 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE iN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
I252 i 1 W”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=iT—l

MSU is An Affirmative ActiorVEquei Opportunity inmitution
cwmmpma-pJ

 

 

 

 

THE MULTI-AGE CLASSROOM:
A DESCRIPTION OF MULTI-AGE GROUP TEACHING PRACTICE
IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

By
William Cook Miller

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCI‘OR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1991

(2/

ABSTRACT
THE MULTI-AGE CLASSROOM:

A DESCRIPTION OF MULTI—AGE GROUP TEACHING PRACTICE
IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

By
William C. Miller

The focus of this study was on an elementary school where multi-age grouping
was reported to be a sound educational practice that enhanced the academic and
social skills of the students. Although there has been substantial research about the
beneﬁts and outcomes of multi-age grouping, only limited efforts have been made to
report what experienced multi-age group teachers say about the practice. Included
in this study is an examination of how multi-age classrooms are organimd for
instruction and an analysis of the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of the students,
teachers and support staff.

Although public educational programs in America contain a wide variety of
organizational patterns, the vast majority of public schools utilize an age-graded
organizational structure. This structure has endured for over one hundred and forty
years, apparently without its underlying assumptions being questioned. Contained in
this study is an analysis of an alternative age/grade organizational pattern.
Instructional strategies, student groupings, and teacher perceptions of multi-age
grouping are detailed as part of the study.

The ethnographic method of inquiry was utilized for this study, along with a
search of the literature on alternative age/grade grouping and a review of educational

history. The primary methods of data collection included participant observation,

interview, and document analysis.

The ﬁndings from the data illustrated that multi-age grouping was a viable
form of organization for instruction. The use of cooperative small-group learning,
student-helping-student strategies, and personalized learning plans enabled teachers
to implement multi-age instruction. A reduction in student failure and retention,
accommodations for individual differences, and continuous individual assessment of
progress characterized the operation and outcomes of multi-age classroom settings.

From the ﬁndings of the study, the researcher concluded that implementation
of the practices associated with multi-age grouping took more than just a change in
class conﬁguration. It involved a redeﬁnition of teaching. A re-education of the
educational community was necessary for the instructional practices associated with

multi-age grouping to be accepted by educators and the public at large.

This dissertation is dedicated to those who question our system of public
education and who seek a better way. This work is also dedicated to my father, Dr.
William Miller. He taught me, by his example, that the best school organizational
plan in the world needs people to make it work. People cannot make a program
work when they do not understand it or when they fail to see the need for the
changes it will entail. People can guarantee the success of the program if they
consider it "their" program. Assuring their involvement is the task of the individual

who seeks to improve education.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The help and support of family, teachers and collegues have made this
dissertation possible. I would like to acknowledge several people who share in this
accomplishment.

I want to express my appreciation to Dr. Charles Blackman, chair of my
dissertation committee, for his guidance, encouragement and belief in me through my
entire doctoral program.

I also wish to thank Dr. Samuel Moore, Dr. Peggy Riethmiller and Dr. Donald
Burke for the direction and support they provided me throughout my program.

Special thanks go to my family for their high level of patience, especially
Marianne, who kept me going and provided me support.

To these special people, I express my sincere thanks.

CHAPTERI

CHAPTER II

CI-IAPTERIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................. 1
The Purpose of the Study ............................ 4
Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................. 4
Limitations of the Study ............................. 7
Methodology ..................................... 9
Deﬁnitions ...................................... 11
Organization of the Study ........................... 17
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................... 18
Historical Perspectives ............................. 18
Issues Associated with Single Age/Grade Grouping ........ 3O
Instructional Methods and Outcomes ............ ' ...... 37
Teacher Attitudes Toward Multi-Age Grouping .......... 49
Summary ....................................... 53
DESIGN OF THE STUDY ......................... 56
Ethnography as a Method of Inquiry ................... 56
The Plan of the Study .............................. 58
Study Location and Description ...................... 65

The City School District ......................... 65

The School ................................... 66

CHAPTER IV

CHAPTER V

Summary of the Data Collection Process ................ 67

Consent Process .................................. 69
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................. 70
Classroom Organization for Instruction ................. 7O
S.W.’s Classroom .............................. 71
C.O.’s Classroom .............................. 76
C.K.’s Classroom .............................. 79
A Typical Morning While Following Nicki ............ 82
Small Group Instruction ............................ 86
Rationale for Small Group Organization ............. 99
How Small Groups Are Formed .................. 107
Other Instructional Practices ........................ 110
Students Help Students Learn .................... 112
Students Preview Future Instruction ............... 126
Students Engage in Play ............... ' ......... 128
Whole Class Instruction ........................ 130
Teachers Evaluate Student Progress ............... 134
Participant Attitudes, Perceptions and Beliefs ........... 139
Accommodation of Individual Differences ........... 140
Multiple Years with the Same Teacher ............. 143
Personal Reﬂections of Teachers ................. 146
Faculty Planning and Interaction .................. 148
Issues of Concern to Participants .................... 151
Definition of Multi-Age Practice .................. 153
Public Concern ............................... 155
More Work for Teachers ....................... 157
Noise ...................................... 165
Summary ...................................... 166
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS ..... 172
Summary of the Data ............................. 172
Research Question One ........................ 172
Research Question Two ........................ 176
Research Question Three ....................... 177
Conclusions and Implications ....................... 181

Appendix A
Appendix B

Bibliography

Recommendations for Practice ...................... 187

Recommendations for Further Study .................. 193
Reﬂections ..................................... 194
Formal Patterned Interview Questions ................ 197
Sample Journal Questions ......................... 198

............................................. 199

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Formal Interview Participants .............................. 62
Table 2 Years of Teaching Experience ............................. 63
Table 3 Reasons for Utilizing Multi-Age Grouping ................... 141
Table 4 Problems Identiﬁed with Multi-Age Grouping ................. 152
Table 5 Terms to Descnbe Age/Grade Patterns ...................... 154

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 C.O.’s Classroom ....................................... 79
Figure 2 C.K.’s Classroom ....................................... 82
Figure 3 S.W.’s Classroom ....................................... 90

CHAPTERI

INTRODUCTION

Public educational programs in America contain a wide variety of
organizational patterns. There is, however, one striking similarity. The vast majority
of our public schools use an age-graded organizational structure, especially at the
elementary level.

Although it was common in the early one-room school for students of a variety
of ages to be taught in the same classroom, the practice faded with the onset of
larger schools that were set up in grade levels. Grade level placement became
determined by the ages of the students (Cubberley, 1947; Goodlad and Anderson,
1983).

The organization of the American education system has not always been
dominated by an age-graded structure. The graded school is a relatively recent
educational development. Colonial America had no graded schools. Lack of an
organized structure for schooling characterized this period. The home was the school
and the kitchen, spare room or workshop was the classroom. When parents were
unable to instruct their children, dame schools were available where instruction
differed little from that found in the home. The teacher met with small groups of
children, without regard to age, and taught them skills in reading and religion (Eby,

1952, p. 564).

2

The spirit of the dame school persisted long after its demise. In countless
little red schoolhouses across the rural landscape, children of various ages attended
a common school for instruction by the same teacher. In the emerging urban centers,
the Lancaster Schools were the counterparts of the one-room rural schools. Both of
these organizational patterns were destined to crumble under the pressures of
increases in school enrollments. By the middle of the 19th century, urbanization was
a reality. Between 1830 and 1860, the number of people living in communities over
8,000 more than doubled (McLaughlin, 1969), and the pressure for efﬁcient school
organization increased. Designing alternative patterns for school organization
became a paramount educational objective.

Approximately 140 years ago, the system began its transformation from an
ungraded structure to a fully age-graded structure (Martin, 1894, p.192; Shearer,
1899, p.20; Cowen, 1931, p.29; Cubberley, 1947, p.311; Goodlad and Anderson, 1963,
p.44; Tewksbury, 1967, p.13). This change eventually spread to become a nation-wide
standard. Even though there are variations on this structural model, schools
organized on an age-graded structure are the primary reality within public education
in this country (Goodlad and Anderson, 1963, p.2-3; Tewksbury, 1967, p.12). The
majority of educators seem to have merely accepted the age-graded organizational
structure as the way of instructing students within the system of public education
(Cubberley, 1947, p.312). There are, however, indications that the tendency toward
the unquestioned acceptance of the age/graded system may be changing.

A review of educational trends indicates that there is a renewed interest in the
concept of multi-age grouping. The practice of educating students of different ages

and identiﬁed grade levels together in the same classroom, although not new to

3

educational practice, appears to yield some beneﬁts for students over the current
single age/grade level organization that so dominates current practice. Multi-age
grouping practices that were so commonplace in the one-room school house of earlier
times have not been widely accepted as sound methods of organization in the current
state of elementary education in America. A review of current research indicates
that authors of some studies have found that students may gain greater educational
beneﬁts from this type of class instruction than from single age/graded instruction
(Brown, 1989; Villa, 1989). Researchers also have found that teachers and principals
are the key persons who bring about change in classroom organization and practice
(Taylor, 1971; Holley, 1973).

If multi-age grouping is a practice that is desirable, then in order to gain wider
acceptance and become more commonplace in schools, teachers will need to
understand the hows and whys of this practice. Therefore, a description of how
multi-age classrooms are organized for student instruction will be included in the
study, along with a report of what elementary school teachers in multi-age classrooms
say about the practice, the needs of students, and the instructional strategies they
utilize that enable students of different ages and identiﬁed grade levels to have their
instructional needs met in a single classroom.

Although there has been substantial research about the beneﬁts and outcomes
of multi-age grouping, only limited efforts have been made to report what
experienced, multi-age group teachers say about this grouping practice in schools.
In order to understand the dynamics of mixed-age grouping for instruction, it is
important to describe both the current operation and organization of multi-age class

groupings and the perceptions that experienced multi-age classroom teachers hold

4

about student learning, curriculum content and best instructional practices that

maximize student learning.

The Purpose of the Study

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe how multi-age
classrooms are organized for student instruction and to report what elementary
teachers say about their experiences with the practice. For purposes of this study,
the term multi-age classroom will be used to descrfoe an organizational pattern where
students of different ages and/or identiﬁed grade levels are grouped together, in a
single classroom, intentionally, for the purpose of providing effective student
instruction. The focus of this study is on the classroom participants within an
elementary school where multi-age grouping is reported to be a sound educational
practice that enhances the academic and social skills of the students involved.

In order to examine the practice of multi-age classroom organization for
instruction, and to report what teachers say about the practice, the following
questions were asked.

1. How are multi-age classrooms organized for instruction and what instructional
strategies are typically utilized in these settings?

2. How do teachers descrlbe the operation of multi-age classes?

3. As a result of their involvement with multi-age classrooms, what experiences
do participants report that have affected their viewpoints, attitudes, and
understandings about student learning?

Signiﬁcance of the Study
Concerned consumers, educators, critics, students and public ofﬁcials recognize

the increasing importance of a quality educational program. There is a renewed

5

interest in the idea that multi-age class grouping may yield beneﬁts for students over
the current single age-graded organizational system that so dominates American
public education. There is evidence to suggest that multi-age grouping, with its
accompanying instructional strategies, may improve the social skills of students and
lead to a more humane, cooperative approach to instruction (Pratt, 1986; Way, 1981).

The research on multi-age grouping, referred to in the literature as multi-age
grouping; nongraded classes; multi-grade classes; cross-age grouping; and family
grouping (ERIC, 1989) documents that the practice of grouping students of various
ages together yields some promising outcomes for students. In a study by Cloward
(1967), older students raised achievement scores for previously low-achieving younger
students through tutoring. In a summary of research from ethnology, education,
anthropology, and history on the merits of multi-age classrooms, Pratt (1986) found
that there were no more beneﬁts derived from age-separate grouping compared to
multi-age grouping. He did ﬁnd some beneﬁts of multi-age grouping in affective and
social skill development of pupils. Way (1981) in a similar study explored the
outcomes from instruction in multi-graded classrooms and compared these outcomes
to those in single-grade settings. No signiﬁcant differences were found in the areas
of achievement, but the multi-age grouped students had higher self concepts than
single-grade grouped children.

This brief summary of comparative research ﬁndings illustrates that multi-
grade grouping may yield beneﬁts for students in the affective domain. Observational
studies on companionship outside the classroom provide further evidence of the
importance of cross-age grouping. The general pattern that emerges from these

studies is one of increased competition and aggression within same-age class groups

6

and increased harmony and acceptance within multi-age learning groups where
younger members or high-need populations appear to beneﬁt most.

Despite research in the ﬁeld of child development that demonstrates children
of the same age learn at different rates and in different ways, and despite evidence
that multi age-grade grouping is a promising practice that may yield improved
outcomes for students, the single-graded structure continues to dominate American
public education.

Multi-age grouping may be an important tool to use to improve the quality of
education. Information about how children learn, about learning styles, and about
individual differences in learning rates seems to be in conﬂict with current grade level
grouping practice and the child development literature; these differences appear to
be worthy of investigation. An examination of alternative age-graded organizational
structures might be a valuable area to examine for potential solutions to some of the
identiﬁed problems within public education.

To understand more fully the multi-age classroom system, a description of the
workings of this method of classroom order needs to be provided to teachers. It is
recognized that the teacher is a key factor in educational change. The attitude of the
teacher about the practice of teaching students of different ages together in the same
classroom plays a signiﬁcant role in the determination of the eventual fate of the
practice (Goodlad, 1983).

Gathering information on the experiences teachers have that form their
attitudes and beliefs toward mixed grade/age grouping can assist educators in
identifying strategies to employ when exploring an expanded use of mixed age/grade

classes. This information may also be of use to educators who are responsrble for

7

preservice and inservice education programs for teachers. By examining instructional
practice in multi-age classes and describing the underlying assumptions teachers in
multi-age classes hold about the practice, a clearer picture of the needed content of
teacher education and staff development programs may emerge. In effect, when
students of different ages attend the same class, there are methodological concerns,
but there is also need for a clear understanding of the attitudes of experienced multi-
age class teachers and an understanding of the beneﬁts teachers believe can result
from multi-age groupings. The reorganization of grade level assignments, by itself,
probably will not bring about better instruction. Therefore, included in this study is
a report of what practicing teachers say about instructional strategies that are best
used in multi-age settings. In addition, teachers that have expressed a commitment
toward the use of multi-age grouping were asked to describe the experiences they
have had and the values that they hold about the practice. Their answers to these
questions are reported in this study.

There is substantial interest about the use of multi-age grouping as an
educational practice. Educators are attempting to devise methods to increase the
quality and quantity of the use of the practice. This effort is an important one that
deserves attention on the part of those now working in the ﬁeld of education.

Limitations of the Study

Most investigations are circumscribed. This study is not free from limitations.
The methods used to gather data and the study site itself limited the scope of the
study.

The type of community included is a limiting factor. The impact of community

characteristics on the efﬁcacy of the multi-graded school was not appraised as part

8

of this study. The more closely schools and communities approximate the study
location, the more relevant the ﬁndings for their situation.

There is concern about replicability and generalization in ethnographic
research. Because this kind of research takes place in a natural setting, instead of
a controlled setting, the same conditions cannot be repeated. The same piece of
research then cannot be duplicated. However, the same set of research questions
that guide this project can be used to guide another project at a different site. In this
way, other sites can be studied, and the ﬁndings can be related through common
questions.

The ﬁndings reported in this study are limited by the degree that subjectivity
or bias enters into the collection and interpretation of data. Although controlled by
cross referencing of data collection sources and by checking observations and
interpretations with other outside observers, the data collection and interpretation is
still susceptible to some subjective judgement.

Another limitation results from the sampling procedures. The participants in
this study are volunteers. Since the sample was not randomly selected, it is possible
that it is not representative.

The class observations were conducted over a six-month period that covered
the beginning and the end period of the school year. Clearly, practice changes
throughout the year and from year to year. Since this study was conducted in a
natural learning environment, the dynamics of the classes observed changed over time
and practice was constantly evolving. The observation periods were scheduled to
produce a cross section of the school day and of the school year. The ﬁndings may

be limited by the types of experiences and the time of the year that were covered by

the observation periods.

Finally, the results of this study are limited by the fact that the school is
purposely organized for educational outcomes, not for purposes of administrative
convenience. The results may or may not be relevant to school situations where
multi-age/grade organization is undertaken for purposes of administrative
convenience, i.e., balancing class size, class sections or managing numbers of students.

Methodology

The research model used for this study was designed to gather data from ﬁrst-
hand sources, from the insider perspective, about the day-to-day operation of multi-
age grouped classrooms. The rationale given for utilizing multi-age grouping, by
currently practicing educators in these settings, was reported. For professional
educators not familiar with the practice of multi-age grouping and the philosophy
behind the practice, the outcomes of this study provide them with a picture of the
setting, instructional planning, student interaction and staff experience as they
perform their classroom duties. A summary of the reﬂections teachers had about
their involvement in multi-age grouping, and how teachers came to believe in multi-
age grouping as a valuable educational practice, were reported in the study.

In order to gather information about the operation and participants’
perceptions of multi-age classroom practice, on site observation in a school that
purposely utilized multi-age grouping for instruction was employed. Data for this
study were collected from four sources. These sources were as follows:

1. Direct observation of students, staff, parents and volunteers in multi-age
classrooms, with detailed ﬁeld notes taken on the activities and verbal

comments of the participants.

10

2. Formal interviews with teachers and administrators that have experience with
multi-age grouped classes.

3. Written journal entries made by experienced multi-age group teachers.

4. Informal interviews with students, teachers, parents and support staff in the
course of classroom observations.

A major source of data collection was done on site at Hill Elementary School
(not the real name of the school) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Staff at the Hill School
have employed the practice of multi-age grouping for the past six years. The
classroom settings observed had students of three identiﬁed grade levels and four
different ages being educated together in the same classroom. During the
observations, ﬁeld notes were taken to describe in detail learning activities, daily
lesson content, student comments, and teacher comments made during the course of
the day. This source of data served as the primary basis for describing the daily
operation of a multi-age class at the elementary level.

The formal interviews with teachers were conducted in a private setting.
Teachers, support staff, and the building administrator were asked patterned
interview questions about the practice of multi-age grouping, instructional strategies
associated with the practice, beliefs and philosophy underlying the practice, and
questions about how the multi-age group teaching experience has affected the
educators’ ideas about teaching and learning. The formal interviews also permitted
the researcher to obtain information about student learning outcomes, student
characteristics, teacher experience, and demographic data.

The journal writing was designed to enable teachers to reﬂect on their

attitudes and values and how their ideas about teaching and learning have changed

11

as a result of experiences with multi-age group teaching.

Informal interviews with students, parents, teachers and support staff were
used to check the researcher’s perceptions. Informal interviews also were used to
provide more detail about aspects of the setting or the instructional content.
Informal interviews were used to check the objectivity of the observer and to verify
observational data.

Deﬁnitions

The term "multi-age" is used in this study to describe a pattern of mixed age
and multiple grade level grouping arrangements in elementary classrooms. For the
purpose of this study, a multi-age class is deﬁned as a class group within which
students of different ages and identiﬁed grade levels are grouped together
intentionally in a single classroom for the purpose of providing effective student
instruction.

Multi-age grouping is but one term used in education literature to describe the
practice of placing students of different ages and/or identiﬁed grade levels together
for the purpose of instruction or for administrative efﬁciency. The terms inter-age
(Weber, 1971), mixed age (Kurtz, 1964), nongraded (Carbone, 1961, Anderson, 1967,
NBA, 1963, Hunter, 1964), ungraded (Dufay, 1966), primary units (Katz, 1989), mixed
grade (Nachbur, 1989), split grade (Nachbur, 1989) combination (Freeman, 1984),
continuous progress ungraded (Gillespie, 1974), multi-graded (Brown, 1989), and
family grouping (Weber, 1971) have also been used to describe organizational
patterns that group students of different ages together.

As part of a comprehensive examination of alternative grouping patterns in

1965, the National Education Association offered this deﬁnition of N ongraded

12

Schools.

The nongraded school descrrbes the vertical organization
of the school that provides for the continuous, unbroken
upward progression of all learners. Nongrading is a
method of organization by which pupils are allowed to
progress through school at their own individual rates.
Each pupil covers as much of an appropriate curriculum
as he can during the year. At the beginning of the next
term, he picks up where he left off and again works at
his own speed. N 0 grade label is attached to the work
at any point; there are no promotions and no retentions
(NBA, 1965, p. 1).

Alfred Yates, in his book Grouping in Education, deﬁnes multi-age grouping
as:

...a deliberate attempt to group pupils of different ages
for instructional purposes. The spread is over several
years and is far greater than would be found normally in
the graded classroom. Such grouping aims at enabling
older children to learn by helping younger ones, while
the latter, in turn, proﬁt from the stimulation of the
older ones. Groupings are more natural approximations
of family groups, and social growth and maturity are
reportedly increased. Classes of this kind - usually
described as family groups - have been introduced in a
number of English primary Schools (1966, p.70).

Multi-age grouping, as described by Yates, most closely approximates the
deﬁnition and terminology utilized in this study to describe the practice of grouping
students of different ages together to enhance instruction. However, other closely
related terms describe similar patterns of grouping.

Multi-grade grouping is deﬁned by Brown (1989) as the grouping of students
from two or more standard grade levels. In some instances, the plan is used as a
means of providing an additional class where there is not a sufﬁcient number of

pupils for two sections of each grade level. Multi-grade grouping is also referred to

as split grade or combination grouping since pupils from two grade levels may be

13
combined into a single class of standard size. In multi-grade classrooms, grade
descriptors are often utilized to identify student levels. Frequently, teachers in multi-
grade or split sections are expected to teach the grade level curriculum objectives to
each of the identiﬁed grade level student groups simultaneously. Multi-grade
grouping is often used to administratively balance class size.

Dufay (1966) deﬁnes ungraded schools, "As those where students are grouped
together regardless of age and in which extensive effort is made to adapt instruction
to individual difference" (p. 24). Grade levels as such are abandoned and within each
class subgroups are formed to allow for a variety of academic standards. Others
deﬁne ungraded plans as continuous progress plans that allow pupils to be grouped
and regrouped, without regard to age or grade level, according to their ability or
interest. Dufay goes on to describe ungraded, continuous pupil progress as

...a philosophy of education that promotes ﬂexrbility in
grouping by the devise of removing grade labels, which
is designed to facilitate the teachers role in providing for
pupils’ individual differences, and which is intended to
eliminate or lessen the problems of retention or
acceleration (1966, p. 24).

A pattern appears in the use of terminology that enables educators to describe
at least three arrangements in the "gradedness" of American elementary schools
today: 1) uncompromising gradedness; 2) nominal gradedness, where alternative age
or grade grouping patterns exist but there is evidence of gradedness in the
environment; and 3) ungradedness.

In theory, a graded school characterized by uncompromising gradedness

follows a deﬁnite pattern or organization. The children are divided by age and

attainment and taught as a homogeneous group performing at a set rate of progress.

14

Students who do not meet graded standards are failed and/or are retained. The idea
of a gradedness (grade one, grade two, etc.) is central to the reporting system for
student evaluation. Pupil progress is measured as below grade level, at grade level
or above grade level.

Schools with nominal gradedness frequently utilize the literature descriptors
of mixed age, mixed grade, multi-age, multi-grade, inter-age, inter-grade, split grade,
cross class, combination or family grouping to describe the vertical organization of
their class groups. Frequently students are identiﬁed by their grade label identity,
even though two, three, four or more age and grade levels may be present in the
same classroom. In classes exhibiting nominal gradedness, students frequently have
the same teacher for more than one year. Varied methods of reporting pupil
progress are utilized.

In schools that are ungraded, attempts are made to remove grade level labels.
There are no grade identiﬁers assigned to student ages or progress. Therefore, the
abilities and interests of children are determined, the groups are set, and instruction
within classrooms is planned accordingly. Variations occur as a result of the
children’s rates of progress. Graded structure is either ignored as meaningless or
replaced with age descriptors. Grouping patterns are ﬂexible. Absent are grade
labels (ﬁrst grade, second grade, etc.), and the related machinery of promotion and
failure. The reporting system is often consistent with the philosophy that each child
is unique. In general, ungraded schools have taken to anecdotal reporting of student
progress, reinforced by formal and frequent informal parent-teacher conferences.
Nongraded reporting generally avoids symbolization of progress (letter grades of A,

B, C, D) or references to age or grade normative data (at grade level, below grade

15

level, etc.).
A nongraded or ungraded school as deﬁned by Miller is characterized by
...one without grade failure or retention, it has
individualized instruction with the purpose of permitting
youngsters to progress as they - individually - show
competence to do so (1967, p. 131).

The description provided deﬁnes "gradedness" as a continuum of
organizational patterns, from strict age grouping in grades to ﬂexible organization by
interest and ability. The essential difference between these variations on gradedness
is the degree of belief in the concept that a speciﬁed body of information can and
should be a standard of learning for all or most children of a comparable age.

A review of terminology used to describe various aspects of gradedness
demonstrates that there are numerous terms used to describe graded or ungraded
patterns of school organization. The term multi-age grouping is used throughout this
study to describe the form of nominal gradedness employed at Hill School. Certainly
at Hill School, the multi-age class organization is but one aspect of the total
educational program.

At Hill School, as in many other settings, nominal grading is more than just
grouping. It is a redeﬁnition of teaching. It demands differentiated instruction for
students according to their learning needs rather than conformity to a single
instructional timetable for students born during the same year.

In this multi-age setting, alternatives to strict gradedness replaced certain
organizational rigidity with ﬂexibility. This alternative age/grade grouping permitted,
but did not guarantee, a transfer of some of the decision-making in regard to

instruction from grade-standard curriculum guides and rigid schedules to teachers and

16

students. Efforts by a faculty at Hill to alternatively grade the school were part of
an over-all commitment to the ideal of individualized instruction.

M. Hunter (1964) described the changes that can occur in connection with a
modiﬁcation of traditional age-graded grouping and the selecting of an alternative
plan. This type of change included the following considerations, according to the

author:

...forces educational decision-making that takes three
important considerations into account: the teaching style
that most successfully motivates, the peer group that
most successfully stimulates, and the educational
Opportunities that most successfully advance the learning
of each child (1964, p. 82).

The key to examining the effectiveness of school gradedness or ungradedness
was not the speciﬁc organizational pattern, but rather the instructional methods and
teaching strategies that resulted from the organizational pattern. An examination of
what alternative grade conﬁgurations or the elimination of grade conﬁguration did
to help teachers instruct students differently and to improve student learning
outcomes formed the rationale for the study of nongraded and mixed age/grade
patterns. In a report by William McLaughlin, he stated that:

Modiﬁcations in organizational patterns, grouping
practices and stafﬁng designs simply are incapable of
improving instruction. These changes do not
automatically liberate an indeﬁnable force presumed to
be penned up in students, teachers and principals...
Alterations in instructional strategies, not organizational
patterns, must be given priority, without this, differences
in student attainments are reasonably unlikely (1969,
p.24).
Strict gradedness frequently had with it a set of expectations and operations

that may be have limited the instructional strategies that teachers employ. In the

17

next chapter, research about the instructional strategies that are associated with
multi-age grouping and other nominal or ungraded alternatives is examined. These
instructional strategies and practices are signiﬁcant descriptors of the differences
between traditional graded grouping and alternative age/grade class grouping
arrangements.
Organization of the Study

The information in Chapter I has included statements which indicate the
researcher’s purpose for conducting the study and the signiﬁcance of the study. The
ﬁndings of a literature review on multi-age grouping and related research topics are
presented in Chapter II. The research methodology utilized in this investigation is
presented in Chapter III. The ﬁndings from the data gathering process utilized in the
study are presented in Chapter IV. Some conclusions and recommendations, which
seem appropriate to the results of this study, are presented in Chapter V, along with

suggestions for further study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The information obtained from a search of the literature on age/grade
organization is presented in this chapter. The topic headings utilized to organize the
data are: Historical Perspectives, Issues Associated with Single Age/Grade Grouping,
Instructional Methods and Outcomes, Teacher Attitudes Toward Multi-Age
Grouping, and Summary.

Historical Perspectives

Although ungraded and multi-age grouping methods and the associated
instructional practices have been employed in the past and have been shown to yield
promising results, there has been a tendency for educators in 20th century American
schools to use large-group, whole-class instruction, and single-age grouping as primary
methods of organization for instruction. An examination of the history of age
grouping practices provides some insight into why current practice has evolved into
a predominantly single-age/graded system that utilizes large-group instruction
methods.

The graded school system, in which students are grouped by their age, is a
product of another century and another culture. According to Howard and Bardwell

(1966), the practice of grouping students by age was devised by the Prussians as a

18

19

method of preparing young people for an authoritarian, militaristic society. Howard

and Bardwell state that,

The graded system was imported to this country
in 1848 through the Quincy Grammar School of Boston,
which opened its doors at the time. The practice grew
as our population grew and it became necessary to
accommodate large numbers of students in our schools.
It has been a popular system primarily because it is easy
to administer (Howard, 1966, p. 11).

Prior to the introduction of the graded Prussian model there existed a variety

of ungraded schools with different instructional purposes.

According to Frank Eby in W

At the beginning of the 19th century, there existed
a variety of schools to teach different things. The vast
majority of these were one-teacher schools to teach
reading and religion. In cities like Boston, there were, in
addition, more advanced schools of three kinds: (1)
Latin grammar schools, (2) English grammar schools,
and (3) writing schools in which expert penmanship and
arithmetic were taught. Until well into the century, these
schools were ungraded and the curricula limited.
Individual instruction was the rule everywhere, and
dependence on the textbook was universal. In the Latin
schools, pupils were classiﬁed by their stage of
advancement in reading Latin classics and in grammar,
but in the English grammar schools and the writing
schools, grading had not yet been introduced (Eby, 1952,
pp.564-565).

Tewksbury, in Nongrading in the Elementary School, states that prior to the

middle 18005:

...the predominant plan was the one-room school in
which instruction was nongraded. In this early type
school, there were children of various ages in the one
classroom, and achievement levels varied a great deal.
Instruction was differentiated, that is, the teacher gave
different assignments to different children. While one
child or several pupils did certain work in a subject,
others who were ready for more advanced study were

20

assigned such work by the teacher. Thus, a number of
different levels were being studied simultaneously by
pupils in the same classroom. Classes were often smaller
than the typical class of today (Tewksbury, 1967, pp.12-
13).

William Shearer presents, in The Grading of Schools, a statement by J. C.
Boykin which describes the ungraded system of the time. Boykin stated that,

In the ﬁrst part of this century, the grading of
elementary schools was a thing unknown in this country.
Instruction was almost wholly individual. Whenever a
pupil chose to present himself for admission into school,
no matter at what time of the year, he was received. His
studies were determined by the books he brought. His
first lesson was apt to follow the last one that his former
teacher had given him. If he had been through
Webster’s "Blue-back" Speller twice and had ﬁnished the
last column of the tenth page, on the third round, the
ﬁrst column on the eleventh page would naturally be the
ﬁrst lesson that his new teacher would give him. If a
class already formed had reached just that point, he was
put into that class. Otherwise, he would probably form
a new class. It was thus by no means uncommon to see
a dozen or more classes in the same room studying the
same book, but at a dozen or more stages of
advancement in it; and, altogether, a teacher with a
school of moderate size, containing pupils of all ages,
sexes, and sizes, might easily have ﬁfty or sixty classes.
Attend to them all? Certainly; but what attention! The
little fellows received but little of it; especially those who
had learned to read. Their lessons would be heard every
few days. The teacher’s pet classes were called to the
recitation bench often; and his favorite subjects received
nearly all his attention. The rest of the school whﬂed
away the time as best they might. They "did their sums"
on their slates, or droned over their "blue-backs," until
they were tired, and then turned their attention to each
other and to mischief, opportunities for which frequently
appeared in the open mouth or bare soles of the
sleeping pupil (Shearer, 1899, pp.11-13).

An advancement which preceded the fully-age-graded school was the

monitorial school developed by Lancaster and Bell. Bayles and Hood describe the

21

system out of which the monitorial schools developed,
...prior to the monitorial schools, elementary-school
practice had been essentially that of the one-room rural
schools that are well within the memories of many adults
living today. It was individualized instruction (even
possibly programmed because each child had his book
which he followed minutely), each child going as fast as
he could and reporting (reciting) individually to the
teacher (Bayles and Hood, 1966, p.130).

The monitorial school developed by Joseph Lancaster was a step forward in
the development of the age-graded structure in education. The Lancasterian system
was the ﬁrst organized system to utilize an approach to education where the master
dealt only with a small group of pupils (Cubberley, 1947, pp.131-132; Bayles and
Hood, 1966, p.130). The master taught the best pupils and then it was these pupils,
called monitors, who worked directly with the rest of the pupils in the school. The
efﬁciency within this system resulted from the large body of pupils being divided into
small groups, under the direction of a monitor, with a set series of knowledge units
to be acquired. Movement from a lower group to a higher group was dependent on
the pupil demonstrating acquisition of the required knowledge (Cubberley, 1947,
p.131-132; Monroe, 1971, pp.366-367).

Small group recitation replaced individual recitation under the Lancasterian
system of education. Monitor time for instruction greatly reduced direct teacher
instruction time and the cost of education was reduced enormously. The monitorial
system of Joseph Lancaster was considered an ideal way to deal with the problems
of educating the children of the poor. The philanthropic societies and other

interested social groups saw, in the monitorial system, a way to provide the poor with

a required educational background and, perhaps, more importantly, a much needed

22

system by which the moral character of the children could be trained in the
appropriate manner (Monroe, 1940, pp.363-364).
In a review of school reorganization in the 18008, Bunker points out that

...primary schools in Boston, from the time of their
establishment (1818), had been conducted on the
"ungraded plan" - that is, the unit group taught by each
teacher was a separate and independent organization,
occupying a separate building, usually of one room. The
course of instruction was divided into six steps or classes,
but each teacher had all six classes in her room at the
same time. She was ﬁtting a class for the grammar
school, teaching a class of A-B-C-darians, and carrying
on the intermediate stages of the course, simultaneously.
This arrangement was gradually changed by carrying
down into the primary schools the "graded plan" of the
grammar schools. This led to the promotion of pupils,
every six months, from one primary teacher to another;
which, at that time, meant transferring from one primary
building to another (Bunker, 1916, p.30).

