For some time the
jury has been out regarding the pros and cons of full primary and intermediate
schools. However, very recent international research has suggested that the transition from
primary (or elementary school) to intermediate or middle school is highly
problematic.
In 2007 the
New Zealand Ministry of Education commissioned an international literature
review about middle Schooling from the Australian Council for Educational
Research and it found that there really was little quantitative evidence to
support any discussion about what schooling configuration is most effective.
The report concluded that there was “a serious paucity of quantitative studies
employing strong evidence-based methods that have investigated the relative
effects of various forms of middle/non-middle schooling” thus constituting a
major limitation to a consideration of the schooling options. ERO also
commented that “New Zealand-based information about educational provisions for
students in the middle years of schooling is minimal.” In 2007 the jury was out.
However, what this report did conclude was that most arguments in favour of intermediate/middle schooling were based on "moribund [about to die] philosophies of
biological and social determinism" that are not justified by findings from
evidence-based research and that the discussion should not centre on social and
developmental growth theory, but on the quality of teaching and learning
provision that maximises students' engagement, learning outcomes and
achievement as per the Best Evidence Synthesis.
This report to the Ministry
asserts that what counts is not the particular configuration for year 7/8
education but the quality of teaching and learning provision whatever that
configuration is. This suggests that the question then is not about the
particular year 7-8 configuration, but about the quality of teaching that
schools are able to provide. However, since 2007 and particularly very recently, a body of research
that includes large, quantitative, longitudinal (e.g. nine years of national
testing data across Florida) research projects carried out in America across
whole education networks have resulted in some very compelling evidence that on
a range of indicators, such as behavioural, academic achievement, leadership
and safety, students in K-8 or full primary schools are better off. In the Florida study, for
example, "students who left elementary schools for middle schools in
grades six or seven lose ground in both reading and math compared to their
peers who attend K8 schools." (The Middle School Plunge, Spring 2012, Education Next, Prof. Martin West). Additionally, Florida students who entered
middle school in sixth grade were 1.4 percentage points more likely than their
K-8 peers to drop out of high school by 10th grade - an increase of 18%! Students transitioning to high school directly
from elementary school also show a drop in achievement, but it is only 1/4 of
the drop of students in the middle school transition and they recover from it
more quickly. In middle school (or intermediate schools) the decline persists as long as the student
remains in the middle school and beyond. Further, recent international research
suggests that students who attend middle school are twice as likely to have
behavioural and discipline incidents as their
counterparts in elementary schools. The
conclusion by the researcher is that while there is a cost with all school transitions, in
general, the middle school (intermediate school) transition is particularly tough and that the
transition to middle school should be eliminated as much as possible.
We have been reluctant to get into a discussion about the efficacy or other of the various year 7/8 schooling configurations. However, it is useful to be aware that this new body of literature is developing that challenges the perception of the "jury being out" that has stood for quite some time.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.