E E 5. é A STUDY OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE NONGRADED SCHOOL CONCEPT Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Mary T. Christian 1967 LIBRAR Y THESIS MlChlgan Sta” University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Study of the Dimensions of the Nongraded School Concept presented by Mary T. Christian ' has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for .- s Ph.D. degree in Education WZL/Zzu , Major professor Date 2/ 214/67 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE NONGRADED SCHOOL CONCEPT by Mary T. Christian The Problem The primary purpose of this study was to explore the dimensions of the nongraded school concept in selected ele- mentary schools. Specifically, the objectives of the study were: (1) to find out how individual teachers and adminis- trators perceived the concept of nongrading, (2) to deter— mine the operational practices of teachers in nongraded classrooms, (3) to determine the nature and extent of prob- lems encountered by teachers within a nongraded structure, and (4) to analyze the findings with implications for teacher education. Procedures Initially, a pilot investigation was conducted, which included classroom observation and personal interviews with principals and teachers in eight selected elementary schools. The information gathered during observation and interview sessions formed the nucleus of a detailed Mary T. Christian questionnaire sent to administrators and teachers currently associated with schools cited in the literature as being nongraded. Questionnaire returns yielded data from 90 admin— istrators and 240 teachers, representative of 105 nongraded school systems in 32 states. Findings 1. The majority of participants in this study had teach— ing eXperience in both graded and nongraded schools; however, the more recent graduates had more eXperi— ence in nongraded schools. Eighty per cent of the teachers, with one to five years of eXperience, had gained this eXperience in nongraded schools. The perceptions of nongrading indicated by the major— ity of participants appeared to be conflicting and often inconsistent with the philOSOphical concept of a nongraded school. The principles of flexibility, continuous progress, individualization, and a per— sonalized curriculum, which are hallmarks of the nongraded concept, were not evidenced in the major- ity of nongraded programs. Data relative to mobility of pupils reflected a change when compared to the common practice of mov- ing pupils at the end of the school year. Sixty—six per cent of the teachers indicated that pupils were moved from one classroom group to another when the teacher deemed it advisable. Ten per cent, however, restricted movement to the end of the school year. In the area of reading instruction, 50 per cent of the teachers organized their classes into three groups, and 36 per cent relied on one reading series. In the area of mathematics, 45 per cent of the teach— ers utilized one textbook; 61 per cent used a devel— 0pmental skills approach. In the area of language arts, the teachers relied heavily on large group instruction. Forty-three per cent indicated that instruction was given to the group as a whole, and 40 per cent of the partici- pants utilized one basic text. Approximately 4 per cent individualized instruction and used the multi— text approach in this area. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. Mary T. Christian In the area of science, total group instruction was the dominant pattern. Fifty-eight per cent indi- cated that science instruction was geared to the class as a whole; 8 per cent of the respondents utilized three instructional groups in this area. When reporting their practices in the area of social studies, 54 per cent of respondents indicated devel- 0pment of experience units. Thirty—seven per cent of the teachers utilized the multi-text approach. The data relating to instructional media indicated the utilization of a variety of instructional mate- rials. In comparing general Operational practices, 46 per cent of the respondents noted that teaching in non- graded classes was more difficult than teaching in graded classes; 25 per cent felt that teaching was less difficult in nongraded classes; 22 per cent saw no difference. Evaluation in nongraded schools included a variety of approaches. Both formal and informal evaluative techniques were utilized by 77 per cent of the par- ticipants. Seventy-seven per cent of the participants used both the report card and parent-teacher conferences for reporting; only 7 per cent relied solely on report cards. However, 35 per cent continued to give letter grades on report cards. The greatest single problem, as indicated by 70 per cent of the teachers, was grouping and subgrouping for instruction. Administrators felt that the great— est difficulties experienced by teachers resulted from lack of understanding of the nongraded concept and "grade-mindedness" in classroom practices. Courses and eXperiences recommended most frequently for inservice and/or preservice teachers were child development, individualized instruction, worksh0ps on nongrading, and student teaching in nongraded schools. The largest majority of respondents indicated a preference for the nongraded organizational struc- ture, but cited varying degrees of dissatisfaction with the existing instructional program. 16. Mary T. Christian The most frequently mentioned changes in school pro— grams resulting from nongrading included the develop- ment Of reading levels program and cooperative teach- ing. Administrators indicated continuance Of the nongraded organization with plans for modification. Future plans included combining team teaching with nongrading, extending the nongraded structure to upper levels, developing the social studies program, increasing individualized procedures, and revising reporting systems. Major Implications and Recommendations 1. Professional educators who are advocates Of nongrad- ing have a responsibility to the field tO provide a basic nomenclature and to develop criteria for eval— uation Of nongraded programs. Nongraded schools should reflect continuous progress, flexibility, and pupil individuality in operational programs and practices. School systems should not move toward nongrading without a continuous and extensive program in retraining of administrators and teachers. School systems, which are currently Operating as nongraded, should take a critical look at the exist- ing program and engage in continuous inservice train- ing designed to help teachers and administrators in- corporate the concept Of nongradedness in actual Operational practices in the school. There is a need for teacher education institutions to give increased attention to the nongraded concept in preservice and inservice programs. In light Of the data procured during this study, it is recommended: (a) that proponents Of nongrading establish a clearing house so that more definite guidelines may be developed tO give public school personnel a greater sense Of direction; (b) that colleges Of education set up model, nongraded labora- tory situations or schools where preservice and in- service teachers may see theory translated into prac- tice; and (c) that research studies be conducted to ascertain the nature and extent Of flexibility and pupil mobility in nongraded schools. A STUDY OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE NONGRADED SCHOOL CONCEPT x“ Mary Tf'Christian A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree Of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School Of Education 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer wishes tO express sincere appreciation to the many people who helped to make this study possible. TO Dr. Calhoun C. Collier, Chairman Of the Guidance Committee, for his invaluable assistance, support, and genuine friendliness. TO Dr. William V. Hicks for kindnesses extended throughout the doctoral program and for helpful criticisms Of this manuscript. TO Dr. Elsie M. Edwards and Dr. George R. Myers for their interest and significant commentaries during the preparation Of this work. To Dr. Martha E. Dawson, Chairman Of the Department Of Elementary Education, Hampton Institute, and friend, for her untiring assistance and encouragement at every step of the way toward fruition of this endeavor. TO the many loyal friends and colleagues who have, in varying ways, made contributions that this effort might become a reality. TO the participants who responded to the question- naire and supplied the data for this investigation. TO the writer's loving husband and wonderful family who provided a constant source of an "indescribable" type Of inspiration and whose concern, cooperation, and unselfish sacrifices, made possible whatever success she may achieve. ii Chapter II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement Of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . Definition Of Terms Used in the Study . . . . Delimitations of the Research . . . . . . . . Basic Assumptions Underlying the Study . . . Significance of the Problem . . . . . . . . . PROCEDURES, METHODS, AND INSTRUMENTS . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development Of the Instrument . . . . . . . . Selection, Method, and Description Of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . School Organization in Historical Perspective The Emergence Of the Nongraded Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Nongraded Concept Reviewed . . . . . . . The "Levels" Approach in Nongrading . . . Research and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . Advantages and Disadvantages Of Nongrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role Of Teacher Education . . . . . . . . ANALYSES OF TEACHERS' RESPONSES . . . . . . . Teaching EXperience in Graded and Nongraded Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teachers' Perceptions Of the Nongraded School Procedures and Practices in Nongraded Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Procedures and Teaching Tasks in Graded and Nongraded Classrooms . . . . . . Most Rewarding Experiences Of Teachers . Most Crucial Problems Of Teachers . . . . Attitudes Of Teachers Toward Nongrading . iii Page b4>uawia H KC ll l4 14 18 20 23 27 34 36 39 39 41 43 6O 63 64 66 Chapter Page Courses and/or Inservice Training Recommended for Teachers . . . . . . . . 69 Techniques and Experiences Recommended by Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 V. ANALYSES OF ADMINISTRATORS' RESPONSES . . . . . 74 Academic Preparation Of Administrators . . . . 74 Administrative Profile Of Schools . . . . . . . 75 Perceptions Of Nongradedness in Individual Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Procedural and Curriculum Changes Resulting from Nongrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Reaction Of Administrators Toward Nongrading . 83 Future School Organizational Preferences Among Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Administrators' Recommendations for Courses and/or Inservice Training . . . . . . . . . . 86 Recommended Techniques and Experiences Essential for Success in Nongraded Schools . 87 Problems Of Teachers as Viewed by Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Future Plans Regarding the Nongraded Program . 90 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . 92 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOl Implications and Recommendations . . . . . . . 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 iv 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Teachers' perceptions Of the nongraded school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures and practices used in the teaching Of reading 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Procedures and practices in the teaching Of mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures and practices in the teaching Of SCience . O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Procedures and practices in the teaching Of social studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructional media utilized by teachers . . Pupil evaluation practices in nongraded SChOOls O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Reporting practices in nongraded schools . . Classroom organizational practices in the area Of reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom organizational practices in the area Of language arts . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom organizational practices in the area of mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom organizational practices in the area Of science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom organizational practices in the area Of social studies . . . . . . . . . . . Changes in the number Of instructional groups in the classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison Of Operational practices in graded and nongraded schools . . . . . . . . Page 42 45 46 46 47 48 49 50 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Page Comparison Of teaching tasks in graded and nongraded schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Summary of responses regarding current problems encountered by teachers in nongraded schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Teachers' reactions regarding their preference Of teaching in graded or nongraded schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Recommendations regarding courses and/or inservice training for prospective nongraded school teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O Opinions of teachers regarding techniques and eXperiences essential for teachers in nongraded schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Academic preparation Of administrators . . . . 74 Grades replaced by nongraded structure . . . . 77 Primary bases for assigning pupils to classrooms in nongraded schools . . . . . . . . 78 Length Of time schools have been nongraded . . 79 Reaction Of administrators toward nongraded organization and instructional program . . . . 84 Administrators' recommendations for pre- service and inservice training . . . . . . . . 87 Administrators' recommendations Of techniques and eXperiences essential for teaching in the nongraded school . . . . . . . 88 Problems Of teachers as viewed by administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 vi LIST OF FIGURES Experience Of teachers in graded and nongraded schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consistency Of teachers' responses tO selected items regarding nongraded concept Organization Of classes within nongraded schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobility Of pupils within nongraded schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experience Of administrators in graded and nongraded schools . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 40 44 51 53 76 LIS T OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Distribution Of Respondents in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 B. Letter Mailed with Questionnaire . . . . . . 117 C. Survey Questionnaire (Teachers) . . . . . . 118 D. Survey Questionnaire (Principal) . . . . . . 124 viii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement Of the Problem The purpose Of the study was tO explore the dimen— sions Of the nongraded school concept in selected elementary schools. In more definitive terms, the Objectives Of the study were: (1) to find out how individual teachers and administrators perceive the concept Of nongrading, (2) to determine the Operational practices Of teachers in nongraded schools, (3) to determine the nature and extent Of the prob- lems encountered by teachers in nongraded classrooms, and (4) to analyze the findings with implications for teacher education. Definition Of Terms Used in the Study Certain terms are used frequently throughout this study and are defined as follows: Perception.--Perception has been defined as a mode Of response in which the Observer's set or purpose and back- ground Of eXperience become the major determiners Of the stimuli to which he responds.l lCarter V. Good, Dictionary Of Education (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1959), p. 389. l Nongraded school concept.--Nongraded school has been used tO refer tO an organizational plan which removes formal grade lines and provides the flexibility that permits con- tinuous progress and attention to the individual needs Of all children. The nongraded concept embraces the basic principles Of child growth and development, learning, school function, and pedagogical practices. The terms "nongraded," "nongrading," and "nongraded— ness" were used synonymously throughout the study. Operational procedures.-—This term refers tO teach- ing methods, materials, grouping, reporting, and evaluation procedures used by teachers in nongraded classrooms. Teacher education.--Teacher education has been defined as the program Of activities and eXperiences devel— Oped by an institution responsible for the preparation and growth Of persons preparing themselves for educational work or engaging in the work Of the educational profession.2 Inservice education.