Paper for Ed. 702 - Psychological Foundations of Education
Multiage -- grade combination -- split level -- mixed grade -- multi-age
-- continuous progress -- vertical grouping -- family grouping -- ungraded
classrooms – nongraded -- are all names for virtually the same thing.
They are classrooms where there is a mixture of ages and abilities, all
sharing in learning. This multiplicity of terms has at times been
confusing. For this paper, an important distinction to make
is that a multiage classroom is a combination of ages and grades
deliberately grouped together for educational benefits. Simon Veenman,
a researcher at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, states
that these classes are not to be confused with multi-grade or split grade
classrooms that are classes in which students from two or more grades
are taught by one teacher and which are formed for administrative and economic
necessities. He stresses that the difference is the intentional combining
of ages and grades for cognitive and noncognitive benefits (Veenman, 1995).
Multiage teaching has actually been around for a very long time, much
longer than the graded classroom. The early Jews developed schools for
boys from ages six to thirteen and taught them in the synagogues.
In ancient Greece, young boys, age 7 - 18 were brought together to receive
physical and mental training. In medieval trade guilds, students
studied with their teachers until they were ready to be on their own.
Some would finish their apprenticeship soon; others might take a longer
time. Each was considered as good as the artisan who had taught him.
In the monasteries of the 1500s, “a sixteen year old and a six year old
were likely to be seated side by side in the same class” (Longstreet &
Shane, 1993). Our earliest American schools were multiaged.
They included all the children of the village, from ages 6 to 16.
Even the rural school rooms of 25 to 50 years ago contained children of
a wide variety of ages with just one teacher.
It was not until the 1840s that the graded classroom began to appear
in the United States. This was after a noted educator and statesman,
Horace Mann, brought the idea from Prussia and implemented it in Massachusetts.
It became the common-school system. Many thought that this
was an easy, “assembly line” way of educating children. “It was believed
that children learned best by memorizing in small groups organized according
to ability” (Longstreet, et. al., 1993, p. 10) and dividing them according
to age made it easier. Within a decade, Mann’s ideas were being widely
accepted. Legislation followed standardizing age of entry and establishing
sequential grade levels and curricula. Graded classrooms have since become
the rule of educating.
The graded classrooms have not be without critics. John Dewey
was one of the early 1900 vocal opponents. He felt that children
learned best from their elders and that mixing the ages of the children
was a natural way of learning. He felt that the current schools of
the time (l930s) needed to be “liberated from their inflexible conceived
subject matter” (Longstreet, et. al., 1993, p. 72) and groupings.
It was not until 1959 that the challenge to age segregation in schools
became more prevalent. It appeared in the form of the book, The Nongraded
School, by John Goodlad and Robert Anderson (Pratt, 1986). In this
book, the authors documented the variability in intellectual, emotional
and physical growth of children and adolescents. They stated that
“grouping children homogeneously on the basis of a single criterion (age)
does not produce a group that is homogeneous to the same degree judged
by other criteria…Consequently teachers who proceed as though their class
of gifted or retarded pupils were homogeneous are fooling themselves and
cheating their pupils.” (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987, p. 17).
Many were influenced by this book in the 1960s. Within a few years,
many schools claimed to be multiaged. But in 1968 Goodlad expressed
his own disillusion by saying “My own view is that there are, indeed, precious
few multiaged schools…The concepts guiding nongrading are becoming part
of the rambling rhetoric, the cant of current educational orthodoxy.” (Pratt,
1986). In other words, schools were combining children of different
ages, but continuing to teach them as they would teach a separate grade
level, breaking them into grade groups within the classroom. Many
of these early attempts at multiage classrooms failed due to inadequate
understanding, lack of administrative and community support, and the lack
of power to overcome organizational structures which were politically
safe and administratively convenient.
Now as we near the year 2000, approaches to education are again coming
under the magnifying glass and nongraded or multiage classrooms are being
re-evaluated with a great deal of interest. Three states have already
conducted extensive research of nongradedness and as a result have mandated
that the primary schools become multiaged. Kentucky, Mississippi
and Oregon have mandated multiage groupings at the primary level (Gutloff,
1995). Several other states are currently exploring the idea.
