A lingering question for middle school: what is the fate of Integrated Curriculum? (Issue in Education).

How can middle level educators support and defend integrated curriculum when faced with the demands of the standards-based reform movement? Before a response to this thought-provoking question can be proposed, a brief glimpse at the history of and long-standing interest in integrated curriculum might be helpful.

Interest in Integrated Curriculum

Integrated curriculum captured the attention of educators long before the advent of the middle school concept. As junior high schools moved away from a subject-centered curriculum, other curricular options emerged (Toefler, 1997). In the 1930s, for example, the progressive movement advocated a problem-centered, core curriculum centering on themes drawn from social issues (Beane, 1993). In the 1960s, curriculum models became more responsive to middle level students' developmental characteristics, and thus targeted unifying themes. The interdisciplinary concept model described by Jacobs (1989) is a way to systematically connect discipline perspectives when investigating a problem or theme. Beane's multidimensional model (1993) centered on thematic units that drew from the intersecting concerns of young adolescents and issues in the larger world. Many educators concur with Beane's position that "curriculum is a central and crucial factor in the life of a school" (p. 1).

Focus on Integrated Curriculum

In order to help young adolescents make sense out of their life experiences and connect school experiences to their daily lives outside of school, curriculum needs to be integrative (National Middle School Association, 1995). A truly integrated curriculum enables teachers and their students to make connections between their school learning experiences and real life (Caskey, 1996), while the separate subject approach leaves students with a disconnected view of knowledge that "fails to reflect the way that real people attack problems in the real world" (Daniels & Bizar, 1998, p. 20). Certainly, relevance is the touchstone of integrated curriculum.

Support for the Integrated Curriculum Approach

A substantial body of theory and research supports the integrated curriculum design. Curriculum theorists (e.g., Beane, 1990; Jacobs, 1989; Vars, 1997) advocate for integrated curriculum models because they center on the problems and interests of young adolescent learners. Perkins (1989) asserts that integrated curricular themes serve as a valuable lens for understanding student thinking. Other scholars and practitioners (e.g., Daniels & Bizar, 1998; Five & Dionisio, 1996; Pate, 2001; Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1998) detail exemplars of integrated curriculum.

The research base on the effectiveness of integrated curriculum for student achievement is expanding. Vars and Beane (2000) found from a review of research evidence that students engaged in interdisciplinary or integrated programs do as well academically, and frequently better, than those in traditional separate subject programs. Drake (1998) presents numerous findings from both quantitative and qualitative studies that substantiate the effects of integrated curriculum. In addition, integrated curriculum has been shown to increase student motivation, elicit higher order thinking, and build stronger interpersonal skills (Vars, 1997); Davies (1992) reported improved rates of student involvement, based on five years of student evaluation data. Clearly, research and a strong theoretical base validate the use of integrated curriculum.

Why Does Acceptance of Integrated Curriculum Models Remain So Elusive?

Integrating curriculum requires complex change, which may make teachers, school administrators, and parents uncomfortable. Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, and Manning (2001) point out that "integrated or interdisciplinary curriculum is one of the most ambitious yet also contentious aspects of educational reform, as it seeks to connect classroom learning to the lives and understandings of all students" (p. 83).

Integrated curriculum departs from the conventional and deeply entrenched attitudes that support subject-centered approaches to curriculum. Although many national organizations (Daniels & Bizar, 1998), schools, universities, state departments of education, and commercial textbooks and tests (Beane, 1993) are built on traditional subject separations, a more responsive approach for young adolescents is warranted. A separate subject approach distorts the ways that middle level learners experience life (Beane, 1993) and ignores mounting evidence that adolescence is a time when curricular coherence and relevance are paramount.

Integrating curriculum is intellectually demanding and time-consuming work. Many teachers have few models of integrated curriculum and/or have little or no personal experience with integrating curriculum. Teachers are not afforded adequate time for developing integrated curriculum, nor given opportunities to share their experiences. Authentic integrated curriculum cannot be accomplished in a single after-school workshop or one-day inservice program. Integrated curriculum, like any education innovation or change, takes enormous reserves of energy and commitment, as well as additional resources and continual support from administrators and parents.

Academic Standards and Integrated Curriculum

Academic standards and integrated curriculum are not mutually exclusive. After all, academic standards are the agreed-upon statements of what students should know and be able to do (Jackson & Davis, 2000). At the school level, teachers develop subject-centered or integrated curriculum based on these agreed-upon standards. Jackson and Davis (2000) reason that "standards support the twin towers of education: excellence and equity" (p. 32). Accordingly, targeting selected academic standards for inclusion in integrated units of curriculum appears reasonable. Less reasonable is the sheer volume of academic standards required by many standards-based reform movements. Perspectives on whether integrated curriculum and standards are compatible vary considerably.