--This term refers to those eXperiences, processes, procedures and activities on the part Of employed teachers and administrators that contribute to their professional growth and qualification. Ability grouping.--This term refers to a type of instructional grouping in which pupils are classified according to their general ability or achievement in a given 2Ibid., p. 550. subject area, usually determined by results Of standardized intelligence tests, achievement tests, and/or teacher- developed criteria. Developmental levels.--This term is interpreted as a prescribed set Of systematic skills in the various curriculum areas through which pupils progress at their own rate. Individualized instruction.—-This term refers to differentiation in teaching methods, materials, and study procedures and adaptation of these procedures to meet the varying interests, needs, and abilities Of individual pupils. Delimitations Of the Research I. This investigation was concerned with teachers and administrators in selected nongraded elementary schools. 2. The dimensions Of nongrading considered in this study were confined to: (a) perceptions, (b) Operational practices, and (c) major problems encountered by teachers in nongraded classrooms. 3. This study was not an attempt to evaluate the quality of the instructional program of any particular school, but an attempt to gain greater insight into the per- ceptions, practices, and problems Of teachers in nongraded schools. Evaluative comments, when given, were made in terms of comparing educational theory with Operational practices. 4. The limitations inherent in the questionnaire results were recognized: (a) the logical difficulties attendant tO converting qualitative data, and (b) the effect of varying interpretations Of terminology used by educators. Basic Assumptions Underlying the Study l. The nongraded school, viewed in its full philo- sophic purpose, Offers excellent potential for realizing the goals Of education in a democratic society. 2. A thorough understanding Of the nongraded con- cept is a necessary prerequisite tO successful implementa- tion Of the nongraded plan. 3. The teacher's concept Of nongrading will affect the extent to which nongrading exists in classroom practices. 4. The administrator's concept Of nongrading and organizational practices will affect the extent to which non- grading exists in the school. 5. The existing problems encountered by teachers in nongraded schools reflect a need for direction in teacher education programs. Sigpificance Of the Problem Change and reconstruction are apparent in the school's continuous effort to redefine its goals, reorganize its curriculum, and reappraise its purposes and programs. This critical review is being focused increasingly on schOOl structure, and numerous changes in organizational patterns have been prOposed in various parts Of the country. The nongraded school takes its place among these innovations and is perhaps the most publicized and fastest spreading Of the newer approaches. While innovation and eXperimentation are far from new in this country, the present trend toward non- grading takes on dimensions Of greater seriousness and deeper significance than any previous efforts for improvement. Stuart E. Dean attributes the eXperimentation with the nongraded school as having grown from two basic influ- ences: (1) the graded school pattern as created by the Quincy Grammar School Of Boston in 1848, and (2) the axiom- atic circumstances Of individual differences, a condition long recognized but one which now takes on deeper meaning and significance in a changing world. These two elements have aided in building an understanding that improvement in school organization is imperative in our drive toward qual- ity education for today's youth.3 The central theme underlying the trend toward non- f-—-———., .0“ graded school organization seems to basically reflect an AM“- increased awareness Of the inviolable range Of human differ— ences. Yet, evidence suggests that much "confusion" exists among educators as to what the nongraded school really is. 3Stuart E. Dean, "Nongraded Schools," Education Briefs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 2. Robert Anderson and John GOOdlad, pioneers in the nongraded movement, conducted a survey in 1960 to determine practices in 89 communities in which there were reported to be about 550 nongraded schools. The report reveals many glowing accounts Of the success Of nongraded schools--better pupil achievement, fewer discipline problems, fewer nonreaders, and enthusiastic parents and teachers who do not want tO return tO grades. On the other hand, the survey also indi- cates that the nongraded plan is supported by persons with different conceptions Of what the nongraded plan really is. In fact, GOOdlad points out that few, if any, truly non- graded schools exist. Other educators also state that they have uneasy feelings after reading about or visiting non- graded schools. What they see in practice doesn't appear to follow from their own interpretations Of humanitarian concern for the individual, or from newer insights into individual differences.4 The survey made by GOOdlad and Anderson was con— cerned primarily with the perceptions Of supervisory and administrative personnel. Other studies reported in the literature have been concerned with pupil achievement and comparison Of graded schools with nongraded schools. How— ever, no studies have been found which focuses primarily on 4John I. GOOdlad, ”A Survey Of Nongraded Schools," The EncyclOpedia of Educational Research (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960), p. 222. the central role Of the teacher in the nongraded school. The writer feels that this is an area Of great concern. Regardless Of the organizational pattern, the school can never rise above the level Of the teacher's competence. A similar View regarding nongrading is reflected by GOOdlad and Anderson: Reorganization in and Of itself will resolve only organizational problems. Nongraded struc- ture is therefore nO panacea for problems Of curriculum and instruction. The teacher who suddenly finds himself teaching in a nongraded school will not necessarily eXperience any meta- morphosis in his teaching. Until he understands what nongrading permits him tO do, he will teach no differently from the way he taught before.5 It thus becomes apparent that nongrading in and of itself does not automatically guarantee or even promise improvement in instructional practice. Therefore, hope for its success ultimately depends on the teacher. The writer believes that investigation is essential in order tO find out how the teacher perceives nongradedness in terms Of conceptual philOSOphy and the interrelatedness Of this con- cept with actual practices and problems involved in imple- menting the instructional program. An analysis Of these perceptions and problems should prove valuable in providing insight tO teacher education institutions in reappraising or revamping their program in light Of changes and innovations in the public schools. 5GOOdlad, Op. cit., p. 224. Since many educators criticize the nongraded organi- zation because Of the widespread misuse Of the terminology of nongradedness and the lack Of minimal standards and requirements, the results Of this investigation may also be helpful in determining and identifying the unique elements Of nongradedness and providing some criteria upon which a conceptual model may be based. CHAPTER II PROCEDURES, METHODS, AND INSTRUMENTS Procedure The general purpose Of this study was tO secure data from teachers and administrators regarding their perceptions and current practices in nongraded elementary schools. The inquiry was pursued along two lines: (1) a pilot study in- volving personal interviews with teachers and principals in selected nongraded elementary schools, and (2) a question- naire sent to teachers and administrators currently asso- ciated with nongraded schools throughout the country. Addi- tional sources Of information included Observation Of prac- tices in nongraded classrooms, perusal Of descriptive mate- rials from nongraded schools, and review Of professional literature. The interview phase Of the study included thirty teachers and eight principals in selected nongraded elemen— tary schools. The school systems involved in the initial stage were East Lansing, Lansing, Pontiac, and Dearborn, Michigan; Appleton and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Hampton and Richmond, Virginia. Classroom Observation, whenever