Kentucky issued its Education Reform Act which mandated multiaged primary
schools in 1990. At the time Kentucky issued the Kentucky Education
Reform Act, it was dealing with failing school systems. The
Kentucky Department of Education found that by 4th grade, over 20% of its
primary population had been retained. It also found that it was not
uncommon for schools to have a 25% dropout rate (Steffy, 1993). The
Department of Education felt that drastic measures needed to be taken.
This meant researching and revamping the Kentucky Education System.
The Department of Education of Kentucky, after a great deal of research,
issued a primary school position statement as follows:
An appropriate primary program for all children recognizes that children
grow and develop as a ‘whole’ not one dimension at a time or at the same
rate in each dimension. Thus, instructional practices should address
social, emotional, physical, aesthetic, as well as cognitive needs.
The primary program flows naturally from preschool programs and exhibits
developmentally appropriate educational practices. These practices
allow children to experience success while progressing according to unique
learning needs and also enables them to move toward attainment of the educational
goals and capacities of the Kentucky Education Reform Act in an environment
which fosters a love of learning (Steffy, 1993).
The Kentucky Education Board decided that the best way to achieve this
was through a multiage classroom setting. At the time the Kentucky
Education Reform Act went into effect, the secondary schools were unaffected.
They felt they first needed to study how these transformations of education
would affect the primary and middle school before making changes to the
secondary schools.
What does the research that Kentucky and other states looked into say
about multiage groupings? There seems to still be some conflicting
ideas about the benefits of nongradedness. However, most of the research
does point to some very positive benefits of multiage practices if they
are dealt with in the true sense of the word as pointed out in the Primary
School Position Statement of Kentucky.
In Kentucky, results from the state’s testing program are in after
three years of the mandated multiage classrooms. The tests show that
4th graders’ reading and writing scores are improving more rapidly than
those of 8th and 12th graders. Of these three age groups, only the
4th graders have been legally required to be taught in multiage classrooms
(Viadero, 1996). The University of Louisville’s Center for Gifted
Students also did a study comparing the achievement of four Kentucky primary
multiage school classes with students in out-of-state traditional one-grade
settings. They tried to match these classes geographically and economically.
Their study found that 20% of the students in the Kentucky classrooms significantly
outscored the out-of-state students on standardized tests in four areas:
word identification, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, and
mathematical problem-solving (Viadero, 1996).
Simon Veenman (1995), a researcher at the University of Nijmegen in
the Netherlands, examined 56 studies of multiage classrooms in 12 countries.
He looked at some of the actual research testing results to see what benefits
nongradedness might produce. When Veenman looked at the research
results of these 56 different studies, he took into account many factors.
He looked at socioeconomic standings, population of school, IQ factors,
teacher training to name just a few. He found that when comparing
multiage classrooms to single grade classrooms, there was little to no
difference in the cognitive learning outcomes of the two types of classes.
He did find, however, that there were significant differences in the affective
areas such as attitudes towards school, self-concept, and personal and
social adjustment in favor of the multiage classrooms. As he looked
at the results, he saw some factors that might help explain why student
learning in multi-age classes did not differ from student learning in single
grade classes. Some of these factors were bias in composition of
multigrade classes, ill-prepared teachers, and the greater workload associated
with teaching multiage classes.
While studying the research results and interviewing professionals
who have dealt with multi-age classrooms, Veenman found that advocates
of multiage grouping claim that it yields the following cognitive and noncognitive
benefits.
1. Students have a chance to form relationships with a wider variety
of children than is possible in the traditional same-age classroom.
This leads to a greater sense of belonging, support, security, and confidence.
2. Teaching a diverse group of students demands individualized instruction.
3. The development of a balanced personality is promoted by fostering
the attitudes and qualities that enable students to live in a complex
and changing social environment.
4. The self-concepts of slower, older students are enhanced when they
are asked to tutor younger students in their class.
5. More secure teacher-student relationships may be established as
the student remains with the same teacher for two or more years.
6. Fewer anxieties may develop because the educational atmosphere is
conducive not only to academic progress but also to social growth.