The ungraded school did not measure up to the important requirement of the
greatest good to the greatest number, in the shortest time, at the least expense
(Shearer, 1899, p.23). The common school reformers believed that,

...the absence of grading and uniform schoolbooks had
greatly reduced the efficiency of the district schools. The
reform movement’s economic feasibility required that
children move through the common school rapidly so as
to free space and teacher time for more children. The
reformers considered that widespread establishment of
age-graded schools was one of their prime
accomplishments (Church and Sedlak, 1976, p.59).
Multi-age grouping practice was described in literature that recounted the

development of the ﬁrst fully age-graded American school, the Quincy Grammar
School in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1859 (Shearer, 1899, p.20; Tewksbury, 1967, p.13;
Ignaz and Corsini, 1979, p.25). The development of the Quincy Grammar School,

shaped by the efforts of George Emerson, John Philbrick, and Horace Mann, was

23

based on the belief that homogenous grouping and large group instruction would

improve the instructional practices of the day. Fredrick McClusky presents, in ﬁg

W, a statement by George Emerson in 1839 which describes

the rationale and planned workings of the single-graded structure.

What I desire to aim at in this plan is this, that,
as far as is possible, all who are at the same point in
their studies and progress, should be together, under the
guidance of one teacher and they only should be present,
for illustrations on the blackboard and all other direct
instruction may be given to a whole school at once, as
well as to a single scholar, and if any others than the
class are present, they are an interruption to the teacher
and are themselves interrupted by him. If all in the
same apartment were of one class, and under one
teacher, and with the same lessons to learn, much more
might be done, and better done, and in a shorter time.
Under such an arrangement, the difﬁculties of
government would be nearly annihilated, short sessions
would take the place of long sessions, and time would
thus be gained for healthful exercise and recreation in
the open air.

Another advantage would be that the desire for
advancement from one grade of school to another would
be a healthful stimulus to exertion, and might take the
place of personal rivalry - the most pernicious evil, which
now exists in schools.

Another advantage would be, that the progress of
a child from beginning to the end of his course would
likely be onward (McClusky, 1920, p.144).

With these beginnings approximately 140 years ago, the system of school
organization and instructional practice began changing from an ungraded structure
to a fully age-graded structure (Shearer, 1899, p.20; Cowen, 1931, p.29; Cubberley,
1947, p.311; Goodlad and Anderson, 1963, p.44; Tewksbury, 1967, p.13). In recent

times, most educators have merely accepted the age-graded organizational structure

as the way of doing things within the system of public education. This attitude of

24

acceptance can be seen in statements by historian Ellwood P. Cubberley. He states

that:

We merely evolved, as a result of something like
a half-century of gradual educational development, the
common and purely native American elementary school
which we have known for so long. The primary classes,
in part due to the pressure of numbers, gradually ceased
to take pupils earlier than ﬁve, and later, earlier than six,
outside of New England, and the present eight-year
elementary school (nine in New England), with a teacher
for each grade, was evolved. This evolution was fully
accomplished by 1860 in all Northern States (Cubberley,
1947, pp.312—314).

It would appear that efforts to modify signiﬁcantly the age-graded
organizational structure have been generally unsuccessful except on a small scale.
However, the belief that change in this organizational structure within public
education is needed is not new. It has been supported almost as long as the age-
graded structure itself. William J. Shearer identiﬁed, in 1899, a rationale for
modifying the age-graded organizational structure:

Though the graded school has many advantages,
we should not close our eyes to the fact that it is open to
the serious charge that it does not properly provide for
the individual differences of the pupils; that it is not
sufficiently pliant to accommodate itself to the pupils,
but demands that the pupils accommodate themselves to
it; and that grading, which was intended to serve the
children, has now become the cruel master (Shearer,
1899, pp.23-24).

Shearer further points out that:

In a late issue of The Educational Review, Dr.
Prince, Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of
Education, speaks as follows on this subject:

There is no question of school
organization at present more important
than that of a proper adjustment of

25

conditions to the needs of individual
pupils. The assumption upon which most
courses of study seem to be based, that
just so much ground must be gone over
with equal thoroughness by all pupils in
the same time, is the greatest bane of our
public school system (Shearer, 1899, p.95).

The age-graded structure, in light of its longevity, has been based, for the most
part, on a very simple rationale that has not required much in the way of
modiﬁcation. The essential simplicity of a rationale which emphasized "the greatest
good to the greatest number, in the shortest time, at the least expense" (Shearer,
1989, p.23) would make modiﬁcation a rather difﬁcult task.

As the idea of grades became more ingrained in educational drinking,
textbooks were rigidly prescribed by grade level. Each child of the same age was
expected to come up to the same standard, no matter what the student ability or
interests were. Accompanying the cries for ﬂexibility in the age graded structure
came a number of efforts to ﬁnd alternatives to graded school structures. These
alternative approaches to schooling, as described by Robert Anderson, have mostly
been forgotten.

The lessons of over a century to ﬁnd more
humane and effective options to gradedness (notably
John Dewey’s laboratory school, the various strands of
progressive education that followed, the Dalton Plan, the
Winnetka Plan, activity schools, ungraded primary
programs in Wisconsin, nongraded elementary and
secondary programs, open education) have lost
momentum (1987, p.45).
However, Anderson and others cite some recent studies that suggest that

nongradedness remains alive. They advocate massive new efforts to revitalize and

extend multi-age pupil groups. Anderson (1987) advocates a revitalization of the -

26
Individually Guided Education (IGE) ideas of the 1960s and 1970s as a starting point.

The essential organizational structure, with which
thousands of schools have already had some experience
through Individually Guided Education and similar
excellent plans, would feature a combination of non-
gradedness, multi-age pupil groups, cooperative teaching
and ﬂexible, shared space (1987, p.45).

IGE was one major national attempt to introduce an alternative to traditional
schooling that contained, as a major component, multi-age classroom grouping. In
a research paper by Wiersma, he outlined the components of an IGE school:

Individually Guided Education is an educational
innovation developed during the late 1960s and early
19708, that originated at the Wisconsin Research and
Development Center for Cognitive Learning. It is one
of the few innovations that was scheduled for national
implementation. The conceptual origins of IGE have
their roots in educational psychology with a behavioristic
approach to learning. As an alternative approach to
schooling, IGE involves differentiated stafﬁng, multi-aged
grouping of children, and the direct involvement of the
principal in the planning, implementation, and evaluation
of the instructional activities of the school. During the
late 19703 a study of the programs found that the three
strongest surviving characteristics of the approach were
teaming for instruction, shared decision-making, and
programming instruction to meet the needs of the
individual students. It was determined that the early
success of the approach can be attributed to its sound
conceptual base, the comprehensiveness and deﬁnition
of its components, and the fact that it is not an add-on
innovation, but an alternative to traditional schooling
(1986, p.150).

Although a number of models for the successful implementation of multi-age
grouped instruction exist, the age-graded system has been consistently resistant to
change. Some reasons for the lack of widespread alternatives to the graded system
are reported by John Goodlad in "A Study of Schooling: Some Findings and

Hypotheses,"

27

Teachers teach as they were taught. They employ
the techniques and materials modeled during their 16 or
more years they were students in schools. Relatively late
in this learning through modeling, they experienced a
modicum of professional preparation to teach -
presented largely in the same telling mode to which they
had become accustomed. Probably the most signiﬁcant
part of this professional preparation was the student
teaching, during which the neophyte practiced under
supervision what he or she had previously observed
teaching to be. The future teacher probably talked and
read about alternative teaching practices (such as those
advocated by John Dewey) but had no opportunity to
practice them. Moreover, as part of the early
socialization into teaching, he or she probably came to
realize that a job would depend more on the mark
received for student teaching than on the mark for a
course in educational philosophy or psychology.

Professional education is intended to immerse the
neophyte in the state of the art and science of teaching
and simultaneously to separate him or her from the
myths and anachronisms of conventional practice.
Teacher education appears to be organized and
conducted to assure precisely the opposite (Goodlad,
1983, p.469).

Goodlad adds that:

Teacher education programs fail to separate
teachers from what they have come to perceive teaching
to be. Their formal and informal experiences as
teachers and the messages they receive from the internal
and external context of schooling all conspire to
reinforce the status quo. The cards are stacked against
innovation.

The irony is that every statement of goals for
schooling - whether those we extracted from ofﬁcial state
documents, those formulated by legislative committees
trying to deﬁne basic education, or those put together by
parent or teacher groups - is broad and comprehensive
in its implications for classroom practice. Yet pedagogy
and curricula are geared, it appears, to only a small
fraction of these goals - to the lowest common
denominators. Schools and those who work in them are
not chastised for perpetuating this discrepancy. Rather

28

they are reinforced for doing so and run a serious risk of
censure if they try to do otherwise (Goodlad, 1983,
p.470).

Many educational leaders recognize that putting materials in the hands of
teachers, providing inservice training programs, and designing alternative
organizational arrangements do not necessarily induce changes in schools and
classrooms. The observations of 158 elementary classrooms led Goodlad and Klein
to conclude, "Many of the changes we believed to be taking place in schooling have
not been getting into classrooms; changes widely recommended for the schools over
the past 15 years were blunted on the classroom door" (1970, p.97).

In a study of the Gary, Indiana schools between 1940 and 1970, McKinney and
Westbary (1975) found that little change in practice occurred even when detailed
plans for bringing about changes in social studies, science and vocational education
were designed and shared in print. McKinney (1975) cited a lack of new texts,
facilities and equipment, a lack of teacher retraining, and a lack of community and
administrative support for the changes as reasons for substantial differences in what
teachers taught and what students learned.

Taylor (1974) asked teachers how they obtain information on what and how
to teach in their classrooms and who inﬂuenced their teaching. The major inﬂuences
they reported were local professional ones: their principal, colleagues, and the
superintendent of schools. Parents, the school board, pupils, formal training
programs, and all inﬂuences from outside the community, including journals and
textbook guides, were listed as having less inﬂuence. National reports, foundation
studies, and the US. government agencies were reported to have the least inﬂuence

on what teachers taught.

29

The overall picture emerging from Taylor’s study is of a nearly autonomous
classroom teacher who is surrounded by an enormous number of complex outside
inﬂuences but is largely insulated from all but the most immediate. The school
administrators appear as the persons most exposed to outside inﬂuences and also as
the most able to inﬂuence the teachers (Taylor and Reid, 1971; Holley, 1973).

The studies cited are only a sample of those published, but they sufﬁce to
show quite convincingly that there are severe problems in getting any programmatic
changes into schools and classrooms. They also show that student grouping,
instructional method, and curriculum content decisions are made almost exclusively
on a local level, primarily at the building level, and that large scale teacher inservice,
formal university training, professional journals, community pressure groups, national
reports, large organization recommendations, prescribed district curriculum
documents and government agency recommendations have little inﬂuence on what
occurs in classrooms.

Howard reviews other obstacles to the implementation of nongraded

programs.

Many efforts to break the stranglehold that
graded organization has had on the development of
wholesome and adequate programs of continuous
learning progress for young children in our public schools
have been blocked by (1) the shortage of available
materials and (2) the organization of materials by major
publishing ﬁrms. Limited funds in most public schools
made it impossible for administrators to provide teachers
with enough materials to break the lockstep of graded
organization and provide each child the opportunity to
work in materials that were the most appropriate to the
child’s maturity and learning rate. The materials
available were poured into the graded mold by the
publisher for easier packaging and marketing. The result
was to make it nearly impossible for the school

3O

administrator and the teacher to change the organization
or the curriculum of the school (1966, p.15).

The emphasis seems to be that what worked in the past will continue to work
in the future. Current practice, in the main, continues to emphasize the uniformity
and standardization of the age-graded organizational structure. The rationale of
efﬁciency based on the simple concept of "the greatest good to the greatest number,
in the shortest time, at the least expense" continues within American public
education.

Issues Associated with Single Age/Grade Grouping

The most common practice of school organization in American schools is that
of the age-graded structure. The age-graded structure has endured for almost one
hundred and forty years with its underlying rationale apparently not having been
viewed as an important element in the study of the development of the American
education system.

According to Owen,

It would appear that there have been no
signiﬁcant modiﬁcations to the original underlying
rationale for the age-graded organizational structure
within public education in this country. The literature
shows that there have been movements to modify the
system’s organizational structure since before the end of
the nineteenth century. However, in light of the fact that
the age-graded organizational structure is still the
predominant form within public education, the original

rationale appears to be as strong now as it was in the
nineteenth century (Owen, 1987, p.74).

The changing of age grouping in schools, from the one-room, ungraded
community schoolhouse structure, into single age-graded classes, evolved during a

period from 1859 to 1975. An historical perspective offered by Courtage, Joben,

31

Stainback and Stainback (1985) states that most educational systems utilized an age-
graded system to address the needs of most students by developing an efﬁcient
approach to group instruction. This age-graded organizational structure is based on

three assumptions:

That students of the same chronological age are
ready to learn the same objectives.

That students require the same amount of time
(i.e., an academic year) to master predetermined
content.

That students can master pre-designed objectives
for a grade level for all curricular areas at the same rate.

(p.143)

Stainback (1984) holds that as a result of these assumptions, those pupils
whose educational needs do not match this age-graded structure or who otherwise
interfered with the regimental ﬂow of instruction are either excluded from school or
placed into "special" classes or schools, thus creating sub systems that are isolated.

Stuart Dean (1965) described the graded organizational practices in schools
as systems that ignored some of the important factors that govern and inﬂuence
instruction. He spoke in favor of practices that promote "...ﬂexibility and
ﬂuidity...nongradedness, multi-gradedness or some other ﬂexible arrangement. If we
believe in and are committed to a doctrine of individual differences - the range of
human variability - then our methods of organizing the educational program must
operate to support this conviction" (1965, p.1).

A statement endorsed jointly by the American Association of School
Administrators and the NBA. (1960) points out the conﬂict between the need to

provide for the individual student and the graded plan organization:

32

Many school practices need re-examination; and
the assumptions underlying them and their effects need
careful scrutiny. Among these practices may be listed
the following: graded organization, although this plan of
grouping children by the "ladder" concept - changing one
whole rung once each year - is almost a universal
practice, the need for re-examination of this plan is
obvious when it is viewed in the light of individual
differences (1960, p.7).

Howard (1966) explains the false assumptions underlying conventional single-

grade grouping processes:

The graded school is based on false assumptions
regarding the learning process.

The ﬁrst, and perhaps the most obvious, is the
assumption that all students in a class learn at the same
rate. It is common practice in the graded school for the
teacher to give a speciﬁc assignment to everyone in a
class to be completed in a speciﬁed period of time.
Examinations are invariably given to. everyone at once.
The result is that less able students fail to "keep up" with
the group, and the most able students are held back.
Following the examination, the entire class usually
proceeds to the next unit of work in the sequence - even
if some members of the class are not yet ready for the
more advanced work. The lockstep of pace dooms the
slower learner to failure and the more able student to
superficiality, boredom, or both.

A second false assumption, closely related to the
ﬁrst, is that the same subject matter content is equally
appropriate for everyone in the class. Although we
know that this is not true, we continue to give
assignments that are the same for everyone. The student
who becomes interested in a topic and wishes to pursue
it in depth is penalized. If he is freed by his teacher
from the "regular" work, he is faced with a gap in his
curriculum that will place him at a disadvantage at
examination time. If he is not freed from the usual
requirements in order to pursue his interest, he is faced
with twice as much work as others in the class. Thus,
students soon learn that school is not a good place in
which to pursue their interests (1966, p.11).

33

In their 1987 report, Knoblock and Berries offer evidence that the current age-
graded systems may be promoting failure. According to Knoblock (1987):
Where public education fails to address the needs
of children - whether they are described as being gifted,
typical, or disabled - this failure might properly be traced
to the erroneous assumption that an invariant, singular
curriculum can serve all children. Schools must adapt,
expand, and individualize curricula and programs to
insure that serious and sincere efforts are made on
behalf of each child (1987, p.4).
In order to make general education classrooms accessible to more students
and to maximize student learning, it is important that organizational trends in schools

that hamper the ability of school personnel to educate students of varied needs
together be examined.

Many authors of studies have criticized schools for being seriously out of phase
with the rest of society. James Coleman (1966) argues that schools should reexamine
their character and provide diverse experiences for our current diverse population.
Current increase in the diversity of student populations in classrooms lends itself to
a multi-age organization, according to Goodlad and Anderson (1989). These authors
raise questions about the efficacy of age-graded organizational structures that so
dominate schools, and the effectiveness of single age grouping for dealing with

developmental differences among children. John Goodlad and Robert Anderson, in

W state that:

The realities of child development defy the
rigorous ordering of children’s abilities and attainments
into conventional graded structure. For example, in the
average ﬁrst grade there is a spread of four years in
pupil readiness to learn as suggested by mental age data.
As the pupils progress through the grades, the span in
readiness widens.

34

Furthermore, a single child does not progress all
as one piece: he tends to spurt ahead more rapidly in
some areas than in others. Consequently, a difference of
one grade between his reading attainment and his
arithmetic attainment at the end of the second grade
classiﬁcation may be extended to a three- or four-grade
difference by the end of his ﬁfth year in school. The
presence of the graded structure may disguise or distort
such realities but it cannot remove them (1963, p.3).

The authors go on to explain that:

Our central problem, then, emerges out of the
conﬂict between long-established graded structure on
one hand and increasing awareness of variation in
children’s abilities and attainments on the other. Our
graded structure and parent-teacher-pupil expectations
are long established; they represent a certain antique
respectability (1963, p.4).

This point of view, when contrasted with the ﬁndings of the major educational
reform reports of the 19803 would seem to establish an important difference which
bears investigation. The major reform reports do not emphasize that the age-graded
organizational structure might be a valuable area to examine for potential solutions
to the identiﬁed problems within public education. However, one of the
recommendations found in A Nation At Risk does offer insight into the need to
review the practice of grouping by age. Recommendation C, number 8 suggests that:

Placement and grouping of students, as well as
promotion and graduation policies, should be guided by
academic progress of students and their instructional
needs, rather than by rigid adherence to age (National
Commission On Excellence In Education, 1984, p.76).

This recommendation, when combined with the ﬁndings of Goodlad, Anderson
and others, points to the suggestion that the practice of rigid grouping by age and

grade may indeed be a barrier to meeting the goals of equity and excellence in

schools.

35

In her 1985 report, Leona Tyler summarizes her proposal for reorganizing

American public education:

Public education is facing a crisis of major
proportions, but the things that are basically wrong with
schools are not those being emphasized in current
proposals for change. This paper identiﬁes two basic
defects in the American system of public education: (1)
there is too little attention to individual differences; and
(2) there is too much compulsion. Because of the wide
range of abilities among children, the US. system of
organizing schools by age groups is perhaps the worst
possible strategy for maximizing the learning of
individuals. This system, along with the "social
promotion" that almost necessarily follows, results in
widening gaps between students, disillusionment of those
who lack the basic skills to build on in the higher grades,
and boredom for the gifted students. Problems of
classroom management that are customarily blamed on
teachers or students are actually the fault of this
"lockstep" age-grade system (1985, p.7).

Today most schools group students in graded systems by chronological age
(Slavin, 1987). In some schools, children are further sectioned according to IQ
scores, reading achievement levels or other measures of ability. This practice of
ability grouping or tracking is widely practiced, according to Baker (1961) and Slavin
(1987). Other differentiating factors, such as teacher preference, gender, interest,
friendship or behavior are also used as a basis for grouping students. When pupils
who share some similar characteristics are placed together, the practice is called
homogeneous grouping. The most widely used form of homogeneous grouping is
school organization by age-grade classrooms, yet educators rarely use age grouping
as an example of homogeneous grouping.

In describing the problems with homogeneous age grouping, Madeline Hunter

offers this scenario.

36
In a graded school each child is labeled with a tag

denoting the average number of years children in his
class have been in school. These tags carry certain
expectations. Thus, a ﬁfth-grade label on a child is
matched with the same label on books. The child is
expected to read state-adopted textbooks for grade ﬁve;
he is expected to be learning about the United States;
and he is expected to be able to do fractions. Whether
he is one, ten, or eleven years old, whether his
intelligence quotient is 80 or 180, this is what he is
"supposed to do" (1964, p.82).

In homogenous age graded classes, possibly the wrong questions are being
asked. For example, rather than asking, What are third grade children supposed to
do? a more appropriate approach might be to ask, What learning opportunities are
most appropriate for this child? Depending on the child’s need, the pupil may review
basics in mathematics, practice addition combinations, or display knowledge of
common fractions.

In Hunter’s assessment, the likelihood that teachers will provide appropriate
learning activities for each child’s need is greater in a mixed grade group than in a
graded group. She states that "...in a graded group, it is possible for many teachers
to avoid their responsibility for providing appropriate learning opportunities. In a
nongraded group, teachers are forced to assume their responsibility" (1964, p.83).

According to Hunter, many single age grouped, grade level classrooms base
instruction on a lockstep whole group learning model because of some underlying
assumptions teachers in these single age graded settings hold about student abilities
and societal expectations of teacher performance. She believes these underlying
assumptions create some of the problems with graded classrooms, including a

tendency to ignore individual differences and the ignoring of research on how

inappropriate or incomplete learning can interfere with previous and future learning.

37

Hunter also states that:
...there is a considerable amount of time wasted in
graded classes because children who have attained an
objective have to wait for the rest of the group to catch
up. Those who do not catch up are frequently labelled
as failures and/or kept in the same grade for another
year. Grade retention has been demonstrated to be

harmful to children both in terms of their achievement
and self concept.

In a description of how single-age gradedness contributes to grade retentions
and failures, Collier states that:

...failing a child in the elementary grades is "almost
criminal." However, such things happen all the time
because American education remains shackled to the
graded school concept which over the years has become
an end in itself while limiting the school’s basic function
of educational development (1966, p.32).

Instructional Methods and Outcomes

In the following section information is presented that describes how multi-age
grouping practices, with their accompanying instructional strategies and classroom
organizational systems, affect educational outcomes for students.

Some research ﬁndings indicate that instructional methods employed in multi-
age classes yield promising outcomes for students in both the cognitive and affective
domains (Pratt, 1986; Way, 1981). In a comparative study of multi-graded and single-
graded classrooms, Veenman and Simon (1987) found no signiﬁcant differences in
achievement between the groups. They did conclude that teachers felt working with
multi-graded classrooms was more difﬁcult, due to the fact that most teachers
reported teaching the class as if it were multiple classes, with separate content

material taught to each grade level group in the classroom.

A summary of comparative research reveals that grouping by single age or

38

single grade levels yields no advantages for students in the areas of subject matter
mastery over multi-age groupings (Veenman and Simon, 1987; Pratt, 1986; Way,
1981, Raschke, 1988). On the other hand, multi-grade groupings appear to yield
beneﬁts for students in the affective domain without adversely affecting student
achievement (Pratt, 1986; Way, 1981; Wakeﬁeld, 1979). Observational studies on
companionship outside the classroom provides further evidence of the effectiveness
of multi-age grouping. The general pattern that emerges from these studies is one
of increased competition and aggression within same-age class groups and increased
harmony and acceptance within multi-age learning groups. In these studies,
summarized by Pratt (1983), younger members or high-need populations appear to
beneﬁt most.

In an experimental study conducted in New Brunswick, Canada, Brown (1989)
compared student achievement in single grade and multi grade classrooms and found
that there were signiﬁcant differences in academic achievement between students in
multi-grades and their matched counterparts in single grades. However, only 20%
of the comparisons favored the single grades and 80% favored the multi-grade classes
using a comparison of teacher reports. Brown found similar ﬁndings when comparing
academic growth of the two groups on a Canadian Test of Basic Skills (CI‘BS). A
comparison of CTBS results indicated that 87% of the progress comparisons in basic
skills favored the multi-grade classes, while only 17% of comparison items favored the
single grade class.

Veenman (1985) conducted a study that compared time-on-task behavior
between third and fourth grade pupils that were in multi-age and single-age

mathematics and language arts classes. He found that there was no difference in

39

time-on-task significant behavior between the single age and mixed age groups.
Students in the mixed age classes spent more time working individually.

In a book about nongraded school plans by John Goodlad and Robert

Anderson, the authors observe that,

...Enthusiastic respondents attribute to nongrading a
reduction in tension for slow-learners, a lessening in
boredom for the academically talented, and improved
classroom behavior. Dissenting parents and teachers are
few. It might be concluded that most persons associated
with nongraded schools are happier for having them.
For a time, at least, until rigorous research designs and
studies employing them are available, the promise of
nongraded schools will continue to be appraised on the

basis of their perceived contribution to human welfare
(1963, p.60).

Robert F. Carbone conducted an investigation of the relative effectiveness of
graded versus nongraded schools through a controlled, matched group experimental
design. His leading conclusions, in summary, are:

(1) There was no evidence to indicate that pupils
who had attended these nongraded primary schools
achieved at a higher level during their fourth, ﬁfth, or
sixth years of school than pupils who had attended these
graded schools. On the contrary, the differences were all
in favor of the graded pupils; (2) in four out of ﬁve
mental-health factors there is no signiﬁcant difference in
the adjustment of these graded and nongraded pupils;
and (3) teachers in the nongraded schools appeared to
operate much the same as teachers in the graded
schools.

The implications of these ﬁndings are clear. First,
it is not realistic to expect improved academic
achievement and personal adjustment in pupils merely
on the basis of a change in organizational structure.
Second, the attainment of high pupil achievement and
good mental health is not a unique result of nongrading.
The evidence presented here indicates that these goals
can also be attained in an elementary school organized
under the conventional graded system.

40

A third extremely important implication is
suggested lest readers see this evidence as an indictment
of the whole concept of nongrading. It seems clear that
if any new form of school organization is to produce the
beneﬁts that its advocates envision, it must be
accompanied by appropriate adaptations in the
instructional practices of teachers. Changes in
organizational structure alone are not enough (Carbone,
1961, p.82).

A study to determine whether there would be a signiﬁcant gain by primary
grade pupils after a variation of the nongraded primary unit had been introduced was
conducted by Joseph W. Halliwell. As background to his investigation, Halliwell
reviewed and summarized relatively similar studies by Provus, Morgan and Stucker,
Skopski, Ingram, and Hart. In general he observes that the results drawn from these
earlier studies are inconclusive. He comments, "This summary of research indicates
that the problem of assessing the value of nongraded programs is quite complex and
that much more research will be needed before such programs can be evaluated with
any degree of validity" (1963, p.64).

In his own research, comparing the spring achievement test scores of 149
graded and 146 nongraded ﬁrst, second, and third grade pupils in a school which
gradually introduced nongradedness over a two-year period, he found that "nongraded
approach to the teaching of reading and spelling was quite effective and is worthy of
further investigation" (Halliwell, 1963, p.64).

In his book, MW Richard Miller draws the following
research-based arguments for and against nongraded schools. He summarizes the

advantages of nongraded schools:

Although nongraded schools have not yet been
proved conclusively to be superior in helping children to
achieve more, many persons are enthusiastic about other

41

beneﬁts which they claim are due to nongrading. The
ﬁrst and most obvious advantage of nongrading is the
elimination of the serious problem of whether to
promote or not to promote. This problem has been
debated over and over - whether to keep children with
others of their age group even when they are far behind
in the work, or to make them repeat a grade, hoping
they will understand the material better the second time
around. Research studies generally show that children
do no better the second year in a grade than they did
the ﬁrst and sometimes do even worse. The nongraded
plan provides an alternative to the pass-or-fail dilemma.
Since the pressure is off the children and their teacher
for covering a certain amount of prescribed material
each year, that nongrading results in happier children
and less harassed teachers.

Another argument in favor of nongrading is that
it is a method of organization better adapted to the
democratic ideal of concern for the individual.
Nongrading also ‘is compatible with what has been
demonstrated in programmed learning sequences, that
sound learning is cumulative and that pupils learn better
when they do not repeat or skip over what is
misunderstood but have the time to work at a level of
any particular subject until they have mastered it.

Another advantage claimed for nongrading is easier
grouping. For instance, if in a graded school you had
too many children for a class in one grade and too few
for the grade above, adoption of nongrading would make
it easier to divide the children into classes having equal
numbers of children. Nongrading can also lead to
improvement of the whole school program, because
making the change forces everyone to look harder at the
curriculum and at teaching practices to see where they
need improvement (Miller, 1967, p.219).

Miller also concludes that nongraded schools have disadvantages.

The biggest draw back to a successful nongraded
program is reported to be the difﬁculty in getting
persons concerned to change their way of thinking away
from graded concepts. A long period of preparation -
perhaps as long as two years - is needed before the
introduction of nongrading. Teachers must learn how to
adapt the curriculum to the child rather than make the

42

child come up to the curriculum and must learn to plan
for the fast-moving child as well as to be patient with the
slow one. Parents must be informed through meetings
and through written materials of just what the nongraded
school is. If this is done, the majority of parents will
support the idea of nongrading, according to those in
systems where it has been tried.

One area of frequent misunderstanding is in
reporting pupil progress to parents. When grade
standards are abolished and children are no longer
compared with each other, parents cannot readily
understand what kind of progress their children are
making. The remedy for this, according to proponents
of nongrading, is personal conferences between parents
and teachers in place of or in addition to written report
cards. A folder of the child’s work and notes as to which
books he is currently working with are helpful in
explaining the child’s progress to his parents (Miller,
1967, p.220).

In a memo, the NBA (1966) summarized the advantages and disadvantages
of doing away with grades in the public schools. The advantages stated were that
nongrading eliminates the problem of whether to promote or not to promote; can
save money, because children do not repeat grades; creates less pressure, so children
are happier and teachers less harassed; is more democratic and individual centered;
facilitates grouping; and often leads to improvement in other aspects of the teaching
program. The disadvantages identiﬁed were that it is difﬁcult to get teachers to
change their practices; reporting progress to parents causes misunderstandings;
difﬁculties may arise when pupils transfer to graded schools; and there is extra work
for the teacher - record keeping, articulating reading with other subjects, and

orienting new teachers to the program.
An NEA review (1966) of research into nongraded schools pointed out that

the results of most studies appear to be quite favorable. The authors reviewed eight

43
signiﬁcant studies and presented a sizeable bibliography of other supportive studies.

In a major controlled, three-year experiment, Hillson and others studied the effects
of nongraded organizational plans on student achievement. The researchers found
that the experimental, ungraded classes scored signiﬁcantly higher than the control
groups in paragraph and word comprehension, and in reading ability. The
researchers reported:

Generally it can be concluded that pupils

participating in a nongraded primary organization (all

other things being equal) will achieve at a signiﬁcantly

higher level on measures of reading than will pupils

participating in a graded situation. Speciﬁcally, it may be

stated that pupils of all levels of ability achieved at a

higher level than pupils in a graded situation. Further,

it is concluded that the increased achievement of the

participants in the non-graded primary program is

primarily related to organizational structure when

methods of teaching are held constant (Hillson, 1964,

p.550).

Skopski studied (1961) reading achievement in nongraded primary schools and
concluded that all children beneﬁtted from the program. The research showed that
gifted children did not under-achieve, nor did slow learners become frustrated by

failure. Children seemed to progress steadily from level to level at their own rates.
Goodlad (1964) and others have also found that since the pressure is off the
children and their teacher for covering a certain amount of prescribed materials each
year, nongrading results in happier ochildren and less harassed teachers.
Although research studies on the value and efﬁcacy of grouping by age have
produced inconsistent ﬁndings, in the majority of these studies (Balow, 1962; J ustrnan,
1968; Passow, 1962; NBA, 1963) a reduction in the range of ages and abilities of

students in groupings did not produce increased achievement.

44

Although it was common in the early one-room schoolhouse for students of
a variety of ages to be taught in‘the same class, the practice faded with the onset of
larger graded schools. As a result, many of the instructional strategies used when
students of varied ages were routinely grouped together have apparently diminished
in current practice. The practices of extensive use of small-group instruction, peer-
tutoring strategies, and cross-age grouping have been associated with the
implementation of multi-age grouped classes. Many of these instructional practices
have also yielded positive results for students.

In studies by Cotton, Berliner and Casanova (1988), the researchers found that
cross-age tutoring and peer-tutoring instructional strategies had a signiﬁcant positive
impact on the learning of the students being tutored. In addition, the cross-age
tutoring program was found to be a cost effective manner of providing additional
help to students in reading, math and science content areas (Berliner and Casanova,
1988).

In a study of cross-age tutoring by Cloward (1967), older secondary school
students successfully raised achievement scores for previously low-achieving
elementary students through tutoring. In this study, the tutoring program had the
greatest positive impact on the tutors themselves.

The development of inter-age or cross-age grouping, sometimes coordinated
with "olders teaching youngers" tutoring programs, has been demonstrated to produce
positive outcomes. In the early one-room school, older students often helped
youngers with school work (Tewksbury, 1967). The practice of cross-age tutoring,
according to Villa and Thousand (1988), can be an effective means of meeting

individual student needs, allowing each student to progress at his/her own rate and

45

level of ability, and give the students opportunities to learn from and associate with
both older and younger classmates.

Another practice that is frequently associated with multi-age class instruction
is the practice of utilizing small groups, groups of two to ten students in learning or
cooperative groups, as a primary method of organization for instruction. Garvey
(1969) fears that schools may be over emphasizing large-group instruction. He
advocates limiting the use of large-group instruction to those situations where
information and resources would not be available to students on an individual or
small-group basis. He cites appropriate large-group instruction activities as visits
from a dignitary, the showing of a rare or expensive ﬁlm, or the use of a difﬁcult-to-
arrange demonstration. There is also a possible advantage to administering tests in
a large group, according to Garvey.

Proponents of small-group instruction (Garvey, 1969; Wallace, 1965; Carnahan,
1970; Johnson and Johnson, 1988) stress the value of small groups in permitting free,
oral expression, fostering the growth of interpersonal relationships, utilizing individual
student skills, enhancing cooperation, and facilitating students in developing and
practicing skills. These advocates of small-group instruction maintain that
personalized learning activities, made possible through cooperative small-group
structure, offer opportunities for the students to pursue their interests, develop
powers of observation and deductive reasoning, and increase their ability to utilize
higher level thinking skills. The use of small-group instruction is also viewed as a
means of meeting the needs of a diverse group of learners, who have different needs
and goals (Villa, 1989).

In his report on the organization of nongraded schools, Howard (1966) points

46

out that a shift from a age-graded structure to a nongraded structure is probably not
sufﬁcient to improve student learning unless the change in organization is
accompanied by a change in teacher attitude and action. Howard describes the
relationship between nongraded organization and instruction:
Efforts by a faculty to ungrade the school should
be a part of an over-all commitment to the ideal of
individualized instruction. The faculty should be
concerned not only with organizational innovation; they
must also be concerned with such related projects as
making the curriculum more meaningful, stimulating
students to think critically and express themselves clearly,
helping students master skills which are essential to semi-

independent and, later, independent learning, and
fostering an attitude of inquiry on the part of students

(p.50).

