The Middle School Stigmas

After reading the articles, I had a bigger understanding as to why there is such a stigma attached to middle school, the students, and what it means to teach middle school. In "From The Emergent Middle School" by William M. Alexander, I was introduced to the term "in-between-ager", or someone who is in between childhood and adolescence. I do not like the use of this term. I feel that it creates a negative image of a youth who is experiencing all these physical, mental, and emotional changes and that this youth will be difficult to work with. I also think that this implies that this age level isn't as important as either the childhood age level or the adolescent age level. But what I really don't like about this term is that it implies by the time you reach middle school, you must be an "in-between-ager", because if you are either still considered a child or are becoming an adolescent, you won't fit in. To me, there should be a flow between childhood and adolescence, not some in between stage. This flow will be rocky for each student, and will occur at different times in each of their lives, and it won't exactly flow, but there definitely won't be exact stages that these youths should fall into.

In the section of that article entitled "Young People in Transition: Summary", there were nine summaries of characteristics of young people during this transitional period, not to mention stereotypes and high expectation. In the third and fourth summary, the basic idea is that there will be "an awakening interest" in the opposite sex, and will be "developing many social skills in interacting with persons of the opposite sex." As this has been mentioned in some of the blogs a few weeks ago and in class, I find this horribly offensive yet again. Some of these young people will be questioning their sexuality, or discover that they are gay. And, all of the young people will be developing social skills to also interact with persons of the same sex, and this should include friendships or getting to know their peers on a more personal level when encountering them throughout school and the community. I also noticed that the social skills included in the fourth summary for example were "learning to use cosmetics" or wear appealing clothing to the opposite sex. First, this focuses more on the females, and second, not every female will be doing this. I, and many other of my female friends in school, were not doing that. On a different note, the ninth summary was focused on the "new mode of intellectual operations" with "an establishment of a level of adult-like-thought (when the adult is his logical best)". This is a lot of pressure to put on someone who is not an adult, but rather, an "in-between-ager". To me, that is expecting too much out of the young people we will be teaching, and isn't very realistic. They will be thinking at a higher level, but not as advanced as this summary implies.

In "Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century" by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, there were two things that stuck out to me. The first was mentioned right in the beginning, where it was said, "All of these changes represent significant potential in our young people and great opportunity for them and society." (170). I understand that eventually our students will be entering into society and contributing to society, but this is not why I want to be a teacher. I want to pass on a knowledge that will better my students, and while this will affect what they will be contributing to society, my focus is how I impact each individual student. I also think it is important that we do have a strong society, but I want to provide a greater opportunity for the individual. I feel that there is too much focus on the students future after school, and not as much on how they will be growing in school. I found this to be true when the task force focused on the 15-year-old after middle school. I'd rather hear about what should be occurring in the schools and teaching process of the student before they are 15, not what they should have learned and should do by the time they are 15. There were a lot qualities placed upon their 15-year-old, and that puts a lot of pressure on both the teachers and the 15-year-old, and creates more of a fantasy idea rather than a reality. And again, there are then too many expectations placed on the 15-year-olds that if they don't end up measuring up, it will look like they have failed.

And finally, in "The Future of Middle Level Education: Optimistic and Pessimistic Views" by John H. Lounsbury of Gordon F. Vars ended their article in a way that I felt was why I want to be a teacher, and how I can be successful. "The greater need is to guide the overall development of young adolescents in ways that will equip them with the behavioral attributes, attitudes, and values they need to make wise choices in all aspects of their lives." It is the "their lives" that I really appreciate, because I will be impacting the lives of each of my individual students, and I should be focusing on each of those lives.

With that being said, my question was in regard to the Carnegie Council article and their focus on society. If our society does not do well after our students will be fully contributing to it, will we, the teachers, be the ones to blame because we didn't prepare them correctly, and set them and society up for failure?