4H, boy scouts, whatever.  Things that are educational, but do not involve lots of time spent with a text book. 

 

I don't have daughters, but I imagine that there is a similar time period with girls where they need maturing time, though it might be timed somewhat differently than boys, and the alternatives probably look different.

[regentrude]

Middle school serves no purpose. Academics do not happen, expectations are terribly low, socially it is horrible. I also do not understand the wisdom of having kids switch school buildings every few years (4 different schools in my town: elementary, middle, jr high, and high).

Middle school should be a time of differentiation, not of putting students in holding patterns for three years in the desperate but futile attempt to have the low end catch up.

 

In my home country, kids switch schools once at the beginning of secondary school, i.e. 5th grade, and remain at that school from 5th through 10th for the non-college prep track and from 5th through 12th for the college prep track. Academics are ramped up in 5th, not put on hold.

Nobody is concerned about having 5th and12th graders in the same building because it is "dangerous"- that seems a completely foreign concept. I also do not understand the comment about being on the bus... back home, 5th graders ride public transit with teens and adults of all ages.

I do not believe that American students are by birth more  violent and prone to attacking younger children.

 

They should abolish Middle schools, have instead smaller schools and have the same kids stay together for many years. I do not see a benefit in remixing classes every year and would consider it preferable if the kids were kept together as a class for a longer period of time so they can develop deeper relationships. My best friend and I were together in the same class for 8 years. It completely alters the group dynamic and creates a more cohesive environment... you don't have to start each school year desperately trying to impress the other kids, because, hey, they have known you for years. And teachers should stay with the same class for multiple years, establish relationships and follow the students' progress - instead of having to teach new 6th graders every.single.year.

(The idea of one teacher teaching only one grade is extremely alien to me, too. Back home, teachers teach a certain subject for multiple grades. We had one math teacher from 5th through 10th grade. Creates a much different atmosphere, too, and more lasting teacher-student relationships.)

[City Mouse]

Smaller schools initially seem like a good answer, but that is not realistic in areas with high population density even when it is mostly middle and upper middle class. I used to live in the Houston area. The school district where I lived (not Houston school district) has elementary schools preK-5 that have close to 1000 students. Many of these schools are only a few mile apart. High schools have over 3000 students. The anonymous nature of such a large school does leed to some kinds of problems that smaller school do not have, but smaller schools have their own set of problems.

 

A couple of years ago, we moved to a very small town where the entire school district is about 250 kids in two k-8 schools and one high school. In such small schools, there is only 1 teacher per grade and the same students are together year after year. This may sound like a good idea, but it has its downside as well which led me to pull my DS out of the school.

[Dmmetler]

The best school transit behavior I've ever seen happened when the local district and public transit hired adults to assist with the little ones and put all the kids who could handle it (all but a very small number of students who needed specialized transportation) on the city busses. The result was that the public transit busses were much more accessible since they had to have routes into neighborhoods for the kids, the kids had extra adults on the bus and behaved better, and it was easy for high schoolers to take a college class or work study because the bus system made it much easier to handle.

 

My DD attended a PK-8 LCMS school for PK and K, and one thing they did was pair the PK and K kids with 6th-8th graders. The older kids went out for recess at the same time as the little ones, sat with them at chapel, etc. The teachers said that it worked well because the older kids would actually play and move at recess, and it helped to keep the boy/girl stuff from becoming the focus. I think it helped that it was a super-small school, with only one class per grade level. I attended a 7-12 high school, and don't remember there being problems with the 7-12 structure. The 7-8 kids were mostly in a different part of the building, and the schedule was slightly staggered so they weren't generally in the hallways at the same time (I took a couple of high school courses and ended up being early for the high school class and having to leave a couple of minutes before the bell rang for the Jr high one because of that staggering). IIRC, 7-8 graders weren't allowed to go to high school dances and 9-12 graders weren't allowed to go to middle school ones.

[wapiti]

FWIW, a principal told me that the growth of middle schools had something to do with overcrowding of schools, and that more recently, for the same reason, 6th grade is often moved to the middle school. If that is the case, I wonder whether a creative reapportionment of students might be possible, either grouping them with elementary or high school students but keeping numbers per grade level per school lower than what they typically are these days. Maybe there's a way to "cut up" very large B&M facilities into smaller "schools," like the way some chaters share a building with a neighborhood school in certain urban districts, for example. Or, turn a huge high school into a K-12 - hard for me to picture, but a bit of thinking outside the box might go a long way.