Although a change in the administrative system of organization, from a single
age/graded grouping system to a multi-age/graded grouping system, is probably not
enough to produce improved instructional outcomes, the use of the instructional
strategies of small-group instruction, peer-helping strategies, and cross-age tutoring
that are reported to be frequently employed in mixed-age or non-graded settings
(Goodlad, 1983) may be practices that hold promise for improving student learning
outcomes. These instructional practices are reported to be effective in any type of
organizational structure in schools and are likely not only effective in multi-age group
classes. However, the practice of multi-age grouping may be particularly useful in
putting the instructional practices of cross-age tutoring, small group instruction and
peer tutoring into daily use.

There has been a renewed interest in mixed age grouping, particularly at the
elementary school level. Advocates of multi-age grouping believe that this practice

should be expanded. The majority of the studies that have been done on the results

47
of multi-age and ungraded programs seem to favor this type of organization for
instruction. This is one of a number of reasons for possible expansion of this
practice.

According to the Director of ERIC, Lilian Katz (1989), nongraded and multi-
age plans are found most frequently in the early elementary grades. Katz in
Wk argues that multi-age grouping is emerging as a trend in the 1990s
for a number of reasons.

The concept is drawing renewed attention today as a
way of curbing ability tracking and grade retention, two
factors a growing number of educators identify as
detrimental precursors to failure for some young
children. Multi-graded units steer schools away from
competitive and overly academic instruction in the early
grades and toward methods grounded in hands-on
learning, play and exploration. (Katz, 1989, p.13)

In a review of K-2 and 3-5 grade structures in Pennsylvania, Raze (1985)
concluded that the K-2 and 3-5 structure is most often implemented in response to
declining enrollment. However, Raze cites unanticipated beneﬁts that often resulted
from a reorganization into K-2 and 3-5 units to balance class size and make more
efﬁcient use of staff. Educational beneﬁts may include better concentration on the
educational and psychological needs in the two age groups. An evaluative report
revealed that the new multi-grade structure saved money and resulted in improved
discipline, better student attitudes, less retention and improved student interactions.

At the 1990 annual meeting of the National Governors’ Association (N GA)
in Mobile, Alabama, the NGA Task Force on Education Report recommends that,

"States should move away from arbitrary grouping of students by age." The task force

report criticized elementary and secondary schools for assigning students based on

48
where they live and grouping them according to age and narrowly deﬁned ability.

The NGA further recommends that, ”States should consider other approaches such
as upgrading early primary programs and increasing the use of multi-age grouping to
enhance individual growth" (NGA, July, 1989).

In a report from the Nebraska Department of Education, the author states

that:

Virtually every policy report is suggesting that
multi-age grouping is a more developmentally sound way
to deal with individual differences. (Egertson, 1989)

The provincial government in British Columbia, Canada, has mandated a
combination of grades K-3 in all classrooms for all primary schools in the province
by 1990 (Cohen, 1989). The plan would extend this "continuous progress" model
through the upper grades by the year 2000. Many schools in British Columbia now
have ungraded K—3 units.

Vito Perrone, Director of Teacher Education at Harvard University, reports
in Cohen’s article (1989) that although few elementary schools have yet "fully
embraced" a primary ungraded class grouping, many have begun to teach more than
one grade together and many keep pupils with a teacher for two years instead of one.
Cohen, in Wk (1989) describes plans to implement multi-age programs:

To move developmental theory into the early

grades, some states and districts are currently considering
implementation of ungraded units.

The Pittsburgh school system plans to explore the
concept of multi-age grouping for K-3 pupils at eight
schools next year as part of a restructuring plan.

A California task force on school readiness last
year urged a reshaping of classrooms for 4- to 6-year-
olds, to offer "integrated, experiential programs,

49

"drastically altered" assessment methods, smaller classes,
and better training of early childhood teachers. A new
elementary school task force named by the state
superintendent is expected to draw on the readiness
panel’s work.

The Florida legislature is expected to reconsider
next year a measure that would encourage more
"developmentally appropriate structures" in the early
grades, including ungraded K-3 programs, and discourage
retention in kindergarten and lst grade. The bill died
this year.

Oregon lawmakers are also expected to
reintroduce a measure that would encourage districts to
enhance primary programs for at-risk pupils, with
developmental primary units offered as one option
(p.14).

In the same W report, Lynn Stuart, a school administrator from
Cambridge (Massachusetts) Public Schools, advocates increased use of multi-age
classrooms. According to Ms. Stuart:

Multi-age classrooms allow us to use the
information we now have about how students learn.

They offer real potential for a naturalistic, lifelike setting
where kids can learn from each other (1989, p.14).

Additional efforts to re-initiate multi-age grouping have come from the
National Association for the Education of Young Children (1987) and the National
Association of State Boards of Education (1989). Both organizations have position
statements that advocate mixed-age grouping for four- through eight-year-olds.

Teacher Attitudes Toward Multi-Age Grouping

Research on the beneﬁts and the history of multi-age grouping have been
discussed earlier. Studies and reports cited in the literature that relate speciﬁcally to
the problem of deﬁning what teachers say about multi-age grouping and what

teachers believe about the practice are reviewed in this section. Numerous reports

50

reviewed related directly or tangentially to the opinions teachers hold about multi-age
grouping. Studies of teacher attitudes toward mixed-age groupings in elementary
schools and teacher beliefs about multi-age and multi-grade level instruction are
included here. Descriptors of age-grade placement, class organization, grouping,
multi-age grouping, classroom research, school organization, non-graded grouping,
school personnel, teacher distribution, elementary teachers, teacher attitudes, teacher
beliefs, and cross-age tutoring were utilized during the literature search.

In a study by Veenman, Simon and others (1987), the authors investigated
students and teachers in elementary, mixed-age classes. They concluded that teachers
found working in mixed-age classes very difﬁcult, with most working as if they were
teaching two different classes which had to receive separate instruction. The
Veenman and Simon study was similar to the ﬁndings of Pratt (1983), who
summarized ﬁndings from various ﬁelds of study on mixed-age grouping. Pratt cites
evidence from the ﬁelds of ethnology, education and anthropology that multi-age
groupings were more natural and yield beneﬁts socially for participants. One ﬁnding
of Pratt’s review from education literature was that teachers reported difﬁculty
managing multi-age groups due to single-grade curriculum expectations. This study,
along with others by Oritz (1989) and Gelb (1982) highlight the difﬁculty in
implementing change from single-age/grade approaches to interdisciplinary teaching
and multi-age elementary classes. The authors cited barriers to multi-age groupings,
including published curriculum“ based on single-grade level outcomes, published
textbooks and workbooks based on single-grade curriculum achievement standards,
a lack of commercially available open-ended materials for individual instruction, the

attitude of teachers that certain content areas are to be covered by certain age

51

students, and the lack of knowledge about appropriate developmental instruction by
elementary-grade teachers.

In yet another study by Katz (1989), she identiﬁed a problem with teachers
accepting individual differences and multi-age grouping because of the perceptions
held by many teachers that putting children of the same age group together allows
them to be taught all the same thing at the same time on the same day. Katz points
to the lack of child development information as a reason for a lack of more varied
grouping practices in schools. Katz also cites a lack of awareness of research
information on cross-age studies, mixed ability grouping and cooperative learning
literature as reasons for a lack of teacher acceptance of multi-age grouping practices.

In a related study, Goodlad and Anderson (1986) reported that split classes,
the practice of putting two grade levels together with two separate curriculums, and
with a teacher responsible for teaching content to two distinct groups simultaneously,
has soured the willingness of teachers to accept multi-age classroom assignments. In
a related report on multi-age, primary school grouping by Carol Cummings (1989),
she states that split-grade groupings are frequently used to balance class size and
decrease costs. Cummings reports that the administrative practice of split-grade
grouping to balance class size has created a problem with teacher perceptions of the
viability of multi-age instructional methods.

In a study by Perkins (1961), he mentions other disadvantages of nongraded
programs. Perkins cites the extra work caused for teachers by ungrading, including
more time spent on record keeping, the problem of articulating reading levels with
other subjects such as arithmetic and social studies, and the orientation of new

teachers.

52
In a survey of educators, Dean (1964) found that some teachers think that the

absence of ﬁxed grade level standards for all children is a serious fault. He also
reports that some teachers believe that ﬁtting the curriculum and teaching to the
needs of each individual child puts too great a burden on teachers.

There has been some research conducted that concludes that teachers have
a negative attitude toward multi-age grouping. Acheson (1984) reported that parents
and teachers involved with combination classrooms in Edmonton, Canada, did not
approve of multi-grade classes. -

In a study by Kenneth Brown (1989), 34 teachers, all of whom had experiences
in both multi-grade and single grade classrooms, were asked their views on multi-
grade classrooms. When asked their preference for teaching the majority (79.4%)
chose the single grade. Only 3% preferred the multi-grade class, while 17.6% had
no preference. Almost all respondents in Brown’s study stated that increased
preparation time was required for multi-graded classes, and there was less time in
class for discussing topics compared to a single grade. Only two of the 34 teachers
surveyed submitted reasons why multi-grade classes are superior to single grades.
When Brown reviewed questions of workload, he found that three-quarters of the
‘ teachers reported that signiﬁcantly more work was required in the mixed-grade
classroom. The remaining one-fourth said the workload was the same for both types.
Not a single teacher felt that a multi-grade classroom was a lower workload.

In his review of nongraded primary schools, Calhoun Collier reported that
"Teachers must work harder in a nongraded school because they need to constantly
evaluate pupils and report on their progress" (1966, p.50). Collier goes on to

describe how teaching in a nongraded setting is positive for teachers. His

53

observations and teacher interviews lead him to conclude that I"I'he teachers’ personal
satisfaction is much greater in the nongraded school" (1966, p.50).
Summary

Multi-age grouping practices were described in the literature related to the
development of the ﬁrst full age-graded American school, the Quincy Grammar
School in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1859. The development of the graded school was
based on the belief that homogeneous grouping and large group instruction would
greatly improve the instructional practices of the day. The current age-graded
structure that so dominates public school organization was based on a very simple
rationale. In the rationale, the need for a system of schooling that provides the
greatest good to the greatest number in the shortest time at the least expense is
emphasized. This rationale is still ﬁrmly in place today.

Attempts to modify signiﬁcantly the age/graded organizational structure of
public education have been largely unsuccessful. Several attempts, however, have
been made to revitalize and extend alternative age and grade grouping practices.
The Individually Guided Education (IGE) movement, and other informal school
movements during the 19503, 1960s and 19708, attempted to modify grade level
grouping practices. Despite these attempts the most common practice of school
organization in today’s American schools is that of the age-graded structure.

The age-graded system has its critics who provide evidence that the grade level
system is based on false assumptions about the learning process. These critics
present arguments that students cannot have their needs met in a system that
demands that all students learn in a lockstep fashion. Others criticize graded systems

for rejecting and failing students who do not match up to predetermined grade level

54
standards.

A review of the literature on multi-age group and ungraded practice reveals
that grouping by single age or grade levels yields no advantages for students in the
area of subject matter mastery over multi-age grouping. Evidence has been reported
that multi-age grouping appears to yield beneﬁts for students in the affective domain
without adversely affecting student achievement.

Many of the instructional techniques that are associated with multi-age
grouped classes: small group instruction, cross-age tutoring, and individualized
education, appear to yield promising student outcomes. However, changes in the
administrative system of organization in itself, from a single age/graded grouping
system to a multi-age/graded system, are probably insufﬁcient to produce signiﬁcant
changes in the teaching/learning process.

There has been a renewed interest in multi-age grouping, particularly at the
elementary school level. Advocates of multi-age grouping believe this practice should
be expanded. Recent research seems to favor this type of organization for
instruction.

Teachers cite numerous reasons why they have reservations about multi-age
grouping practices. Current classroom materials, curriculum guides and published
materials are based on single-grade outcome standards. Also, there is a lack of
commercially prepared individualized materials available, leaving teachers the
frequent responsibility to seek out or create classroom materials for instruction.

Other factors related to a lack of preservice and inservice education for
teachers in the ﬁeld of child development, cooperative grouping and cross-age

instruction may be hampering attempts at changing current practice. This,

55

accompanied by a continuing focus in teacher preparation programs on tools and
methods rather than assumptions and beliefs about learning, may be hampering the
development of alternative grouping methods.

The past practice of multi-age grouping in split classes, due to economic
considerations and administrative convenience rather than instructional outcomes,
may also be contributing to a reluctance on the part of teachers to accept multi-grade
assignments.

The body of knowledge on how to instruct students of different ages together,
without using traditional single-grade curriculum content, needs to be expanded,
described and disseminated, according to many of the reports.

Additional information on how teachers think about age and grade groupings
is needed to provide a comprehensive view of attitudes teachers have toward multi-
age grouping. Adding to the body of knowledge currently available about what
teachers, who have experience with multi-age grouping, believe about multi-age
classroom groupings may assist educators responsible for preservice and inservice
education for teachers to plan experiences that may assist in the examination of
varied-age grouping practices. Identifying who the teachers are, and what experiences
they have had that make them perceive multi-age grouping as a positive practice, may
assist educators in planning like experiences that will enable teachers to grow and
explore different grouping arrangements that may yield improved instructional

outcomes for students.

CHAPTERIII

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The relationship of multi-age grouping to student instruction has been
emphasized in the previous chapter. Evidence presented demonstrated that, despite
reports that indicate that multi-age grouping and the accompanying instructional
practices may be of signiﬁcant educational value, these practices are not used to any
great degree in today’s educational institutions. Some of the factors were reviewed
that may be inhibiting the effective use of multi-age grouping practices. It was
recognized that efforts are underway to reduce barriers to the use of the instructional
methods associated with multi-age grouping. The teacher was identiﬁed as a key
factor in bringing about a wider and improved use of these methods. The importance
of teacher beliefs and attitudes was reviewed in relation to educational change.

This chapter contains two major parts. The ﬁrst is a brief discussion of
ethnographic methods in general, and the second is a description of the speciﬁc
methodology and the setting for this study.

Ethnography as a Method of Inquiry

Ethnography is not a clearly deﬁnable methodological approach to research.

It is a variety of approaches of many categories and descriptors. "Field work" or

"ﬁeld method" are terms used to descrrbe the study of events in natural settings.

56

57
Schatzman and Strauss (1973) used the term "ﬁeld method" to describe a system for

the observation of participants in real life situations. Erickson (1987) used the term
"interpretive researc " to describe the same method.

In planning an ethnographic study, the topic and site are determined and the
research questions are designed to guide the data gathering process. However, these
questions are not rigid in nature. The research questions and, therefore, the system
for gathering data may change in response to events in the study site, or may change
in response to the researcher’s understanding of the events (Erickson, 1987).

Site observations begin with a focus on a description of the site itself. The
patterns of activity are observed and recorded, the social structure is studied, and the
relationships of participants are explored. Erickson (1987) refers to this process as
"progressive problem solving." The decisions about what to see, who to concentrate
on, and where to physically locate emerge as more data are collected. The data
collection process itself leads the researcher to the areas of inquiry.

As the study progresses and the data are organized, an analysis of the
information suggests that certain patterns exist. As these patterns emerge, they begin
to provide information that forms the basis for the development of assertions. The
assertions are then supported by evidence from ﬁeld observations, interviews or
document analysis.

The ﬁeld notes and records of the events observed in the research site that
pertain to the research questions are detailed and descriptive in nature. Events and
conversations are recorded in detail. Impressions and questions for further study are
recorded by the observer in the ﬁeld notes. The observer’s interpretations are kept

clearly separate from the actual recording of observations and conversations.

58
The data collected through ﬁeld work are analyzed to develop the ﬁndings of

the study. The ﬁrst step involves categorizing the data. Many of the categories are
provided by the research questions. Others emerge from the data collection process.
The categorized data are examined for important similarities, patterns or
relationships that help explain the situations being investigated.

The results of ﬁeld study at one research site will not necessarily be the same
as those from another site. Generalization in ethnographic ﬁeld work is a cumulative
matter: the more cases there are that support a given explanation or assertion, the
more generalizable the ﬁndings to other situations.

The Plan of the Study

The organization and operation of current multi-age classrooms are described
in this study. Data needed to accomplish this description were obtained by direct
observation, document analysis, and formal interview procedures. Forty-eight hours
of direct participant observation was conducted in three multi-age classrooms in the
Hill Elementary School in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In each of the three primary
observation sites, students assigned to these classrooms were of four different age
groups and three different identiﬁed grade levels.

The three classes observed included two combined kindergarten, ﬁrst grade
and second grade (K, 1, 2,) multi-age sections and one combined ﬁrst grade, second
grade and third grade (1, 2, 3) multi-age section. In two classrooms (K, 1, 2),
students ranged from age four to age eight. In the other subject classroom (1, 2, 3),
students ranged in age from ﬁve to nine.

The entire Hill Elementary School is organized in multi-age sections, in

different age/grade combinations. The school enrolls students in the identiﬁed grade

59
levels of kindergarten, ﬁrst, second, third, fourth, and ﬁfth. The school has been

organized on a multi-age structure since its formation in 1985. Documents describing
Hill School state that the school is organized so that students of different ages and
grade levels are placed together in each classroom.

In addition to the in-classroom observations, staff and student participants
from the three subject groups were observed at other school locations during the
school day, including the lunchroom, hallways, outdoors during recess, in the music
room, in the art room, and in the library. The three classrooms that made up the
focus of the observations were selected by mutual agreement and consent of the
principal and the teachers.

The observations in the classrooms occurred at various times during the day,
including morning instruction, lunch time, afternoon instruction, and dismissal period.
The site observations began on January 8, 1990, and continued for a period of eight
weeks. The observations resumed again during the 1990-91 school year. Field
observation began on October 23, 1990, and continued for another period of six
weeks. Observations were conducted for three to four hours per week.

All participants in the school who interacted with students from the three
subject classes, including students, teachers, parents, support staff, administrators and
volunteers, were viewed as subjects of the study for research purposes.

The direct observations made in the three classrooms and in other school
settings were recorded in ﬁeld notes. In the ﬁeld note-taking process, the interaction
patterns, comments, and activities observed were recorded in detail. The written ﬁeld
notes were analyzed to describe patterns, unusual or discrepant events, and to

develop scenarios to support assertions made about the instruction, outcomes, or

60

interactions in multi-age classrooms.

Students were observed while interacting on teacher-assigned tasks and doing
self-selected activities. Speciﬁc instances of students cooperating on tasks were
recorded in detail, as were instances where students of different ages were observed
working together.

The observation periods were accompanied by some informal, casual style
interviews. Participants were asked questions during observation periods for the
purpose of checking for understanding, to clarify the meaning of events, to check for
any bias on the part of the observer, or to obtain information on the participants’
perspective.

During the observations, detailed ﬁeld notes were taken of participant
conversations in the classroom and other settings around the school. When seemingly
signiﬁcant dialogue was overheard, conversational speech and students’ responses to
questions were written down verbatim.

This phase of data collection consisted of observations of approximately 70
students and four teachers. Data taken from the ﬁeld notes of these observations
were used primarily to describe the daily operation, organization, interaction patterns,
and instructional techniques used by teachers in multi-age settings. The ﬁeld notes,
containing observation data, were then reviewed, analyzed and categorized by
common themes. Discrepant events were also highlighted during ﬁeld note analysis.
Common patterns of observations were developed into assertions. The assertions
were described and examples from ﬁeld notes were developed into scenarios that
supported these assertions.

In all cases, parents of the 70 children in the three subject classrooms were

61

sent a letter explaining the study. Each of the adult participants also received a letter
explaining the study, and they gave written consent to allow the note taking data to
be used in the study report. The observation/notetaking procedure was reviewed by
the Ann Arbor Public Schools Research Review Committee and the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) at Michigan State
University. In addition, all student subjects gave verbal assent for use in the study
report of information gathered during informal interviews.

The three subject classrooms for observations were selected based on the
willingness of staff volunteers to be involved in the study and to have students in the
class participate. During the ﬁrst four weeks of observation, the classrooms were
visited three times per week for one-hour blocks. This initial observation period
involved the recording of a variety of classroom routines, events, and student
interactions. For the ﬁnal six weeks, the observations were conducted once per week
in three- or four-hour blocks. The procedure for the ﬁnal six weeks of observation
focused on following one student through the daily routine and recording, in ﬁeld
notes, the interactions, conversations, and events that happened to this one student
during the day. The process of following one of the youngest children in the class,
referred to in ﬁeld notes as "following Nicki" episodes, enabled whole routines to be
recorded and described, getting a detailed account of the experience of a young child
in a setting with mixed-age classmates.

The informal interviews were also conducted during the ﬁnal six weeks.
Questions and responses were recorded verbatim in ﬁeld notes. Informal interviews
included comments by six teachers, twelve students, and four parents.

The second method of data collection used in this study, formal interview, was

62

designed to support the observational data on multi-age classroom operation as well
as to gather data about the beliefs and attitudes that experienced teachers hold about
the practice of multi-age grouping. The formal interviews were conducted in settings
without students. During the last three weeks of the onsite data collection, patterned
questions were asked of each of the 13 adults interviewed (see Table 1). Both the
questions and responses were tape recorded. The recorded responses were later
categorized. Categories were developed for content analysis of staff statements. Five
main categories of responses were derived: classroom organization, rationale/
philosophy, student instruction, demographics, and experiences/reﬂections.

Table 1 Formal Interview Participants

Teacher Grade Levels
R2. 45

1.1.. 4-5

J .L. K-l

W1. 45

CO. K-1-2
LB. 3-4

J .G. K-1-2
O.K. K-l

OK. .7 K-1-2
S.E. Secretary
P.O. Principal
J .B. 3-4

S.W. 1-2-3

63

The subjects of the formal interviews were 13 staff members at Hill School.
The interview sample included 11 teachers, the school principal, and the school
secretary. Table 2 reports the total years of teaching experience for the interview
participants and reports the years of teaching experience of each participant in a
multi-age classroom.

Table 2 Years of Teaching Experience

Total Multi-Age
LG. 30 27
1.13. 10 1o
s.w. 30 17
1.13. 20 20
1.1. 3 3
0.11 3 3
PD. 22 15
R1. 5 3
1.1. 5 4
co. 1 1
W1. 5 5
ex 6 4
3.13. (10) (5)

The formal interviews were patterned, with a set of questions being asked of
each interview participant. The 13 interviews were tape recorded sessions of 35 to

60 minutes each.

64
The staff at Hill School that were the subjects of tape recorded formal

interviews were asked the set of questions in Appendix A. This interview information
focused on what staff of a multi-age grouped school setting say about the practice.
The participants were asked to reﬂect on their experiences with multi-age teaching
practices, the rationale for using these practices, and the impact of multi-age grouping
on student outcomes. The patterned formal interview questions were designed to
gather responses to the study questions.

The ﬁnal interview questions were ﬁeld tested. Three experienced teachers
from other school sites were asked to review the questions and comment on the
question content, vocabulary and grammar. They were also provided with the
statement of the purpose of the study in order to compare the formal interview
questions to the questions asked in the description of the study purpose. Questions
were modiﬁed as a result of the input of the three ﬁeld test teachers.

A third method of data collection included a review of written journal entries
by teachers. Ten teachers from Hill School who participated in interviews
volunteered to respond, in writing, to questions provided during the interview process.
As part of the interview process, formal interview participants were asked to write
down thoughts in reﬂective journals during a six-week period following their formal
interview. The purpose of the journals was explained and each teacher participant
was provided information on the desired content of the writings, including sample
questions to address (see Appendix B).

Journal writing by teachers was utilized as a tool to help teachers reﬂect on
their beliefs and practices in multi-age classes. Journal writing was utilized to enable

teachers to report on their current and past experiences that led them to begin

65

practicing in multi-age classes. Written excerpts expanded on the formal interview
information. In combination with interviews, the journal writing analysis was used to
describe the rationale teachers gave for multi-age grouping and was added to the
- interview data to help illustrate how insiders describe the experience of working with
multi-age classrooms.

Journal writings also generated data on the social, historical, and educational
conditions that inﬂuenced the staff to become involved with and/or continue to teach
in multi-age group settings.

Study Location and Description

The study was conducted in the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) in
Washtenaw County, Michigan. ‘ The AAPS have an enrollment of approximately
14,200 students. The study site selected for the collection of data was the Hill
Elementary School. This site was selected because Hill School is purposely organized
in multi-age classroom sections. The rationale for multi-age organization at Hill
School is based upon educational considerations. The school mission statement at
Hill School states that multi-age "family grouping" is practiced because it helps
students progress to their potential both academically and socially. Each elementary
classroom in the school has at least two distinct grade levels represented. This
elementary school enrolls students in grade levels from kindergarten to ﬁfth grade.
Hill School classrooms with identiﬁed grade levels of three or more were those
selected for direct participant observations.

The City School District
The Hill Elementary School, the site selected for the study, is in an urban

community. Computer-related, high technology business and a major university

66
dominate the employment situation. The schools of the public system are ofﬁcially

listed as racially integrated. Hill Elementary School is located on the westside of
town.

The Hill school is situated in an old city neighborhood. The homes were built
in the beginning of the 20th century. Many of the homes are single-family dwellings.
The School

Hill Elementary School was built in the 1920s. Originally a neighborhood
school, the Hill school was transformed, in 1985, into an alternative "choice" school,
serving students in a multi-age grouped class setting. The change-over from a
neighborhood school to an alternative school occurred in conjunction with a plan to
racially desegregate the city’s 15 elementary school, four middle schools, and two high
schools.

The building itself consists of a three-story main building, with a one-story wing
addition. There are 13 classrooms in the building as well as support staff spaces, a
gymnasium, multi-purpose rooms, and an administrative ofﬁce complex. Two large
playground areas are adjacent to the school.

There are just over 300 students in Hill school, including students with special
needs, from kindergarten through ﬁfth grade. In addition, a privately-operated day
care program is located in the building to serve families of kindergarten students, who
attend classrooms for a half-day. The day care program also provides before- and
after-school care for students in the school.

The instructional staff consists of 14 general education classroom teachers,
three teacher aides, two special education teachers, other itinerant personnel, and

one principal. The support staff consists of a librarian, two custodians, and a school

67

secretary. Itinerant personnel assigned to the school for scheduled visits are an art
teacher, a music teacher, a physical education teacher, a speech teacher, a school
nurse, an instrumental music teacher, and a school social worker.

The school day is scheduled to begin at 8:30 for staff; 8:55 for students. The
lunch period is on a staggered schedule, from 11:20 to 1:10. The school day is
scheduled to conclude at 3:00 for students and 3:30 for staff.

Summary of the Data Collection Process

In addition to direct student observation within the classrooms, and "following
Nicki" episodes, data for the study were collected from other sources over an 11-
month period. Data gathering was undertaken using the following methods: direct
observations at various locations on the school site, a literature review of multi-age
class instructional methods, formal and informal interviews with teachers at Hill
School, the school principal, and the school secretary. Informal interviews with
parents, students and volunteers were also conducted. Journal entries and written
responses to questions by six teachers of multi-age classes at Hill School were also
used as a data source.

The staff in Hill School were the subjects of formal interviews to obtain
information about what teachers of multi-age classes say about multi-age classroom
grouping. Teachers at Hill School, the principal, parents, students and volunteers
were asked, via informal interviews, to reﬂect on multi-age teaching practices, the
rationale for using multi-age grouping, and their experiences in a multi-age class
setting. Fourteen professional staff members at Hill School were asked to participate
in formal interviews and journal writing. Twelve professional staff members gave

written consent and participated in formal interviews. Ten teachers agreed to

68

participate in the journal writing activity; six journals were actually completed.

The patterned interview questions were ﬁeld tested and modiﬁed, based on
the feedback. After ﬁeld testing was completed, formal interviews were conducted.
The formal interviews were patterned, with all subjects being asked the same initial
questions. F ollow-up questions were asked. These varied with each respondent.
Information from formal interviews was tape recorded and classiﬁed according to
responses.

The other method of data gathering, direct observation in multi-age
classrooms, included 48 hours of observation with ﬁeld note taking used as a method
of data collection. These data, in combination with the established body of literature
on multi-age teaching methods, was used to describe the daily workings of a multi-age
classroom and was used to illustrate how multi-age classrooms are organized for
student instruction. The classrooms at Hill School, which were the subject of the
observation, were selected by mutual agreement of the principal and volunteer
teachers. Observations of these classroom students and staff were made in the
classroom itself, on the playground, in the lunch room, in the hbrary, and during
other school activities.

Information obtained through the literature review and classroom observation
served as the basis for formulating the patterned interview questions.

Journal writing by teachers was used as a tool to help teachers reﬂect on their
beliefs and experiences in multi-age classes. Journal writing was used to enable
teachers to report on their current and past experiences, including information about
their life history. Journals were analyzed for patterns and were used to supplement

interview ﬁndings. Interviews and journal writing analysis were utilized to gain insight

69
into the rationale for multi-grading.

Consent Process

Ofﬁcial written consent for their participation in this study was obtained from
the principal and teachers at Hill School. Ofﬁcial permission for the study was
obtained from the Ann Arbor: Public Schools’ research committee. Parents of
students in the classes that were selected as primary student observation sites were
notiﬁed of the research project and had an opportunity to indicate that they did not
want their child to participate in the study. Parents were notiﬁed in writing that they
had the right to give or withhold consent for their child to be involved in the study.
Adults were also given the right to give or withhold consent to be involved in the
study. Students were asked to give verbal assent before being informally interviewed.
The UCRIHS review by the MSU committee on human subjects was held, and
approval for the research project was granted prior to data collection being

undertaken.

CHAPTERIV

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

In this chapter the information obtained during the data collection phase of
the study is reported and analyzed. The data in this chapter are organized in sections
that are presented under the topic headings: Classroom Organization for Instruction;
Small Group Instruction; Other Instructional Practices; Participant Attitudes,
Perceptions and Beliefs; Issues of Concern to Participants; and Summary.

The ﬁrst section of this chapter contains a description of the classrooms that
were the primary observation sites. This section is included to provide the reader
with a sense of the organization of the multi-age classrooms at Hill School and to
provide the reader with a picture of the classroom routine from a student perspective.
Information in this section helps set the stage for the reporting and analysis of data
in the other ﬁve sections to follow.

(Jassroom Organimtion for Instruction

An analysis of the data collected through observation, interviews, and
document analysis revealed certain patterns that were evident in multi-age
classrooms. One of the patterns that emerged from the data collected related to the
ways that multi-age classrooms are organized for instruction. The predominant use
of small group instruction was evident in all of the classrooms observed.

70

71
Where many elementary classrooms in American are organized primarily to

present whole group, lecture format instruction, multi-age classroom teachers in Hill
School placed a high value on small group work and on the use of "centers" or
stations for the presentation of learning opportunities. Students in all three subject
classrooms spent the majority of their day involved in small group interactions. The
class schedules were designed to facilitate instruction in groups of two to eight
students. The physical arrangement of the classrooms provided work spaces for
individual and/or small group work. The following section contains descriptions of
the ways that the subject classrooms were organized and how the instructional
process operated.

Three classrooms served as the primary sites for participant observations
during the data collection period. These classrooms are referred to by teacher
initials: Ms. S.W., Mr. C.O., and Ms. C.K.

S.W.’s Ciassrmm

S.W.’s classroom was located in the south wing of the Hill Elementary
building. There were twenty-four students in the class and they were in grades ﬁrst,
second and third. The classroom was organized so that student work areas were
divided by book shelves, room dividers and storage areas. Each student had a "tub"
(a plastic dishwashing pan) with his/her name on it. Tubs were on the storage shelves
around the room. Each tub contained books or papers belonging to the student. No
student desks were assigned. Each student also had a mail slot, a place near the door
that contained "important papers," according to Nicki, a ﬁrst grade student. The mail
slots were each marked with a student name on a piece of colored tape. During

informal questioning of S.W., the teacher, she told me, ”The colored tape represents

72

the grade level of the student; that’s how you can tell what grade they are in." When
asked whether grade names, i.e., ﬁrst, second or third, were used often in the
classroom, S.W. said that they were not. According to the colored tape, the class
make-up was equally divided among ﬁrst, second and third graders. The set periods
in the classroom were generally thirty minutes long, with changes in small group
activity signalled by a bell (a kitchen timer). A schedule was written on the
blackboard each day. The classroom was divided into seven distinct student work
areas, each accommodating four to eight children. One area, the "rug," was the
whole-class gathering place and was the only area where the entire class of students
was observed to be together.

S.W. began her teaching in London, England, when open education ﬁrst began
as a movement. Her teaching experience spanned thirty years. She began teaching
in the Ann Arbor Schools twelve years ago. Prior to coming to Hill School, S.W.’s
experience in England was with both primary and secondary schools that were
organized as single-graded and ungraded programs.

The sense of S.W.’s class for the ﬁrst time observer was one of confusion and
a lack of order: students wandering in and out of the classroom, a high level of
noise, and twenty-four bodies moving around the room that was disorganized in
appearance.

There were tables, study corners, boxes, shelves, pets, piles of toys, piles of
paper and various boxes of materials piled together, stuff seemingly everywhere,
students were all different sizes and shapes. There was a variety of ethnic and racial
groups represented and a great variety in the maturity level of the students. One girl

sat in a bean bag chair, sucking her thumb, while another boy was illustrating a

73
lengthy book that he was assembling for a science project.

My ﬁrst visit left me feeling confused. Students were talking, playing with
action ﬁgures, looking at books, huddled around a computer, talking with each other
and working from textbooks. For the ﬁrst ﬁve minutes that I visited the class, there
was no teacher in the classroom. I sat and watched for ﬁve more minutes. Students
changed seating arrangements, picked up different materials; still no teacher. I
wondered if there were a problem; I wondered where the teacher was; I wondered
what the organization of the classroom really was, I wondered if this was typical
activity for this room.

The teacher did arrive a few minutes later, but the students hardly seemed to
notice. They went about their business with a high degree of independence and self-
direction. An examination of the records for S.W.’s class revealed that the students
were between the ages of six and ten.

During the second observation, I noted that activities changed every thirty
minutes or so, and that students were assigned to small groups. The groups were
designated on a list that was posted on a bulletin board. Each student was assigned
to one of four groups that were named "special," " written work," "reading" and
"choice." Each student participated in each of the four activities during the day.
When a small group of six to eight students was assigned to the "special" activity, they
went to a table where the teacher had set up an activity for the day. One day, the
special activity consisted of making a "sculpture" out of tongue depressors and
toothpicks; geoboards with rubber bands were set up another day; gluing macaroni
was another project, as was creating with pipe cleaners. The "special" area was a

hands-on, activity-based center that had as a focus the creative manipulation of

74

objects. This activity center was also frequently attended by students during "choice"
group.

"Choice" was the small group session that students expressed the greatest liking
for. During this time period, if students were assigned to the "choice" group, they
could engage in any activity within the classroom "as long as the rights of others to
learn in a safe and orderly environment were being respected," according to S.W.
Students in "choice" frequently joined the "special" activity, gathered in the kitchen
area with Ninja Turtles or other action ﬁgures to play with or gathered at the
computer station. When asked what "choice" was, a student responded that it was
"a time to do what we like."