7. Multi-age grouping provides younger students with the opportunity
to observe, emulate, and imitate a wide range of behaviors; older students
have the opportunity to assume responsibility for less mature and less
knowledgeable students.
8. Multi-age grouping invites cooperation and other forms of prosocial
behavior and thus appears to minimize competitive pressures and the need
to discipline.
9. Students in the lower grade(s) can enrich their learning by attending
to the material designed for higher grade(s), while the students in the
higher grade(s) can profit from opportunities to review the material designed
for the lower grade(s).
10. Current concepts of cognitive development (e.g. the zone of proximal
development and cognitive conflict) imply that children whose knowledge
or abilities are similar but not identical can stimulate each other’s thinking
and cognitive growth.
11. Finally, multi-age grouping relaxes the rigid curriculum with its
age-graded expectations, which are inappropriate for a large number of
students. (Veenman, 1995, p. 322)
Veenman also found opponents of multiage classrooms. There were
problems and concerns on both the part of the teachers, administrators
and parents. Some stated that teachers preferred single-grade classes
because multigrade classes entail more planning, preparation, and work.
Administrators found problems in the integration of curricula, individualizing
instruction, lack of time for adequate teaching of certain subjects, lack
of time for preparation and assessment, and lack of time for individual
remediation. Parents were negative to the multiage concept fearing
their child would not get adequate individualization. Veenman also
noted that the biggest critics of multiage classrooms were in urban areas.
Rural areas were much more accepting of the multiage concept. In
conclusion, Veenman felt that the many significant benefits of the multiage
classrooms outweighed its disadvantages.
DeWayne A. Mason, University of California, Riverside, and Robert B.
Burns, University of San Francisco in their article “’Simply No Worse and
Simply No Better’ May Simply Be Wrong: A Critique of Veenman’s Conclusion
About Multigrade Classes” published in the Review of Educational Research,
Fall 1996, refute much of Veenman’s conclusions, saying that the conclusions
are based Veenman’s beliefs more than on the empirical research. Their
main point of contention with Veenman’s interpretation is that he ignores
selection bias as part of the explanation for his findings. There is considerable
evidence that principals are often biased when placing students in certain
classes. Another point of contention is that Veenman ignores the
teaching practices in the multigrade classroom. Mason and Burns believe
that teacher stress is exacerbated and curriculum coverage and adaptive
assistance are diminished in multigrade classrooms. They feel that more
field testing should be done in a greater number of areas before conclusions
about the benefits of multigrade classrooms can be reached.
Barbara Pavan (1992), a researcher and Professor of Educational Administration
at Philadelphia’s Temple University, also criticized Veenman’s study.
She, however, felt he had left out a lot of multiage studies from
North America that pointed to much more favorable outcomes of multiage
classrooms. For her review, Pavan chose 64 studies conducted after
1967 in the United States and Canada. Standardized tests were used in 57
of the studies and the studies usually reported data from one year. 52
of these studies indicated that for all comparisons, the multiage groups
performed better or as well as the graded groups on measures of academic
achievement. In only 9% of the studies did the students perform worse.
Pavan also include a mental health component in 42 of the studies.
These measures presented data on school anxiety, self-esteem, confidence,
and attitude toward school. Pavan found that ungraded schools
produced superior results in 52% of the studies, 43% were about the same
as graded classrooms, and 5% of the results found that the mental health
component in the multiage classrooms was worse than those in graded classrooms.
Pavan also examined seven studies that compared students who had spent
their entire elementary school years in the same multiage school with students
who spent the same time in a graded school. She noted that all the
studies reported superior academic achievements by the multiage students.
She noted that one study went on to report that there were fewer discipline
problems in junior high by students who had come from a multiage program.
Pavan also noted that the research data indicated that underachievers and
students from lower socioeconomic status in multiage schools had better
self-concepts, attitudes toward school and academic achievement than those
in graded schools.
Another study on nongradeness was conducted in Tennessee by Barbara
Nye, a senior research scientist at the Center for Basic Skills at Tennessee
State University in Nashville. Nye tracked 1,500 Tennessee
students from kindergarten to 4th grade in multiaged classrooms.