possi- ble, supplemented the interviews. The sessions were designed 10 to tap the feelings Of participants and allow for extension Of ideas in greater depth through an informal kind Of inter- action. The information was recorded and then combined to form six general categories: 1. Facts about academic preparation and teaching eXperience Of the respondent 2. Reactions regarding the meaning or concept Of non- grading as perceived by the respondent 3. Indications as tO the nature and extent Of differ- ences between Operational practices in graded and nongraded schools 4. Reactions Of respondent regarding the degree Of satisfaction with the organizational pattern and with his teaching in a nongraded classroom 5. Opinions Of respondent regarding preservice and inservice training necessary for teachers in non- graded schools 6. The most difficult problems encountered in teaching in the nongraded classroom. The investigator used this information as a basis for extension Of the study. Development Of the Instrument Utilizing the information Obtained during the pilot study, a three-part questionnaire for teachers was con- structed (Appendix C). The first section Of the question- naire was designed to gather background information concern- ing the respondents; the second part elicited responses related to Operational practices in nongraded schools; and the final section was Open—ended to afford respondents the ll Opportunity tO give their personal reactions to selected aspects Of nongrading. Although the study focused primarily on the teacher in the nongraded school, the transition from a graded to a nongraded school is initially an administrative decision. Therefore, the investigator attempted to gain greater depth as to the dimensions Of nongrading by including administra— tors in the study. A questionnaire, similar to that of the teachers, was develOped for administrators associated with nongraded elementary schools (Appendix D). Selection, Method, and Description Of the Sample TO Obtain a comprehensive picture Of current prac- tices in nongraded schools, the investigator felt it neces- sary tO survey teachers and administrators in various parts of the country. The list Of schools presented by GOOdlad and Anderson,6 supplemented by nongraded schools identified in NBA Research Memo7 served as the primary bases for selec- tion Of the sample. A packet containing (a) an introductory letter (Appendix B); (b) one administrator questionnaire; (c) three teacher questionnaires; and (d) four self-addressed, 6John I. GOOdlad and Robert H. Anderson, The Non- graded Elementary School (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1959), pp. 217-226. 7NEA Research Memo, Research Division, National Education Association, Washington, D.C., May, 1965. 12 stamped envelopes was sent to school systems in forty-seven states. When specific schools were cited in the literature, the questionnaires were sent directly to the principal Of a given school; in other cases, the questionnaires were sent to the director Of instruction in a given school system with the request tO distribute them tO the principal and teachers. Responses to the questionnaires initially came from 41 states, 121 administrators, and 240 teachers. Of this group, 41 administrators representing 9 states indicated that the school system was not considered as nongraded, or that the nongraded organizational pattern no longer existed. Therefore, the population sample of this investigation included 90 administrators and 240 teachers, representing 105 school systems in 32 states (Appendix A). In addition to questionnaire responses a number Of participants sent handbooks, pamphlets, research briefs, bibliographies, and materials descriptive Of their program. It was the intent Of the investigator to Obtain data from the principal and three teachers in a given school or school system. However, it was indicated that in some schools, only one or two teachers were involved in the nongraded program. It was also indicated that a principal and/or head teacher Often served in a dual capacity, as administrator and teacher. Therefore, only one or two teacher responses were forthcoming from some Of the schools 13 represented in the study. Respondents to the questionnaire for administrators included directors Of instruction, super— visors, principals, and head teachers. All respondents were working in some capacity with nongraded elementary schools. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The United States Office Of Education reports that very little research has been done in the area Of nongraded school organization. The surveys which have been conducted were attempted primarily for the purpose Of finding out how extensively the nongraded plan is being used. Most of the studies which have been reported were designed tO compare the effectiveness Of the nongraded school program with that of the graded school. Other references are reflective Of nongraded programs currently in Operation and commentaries Offered by prOponents or critics Of the nongraded plan. However, all literature reviewed for the purpose Of this study relates to some facet Of the nongraded elementary school. Since the resurgence of interest in the current concept Of nongrading is relatively "new" on the educational front, a brief historical background will also be presented. School Organization in Historical Perspective A look at the history and trends in elementary school organization reveals that the nongraded organization- al plan really precedes the graded organizational plan. The 14 15 Dame schools of the seventeenth century were without grade classifications. Children Of various ages and abilities were taught together in one classroom, and education was provided on a completely individual basis. By the beginning Of the eighteenth century, the Dame school was the major source of formal education. Later came a monitorial system in which the Older pupils learned from the teacher and then tutored the younger ones.8 The ordering and regimentation, Of which graded structure came tO be a part, were substan- tially advanced by this system. The demand for universal education precipitated problems that come with dealing with large numbers Of pupils. The earliest and most widespread solution to this problem was the incorporation Of the Lancastrian system Of instruc- tion which featured a large single room seating from two hundred to a thousand pupils.9 The Quincy Grammar School, Opening in Boston in 1848, set the pattern for the graded school. This pattern of school organization remained in Operation for more than a century. Within twenty years from its inception the graded structure was the most widely used organizational plan in America. One Of the factors that has 8L. N. Webb, "Nongrading: A Modern Practice in Elementary School Education," NEA Research Memo (October, 1961), p. 3. 9Henry J. Otto, Elementary School Organization and Administration (New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc., 1944), p. 155. 16 accounted for the pOpularity Of the graded structure was its relatively efficient method Of classifying large groups of students.10 In spite Of its popularity, almost from its incep— tion, educators have been attempting tO modify the rigidity Of the graded school. The St. Louis Plan, first introduced in 1876, sought to reduce the rigidity Of graded structure by reclassifying students at six-week intervals. In the Pueblo Plan, 1888 to 1894, all children studied all units but progressed through them at their own rate. Both the Cambridge Plan, first introduced in 1893, and the Portland Plan discontinued by 1915, permitted bright students to move more rapidly in a double—track system, completing a nine- year program in as few as seven years.11 In the Laboratory School at the University Of Chicago, founded in 1896, Dewey and his associates challenged estab— lished practices Of his time and ungraded this school. Children in Dewey's school were grouped for instruction according to interests and abilities, and there was no effort to construct the groups exclusively along chronolog- ical age lines. This arrangement was, in part, Dewey's 10Fred C. Ayer, "The Status of Promotional Plans in City Schools," American School Board Journal (April, 1923), p. 42. llGOOdlad and Anderson, Op. cit., p. 50. 