While there is a lot of information available about middle schooling, a critical review of the research found very little hard evidence for its effectiveness – case study and qualitative research tended to predominate.

ACER Research Director for Teaching, Learning and Leadership Professor Stephen Dinham along with Dr Ken Rowe, presented a review of middle school research at the British Educational Research Association conference in Edinburgh this month.

There has been growth in the introduction of various forms of middle schooling since the 1980s. In Australia, the USA and UK middle schooling usually involves students in Years 5 to 9, while in New Zealand it relates to Years 7 to 10 students. In some instances it may involve a separate school, while in others a middle school program is provided within the primary/secondary school structure.

The rationale for middle schooling arose in response to concerns about less than optimal learning progress among emerging adolescents, and more particularly, their attitudes, behaviours and engagement in schooling. 

Despite the literature claiming positive effects of approaches to middle schooling that focus on the cognitive, developmental, social and emotional needs of adolescents, evidence to substantiate the claims remain elusive.   

So what matters most?  Certainly not student compositional characteristics such as student socio-economic background, nor school structural arrangements of interest to advocates of middle schooling, but the imperative of quality teaching and learning provision, supported by teaching standards and ongoing teacher professional development focused on evidence-based practices that are demonstrably effective in maximising students’ learning outcomes and achievement progress.

While it is not feasible to legislate such quality teaching into existence, the fact that teachers and teaching make a difference should provide impetus and encouragement to those concerned with the crucial issues of educational effectiveness, quality teaching and teaching standards, to at least invest in quality teacher recruitment, pre-service education and on-going professional learning. 

The reviewers argue that a key reason for the small effects of ‘structural’ interventions is that they are based on the assumption that schools and their administrative arrangements for teaching and learning are advantageous for the stakeholders they serve (i.e., teachers, students and parents).  The fact that this is mostly not the case requires emphasis – reflecting a failure to understand operationally the fundamental distinction between structure (e.g., middle and single-sex schooling; class size, etc.) and function (i.e., quality teaching and learning provision).  Schools and their ‘structural’ arrangements are only as effective as those responsible for making them work (school leaders and teachers) – in cooperation with those for whom they provide a professional service (students and parents) – regardless of students’ ages and stages of schooling, and their socio-cultural and socio-economic background characteristics.

With alternative approaches to middle years’ education being introduced in a variety of nations in attempts to improve educational outcomes for students, it is essential that these decisions are informed by the best evidence about effective organisational, curriculum, assessment and pedagogical approaches.  This is particularly important because while middle schooling arrangements are expanding in Australia and New Zealand, they are being significantly wound back in the United Kingdom and under pressure in the USA – the two ‘heart lands’ of middle schooling.

Conference paper:
Fantasy, Fashion and Fact: Middle Schools, Middle Schooling and Student Achievement (PDF: 1:02 MB)

« Back to eNews