In the seven schools that participated, children worked in small flexible
groups that were mixed in terms of age and ability. Students progressed
at their own speed, and the learning was more hands-on and less reliant
on textbooks than in traditional classrooms. Two years into the study,
Nye stated that her analysis showed that students were doing as well or
better in terms of both academics and academic self-concept (Videro, 1996).
Kathleen Cotton, a researcher funded by the Office of Educational Research
and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education, researched several
educational studies in regards to developmentally appropriate practice
and multiage education. Cotton (1993) did an analysis of forty-six
documents. Nine of documents dealt with research on child development
and learning, eleven focused on critiques of graded programs, descriptions
of nongraded programs and obstacles to implementing nongraded programs
and twenty-six reported the results of empirical research on the effects
of nongraded grouping. She found that the general observation was
that the empirical research supported the use of nongraded programs.
Cotton points out that most of the studies found that the achievement in
multiage classrooms appeared to be no different than achievement in a single-age
classroom. The big differences were in attitude, behavior, social
skill development, leadership skills, and parental attitudes. The
studies that Cotton looked at all pointed to the multiage classrooms as
providing significantly more positive outcomes. In addition to benefits
pointed out by Veenman, Cotton found that nongraded arrangements lend themselves
to integrated curriculum, cooperative learning, cross-age tutoring and
learning in a more naturalistic setting.
Although not based on empirical research, there are numerous articles
by teachers espousing the benefits of multiage classrooms. John Tapper
(1996) of Vermont, recipient of the 1991 Vermont Outstanding Teachers Award
and a multiage teacher for many years, has many reasons why he likes teaching
a multiage classroom. Some of them are that he spends less time getting
to know the individual strengths of each child because so many of them
are returning students; the multiage programs focus on the individual students;
and multiage programs encourage students to grow into responsibility—“when
they are little, they are taken care of and when they get older they learn
that they must do this for others”(Tapper, 1996). Janet Caudill Banks
(1997) likes the increase in immediate feedback due to the many people
in the classroom being able to help and answer questions. She also
likes the fact that competition and comparison are significantly lessened
in a multiage classroom. Heidi Mattern and Russell Yates (1995)
of Chimacum Elementary School on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington
State also have several reasons they have chosen to teach multiage classrooms.
They feel that young children are stimulated intellectually by older children,
that the children have a “broader social experience and increased opportunities
to lead and follow and form stable peer relationships” (Mattern, et. al.,
1995, p. 2), and stronger relationships are established between the teachers
and the parents. Mattern and Yates also stress that team teaching
in a multiage classroom helps students by allowing greater flexibility,
a variety of approaches, collaboration and greater observation of students
in order to better meet their needs.
In view of the many purported advantages to multiage instruction,
why haven’t more schools become involved in promoting multiage education
in their schools? According to an article in the May 6, 1996, Seattle
Times, only a small percentage - 3% to 7% of all classrooms were multiage
classrooms (Houtz, 1996). Kathleen Cotton (1993) in her research
article entitled Nongraded Primary Education notes that research highly
favors multiage education. She does, however, list some of the obstacles
to the transition to nongraded primary programs. She has listed barriers
identified by other education researchers to the implementation of nongraded
programs as follows (Cotton, 1993, p. 9):
1. From a strictly organizational and logistical point of view, graded
structures are relatively efficient and inexpensive.
2. Because they work well for some students, many people believe that
graded programs are effective in general.
3. Parents and community members frequently lack understanding of the
nongraded education concept and its advantages.
4. Teachers are normally trained only in methods for teaching single-grade
classes and are resistant to change.
5. Teachers often fear that teaching nongraded classes will require
more preparation time and a larger repertoire of instructional methods
and material than teaching single-grade classes.
6. Lack of administrative support has frequently thwarted attempts
to move to nongraded structures.
7. The textbook industry structures its wares for use in traditional,
single-grade classes. In addition, textbook content is typically
aimed at the lowest common denominator, and as such, it encourages conformity
and is unresponsive to the ranges of abilities found in groups of children.
8. Standardized testing methods are also designed for use with students
educated in single-grade arrangements.
9. The “back-to-basics” movement of the 1970s and 1980s led to great
rigidity in education.