The small group period assigned for "written work" generally consisted of story
writing or written math assignments. Story writing used a student-generated
experience story approach. Math assignments frequently included math dittos,
workbook assignments or application lessons. During "written work," students would
frequently get direct instruction from the teacher on the topic for the day. "Written
work" was the most teacher-assigned small group session. S.W. would describe the
work for the day for each student to accomplish. Students in "written work" sat at
a table area. S.W. frequently sat near the group to monitor their progress on daily
assignments, and answer questions. During "written work," most students began the
period by writing in self-illustrated "journals." During this time, S.W. would circulate
and give directions about the daily work to be completed.

Reading period was a small group assigned time when S.W. would call on
students for direct instruction in reading, either individually or in small groups. The

reading period consisted of students reading trade books selected from the book

75
shelves in the classroom or books selected from the hbrary. In addition to a

designated small group time for reading, there was also a designated reading period
for all students, where S.W.’s class would team up with the class of fourth and ﬁfth
grades next door in a "reading buddies" format. In reading buddies, students would
be scheduled to read together with an older student paired with a younger student,
two or three times per week. Small group reading was a daily activity that can be
described as a combination of silent reading, seat work and teacher-directed reading
groups.

The classroom organizational routine involved blocks of small-group-
designated activity time. Students were assigned to designated groups as evidenced
by the names of between six to eight students being written on a laminated card.
One bulletin board near the "rug" area had cards, with ﬁve to seven student names,

inserted in "pockets" on the board. The illustration below shows the bulletin board

in diagram form.
Randy Louis Maria Beth
Judy Johnny Bill Hal
Tom Mark Pat Rachel
Mary Daisy Jeff Jim
Nicki Rusty Tim Kelly
Paul Polly Mike

Dan

Special Written work Choice Reading

The cards were moved as classroom periods were switched, when the timer
signalled a change. These assigned-work groups were changed "every six to eight
weeks," according to S.W. .

The classroom contained a bathroom, a teacher’s desk, a play kitchen area,

a computer area, the "special" table, the "rug" area and four other student worktable

76

areas.
C.O.’s Classroom
C.O.’s classroom was located on the ground ﬂoor of the Hill Elementary
School. There were 24 students assigned to C.O.’s class in grades kindergarten, ﬁrst
and second. The students in the class were ages ﬁve, six, seven and eight. The
classroom had tables and chairs scattered across the room, a large climber was
located in the middle of the room, a couch and rocking chair were located in the
corner of the room. No student desks were assigned and during the ﬁrst visit, it was
not apparent where students kept their personal items and school assignments.
The enrolled students included "Six kindergartners, ten ﬁrst graders, and eight
second graders," according to C.O., who commented that he used graded labels for
"expediency," but preferred to use age descriptors and expressed a desire to get rid
of graded descriptors.
On the blackboard was a scribbled schedule for the day. On the ﬁrst
observation visit the schedule read:
8:20 Choice
8:45 Meeting
9:00 Science small group
9:30 Math
10:00 Gym
10:30 Recess
11:00 Reading
11:15 Clean-up

12:00 Lunch

77
12:40 Art

2:00 Choice

The initial observation began at 9:30 in the morning, with students moving
from place to place, in and out of the room. Jessica was drawing, Amy was climbing
on the shelf looking for paper, David was reading a trade book from another shelf,
Adam was playing with Legos on the ﬂoor. The noise level was high, and the activity
level fast and furious. Among all this activity, C.O. sat in his rocking chair talking
about a videotape project with three girls. Occasionally, C.O. would call out a name
and a request or command: "David bring me the calendar." "Justin, turn off the
water." After the ﬁrst 30 minutes of observation, a group of older students entered
the room and asked C.O. if they could use the computer. After another 30 minutes,
another teacher came to the door, calling to CO. Several students rushed toward the
door, with CO. shouting orders to put the room "back in shape" and to clean up.
The activity level picked up around the room, with chairs being pushed, paper being
stuffed into waste baskets and boxes, furniture being moved, books re-shelved, and
a rabbit caught and caged. There were several minutes of this activity before
students began ﬁling out of the classroom, individually or in small groups, to what I
found out was gym class. Two girls stayed in the class to clean out the rabbit cage
and put in new woodchips, a task that proved very messy. They did, with some
assistance from C.O., manage to sweep up the waste and dispose of it in a plastic
bag. The other 22 students did not reappear at 11:00 as they should have according
to the schedule on the board. CD. also left the room without a word. I realized that
the schedule was not necessarily a reliable indicator of student whereabouts.

C.O.’s room was divided into ﬁve general areas for student activity. One area

78
referred to as "meeting" was the site for the whole group meetings and discussions.
There were benches and a couch in the "meeting" area, along with the "teacher’s
chair," a rocking chair where CO. was observed to spend the majority of his time
while in the classroom. The other areas of the room included a large motor play
area, with a climbing gym, a kitchen/playhouse area, two worktable areas, and a
computer station. There was a single bathroom in the room, used by boys and girls,
and a sink area.
C.O. began his teaching at Hill school after a career in the construction trades.

He had graduated with a teaching degree some ten years earlier, but never practiced
in the profession until he began substituting at Hill two years ago. He gained full-
time employment one year ago. He became interested in Hill school after being
involved with a school camping experience at Hill as a volunteer. He joined the
faculty as a result of becoming reinvested in teaching because of his experiences.
According to CO:

I wanted to work at Hill because it was everything my

education was not. My personal education in the

elementary grades was very stagnant, seat-oriented, and

I found it extremely frustrating; so this program

respected the students and treated students like they

were intelligent.

C.O. describes his educational experience in elementary school:

Most of my standout events were negative, being in the
middle reading group or the last reading group and a lot
of other degrading things.

Each morning C.O. scheduled a lS-minute class meeting. This was a whole
group time for show-and-tell, attendance, and a schedule review. He explained that

the rest of the day is ﬂexrble in terms of the schedule and that students have the

79

power to determine their own learning activities:

I provide them with a lot of different
opportunities. We have open choice, when it gets a little
crazier and a little louder because they can play in the
house [area], build a fort or whatever. We have a quiet
choice where they can choose reading, writing, math,
drawing or painting. Then, we have contract choice
where they sit down and sign a contract with me that
they are going to do this for a set period of time...if they
want to study ﬁsh, they can do a contract choice.

Figure 1 C.O.’s Classroom

l
computer
bathroom \l; climber _A‘
work
table ,_ ,

 

 

El

ii

 

t._.l.

 

 

 

nTll
l .
ii

if

 

i student shelves

 

C.K’s Classroom

C.K’s classroom was located in the south wing of the school and had grades
kindergarten, ﬁrst and second represented. The students in C.K’s class varied in age
from four to eight. C.K. had 23 students enrolled in her class during the morning

session and 18 students during the afternoon session, because the ﬁve kindergarten

80

students attended a half day in the morning only.

The classroom was arranged so that tables were set up in ﬁve parts of the
room with teacher-designed activities set up on each of the ﬁve tables. These activity
tables or "centers" included perceptual motor activities (puzzles and games), ﬁne
motor activities (cutting and drawing), a writing station where students dictated
stories to the teacher and illustrated their stories, a "play" area with a pretend kitchen
and housewares and a quiet area with bean-bag chairs and books. There was also
a "circle" area where whole-group meetings, calendar, and story time would take
place with the class. Each student was assigned a "cubby" where their personal
material and schoolwork were stored.

The set periods, described by OK. as "center time," were 20-30 minutes in
length. Center time activities alternate with whole group activities that C.K. reported
were "ﬁve to ten minutes" in length. The art center had colored paper, markers,
scissors, glue and precut paper shapes. The listening center had books on cassette
tape and a six-person headphone set. The small motor area had scissors, string,
paper punches, and styrofoam for cutting and punching holes. The writing center had
books, pencils, crayons, and paper arranged on shelving.

The teacher’s chair in the circle also served as the location for oral reading,
class discussion, and whole group teaching. Grouping at the centers was arranged by
choice. Sometimes C.K. would pull together special work groups for instruction.
C.K. explained:

Students sign up for the order that they wish to
do things. I put choice in the middle of the center times
for everyone all at once because when I got

kindergartrrers I had to be careful that they had a time
of their own.

81

OK. set up a schedule so that each student went to each center during the
day. She stated that students experience things "in their own ways," but that the
teacher needs to encourage students to experience many different things.

In my classroom...you put things out and students
look at it, experience it, and explore it in their own ways
rather than the teacher ﬁnding a prescribed way for
them to learn. The thing I have tried hardest to develop
is to ﬁnd ways for them [students] to express and
demonstrate their own ways of learning. I’m not the
center of the classroom.

C.K. began her teaching in an inner city school. In her journal writing, she
reﬂected on how her experience encouraged her to teach in a multi-age setting.

In the inner city, I saw all of the problems
involved in trying to meet individual needs and not being
successful. Teaching individually means making schools
a good place for kids...by learning to think about
education as an individual experiencing things in their
own way.

Although C.K. has only taught for two years at Hill school, she had additional
teaching experience in a multi-age preschool setting.

I’ve learned a lot from my co-op nursery,
preschool background. I have a strong emphasis on
child development in the program design. The child
development research is consistent with looking at
children as they are, rather than in what grade they are
m.

82
Figure 2 C.K.’s Classroom

 

storage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Typical Morning While Following Nicki

One of the primary sources of data gathered for the study was obtained by
following one of the youngest students at Hill School through her daily routines over
a period of six weeks. These "following Nicki episodes" provided an opportunity for
entire classroom routines to be recorded.

Nicki, a six-year-old student in S.W.’s class, was described by her teacher as
"the youngest child in the room." I ﬁrst began following Nicki to observe what, if any,
help Nicki received from older students in the classroom. I discovered that following
a single student throughout the school day provided an opportunity to experience the
ﬂow of events throughout the school day. Events from a typical morning at Hill
School are recorded here to give the reader a sense of the setting and how a

classroom operates from a student’s perspective.

83

The starting time for Hill school was set at 8:55. At 8:30, arriving early, Nicki
was already inside the classroom, along with a number of other children. The
children in S.W.’s room were reading, drawing, playing with action ﬁgures, and
tending to classroom pets. It is hard to say when school actually began because there
was no organized activity or teacher direction once the designated start time of 8:55
arrived. Around the room, some children were huddled in small groups, but Nicki
was on her own, moving about the room and talking to other children. To the visitor,
students appeared to move about freely and talk to each other. Nicki wandered into
the hallway. The hall was filled with busy children, displays of paintings, graphs,
tables, chairs, and a box ﬁlled with plants.

Nicki walked by other classrooms. The classrooms were fairly noisy, and one
teacher asked for quiet. In the classroom next to Nicki’s, an accident happened:
paint spilled and there was recrimination by the teacher. The two children involved
in the accident, with black paint on their clothes and in their hair, were sent by the
teacher to the restroom down the hall to clean themselves up.

As Nicki returned to her room, there had been an increase in the amount and
variety of the activities. S.W. was in the room now, sitting at a table with a small
group of four students. Another group of children was sitting on the ﬂoor in the
"kitchen" area stacking blocks into tall towers. Nicki joined two of the boys without
hesitation and began stacking blocks. Upon ﬁnishing the tall tower, one boy counted
with anticipation, "Fifteen, sixteen," as he added the last one. "Don’t touch it," he
commanded, as Nicki stepped back.

At the other end of the room, two small boys were sitting in a bean bag chair

looking at a book. A solitary girl was sitting at the computer nearby. Nicki moved

84

to a table covered with yarn, string, and paper. When asked if she had a desk or a
seat assigned to her, Nicki shook her head "no." Nicki sat down and began stringing
dry pasta on yarn. She was joined by two other girls. On the storage shelf next to
Nicki, in plastic boxes, there were beads, buttons, and odd combinations of things, in
addition to commercial instructional materials like cuisenaire rods, an abacus, uniﬁx
cubes, and number lines.

The class had a library corner separated by a room divider that also served as
a book shelf. Nicki sat in the library corner twice during the ﬁrst hour of observation,
hanging around, handling the books, looking at pictures, and listening to the other
students read. Nicki appeared to be studying people as they read. She would then
mimic the actions of the olders she observed while sitting nearby. None of the other
students appeared to notice her parroting. No textbooks were noted to be present
in the classroom. There were a few workbooks. The classroom contained mostly
trade books in large numbers.

As Nicki picked up a book, she was called to the "rug" area by S.W. The
students slowly assembled for the ﬁrst whole class session of the day. It was 9:30.

S.W. settled down the group of 23 that sat on benches, on the ﬂoor, on tables,
and on the rug. Nicki sat on the rug with her eyes closed, leaning against Rita, a
second grader. S. W. reviewed the schedule for the day. John, an older boy, called
the attendance roll and marked the names on a chart on the blackboard. Nicki did
not answer when her name was called, but John marked it anyway as Rita jabbed her
shoulder.

The class had music today. S.W. dismissed the class from the rug area and

Nicki burst out of the door with three other young girls and ran down the hallway,

85

down the stairs and through an open door. A tape player in the front of the music
room was already on when they entered, playing rhythmic beats, and the teacher
passed out a book to each child as they entered and went to the desks set up in a
circular arrangement around the room.

As the tape ended, J .W., the music teacher, paused at the door and took two
little girls by the hand as they entered. A boy picked out a tune on a xylophone and
suddenly the class broke into song. Nicki sang along to the greeting song that had
been taught as a signal that the class was about to start. Students took turns picking
one another to come to the front and use a drum to direct the whole group in a
lesson on singing from a short music score. Nicki raised her hand but was not chosen
by the others during this 15-minute portion of the lesson. Next came singing ﬁom
the songbook as a class: the spiritual, "All Day, All Night," and three other songs.
The class was dismissed at 10:30 with no teacher to meet Nicki and the others. Nicki
did not hurry out this time; she helped Sally collect the books from the desks and put
them on the shelves. Nicki and Sally lingered in the music room and talked to each
other while they sat next to the bookshelf. After a few minutes, they freely got up
and moved down the hallway.

Back in the classroom, the children read aloud to each other. There was a
different group of children present, fourth and ﬁfth graders from J .B.’s class next
door. Nicki rushed in and joined an older girl who was seated in the kitchen area.
Nearby, a child asked another how to spell "angel." Two boys stood at the window
looking through a pair of binoculars. Five children were seated by the teacher with
colored Uniﬁx cubes on the table. There were 30 children in the room at this time.

While many different projects were underway in the room, the teacher said she

86

makes the best of it. According to S.W., "Noise is a matter of concern only when
there is too much of it for people to communicate or when it disturbs children
working alone." S. W. described this time of day as "reading buddies" and explained
that students are accustomed to noise at this time.

At about 11:00, Nicki and her reading buddy, Allison, put down the book
about a cricket that Allison had been reading to Nicki and moved over to the
hamster cage by the "special" table. The two girls talked about the pet hamster that
belonged to the class. Allison opened the cage and ran her ﬁngers on the fur. Nicld
watched another group using a funnel to pour rice from large containers to smaller
ones. She left Allison and joined in. Nicki spent the rest of the morning with her
hands and arms deep in the rice bin. She was totally absorbed in the activity and
appeared surprised when the teacher’s voice rose above the others in the room.
"Time to clean up. When you have put things away, come and sit in the rug area."

All was accomplished within minutes, with few directions from the teacher.
As the class assembled, S.W. read a poem about a princess and a dragon. When the
poem was over, the class grabbed sacks and lunch boxes and headed for the door.
Nicki was one of the last to leave. She put on her coat and followed the class to the
lunch room.

Small Group Instruction

This, the second section of the chapter, includes a description and analysis of
the use of student small group organization for instruction. The data presented
suggest that multi-age classrooms are primarily organized by small student work
groups to facilitate instruction and enable teachers to manage the classrooms. These

classrooms had a wide range of student ages, abilities, and interests represented.

87

Throughout the day, students in the subject classes spent most of their time with
other students in small work groups. This pattern was evident in each of the multi-
age classes observed.

The observations and interviews conducted in multi-age classrooms provided
evidence that these classrooms were organized to facilitate work in small groups. The
classroom arrangements, with many small areas for speciﬁc instruction, were set up
speciﬁcally to allow groups of two to eight students to work together. Students were
placed by teachers in small groups or self-selected their group partners. In some
cases the students moved together as a group throughout the designated instructional
periods. In other situations, the students moved from activity to activity without
teacher direction and without groups being designed by the teacher. In the latter
cases, teachers reported "student choice" as the small group format and method of
organization. In all three subject classrooms observed, the daily schedule was
designed by the teacher to devote the majority of the allocated class time to the
designated small group periods.

The multi-age classrooms were organized so that students work in small
groups. The day was scheduled so that the majority of class time is spent in small
group work. The students form and reform small groups according to the daily
schedule.

Mike and Jeff, two older students in S.W.’s class, were reading aloud to two

younger students. Hiawatha was the topic of the reading and conversation, as the
four students leaned back in beanbag chairs in a corner of the classroom behind a
wall of bookshelves. In another part of the classroom, ﬁve students of different ages

were in a play kitchen area; some were pouring empty boxes of cereal and others

88

were sweeping with brooms or rattling pots and pans. Three other small groups of
two to eight students were scattered about the room. S.W., the teacher, was not in
the classroom. This scene was part of a pattern that was repeated throughout the
day: small groups of students talking together, sitting together, and lots of movement
around the classroom, often without teacher involvement.

The daily schedule was written on the corner of the blackboard.

9:00 groups

10:15 recess

10:45 music

11:30 lunch

12:15 groups
1:15 reading buddies
1:45 groups

Although the schedule differed each day, to some extent, the inclusion of
groups as the primary activity or method of instruction used in the classroom was
consistent. The absence of designated whole-class time periods was also a consistent
pattern. Mary, a ﬁrst grader, explained, "We have groups and can go to choice,
reading, written work or special." In S.W.’s classroom, students had assigned group
members that they traveled with throughout the day to the four designated group
activities, but students frequently strayed from these groups to observe others, to talk
with the teacher or to leave the room. On the bulletin board near the teacher’s chair
were four pockets of laminated construction paper. In each pocket was a card with
the names of ﬁve, six, seven or eight students on each card. A kitchen timer bell

rang, and Mary, a younger student, walked over to the bulletin board and announced,

89

"It’s time to switch." Nothing happened immediately, but within two minutes,
students began to put away materials and relocate to different areas of the classroom.
Five minutes after Mary had moved the name cards one pocket to the right, S.W.
announced, "O.K., class, it’s time to settle down. I need to see Paul and Hal over
here, please." Some students took papers out of wash tubs and sat in chairs; others
did not move at all. A group of ﬁve girls was joined by two more and began gluing
tongue depressors and toothpicks on paper plates. They were joined by two older
boys who announced that they were in "choice." Choice was a time in S.W.’s class
when students could select their own learning activities within the classroom. It took
ﬁve more minutes for most of the students to sit down in a chair or on the ﬂoor.
When seated in small groups in S.W.’s class, the students were separated from
each other by a number of physical barriers. The classroom had three desks in it,
ﬁve study carrels, seven tables, four dividers, ﬁve storage units and six bookshelves.
Seven distinct areas of the room were divided off. Only one area was large enough
for the entire twenty-four students to gather together. This large group area was
called the "rug" area and consisted of benches arranged in a rectangle around a chair,
facing a blackboard and bulletin board. When all the students were around the "rug"
area, there was insufﬁcient room on the benches, so many sat on tables or
bookshelves when a "class meeting" was held. The classroom arrangement was very
different than the neat rows of desks seen in many elementary classrooms. The room
arrangement, with small tables grouped in a cubicle behind dividers, lent itself to
small group or independent work arrangements. A sketch of the classroom’s physical
arrangement further illustrates how the room was set up to enhance small group

interaction.

 

 

 

 

5.
E:\
U .
a
l—‘T
g
[L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During questioning with S.W., she related,

Frequently using small groups is challenging. The
problem with so many options is keeping students
engaged. When it runs well, students are actively
pursuing information they need; when it’s not, there is a
chaotic feeling. Having small groups as the basis for
instruction can be scattering, but during those moments
it works well, it results in lasting results. I’m always
working on this. The challenge is to have a lot of
centers, with really meaningful activities set up for kids.

Small group instruction was the basic mode of teaching in the multi-age
classroom settings observed. Teacher-directed mini-lessons, as well as student choice
and independent work, made up the majority of student learning experiences.
Teachers planned and arranged classrooms to facilitate student tutoring experiences

and small group cooperative learning.

91

OK, a teacher of a K-1-2 section, organized her classroom in a learning-
center approach. She planned activities in ﬁve or six learning centers as part of each
day’s schedule.

C.K’s classroom was off the ﬁrst ﬂoor corridor, up a half dozen stairs. At
10:00 a.m., four young girls were seated on the ﬂoor in the hall with a pile of
magazines, canisters of paste and a very large sheet of paper. They were cutting and
pasting as they talked about magic stars and pumpkins.

"I need to cut out a pumpkin," said Katrina, a kindergarten student.

"Do you need help?" said a voice from inside the classroom.

"I’ll help you," answered Carol, another kindergartner in the group. Carol cut
out the pumpkin and handed it to Katrina.

Nearby an older boy was reading a story to a younger child; they were both
giggling about "Old Bear" as they turned the pages together. Two girls and one boy
were silently looking at other books. A look inside the room had C.K. sitting at the
writing center with six other students. Several students at C.K.’s table were writing
in notebooks or on loose leaf paper. A table on wheels went by with wood blocks
on top. The children at C.K.’s writing center did not look up as the table rolled by.

CK. got up and walked out into the hallway. A child turned toward her.
"What’s this word?" she asked.

"It’s mountain," replied C.K. "Are you ready to hang up your display?"

The walls of the hallway were covered with a variety of art work and posters.
It was just before Halloween and a wall of jack-o-lanterns made from paper bags
lined on one side of the hall.

The poster, made from the student magazine cutouts, had masks, pumpkins,

92

costumes, food pictures, and other drawings on it. C.K. helped the students tape the
poster at a convenient height for small children to see.

C.K’s K-l-2 classroom size was a little smaller than some of the others in the
building. The class enrolled 23 students in the morning and 18 students in the
afternoon. The ﬁve kindergarten students, referred to by CK. as "morning students,"
attended for a half day only. C.K. referred to her ﬁrst and second graders as "full
day" students, thus avoiding grade labels. What was most striking about C.K.’s class
was that there were no desks for students or the teacher. Instead the room was
arranged by work table areas that C.K. referred to as "centers."

In the listening center, four students were lying all over the table with _
headphones on, listening to a cassette tape. On another table was a science center
with equipment on it: magnets, mirrors, and a magnifying glass. Alongside were
other objects: seashells, bones, hair, a feather, some rice and wood. On a nearby
shelf were plants, a ﬁsh tank and books.

At the art center were easels, paints and brushes, waiting to be used.
Newspapers were spread out nearby on the ﬂoor and old stained "paint shirts" hung
on hooks in a nearby corner.

The teacher sat down at a small round table for a few minutes with two boys
who were writing and illustrating stories about Halloween in their journals. C.K.
praised their efforts. The children eagerly showed their writings to visitors.

Children moved in and out of the room constantly during this period. In spite
of all that was happening, the noise level was quite low. When asked why she
employed small group centers for instruction, C.K. replied:

In a multi-age class grouping, when you organize

93

your room with things that are interesting to kids and
you let them pursue their own interest in learning, the
kids will have their own choices, they will go to their own
spots. I very rarely pull a group in the am. I run am.
like a kindergarten experience play group. I allow
choice, they make decisions on their own.

When C.K. did call work groups together, she selected students with similar
instructional goals for a mini-lesson. For the rest of the centers, however, C.K. was
ﬂexible in the way she places students in groups. She reported that:

I like the opportunity that multi-age grouping
presents for the teacher to do a very intense kind of
instruction with small groups of kids. For example, if
there is something a group of ﬁrst or second graders
need to learn, it is so easy to sit around a table and have
four other students here, as opposed to having 26 and
being in front having to teach all of them the same thing
at the same time.

This practice of forming informal work groups and the frequent use of small
groups in multi-age classrooms was also conﬁrmed by statements made by the
principal, P.O.:

We often use work groups. I have seen teachers
set up small groups and I have seen teachers make
suggestions to kids about removing or including others in
the groups. But, generally, the small groups are
informal.

As the morning proceeded, all of the "centers" were busy with activity. A
parent volunteer supervised the art center with paints of orange and black on the
easels. The cutting and pasting had moved from the hallway onto a table with string,
styrofoam, and tin foil ﬁlled shoe boxes added to the magazine cutouts.

At ﬁrst glance, it seemed as if C.K. had gone. She did not dominate the room;

the children and their activities did. She was seen observing an experiment at the

science center, listening to a discussion at the writing center, and sitting in the

94

teacher’s chair, preparing another activity.
Since the room was divided into a number of interest centers, so richly
equipped that even ﬁve-year-olds could proceed on their own, the teacher was free
to wander around the room, helping as needed and intervening as necessary.
There were rules to govern the small group "centers." A sign above the art
area said, "No more than four students at a time." There was a list on the
chalkboard of the activities for the day and a brief schedule. C.K.’s schedule for the
morning read:
meeting
centers
snack
story
recess

The list of activity centers was also on the chalkboard for the day; it read:
science
listening
art
writing
cut and paste
puzzles

The full-day students are expected to visit at least four centers each day,
according to C.K. Each child comes to the writing center each day. C.K. used work

samples and work folders to check each student’s work completion and progress.

***

95
C.O.’s classroom routine began with a class meeting around 9:00. Over loud
talking, CD. called each student’s name. "Do you have lunch money?" he asked one
boy. "Where is Tim?" he asked the group, but no one responded. "Let’s have it
quiet," said CO. in aloud voice from his usual seat in the rocking chair. C.O. asked
Jeremy to review the schedule for the day. C.O. pointed to Jeremy, who began
reading: "9:00 - meeting; 9:30 - choice; 10:00 - gym; 10:30 - recess; 11:00 - reading;
11:45 - clean-up; 12:00 - lunch; 1:00 - choice."
C.O. described the purpose of the daily schedule:
I generally write on the board a schedule for the
day, a typical day, if I have one. Students have a reading
journal, each has a math journal that they are expected
to work in. The structure is loosely held together, but it
is there to show kids that I care about what they are
23mg. As long as kids are purposeful, I’m not rigid at
CD. had a class meeting in the morning, and this was the only scheduled large
group instruction time of the day. C.O. reported, "Class meetings I really try to
enforce. We talk about the day and take time to interact with each other."
C.O.’s class continued with their meeting. "We will be at choice until 10:00,"
C.O. announced. "What are some good choices?"
"Math!" shouted one boy.
"Drawing," said Jessica.
"Journal," blurted out Dave.
"Legos," said Adam.
C.O. afﬁrmed each choice as acceptable with a nod of the head. He then

announced, "Some of us will be reading. Let’s go to choice now."

The students dispersed to many areas of the classroom, and four or ﬁve boys

96
extended their activity into the hallway where J .G.’s class was building with blocks and

ﬂying paper air planes.

John, a ﬁrst grader from J .G.’s class, described his day. "These are my best
points," he said, about the building blocks. "1 like choice time," offered John.
"Sometimes everyone has to do things like science and circle time."

Back in C.O.’s classroom, the noise level was high and the activity level was
frantic. The furniture from the kitchen area was being rearranged, shoved into the
corner by two girls, who wanted to use the climber. A small argument broke out.

"Zack is the dumbest kid in the world," said one of the girls.

C.O. intervened. "How can we work together?" he asked. "Share some space
together and see if it will work."

C.O. explained the effect of the noise level when so many small group and
individual choice activities were going on simultaneously. "Noise is a bigger issue,"
explained C.O. "It’s a philosophical thing. I feel like children need to move, they will
learn better when they are more active. Motion is tied to how much students are
going to remember."

C.O. returned to the rocking chair. Seven students were seated on the couch
or on benches in the meeting area. C.O. leaned over and picked up an Arabian
Nights picture book. He began reading and showing the pictures to the group. Five
of the seven were intently listening. The other two were drawing pictures. In other
sections of the room, two boys and two girls were making a graph, using graph paper,
of how far their paper airplanes ﬂew. Some of this group had been in the hall earlier
and one girl explained that this was their "math journal." One of the other boys

reached in a ﬁle box on the shelf and proudly produced his "math journal" that

97

contained drawings and graph paper. Around a large table in the back of the room,
seven girls had a container of beans and a box of geometric shapes on the table.
Some were counting, others watching, and three others were talking about a stuffed
animal named "Hopper" that one student had brought from home.

Part of the class group was still in the hall. Talk was going on all the time in
the hall and in the classroom. The children seemed to know just what they wanted
to do, where to get material, and how to conduct themselves. It felt as if the students
were in control of this classroom, that it was their room. Except for an occasional
command from the teacher, a "Be quiet" or "Put that over there" or "John come
here," there was little teacher intervention.

As 10:00 arrived, an adult entered the room. "Time for art," announced a
student. C.O. moved toward the door and instructed the students to "get in line," a
seemingly uncharacteristic command. C.O. explained that these changes in activity
are difﬁcult for his class. "I use my voice. Sometimes use the lights. Kids don’t like
transitions."

The art teacher led a mass of students from the quickly disintegrating line
down the hall. Some students were left behind, putting away materials, looking for
their shoes, and talking with CD. It took ﬁve more minutes before all the students
had left the room. C.O. announced that he was "on break" and disappeared across
the hall.

In C.O.’s class, there seemed to be a plan of the day, but few ﬁxed periods.
The ﬁxed periods appeared to be morning meeting, the "specials" of music/art and
gym, lunch period, and recess period.

In C.O.’s class, there seemed to be no time schedule for rotation of work

98

activities or a time frame for work completion. At any point in the day, a child would
pick up where they had left off after a ﬁxed period or would begin a new activity.
Students were free to select working partners or to work alone during choice periods.
During most observation periods, students were all engaged with at least one other
classmate. There were some individuals working alone with a writing task or on the
computer. But rarely were they alone for more than a few minutes; others would
wander in and out, curiously observing their activity or would engage them with
questions or comments. C.O.’s class was the least teacher-structured of the
classrooms observed. The math and reading periods on the schedule were not
observably different than the other choice periods. The in-classroom time was
observed to be a continuous ﬂow of student activity except for the ﬁxed periods in
the schedule.

Using yet another system for small groups, J .G. explained in an interview how
she regrouped students on a day-to-day basis, in an approach that combined group
rotation in subject area time blocks and student assigned small groups that changed
as projects are determined or problems arise. She explained:

Four groups of students (six or seven per group)
rotate to four different activities: reading, math, choice,
and writing. We rotate activities in blocks. We average
around 30 minutes, but it varies. This way I reassure
myself that there is a daily focus.

Although the use of small group instruction was a pattern common to multi-
age classes at Hill School, the variety of formats used by the teachers in planning
their day was vast. No two classes, even in the same school, were exactly alike in the

way that small group instruction was organized. Some teachers consciously formed

small work groups of students that traveled together throughout the day from activity

99

to activity. Other teachers limited the numbers of students at any activity area,
learning center or station, but allowed students to form their own groups for the most
part, calling together certain students for speciﬁc instruction. Others planned
individual contracts and then allowed students to form their own groups and select
their own activities without a scheduled rotation. Others combined these approaches
to small group instruction.

Rationale for Small Group Organization

Teachers at Hill School utilized small group instruction to enable them to
manage classrooms where varied student ages, needs, and interests are represented.
Other reasons for the utilization of small group organization included the usefulness
of small group interactions to foster the development of social skills and the
opportunities that small group work presented to accommodate individual differences.
Teachers also utilized small group organization to enable them to employ
instructional methods that enhanced instruction for the older students and that
allowed for intensive work with student groups that needed direct teacher
intervention. Examples of these strategies and examples of small group learning in
action illustrate the fundamental for the use of this type of classroom organization
by teachers.

Teachers decided to use small groups as the primary method of teaching and
learning in multi-age classrooms because small groups helped students develop social
skills as well as cognitive skills. During "choice," Nicki was sitting in a bean bag chair
when she was approached by Judy and Mary from her small group. Judy and Mary
had play plates and cereal boxes from the kitchen area. "Do you like Fruit L00ps?"

asked Judy. "We’re playing cooking," she continued. "Here is the menu." Nicki

100
looked at the menu written on a piece of construction paper. The two girls asked
Nicki what she wanted to order. I asked them about their activity, and the girls
explained that they were waitresses and that Nicki was ordering from the menu. The
three girls poured coffee and juice and said the cereal names. The "choice"
interaction demonstrated social learning of relationships, community experiences and
appropriate play skills.

S.W. described the need for students to be able to engage in play and express
their feelings to peers in order to grow socially. When asked about the social beneﬁts
of small groups made up of different ages, S.W. explained:

The class works better when students feel free to talk to
peers about their feelings and experiences. I encourage
students to express their viewpoints. This is easier to do

in smaller groups. Smaller groups where students are
familiar with each other are safer.

At the "special" area, Polly, an older girl, and Nicki, a younger girl, sat with
their group working with rubber bands on geoboards. Randy, the older boy in the
group, joined into a discussion. "Randy likes girls," announced Polly. "He is deﬁnitely
cool," said Nicki. Randy, looking red in the face, denied any embarrassment. "I don’t
like girls," he said, "except as friends." Social conversations frequently occurred
during small group instruction. S. W. overheard the above conversation and did not
comment. Talking was allowed during small group activities, even if the conversation
was not directly related to the designed activity. S. W. recognized the value of "social
conversation" during a formal interview:

Students deﬁnitely need to have the freedom to share
social ideas and to do it without adult intervention.

Children have so many ideas that they need to express.

S.W. used a class meeting to describe student roles and responsibilities for

101

helping others. She asked the class, "How many learners are in this class?" A
student responded, "Twenty-ﬁve." "Well, there are twenty-six learners in this class."
She identiﬁed herself as a learner, too. "We have twenty-six learners and twenty-six
teachers in this class," said S.W. "We all need to help each other learn about people,
as well as learn new things. Throughout the year, the class works on how to be good
teachers as well as how to be good friends."

During an interview with a small group of students, the children were asked,
"What does it mean to be a friend?" "A friend is someone who cares about you and
is nice to you," said Maria. "It’s someone you can tell your secrets to," said Mary.
"Mike is my friend," said Ha]. The students in the class talked openly about
friendship and expressed the importance of having friends. The students generally
named more than one friend in the class.

Social skill learning was an area of emphasis for instruction in this multi-age
classroom. Students played a role in selecting small group members and
demonstrated an ability to interact socially with their peers in the classroom.
Teachers used small groups as the primary mode of instruction because small groups
provide an orderly way of accommodating the range of levels of academic
achievement among the students. Small groups were used to challenge the older,
more capable students as well as to enable older students to help younger students
learn.