[kwg]

My ds is entering the 7th grade so I am interested in this discussion even though he is not going to a "middle school".  

 

The ones around here are HUGE- from the outside at least.  I have always thought this was a huge mistake.

[wingedradical]

I went to a "Jr. High" school, which was 7-9. I liked it better than the middle school just because I don't like to see 6th graders made teenagers so quickly. The disadvantage was that your high school years were split up but it never seemed to cause a problem. We had counselors to guide us with taking what we needed there, just like in "high school."

 

But I'm not sure I think Middle school is a wasteland. I don't know if I've shared this here before, but I was a high school drop out. I grew up in a problem home and community and ran away from home at the beginning of 10th grade. A few years later, I got a G.E.D and then went to college but because of this, I'm probably more aware of what I actually learned in Jr. High than most. I learned quite a lot, actually. I passed the G.E.D. without taking classes (I went to a class and the first evening, the teacher told me to go home and register to take the test). Maybe they are waste lands now but I learned plenty of history, writing, "some" literature, algebra (which I didn't take until 9th grade but could have taken in 8th), mostly general sciences, civics, etc. I realize a GED, although called an equivalency, is not, but I really didn't have trouble in college, either. Of course, my "Jr. High" did include 9th grade.

 

Okay, admittedly, I am a smart person and have always been a reader. I grew up in a family that valued books, even though neither of my parents had gone to college (my father only had an 8th grade education - he quit early to work on the farm after his father died). But - I also grew up in a family that did not even think of encouraging me to go to college (that was for people with money). Still, my Jr. High wasn't useless. Maybe things have changed, though. That was a long time ago.

 

The one thing I thought while reading this was -- hmmm. I wonder if it would work to make high school last from 4-6 years, depending upon how well you did? People could leave for college after four years, if ready, or stay longer, if needed? Perhaps this would help those who are having more difficulty? And yet -- it seems to me that that seeds of failure in high school happen not in high school or middle school but at least in grade school and probably in the home. Having grown up in a very poor community and having worked for Head Start many years ago, I know the disadvantages children can have are astounding. It seems to come in 2-3 levels -- children whose parents truly neglected and/or abused them, children whose parents cared for them but never really talked to them except to tell them what to do (not necessarily unloving parents -they just never learned how to talk to their children or realized they needed it). Finding a parent in that program who actually read to their children (like mine had done) was a real rarity. Parents who read to their children also tended to talk to them (about the books) which often led to other conversations which helped the children form. Which is why programs like Head Start don't work and programs like Parents as Teachers can work, if they reach the right people.

 

But sorry, I'm getting way off the topic now. Stream of consciousness......................................>

[kiwik]

It also depends on the model. In NZ intermediates/middle schools the kids still have one teacher most of the day. The difference between going to a y1 to 8 and a year 1 to 6 than intermediate is at intermediate you have woodwork/metal work/home economics on site rather than going by bus to a dental location at another school once a week. Intermediate does seem to be a stagnant period for academics but so are the first 2 years of high school. I hope to be able to home school once as gets to intermediate or work out an arrangement to part homes hook as the school is directly across the road.

[AimeeM]

I haven't time to read the article yet, but in the Catholic education world, this is already a reality and always has been, to the best of my knowledge. "Elementary school" in catholic schools is K-8, followed by high school 9-12. Some of them do categorize within the elementary school as "lower school" and "upper school", but both are considered elementary.

[kirstenhill]

I just scanned the article, but I know that in the city I'm in, there are a number of k-8 public schools. The rest are broken down k-4/5-8. So it doesn't seem so "revolutionary" if there are already public schools in large urban cities doing that.

[Farrar]

I feel like he hits the problem on the head right at the start.  Either middle school should be rolled back into that elementary age model where there's more nurture and support OR it should be rolled into high school and become a time of pushing forward on academics and serious study goals.  The issue I see is that the first would be right for some kids and the latter right for others.  And that's why middle school has become such a holding pattern for kids in the first place.

 

Overall, I think they should be overhauled and changed dramatically.  It's a funny age where kids need some serious nurturing and some serious academic push.  I like the idea of keeping the sixth graders back in elementary like they used to and maybe the 7th graders as well.  I have seen some places with 8th-9th grade schools and that seems like a good option for dividing up the younger teens from the older ones.

[AimeeM]

I feel like he hits the problem on the head right at the start.  Either middle school should be rolled back into that elementary age model where there's more nurture and support OR it should be rolled into high school and become a time of pushing forward on academics and serious study goals.  The issue I see is that the first would be right for some kids and the latter right for others.  And that's why middle school has become such a holding pattern for kids in the first place.

