ABSTRACT
As we enter a new century, the notion of middle schools is nearly five decades old. In human terms, this would make middle schools “middle-aged,” but like some middle-aged folks who experience a second childhood (or maybe have never grown up to begin with), too many middle schools have experienced “arrested development.” This means that a middle school label does not guarantee a fully functioning or exemplary middle school (Alexander and George 1981; George and Alexander 1993). Further, “middle schools” may not have responded to either of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development reports suggesting ways to transform the education of young adolescents (1989) or to prepare adolescents for a new century (1996). Even more troubling is the phenomenon that too many “middle schools” may have suffered from no development at all, at least in terms of what the position paper This We Believe outlines regarding developmentally appropriate practices such as challenging, integrating, and exploratory curriculum; varied teaching, learning, and assessment practices; or flexible organizational structures and comprehensive support services (NMSA 1992, 1995).
