Richard Ward: PPTA's opinion is out of date

It was refreshing to read of Education Minister Steve Maharey's support for research into effective learning for pupils in the middle years, and his interest in what might be effective school structures for pupils aged 10 to 14 years.

Clearly, he does not accept that the present and traditional primary, intermediate, secondary structure is necessarily the best, and is open-minded about alternative tracks to what he calls "senior secondary school".

But, as usual, the PPTA clobbering machine responds with its time-weary response that middle schools, catering for Year 7 to 10, are still experimental and that specialist teachers with particular resources are best equipped for teaching this age group.

From what we know of middle schooling, these assumptions are no longer sustainable.

First, the obvious success of six middle schools, some of which have been established for more than 10 years, cannot be regarded as experimental.

In contrast to a subject-centred, organisation driven and structured programme, typical of most secondary schools, there is increasing evidence that offering pre-adolescents an integrated programme, largely in the care of a home room teacher, continues the successful learning environment that pupils have enjoyed previously.

That middle schooling is seen as experimental is hardly supported by those pupils and parents who readily draw contrasting views of the educational diets for pupils in Years 9 and 10 at secondary with those at middle school.

Second, while specialism and well-equipped resource rooms are necessary for teaching particular subjects at the higher levels of secondary school, no purpose is served by the PPTA claim that this also applies at Years 9 and 10.

The pre-adolescent stage of development is best served by a learning environment that matches the students' needs. This includes an active learning setting where there is opportunity to work collaboratively, where learning from different subjects is combined, where there is a flexible use of time and where feedback is offered in terms of personal development.

It contrasts with a top-down, transmission type, receptive learning where results are often recorded in terms of comparison with others, and it is not suited to this stage of development.

Again, conversations with pupils and parents who have experienced both environments offer interesting and clear conclusions in support of learner-centred environments.

The comments of a school principal that junior high schools have failed in the United States have been reported. This is largely true.

But junior high schools in the US failed because they chose to emulate their senior counterparts. They drew on the top-down, subject-centred, organisation-driven model and imposed it on junior high schools.

It didn't work because it alienated learners, and it was not until the emergence of middle schools that focused on the particular learning needs of the 10 to 14 age group that real progress was made.

One message for the minister is, by inference, to avoid the use of the term "junior high school" in favour of (stand-alone) "middle schools".

The minister's open-minded approach to what might be the most appropriate form of learning for pre-adolescents is timely, especially given the need for more schools in Auckland and recent knowledge of alternative paths to upper secondary education. His "time to debate new possibilities" is well founded.

* Dr Richard Ward is the author of Coping with Change, a book that reviews alternative models of education for the middle years.