17 answer to the "educational lockstep" which was receiving bitter criticism from the liberals.12 The famous Winnetka Plan was develOped by Carleton Washburne in Illinois, and the Dalton Laboratory Plan made its debut in Massachusetts around 1920. These plans differ- entiated academic from nonacademic phases of the curriculum and then encouraged students to move through the academic work at their own rate. In the few controlled studies available, data revealed academic superiority for students in the Winnetka Plan on 23 Of 30 comparisons with students in conventional programs.13 These and other schemes are not always seen as attempts to break down vertical, graded structure, but they were designed to modify the effects of grading by helping students Of varying abilities to move ahead unhampered by uniform grade eXpectations. They were a product Of the creative thinking Of their time and paved the way for the broad—scale attack upon existing school organizational patterns.l4 12Max Winge, The Philosgphy Of Education (New York: D. C. Heath and Company, 1965), pp. 221-222. 13Henry J. Otto, Elementagy School Organization and Administration (New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), p. 32. 14John I. GOOdlad and Robert H. Anderson, The Non- graded Elementapy School (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., Revised Edition, 1963), p. 51. 18 These attempts to modernize curriculum and organiza- tion met with varying degrees of success; however, they were generally short-lived due to the deeply ingrained and seem- ingly indestructable graded plan. Jameson reflects this View: Our educational beaches are crowded with all manner Of grouping plans and practices. Each incoming tide brings out Of the experimental seas still more innovations. Some plans, pro- claimed and instituted years ago, have been washed back to sea. Others, including the strictly graded concept, have defied the waves and sands of time and cling tenaciously to today's scene. Thus, one organizational plan or structure replaced the other but left the graded school basically intact. How- ever, it may be said that these attempts paved the way for a later large-scale attack upon the graded organizational plan. The Emeggence Of the Nongraded Elementary School As has been noted, the nongraded school is anything but a new concept. Its philOSOphy was embraced in organiza- tional patterns that preceded the Quincy School. However, its prominence as a challenging innovation in school orga— nization may be considered relatively new. Due to the many different attempts to break the lock-step of graded organi- zation, it is difficult to cite a definite chronology for 15Marshall C. Jameson, "How Shall We Teach?" National Elementary_Principa1, XL (December, 1960), p. 17. 16 Dean, Op. cit., p. 9. 19 the emergence Of the modern nongraded elementary school. The literature reveals a plan in operation at Western Springs, Illinois, in 1934. In Richmond, Virginia, since 1936, the junior primary unit has replaced kindergarten and first grade. The College Avenue School, Athens, Georgia, nongraded its program in 1939. In modern setting the first formally recorded program Of nongrading in the primary grades with an unbroken record is credited to Milwaukee in 1942. A second landmark was the adOption Of the program in Appleton, Wisconsin, in 1947. Since then, the movement has spread slowly though steadily. At the present time the trend is appreciably accelerated. The increase is so rapid that reliable figures are no longer available.16 There are, however, some estimates of growth. GOOdlad estimated that, while in 1957-1958 there may have been 40 to 50 communities so involved, by 1957-1958 there were as many as 500.17 In a 1958-1959 survey Stuart Dean found that 18 per cent Of the urban areas in the United States indicated some degree of involvement with nongraded . . 18 primary units. l6Dean, Op. cit., p. 9. 17John I. GOOdlad, "Individual Differences and School Organization," Individualizing Instruction, The Sixty—First Yearbook, NSSE (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 213. 18Stuart E. Dean, Elementary School Administration and Organization, U.S. Office Of Education (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 8. 20 In May 1964, the NEA Educational Research Service made a postal card survey to find out how many large urban school systems had nongraded or partially nongraded elemen- tary or secondary schools. Questionnaire cards were sent to 441 school systems with enrollments of 12,000 or more: replies were received from 353, or 80.0 per cent. Nearly a third Of the school systems reported in the ERS Survey had one or more schools with a nongraded sequence.19 Although information is not available regarding the exact number Of schools that have nongraded, it is clearly evident that nongraded elementary schools are proliferating. The Nongraded Concept Reviewed A review of the literature reveals that the most extensive writing in the area of nongrading has been done by John I. GOOdlad and Robert H. Anderson. These two edu- cators pioneered the nongraded movement and wrote the first book devoted exclusively to coverage of the subject, Th3 Nongraded Elementapy School. Recently, however, there has been a mentionable increase in the number of articles and a slight increase in the number Of books relating to the non- graded school concept. As more interest is engendered in the subject Of nongrading, it is not surprising to find more 19”Nongraded School Organization," NEA Research Bulletin, XXXIV, No. 4 (October, 1965), 93-95. 21 extensive eXploration in the literature and more schools joining the ranks of the nongraded. Coinciding with this surge of interest, it is not tOO surprising to note varying and Often contradicting perceptions of what nongrading really is. GOOdlad concluded from his survey in 1960 that much confusion existed in the mind Of those conducting non— graded schools regarding the school function they seek to serve. Currently, nongrading still seems to mean different things to different peOple. Anderson cites "nongradedness" as being a rather unfortunate term, since it refers primar- ily to what is not, rather than what is. This calls atten- tion to the undesirability and illegitimacy of the Opposite concept, "gradedness"; consequently, the purpose becomes essentially antiseptic.21 Initially, some educators referred to nongrading as an organizational device and nothing more. The following citation by Anderson seems to extend this concept:22 20Robert H. Anderson and John I. GOOdlad, "Self- appraisal in Nongraded Schools: A Survey of Findings and Perceptions," The Elementary School Journal, LXII (October, 1962), 33-40. 21Robert H. Anderson, Teaching in a World of Change (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1966), p. 53. 22 Anderson, Op. cit., p. 54. 22 Nongradedness refers to two dimensions of the school and its atmosphere: the philOSOphy (or the value system) that guides the behavior of the school toward the pupils, and the adminis- trative organizational machinery and procedures by means Of which the life of the pupils and teachers is regulated. In short, nongradedness is both a theoretical proposition and an Opera- tional mechanism. . . . It is a concept Of the proper way to provide for children's educational needs and a plan for implementing that concept. NO definitive model of nongrading is found at this time; however, certain basic elements implicit in the non- graded philosophy appear consistently in the literature and in school programs where this approach has been implemented. Almost without exception, statements refer to (l) the removal Of grade lines, (2) the notion Of continuous progress, (3) awareness Of individual differences, (4) pro- vision for differentiated rates of pupil progress, (5) means for individualizing instruction, and (6) eliminating or lessening the problems Of retention and acceleration. Anderson Offers the following statements in summarizing what he feels would be true of a full-fledged nongraded school:23 1. Suitable provision is being made in all aspects of the curriculum for each unique child by such means as (a) flexible grouping and sub- grouping Of pupils, (b) an adaptable, flexible curriculum, and (c) a great range Of materials and instructional approaches. 2. The successive learning experiences of each pupil are pertinent and appropriate to his needs. 23Ibid., p. 61. 23 3. Each child is constantly under just the right amount Of pressure. Slow learners are not subjected to too much pressure, as they are in the graded school, nor are the talented learners eXposed to too little. 4. Success, with appropriate rewards, is assured for all kinds of learners so long as they attend to their tasks with reasonable diligence and effort. Such success spurs the child to a conviction of his Own worth and to further achievement. 