★COMPREHENSIVE A NATIONAL AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO FOREWORD Almost as soon as the right to collective bargaining began to be won by teachers in the early 1960's, members of the American Federation of Teachers started to translate their conceptions of optimum teaching and learning conditions into the language of collective bargaining contracts. The first such design was negotiated for a selected number of elementary schools in New York City in 1964. Similar programs were incorporated into union contracts in Cleveland, Baltimore, Yonkers, Chicago and Detroit and into legislation in California and Colorado. The most famous of these programs was the More Effective Schools plan in New York. It provided for four teachers for every three classes; class size maximums of 22 (15 in kindergarten); increased supportive personnel, such as psychologists, psychiatrists, speech and hearing therapists; reading, art, drama and other specialists; more teacher aides, and greater teacher and parent involvement in administrative decision making in the school. The More Effective Schools program was tested, retested and tested again. Such agencies as the Psychological Corporation and the American Institutes for Research found that it accelerated the learning rate of children, just as the teachers who designed it planned that it would, and the United States Office of Education chose it as "exemplary." Project READ in Chicago, the Neighborhood Education Centers in Detroit and other saturation programs showed similar successes. The demand for similar designs at all levels of education-from pre-school to the community college-prompted the Executive Council of the AFT to establish the Council for a Comprehensive Program for American Schools (COMPAS), under the chairmanship of Simon Beagle, who headed the National Council for Effective Schools for many years and is a nationally known advocate of grassroots teacher involvement in educational design and decision making. The work of the various COMPAS committees under Mr. Beagle's tutelage has resulted in four National Designs-for the elementary school, the middle school, the high school and the community college. The AFT is proud to present its Comprehensive Program for American Schools as its answer to those critics who believe that the way to solve the problems in education is somehow to tinker with the only relationship which results in learning-that between the teacher and the taught. David Selden, President American Federation of Teachers PREFACE This report is the result of much thought and study by members in the American Federation of Teachers. The basic guidelines were first suggested by the Junior High School Committee of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), AFT Local 2. These guidelines were studied and discussed at a series of AFT regional conferences held during the 1971-1972 school year. A tentative draft, including suggestions from these conferences, was prepared and submitted to AFT locals throughout the country for their reactions and suggestions. A final draft was then sent to the AFT Executive Council and submitted to the AFT 1972 National Convention. Both bodies unanimously approved the final report. Thus, the guidelines in this report are now AFT policy. Simon Beagle, Chairman National Council for a Comprehensive Program for American Schools (COMPAS) April, 1973 INTRODUCTION It is an accepted fact that the public schools are under attack. Warranted or not, widespread criticism from all geographical regions and from all levels of society attest to this. It is obvious that our country is in turmoil, and since schools reflect society, this unrest is mirrored in the classroom. If there is validity to these conclusions, educators can go in one of two directions. Taking an extreme position, one can argue that educators can do nothing until society solves its basic ills and then the schools would simply fall into line and the problems wither away. The AFT believes that this is a simplistic viewpoint and not responsible. We would urge instead that educators present and fight for superior educational arrangements and seek the support of other segments of society. Therefore, we are offering the following National Design for the Middle School, and hope that our contribution will help in some way to achieve these goals. GENERAL STRUCTURE A typical student entering a middle school comes from a nondepartmental elementary school. He usually arrives at an overcrowded school, is among the youngest in the building, changes classes each period, and is given considerably more freedom than he previously experienced. This has been the traditional pattern for middle school students. (Middle school is the term used to designate all schools that exist between elementary and senior high schools.) It is our judgment that this sudden "freedom" is overwhelming and creates a feeling of instability and disorientation. At the same time, due to maturation, our middle school student deserves greater freedom. Hopefully, the structure of a middle school will provide appropriate flexibility within a stable structure. We are also in agreement with authorities that approximately 800 pupils is an appropriate size for a middle school. We couple this belief with the concept of the necessity for increased individual attention and this necessitates an increase in personnel. Lowest Grade 1. Units of 4 classes, 20 students each. Three units (12 classes) to the grade. 2. The same 4 to 5 major subject teachers for each unit. 3. The major subject rooms for each unit should be physically adjacent to each other. 4. The major subject teachers should be collectively responsible for curriculum. 5. Large blocks of time should be allocated to the major subject teachers, which then can be subdivided as they deem proper. Middle Grade Here we have an older student, now familiar with the school, who, at this point, is capable of moving away from the "extended family" arrangement he experienced during his last term. Therefore, we recommend that unit grouping be dropped and subject classes changed as is now customary in present day junior high school or intermediate school. However, we should now begin to offer our student course electives in each of his required "minor" subjects. Course descriptions should be printed, distributed and after consultation with teachers, parents and guidance counselors, each student should select one course in each of his required minor areas. This proposal for the middle grade should not eliminate the possibility for electives in all subjects if the faculty desires it. Upper Grade At this level, we should stress again the concept that promotion in school reflects the opportunity for greater responsibility and increased freedom. We should now offer electives in all areas, subject to adult |