 

Overall, I think they should be overhauled and changed dramatically.  It's a funny age where kids need some serious nurturing and some serious academic push.  I like the idea of keeping the sixth graders back in elementary like they used to and maybe the 7th graders as well.  I have seen some places with 8th-9th grade schools and that seems like a good option for dividing up the younger teens from the older ones.

This reminds me of something my old hometown has done.

K-4 is "elementary", 5-6 is "intermediate", 7-8 is "junior high", and 9-12 is "high school".

 

My daughter, being held back in the 7th grade this year, would have melted in high school. There's a reason we're retaining a year, in anticipation of her wanting to try private high school. I do know some 7/8th graders, however, who would thrive in high school.

[MinivanMom]

I think it would be very difficult to abolish middle school in many communities, because it has become the accepted social norm. A much easier reform would be to return some of the nurturing to those years.

 

I attended a Junior High (6-8) where we did not yet do a high school rotation. In 6th grade we had 1 teacher who taught us 5 periods of the day. During the 6th period we went as a class to PE. We were kept completely separate from the 7th & 8th graders - separate lunch & housed in a separate wing of the school. In 7th & 8th grade we began rotating classes, but we still had a homeroom teacher who taught us both English and Social Studies. We began each day with the same teacher and the same small class of kids for homeroom, 1st, and 2nd period. We didn't even change classrooms until 3rd period when we walked as one giant group to Algebra. We were with the same kids for most of the day, and it gave us more stability and more support.

 

I think there are a lot of simple changes like this that could help middle schools to create a more nurturing, supportive environment. If you coupled that with increased academic standards then you could begin to really transform those years without having to make any really radical or politically controversial changes.

 

Of course, this can only work if you have teachers and administrators who love and respect teens. If the adults think middle schoolers are all twerps, if they think the kids are so awash in hormones that they're incapable of making good decisions, if they don't believe teens have the capacity to make academic progress during puberty . . . then it doesn't really matter what is expected academically or what structural changes you make to the school itself. There has to be an attitude adjustment on the part of teachers and administrators for any changes to really have an effect.

[myfunnybunch]

 made into a meaningful stepping stone to high school. I think middle school kids should be actively engaged, given meatier subjects, purposefully taught executive function and study skills, and held to a much higher standard.

 

This, right here.

 

We (culturally, in schools) treat middle schoolers as though they're in some kind of incapable limbo between being children and young adults instead of harnessing their enormous curiosity and desire to find their passion in the world.

 

Cat

 

[Farrar]

Well, my understanding is that at some point, the "middle school model" which included taking grade 6 out of elementary and putting it with "junior high" and putting all the students in four teacher core subject "teams" took over and most schools for some variation of this age range became middle schools.

 

I wonder if what doesn't work is the core concept of the team model.  It seems like it should work because it combines extra support (the group of teachers share the same students so they can coordinate assignments and discuss ways to support struggling kids in a coordinated way) with new challenges (changing classes, teachers who have specialized in their subject matter, more resources available for electives because kids can enroll in whole year or semester long classes in music and arts).  So it's got that little bit of elementary and that little bit of high school.  But somehow the way they've combined it is apparently all wrong.  Maybe kids need, as Regentrude suggested up thread, to stay with the same teachers, in the same group and let that be the support.  And that the new challenges should come in other ways instead of through changing classes.  It does feel like kids this age fall through the cracks that way so very fast.  There are other ways to encourage the executive functioning needed for that sort of thing other than making them move around so much.

[FO4UR]

My Jr High experience was different.  It was grades 7-8, and it was a good balance of preparing us academically for high school while still keeping small groups within a HUGE district. The entire school was large and we moved from class-to-class like a high school.  However, the school was broken up into 4 different groupings of students who shared the same teachers. So, there was also a team of teachers (English, math, science, history...) who saw the same 100+ students. We were actually prepared to go into rigorous high school English and math classes at 8th grade graduation, had so many music & sports opportunities, and still had an intimate feel within our classes.

 

I see that my experience was/is rare.  

 

 

 

 

fwiw - Our schools were broken down into k-3, 4-6, 7-8, and high school.  And, the high school had two campus's...one housed mostly 9-10 and the other 11-12.  There was a lot of busing between the high school campus's before and after school. I like the division in the age groups. When you mix children from a *diverse* city (diverse in moral standards, not race or religion), all sorts of things can happen on the bus or in the halls...keeping things somewhat even age-wise prevents a percentage of the worst.