5. Grade labels and the related machinery Of promotion and failure are nonexistent. 6. The reporting system reflects the con- viction that each child is a unique individual. There are no report cards with A's and F's. 7. The teachers show sophistication in their curriculum planning, evaluation, and record keeping. 8. For certain purposes, pupils enjoy regular social and intellectual contacts with other pupils of like mind and talent and, for other purposes, with pupils of different minds and talents. 9. The school's horizontal organization pattern allows for flexibility in grouping pupils and in utilizing the school's resources. It is possible to have a nongraded, self-con- tained classroom pattern, or a more flexible arrangement such as the Dual Progress Plan, informal COOperative teaching, or full-fledged team teaching, in combination with the non— graded arrangement. The "Levels" Approach in Nopgrading The use of "levels" in the nongraded program is applauded by many educators who have changed to the non- graded structure; in fact, the majority of programs cited in the literature utilize the levels approach. Under a 24 nongraded—primary system, the curriculum is divided into levels--a series of short steppingstones that vary in number from seven to as many as thirty-two. Levels are most fre- quently described in terms of reading achievement; in a few systems, levels have also been established for arithmetic and spelling, but this arrangement is far less common. At each level, certain skills are to be acquired, and progress to a succeeding level depends on attainment of these skills.24 In spite of its popularity, some educators are critical Of the levels approach. Stendler, for example, argues against replacing grade levels with achievement levels; it is her Opinion that substituting three levels per grade for the old single-grade standard does not offer much of an improvement.25 Howard reflects a similar point of view: . . . It is difficult to conceive of classify— ing children in any way very different from the graded way; so we substitute a "new" pattern of levels that are really not markedly different from the "Old" pattern of grades except that there are more of them, and they do allow chil— dren to move through them at different rates. It is difficult to conceive Of grouping chil- dren in ways other than by ability, so we 4Louis T. Di Lorenzo and Ruth Salter, "Cooperative Research on the Nongraded Primary," The Elementagy School Journal, February, 1965, p. 271. 25Celia B. Stendler, "Grouping Practices," Those First Years (Washington, D.C.: National Education Associa— tion, Department Of Elementary School Principals, 1960), pp. 151-59. 25 continue under the new levels plan to group children homogeneously according to reading ability.26 Howard further states that if a school wishes to introduce the levels plan as an initial step toward non- grading, it should recognize the limitations as well as the presumed advantages of such an approach; the greatest need being to define levels as a hierarchy of skills or learnings that contribute to larger skills and learnings which are also defined.27 Johnson notes that in sifting through the various programs now labeled nongraded, one realizes there is little agreement among advocates as to the specific structure except that the terms lst grade, 2nd grade, etc. are re— placed with eXpressions such as "levels" or "blocks," a very minor change that lacks dynamic implications if the elementary school is to eXperience a mighty uplifting.28 Hunter rejects any organizational scheme that uses only one measure--be it intelligence quotient, reading grade 26Elizabeth Howard, "Let's Have a Nongraded School," Howardletter Number Six, Science Research Associates, Inc., November 15, 1965, p. 2. 27 Ibid. 28Glenn R. Johnson, "Lots Of Smoke, But Little Fire," Educational Forum, XXIX (January, 1965), pp. 154-164. 26 placement, total achievement, or any other one dimension-- as a basis for creating class groups.29 Frazier is highly critical of the levels approach, especially when the levels are set up to correspond to sequentially arranged materials, usually textbooks in a reading series, through which abler learners move more rapidly and the less able move slowly. He feels that this criterion of progress combines quantity and rate to carry the Old conception Of the curriculum to a new point of impoverishment, and the boundaries Of the narrowed program close in even more tightly on all learners.30 GOOdlad also has reservations regarding the levels plan of providing for individual differences in schools labeled nongraded. He notes that too Often, the levels are defined according to narrow, subject-matter expectations and does not necessarily take cognizance Of the many unique traits emerging in the individual.31 GOOdlad and Anderson mention two shortcomings in the levels plan of nongrading as it has emerged: 29Madeline Hunter, "The Dimensions Of Nongrading," The Elementary School Journal, October, 1964, pp. 20-25. 30Alexander Frazier, "Needed: A New Vocabulary for Individual Differences," Elementary School Journal, LXI (February, 1961), 260. 31Robert H. Anderson and John I. GOOdlad, "Self- Appraisal in Nongraded Schools: A Survey Of Findings and Perceptions," Change and Innovation in Elementary School Organization (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), p. 343. 27 The first is the common practice of setting up homogeneous classes based on levels. . . . The second major shortcoming of levels plans stems from difficulties inherent in curriculum analy- sis. Curriculum plans, with a few notable exceptions, provide detailed descriptions of content to be taught, but few clues to the con- cepts, principles, or values underlying this content. Nevertheless, the levels plan Of introducing nongrading con- tinues to be a popular one. Research and Evaluation Authorities agree that there is a dearth of scien- tific research in the area Of nongrading and not nearly enough research on a broad scale. In fact, GOOdlad suggests that the concept of nongrading is best supported by "some plausible sounding claims and theories rather than by research."33 The lack of clear-cut models Of gradedness and nongradedness is one Of the major difficulties of controlled research in this area. The problem is further complicated by the limitations of traditional achievement tests, which are geared to the curriculum and practices Of graded schools. However, there has been noted an increase in descriptive reports, doctoral theses, and studies made by professional councils or associations, which give some insight into the progress and merit of the nongraded organization. 32GOOdlad and Anderson, Op. cit., p. 212. 331bid. 28 Kent C. Austin conducted a study for the purpose of getting information concerning the development, Objectives, operation, and public relations of the ungraded primary unit. The Operation of sixty—one nongraded primary units in Park Forest, Illinois was studied in detail. The data showed that both parents and teachers were generally satisfied with the Operation Of the Park Forest Ungraded School.34 Studies of current nongraded programs in action in specific schools or districts have been conducted to provide guidelines for initiating new programs or improving existing ones. Dpfgy:§_§Epgy was conducted in order to uncover the procedures or implementation of the nongraded primary school that are likely to lead to a successful incorporation Of the structure by the professional staff Of Central School Dis— LL (11.1 trict NO. 4, New York. a%e invéstigated problems, failures, “ and successes of piptigipatipg schools. Of implementation” difficulties noted, the two most Often cited were: (1) gainw ing of parental acceptance, and (2) gaining Of some teacher acceptance and suppOrt.35 A similar study was conducted by Roberts utilizing the case study approach by comparing two 34Kent C. Austin, "The Ungraded Primary SChool," Childhood Educatiop, February, 1957, pp. 260—263. 35Erank R. Dpfay, "The Development of Procedures for Implementation of the Nongraded Primary in Central School District NO. 4" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, New York, 1963). 