When asked why small groups were seen as an effective method of student
instruction, S.W. stated,

Any honest teacher will admit that even if they have the

same age in a classroom, they still have a range of three
to four years in terms of skill development anyway. So,

102
the only honest way to teach to that is in small group or
individually so you might as well make it socially
comfortable.
S.W. went on to explain,

In a multi-age class, by using small groups, you can
expand the range more because you have the advantage
of a family grouping practice where you can keep the
same students in the same classroom for two or three
years. This a tremendous advantage for both kids and
teachers, and you lose less time.

In a multi-age setting, the teachers used small group instruction to enable
more capable students to help less able students, to make schoolwork more socially
comfortable, and to organize the class into content areas for instruction. In addition,
the teachers planned activities for the older and more able students in order to
challenge these students. In multi-age classes, when the teacher is instructing younger
students in reading, writing and basic computations, older students worked
independently with peers or in small groups.

S.W. assigned a group task so that older students worked on independent
projects related to their interests. "Alright, everyone," announced S.W., "we are going
to second group. Listen, everybody, one...two...three...four...O.K., real quiet. We are
going to second group, but for written work, I need to see Nicki and Beth." S.W.
called over the two younger girls from the group and had them sit down by her chair.
She then gave directions to Mark, Mary, Bill and Jody, the older group members.
"Please give me your packets, " said S.W. as she collected their papers. "I want you
to work on your journals," said S.W. to the two boys. "Mark did a wonderful job on

this one, then you can work on your fair project." She gave the two girls math books

and opened the book to the pages she wanted them to work on. Then, S.W. rejoined

103

Nicki and Beth. The older students talk about their journals, followed by ten minutes
of silence except for some moving of chairs. The teacher had materials ready for the
older students to work on individually while she was working with younger students.
Open-ended writing assignments, project work, working with partners and workbook
assignments made up the activities assigned to older students to challenge them. In
multi-age classes, particular attention was paid to the needs of these older students
to insure that their educational needs are met.
at at it

When a group was working on a measuring lesson, Pat, Jeff and Tim struggled
to measure the length of a list of classroom objects that were written on the board.
Bill, an older student, was approached by S.W. She explained that while the others
were measuring the length of objects, Bill could make up a worksheet for the others
to use the next day. Bill went about the room ﬁnding objects, writing down their
measurements and writing down questions on a ditto. The questions included: What
object is ﬁve inches long? The list of choices included a desk, a door, a pencil, a
paper clip. How far is it from the computer to the windows? Choices were three
feet, ﬁve feet, 100 feet. Bill, a third grader, developed a list of ﬁve questions. He
was helped by S.W. to phrase the questions. He checked three times during a
twenty-minute period with S.W. The questions he made up were to be used as the
lesson for the next day for the younger students.

When Judy and Tom, two older students, were in their written work small
group, S.W. brought out a math workbook for each of them to work on. She
assigned pages that involved multiplication and gave them instructions to work

together on the problems assigned. S.W. checked on their progress during the lesson

104

period and collected their pages at the end of the small group session. The younger
students, during this lesson, worked with S.W. on the concept of greater than and less
than with manipulative materials from the Math Their Way program.

In an interview with S.W., she described how she planned to build on subjects
to stretch older students.

You can never know everything there is to know about
a subject. The important thing is for students to be
engaged in learning, learning how to learn, being
interested in learning. I do a little pull out thing with
the ﬁrst graders, practicing writing numbers or letters.
The other students and I agree on project work they can
do individually or with a friend, and if they are not
engaged, I have a backup task in mind.

The teacher planned for individual work for older and more capable students
in the classroom. In addition to the independent and small group-assigned tasks, the
teacher also expected older children to help students who were younger or less able.
S.W. described how she planned for older children.

I worry about stretching the older students, so I plan
mini-lessons and then have a spiral notebook for journal
writing and math sheets for them to work on
independently or in small groups.

Other teachers expressed similar concerns about insuring that the more
advanced students were challenged. L. B. described how she challenged her students:

I change the expectations for things, like book
reports. For kids that are advanced, I make sure I stay
in touch with their levels, their interests. I have higher

expectations for some students in the quality, quantity
and difﬁculty of the work I assign.

P.O. expressed a concern about overuse of older students in a tutoring role.

P.O. explained:

Just because you have multi-age, you don’t want

105
to use the older kids to do all of the teaching. We need

to make sure that the older students get what they need
from the teacher.

Other teachers planned independent work projects for older students in their
class. C.O. utilized contracts with older students in his K-1-2 classroom to challenge
more capable students to take on difﬁcult projects.

a a :-

C.O. sat next to Joan, an eight-year-old, on the couch in the classroom. He
was reviewing her "portfolio" with her. Joan’s portfolio consisted of two watercolor
pictures, four illustrated stories that Joan had written, and some pictures from a
magazine. Joan is overheard telling C.O. that she wants "to be a teacher some day."

The theme of Joan’s work is a collection of ﬂowers. Watercolor pictures show
colorful ﬂowers and rainbows. Joan’s stories are about ﬂower buds turning into
bloom and a sunﬂower that turns into a giant plant. C.O. gave Joan directions about
her next assignment. C.O. explained to Joan that she is "responsrble enough to go
to the library" to get a book about plants or ﬂowers and to continue with a written
report about the subject. Joan evidently had never done this before and asks CO.
to go with her. C.O. enlisted the help of another girl to accompany Joan to her
destination. The two headed out of the room without delay.

a lit at:

In C.K.’s class, at the science center, the teacher called over a group of four
to a lesson on measurement. There were ditto sheets passed out by Julia, who said
she was seven years old. On the table were rulers made of cardboard with eight

marks on them that approximate inches, and assorted objects. In a pile in the center

of the table were paper clips, pencils, peanuts (in the shell), spoons, a screwdriver

106

and a pair of scissors. CK. demonstrated how to measure each object and enter the
corresponding number on the ditto sheet next to the object pictured. Instructions
were given to "Put your name on the top," and then the activity began in earnest.
The four students called to the center were the largest physically in the room, all four
girls, and each was able to write the numbers on the ditto without reversals. The
four girls were joined by three other students from the class, who stood behind the
seated workers, looking over their shoulders in silence. The entire activity took less
than ﬁve minutes and was followed by a question-and-answer session with C.K.
Which thing was the longest? How long was it? Which was the shortest? The
questions continued of the four participants. They were then given instructions to
ﬁnd other objects to measure and to write down the length of each on a paper that
was left at the science center. C.K. said she was available to help with the words.
at! a It!

In other classrooms, older students spent time with teachers during small
group teacher-directed lessons. In J .B.’s class, seven students were seated around a
box of leaves that had been collected on a prior day by students in the class. These
students were identifying leaf types and pressing the leaves in books with labels
written on small pieces of paper. J. B. showed the group how to look up the type of
leaf in the (ioldgLBook that he was holding. He pointed out the shapes, teeth and
veins in the leaves and compared the specimens to the pictures. J. B. had a
collection pressed in a book from a prior year that he also offered as a resource for
identiﬁcation of the types. Meanwhile other students were engaged in other areas
of the classroom, without intervention from the teacher.

J .3. described how he can work with advanced groups while maintaining

107

meaningful experiences for other students:

Children are encouraged to make use of resources
other than the teacher. The children are sufﬁciently
independent to allow me time to concentrate on
individual children, or work with small groups. Each
child’s pace is different.

A teacher spending time with advanced small group work yields advantages
for the other students in the class, according to the teachers at Hill. Virtually every
teacher noted that students would observe the lessons being taught and would beneﬁt
from a "preview" of future instruction. The pattern that emerged from observations
was one of the younger students watching the teacher and the older students as
instruction was underway. This "preview" of upcoming learning was consistently
pointed to as a beneﬁt for younger students when small group organization was
employed in multi-age classes.

How Small Groups Are Formed

The primary organizational structure for instruction in a multi-age classroom
involves students working in small groups. When forming groups, the teachers took
into account the social compatibility of the students as well as factors such as gender,
age, and ability. Information obtained through the data collection process illustrated
how teachers form small groups and documented the considerations used by the staff
when planning student work groups for instruction.

at! lit at

"It’s time to re-seat people," announced LB. "Monica has raised a concern

that this is the second year she has been in the same area. My concern is that I want

to have you choose your seating, but I also want you to meet new kids." She

continued, "I see that students I had last year are seated together, and the new kids

108

are seated together. I want to mix you up so you get to know each other."

Dan spoke up. "I don’t want to be with Jake. I want to be with Luke and
Sean. I want at least one old friend."

Jill raised her hand to speak. "Our table has new kids as well as us. It already
looks mixed up."

L.B. interrupted, "Put two other things in mind. I don’t want all boys at one
table or all girls. I want to keep at least a friend with a friend."

"I feel lonely back here in the corner," said Ben. "I want to move."

L.B. continued, "I want to do it this week. I’ll give us time to think about it.
I’ll get back with you. When do you want to discuss it again? How many want to
discuss it today?" asked L.B.

Fifteen student raised their hands.

"How many want to discuss it tomorrow," asked L.B.

Four students raised their hands.

"O.k., we’ll talk about it for 10 minutes after art." The students were then
dismissed.

The previous scenario in L.B.’s class described one type of whole class activity
that was characteristic of multi-age classes: the class meeting. In the context of this
example, certain factors were reviewed that teachers consider when forming small
groups. In LB.’s scenario, she considered the gender of the child and her desire to
have new students work together while maintaining at least one friend in the group.
These considerations are part of a consistent pattern used by teachers that
deliberately match small groups for instructional purposes. In addition, L.B.

described other factors she considers when forming student work groups.

109
Within the classroom when making small groups, like six

people at a table, I almost always intentionally mix the
ages to try to get them to have a model to look over at.

The teachers at Hill School considered many factors when forming small
groups that travel together throughout the daily routine or for specialized
instructional periods. There was, however, a tendency to avoid formal roles in
groups.

In her description of cooperative groups, P.O., the principal, described how
cooperative grouping at Hill differed from the formal system described in the
education literature:

Most of the models for cooperative grouping
taught in inservice are very structured and teacher
oriented. The concept of cooperative learning is one we
believe in. We do expect students to work with each
other. But, I don’t believe in the rigid roles in the,
quote, cooperative grouping. You have to be the

timekeeper, you’re the recorder. Our process is much
more ﬂexible.

In an interview with S.W., she described the considerations she used to form
the work groups.
The social consideration is probably the number one
consideration in forming groups, but I also try to see that
they have someone who is compatible as a working
person. I try to have three or four persons who are
advanced and do independent work in with a couple of
students who are low down on the spectrum and need a
lot of attention.
In forming small groups, both S.W. and J .B. stated that they tried to have a
combination of able and less able workers in each group. In addition, S.W. took the

age of the students into consideration when forming groups. "I like to have at least

a two-year range, and at this time in the year, each group has three ages in it."

110

When Nicki was asked who was in her group, her response was "my friends."
When asked why her friends were in the group, Mark interrupted with, "I picked
Paul." The students had a role in developing the small group makeup.

In a formal interview with S.W., she described the students’ role in forming
81011135,

Students have input into who is in their group.
Friendship is the major criteria for group formation. I
tell students to put down on a piece of paper the names
of two or three friends they would like to work with. I
tell them I’ll do my best, but I’ll make sure at least one
of their choices is represented. Social thinking is number
one in group formation.

As the teacher in a multi-age classroom selected students for small groups,
social considerations, the age of the students and student preference were taken into
account in creating the small groups that are the basis for student instruction in the
classroom.

Other Instructional Practices

The use of the small group instructional format dominated the school day for
students in multi-age classrooms. Within these small instructional groups, teachers
employed other instructional practices to enhance the operation of the classroom and
to maximize student learning. Contained in the following section of the chapter are
examples of situations that illustrate and analyze the use of these practices.

Instructional practices in the multi-age classrooms observed included the use
of student tutoring and peer empowerment strategies to enhance instruction for all
students. Teachers used class lessons for one group as previews of future instruction

for other students.

The multi-age classrooms observed were set up to allow students to engage

111

in play activities that were self selected. In these classes, time was set aside for
students to play with each other. Student play was viewed as being of legitimate
educational value.

Teachers in multi-age classes did use a limited amount of large group or whole
class instruction for speciﬁc purposes. These whole class meeting sessions were
generally used to review rules, go over procedures or introduce new instructional
units. Occasionally, classes joined together to hear speakers, attend assemblies or
observe lessons that were difﬁcult or time consuming to set up.

Teachers utilized various methods to evaluate student progress and report
learning outcomes to parents. Assessment of student outcomes was closely tied to
daily instruction. There was little evidence that teachers used standardized
achievement testing for student grouping, instructional planning or student evaluation.

Illustrations of how the instructional methods and practices that were
frequently observed in multi-age classes operate are provided under topic headings
in this section. Teachers relied heavily on peer tutoring and cross age tutoring
experiences to enhance student learning and to enable individual differences to be
accommodated. Student-helping-student strategies were used in a variety of ways at
Hill School. These strategies are described and analyzed under the ﬁrst topic
heading.

Contained under the topic heading of "Students Preview Future Instruction"
are illustrations of how teachers utilize opportunities for students to preview future
instruction to help students learn. This technique particularly assisted the younger
students in the class to get prepared for new learning experiences.

Descriptions of student "play" activities are described and analyzed under the

112

third topic heading. Reasons given that relate to the importance of play for the
social and cognitive growth of children are reported.

The section entitled "Whole Class Instruction" contains information about the
types and purposes of large group instruction in multi-age settings. Described in this
section are the class meetings and orientation activities that teachers schedule.

Reported under the ﬁnal topic heading in this section are data describing the
ways that teachers evaluate student progress in multi-age classes. Reasons for the
use of speciﬁc evaluation practices are reported and analyzed.

Students Help Students Learn

Teachers in a multi-age classroom setting exhibited patterns in their
instructional planning that utilized small group instruction to facilitate student
interactions. Students were frequently observed to be helping each other with
teacher-assigned or self-selected schoolwork. This pattern included older students
helping younger students in the "reading buddies" program. "Reading buddies" was
a school-wide, formal teacher-designed program where students of different ages and
different classroom levels were purposely paired together for reading instruction.
This pattern of older students helping younger students was also frequently observed
within each classroom group. Similar age students were also frequently observed to
be working together in a "peer tutoring" format within each classroom. To a much
lesser extent, instances of younger students helping older students in academic and
social situations were also observed. A pattern emerged from these observations of
multi-age classes that demonstrates that students are expected to help each other
learn, that teachers provided direct instruction to students on how to help each other

meet learning goals, and that teachers consciously utilize student-to-student

113

interactions as one of the primary methods of instruction in multi-age classrooms.
When engaged in small groups in a multi-age class, older students, and
students who are more capable at school work, ﬁnd themselves helping other students
who are younger or less competent in academic skill areas. In order to take
advantage of this student-to-student helping role, the teacher planned lessons to teach
students how to help each other with academic assignments. Students in the multi-
age classrooms received direct instruction from the teacher on how to help other

students with class work.

Danny and Mark are classmates in a multi-age classroom for six- through nine-
year-olds. They frequently sit next to each other during a learning period called
written work. Danny, the older of the two children, reads Mark directions for
assignments during written work and other periods of the small group assigned times.
Danny and Mark sat next to each other at a table in the center of the room. The
total instructional period lasted thirty minutes.

About ﬁve minutes after the teacher directed a change of activities, both boys
were seated with paper and pencil, as well as ditto sheets that were in their reading
and writing assignments. Each student had a different ditto sheet. Mark’s
assignment was to ﬁnish a sentence by ﬁlling in the missing word from a list of words
on the paper. Danny was to ﬁnish an open-ended story that began with a starter
sentence.

"How do you do this?" asked Mark. Danny told him to write in the word that
ﬁts. After a few minutes of silence, Danny got up and returned with another paper

from his work tub. "I don’t know this word," said Mark. He repeated this again.

114

"It’s enemy," said Danny. The two boys continued to sit quietly, looking around the
room, occasionally writing or erasing on their paper. After a few minutes, S.W., the
teacher, stood behind the boys. "Are you having trouble with the words, Mark?"
asked the teacher. "Is Danny helping you?" Mark nods. "That’s great," says S.W.
She went on to explain, "When Mark doesn’t know a word, we can help him by
having him try to say the word, rather than telling him what the word is." She went
on to find a word that Mark did not know. "Can you help him with this one?" asked
S.W. "Is it splake?" Mark asked. "No," said Danny. "Sploke?" guessed Mark. S.W.
reinforced him for a good try, then read the whole sentence to see if sense could be
made of the word in context. The sample was: He _ to the class about his trip.
S.W. explained that if you try to say the word, and then you try to read the sentence
to make sense of the word, and you still do not know what it is, then it is alright to
tell him the word. This ﬁve-minute segment ended with S.W. telling the word to
Mark. Instances like this were consistently observed throughout the school day.
It: a lit

In C.K.’s class, a young boy (six years old) was copying words from the board
onto a piece of paper. C.K. had written "Dear Shana, please come on Friday." The
boy slowly copied the words off of the board and gave the paper to C.K., who put it
in an envelope and gave instructions to Jenny to "Bring this to L.L.’s class." C.K.
explained that Shana was Bobby’s ready buddy and that Friday was a special day
when Bobby’s father would be at school. Bobby wanted his father to meet his

reading buddy.

A group of four kindergartners from C.K.’s class proceeded down the hall to

115
L.L.’s room. L.L.’s class was waiting for their reading partners at 10: 15. "Please
come and read to me," said one of the students, and the pair walked into the hallway
and around the corner. A 4th grader, Leslie, had selected a picture book to read to
her partner. They spent 30 minutes together talking about the pictures.

C.K. described one of her feelings about the olders working with youngers
experience:

I do believe that older students helping my kids is
a tremendous way to learn to read. We take advantage
of what we call reading buddies with the 4th and 5th
grade class.

L.L. described an unanticipated beneﬁt of the reading buddies program:

I have some kids that ﬁnd it difﬁcult to read with
the teacher. They are shy and very anxious about their
reading. When my 4th and 5th graders do reading
buddies with C.K.’s class (K-1-2), all I have to do is get
nearby and listen and it gives me a feel for where they
are in their reading.

The olders helping youngers pattern extended beyond the formal reading
buddies activity into other aspects of the school day. 00. described how he utilized
upper elementary students, "I can always use another pair of hands. I have upper
elementary students help with big projects, like bulletin boards, charts or displays."
O.K. described how students from a 3rd and 4th grade class help her early
elementary students, "The older children help students that don’t have the ﬁne motor
control, that can’t put on a rubber band or that can’t mix the paint."

An example of this occurrence in C.K’s class involved Jessica, a 4th grader,

who according to OK, "Needs opportunities to be creative in a non-threatening

environment."

116

At the art station, C.K’s students were making pumpkins, cutting out the
shapes for the eyes, nose and mouth and then gluing them on a pumpkin shape and
decorating the project. Jessica, a 4th grader, was helping. She would help some
students with cutting, got more paste out of the canister, and helped students put
their ﬁnished project away in their "cubby" after it was done. After Jessica had
ﬁnished helping the other children at the art center, she approached the teacher, and
asked, "Could I make one, too?" C.K. agreed and Jessica began her creation.

C.K. explained how the older students reacted to their tutoring role:

L.L. has some low readers and reading to my
kindergartners builds their self-esteem. They can read
these books. My kindergartners have no way of knowing
that these simple books are at their reading level.

LL. described how she saw the experience with tutoring helping the older
students.

Sometimes, there are more beneﬁts for the older
than the younger kids. It gives them a chance to read
something simple without any sigma attached. It also
helps older kids develop a better attitude toward
younger kids. When they see a younger kid getting
picked on on the playground, and it’s their reading
buddy, they try to help them. We get sociological value
from cross-age grouping.

Both formally and informally, older students in a multi-age classroom served

as models for younger students. Younger students mimic the behavior of the olders,

and the teachers model behavior for all the students. Modelling occurs in academic
settings as well as during social settings. Younger students also shared ideas with the
older students. The music teacher, W.L., explained his observation:

The younger kids learn from the olders, too. The

young ones come up with an idea. The olders say,
"What?" But after a while they see that it’s a viable

117

idea.

An example of how peer helping occurred outside of the classroom setting was
observed at recess. Two younger girls were chasing each other around the
playground and went outside of the fence. Tim, a third grader in LB..’s class called
to them, took one of the girls by the arm and brought her inside the fence. "What
are the rules?" asked Tim. "We don’t ﬁght," responded one girl. "Stay in the fence?"
questioned the other. "I’m taking you off to prison," said Tim, who took them by the
hand, running toward the climbing set. Tim helped the young girls review the rules
and then diverted them to another activity. When asked why he did that, he said,
"The teacher said I should help the other kids learn the rules and stuff."

a Ii! it

During another instance in a classroom, students helped each other learn
classroom rules and procedures. The bathroom in S.W.’s classroom had a sign next
to the door. On one side of the sign was the picture of a stop sign and the word
"stop;" on the other side was a green circle and the word "go." An older girl walked
into the bathroom and found it to be occupied once she was inside. She quickly went
back out and was immediately followed by a first grade girl who was exiting the
bathroom. Rachel, the older girl, said, "When you go in the bathroom, you’re
suppose to put over the stop sign." Rachel demonstrated for the younger girl by
turning the sign to "stop." "That way I know somebody’s in there. And when you
leave the bathroom, you ﬂip it to ‘go.’" The students helped each other in both

academic and social skill instruction.

During a class meeting, S.W. demonstrated for the class a way to help a friend

118
when they were having "trouble" with the rules. S.W. described to the class a "real
quick ﬂair-up" where two students were chasing each other around the room. "It is
a right we have to all be safe. What could have happened by the chasing?"
Numerous students raised their hands. She called on Dan. "They could have
bumped their heads." "We shouldn’t stick out our foot," said another girl. "We have
rules for good reasons," S.W. explained. "Everyone has the right to be safe, and we
have to help each other to respect that right." An older boy stated that when he sees
someone not being safe, he walks away and tells a teacher. Another student said
they should sit quietly for a few minutes. S.W. recognized these as good strategies
to use when people are not following safety rules. The teacher used the class
meeting to explain classroom rules and procedures and to model for the students
ways to intervene without getting angry.
In his formal interview, J .B. explained,

We are modeling for the kids, too; the teachers are

models, too. We can show them that when things don’t

go their way, don’t get angry; they watch how the teacher

handles the behavior and learns from the teacher how to

handle conﬂict.

Not only the teacher, but the students in multi-age classrooms play an

important role in helping each other learn in both school achievement areas and

social skill development. J .B. explained that for the third and fourth graders, helping

ﬁrst graders clearly has beneﬁts for both groups.

It helps the younger kids by seeing a model. It also
helps my kids (fourth graders). It gives them the
responsibility and helps reinforce their learning. They
practice their skills, they need to put the information in
a way that reaches the younger people, and this takes a
lot of thought.

119
In each classroom at Hill School, teachers structured options for buddy reading
and other projects where older students could work with younger students in a one-
on-one or a one-on-two setting. Every so often there are structured activities where
there was a project that formally paired up older students from J .B.’s room to teach
youngster students from S.W.’s room. The examples given by J .B. included a
measuring project and a shopping-with-money project where his students designed
the activity and took the responsibility for teaching one or two ﬁrst or second graders
how to use a measuring devise or count money to make purchases. J .B. explained
the beneﬁts of olders helping youngers.
The older kids with a little more experience can model
or guide the younger kids through the activity. With
peer helpers, you can do more active hands-on learning.
Because they all get hands on, and it’s not just the

teacher showing or saying, ‘Do this; do that.’ It helps me
be able to individualize.

In S.W.’s class, an older fourth grade student sat with Nicki, a ﬁrst grade girl,
as part of a "reading buddy" activity. S.W. announced, "If you need a reading buddy,
come to this table. Silent reading is next door." The fourth grader and Nicki sit
under the table with a commercial trade book. S.W. offered that "Nicld is one of my
youngest; she was just ﬁve when she entered the classroom. She needs to be read
to." Nicki listened to W as the fourth grader read. "The last page
is going to be funny," said the older girl. Both girls laugh and then Nicki took the
book over to another girl, who was seated nearby. "The last page is funny," said
Nicki as she opens it in the face of her friend. Nicld’s behavior copied that of the

older student she was reading with.

120

Activities are planned throughout the day so that olders help youngers learn.
When S.W. gave out a ditto on silly stories, she told Mary to help Nicki with the story
starter. Mary began to read the story starter to Nicki. "I saw a silly being . . ." It’s
not an earth person," said Nicki. Mary wrote down the words that Nicki just said.
S.W. told me, "Nicki is the youngest child in the class; she needs someone to read to
her and write down her story." Mary continued to write down N icki’s response to the
story starter. S.W. reviewed the work a few minutes later. She directed Mary to read
the story that Nicki had just "written" back to her. After Mary did this, Nicki colored
the picture.

Three times per week these teachers planned for reading buddies. Fourth and
ﬁfth grade volunteers would come into S.W.’s classroom. The students in S.W.’s class
would choose a reading buddy from the older group. They did not have to select an
older partner but were encouraged to do so. The partners would select a trade book
from the shelf. On this occasion, Marla, a fourth grader, brought a book with her.
Marla asked Nicki if she wanted to read with her. The brightly illustrated story was
WWW. Marla said she got it from her mom’s store. She
sat down at the table and read aloud to Nicki.

In addition to the reading buddies activity, the two classes also planned for a
book discussion group, made up of a mixed-age group from the two classes. These
groups meet weekly to discuss a book they have been reading. S.W. explained, "The
older students read to themselves, the younger ones are read to at home, or we set
aside time during the day for one of J .B.’s students to come and read to the children

in my class during reading time." The discussion group allowed for modeling to occur

121

and built interest in reading for both the older and younger participants, according

to S.W.

In C.O.’s class, four students from a 3-4 class across the hall came in each day
to help during choice time. Amy, a 3rd grader, used to be in C.O.’s class and now
she came in to help each day. In doing so, she "gets what she needs," according to
C.O., because she still has the need to play and do hands-on activities due to her
maturation level. C.O. stated. "She can do that for 15 minutes, sometimes up to one
hour, each day. She gets her needs met while playing a helper role," according to the
teacher.

Amy and three other students took direction from CD. "Go help in the
computer area," he directed. One of the volunteer helpers was directed to help
James and Tim with their graphs. Amy pulled a puzzle of the United States oﬁ the
shelf and joined another table of children who are playing Shark Attack, a board
game. Amy eventually joined in the fast-paced game. She rolled the dice and called
out the colors as the boys moved their game pieces around the board.

O.K. shared the perception of many teachers that cross-age/cross-class
experiences are positive, but injects a caution:

There is an opportunity for older children to
share and nurture. They grow from it. But, the olders
are not always reinforcing their learning or learning
something new if the 5th graders are helping ﬁrst graders
all the time.
In addition to teacher planned cross-class tutoring and programs like reading

buddies, there were also examples of informal, same-age peer and cross-age tutoring

and modeling occurring within the classrooms.

122

***

Michael, Raphael and Susan sprawled on the ﬂoor by the teacher’s chair in
C.K.’s room. "We practice our words whenever we want," announced Susan,
beginning to say words out loud as she wrote them in a spiral notebook. Raphael
said this was his journal. "King," said Susan as she wrote it in her journal. Michael
and Raphael wrote quickly to catch up. "Best," said Susan. The boys wrote it down.
Lauren and Katie joined the group, lying stomach down on the vinyl ﬂoor. "I have
40 words in all," announced Susan. Lauren and Katie were younger than the rest of
the group. They had no paper or pencil. "Hat is so easy to spell," said Michael as
he wrote in his journal. The three older students continued with a few more words,
counted the words on their list, and moved on to another activity at the writing
center.

Katie and Lauren got paper and markers off the shelf and began to say words
and write them on their papers, imitating the activity the older students had just
completed. They started with their names, then added tree (spelled to) and table
(spelled the) and the name Zack, which they copied off the blackboard. The two
girls checked each other’s list.

"Boys and girls, it’s time to go," announced OK. "We will have a snack when
we get back from the library."

The girls left their paper and markers on the nearby bench and headed toward

the door where C.K. was standing.

In C.O.’s class, Brandon, Gary and Ron worked together on a math lesson.

It was a ditto page where you found the answer to an addition or subtraction problem

123

and then used the number to break a code and ﬁnd the mystery message. Brandon
began by giving the answers to the ﬁrst two problems and showed each boy the
corresponding letter that went in the blank.

"Do you see how to do it?" he asked. Ron gave a nod and solved the next
addition problem by counting on his ﬁngers. "It’s o.k. to use your ﬁngers," said
Brandon.

The problems proved more difﬁcult for Gary, who constantly looked at Ron’s
paper and copied the answers. "Guess who is a math whiz?" said the message once
it was ﬁnally completed. "Do you care if I copy yours?" asked Gary. "It’s o.k.," said
Ron.

Clara and Nicki, both 1st graders, watched Rebecca use parquet blocks in
S.W.’s room. "That looks like a ﬂower," said Clara. "When you get ﬁnished with that
can you help me? Can you give me an idea?" she asked again.

"How do you like this, Clara?" asked Nicki.

"You’re the world’s greatest artist," said Clara.

Once Rebecca ﬁnished her ﬂower, she looked at Clara. "Do you want to
make one? You can use my design."

Clara began to copy the design with the pattern blocks. Rebecca picked out
the colors and shapes that would replicate her design.

J .G. offered her perception of when students helping students occurs. "In this
classroom, I don’t have to conger it up. It happens quite naturally because they are
sharing the space." As a teacher of kindergartners, J .G. explained the beneﬁts that

mixed age students bring to the classroom environment:

124
Your kindergartners grow into things. They sit by

other kids and learn from them. You’re free to quit
stewing around with so much worry about direct
instruction and showing kids how to do things. They
have role models.

R.Z. described her approach:

If someone asks me how to do something and I
know there is someone in the room that can do it, I’ll
tell the child to go ask So-and-So. I don’t actually
structure it to say that right now he is going to teach you
to do X.

R.Z. went on to describe the beneﬁtsr of the reading buddies program for her
upper elementary students:

Our class does do learning buddies. They do
great! For some of my older kids, it forces them to
attend to reading more. Reading to a lst or 2nd grader
reinforces reading skills that they have. They get to
practice more.

The teaching staff in multi-age classrooms at Hall School utilized, by design,
formal and informal opportunities for students to help each other learn. The
expectation was communicated to students that they had a responsibility to help
fellow students with schoolwork. Direct instruction was provided to students about
how to provide this assistance. Formal systems for cross-age tutoring were in place
that beneﬁt both the persons being tutored and the tutors themselves, according to
the teachers. The utilization of these student empowerment strategies enabled small

group instruction to be a feasible primary method for classroom organization in multi-

age classrooms.

Students were provided with direct instruction on how to work together and

help each other learn. In a large group setting, with students from the whole class

125

seated in the "rug" area, S.W. had students demonstrate to the rest of the class the
correct and incorrect way to help others with their work. "Let’s show Mr. Miller that
we know how to help each other learn," said S.W. "Who wants to show him?" A
dozen students raised their hands and two were selected to demonstrate peer-helping
techniques. A sample math problem was written down, with Louis and Paul selected
as volunteers.

15
+M

was written on the paper. The teacher told Paul to show Louis how not to do this
problem. Louis said, "Five and four are nine, and one and one are two, so the
answer is twenty-nine." "Why isn’t this a good way?" asked S.W. Three students
responded that it was giving the answer rather than helping the person learn how to
do the problem. S.W. asked the boys to try to do it another way that would be
better. This time, Paul asked Louis, "What’s ﬁve plus four?" Louis answered
correctly on both counts and then gave the ﬁnal answer to the problem.
zit s s

L.L.’s 4th and 5th grade class shared a reading experience with C.K.’s K-1-2
class as part of the "reading buddies" program used in each classroom in the building.
In a "reading buddies" orientation session, C.K. provided information to the older
students in their classroom about both the social beneﬁts and the instructional
strategies that the older students could use to help the younger ones. "When you’re
a kindergartner, and you feel like nobody knows you, and then a big kid comes up
and says, ’Hi,’ it makes you feel important." C.K. went on to describe the role she

expected the 4th and 5th graders to take in this relationship. "Guess what?" said C.K.

126
"I have good news for all of you. All of the kindergartners this year can read."
There was silence in the room. "They can read the pictures. They can tell the stories
back to you," she continued. "Read to them, but let them read back to you."
L.L. described how she prepared her older students for tutoring:
There is direct instruction from the teacher to the older
ones about what’s expected as a reading buddy. They
are coached the ﬁrst few weeks of the program. The
younger students have it explained to them; about what
is going to happen.
Students Preview Future Instruction
According to the teachers in multi-age classrooms, when teachers provided
mini-lessons or direct instruction to small groups of students, other students

frequently watch the lesson. This pattern is particularly true of the younger students

in the class.

During a reading group, the teacher, S.W., was reading aloud a book about
how babies are born. S.W. described this as a "ﬁrst grade lesson." Within a minutes
after the reading began, two older boys joined the group of young children. After a
few minutes, Jim, an older boy, asked, "Would you read that page again? I’m really
interested in that part." S.W. read the page again and answered questions from Jim
and two younger students.

During a writing lesson with board work, eight older students were writing with
chalk on the blackboard, putting "ing" endings on work. Three younger girls watched
the lesson while seated on the bookshelf nearby. They watched for a ﬁfteen-minute
period, and then went on to different areas of the room.