Proponents of multiage education argue that the benefits of learning
in a multiage setting outweigh the barriers of implementation. They feel
that research backs them up on this point. They also feel that nongraded
programs are appropriate and even essential for handling the increasing
diversity in the U.S. population. It is time to make the change.
In view of the research evidence that is being reported in favor of
nongraded primary education, most articles and books that are being written
today advocates widespread implementation of multiage teaching. Because
of this, more schools are beginning to become intensely interested
in incorporating at least some multiage classrooms in their schools.
Some schools want to do it because of necessity due to numbers of students
at some grade levels. Some want to do it because they have been made
aware of the benefits of multiage classrooms that are now being supported
by research.
One such school is Evergreen Elementary in Holmen, Wisconsin.
The Holmen School District recently incorporated some multiage classrooms
into their elementary school. They have some multiage classrooms,
mixed with some traditional graded classrooms. They began
a multiage program called Project K.I.D. (Kids Independently Developing)
in 1994. The teachers involved were sent to inservices around the
area where they could learn more about multiage teaching. They read
and did research on what would be involved to become multiage teachers.
After a year of learning more about multiage classrooms, they felt they
were ready to try. They then began a journey that was not without
its pitfalls, but ended very successfully. From this journey, they
put together a summer inservice in 1995 for other teachers interested in
embarking down the same path.
During the Project K.I.D. summer inservice (1995), the instructing
teachers and participating administrators were very enthusiastic about
their programs. They spent two days promoting multiage education
as another way to reach children in the classroom. They were excited
about their teaching and excited about sharing it with those of us who
attended their inservice. They listed a ten-step program for setting
up a multiage program for those of us that were catching their enthusiasm
(Project K.I.D., 1995).
1. Understand what multiaging means. Do the research.
2. Discuss multiaging with administrators, parents, and other
teachers.
3. Determine the age breakdown for each classroom unit.
4. Condense the curriculum into a one year realistic set of goals.
Concentrate on mandated goals and objectives for the oldest child in the
room.
5. Match eligible children into each age unit. Be conscious
of social and emotional growth as well as cognitive growth.
6. Check the heterogeneity of the classroom mixture. Each
room must contain a mixture of ages, ability levels, and social needs.
7. Avoid placing all discipline problems or lower level children
in the same classroom.
8. Determine the teaching strategies which will best serve the
mixture of students. These will change as class groupings change.
9. Design special project areas or learning centers which can
cover a wide range of ability levels. These should be problem-solving,
hands-on experiences.
10. Determine three evaluation strategies that will provide authentic,
diagnostic information for you and the parents. Be selective in trying
everything that is new.
These steps are very helpful to new schools, administrators, and teachers
who are looking into setting up multiage classrooms.
Waupaca Learning Center in Waupaca, Wisconsin began allowing
multiaged classrooms in their district in 1993. Currently, it has
three multiaged classrooms where it mixes grades one and two in one classroom.
I have had the opportunity to team teach in a multiaged classroom since
it began at Waupaca. The principal of the Waupaca Learning Center
has supported multiaged classrooms and allowed us to travel to other schools
to hear other multiaged teachers report on the effects that multiaged teaching
has had on their students.
On a personal note, I have found that multiaged teaching does
have a great many of the benefits reported by Simon Veenmann. In
order to experience these benefits, a teacher has to go through some difficult
times to prepare for teaching multiage. It is hard work on the teacher’s
part because one needs to learn a whole new way of teaching at times.
A teacher also has to be willing to turn over some of the teaching to the
students so that they can learn while they are given the opportunity to
teach. But once teachers have immersed themselves in multiaged teaching,
things begin to get easier. In my classroom, many of the simple,
everyday problems are taken care of by the older students. This frees
me to focus more on the individualized needs of the students. The
older students provide excellent role models for the younger, newer students
to follow. The older students also know the rules of the classroom
and are quick to help the newer students learn the “ropes” of how the classroom
runs. I have seen many of my older students who struggled in certain
areas when they were the younger students being given the opportunity to
help teach the younger students in those same areas. Thus they have
begun to develop a more positive self-esteem and a better knowledge of
those academic areas. At the beginning of the year, the returning
students are eager to get down to work and I already know their strengths,
weaknesses, and personalities. Many of the third grade teachers
to whom our children have went on to have remarked that many students from
our classroom are more cooperative, more on task, and more eager to learn
than students from single graded classrooms.