29 nongraded elementary school programs and facilities in Brevard County, Florida.36 Ritzenhein's investigation was designed to survey personnel perceptions of nongraded programs in Detroit schools; to delineate the basic principles of the nongraded concept; and to contribute to an understanding of nongraded primary units as they function in Detroit Public Schools. In her study, teachers and principals reported (1) that there is need for increased knowledge in child growth and development, (2) that indiscriminate transfer Of teachers might handicap nongraded program develOpment, and (3) that some type of pupil classification index should be devised for nongraded schools.37 A number of comparative studies have been reported. Skapski conducted a study designed tO evaluate the ungraded primary reading program in a public school in Burlington, Vermont. The study emphasized the difference in achievement in two situations: first, when ample provisions were made for individual differences and second, when virtually no such provisions were made. The reading achievement of the children in the nongraded reading program was significantly 36George Myers Roberts, "Case Studies of Two Non- graded Elementary School Programs" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University Of Tennessee, June, 1964). 37Betty Ritzenhein, "Survey Of Personnel Perceptions in Nongraded Programs in Eight Detroit Elementary Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963). 30 higher than that Of the children in the traditional reading program.38 Kluwe attempted to determine the relative effects of two types of kindergarten primary programs, an integrated program and a traditional program. Her findings indicated superiority Of the integrated program over the traditional program in promoting the personal and social adjustment Of matched groups of children representing various socio- economic levels.39 Eldred and Hillson, in investigating the nongraded school and mental health, concluded that the nongraded orga- nization could be far more effective than the traditional organization in producing healthy personalities and reducing problems.4O An investigation Of the effects of nongrading in arithmetic was undertaken by Hart. The findings in this comparative study indicated a significant superiority for the nongraded pupils.41 38Mary Skapski, "Ungraded Primary Reading Program," The Elementary School Journal, XXII (October, 1960), 43. 39Mary Jane Kluwe, "An Investigation of the Effects of an Integrated Kindergarten-Primary Program" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, 1957). 40Donald M. Eldred and Maurie Hillson, "The Non- graded School and Mental Health," The Elementary School Journal, LXIII (January, 1963), 218-222. 41R. H. Hart, "The Nongraded Primary School and Arithmetic," The Arithmetic Teacher, IX (March, 1962), 31/ Ingram studied the effect Of a nongraded primary cycle on the achievement of third grade pupils at the termi- nation Of the cycle. The nongraded pupils were compared with pupils who had been taught under the graded organiza- tional pattern. The pupils in the nongraded classrooms were found to be superior to pupils in graded classrooms in para— graph meaning, word meaning, spelling, and language.42 Hamilton and Rehwoldt reported on the multi-grade, multi-age plan in Torrance, California. This plan groups children varying three or four years in age at the primary and intermediate levels. A consistent pattern Of gains greater than those of children in single grade classes was observed in academic achievement, personal and social adjustment, and desirable behavior characteristics.43 Buffie sought to determine whether the difference in mental health and academic achievement between the control group, taught in a typical or traditional graded setting, and the eXperimental group, taught in a nongraded environ— ment, were significant after test scores had been adjusted 2Vivian Ingram, "Flint Evaluates Its Primary Cycle," Elementary School Journal, LXI (November, 1960), 76-80 0 43Warren Hamilton and Walter Rehwoldt, "By Their Differences They Learn," National Elementary Principal, XXXVII (December, 1957), 27-29. 32 for intelligence. All significant differences and all trends in the two areas measured favored the nongraded children.44 Maurie Hillson and his associates attempted a con- trolled eXperiment evaluating the effects of nongrading on pupil achievement. At the end of the one and one-half years Of the three-year eXperimental period, analyses Of grade level achievement for three measures related to reading achievement favored the nongraded organization at a level which was statistically significant. Hillson notes that the eXperimental period has now been completed, and assessment of this eXperiment has been tentatively made, but as yet not reported in the literature.45 The findings Of a study by Carbone contrast sharply with the findings of Hillson and his associates. Carbone conducted an investigation of the relative effectiveness of graded versus nongraded schools through a controlled matched group experimental design. He found no evidence to indicate that pupils who had attended the nongraded primary schools achieved at a higher level during their intermediate years 44Edward George Buffie, "A Comparison of Mental Health and Academic Achievement: The Nongraded School VS the Graded School" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Education, Indiana University, August, 1962). 45Maurie Hillson g£_§l,, "A Controlled Experiment Evaluating the Effect of a Nongraded Organization on Pupil Achievement," The Journal Of Educational Research, LVII (July, August, 1964), 548-550. 33 than pupils who had attended the graded schools. On the contrary, the pupils from the graded primary classrooms were found to be superior in achievement tO the pupils in the non- graded primary classrooms.46 Moore reported findings similar to those of Carbone. He investigated the differences in reading and arithmetic achievement between children in an ungraded primary organi- zation and children in a conventional graded school organi— zation. Moore found that the mean score of pupils enrolled in graded classes exceeded the mean score of pupils enrolled in ungraded classes in nearly all measures of achievement. He concluded that the ungraded organization is largely an arrangement that attempts to provide for the individual dif- ferences Of pupils along a single dimension, that of rate of progress. Therefore, it is not realistic to eXpect improved academic achievement in pupils on the basis of changing from the conventional graded to the ungraded organization. He further concluded that the attainment of high pupil achieve- ment is not inherent in the nongraded organization and can be attained equally well in the modern conventional graded pattern.47 46Robert F. Carbone, "The Nongraded School: An Appraisal," Administrator's Handbook (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961), pp. 22-26. 47Daniel I. Moore, "Pupil Achievement and Grouping Procedures in Graded and Ungraded Primary Schools" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1963). 34 The brief review Of the studies in the area of non- grading indicates conflicting evidence tO some degree; how- ever, most Of the findings support the nongraded plan. GOOdlad has maintained that the apparent conflict may not be real and that it is possible that investigators have simply compared pupils in two differently labeled "graded schools." Halliwell also Observed, as a result of his investigation, that the problem Of assessing the value Of nongraded pro- grams is quite complex and that much more research will be needed before such programs can be evaluated with any degree of validity.48 Advantgges and Disadvantages of Nongrading Perkins has stated that the nongraded pattern of organization, together with the body Of philosophical and psychological principles which give it meaning, has the opportunity for influencing profoundly the pattern and orga- nization Of elementary education in America and possibly secondary and higher education as well.49 Many educators concur with this point of view and are enthusiastic in their support of nongrading; others have pointed out some of the 48Joseph Halliwell, "A Comparison of Pupil Achieve- ment in Graded and Nongraded Schools," The Journal of Exper- imental Education, XXXII, Fall, 1963, 102—106. 49Hugh V. Perkins, "Nongraded Programs: What Progress?" Educational Leadership, III (December, 1961), 169. 35 problems and questions that are being raised. Stuart Dean has compiled a list representative of the "pros" and "cons" of'nongrading. gradingldesirable L 10. These are some of the reasons for.considering non- __fi,_,__________-,_..____m, __ _ n. _ . 