In an interview with S.W., she stated that all students were encouraged to

127

watch any lesson that interested them, but that they had to ask permission to
interrupt the lesson or become part of the group. She went on to explain,

I’m trying to sort of set up the old, one-room

schoolhouse thing, where the younger students sat in the

back and overheard the lesson being taught. That way

they were familiar with the concept and the vocabulary,

and when it came time for their turn, the younger

children were better prepared to know what the teacher

was talking about. Younger children frequently need
reassurance. They tune into what’s meaningful for them.

a: s s

J.B. and S.W. began team teaching this year at the encouragement of the
principal. The idea was to have students engaged in mini-lessons with one teacher,
while the other supervised small group or independent instruction. On one occasion,
J .B. was conducting a science lesson on sound and ampliﬁcation. "Those who want
to join can go," announced S.W. Five younger students went next door to watch.
When questioned why she thought the older students chose not to go, S.W. relayed
her perception that, "By third grade there is peer pressure that says it’s not cool to
pay attention." First graders were described as joiners and more likely to get involved
in whatever comes along to explore. This may be one explanation why younger
students were seen observing lessons more frequently than older students.

a: a at

Not only were teacher-directed lessons of interest to younger students, younger
students also frequently watched older students who were engaged in play or learning.
When two older boys, Mike and Randy, were using a computer at the computer
station to do a math facts activity involving equivalent fractions, John and Pat, two

younger students, stood behind and watched for a few minutes. The object of the

128

activity was to identify fractions that were equivalent to an example fraction, move
the cursor to the point on the grid, and push the return key to score points if the
fraction was equivalent. The younger boys caught on that there were fractions that
were the same and began to move closer to the older boys. In about ﬁve minutes,
the younger boys were pointing to the screen saying, "There’s one." "Get that one."
Watching led to engagement in the activity and resulted in the four students learning
cooperatively. The older boy, Mike, began another game and told the younger boys
which fractions to look for. The younger boys were actually naming fractions as
three-ﬁfths and one-fourth by the end of the twenty-minute session.
The principal, P.O., shared her perception of how students learn by observing:
While you’re instructing six students on addition,
you have about 20 ears. It’s like a preview of what they
are about to do. A preview gives kids an idea about
where they are going. When they get to the point where
they need that kind of instruction, they have seen a little
bit of it, heard a little bit of it, and thought about it a bit.
It will be coming at them from a page that has
something on it.
This viewpoint is shared by CO. in an interview:
A lot of learning for younger children happens
tangentially. They take in what’s going on around them,
even if it’s not directed to them. Many little kids know
everybody’s business and are very involved in what

others are doing.
Students Engage in Play
While teacher-directed, small group instruction was being provided to older
or advanced students, that was directed toward an academic product, the younger
children had an opportunity to engage in play and to build social relationships.

C.K. described the importance of social development in her class:

129

One of our strongest components in our K-1-2 is
the social instruction we have going. It amazes me that
in any given year, kids that are way out of line with their
behavior or that have difﬁculty with many skills are
considered to be a very important part of the class. We
all know their strengths and their weaknesses. It’s o.k.
to be themselves.

During daily instruction, many students were observed to be engaged in play.
The choice to play was allowed in every classroom for at least some part of the
"instructional" day and varied from class to class.

Matt was wearing a hat from the dress-up corner in C.K.’s room. It covered
his head, eyes and ears. Nearby Sara and Jenny were hiding behind a table with
hand puppets, making quite a bit of noise, shoving each other’s puppet and letting
out a high pitched whine each time. Mark and Norman were back in the playhouse
with G.L Joe ﬁgures, throwing toothpicks at each other’s action ﬁgures and making
exploding sounds. All this was occurring while C.K. was listening to Beverly read.
It took at least ten minutes for Bev to read two pages to the teacher.

:1: s s

Across the hall in S.W.’s class, Nicki was building with blocks on the ﬂoor
while the teacher was working with six or seven older children on multiplication
tables. Some had ﬂash cards, others had ditto pages. Still two others were working
together in a math textbook, copying problems out of the book and discussing their
answers. Nicki was within hearing range and occasionally looked up toward the math
group, but she slowly placed the large wooden blocks end to end "making a road," she
said. Nicki’s block play continued for 20 minutes, being brieﬂy joined by Carla who
walked on the blocks. Nicki, looking angry, walked over to tell S.W. her troubles with

Carla. S.W. suggested that Nicki begin to clean up because it was almost time for the

130

period to end. Nicki stayed to watch the math group for a few minutes. Then, with
another urging from the teacher, she began to pick up the blocks and return them
to the rolling cart.

The majority of the time that students spent in multi-age classes was spent in
small group organization for instruction. Although the type of student experience
varied with the age of the student, the teacher’s system of organization and the
interest and ability of the students, the instructional day was structured primarily for
independent or small group work or play experiences. The classroom instruction
focused on cognitive, academic, and affective outcomes. To enhance these outcomes,
students were allowed to engage in play activities. In general, students were allowed
a relatively high degree of choice and were given the opportunity to move freely. In
planning the day, the teachers observed developed a schedule with a lot of movement
and change for students. In planning their schedules both J .B. and S.W. agree that
between "25 and 35 minutes is the right amount of time for an activity to be
scheduled."

Whole Class Instruction

Hill teachers placed an emphasis on the value of small group instruction over
whole class, lecture-format teaching. J .B. stated that he used whole class instruction
"only to go over rules, introduce a new topic or to do something like a demonstration
or science experiment; then, on to small groups or cooperative groups." J .3.
continued, "You know that if you go too long in a large group, you’re going to short
change someone or confuse someone."

There were occasions when the multi-age classroom students gathered together

as a whole. The purpose of whole class meetings was generally to review class rules

131

or routines. S.W. described her use of whole class activities:
I plan very few whole-class activities. I know I can’t
teach to the whole group for more than a few minutes
without losing somebody. Most of my whole group
instruction lasts three minutes or so.

When asked when whole class instruction is used, she described these times
as periods to discuss social rules and for class meetings. S.W. described class
meetings as times to "problem solve or talk about process and procedures." She went
on to describe class meeting times as "housekeeping sessions." Whole class written
work was "simply not done," according to S.W.

at: a. air

Following an announcement over the PA system on recess choices for the
whole school, S.W. called a class meeting. "Class, let’s gather in the rug area," said
S.W. The students gathered around, seated on the ﬂoor, benches and tables. "I want
h’brary," shouted Mark. "I want to go to the gym with Rusty," said Dan. S.W. settled
the class by saying, "The more time we spend talking about who goes where, the less
time we’ll have for choice." She went on to ask who wanted to go to gym, hbrary and
outside by having students raise their hands. She then had to select ﬁve students out
of the ten hands raised that wanted to go to gym. "Who went to gym last time,"
asked S.W. "We’ll let Hal, Beth, Maria, Rusty and Dan go this time. The others will
go next time."

This was an example of when a housekeeping, whole group meeting was

called. The other reason for whole group meetings was to review classroom rules and

procedures.

132

When the bell rang to signal the end of a small group period, Dan and Nick
began shoving each other. S.W. noted the ﬂare up. She announced to the class, "We
all need to come here now." As the students gathered at the rug area, S.W. asked
Dan, "What are the rights we have in this class, Dan?" Dan responded, "To be safe."
"What would happen," asked S.W., "if you push?" "You could get hurt; he could
bump his head, " said Dan. "That’s right," said S.W. "In this class, we have the right
to be safe." She then dismissed the class to lunch.

Whole group instruction was used to review rules and to determine processes
and procedures asked in the class. Whole group instruction was rarely used for
student instruction. J .B., a teacher of 4th and 5th graders, described conditions under
which he felt it was appropriate to use whole group instruction:

When I’m conducting a science experiment,
something that takes a lot of time to set up, I’ll have the
whole class watch the experiment.

J .G., a lower elementary age group teacher, described how she used large
group meetings for social rather than instructional purposes:

I use very little large group instruction. The class
meetings I’ve found almost every kid resist . . . they

(students) do need to meet, to feel like a group. You
need to work on that.

In her classroom, C.K. used a whole group lesson to provide orientation for
an upcoming activity. All 23 students sat on benches or on the rug in front of the
teacher’s chair. "We are going to the Farmers’ Market tomorrow," announced C.K.
"What might we see?" Four students shouted out together, "Cookies! Pumpkins!

Apples! Ice cream!" "Hands up, please," directed C.K. "Carl, what might we see?"

133
asked C.K. "Juice or doughnuts," Carl said. OK. continued, "You’re right, Carl.

Tomorrow you’ll get doughnuts. Wait a minute. Sit down on the ﬂoor. I’m meeting
your eyes. Sit down and sit still."

The questions continued from the students, "What time will we leave?" "What
time will we get back?" "Why not 8:30?" C.K. quieted the group. "Ms. X is here to
read us a story," she continued. "When you’re ready to sit and listen, we are ready
to start." C.K. turned the task of reading a story to the whole group over to Ms. X,
and the whole class session continued with a story about foods.

at t- it

On another occasion, at 9:30 a.m., C.K. again called a class meeting at the
teacher’s chair. The students assembled on the rug, and CK. held up a black piece
of construction paper. "In the writing center today, we will be drawing a picture of
the scariest thing you saw on Halloween. I want you to use white chalk and draw the
picture, then I will be around to help you write a story about it." C.K. drew a picture
of a bat with chalk. "What else might be scary?" she asked. Students offered stories,
both long and short, about ghosts and what they experienced during the prior night’s
trick-or-treat experience. C.K. then directed students to the centers. "Who is going
to the art center?" she asked. She dismissed students according to their center
choices and resumed her spot at the writing center.

C.K. used whole class times to provide instructions on upcoming activities and
to provide orientation to new activities. Students also had a whole group story each
day when the teacher or a guest read to the class. C.K. also stated that:

For special activities, like plays, guests, or videos,

we meet as a whole class. These are usually enrichment
experiences but can also be instructional.

134

Formal interviews with upper elementary grade teachers revealed that when
student groups were older, more whole class sessions were planned. In one section
of 4th and 5th graders, R.R. described her time allocation for whole class instruction.

I use individual about 25 % of the time; small
group about 1/2 the time, and whole group about 25%
of the time. I teach science in whole group, and we have
tests in whole group.

The other instructional periods that utilized primarily large group and whole
class instruction formats were in physical education (gym) and music classes. W.L.,
the music teacher, described his instructional arrangement:

Everything here is working together. It’s all whole
group instruction. I have 30 minutes. Everyone is
expected to participate, so I need to get everyone
involved because of limited time.

With her 3rd and 4th graders, L.B. used a whole class discussion to review the
seating arrangement in response to a concern raised by a student. L.B.’s students sat
in groups of six around tables in the room. In L.B.’s class, a whole class meeting was
held around two of the tables.

Teachers Evaluate Student Progress

Teachers in multi-age classrooms at the elementary level were observed
utilizing a variety of methods to assess student progress and evaluate growth. These
methods generally included one or more of the following assessment systems,
portfolio collection of student work samples, student self reports, and direct teacher

administered criterion - reference testing or a direct check of performance based on

grade level norms.

135

In C.O.’s class, students were observed placing papers into folders in a box on
the shelf next to the window. Each folder had a student’s name on it and was made
out of a folded piece of colored construction paper. When questioned about what
the collection was, Jack shared that it was his "work folder" where he put "stuff when
he was done." Jack’s folder contained two bar graphs done on graph paper with
colored pencil; three drawings; four writing assignments (some with drawings); a math
paper with subtraction problems written on the page; a number line (about 3 feet
long); and two envelopes with cut-out pieces of paper in them. Jack described the
latter as "puzzles."

There were about 20 other folders in the box, too, each with papers inside.
In Julie’s "work folder" was a paper titled "Self Report." Julie explained that she had
to ﬁll it out with CO.

When asked how he evaluates progress, C.O. explained the process of student
self reports, "Once every two weeks, we do 'student self reports that list: things I’m
really good at, things I’m doing now, and things I want to learn."

C.O. explained that each student kept a folder and a portfolio with self reports
and completed work inside. He explained how he used the folder and portfolio at
parent-teacher conferences to illustrate student progress. According to C.O., "You
take out samples of writing from a previous year or the beginning of the year and put
them side by side. You can see the growth."

C.O. reported that he utilized no normative data to plan instruction or
evaluate student learning. He "avoids comparisons" of students with each other or

with other classes.

136

Utilizing a combination of student "portfolio" and criterion reference testing,
S.W. checked for understanding with each child individually and then selected
activities to enhance growth in speciﬁc skill areas for each child.

At 4:30 in the afternoon, S.W. was busy preparing work folders for students
for the next day. She had gathered the students’ daily work from their "mail slots"
and reviewed each paper for accuracy and completeness. She would then staple
together the work packet, put it in a pile on the nearby teacher’s desk, and insert new
assignments into the work folders. Sometimes, she put in ditto pages, other times she
wrote page numbers on a piece of paper and inserted it into the folder. Each of the
24 mail slots received the same going over at "least once a week," according to S.W.
She explained that most completed work was sent home but that certain samples
were kept in a portfolio for parent conferences. She explains:

These may be a special work of art or an
especially creative piece. It also keeps math samples

and story samples that are illustrative of where a child is
working.

In addition to a portfolio collection, S.W. also utilized teacher-made tests with
small groups or individuals to assess progress in skill areas, such as language arts or
mathematics.

S.W. asked Polly and Daisy to join her at the work table. "I want you to read
this story to me," she said to Polly. Polly began to read a trade book, DinnLthe
Dinosaur, described on the front as "A ﬁrst start easy reader." "Once there was a
dinosaur," began S.W. Polly followed, "Dinny was his name. He lives in a town."

Polly continued for a few pages. "Now, it’s your turn, Daisy," said S.W. Daisy began

137
to read. S.W. had to ﬁll in some words as they read along.
ii! It *

During math period, Randy and Jim, two older boys in S.W.’s class, were each
given a math textbook. "I want you to do problems 1-5 on page 32. Then, see me,"
directed S.W. The boys worked alone on the story problems. They occasionally
questioned S.W. about a problem. The teacher would, every 10 minutes or so, check
with each boy and discuss their answers. Randy completed the problems ﬁrst and
waited patiently, book in hand, as S.W. completed a conversation with an adult by the
doorway. She then collected his paper with the answers and asked for the paper with
his work on it. She quickly reviewed the answers with him, praised his efforts, and
placed his paper on the teacher’s desk.

S.W. explained how she used normative materials as well as teacher-made
testing to assess student progress:

I keep around certain types of materials that I use
to place the child’s level. If I want to know how well a
child is doing with regrouping, I’ll ﬁnd a page in some
4th grade math book and say, "Let me see how well you
can do this."

In an interview with L.B., a 3/4th teacher, she described a method she used
to determine normative progress:

If you want to see how well kids are doing, I’ll get
out a little paperback book that’s marked with an
approximate grade level on it and I’ll say, "You read
some to me to see how well you are doing." If they ask
why, I’ll tell them it’s a grade level assessment.
The principal, P.O., stated that she was unconcerned with "normative

benchmarks or standardized test results" at the elementary grades because of what

she calls "foundation learning." P.O. explained:

138

When you teach from a language experience
approach base, the reading, language and writing are all
interactive and come from the kid’s own knowledge base
. . . it takes longer [to develop skills] with foundation
learning.
P.O. went on to describe symbolically how foundation learning, using student
experience and choice to build a base of knowledge, eventually yields the desired
learning outcomes:

I think of it like a pyramid. We take 20 learning
blocks and lay them out in a row to build a base. In
other schools, they may put the skills blocks one on top
of the other and make a tall tower. Initially this pile will
be taller, but in the long run, our approach is stabler and
will get just as tall.

The result of a varied individual approach to student evaluation and
assessment was a reduction in comparison of one student to another, resulting in less
competition, according to C.K. She descrrbed the advantages of individually assessed
progress systems:

Kids often feel badly (sic) when they are not
doing certain things at a time they are told they should
be doing it. They feel defeated. Some kids learn things"
at 5th grade that others learn in 3rd. We need to tell
them it’s o.k.

Individual assessment, using portfolio, criterion testing, and student self report
methods, rather than whole class grading and testing, resulted in students that have

"better self concepts" because they experienced less failure and grade retention,
according to R.Z.

Although normative testing was done in the fall of 1990 in grade 4, utilizing
the Michigan Assessment Test (MEAP) in the areas of language arts, math and

science, there was no evidence observed or recorded in interviews that indicated how

139

the test results were utilized or if the information was shared with parents. No
evidence of the use of standardized achievement testing was found. S.W. explained
that standardized achievement testing was not utilized at Hill School to measure
progress.
We try to avoid comparisons. Each student is
different and progresses differently. There is little point
in comparing students in my class to national norms.

The use of standardized testing for student achievement assessment, student
group information, and student instructional planning was not evident in the multi-age
classes at Hill School.

Participant Attitudes, Perceptions and Beliefs

Considerable data were gathered and analyzed that dealt with the attitudes,
perceptions, and beliefs that participants held about the practice of multi-age
grouping.

In the fourth section of this chapter, these data will be reported and patterns
of participant response reviewed. The data for this section were gather primarily
through participant interview and document analysis.

This chapter section is organized into subsections that were determined
through an analysis of the data. Most of the data for this section was obtained
through formal interview or written journal analysis.

The subsections for reporting data on participant attitudes, beliefs, and
perceptions about multi-age practice include: Accommodation of Individual
Differences, Multiple Years with the Same Teacher, Personal Reﬂections, and

Faculty Planning and Interaction.

The educational concepts described here are embedded in the perceptions of

140

the participants in the multi-age classes observed. Experienced multi-age group
teachers were asked to report their beliefs, attitudes and understandings about multi-
age grouping. In interviews with teachers, a pattern of stated beliefs emerged that
served as the rationale for multi-age grouping. These fundamental concepts were
considered when forming classroom groups, planning instructional schedules, and
placing individual students in classrooms.
Accommodation of Individual Differences

The ﬁrst premise that was consistently reported by teachers was that multi-age
grouping was utilized to accommodate individual differences. Teachers consistently
stated the belief that students learn at different rates and in different ways. The
philosophy expressed by staff included a desire to look-at each individual child and
take into consideration each child’s development in terms of social maturity, each
child’s makeup in terms of learning style, and each child’s achievement level.
Although each teacher placed emphasis on different aspects of an individual
development or makeup, there was a pattern of responses that indicated that
experienced teachers in this multi-age setting believe that multi-age grouping enabled
them to meet the needs of individuals and accommodate individual differences.
During interviews with teachers at Hill School, eleven of the subjects stated that

multi-age grouping enabled them to meet individual student needs (see Table 3).

141

Table 3 Reasons for Utilizing Multi-Age Grouping
(in order of frequency of response)

Multi-Age Grouping

Enables teachers to meet individual
differences

Enables teachers to use student-to-
student helping strategies

Is developmentally appropriate

Results in better academic outcomes
for students

Enables teacher to know students better/
more than one year with same teacher

Eliminates/reduces student failure
(grade retentions)

Give students choice

Is a more natural/comfortable
classroom environment

Enables teachers to put learning styles
information into practice

Results in better academic outcomes
for students

Enables teacher to give more individual
attention

Results in less stress for teachers
Results in less work for teachers

Provides for more time on task

No. of Teachers

Giving Response % of Teachers

(N=13)

11

10

10

G" R

84.6

76.9

76.9

53.8

53.8

53.8

46.1

46.1

30.8

15.4

15.4

142

The majority of teachers at Hill School stated that the beneﬁts of multi-age
grouping included a forced recognition of individual differences in their students and
a realization that children grow and develop at different rates. This comment by J .B.
was characteristic of the responses obtained:

In any class, in any grade, you have a range of
student abilities. By having more than one grade
together, you have to accept the fact that there is a
range. You can’t hide behind the idea that all students
at the same grade level have the same learning needs.

The principal, P.O., echoed this belief:

One of the assumptions of a single-age group is
that children should come to the same understandings
within the period of one year. While there may be an
average, normal is a very wide spread. In multi-age
settings, you can proceed at your own pace.

In this multi-age setting, not all students were expected to develop skills at the
same rate at the same time. Teachers reported having "ﬂexible expectations" for
student achievement. In an interview with P.O., she stated that:

Academically, in a mixed-age group, you’re more
easily able to meet the needs of the peaks and valleys
type of kid. You may have a child that reads at the 12th
grade level but does math at the 3rd grade level, and
that’s alright. You’re not failing at one point and
excelling at another. You just happen to be working
here in one activity and there at another.

In a primary-level classroom, C.K. explained how students "spurt" in certain areas of
learning:
In a K-1-2, a surge in reading might occur, but the
child is still wetting his/her pants or can’t cut. It’s o.k. to

develop differently. We enjoy the differences in each
other.

Expanding on the theme of valuing diversity, C.O. explained his belief about

143

how multi-age grouping helped people accept differences in growth and development,
not just in children, but in all age groups:
With an mixed group, you get the development of
a lot more respect for diﬁerent people, different ages.
One of the problems with our society is that we show
very little respect for older people and younger people.
If we had a broader mix growing up in school together,

they would learn to respect each other, whether they
were the same age or not.

P.O. described her experiences with what happened when students of the same age
were placed together:
Students who are all expected to be of the same
age in the same grade assume that they are all going to
need to learn the same thing at the same time, so there
is a lot of competition.
She went on to describe the practice at Hill School.
Students are given assignments without regard to
grade level curriculum. If they need to wait another year
in a 1-2-3, they can wait; they can grow.

In an informal interview with Bobby, a six-year-old, he was asked what grade
he was in. "I’m in kindergarten," stated Bobby. "I’m not ready, so I can have an
extra year in kindergarten and child care." When asked how he felt about his extra
year, Bobby replied, "It’s great. I can have CD. for more years. I like choice time."
Multiple Years with the Same Teacher

The practice, in multi-age classrooms, of each child having the same teacher
for more than one year was of importance to the majority of the teachers. Spending
multiple years in the same classroom yielded many advantages, according to the Hill

faculty. L.B. described in her writings how the multiple year relationships with

students have affected her teaching career:

144
Having half of my class returning each year is a
comfortable feeling for me. I’m uneasy when I have new
kids. I always hope they will like me.

Academically, there were advantages of having students spend multiple years
with the same teacher in multi-age classes, according to S.W., L.B., GK, and the
principal. Since teachers already know many of the students, their abilities, their
learning styles, their families, and their interests, teachers were better able to help
returning students get right into their instructional program at the beginning of the
year. The staff reported that more time was available for learning and less teacher
time was spent on orientation, review and assessment. They also had at least half
and up to two-thirds of their class returning each year so there were always students
who were familiar with the routines and who could help others. The opportunity to
change roles for a child in a multi-age class was an element of the organizational
pattern that was valued. Teachers also mentioned the social beneﬁts of multiple
years spent with the same teacher and fellow students. Friendships were already
established and students, as well as teachers, reported that they felt more comfortable
as they enter into a new school year.

In an interview with S.W., she reported on the advantages of students spending
multiple years in the same classroom.

Academically, the multi-age class advantages are
that you already know the majority of the [returning]
students; their style. You already know what they were
interested in the year before, and you already know the
kinds of materials they are ready for, so you don’t have
to do a lot of assessment. So for me, it’s a real
advantage to have kids for at least two years.
P.O outlined the social beneﬁts for students that being with the same teacher for

multiple years could produce:

145
Socially, over a period of years, students in a
multi-age group have an opportunity to be the leaders in
the class. In earlier years, they have the experience of
being nurtured.

J .G.’s experience has convinced her that students beneﬁt from having the same
teacher for more than one year:

Having kids for two years is a big advantage. The
1st graders have role models in the class. The kids that
are returning come back with a sense of conﬁdence: I
know the room; I know the teacher; I’m going to be o.k.

CO. and CK. also had successful experiences with multi-year enrollees. Their
experiences convinced them that one year was not enough time to get to know a
student. In an interview, C.K. expressed the belief that:

Because I’m having kids for the third year . . . I

can see grth real clearly. I’m better able to see

progress than with just one year’s growth.
CD. would ﬁnd it hard to operate on a one-year rotation. "One year isn’t long
enough to have a kid," C.O. reported. "By the time you ﬁgure them out, it’s three
or four months into the year." S.W. also tried to keep each student for two or more
years. "It give my students an opportunity to be a role model, to have skills, to really
develop relationships," reported S.W.

The concept of students spending multiple years with one teacher was strongly
supported by the staff and students at Hill School. Suggesting otherwise evoked
intense emotional responses. J.G. expressed a strong belief that it is important for
teachers to have students for more than one year. J .G. had such a ﬁrm commitment
to this multi-year arrangement that she stated that she would "retire" if she could only

have students in her class for one year. C.O. went so far as to state that spending

more than one year in the same class with the same teacher is "good for all students

146

in all schools," not just in alternative settings.

The staff gave numerous reasons for having multi-year student placements
with the same teacher. Their rationale was based on ideas that when teachers had
students in their classes for more than one year, it increased their ability to see and
measure growth. The practice also enabled them to get to know the students’
learning styles, abilities and interests. The staff also cited the social beneﬁts of
growing into roles, continuing established friendships and feeling comfortable and
conﬁdent. Still others viewed multiple year classroom enrollment as increasing time
on task and lessening competition and failure created by grade level expectations,
promotion and grade retention.

Personal Reﬂections of Teachers

Many of the teachers cited personal reasons for their commitment to the
practice of multi-age grouping. A number of teachers at Hill expressed ﬁ'ustration
with their own school experiences or those of their children as reasons for teaching
in a multi-age alternative setting. Still others described positive prior life experiences
related to their schooling or the schooling of their children as reasons for their
involvement. In either case, the rationale given for pursuing a career path in multi-
age classroom teaching was generally intensely personal. When posed with the
question, "Why did you choose to teach in a multi-age grouped classroom?" C.O.
described his life experiences in a journal entry:

Working for 10 years with a mixed-age range of
people taught me that there is something to be learned
from people of all ages. Everyone worked together
regardless of their age and in a good working situation,

everyone is valued. Schools need to be the same way.

O.K. described her life experience that led her to Hill School:

147
I had my child in a multi-age program. I didn’t
know that much about it. Right away my daughter
started learning things because of the help of other
students. It was remarkable. In lst grade she learned to
tie her shoes because a 3rd grader took time to do it
with her for about two weeks.
Following her daughter’s experience, O.K. obtained a teaching degree and became
"committed to maintaining" a multi-age alternative.

like L.L., C.K. came out of the cooperative nursery school movement.
Experiences in a community volunteer setting led these teachers into alternative
multi-age teaching. C.K. explained:

We get lots of parents and teachers who come
here out of the cooperative nursery movement. They
are very involved with the children and co-ops ..... teach
people to accept differences.

P.O. described the faculty as ". . . generally older, more experienced teachers
who are global learners . . . many who didn’t do well in the traditional system."

"In my own education, I felt like a vessel with information poured into me,"
states CD. "It was very unfulﬁlling."

"I had no responsibility for my own learning," states J .B. "I don’t want kids to
be treated like that."

Others like S.E. came to Hill because they had a positive experience in a
multi-age setting in their school background. "I went to school in a one-room
schoolhouse with 60 kids. It was a really nice experience with a great sense of
community."

C.O. learned a lot working with a broad age group. "Some of my best friends
are 20 years older than I am." C.O. expressed his own beliefs about the grading of

schools as he reﬂected on his own life experience. "Age doesn’t matter," said C.O.

148
"When I worked construction, I learned from 20-year-olds and 60-year-olds." CD.
would like to have a larger age span represented in his class:
I’d like a bigger spread . . . a good mix like K-5.
The older kids would be a lot more helpful, but we
separate out the ages. I don’t understand why.

Experiences with "real life" prompted teachers to gravitate toward multi-age
grouping as their preferred method of practice. The idea that multi-age grouping was
a reﬂection of her real world experience was expressed by P.O.:

Schools are the only artiﬁcial age-grouped place
in our lives. When students go home, they don’t play
with just six-year-olds or just seven-year-olds. You play
with a wide variety of all ages.

The reasons for the involvement of individual teachers in multi-age classrooms
were intensely personal. Many of the teachers expressed concern about their
traditional school experience. There was also a level of frustration with the
discrepancy between school structure and the structure of the adult world as a whole.
Personal reﬂections revealed strong statements about the value of multi-age group
practices. A strong commitment to the practice was clearly present at Hill School.
Faculty Planning and Interaction

Data collected from interviews and site observations provided evidence that
multi-age grouping as practiced at Hill School created the need for the staff to work
closely together. Consistent staff communication and cooperation was necessary to
facilitate the instructional practices utilized in the multi-age group setting. In order
to make student-helping-student strategies effective, teachers needed to discuss

student needs and class schedules.

To promote choice in activities and to enable student freedom of movement

149

1 around the building, the staff needed to discuss expectations for student conduct,
mobility, and expression. The possibilities for confusing students with mixed
expectations was increased in a multi-age system when student movement and choice
was so pronounced.

Teachers spend numerous hours in cooperative planning at Hill. Teachers
shared classroom spaces and hallway space for instruction. Every class was involved
in at least one scheduled activity with another classroom group on a daily basis. Staff
meetings at Hill were held once a week and various subcommittees of teachers were
responsible for school operations and other communication issues.

Hill School staff utilized a school improvement process. The values,
expectations, and beliefs of staff members were discussed in this format. Staff
meetings were times when school improvement goals were discussed by the faculty.
Teachers also had meetings to discuss student transitions from one classroom to
another. The teachers cooperatively developed the classroom groups.

With the need for interdependence and good communication comes an
increased need for understanding and mutual support. Many staff members at Hill
expressed the presence of a supportive atmosphere as essential for their instructional
effectiveness.

Staff members consistently reported that they kept teaching at Hill because

of the supportive atmosphere. R.Z. expressed her view that:
At Hill the people who are here want to be here,
so there is more caring about the kids. We don’t give up
on kids like some other schools do.

S.E. shared a similar observation:

Everyone is here because they want to be here.

150

It’s not just a job. It’s like a family. They really care.
P.O. described the collegial atmosphere that attracted teachers to Hill:
Multi-age teachers need a lot of respect and
cooperation. The peOple here are sensitive and care
about the students. We must work together.
But, with increased interdependence comes increased conﬂict. "That’s why I
hire people with more experience, more maturity," reported P.O. Some teachers did
feel the stress of this interdependence as R.Z. reported:
When we do things together, the lower
elementary teachers view the upper grade teachers as
not having enough choice for students.
This need to communicate to reduce conﬂict was illustrated by O.K.’s
comment:
When you share students, you need to talk to
your fellow teachers about their schedules, rules and
ways you can help each other. I usually work with
teachers nearby so I can drop over and ask questions.
Sharing can get confusing.
S.W. sometimes wondered if all of her students were accounted for:
I started team teaching with J .B. because I
wanted to be sure that our experiences were coordinated

and meaningful. It’s not enough just to release students
into another classroom.

S.W. and J .B. plan a book discussion group, reading partners, and team up for
science and social studies units. This team teaching was encouraged by P.O.:
Teachers are too isolated. When they work
together they build a stronger program. There just
doesn’t seem to be enough time to learn good teaming
skills.
The concern about time for planning, communication, and sharing was a

concern expressed by staff, but was also viewed as necessary for effective functioning.

151
The degree of structure and choice varied within the classroom groupings. As W.L.
put it:
There are some teachers that are more structured
than others, some who give more choice. To get along
here, you have to be ﬂexible.
Strangers to Hill School, like substitute teachers, were frequently

unaccustomed to the lack of structure, lack of rules for hallway behavior, and were

concerned about the noise level.

A straight line of students left the art room. Not a sound was made as they
headed up the stairs single ﬁle. A stern looking teacher followed the group. R.Z.
commented to the principal, "It looks like we have the (substitute) art teacher from
Hell again." Breaking the traditional ideas about proper student behavior was
difﬁcult, according to the staff. It takes peeple time to adjust to the atmosphere at
Hill. Just as R.Z. made a joke out of the behavior of the substitute, others on the
staﬁ ﬁnd it difﬁcult to question the rules of fellow staff members. "It’s not always
easy to teach here," reported one teacher. "Sometimes you have to bite your tongue."

The need to communicate, tolerate, cooperate, and plan jointly is high at Hill
School. Staff found that consistent meeting time was necessary to make the multi-age
system work. Interdependence for staff, like. interdependence for students, was a lot
of work and demanded mutual respect, professionalism, and a ﬁrm belief in the
concept of multi-age grouping.

Issues of Concern to Participants
Contained in the ﬁfth section of this chapter, are data that participants

provided about the problem issues and pragmatic difﬁculties with multi-age group

152

practice.

The teachers at Hill School identiﬁed a number of concerns related to the
perception of others about multi-age grouping as a practice. These concerns included
a lack of common terminology and a lack of understanding of the practice and its
underlying concepts by parents, educators, and the community at large. In addition
to concerns about public perceptions, the staff at Hill also reported more pragmatic
concerns about multi-age grouping. Seven of the teachers interviewed reported
practical problems with implementing multi-age practice (see Table 4). These
problems included difﬁculties obtaining materials, problems associated with reporting

pupil progress, and difﬁculty with planning for instruction.
Table 4 Problems Identiﬁed with Multi-Age Grouping

No. of Teachers
Giving Response % of Teachers

(N=13) Givinngponse

No problems reported 6 46.1

Problems with:

obtaining needed materials 4 30.8
being recognized as acceptable practice by 2 15.4
other educators

acceptance by parents/community 2 15.4
making more work for teachers 2 15.4
having too wide a range of abilities 1 .8
doing whole group instruction 1 .8

explaining progress to parents 1 .8

153
Deﬁnition of Multi-Age Practice

Teachers expressed concern over the lack of common terminology, writing, and
support for multi-age grouping. The lack of a consistent understanding and deﬁnition
of the practice has led to difﬁculty with acceptance of multi-age grouping as a
legitimate educational practice.

J .G. pointed to the work of Featherstone and Barth as "rallying points" in the
1960s and 1970s. She does not see any leadership now being exerted by scholars to
expand the practice of multi-age grouping. J .6. stated that:

We are here because of parents. It was a
reaction to the extreme rigidity by which the schools
were being run. Hill School has come to be an
alternative. The professional education community does
little to maintain or promote our existence.

Indeed, there was little common language in use by the faculty at Hill School
(see Table 5). The practice of multi-age grouping was described by many different
terms, even among the staﬁ members in the building. P.O., the principal, preferred
to use the term multi-age grouping. She stated, "I like multi-age because age only
speaks to chronological age, not academic ability." R.Z. and OK. also preferred to
use the term multi-age. According to P.O., "If I had my choice this school would be
multi-age and non-graded."

However, seven of the staff members interviewed, the majority of the faculty
surveyed, identiﬁed the term family grouping as the preferred descriptor for the
age/grade arrangements in the school. L.B. preferred the term family grouping
because students "grow into" multi-age classes. "Their roles change, like in a family,"

according to CO. S.W. uses the term family grouping because of the "supportive

154
Table 5 Terms to Describe Age/Grade Patterns

No. of Teachers

Giving Response % of Teachers
(N = 13) Giving Response
Family grouping 8 53.8
Multi-age grouping 3 21.8
Multi-grade grouping 2 15.4

social structure where kids learn from each other and help each other," as in a family.
The tendency to shy away from grade comparisons made family grouping an

appealing term for J .G. She described the school as "one large community where
people of different ages can learn together."

Two staff members utilized the term multi-grade grouping to describe their
class arrangement. C.K. stated that "I usually say K-l-2 because I don’t know the
right word, but I never call it a "split." W.L. also used the multi-grade terminology.
"I’d call it a mixed grade level, like S.W.’s class is a 1-2-3."

P.O. planned to identify common language to describe the class conﬁguration.
She proposed an alternative to using the existing terminology at Hill:

I’d rather call it a lower, middle or upper
elementary class. It’s easier to deal with kids as
individuals when you don’t use age or grade labels.