[shawthorne44]

I hate the idea.  Mainly because it was Junior High that I was able to get a clean start and break away from the preconceived notions.  I'd been tracked with the dumb kids because my previous school hadn't taught the dictionary pronunciation guide.  So, that meant remedial English, which meant remedial everything else.  High School was another clean break, although not needed at that time.  But, really it was bad enough being a 7th grade girl with 9th grade boys.  To have 12th graders there too?  

My Junior High was the highlight of my public school years.  Academic stuff was offered but without pressure.  

 

eta:  Late elementary from mid-3rd when we moved to Junior High was a wasteland for me.  But, it was just a crappy elementary school that was floated by the upper middle class kids that attended.  

[RootAnn]

They should abolish Middle schools, have instead smaller schools and have the same kids stay together for many years. I do not see a benefit in remixing classes every year and would consider it preferable if the kids were kept together as a class for a longer period of time so they can develop deeper relationships. My best friend and I were together in the same class for 8 years. It completely alters the group dynamic and creates a more cohesive environment... you don't have to start each school year desperately trying to impress the other kids, because, hey, they have known you for years. 

 

Except what if you are with a group of kids that has you pegged & you have changed and they don't see it because, hey, they've known you for years?

 

I went to a Jr High-turned-Middle School (was 7-9, changed to 7-8 the year I started 7th). It was great. All the elementary schools (K-6) fed into one Middle School. The teachers didn't dumb anything down. Specific teachers set the bar high and expected you to make it - or at least give it all you got.

 

I'm not a fan of Middle Schools including 6th graders. There was a report on how 6th graders did as a whole as the Leaders (oldest in K-6 building) vs. Newbies (youngest in 6-8 Middle School) and the results were not in favor of the Middle School concept.

 

Locally, there is a K-5 building. Then, the high school has both the 6-8th Middle School and the 9-12th High School in the same building. They worked to separate the two groups after the first year of togetherness because of the problems caused with having them interacting. There is some anxiety among the mothers whose oldest kids are "moving up" to the middle school ("big building"). Generally, there isn't any problem and the mothers usually aren't as worried about the next sibling unless the oldest was a boy and the next is a girl. There are drug, bullying, and other issues at the high school that trickle into the middle school area locally. If you don't like it, you transfer to the smaller K-12 campus 20+ minutes away.

[Farrar]

My Jr High experience was different.  It was grades 7-8, and it was a good balance of preparing us academically for high school while still keeping small groups within a HUGE district. The entire school was large and we moved from class-to-class like a high school.  However, the school was broken up into 4 different groupings of students who shared the same teachers. So, there was also a team of teachers (English, math, science, history...) who saw the same 100+ students. We were actually prepared to go into rigorous high school English and math classes at 8th grade graduation, had so many music & sports opportunities, and still had an intimate feel within our classes.

 

I see that my experience was/is rare.  

 

I don't think that set up is very rare.  That's exactly the team model that nearly every middle school is built on.  I think maybe the rare thing is making it work.

[regentrude]

I think age grouping has little to do with it.  Boys schools/ Girls schools would be my first move if I were fixing the world.  Trans/ gender queer kids would get to choose where they fit/ felt best.

 

Girls only classes of middle school age would be akin to hell.

The group dynamic of preteen girls ruled by popular Queen Bee is pretty vicious.

Bullying in girl only classes would be much much worse than it already is.

 

It was the middle grades when I vowed never to take up a profession that would require me to work in female dominated environments.

[regentrude]

Hmm don't think I agree.

 

Then you must have been very lucky and your interactions with groups of female preteens atypical.

[Farrar]

Girls only classes of middle school age would be akin to hell.

The group dynamic of preteen girls ruled by popular Queen Bee is pretty vicious.

Bullying in girl only classes would be much much worse than it already is.

 

It was the middle grades when I vowed never to take up a profession that would require me to work in female dominated environments.

 

I don't necessarily agree either.  I think there's a strong argument to be made that a lot of the jockeying for position and bullying that goes on in co-od schools at this age is about proving yourself in a boy's world or showing off for the boys.  And therefore if you make space where that isn't an issue (for either gender since boys do it too in different ways) then that sort of bullying can go down.

 

But my experience in a women's college convinced me that single sex education is not the way to go for most for a variety of other reasons.  So I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate.  I think a balanced gender group usually works best and that there are challenges in creating a positive dynamic that go way beyond gender.