On the one hand, some teachers are finding ways to align academic standards with their integrated units of curriculum. Wiggins and McTighe's (1998) "backward design process" guides teachers to consider the established standards and frame a set of essential questions for the unit of study. Pate (2001) records how teachers make sense of, and integrate, the standards in a responsive, relevant, and engaging curriculum. Vars and Beane (2000) recommend that teachers use sets of standards-based "common learnings" compiled by educational think tanks when developing curriculum. Nevertheless, teachers of integrated curriculum must cope with societal pressures for standards-based reform and state tests, while valuing the needs, problems, and concerns of young adolescents (Vars & Beane, 2000). As curriculum designers, these classroom teachers ultimately accept responsibility for addressing the standards within their planned, integrated curriculum.

On the other hand, standards-based reform creates an uneasy relationship in schools. Hargreaves et al. (2001) caution that meeting the demands of standard-based reform may lead to a curriculum that is overstandardized, under-resourced, deprofessionalized, and narrow in scope. Teachers face an overwhelming number of competencies listed for each subject-specific standard. Two other questions arise: 1) How can teachers reconcile their open-ended classroom assessments with the state-mandated, high-stakes tests? 2) How should teachers report student learning from integrated curriculum on subject-specific report cards? These are the practical issues that confound middle level teachers as they work to integrate curriculum. Hargreaves et al. (2001) remind middle level educators that

alongside this movement of standards-based reform is growing concern worldwide about the apparent disengagement of many young adolescents from their schooling and about the risks they increasingly encounter in their lives.... Standards-based reform therefore appears to have an ambivalent relationship to the kinds of schooling and teaching that work best for young adolescents. (p. xii)

Tensions created by the high-stakes tests and other aspects of standards-based reform may ultimately undermine efforts to create relevant, integrated curriculum for young adolescents.

Final Thoughts

Among the consequences of failing to provide young adolescents with an authentic, integrated curriculum may be further decline in student learning, poor academic achievement, and a loss of public confidence in the middle level school as an academic institution (Caskey, 1996). Some educators advocate replacing traditional subject-centered curriculum with integrated curriculum; others prefer the more conservative approach of enhancing the traditional approach with integrated curriculum. Regardless of the approach used for integrating curriculum and despite the effort required, integrated curriculum is warranted. For the sake of young adolescents, it must prevail.

References

Beane, J. A. (1993). The middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Caskey, M. M., with Johnston, J. H. (1996). Hard work ahead: Authentic curriculum under construction. Schools in the Middle, 6(2), 11-18.

Daniels, H., & Bizar, M. (1998). Methods that matter: Six structures for best practice classrooms. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Davies, M. A. (1992). Are interdisciplinary units worthwhile? Ask students. In J. Lounsbury (Ed.), Connecting the curriculum through interdisciplinary instruction. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Drake, S. M. (1998). Creating integrated curriculum: Proven ways to increase student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Five, C. L., & Dionisio, M. (1996). Bridging the gap: Integrating curriculum in upper elementary and middle schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.

Jacobs, H. H. (1989). The interdisciplinary concept model: A step-by-step approach for developing integrated units of study. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 53-65). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.

Pate, P. E. (2001). Standards, students, and exploration: Creating a curriculum intersection of excellence. In T. S. Dickinson (Ed.), Reinven ting the middle school (pp. 79-95). New York: RutledgeFalmer.

Perkins, D. (1989). Selecting fertile themes for integrated learning. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 67-76). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Toefler, C. (1997). Middle level curriculum's serendipitous history. In J. E. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 163-177). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Vars, G. F. (1997). Effects of integrative curriculum and instruction. In J. E. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 179 186). Columbus, OH: National-Middle School Association.

Vars, G. F., & Beane. J. A. (2000). Integrative curriculum in a standards-based world. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 441618) [On-line]. Available: www.ed.gov/ databases/ERIC_Digests/ ed441618.html

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

The purpose of this column is to stimulate debate of timely issues affecting children, youth, and families. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of Childhood Education or the Association for Childhood Education International.

Permission to reproduce this column intact is not required. Copyright [C] 2001 Association for Childhood Education International.

Micki Caskey is Assistant Professor, Middle Level Education, Graduate School of Education, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.