Why Many Middle Schoolers Aren’t Catching Up—And What Actually Works

Written By David James
 

This article is part of the series, “Designing Middle Schools for a New Generation: What Central Office Leaders Need to Know,” which shares what central office leaders need to know to build on the strengths of the traditional middle school model to rethink how schools can better support a new generation of young adolescents. Across five posts, we share actionable, research-backed, system-level strategies school and district leaders can implement, strengthening core instruction, broadening opportunities for students, and using time and resources more strategically to boost learning and engagement over the long term.

 
 

Across the country, middle schools are struggling to close achievement gaps exacerbated by pandemic-related learning loss. Nationally, only 28% of 8th graders performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level in math last year, and only 29% did so in reading. Despite this, in a recent Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) survey, only 40% of middle school leaders responded that their school schedule facilitates time for intervention.

Common Approaches to Intervention in the Traditional Middle School Model: Well-Intentioned, but Not Best Practice

In middle schools that do have time for intervention, many increasingly rely on a “flex” or WIN block to close gaps in student learning. These periods are relatively easy to insert into the traditional middle school model, but while well-intended, many schools struggle to use these blocks in a way that aligns with intervention best practices–specifically, providing direct, high-quality instruction focused on foundational skills. The result is that students who are behind continue to struggle.

Why do Flex and WIN blocks fall short of their aspirational purpose? What they offer in flexibility, they lack in structure and clear expectations for how time should be used. Middle school students and teachers alike thrive on structure—that is why the schedule of nearly every school is segmented into defined periods with discrete subjects, standards, and objectives. Flex blocks tend to be the opposite of this highly structured approach. Most flex blocks revert to being study halls in which teachers supervise groups of 20-25 students. Students, in theory, can visit, say, their math teacher if they need help in math, but it is often very difficult for the math teacher to provide meaningful intervention while also supervising a full classroom of other students. Other flex block models assign students to their math teacher on Monday, their science teacher on Tuesday, and so on. While this provides students access to different teachers, it does not go deep, and it assumes all students need help in all subjects.

Running a truly effective flex block is not impossible, but much harder (and less effective) than the alternative of running content-specific intervention classes for students who are struggling. In fact, comparing a flex block in middle schools to a best practice content-specific intervention course is like comparing a gym membership to physical therapy—one offers general access, the other addresses a precise need.

What Actually Works to Help Middle Schoolers Catch Up: Content-Specific Intervention Classes

The research is clear: gap-closing middle schools provide academic intervention for math, reading, and writing for students who need it via extra-time, content-specific classes scheduled into the day. Unlike a flex or WIN block, content-specific intervention courses work because they provide daily, consistent structure, and do not rely on students self-selecting into support.

And, in middle schools that are narrowing the achievement gap, these intervention courses are graded. In middle school, officially scheduled courses are perceived to matter much more than drop in periods, study halls, ungraded help sessions, and the like. Both students and staff tend to devalue what’s not graded, what’s not in a student’s official schedule, or what is optional. Assigning intervention as a course code that is graded (pass/fail is ok) makes students treat the class more seriously. Doing this helps give intervention the necessary “weight” it needs to be respected by both students and teachers.

A Gift, Not a Loss

What about middle school students who don’t need intervention? These students should simply be enrolled in other existing elective or enrichment courses. Yes, students receiving intervention will not have the same breadth of courses as their peers who are not struggling academically, but receiving high-impact intervention is a life-altering service for these students. It should be viewed as a gift, not a loss. It is exceptionally frustrating coming to school in the morning academically behind and leaving in the afternoon just a bit further behind. Helping students catch up academically is energizing and motivating for them, even if it means missing an elective for part of the year while the student receives intervention.

A Transformative Shift for Achievement, and for Engagement

The shift to content-specific intervention classes can be transformative: schools that once struggled to support students with disabilities, multilingual learners, and students who arrived far below benchmark suddenly see measurable, sustainable academic gains. Students who see themselves progressing become increasingly more engaged in school.

Implementing high-impact intervention can help middle schools better support a new generation of students. But delivering high-impact intervention is a systems practice: principals and district leaders will need to prioritize creating the conditions that protect core instruction, carve out daily intervention time, group students by need, and ensure content-strong teachers are leading the work as they rethink the traditional middle school model.

 
 

This article is part of the series, “Designing Middle Schools for a New Generation: What Central Office Leaders Need to Know,” which shares what central office leaders need to know to build on the strengths of the traditional middle school model to rethink how schools can better support a new generation of young adolescents.

Check out the other posts in the series here:

 
 

About the Author

David James is a former teacher and middle school administrator who serves as an advisor to school and district leaders. He and his team have helped more than 100 middle schools across the nation better serve a new generation of students and educators. He is co-author of the book, It's Time for Strategic Scheduling: How to Design Smarter K-12 Schedules That Are Great for Students, Staff, and the Budget. He also leads the Secondary Scheduling Academy, an accelerated hands-on training program for school and district leadership teams to enhance capacity for strategic scheduling, build buy-in for changes, and design effective, best practice-aligned schedules that are better for students, teachers, and the budget.

David James

Next

The Case for Reimagining Middle School—And Why Core Instruction Must Come First