But this is only a “drop in the bucket” at Waupaca. I feel
that the real benefits to multiage classrooms comes from being allowed
to be in multiaged classrooms for several years. As Barbara Pavan
(1992) pointed out in her report that students who have spent their elementary
years in multiage classes have superior academic achievements and fewer
discipline problems in junior high. At Waupaca, I feel that we need
to extend the nongradeness through fifth grade at least. That, I
feel, will help us see some very long term benefits in both social and
academic areas.
It is time. It is time to make a change. With all
of the research that has been conducted which points to the wide variety
of benefits of the nongraded programs, it is time for legislators, administrators
and educators to take an active part in making a change that will greatly
benefit our primary children’s education. Read, study, visit classrooms,
talk to parents, be open to change. With these research findings
and various guidelines to support them, educators should begin to make
the transition from traditional education structures to nongraded arrangements
for primary children. As Pratt (1986, p.112) points out “The
evidence on multiage grouping appears to confirm the basic principle that
diversity enriches and uniformity impoverishes.”
References
Banks, J. C. (1997). Student success, and self-image in a multi-age
classroom. [Online] Retrieved February 11, 1998 from the World Wide
Web:
http://www.chimacum.wednet.edu/elementary/stsuccess.html
Cotton, K. (1993). Nongraded Primary Education. School
Improvement Research Series [Online]. Retrieved April 12, 1998 from
the World Wide Web: http://nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/7/cu14/html
Goodlad, J. I. & Anderson, R. H. (1987). The non-graded
elementary school, revised edition. New York & London:
Teachers College Press.
Gutloff, K. (Ed.). (1995). Multi-age classrooms. West Haven,
Connecticut: National Education Association.
Houltz, Jolayne. (1996, May 6). These kids aren’t classed by
age. The Seattle Times - Today’s Top Stories [Online]. Retrieved
April 10, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://cisl.ospi.wednet.edu/CISL/Strategies/MTAGE/STIMES56.html
Longstreet, W. S. & Shane, H. G. (1993). Curriculum
for a new millennium. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Mason, D. A. & Burns, R. B. (1996). “Simply no worse
and Simply no Better” may simply be wrong: A critique of Veenman’s
conclusion about multigrade classes. Review of Educational Research,
66 (3), 307-322.
Mattern, H. & Yates, R. (March, 1995). Second and third grade
multiage education program. [Online] Retrieved February 11, 1998 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.chimacum.wednet.edu/elementary/2-3program.html
McCombs, L. (1995). To grade or not to grade: An examination
of alternatives to the institutions of age segregation and graded assessment
in the public schools. [Online] Retrieved February 23, 1998
from the World Wide Web: http:// www.wolfe.net/~wind/leith/nograd.htm
Pavan, B. N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools.
Educational Leadership, 50 (2), 22-25.
Pratt, D. (1986). On the merits of multiage Classrooms.
Research in Rural Education, 3 (3), Multiage Classrooms: The ungrading
of America, 1993, p. 83-87.
Project K.I.D. Teacher Inservice (1995). Evergreen Elementary,
School District of Holmen, Wisconsin. Project K.I.D. - Kids Independently
Developing held July 17-18, 1995.
Society for Developmental Education (1993). Multiage classrooms:
The ungrading of America’s schools. The multiage resource book.
New Hampshire: The Society for Developmental Education.
Steffy, B. E. (1993). The Kentucky education reform. Lessons
for America. Kentucky: Technonic Publishing Co.
Tapper, J. (March 26, 1996). Explanation of multiage education.
Multiage listserve. [Online] Retrieved February 11, 1998 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.chimacum.wednet.edu/elementary/explanation.html
Veenman, Simon. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects
of multigrade and multi-age classes: A best-evidence synthesis.
Review of Education Research, 65 (4), 319-381.
Viadero, D. (1996, September). Mixed bag. Education
Week on the Web. Teacher Magazine [Online]. Retrieved March
4, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/tm/vol-08/01ages.h08