The lack of consistent terminology within the school speciﬁcally and within the
community at large was a concern for staff. Some teachers felt there was little

leadership being exerted on the local or national level to promote an understanding

and acceptance of this practice. Teachers reported that this lack of common

155

deﬁnition makes communication difﬁcult and may be creating a barrier to open
dialogue of the practice within the ﬁeld of education.
Public Concern
There was a pattern of faculty concern over misconceptions about multi-age
grouping. Teachers at Hill found it difﬁcult to communicate the expectations for
students to their parents. There were also misconceptions about the age/grade
grouping practice that affect the way that parents and community groups perceive the
classroom operation at Hill. C.K. shared her perception that "at this point, it [multi-
age grouping] isn’t something that parents understand. She elaborated on her
concern about parent perceptions:
Parents who have a 3rd grader always want them in the
3-4 because they think that the instruction will be higher.
You have to be real smart in your explanation about
multi-aging.
L.B. described her concerns about how the parent community became
frightened by educational alternatives as a result of public policy.
Why does everyone have to have the same
textbook? If everyone of the same age has to be on the
same page in the same textbook as a measure of success,
this is a real problem.
R.Z. stated some frustration with the way that parents view multi-age grouping:
Society mirrors the school image. In order to be
a cub scout, you have to be in 1st grade. Sunday School
is set up in grades. The concept of grades and everyone
of a certain age being in a certain grade and learning
things is a central theme in the way our society is
organized.

Still other teachers believed this societal expectation was artiﬁcial and

transparent. "Magically, once you get out of high school," said P.O. sarcastically,

156

"whether you’re 50 or 18, you can all do, learn, and enjoy the same things."

L.B. described how public education policy makers frighten parents:

These are the people who frighten parents. The
ideas come from guys like [William] Bennett, who talk
like they know about what educators need to do. These
are people who are not in classrooms, who don’t know
what children’s responses are to these ideas.

As a result of the information barrage about what students can’t do, according
to C.O., parents are suspicious of alternatives and are afraid. C.O. described a
community of education consumers that "want it all."

So people want the traditional prescribed
curriculum and, at the same time, they want creative,
ﬂexible experiences for their children in multi-age
groups. They want us to do it all. This attitude, these
fears, have curtailed the spread of multi-age classes.

Not only are there fears among parents, educators also have signiﬁcant mis-
perceptions of multi-age group teaching, according to teachers at Hill. The teachers
interviewed displayed a pattern of concern about the lack of accurate information
that was available to educators in the community and in the nation. "The perception
is out that teachers can’t use whole-group instruction with mixed-age spreads,"
according to CO. "Teachers believe only self-directed kids should be in multi-age
classes," stated J .G. Other concerns were also raised about how teachers, outside of
Hill, perceived the program. P.O. described a major concern among the staff at Hill:

We are concerned . . . teachers have traditionally
been brought up to believe that if you have two grade
levels in your room, you must have two curriculums.
You’d teach 2nd grade one curriculum, one lesson, and
teach 3rd grade another lesson at the same time. When
teachers were expected to teach separate curriculums in

the same class, it was an extra load.

The teachers at Hill feared that this grade level curriculum expectation in

157

multi-age classes was still a barrier to acceptance of the practice. "In some places,
they even pay teachers extra to teach splits," added J .G. J .G. believed that there is
a lack of information, research and scholarship, and that fears of alternatives, as well
as poor communication, have limited choice in program design:
We have lost our leaders in alternative schools.
Multi-age classrooms are seen as one of the evils of the
60s. People need to put work into change. The people
who had deeply rooted beliefs in this type of education
kept up, but for others, there are no models, no scholars
like we had with informal schools.
L.L. expressed her frustration:
We have to conform to a structure outside of this
school. Society values paper/pencil stuff and reading. In
4th grade, it’s no longer o.k. to do inventive spelling.
O.K. echoed concerns about parent expectations for achievement being in conﬂict
with what multi-age grouping was trying to accomplish:
There is a perception that it is a waste of time for
older children to spend time with younger children,
practically being their tutors. The notion that it [multi-
age grouping] is detrimental to olders is based on the
fears that younger children are taking away time from
the education of others.

Given all of the concerns about a lack of needed information about successful
multi-age grouping practice, parent fears, conﬂicts with community expectations, and
pressures to conform to grade level curriculum design, there are legitimate reasons
for teachers to be concerned about public perceptions of multi-age classes. Yet

teachers at Hill expressed strong personal commitments toward the practice.

More Work for Teachers
A pattern emerged that indicates that the upper elementary teachers at Hill

School saw multi-age grouping as more work for teachers, while the teachers in the

158

lower elementary grades viewed multi-age grouping as the same amount of work or
less work than single age/graded classes.
As an upper elementary teacher, L.L. reported that:

Multi-age grouping is a lot of wear and tear on
the teacher. There are times when I have a rough day
that I say if I were in a straight 4th grade I wouldn’t
have to do all this planning.

P.O., the principal, believed that teaching a multi-age section is more work,

regardless of the grade level:

Absolutely . . . multi-age grouping is more work
for teachers. A couple of reasons . . . one is that the
school district has not adequately been able to equip
classrooms with appropriate hands-on materials, so all of
us make do. If you’re teaching a wide spread of ages,
you’re more likely to need a wide spread of materials.
You need more things at the child’s interest and reading
level available. It’s not enough that the kit be
downtown.

L.B. elaborated on another reason that multi-age grouping may be viewed as

more work for teachers:

If you see it [multi-age grouping] as a burden,
then you can ﬁnd a lot of problems with it; especially if
you think that everyone has to learn the same things at
certain ages in order to do well. With a more traditional
idea it becomes harder to accomplish it with multi-age

grouping.
A lower elementary teacher, J .G., described her view of why teachers perceive
multi-age grouping as more work:

There are so many more advantages that it’s
difﬁcult for me to focus on the disadvantages. But, not
enough teachers know about the advantages, so people
are afraid and concerned. For me it’s less work because
students help each other learn, freeing me up to help
those that need it. If it’s a school where everyone has to
have the same textbooks and workbooks, and if teachers

159
weren’t given the ﬂexibility to meet goals in other ways,
then I think multi-age grouping would be very difﬁcult to
do.

Under the predominant paradigm, that students of the same age have the
same needs for learning and that most everyone in a single grade level should be able
to learn the same material at the same rate at the same time, multi-age grouping
would constitute a burden for teachers according to many of the staff at Hill. The
central ofﬁce-prepared expectations for curriculum planning by grade level, the use
of standardized skill testing using grade norms, the organization of commercially
produced instructional materials by grade level, the lack of common language, and
the lack of published information on multi-age classes are all factors that serve as
barriers to the increased use of multi-age grouping and are factors that contribute to
the fact, or at least the perception on the part of some teachers, that multi-age
grouping is more work.

There is indication, however, that some of these factors may be changing. An
interview with the principal at Hill included a hint of promise:

The commercial materials that are available are

written with a different viewpoint. Just now open-ended

kinds of materials in science and math, like "Math Their

Way," are coming out so you can buy them. Most

people have had to make all things from scratch.

L.B. was also seeing evidence of changes in materials in all elementary settings:

More teachers are using trade books rather than

basals. Experience stories and inventive spelling are

replacing workbooks. Things are getting better.

However, the feeling of frustration about the lack of commercially available

materials was common place at Hill. "It’s hard to have the wide spread of materials

available to meet different needs," stated C.K. "Teachers need to plan more lessons,"

160
according to S.W., "and you have to locate more materials." "I spend my evenings
making materials," reported O.K.
S.E., the school secretary, sees all the teachers trying to locate appropriate
materials:
They don’t use a lot of textbooks, so they have to

look for more materials. But, the teachers are more
creative here. They have to be.

The pattern of setting curriculum expectations by the traditional centralized
method has an affect on practice at Hill. In the central ofﬁce administrative system,
there are curriculum directors and instructional specialists who are put in charge of
course content and outcome designs as a system-wide activity. J .G. described how
this lack of control on the classroom level interfered with multi-age grouping:

Teacher opinions about curriculum are not
valued. The administration imposes a reading
management program; everyone was suppose to follow
it. There were no options. There is still conﬂict with the
district-level curriculum expectations, even though they
recognize us as "different."

J .B. concurred that the district-level curriculum system impaired his ability to teach
in a multi-age group:

We went to a centralized way of doing things
where you have a lot of specialists telling you what to do.
Multi-age classrooms are allowed under a centralized
system to the extent that they are convenient. We are
tolerated, but not valued.

P.O. shared a similar concern:

District systems like reading management make it
really difﬁcult to multi-age because in some cases the
district requires students to use the grade level standards
for records.

The curriculum documents created the need for creative alternatives to the

161

grade level content coverage. For content area instruction, like science or social
studies, the two upper elementary grade level section teachers utilized a two-year
rotation system, where, for example, the 4th grade curriculum is utilized one year and
the 5th grade curriculum is used the next year. This pattern contributed to the belief
by the upper elementary teachers that multi-age grouping was more work. J .B. stated

his belief that

By having a two-year rotation in science and
social studies, there are certain things that are consistent
each year and certain things that are changed each year.
It’s harder to get organized, harder to plan than in a
straight grade.

R.Z., a 4-5 teacher, had a similar belief:
You can’t be on a one-year content rotation since
you have a kid more than one year. You always have to
be thinking of new ways to present the same concept.
L.L., the other upper elementary teacher, described how she organized her
curriculum content:
Curriculum is on a two- or three-year rotation.
Years that begin with an even year - I do the even-year
grade curriculum. For example, 1990 is grade four
curriculum. On odd number years, I do the odd grade
level content (5th grade). That way I don’t have trouble
remembering what I’ve covered. There is more planning
involved though.
The pattern of what lower and middle elementary teachers stated as their

beliefs about the importance of speciﬁc content instruction did not parallel the belief
statements of the teachers in the 4th and 5th grade classes at Hill. The majority of
these lower grade level teachers described a less structured system and less concern
with covering each district prescribed objective. S.W. described the approach to

curriculum plarming used by the lower elementary staff:

162

We don’t try to teach the same units the district
recommends. We use an inquiry approach. Our goal is
to develop students’ interests and to give them a taste of
knowledge in geography, social studies, and science. We
put the focus on developing within students the skills
necessary to ﬁnd out more.

L.B. focused on helping students make choices. "I let students make their own
choices about what to learn and help guide their searc ." C.O. saw his role as a
facilitator rather than as a director of learning:

In multi-age classrooms, we don’t look at kids as
empty vessels, pouring in the information. Reading,
writing, and language are all interactive and come from
the kids’ own knowledge base.

C.O. explained:

Because students help each other more, it’s really
less work for me. Students make good choices. They
have many helpers.

Because learning experiences in the early elementary grades at Hill are based
on building on a child’s interest and past experience, there was less emphasis on
covering certain pro-described district content objectives in math, science or social
studies. J .G. described her curriculum planning style:

When I can do what I want, I work around a
general theme, like nature or machines, and have
different reading and math experiences grow out of that
theme. I’d like to have more choices, computer access,
and learning stations.

S.W. had a similar pattern in developing learning opportunities. "I organize
my assignments very open ended." There are many different ways to learn and things
to learn.

The lack of grade level content structure in the early elementary grades

created a good ﬁt with multi-age grouping. Students were able to pursue their own

163
interest, work at their own pace, and move to different work areas or centers. For
the upper elementary grade teachers, who put more emphasis on teaching the
prescribed district grade level curriculum, more concerns about the practice of multi-
age grouping were expressed. R.Z. described her concern with a wide variety of ages
together:
Sometimes the range of skills is so wide in multi-
age groups that I feel like I might be losing the bottom
kids and the top kids.
L.L., a 4-5 teacher, expressed a similar frustration:
When you teach the district curriculum, you teach
more whole groups and it’s hard to get your point across.
The olders get bored and the youngers get confused.

Whatever classroom system was used, formal or informal, structural or
unstructured, there was a common belief among the staff at Hill that students are
capable of making choices and that the role of the teacher was one of mentor,
counselor and resource person. The concern was expressed that the traditional role
of the teacher as the giver of knowledge must change for multi-age grouping to be
viable. The fear was that this new role for teachers may be viewed as more work or
at least less control.

J .G. explained in a journal entry:

Teachers need to act as mentors. Students are
like sponges soaking up knowledge. Teachers need to
let them soak up knowledge and facilitate their ability to
seek out information. We must recognize that students
are very capable learners without us. The goal is to

develop a learner that takes responsibility for their own
education.

This view was also reﬂected by the principal, P.O.:

164

I expect to see kids making choices. The role of
the teacher must change.

C.O. echoed a similar theme:

Teachers are afraid to give students power over their
own education. We must realize that we are not the sole
givers of knowledge. If we trust the students, they will
make wise choices about their own education.

In a teacher interview with S.W., I asked her how she planned the instructional
day to meet the needs of students of varied ages and abilities so that they learned
best. S.W. described the ideal classroom operating:

In the rare moments when this classroom runs as
I want it to run, there are many options or choices for
learning independently or with a friend, and students can
seek out and get what they need for where they are at.
That just can’t happen with teachers talk...the whole-
class lecture method.

Some teachers at Hill School described multi-age grouping as more work.
Others worry that the change in the role of the teacher, from the giver of knowledge
to a mentor and counselor, would be viewed as more work by the profession. In
either case, there is an awareness that in general the education professional viewed
multi-age classrooms as more difﬁcult to teach than single-age/graded classes.

There are some practical problems with multi-age grouping. A central
problem related to the difﬁculty in locating the varied instructional materials needed
and the lack of ﬂexible, commercially-prepared materials. Another practical problem
was created by central curriculum demands that are organized by grade level. Trying
to meet the grade level curriculum standards while implementing multi-age grouping

was viewed as quite difﬁcult by all the teachers. Many of the teachers, particularly

at the lower grade levels, ignored the prescribed district standards when planning

165

curriculum content. This issue was of greater concern to the teachers of 4th and 5th
grades at Hill and may account for the reason that upper grade staff tended to view
multi-age teaching as more work than single grade teaching.

Noise

A ﬁnal pattern that teachers described that characterizes a multi-age class was
the tendency for these classrooms to be noisy. Due to the large number and variety
of simultaneous activities occurring in a classroom, and the freedom of choice that
was often provided for students to move about, interact, and converse, the activity
level and accompanying noise level were frequently high. CO. stated it simply,
"Many teachers can’t tolerate kids moving, making noise, and being really active."
The school secretary described the classrooms as "noisy and messy." In a
conversation with C.O., he apologized for the noise, "I hope you can understand the
order underneath all this confusion. It is hard to concentrate with all the noise."

Noise and activity became a problem "only when it interferes with the learning
of others," reported C.K. "You get used to it."

There was a pattern exposed where teachers found it necessary to explain to
the visitor why the noise level was so high. When entering C.K.’s room, she explained
to a student volunteer that "the centers get pretty loud, but that’s alright." J .G.
explained that "It’s easy to think with the noise for kids, but hard to get their
attention." Upon entering C.O.’s room, he told a visitor, "If it gets too loud, then I’ll
turn off the lights or something to quiet it down a bit, but I’m more concerned when
there is no noise . . . no noise means no learning." "Some kids get distracted,"
reported S.W., "but they can go to the hall or library or quiet area."

The high level of noise and activity was characteristic of multi-age classes at

166

Hill. Teachers felt a need to explain the noise level. They expressed concern about
the way visitors responded to the noise level, but did not express concern about the
noise level interfering with learning. "A noisy class means students are busy," said the
principal. "It’s a good sign."

Summary

This chapter has dealt with the reporting and analysis of the data collected to
carry out the objectives of the study. In this chapter section, the important ﬁndings
are highlighted and the results of the data collection process are reported.

Although small group instruction was utilized in many single-age/grade
classrooms, the reliance on this form of classroom instructional grouping dominated
the multi-age classroom structure. The use of this grouping method stemmed from
the realization of teachers in multi-age settings that all students learn differently,
learn at different rates, and need to learn in a socially comfortable atmosphere.
Comfortable learning environments allowed for self-expression and exploration of a
variety of educational experiences.

In multi-age settings, the students had a responsibility for the effective overall
functioning of the group. Students had signiﬁcant control over what happens to them
in the classroom and bad choices about what they did. The process of giving students
control over their learning experiences was accomplished through the use of small
group organization for instruction. Students had input into their small group partners
and formed relationships with these partners as they moved through varied teacher-
planned activities during the day. Small group periods also included time for free
choice where students could pursue their own interests with or without teacher

guidance. Activities for small groups were frequently scheduled. The schedule

167

provided the necessary structure so that the classroom transitions were orderly and
so that student learning time was maximized. The teachers planned speciﬁcally
designed activities for the small groups and designed activities to challenge the older
and more capable learners in the small group while providing other times for olders
to help younger and less able students learn. The teachers established individual
goals for students and utilized mini-lessons to regroup students according to their
instructional needs. On occasion the teachers would use whole group instruction with
all class members present. Whole group lessons were used to review or decide on
process, rules and procedures. These housekeeping sessions were also used for
orientation to new experiences and to describe the roles and responsibilities of
students and staff.

Teachers reported that it is important in a multi-age setting to create a safe
and natural learning environment that is similar to a family grouping. Students of
different ages learn together and have responsibilities to help each other. Small
group work helped students develop socially as well as academically. In multi-age
classrooms, teachers reported that social skill development was as important as
academic skill development.

Staff and students reported some distinct advantages to multi-age grouping.
One advantage was that multi-age grouping was seen as enhancing cooperation
among students. The staff reported that multi-age grouping allowed for individual
differences to be accommodated and reduced the pressure to conform or to reach
grade level standards. Thus multi-age settings tended to be less competitive.
Another student advantage cited by participants was that the younger students are

able to learn from older children, to get help from others, and to get a preview of

168

future instruction by watching the teacher instruct older students. The preview
enabled students to have thoughts about the task ahead of time so when it was their
turn to learn or apply the concept they had some experience base. This factor
accounted for why youngsters frequently watched the instruction being conducted with
older children. In multi-age small group instruction, students heard and saw the
concept being repeated before, during and after their own direct instruction.

Staff and students reported that socially, over a period of years, students in a
multi-age class grouping had the chance to be the leaders and the helpers. They had
the opportunity and the privilege of both being looked up to and of being nurtured
by other children. A multi-age setting was described to be like a natural family group
where the roles of the children change as the family group grows and matures. More
stability and a better bonding of students to students and students to teachers was
possible in a multi-age setting where students formed relationships and played
different roles over a number of years in the same classroom. According to the
principal, students were able to "grow into" their multi-age classroom. This classroom
plan that allowed students to spend multiple years in the same classroom was viewed
as a very positive aspect of multi-age grouping by the participants.

According to staff reports, in a multi-age setting students with different
abilities in content skill areas were better able to have their needs met. A student
who was an excellent reader but lacked math skills was better accepted in a multi-age
setting due to the naturally occurring differences in student abilities. Staff reported
that students in multi-age settings were more able to learn at their own pace and seek
out their own experiences due to the varied small group make-up and an emphasis

on student choice.

169

Multi-age classroom teaching involved a commitment to looking at students
as individuals, with differences that should be accommodated rather than eliminated.
In a multi-age setting, students could be different and still belong, challenging the
teacher to be more creative, ﬂexible and resourceful in order to meet different needs.
For one child, hands on learning was appropriate, for another work groups, for
another independent study. The recognition of differences in learning needs and
cognitive style, and then planning to meet those needs, was a commitment made by
teachers in multi-age settings.

The reasons given by teachers for their commitment to multi-age group
instruction were intensely personal. Many of the teachers expressed dissatisfaction
with their own traditional school experiences. Others related their own positive real
life experiences as reasons for commitment to the practice.

Teachers in multi-age classrooms based student goal achievement on an
individual proﬁle rather than by pre-set grade level standards. Individual assessments
using portfolio, criterion reference testing, and student self-reports were utilized to
keep track of student progress. Instruction based on individual proﬁles resulted in
less student failure than in classrooms where grade level achievement standards were
ﬁxed. Teachers at Hill School also reported that there was little need to consider
grade retention for students due to a multi-age format that gave students more time
to develop and grow. There was no evidence that teachers utilized standardized test
results to plan curriculum, group students or assess individual achievement.

Evidence gathered during observations and interviews conﬁrm that multi-age
grouping created the need for the staff at Hill School to work closely together.

Interdependence was necessary due to the sharing of students, need for joint

170

planning, and the high level of student choice of activity. Consistent staff
communication, c00peration and mutual understanding was necessary to facilitate the
instructional practices utilized in connection with the small group work. The staff
members interacted several times daily. The whole staff met weekly and discussed
school operations and philosophy. The staff utilized a school improvement model to
set goals for program organization and instruction.

The staff expressed some issues of concern about multi-age grouping. One of
the concerns expressed was about the lack of common language, both within the
building and among educators, to describe the practice of multi-age grouping. Staff
members prefer to use the terms multi-age grouping or family grouping to describe
their program organization. These terms allowed students to be viewed more as
individuals than being identiﬁed by their grade labels. The staff at Hill felt strongly
that multi-age classes and splits or split grades should not be equated. Split classes
were viewed as two or more disjointed groups of students put together.

The teachers at Hill identiﬁed a number of concerns related to how others
perceived their practice. There was concern that educators, parents, and the
community at large did not have enough information about multi-age grouping.
There was also a concern about how the high noise and activity levels were viewed
by others. Staff at Hill also expressed some concerns related to instruction. The
upper grade teachers viewed multi-age grouping as more work due to the need for
additional planning and the pressure to cover pre-set content. Many of the staff
found it difﬁcult to locate appropriate instructional materials due to a lack of open-
ended, commercially-prepared materials. They cited this lack of appropriate,

commercially-produced materials as a frustration. Teachers reported that the district-

171

purchased stock textbooks and workbooks are rarely used for instruction and that it
takes much more effort to create and . locate curriculum materials that are
appropriate for an instruction program based on individual student needs and
interests.

Teachers reported that instruction in multi-age classes was a viable
organization method for instruction if the students work together to accomplish
desired outcomes. Small groups included students of similar ages helping each other,
referred to as peer tutoring, as well as students of different ages working together.
Cross-age tutoring, with students of different ages purposely grouped together to
enhance learning, was an instructional grouping practice utilized to various degrees
by each teacher at the study site. Frequently, the teachers provided direct instruction
on how students can work together. The teachers encouraged students to help each
other both academically and socially. Activities are planned by teachers that teach
olders how to help youngers. The instructors also plan activities that are directly
targeted at the older students to insure that the needs of students with more abilities

are addressed.

CHAPTERV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND REFLECTIONS

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe how multi-age
classrooms are organized for student instruction and to report what elementary school
teachers say about their experiences with the practice of multi-age grouping and the
instructional strategies they utilized that enable students of different ages and
identiﬁed grade levels to be educated together.

In this chapter, answers to the questions posed in the study are reported.
Conclusions drawn from the data are reported, along with implications for educators
to consider. Recommendations which seemed to follow from the results of the study
are reported. Reﬂections that developed from the experience of collecting the data
are also provided from a personal perspective.

The data are presented as responses to the research questions from Chapter
I. The implications and recommendations for further study are based on the
conclusions drawn from the data.

Summary of the Data
Research Question One
How are multi-age classrooms organized for instruction and what instructional

strategies are typically utilized in these settings?

172

173

An analysis of the data obtained from the study of multi-age grouped classes
revealed that classrooms of this type, particularly at the elementary level, utilized
small groups as the primary organizational practice for providing student instruction.
This utilization of cooperative small groups, which are heterogeneous in nature,
formed the framework for guiding the daily routine. Small groups were used to
enhance social skill deve10pment, as well as to enable academic learning to occur.
The multi-age classroom teachers facilitated small group learning that promoted
opportunities for student choice in learning. Student work activities evolved from the
students’ own interests as well as from teacher-directed assignments. The use of
small group instructional practice created a system where students could interact with
each other, learn from each other, and take responsibility for many of their own
learning experiences during the school day.

Through the use of cooperative small groups, teachers were able to design
classrooms where students of different ages and identiﬁed grade levels could be
feasibly educated together in a single classroom. Teachers in multi-age classes relied
on student-helping-student strategies as an instructional method. Students frequently
worked and played together with little or no teacher intervention. Peer (same age)
tutoring and cross-age tutoring were arranged by the teacher and occurred by student
choice throughout the day. Teachers used these peer empowerment strategies to
enable them to work with individuals and groups around identiﬁed need and interest
areas. Student-to-student helping and tutoring techniques were taught by teachers.
Teachers provided direct instruction to students related to helping others, both
socially and academically. The power of these interactions was harnessed by teachers

in multi-age settings. Students frequently modeled the behaviors of other students.

174

Teachers allowed younger, less mature, or slower rate learners to observe
other students during teacher-directed small group lessons. This "preview" gave
students, who had less experience with a concept, an opportunity to view the lesson
content and learn the expectations of a situation before they were asked to
participate directly in the activity.

Teachers arranged their classroom schedules, physical layouts and activities to
facilitate small group interactions. The day was scheduled in choice and activity
periods so students worked in small groups. The occasional use of designated whole-
class periods was a consistent pattern.

Teachers organized activity areas or centers for small groups of students to
work in. Although teachers had different systems for small group formation and
interaction, the planned use of a variety of learning activities occurred simultaneously
in each classroom.

While teacher-directed small group instruction was being provided to some
students, directed toward an academic outcome, other students were engaged in play.
The choice to play was encouraged in each classroom for at least some part of the
day.

The majority of the time that students spent in multi-age classes was spent in
small groups for instruction. Although the type of student experience varied with the
age of the student, the teacher organized activities in centers or activity areas which
corresponded to the interest of the child or allowed for play. The classroom
instruction focused on cognitive, academic, and affective outcomes. In general,
students were allowed a high level of choice and were allowed to move freely within

the classroom. In planning the day, teachers scheduled a lot of movement and

175

change. Scheduled changes occurred approximately every 30 minutes and permitted
movement to a new small group activity.

Teachers organized whole group sessions in multi-age classrooms primarily to
provide orientation to upcoming activities, to review rules, or to conduct class
meetings. Class meetings were used for "housekeeping" matters and to review
procedures. Each class spent a minor portion of the instructional day in a whole
group session. Occasionally, whole class grouping was utilized for content instruction,
a demonstration or a speaker.

Multi-age group classes were organized on an annual basis so that students
spent multiple years with the same teacher. Many of the students returned to the
same classroom for two or three years. These returnees knew the routines,
expectations, and other students in the classroom. Teachers used returnees to orient
new students in the beginning of each year.

Teachers used instructional strategies and organizational systems to monitor
student progress and report student accomplishments individually. In the multi-age
setting, there was little normative comparison of student progress. Teachers used
project work to challenge students and set individual expectations for performance.
Student work folders, portfolio collections, contract completion, and student self
reports were used as systems to keep track of student achievements.

Teachers frequently assigned project work based on interest. These projects
included written reports, illustrations, drawings, oral reports, book reports, and
individually assigned textbook or worksheet completion. Teachers met with students
individually or in small groups to check work completion and to provide feedback.

Parent and student meetings were utilized by teachers to develop personalized goals

176

and/or contracts and to provide a system for evaluation of student progress.
Research Question Two

How do teachers describe the operation of multi-age classes?

Teachers experienced with multi-age groups were asked to describe the
operation of the classroom and to provide a rationale for the utilization of multi-age
grouping. Teachers reported that multi-age classes enabled them to accommodate
individual differences. Because students have different needs, abilities, and learning
styles, teachers set up classes so that students could develop skills at different rates.
Teachers reported having ﬂexible expectations for student achievement. To
accomplish this, teachers designed a variety of learning opportunities and, with
guidance, let students choose the experiences that best ﬁt their readiness level.

In the multi-age classroom, the role of the teacher was one of a facilitator
rather than the director of learning. Teachers described the multi-age classes as a
structure that is designed to build on a child’s interests and past experience. There
is less emphasis on covering certain prescribed grade level content in a pre-set
timeline. This lack of grade level content structure in the early elementary grades
created the ability to make multi-age grouping work. According to teachers, students
were able to pursue their own interests, work or play at their own pace, and explore
a variety of learning experiences by moving to different work areas or centers.

Teachers described their role in the multi-age classroom as mentor, counselor
or resource person. Whatever system the teachers used to form small groups, there
was a common understanding that students are capable of making choices and a
belief that students can learn appropriate information and behavior from each other.

Teachers designed multi-age classes so students could help each other. There

177

were many options or choices for learning, and students were encouraged to work
independently or with a friend. Teachers described multi-age classes as comfortable
learning environments that allow for student self-expression and an exploration of a
variety of educational experiences. Students had a responsibility for the overall
functioning of the group. They had signiﬁcant control over their own learning
experiences. The process of giving students control over their own learning
experiences was accomplished through the use of a small group type of instructional
system where students had input into their learning partners.

Multi-age classes worked to enhance social as well as academic outcomes,
according to teachers. Teachers reported that social skill development was as
important as academic skill development.

Research Question Three

As a result of their involvement with multi-age classrooms, what experiences
do participants report that have affected their viewpoints, attitudes, and
understandings about student learning?

Staff involved as participants in this study reported many expressions of faith
in the multi-age grouping system. These values developed out of their experiences
both inside and outside of the classroom.

Participants expressed many positive learning realizations due to their
association with the practice of multi-age grouping. The major patterns that emerged
included growing sensitivities to the realities of how children develop; the need to
recognize, accept and accommodate individual differences; the need for students to
learn cooperatively; the need to reduce school failure; and the need to re-educate the

educational community and the larger society in order to expand the beneﬁts of

178

multi-age group practice.

The vast majority of the participants believed that multi-age classes enhance
cooperation among students. The participants reported that multi-age grouping
allowed for individual differences to be accommodated and reduced the pressure on
students to conform, thus reducing competition. Participants found that when staff
and students spent multiple years together in the same class, the result was increased
respect and the development of positive attitudes toward others.

The fact that students and staff grow closer together over multiple years was
seen as a real advantage by many participants in multi-age settings. Students in the
class felt more comfortable, were better accepted, and helped each other learn when
the familiarity of a long-term relationship was possible. This multiple-year
involvement evoked some of the strongest positive responses from teaching staff.
Multiple-year placement, according to teachers, helped save instructional time,
enabled teachers to really see growth in student abilities, and enabled strong bonds
to develop among students and between the teacher and the students. Teachers were
more invested in students under this organizational design. Many teachers described
spending multiple years with students as being like developing family relationships.

Overall, multi-age teachers viewed students as individuals and realized, through
their experience, that students are all different in their interests, abilities, and learning
styles. The willingness of teachers to accept and accommodate diversity in the
classroom was enhanced by their teaching experience in a multi-age setting.

Because students were able to spend multiple years in a single class, and
because progress was assessed individually, there was less school failure. In general,

teachers realized that it was best to encourage each student to progress at his/her

179

own rate, determined by the person’s interests, academic knowledge base, social
preferences, and capacities. Teachers in the multi-age settings observed realized that
in that environment the above-average student was not restrained from progressing
beyond grade-established norms, and less mature or slower-rate learners were not
required to undertake impossible tasks merely because of predetermined standard
grade expectations. Curriculum adjustments were made without having to resort to
failure or grade retention.

As a result of their own experiences in school as children or in the workplace
as adults, many of the participants in a multi-age setting have come to see that multi-
age grouping reﬂects the real world outside of the classroom. The fact that adults
and children live in a world full of diversity has affected the perceptions of staff about
practices in schools. The fact that outside of school students live and work with
people of different ages was used as justiﬁcation for multi-age grouping. People of
different ages learn from each other outside of schools, form friendships, and enjoy
the same activities. The use of age/graded systems was seen as restricting student
experience. One key element that participants realized as a result of their experience
was that older students in a classroom were able to help younger or less experienced
students, freeing up the teacher to work with those students who needed direct
teacher intervention. The teaching staff especially valued student tutoring and
helping opportunities that occurred in their classrooms and between students in
neighboring classes.

When participants began reﬂecting on their own school experiences, there
appeared a pattern of personal dissatisfaction with traditional graded systems. It

appeared that many of the staff chose to teach in a multi-age setting because of

180

unfulﬁlling experiences in their own school careers. For some participants, however,
the opposite was true. Their own school experiences as a student or teacher in a
one-room schoolhouse, informal school or open school environment provided a
positive impetus to begin or continue an association with multi-age classes.

As a result of their experiences with multi-age teaching, the upper elementary
fourth and ﬁfth grade teachers believed that multi-age group instruction was more
work for teachers. This view, however, was not shared by teachers in the earlier
grades. There was general agreement that multi-age group teaching is deﬁnitely
more work for teachers when a class is taught as if distinct grade groupings of
students need to learn distinct grade level content. The notion of split grades reﬂects
this practice. Experienced multi-age group teachers rejected the practice of split
grading as unrealistic and unproductive. They viewed multi-age grouping as a very
different practice.

Teachers in multi-age settings reported increased interdependence within the
system. More time was spent sharing students and materials. More planning was
necessary among the faculty because classrooms shared students, and cross-age
programs, such as reading buddies, needed to be planned and structured. Teachers
frequently met after the student school day to plan joint activities. These
collaborative relationships were both formal and informal. The principal encouraged
cross-age/cross-class groupings and team teaching. Staff meetings were held weekly
and frequently focused on shared-activity efforts and school-wide initiatives.

This additional planning time may account for the statements by some of the
upper grade level teachers that multi-age grouping was more work. Clearly, the

practice required signiﬁcant planning time and collaboration for the teaching staff.

181

This was necessary due to the frequent occurrences of sharing students, planning
cross-age experiences, and the teaming of teachers for certain curriculum activities.

The experiences of teachers in multi-age settings led them to believe that there
are signiﬁcant problems with public perceptions of the practice and that a total re-
education is necessary for parents, educators, and the community-at-large to see the
valuable aspects of multi-age group instruction. According to the participants, multi-
age grouping constitutes a signiﬁcant paradigm shift. The differences between
traditional age/grade instruction and multi-age practice are more signiﬁcant than a
change in the ages of students in the room. Multi-age class instructional methods
create a much different environment for learning than people are accustomed to.
Multi-age classes tend to be noisy, lack neat order, and lack standardized expectations
for achievement. The classroom learning was not based on textbooks and normative
grade level achievement measures. In short, the participants felt that the practice is
misunderstood and not accepted as valuable in the community. The desire was to
have educators and parents better understand the value of multi-age grouping and
accept the practice as a valuable alternative to the predominant age/graded system.

Conclusions and Implications

An analysis of the data led to some important conclusions being drawn about
multi-age group teaching. The conclusions and the implications of the ﬁndings for
teaching and learning are reported in this section.