While I don't agree with everything in the article, I do like the focus on the middle school years, where I think most of the problems in the American system are.  The current obsession with K, pre-k and pre-pre-k just seems crazy.  I know there are studies that claim to show the benefits of pre-k and head start like programs, but I just believe that so much damage is caused with the current warehousing model of middle school, that those years merit more fixing.

[mom31257]

I hate the idea of middle school. Most are in systems where you bring several elementary schools together into one middle school. You have kids coming from each school who are popular and top dog, and now the all have to fight to be that in a new place.

 

I went to school K-8 and then to high school. My middle school years were great. I was with the same kids I had know all throughout school. Each section of grades had it's own hall, so we weren't interacting with smaller kids or eating lunch with them. The teachers had full access to each other, though, so they could ask questions of our previous teachers. They really already knew who I was and what to expect out of me.

 

I don't think it is the lack of teacher training. I think all the problems stem from the social aspects of middle school and the raging hormones that take over the children's bodies during that time.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I've heard about middle school hell for girls all my life and I'm very aware of the truth of it in this generation, but like calandalsmom I never experienced it myself. I think we're from similar small town Indiana backgrounds and possibly similar ages; maybe we were all late bloomers here in the 70s and 80s. At least in the farming communities.

 

I don't say that sarcastically -- it's something I've noticed before, concerning other social issues affecting children. Everything considered "typical" didn't happen to us much back then. Until the ubiquitous internet and urban sprawl I think some small towns and farming communities did manage a slower pace with slightly fewer social problems at school.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Is this off-topic? Something I'm wondering along the 'late bloomer' line of thought: I think I've heard the onset of puberty is earlier now. Is middle school worse than it was because of that? How far back would we need to go for that theory to be true at all, and is it different in different regions of the country?

 

Would farm kids in the midwest in the 70s and 80s start puberty later than city and suburban kids being raised on growth-hormone milk and in a plastics world today, causing the former group's social angst to erupt later in high school instead of in 5th to 8th grade?

I have not studied these things so forgive me if this is all quite stupid.

 

[Arcadia]

I went to an all-girls school from 1st to 10th grade and scenarios like "Summer Nights" from the movie Grease still happens. For 1st to 6th grade, there were three all boys catholic schools walking distance away from my convent girls school.

 

As for puberty, I had always stayed in densely populated cities, and onset of puberty for girls at 9 and boys at 11 were quite common. Not unusual to see 3rd grade girls or 5th grade guys suddenly gaining fast in height. The cat fights were more in the style of backstabbing, name calling, ostracizing than any physical fight.

[Hunter]

Having several friends that are neither male or female, I am not at all for forced segregation by gender! Never mind what people "choose", some babies are not born of a gender. Some things are more fluid than the current interpretations of our most common holy books, and that's a FACT. Yes, I know more accurate vocabulary, but am trying not to trigger any censor software. 

 

I have one friend who was kicked out of gym class at 15, because of what puberty was doing to her body. My friend now "chooses" the pronoun "her" despite having a male birth certificate, and has every right to do that, since her chest is far more developed than mine.

 

Also, in response to other issues being raised here, I think middle school is being blamed for all sorts of things that have NOTHING to do with what is taught or not taught. Gifted children move ahead exponentially, and it is the middle school years where that takes off. Earlier there are late bloomers, especially aspie STEM boys cloud the picture. But by 4th grade the gifted kids are all gearing up to shoot ahead of the "normal" kids and by 5th grade and each year after, the gap widens exponentially. By the end of the 8th grade the gap is huge. And the gap is just as huge between the LD kids and the "normal' kids. And the gap between the LD kids and gifted kids is just ridiculous. NOT because of the middle school, but because of the DEVELOPMENT of the children.

 

 

 

[In The Great White North]

I had heard the story that middle schools came from overcrowding (in the mid 70's) also.

 

Lately, the cause has been budgets, and the idea that putting all the kids of the same grade in the same school is cheaper than bussing them all over town.  I'd have to see the financials to be convinced.  One of the neighboring towns (not very highly rated) has now created a K-1 school, a 2-3 school, a 4-5 school, a 6-8 middle school and the high school; where they used to have three neighborhood grade schools, a junior high and a high school.  This must kill any continuity for the kids.

[Joker]

I hate the idea of middle school. Most are in systems where you bring several elementary schools together into one middle school. You have kids coming from each school who are popular and top dog, and now the all have to fight to be that in a new place.

