abolish middle schools

Abolish middle schools.

1. Now, if not sooner.
2. For the children.

That's the feeling I get when reading Is Literacy Enough?, a carefully crafted, researched response to the Early Literacy Push of recent years. Its authors, Catherine E. Snow, Michelle V. Porche, Patton O. Tabors, and Stephanie Ross Harris, deserve a wide audience among teachers, administrators, and policymakers.

The answer to their question, if you haven't guessed it, is "No." Literacy is, for the most part, essential to school success, but, as any veteran high school teacher will tell you, and as the authors conclude, too many strong readers are derailed in the middle and secondary years, lacking home support, motivation, and thoughtful interventions by caring adults.

The authors concede that policy can't address every aspect. However, tempering their pessimism, they show how it can produce an environment that, if not always creating success, can cut the losses, through specific changes. Smaller class sizes or schools. Well thought-out advisory programs like Navigation 101. Engaging, student-directed learning. These are all within reach.

As for the provocative title, it comes from the authors' finding that the middle level is where the wheels start falling off. Or, in the authors' more academic prose:

The mismatches between adolescents' developmental needs and traditional school environments include the following:

• Middle schools typically emphasize competition and social comparison during a period of adolescents' heightened focus on self.
• Fewer decision making opportunities exist for adolescents during a period of increasing desire for autonomy.
• Fewer opportunities exist for adolescents to develop close personal relationships with teachers during a period when adolescents may need extra support from adults.

One answer might be to delay the transition; the authors' own research shows that low-income 6th graders show less engagement and worse study habits than those who wait until 7th grade to move to Junior High. Another might be to set up K-8 schools that incorporate features of the middle school model for the older students, avoiding the problem of an "isolated student body of immature adolescents all experiencing puberty, novel responsibilities, and novel risks during a relatively disorganized period of human development."

The one thing you will absolutely not find in Is Literacy Enough? is a call for increased standards, or testing, or teacher leadership, or any other politically savvy trend. Rather, the authors advocate more thoughtful and targeted and responsible use of the resources we already have--with caring relationships at the center.

A Double Dose of DIBELS

The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, or DIBELS for short, were developed at the University of Oregon as a way to get a quick overview of how kids were doing with their reading development. DIBELS really took off when Reading First was spun out of the No Child Left Behind act, but it may have had more help than it should have; the recent controversy surrounding Reading First has a big, big DIBELS thumbprint on it, because those who developed the test were also on the Reading First steering committee, meaning they benefited financially from pushing their own product. That's capitalism, baby!

At Eduwonk today there's a link to this story from Susan O'Hanian about one teacher's experience with DIBELS. Her principal used it as a part of her year-end evaluation:

On the last day of school this year 18 teachers were given copies of our yearly evaluation and received "U"s, an unsatisfactory rating because of our DIBELS scores. I’m talking about dedicated, professionals who stay late, arrive early and do their best for the love of children.

My Unsatisfactory "grade" was followed by the comment:
"This teacher’s students made minimal growth in her classroom this year."

Most of my children are reading on or above grade level. The amount of "progress/growth" made this year by most of my children was no where near minimal.

I asked my principal if she believed that statement that appeared on my evaluation.
She said "Yes, I do, based on your DIBELS scores!"

Her statement hurt me because I know the amount of work I did this year with my precious students. The amount of growth the children had in all areas was in no way "minimal." I mentioned that the reading levels of some of my first-graders were equal to the end of second grade. She said the district didn’t recognize non-standardized test scores.

Here's where I'll argue both sides against the middle.

The teacher may feel that she worked hard. Heck, she probably did. Using performance on one assessment to say that she's an unsatisfactory teacher may not be fair.

On the other hand, what's asked of the kids on DIBELS is *not that hard*. Letter identification, sounding words out, blending, etc. The one DIBELS test that I think is out of line is their fluency assessment--the passages that they've released for 1st and 2nd grade are completely out of line with what most kids are capable of doing--and if that's where this one evaluation comes from, the teacher has a point. If, however, the school was using the whole DIBELS suite to assess their kids, then I feel badly for her, but maybe a wake up call is in order.

As I was looking around for information I also came across this, from the Vermont Society for the Study of Education:

First, a bit of background information. This DIBELS story is about one of my students who is reading on grade level and has earned a sizable number of points on our district's Reading Counts program. The student recently failed the DIBELS test of "nonsense words."

The Reading Counts program is a computerized program that encourages students to read and take a test on any of the books in the RC list. Each book is categorized according to grade level and has a point amount that can be earned by passing a test on that book. Students complete the books, pass the tests and accumulate points to earn incentives and prizes.

Reading Counts is the Scholastic version of the popular Accelerated Reader program, where kids read books and take comprehension quizzes to earn points.

Sometimes the best readers have the most trouble with the nonsense word tests, because they have that perception that the best readers have--they want the words to make sense and fit into the context of the story. Reading lists of garbled letters doesn't appeal to them.

It's not realistic, though, to say that because a kid has done well on the computer that they're a good reader. I've had kids in my own class work Accelerated Reader to get the maximum points, even if there are serious deficiencies in their own reading skills. Just like the ASCD has been pushing--you have to look at the whole child.

Does your school use DIBELS? If so, how's it going?