Q's. 11.!--.°' no-9 e 113 t , CuC‘p 'S 13' ‘rt h... 0 ° u .0-
cgnﬁguratjgns. The practice of splitting grade levels involves putting two distinct
grade level groups together in order to reduce the number of grade sections. When

grouping for administrative convenience in split grades occurred, the same grade level

182

expectations, standards, and structures that were typically used in single age/grade
classes often continued to be employed. The concept of multi-age grouping was
based on a different philosophy about classroom organization, student learning,
teacher roles, and instructional practice. Although similar in some attributes, multi-
age grouping placed students of different ages together in a single classroom to
enhance learning outcomes for the students. A lack of information on the underlying
rationale for multi-age grouping led many educators to be confused about this
practice. Clearly a change in the organization of a classroom in and of itself is not
enough to change instructional practice or bring about different student learning
opportunities or outcomes.
Unfortunately, WW
a-.. ' ed 11'1n 1n'-egrw- 0T: i ‘ 1‘ 111 11161- o ‘11:- 1a 11,1
.1; ' u 1.11 1 ve 11-91 1' -;‘ no 1 1a.. 1“1 11-11-1.Teacherscan
use the same books, methods of instruction, and measures of student performance
in multi-age group classrooms as they do in single-grade classes. They can also
expect grade-type results from students in multi-age settings. A change in
organization of students does not easily translate into a change in classroom
instruction. The implementation of the instructional practices associated with multi-
age grouping; the predominant use of cooperative small group instruction; the use of
student-helping-student strategies; multiple years within the same classroom; a
reduction in student failure; learning groups based on interest (rather than ability);
progress assessed continuously; enabling student choice of activities; and,
accommodating individual differences are the improved outcomes that can occur in

multi-age settings. These practices are more likely to be found in multi-age settings,

183

but are not necessarily utilized in a setting simply because it is multi-aged.
111-11-1.1'11 1‘ '1 1. '11:. ‘ 11-15 -_11 1 °-.1'..-. '11-. is '11
1' '1 '111 --3‘ '11 1'1: '1'sf 111tha - ad"ta"1' 's'11
WW. Both teachers and parents need to
understand the learning dynamics associated with the multi-age grouping system.
Parents and teachers need to maintain continuous communication on student
progress within this framework. Many barriers exist to the acceptance in our society
of the practices associated with multi-age grouping. Most textbooks, workbooks, and
tests have a deep-rooted grade-level orientation as their basic framework. Teachers,
administrators, and parents have long had personal associations with grade-level
identities. It is not possible to move rapidly away from a program system that has
become so deeply ingrained as part of the school and community lives of several
generations of adults. A real change in practice will require a long-term commitment
to the re-education of the entire education community.
l1‘ 11.1 111 1 11- 1311‘ 21 1'_1° 's 01e1'1te eez- 11111 1'1.
delelgpmenﬂiterature. There is ample evidence that students of the same age learn
and develop at different rates. The underlying assumptions of multi-age grouping
recognize these differences and set up instructional programs to accommodate these
differences. Teachers in multi-age settings allowed students to progress at their own
rate, evaluated outcomes individually, and provided opportunities for students to
engage in self-selected learning activities. Research on individual learning and
developmental proﬁles indicates that there is a wide variance in "normal" learning
patterns. The use of small group learning centers, student-helping-student strategies,

and student choice of activities based on interest created the instructional foundation

184

that enabled teachers to respond to individual needs. In contrast, the instruction in
many schools that is prescribed by grade norms bewilders children because it outruns
their experience.
A9,. 112-! '.-!"!13'S"1.!'!1.'m!' ti! 1"? 70"i"0

1_.1‘1'111.1'-=_" ...‘S1ere a - 1e-11 1111-".1111fa child read
slowly or had problems, he/she had the time to work on the skill without the
pressures of failure or retention. Teachers in multi-age classes could take time to get
to know children and accept their differences because they spent multiple years
together. Acceptance of differences in student cognitive, affective, and psychomotor
growth resulted in less need for comparison of students to norm referenced indicators
of progress. When teachers accommodated individual differences, students
experienced less failure, competition, and grade retention. The satisfaction that
students at Hill School showed about their own accomplishments, their willingness to
share their accomplishments with visitors, and the involvement of the students in new
learning experiences indicated that the instructional strategies utilized at Hill School

created a high level of motivation for many students.

I16 641.1: I: 1 161. '1 1_1-_1'--.°‘ l-_. 1111.‘ .11.. 11 1‘1‘ nut
WW. While initial reaction to the classroom

activities was one of noise and confusion for the visitor, classroom observations
provided evidence that significant student learning was occurring. Many of the
traditional observations of a "good" classroom learning environment were absent in
these multi-age settings. The classrooms were not quiet, orderly or systematically
planned by the teacher. Instruction and learning activities were not dominated by the

teachers. Students did not all have the same expectations for learning achievement

185

or the same goals. The indicators of an orderly, structured, teacher-directed,
disciplined, neat, well organized classroom setting typically associated with "sound
traditional practice" were not characteristic of these multi-age classes. Learning in
multi-age class occurred in many different ways, with many different outcomes.
Students worked together on cooperatively designed learning experiences. Students
directed their own experience to a large extent. The role of the teacher as counselor,
mentor or assistant was very unobtrusive. Order was present, but a look beyond the
traditional type of organization was necessary for the order to be seen. Students
played and students taught each other. Students had time to choose and they had
time to watch. There were many acceptable ways for students to use their time.
Experience-based learning was valued and the choices made by students were
recognized as legitimate. Learning in multi-age classrooms was recognized by
teachers as occurring through many kinds of interactions, not necessarily a product

of teacher-planned lessons.

ractice f s de ts s e di ult' e wi sa te 5nd
peers in a classroom was valaad. When teachers and peers worked together over a

number of years, the relationships established were valued and the learning
experiences were enriched. Knowledge of students by teachers, students by other
students, and teachers by students was obtained in a cumulative manner. When
classroom groups worked together over a number of years, the interests, experiences,
gifts, and needs of the individual participants were better understood by those close
to them. The illustrations of family grouping relationships, and the data that
indicated that students "grow into" their multi-age classroom provided evidence that

the roles of the students changed over the years. Teachers spent less time with

186

classroom orientation and management. They depended on the returning students
to help the new members of the class family. Teachers were better able to actually
see student growth as personal testimony indicated. Returning students were able to
get involved in meaningful learning right away as the school year began, virtually

picking up where they left off. Parents, too, had lasting relationships with the

teachers.
3.11.11 1' ' r" 13.11" 1:111 1111111 1.11111 1' 11 ..1--.°'
111.1. ‘a. 1‘ 1" 3.. 1131er.1-va1‘1' 1111 -. 1 -.. .1 11w
W. N 0 two classes, even in the same school, were exactly

alike in terms of instruction. An underlying assumption in the multi-age classes was
that studies in an enriched and planned classroom supported the natural drive toward
learning that children have, and that children learned from each other, from books,
and from encounters with things around them. Teachers also believed that: children
learn at their own pace; children learn most intensely when they are interested in
what they are doing, and when the activity is relevant for their life; children are
capable of making good choices. There were few whole class lessons, and little
emphasis on rigidly enforced curriculum. The role of the teacher was important.
The teachers were rarely concerned with instructing the class as a whole or even with
"individualizing" the identical material to enable each child to cover the same content
at their own pace. Instead, the teachers fostered personalized learning which
developed out of each child’s particular needs and interests. "How" a child went
about learning concerned the teacher as did "what" the child learned.

T‘- he '111 1'-:" et '31! edtOW1. 11' 01‘ 1' 1-111,..t‘ .41

mpgramfaglitatcjnmgﬁgn. In multi-age school settings where student choice,

187

cross-age tutoring, freedom of mobility, and the development of learning groups
based on interest are characteristic, teachers must work closely together. Teachers
frequently shared students, activities were self-selected, and joint classroom student
tutoring sessions were held. This created the need for cooperative planning, regular
communication, ﬂexibility, and a faith in the competence of colleagues.
Interdependence can create strength in the instructional program, but also can create
an increase in situations where conﬂict can occur. A faculty considering a change to
multi-age grouping, with implementation of the associated instructional components,
must consider the ability of the faculty to work together. Failure to establish
collaborative faculty relationships may result in signiﬁcant conﬂicts. The multi-age
teacher situations observed required the sharing of responsibilities among the staff
so that varied learning opportunities could occur.
Recommendations for Practice

If major success in eﬁecting student school achievement and social adjustment
are to be realized, alternatives to the procedures presently and routinely initiated to
provide instruction must be designed. Rather than relying on superﬁcial manipulation
of organizational variables to realize this end, procedures for changing directly the
practices clearly associated with learning and instruction must be developed.
Modiﬁcations in organizational patterns, age grouping practices, and stafﬁng designs
are simply insufﬁcient, in and of themselves, to bring about signiﬁcant positive change
in the American elementary school.

I ' ‘ 111.11‘11‘d 1tt ‘ 111 C116 1111,1rc' 3.3 1111 ‘1‘1-111_1'-
- ,1 - s 1 11111 be 'ewed as ore tha ' an a111"131-.1v-1=1" '11 c.

mganizatign. It takes a re-education of teachers and changes in their practice. It

188

takes a re-education of the public about expectations, outcomes, the teacher’s role
in the classroom, and the necessity for teachers to work together. The public
perception of what schools should look like, feel like, and sound like must be
challenged. The practice of having neat rows of desks, a quiet hbrary-like
environment, lockstep curriculum, a priority focus on teacher-directed content skill
development, promotion based on achievement, and grade level curriculum
expectations needs to be challenged in order to implement the organizational and

instructional practices found in the multi-age classes reviewed in this study.

Clegly a bettet understaading af the phﬂ osophy bamn' d malti-aga gmapiag
naads ta ha laamed by edaaatots. Differentiating multi-age practice for instructional

reasons from split grading for economy and administrative purposes is necessary if
the practice of multi-age grouping is going to be understood by educators. Writing
and dialogue about the diﬁerences in rationale behind various age/grade
conﬁgurations is essential for meaningful study to take place and for communication
to occur about the impact of different age/grade grouping practices on student
learning.

In order to accept student experience-based learning, play, and student choice
as valuable ways for students to spend their time, it is important for educators to look
beyond traditional indicators of "good" teaching and classroom management.

Research from the ﬁeld of child development, and a belief that children are
capable of making choices, forms the basis of the multi-age philosophy. It is truly a
leap of faith for many teachers to put in the hands of students the power to guide
their own learning experiences. Teachers at Hill believed that students were capable

of making good choices, if they had a rich environment to explore and a basic

189

structure for the classroom operation. These beliefs have signiﬁcant implications for
changes in practice for teachers who dominate the classroom experience and who
seek control. The underlying beliefs that students are capable, responsible and self-
directed are signiﬁcant factors for teachers to consider when discussing multi-age
grouping.

The multi-age grouped primary school structure replaces certain organizational
rigidity with ﬂexibilities. Contained in this study are descriptions of ways that
instruction can be provided in multi-age settings and descriptions of techniques that
can be used to obtain greater student involvement and control in monitoring and
guiding their own development. The extent to which multi-age grouping facilitates
the use of these techniques and strategies that affect student learning is not easily
explained. It permits, but does not guarantee, a transfer of some of the decision
making regarding the instruction to students. It is recommended that this transfer of
decision making occur to a greater degree to increase student motivation and to
develop, within students, the abilities necessary to self-direct lifelong learning
experiences.

‘ 11,1-11‘11‘, 1.. 11- '--_2‘ 1..-. '41 111' 11 1' 1. -.1‘11.1u
W51. Properly used by a faculty dedicated to meeting the
instructional needs of students, multi-age grouping can free teachers from the
lockstep process of teaching students of the same age and identiﬁed grade level the
same content, at the same rate, at the same time. At the heart of the educational
process lies the child. No advances in organization, policy, equipment or physical
plant arrangement will have their desired effect unless they are in tune with the

child’s needs. We know a little bit about what happens when a child is deprived of

190

basic needs, stimulation, love, and belonging. We know about the effects that a lack
of exposure to books and spoken words can have on learning. We know much less
about what happens to a child who is expected to learn information that is
perceptually, intellectually or socially inappropriate to their age and level of
development or individual needs and interests. Learning experiences deﬁned by
grade level placement appear to all but ignore the realities of child development.

1 ecommende tha e bod knowled e o ow chil r d v 1
pn’mary consideration when designing edncan'gnal pragtices. One of the most
important concepts in the child development literature is that primary age school
children learn most efﬁciently from concrete situations, lived or described. From
these experiences, children acquire concepts in every area of the curriculum.
Therefore, "play" needs to be a central activity in all primary school experiences. The
idea of playing in schools sometimes leads to accusations that children are wasting
time in school. These accusations lie in notions that what is done in school is deﬁned
as "work" and what is done out of school is "play." We know now that play, deﬁned
as "messing around" with either material objects or other children, thus creating
fantasy, is vital to a child’s learning and is, therefore, vital in school.

The intense interest shown by children in the world about them, their ability
to concentrate on what is occupying their immediate attention, and their need to
explore and experience is well known by educators. Skills in reading and writing or
the techniques used in art are best taught when the need for them is recognized by
the child. A child who has no immediate need to learn a skill is unlikely to be
successful. There is, therefore, good reason for allowing children in the elementary

grades to choose, within a prepared, safe and enriching setting where choices and

191

interests are supported by teachers.

Teachers must rely on both their general knowledge of child development and
on detailed observation of individual children in order to establish appropriate
expectations for each child and plan for enriching school experiences. The absence
of arbitrary grade standards in multi-age classrooms can facilitate the development
of these personalized expectations and experiences without pressure for "normative"
achievement level attainment.

701111-nde1 1.. te1e11 wo . 11111 1' ' 111 1:. 171‘-
pendenge among me school fagnliy be fosiered. When teaching professionals work
together to plan student learning opportunities based on interest and organize schools
so students help each other learn, the instructional practices associated with multi-age
grouping are strengthened. Consistent and meaningful dialogue among the staff helps
create a school environment where teachers can model cooperative working
relationships for students. Opening up opportunities for students to participate in
activities in work groups in other classrooms enables more variety and can provide
more enriching experiences for students. Indeed, the sharing of student responsibility,
although creating the potential for conﬂict, enables teachers to share ideas, eliminates
teacher isolation, offers more learning options, and enables teachers to talk about
instruction. Innovation is more likely to occur when teachers share ideas, beliefs and
instructional plans.

I ' e00111en1d1at ea c, t' e s 1‘ 1_t-1-l_11,1-_ 1 1 -11-11; 1

. Students learn from

 

each other. The potential that peer tutoring and cross-age tutoring holds for the

improvement of instruction is great. Teachers need to see the value of students

192

helping each other learn, both for the student being tutored and for the student doing
the tutoring. When students teach a skill to someone else, the person doing the
teaching is able to practice his/her own skills and also think through the process of
instruction. Teaching others demands a high level of understanding of the content
and often results in a feeling of satisfaction for the tutor. The use of cooperative
small groups enables students to interact, share information, and help each other
learn. The beneﬁts of using student empowerment strategies needs to be better
understood by teachers.

It is recommended that teacher pre-service and inservice experiences contain
information on the beneﬁts of using student-to-student helping strategies, and that
teachers be instructed on how to organize classrooms to facilitate student-helping-
student learning experiences.

I1'1n1111. e 1f11 _-'-'1e '4 1 -11' ' 11 -1 1‘ 1 92.111-11111- 11 1‘11. 1-

'1 .1i .11 11111111 11. 1.11.11. C- 161 ‘1 11.11.. .151. ‘111. When
multi-age grouping is used by a faculty to meet the personalized learning needs of
students, the process can have a signiﬁcant effect on practice and outcomes. Multi-
agc grouping should not be viewed as an objective but rather as a tool that enables
teachers to make the curriculum more meaningful for students, that fosters
independence in learning, that promotes an attitude of caring for others, and that
encourages students to help each other learn. The process of multi-age grouping is
positive to the extent that it accomplishes these teaching/learning objectives and to
the extent that it increases students abilities to pursue their own interests and expand
their learning experiences.

Traditional age/grade grouping, which is the current predominant practice of

193

class organization in American elementary schools, presents a formidable barrier to
achieving these objectives. The organizational and structural switches that are
necessary to implement multi-age grouping may provide enough impetus toward the
development of different expectations for student achievement so that change may
more easily occur in classroom practice. Organizational innovation, however, cannot
solve educational problems unless they are basically organizational in nature. A
faculty considering a move toward multi-gradedness must not expect the organization
in and of itself to accomplish profound educational results. The quality of the
contents must be changed as well as the shape of the containers. The tradition of
over 140 years of gradedness will not be easily overcome.
Recommendations for Further Study

In order for long-term re-education on a grand scale to occur, more
descriptors of instructional strategies that work are needed. It is recommended that
the study of promising educational practices, whether they are associated with multi-
age classes or not, should continue. The fact that so many promising practices occur
in multi-age classes indicates that a continued study of teaching methods associated
with this grouping plan is appropriate.

Further study is suggested as a follow-up to the ﬁndings of this study. The
students in this study could be followed through their middle school and high school
years to assess their adjustment from a multi-age class setting to single-age
classrooms. This information could also yield ﬁndings about the outcomes of multi-
age grouping on student academic achievement and social growth.

Further study is suggested in researching the process of small-group

instruction. It would be particularly beneﬁcial to discover if these instructional

194

strategies can be utilized effectively in single and age/grade classrooms.

Further study is also needed in regard to the use of student-helping-student
strategies. This practice appears to have great potential and to have applicability to
a variety of classroom settings.

Further study is also suggested in the area of multiple-year enrollment for
students in a single class with the same teacher. Perhaps the information derived
from such a study would provide an incentive to develop alternative classroom
grouping systems. A study of alternative ways to accomplish multiple-year enrollment
could potentially be beneﬁcial for students.

It is suggested that this study be replicated, using a larger population. In this
way, the results may be generalized and the instructional practices associated with
multi-age grouping can be further described.

Reﬂections

Although not evident in the data, the perpetuation and dominance of the
current single grade level system of class organization appears to be based almost
exclusively on tradition. The unquestioned acceptance of grade level expectations,
lockstep whole group instruction, and grouping by ability tracking is very disturbing,
given ample evidence that these practices are deﬁcient. The fact that so little
progress has been made in breaking these traditional practices is even more
disturbing. Although blame can be placed at the feet of many, it seems clear that
teachers are ﬁt into certain roles under certain expectations and are heavily
inﬂuenced by only the most immediate forces: the teacher next door and the
principal.

It seems that the best hope for improved instructional practices rests with

195

teachers and administrators at the building level and with pre-service preparation
programs. In order to accomplish real change in teaching to institute the
instructional practices described within the multi-age classes in this study, meaningful
dialogue about these practices needs to occur. Administrators need to encourage this
dialogue and need to trust teachers, who in turn must trust and respect students.
Centralized administrative "control" of schools seems to have created many of the
traditional organizational and instructional practices that need A to be questioned,
examined and changed to improve schools.

Indeed, administrative reorganization and restructuring will not be enough
without the meaningful involvement of individual teachers who are free from "district"
and "union" imposed restrictions on their practice. To accomplish this, the ﬁeld of
education needs leaders; leaders who will take risks, question tradition, allow
experimentation, and encourage change. These leaders must know the best
instructional practices of the day as described in research and insure that this
information is available to teachers, parents, and principals as they plan grassroots
changes. All members of the educational community must be encouraged to work
together to implement changes in instructional practice.

Under current governance this seems unlikely. Perhaps less emphasis on
public governance (community-elected school boards) and more education self-
governance through professional educator boards can help accomplish meaningful
professional self examination.

For many reasons, many promising instructional practices are not being
implemented. Experiences that I have had during the process of writing this

dissertation have convinced me that there are answers to many of the ills of

196

American public education. The answers are in current classrooms. There are many
promising instructional practices that have not been widely adopted by educators.
These practices are known to some. I was very impressed by the ability of the staff
at Hill School to implement instructional practices associated with multi-age grouping.
There is much to be learned by examining student-helping-student strategies,
cooperative small groups, and student interest based curriculum design systems.
We have the knowledge to implement these practices. We need leaders who
will provide the vision and teachers who will talk openly about their practice. If
members of any profession should be able to share and learn from each other, it

should be ours. It should be education.

APPENDICES

10.

11.

Appendix A Formal Patterned Interview Questions

Tell me brieﬂy about your professional background and experience.

What do you like about multi-age groupings?

What do you dislike about multi-age groupings?

When/how does cross-age tutoring occur? Peer tutoring?

What skills, knowledge and disposition do multi-age classroom teachers need?
How is the curriculum/content structured?

What are the roles of students and teachers in multi-age settings?

In multi-age group classroom teaching, what are the biggest challenges?
Frustrations? Joys? Satisfactions?

What are the beneﬁts of multi-age grouping?
How is your classroom organized for instruction?

What instructional strategies are typically used in your class?

197

198
Appendix B Sample Journal Questions

Name (optional) Ages of students in your class

Years of teaching experience
In the next few weeks, please take time to reﬂect upon, and respond to in writing,
the following questions. Feel free to include additional information that is important

to you. All responses will be kept strictly conﬁdential. Please write as much as you
feel is necessary to make your point clear and add to your responses over time.

1. Why did you choose to teach in a multi-age grouped classroom?
2. How and when did you decide to teach at Hill School?
3. What and who inﬂuenced you as a teaching professional?

4. In what ways has your experience with multi-age grouped teaching changed
your views about teaching and student learning?

5. As you reﬂect back on your early education, family life or early teaching
experience, what aspects of these experiences have inﬂuenced your teaching
in a mixed-age grouped program? '

6. What qualities or values do you feel are necessary for a teacher to possess to
be successful in a mixed-age grouped classroom?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acheson, J.F., "Memorandum on Combined Grades," Edmonton Catholic School
Board, Edmonton, Canada, October, 1984.

Anderson, Richard, "Case for Nongraded, Homogeneous Grouping," Elcmcmniy
School Jcnrnnl no. 62, January, 1962.

Anderson, Robert H. and Goodlad, John 1., WW
Revised Edition, 1967.

Anderson, Robert, "Shaping Up The Shop: How School Organization Inﬂuences
Teaching and Learning," Eucationai Lcadecship, February, 1987, p. 45.

Baker, T. P., "Curriculum Design - Strengths and Weaknesses of the Track System,"

WWW April. 1961.
pp. 69-74.

Balow, Irving H., "Does Homogeneous Grouping Give Homogeneous Groups?"

Elememamﬁchoﬂlnumal. 63. October. 19621PP-23-32-

Bayles, Ernest E- and Hood. Bruce L. MW
Practicc, Harper and Row, New York, 1966.

Berliner, David and Casanova, Ursula, "Peer Tutoring: A new look at a popular
practice," Imtmctcr, January, 1988, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 14-15.

Brown, Kenneth and Martin, Andrew, "Student Achievement in Multigrade and
Single Grade Classes," W Summer, 1989, pp. 11-14.

Bunker, Frank R, Reorganization of the Public Schocl Sysicm, Department of

Interior, Bureau of Education, Bulletin No. 8, Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Ofﬁce, 1916.

Carbone, Robert F., "A Comparison of Graded and Nongraded Elementary Schools,"
IheElementamﬁehoolJoumal. 62. November. 1961. PP- 82-88-

199

200

Carnahan, David J ., "More Questions than Answers: Large Group Learning Spaces,
Edncnticn, February-March, 1969, pp. 213-14.

Church, Robert L. and Sedlak, Michael W., Education in the United States, The Free
Press, New York, 1976.

Cloward, Robert D., "Studies in Tutoring," MW 36,
Fall, 1967, pp. 14-25.

Cohen, Deborah, "First Stirrings of a New Trend: Multi-age Classrooms Gain Favor,"
Educaticn chk, Dec. 1989, vol. Di, no. 14, pp. 13-15.

Coleman. James S-, et al.. Wow Washington. DC.
US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, 1966, p. 743.

Collier, Calhoun, "The Nongraded School," School and Society, January, 1966,
pp. 32, 50.

Cotton, Kathleen, "Peer Tutoring: Lake Washington High School, Benjamin Rush
Elementary School, Effective Practices in Place, Snapshot, No. 5, Schm]

WW1, Portland, Oregon, February, 1988-

Cowen, Philip A., "How the Graded School System Developed," Ihcﬂnﬁcnjs
Schccls, vol. VIII, no. 3, September, 1931.

Cubberley, Ellwood P., W Houghton Miﬂin, New
York, 1947.

Cubberley, Ellwood P., Waugh, Houghton Miﬂin, New York, 1948.

Dean, S.E., WW, vol. 5, no. 5, Croft Ed. Services, December,
1965, p. 1.

Dean, Stuart, W US. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Office of Education, Education Brief, no. 1, Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Ofﬁce, July, 1964.

Dufay, Frank R., Ungradingjhcﬁlcmcnmﬁchcnl, Parker Publishing Co., West
Nyack, New York, 1966, pp. 23-24, 31, 37, 65.

Eby. F rederick. WWW Prentice-Hall. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1952.

Erickson, F., "Qualitative Methods on Teaching," Handhcckhhﬁescnnchnn
fIfeaching, MacMillan, New York, 1987.

201

Finley, C. J. and Thompson, J. M. "A Comparison of Achievement of Multi-graded
and Single-graded Rural Elementary School Children," The J oumal of Egnann a]
Research, May-June, 1963, pp. 471-475.

Ford, Bonnie, "Multiage Grouping in the Elementary School and Children’s Affective

Development: A Review of Recent Research," Eicmcnjnuﬁchoojjcnmnl,
November, 1977, pp. 149-159.

Freeman, Jayne, "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Combination Class,"
Instru_ct_gr, March, 1984, pp. 48-54.

Gajadharsingh, J ., "The Multigrade Classroom in Saskatchewan," IhLSnckajchcwnn
Educnn'onnl Administratcr, Spring, 1982, pp. 2-41.

Garvey, James, "Possible Over Emphasis on Large Group Instruction," Mich,
February-March, 1969, pp. 213-14.

Gelb, Steven, A Gnide go Worin'ng gn'ih Minocig Lnngnnge Sindcnjc, Washington
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington, Division of

Instructional Services, 1982.

Gillespie, Ross J ., "A Study of the Continuous Progress Curriculum of Leonard
Elementary School; Southﬁeld, Michigan," June, 1974, Dissertation Report, Eastern
Michigan University.

Goodlad, J. I., W Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 1970.

Goodlad, J. I., "A New Look at an Old Idea: Core Curriculum," Edncaticnnl
Lcaclcrshin, January, 1987, vol. 44, no. 4, p. 8-18.

Goodlad, John 1., "Classroom Organization," in W,
Chester Harris, Editor, Macmillan, New York, 1960, pp. 221-25.

Goodlad, John I. and Anderson, Robert H., The Non-ﬁcaded Elementary Schcol,
Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1963.

Goodlad, John I., "A Study of Schooling: Some Findings and Hypothese," M
when, Phi Delta Kappa, vol. 4, no. 2, March, 1983.

Halliwell, Joseph W., "A Comparison of Pupil Achievement in Graded and Non-
graded Primary Classrooms," 0 mal o eri enta d 0 ti 32, Fall, 1963,
pp. 59-60.

Henry, Tamara, "Governors Take Teaching Tools in US. to Task," W
Ionmal, July 29, 1990.

202

Hillson, Maurice; Jones, Charles and Moore, William, "A Controlled Experiment
Evaluating the Effects of a N on-graded Organization on Pupil Achievement,"

lcurnal of Educational Research, 57, July-August, 1964.

Holley, B.J.; Taylor, P.H.; Reid, W.A.; and Exon, B., W
in the Pn’mary School, London, 1973.

Howard, E. and Bardwell, R., BMW Prentice Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966.

Howard, Eugene R., ch tc Organize a Non-grnglcd Schccl, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1966, pp. 1050.

Hunter, Madeline, "The Dimensions of Nongrading,"Ihc_Elcmcnrar1$chcgl_,LQnrnnl,
1964, LXV, no. 1, pp. 80-82.

Ignaz, Edward and Corsini, Raymond J ., Aircrnnr'MLEdncatjcnnljygcms, F. E.
Peacock Publishers, Itasca, Illinois, 1979.

Johnson, D.; Johnson, R.T.; Johnson, J .; and Anderson, D., "Effects of Co-operative
Versus Individualized Instruction on Students’ Prosocial Behavior, Attitudes Toward

Learning, and Achievement," Journal of Educational Bsychclogy, 68, 1976,
pp. 466-452.

Justman, Joseph, "Reading and Class Homogeneity," WM 21,
January, 1968, pp. 314-34.

Knoblock, Peter and Berries, Michael, ErograncdclmLMninsrreaming, Aspen
Publishers, Rockville, Maryland, 1987.

Martin. George H. W D.
Appleton and Company, New York, 1894.

McClusky, Frederick Dean, "Introduction of Grading into the Public Schools of New
England," Part I, Ele e Sc 00 J vol. XXI, no. 1, September, 1920.

McClusky, Frederick Dean, "Introduction of Grading into the Public Schools of New
England," Part 11, W vol. XXI, no. 2, October, 1920.

McKinney. W. L. and Westbary. 1.. WW
Gary, Indiana 1940-70, 1975.

McLaughlin, W.P., Emlnnricnhﬂhcﬁcngradidnrimnry, St. Johns University, New

York State Education Department, Division of Research, 1969, pp. 1-24.

Miller, Richard 1. (ed.), fl'he Nongrnded School, Harper and Row, New York, 1967.

203

Monroe, Paul, Eonnding cf the ﬁnerican Public Schcol System, Hafner Publishing,
New York, 1940.

Monroe. Paul. FoundingnuhLAmencanPuhliLSchoolﬁstem. Hafner Publishing.
New York, 1971.

Nachbur, R. "A K/1 Class Can Work - Wonderfully," Xcung Children, vol. 44, no. 5,
July, 1989, pp. 67-71.

National Commission on Excellence 1n Education, 10 t ' iv

for Edncational Rcf crrn, U. S. Government Printing Ofﬁce, No. 065-000-00177-2,
Washington, D. C, 1983.

National Commission on Excellence in Education, WM
Account, USA Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.

National Education Association, W, Washington, DC, 1960, p.7.

National Education Association, "Grade Organization and Non-grading Programs,"
W. Washington, DC, 1963, pp. 52-92.

National Education Association, "Non Graded Schools," Bcscnrchﬂnllctin, 1965,
Washington, DC, pp. 1-6.

Ortiz, Edward, "Personalized Systems of Instruction: Santa Fe Public Schools,"
Enccntixcﬁdncatcr, vol. 11, no. 10, October, 1989.

Owen, Richard, "Identifying an Underlying Rationale for the Development of the
Age-graded Organizational Structure within American Public Education," Michigan
State University, Dissertation Report, 1987.

Passow, A. Harry, "The Maze of Research on Ability Grouping," EducaticnnLEanm,
26, March, 1962, pp. 281-88.

Perkins, H.V., "N ongraded Programs: What Progress?" Egncntjcnachndcrship, 19,
December, 1961, pp. 166-169.

Pratt, David, "Age Segregation in Schools." Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Education Research Association, April, 1983, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.

Pratt, David, "On the Merits of Multi-age Classrooms," ear ' u tio
vol.3, no. 3, 1986, pp. 111-116.

Raschke, Donna, "Cross Age Tutorials and Attitudes of Kindergarteners toward
Older Students," flfeacher Education, vol. 23, no. 4, Spring, 1988, pp. 10-18.

204

Raze, N ., "Primary and Intermediate Grade Conﬁgurations: A Review of the
Literature," San Mateo Ofﬁce of Education, Redwood City, California, SMERC
Information Center, 1985, p. 9.

Retson, James, "Are We Back to the Little Red Schoolhouse?" Qradcjlcmphcr,
February, 1966, pp. 108-110.

Schatzman. C- and Strauss A. WWW
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973.

Shearer, William J ., MradingcﬂSchm H. P. Smith Publishing, New York, 1899.

Shopski, Mary K., "Ungraded Primary Reading Program: An Objective Evaluation,"
Elementary School Journal, 61, October, 1965.

Slavin, R. E., "Cooperative Learning and the Cooperative School," Eclmmtigmnl
Lcadership, 45(3), 1987, pp. 7-13.

Slavin, R. E., "Ability Grouping and Student Achievement," Wm
Research, 57, 1987, pp. 293-336.

Slavin, R. B., "Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement," SchQQLand
Classroom Organimtion, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1988.

Stainback, W. and Stainback, S., "A Rationale for the Merger of Special and Regular
Education," Excepticnnlghilnrcn, vol. 52, 1984, pp. 102-111.

Stainback, W.; Stainback, S.; Courtnage, L.; and J aben, T., "Facilitating

Mainstreaming by Modifying the Mainstream," W vol. 51, 1985,
pp. 144-152.

Taylor, P. H., "How Teacher Plan Their Courses: Studies in Curriculum Planning,"
London, 1970.

Taylor, P. H., "A Study of the Curricular Inﬂuences in a Mid-western Elementary

School, unpublished manuscript. Teaching Resources, University of Birmingham,
1974.

Taylor, P. H. and Reid, W. A., "A Study of the Curricular Inﬂuence System," ,[Qnrnal
ofEdneationBeseareh. 1971. PP- 1'23-

Tewksbury, John L., Ncnmhdinginﬁmﬁlcnmntmyschcnl, Charles Merrill Books,
Columbus, Ohio, 1967.

Tyler. L.E-. Won, EDRS. Eugene. Oregon. 1985.
p. 7.

205

Veenman, Simon, "Classroom Time and Achievement in Mixed-age Classes,
Educational Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, 1987, pp. 75-84.

Villa, Richard and Thousand, Jacqueline, "Enhancing Success in Heterogeneous
Classrooms and Schools: The Powers of Partnership," fIfcacher Edncaticn, Fall,
1988, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 144-54.

Villa, Richard, "Administrative Supports Which Promote the Education of All

Students in the Mainstream," University of Vermont Press, Burlington Vermont,
1989.

Wakeﬁeld, Alice, "Multi-age Grouping in Day Care," Children flfoday, vol. 8, no. 3,
May-June, 1979, pp. 26-28.

Wallace, Richard C. Jr. ., "Can Large Group Instruction Provide for Individual
Differences?" MW. 44. January. 1965.131) 66-70

Way, Joyce, "Achievement and Self-concept in Multi-age Classrooms," Mud
Research Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 2, 1981, pp. 69-75.

Weber. Lillian. WWW Prentice Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971, pp. 62-66.

Wiersma, William, "Individually Guided Education: An Alternative Form of
Schooling." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (67th), San Francisco, California, April, 1986.

Yates, Alfred, Gronping in Education, UNESCO Institute of Education, Oxford,
England, Wiley & Sons, London, 1966, pp. 70-71.

 

nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
Illlllllllllllll”Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
31293008975124