 

I went to school K-8 and then to high school. My middle school years were great. I was with the same kids I had know all throughout school. Each section of grades had it's own hall, so we weren't interacting with smaller kids or eating lunch with them. The teachers had full access to each other, though, so they could ask questions of our previous teachers. They really already knew who I was and what to expect out of me.

 

I don't think it is the lack of teacher training. I think all the problems stem from the social aspects of middle school and the raging hormones that take over the children's bodies during that time.

 

 

Your post has me thinking middle school was a great experience for me and my dds because we all started out being the newbie. I had moved at the beginning of my own middle school years and my own dds didn't start ps until that age. So, it was great that not everyone had been together forever. My own dds were able to connect with several students and teachers early on and it made the transition an easy one.

 

I also have honestly not seen the horrible hormones and nastiness many talk about in regards to middle school. Not in my own experience many years ago and not in my own dds' experiences recently. They've had great teachers, great friends, and have learned a lot. It's been a very positive experience.

[Word Nerd]

My DD's school is a combined middle school/high school. The 6-8 and 9-12 students are in two separate wings for much of the day, but a few teachers teach classes in both areas. I don't think it's that much different from typical middle schools.

[shawthorne44]

... The teachers had full access to each other, though, so they could ask questions of our previous teachers. They really already knew who I was and what to expect out of me....

 

I actually see this as a problem.  It would be good if you had a good rep.  But, if you had a bad teacher that disliked you for some reason.  That would be hard to overcome because of the ... (Something) Effect.  Where teachers treat students based on their expectations.  

[Laura Corin]

The norm in the UK is for children to be in one school from age 4 to 11 or 12, then another school from 11 or 12 to 18.  There are other possible arrangements: my boys' private school goes straight through from 4 to 18.  It seems to work okay.  FWIW, Hobbes only just broke 5 foot tall.

 

L

[boscopup]

I actually see this as a problem. It would be good if you had a good rep. But, if you had a bad teacher that disliked you for some reason. That would be hard to overcome because of the ... (Something) Effect. Where teachers treat students based on their expectations.

It's probably similar to when the teacher remembers your older sibling. I think I really disappointed my government teacher in high school. He remembered both my brother and sister (who were 5 and 7 years older than me), and he expected me to be great students like them. The problem was that I didn't care at all about government class, so I never read the textbook. Then he'd ask questions and be disappointed that I couldn't answer. I put zero effort into that class. I still managed good grades because I'm great at cramming for tests the night before and doing well, but I did the bare minimum required to get a good grade.

 

As far as middle school goes... I went to a 6-8 middle school that was attached to the elementary school, but the students did not mix. I didn't have any problems in middle school, despite being a geek who was definitely not popular. The popular kids mostly ignored me. Bullying was not common at my school then. Most girls had started puberty by 5th or 6th grade, yet I don't recall any crazy problems with hormonal preteens. But then again, my school didn't have so many precious snowflakes as there are today. :tongue_smilie:

[Terabith]

It's a complicated topic.  I can see both sides, but generally, I think it would be good to put middle school either with elementary or high school.  On the one hand, I think having them in the elementary school would really emphasize to people, including teachers and parents, that these 12 and 13 yr olds are still CHILDREN, which they really are.  As they start to develop, it can be very easy to start treating them as if they are older than they really are.  I think they still need a good bit of nurturance and, RECESS!  At the same time, they need new challenges, and I think they thrive when they have a lot of opportunities to serve others, to spend time outside working physically, develop independence (plan trips, etc), and work on practical skills that they can easily see apply to real life.  Practically, however, it is easier to offer them more challenging opportunities that they benefit from (band, orchestra, algebra, drama, home ec, shop, etc) when they are more consolidated.  It's not very efficient to have an orchestra program at every elementary school, for instance, or a shop program.  So that would be an argument for putting middle schoolers in with the high school. 

 

I don't like having the crush of pre and early adolescence all crammed together in one school.  Spreading them out with either older or younger children sort of mitigates the effects and keeps the number of kids at each grade level smaller and dilutes the hormones!

 

 

[wingedradical]

<<But my experience in a women's college convinced me that single sex education is not the way to go for most for a variety of other reasons>>

 

What about your experience convinced you of this? I'm just curious because I have two friends who went to different women's colleges who think the experience was wonderful - that it made them concentrate of studies more, etc. I have no real knowledge of the topic, but I think I'd be more inclined toward sex/gender segregated schools earlier on than at the university level (since generally speaking, boys/girls seem to develop at different rates in different areas). At university level, I'd probably be a little more concerned about women being in schools with a social science emphasis and men with a STEM/business emphasis.