Search

The work of teacher education in a 2020’s context is challenging and filled with opportunity. With a diversifying P-12 student body (Love, 2020; Pitts, 2019) and the confluence of social, political, and educational factors (Nieto & Bode, 2018), the complexities of teacher education are vast and fluid. In a historical moment that has included teaching in a time of pandemic, national reckonings over race and injustice, and explicit legislation to guide teaching about social history (Kelly et al, 2023), effective middle level teacher education is multifaceted. It calls for the development of teacher candidates skilled in creating school environments that are “welcoming, inclusive, and affirming for all” (Bishop & Harrison, 2021, p. 12). It also necessitates middle level educators to grapple with the impact of systemic bias and to hold explicit commitments toward equitable and justice-oriented pedagogies (Bishop & Harrison, 2021; Ranschaert, 2021). In “Course Correction” we tell the story of our collaborative self-study of teacher education practices, situated in middle level education. Within this inquiry, we sought to identify points of bias that influence and inhabit our work by assessing our instructional frames, curricular resources, and practices. We also sought to examine our teaching through a critical, antiracist lens, a necessary framing for the 2020’s teacher education context.

Teacher preparation is dependent on a clinical model of instruction where students apprentice with licensed teachers to gain experience in a classroom. It is not always easy to create these opportunities in schools that are local to the university, especially with a large middle-level program. This qualitative study examines how using lesson study in an early clinical experience can create high-quality experiences and develop innovative thinking around lesson design. This research answers the following questions: (1) What events do the preservice teachers identify as memorable in their interactions with students, peers, and teachers during a clinical experience that uses the lesson study model? (2) How does the lesson study model influence preservice teachers’ thinking about teaching? The results from the study suggest that a lesson study model is a viable option for middle-level teacher preparation programs. While it solves some practical issues, such as a lack of quality clinical experiences, it also creates an experience where students feel supported, scaffolded, and engaged.

In 2016, the Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group (MLER SIG) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) published "The MLER SIG Research Agenda," a white paper identifying critical issues and concerns facing the field of middle level education. Since its release, much has changed. This manuscript is a revised version of "The MLER SIG Research Agenda." More than 40 researchers from across the globe collaborated to develop an agenda for future middle level research that illuminates strategies for moving middle level education forward in support of young adolescents within the current state of affairs. The research summarized in this manuscript represents eight focus areas: (a) middle grades curriculum; (b) middle grades pedagogies; (c) middle level certification and licensure; (d) middle level leadership; (e) middle level schools, classrooms, culture, and learning environments; (f) middle level teacher development; (g) social and emotional wellbeing; and (h) young adolescent identity and experiences. Each group summarized the current literature in their area and developed a list of questions to guide future middle level education research. This manuscript is intended to start conversations, generate ideas for research projects, and contribute new knowledge to the field of middle level education.

The middle school concept, aimed at creating a more developmentally responsive learning environment for young adolescents, gained a stronghold in the later part of the 20th century. Proponents of this concept have argued continually for the holistic implementation of its six key characteristics if its benefits are to be realized. These characteristics include: (a) a challenging, integrative, and exploratory curriculum; (b) varied teaching and learning approaches; (c) assessment and evaluation that promote learning; (d) flexible organizational structures (i.e., including the physical space, scheduling, and grouping of students and teachers); (e) programs and policies that foster health, wellness and safety; and (f) comprehensive guidance and support services. Recently, Ellerbrock, Falbe, and Pomykal Franz identified key middle school organizational structures of people, place, and time as being interconnected and integral to effective middle school practices. Main also demonstrated the interconnected nature of these key characteristics and how organizational structures of people affected the successful implementation of other characteristics. Thus, how these organizational structures can and are being implemented has implications for our understanding of the effectiveness of other middle school practices. In this paper, researchers from both the United States and Australia examine and compare literature published between 2000 and 2018 addressing ways in which middle school/middle years organizational structures have been reported and categorized by structures of people, place, and time in these two countries. Pertinent literature related to organizational structures of middle schools in the United States and to middle years education in Australia was examined. Findings from studies and evaluations from each country are reported to provide an international perspective on the organizational structures of middle schools/middle years education across the two countries. Overall, since 2000, the body of knowledge about middle schools/middle years organizational structures has been surprisingly limited in comparison to their perceived importance in the field. This lack of research is concerning in the midst of educational reform in both countries, resulting in questions about the impact of school organizational structures on young adolescent development and learning.