50 It recognizes and provides for individual differ- ences among children. It offers flexibility in administrative structure. It abolishes the artificial barriers Of grades and promotions. It permits the pupil to progress at his own rate. It promotes improved mental health in teacher and pupil. It respects the continuity and interrelationship of learning. It stimulates major curricular revision. It is in harmony with the educational objectives of a democratic society. It is administratively feasible for all levels and age groups. It is program oriented, not Operationally controlled. These are some of the reasons the nongraded school is not considered desirable: 1. 2. It leads to soft pedagogy; lacks fixed standards and requirements. It places an impossible burden on the teacher. 50Stuart E. Dean, "The Nongraded School--Is There Magic In It?" School Life, December, 1964, pp. 22-23. 36 3. It results in a lack of information on pupil progress to parents. 4. It is difficult to put into practice because teachers are inadequately and insufficiently pre— pared. 5. It replaces grade requirements by reading levels. 6. It does not have minimal standards for all children. 7. Its curriculum sequence tends to lack specificity and order. 8. It is only an improved means to an unimproved end. 9. It does not guarantee that improved teaching will result. 10. It suffers from widespread misuse and even abuse of the term "nongraded." To sum up the case for the nongraded school, both advocates and critics alike generally agree that nongrading is not a panacea for all of the current educational problems, and that the success of the plan is ultimately determined in the classroom. The Role of Teacher Education Because America's schools today are undergoing rapid transformation, teacher education is challenged to devise ways Of preparing teachers to cope with these changes. Eurich cites the changing role of the teacher as an urgent problem of teacher education and notes that the program must reflect the changing organization of the schools.51 51Alvin C. Eurich, "A Symposium on Teacher Education," The Journal of Teacher Education, XIV (March, 1963), 27. 37 Several educators have indicated that one of the major problems in implementing successful nongraded school programs is the inadequate preparation of teachers. In responding to the allegation that "nongrading is difficult because teachers are inadequately and insufficiently pre- pared," Anderson comments: "True. Therefore, let's start a revolution in teacher education."52 Numerous other statements in the literature allude to the fact that programs for the preparation of elementary school teachers seem to be planned and carried out in terms Of what has traditionally been considered good. Dawson asserts: If there is to be improvement in the quality of American education, it must begin in teach- er training institutions. Thus the introduc- tion of new media or attempts tO improve the curriculum of our schools are like seeds sown on barren land if these innovations are not accompanied by a critical look at training of teachers. . . . In our college courses we have expounded on the developmental tasks of children, the uniqueness of the individual, and the child development point of View, but we have continued to prepare graded teachers trained to parcel out prepackaged content at nine and ten month intervals.5 52Anderson, Op. cit., p. 62. 53Martha E. Dawson, "A New Look At An Old Idea--The Nongraded Elementary School," Pioneer Ideas in Education, Committee on Education and Labor (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, December, 1962). 38 Dawson's comments concur with other nongraded school advocates who feel that teacher education institutions should become more concerned with nongrading, team teaching, and other innovations in education, if tomorrow's teachers are to meet the demands of tomorrow's world. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' RESPONSES The information Obtained from responses of the teachers was compiled and summarized. An analysis of results is presented. Teaching EXperience in Graded and Nongraded Schools The investigator attempted to determine the teaching eXperience of the respondents in both graded and nongraded schools. Figure 1 presents a summary Of responses. Upon inspecting Figure 1 it may be noted that a large percentage Of the participants with ten years or less of eXperience had gained their eXperience in nongraded class— rooms. Forty-two per cent of the participants had one to five years Of eXperience in graded classrooms, and twenty- one per cent had six to ten years of eXperience in graded schools. In contrast, it may be noted that ninety-five per cent of the participants with ten years or less of eXperi- ence had gained this experience in nongraded classrooms. The data presented in Figure 1 might possibly lead persons in teacher education to consider the new and changing school organizational patterns in teacher training programs. 39 4O mumom mm GOSH OHOS .mm Cu Hm .ON Op OH mH Ou HH E *6 m5 XMH XHH “WWW m Ram OH ON om on om 00 on om om OOH 11.18:) 18d 41 Teachers' Percpptions of the Nongraded School At the present time the professional literature is somewhat lacking in a clearly defined description of a non- graded school. In constructing the questionnaire the writer presented six definitions Of the nongraded school. Three of the definitions, items 2, 4, and 6, were considered to be in harmony with the philOSOphy Of the nongraded school, as pre— viously defined for the purpose of this study. The remain- ing definitions, items 1, 3, and 5, were considered incon- sistent with this basic philoSOphy. The respondents were asked to check the items which best described the nongraded school as they perceived it. The teachers' perceptions are revealed in Table l. The data presented in Table 1 bring into focus some inconsistencies in perception of the nongraded school. Thirty-six per cent of the participants indicated that a non- graded school is one in which the word "grade" is simply dropped in referring to pupil placement. However, seventy— One per cent indicated that nongrading is designed to pro- mote flexibility and continuous progress. Forty-six per cent indicated that a nongraded school is one in which grades are replaced with reading levels. Yet, fifty-five per cent indicated that a nongraded school is one in which pupils follow an instructional program in each area Of the curriculum according to their ability. Table 1. 42 Teachers' perceptions of the nongraded school Concepts Number Of Responses Per Cent The Nongraded School is one in which: 1. the word "grade" is simply dropped in referring to pupil placement pupils are given an Opportunity to move from one skill to another with little regard to age or number Of years in school grades are replaced with read- ing levels pupils follow an instructional program in each area of the curriculum according to their ability grade designations are dropped and children are assigned to homogeneous classes the organizational pattern is designed to promote flexibility and continuous progress 88 36.7 117 48.8 112 46.7 132 55.0 65 27.0 171 71.2 43 The investigator further analyzed the data to deter- mine: (a) the percentage Of participants who evidenced con- sistent perceptions by checking items 2, 4, and 6, exclu- sively; (b) the percentage of participants who evidenced inconsistent concepts by checking items 1, 3, and 5, exclu- sively; and (c) the percentage of participants who evidenced mixed perceptions as indicated by checking both consistent and inconsistent descriptions of a nongraded school. This analysis is presented in Figure 2. The data in Figure 2 suggest that more than half of the respondents (65 per cent) evidenced mixed perceptions of nongrading. Only 8 per cent checked items, exclusively, which indicated a relatively consistent View of nongraded- ness. Procedures and Practices in Nongraded Classrooms In determining the dimensions of a nongraded school, the investigator attempted to get some insight into the practices and procedures the teachers followed in teaching the basic areas Of the curriculum. Table 2 describes the procedures followed in the teaching of reading. Ability grouping for reading instruction appeared to be the most widely used procedure. Seventy-four per cent indicated the use Of ability groups. It is also apparent that a combination of procedures were used. In regard to instructional materials, the data reveal that 76 per cent Of 44 27% INCONSISTENT PERCEPTIONS 8% CONSISTENT PERCEPTIONS 65% MIXED PERCEPTIONS Figure 2. Consistency of teachers' responses to selected items regarding nongraded concept. 45 the participants used the basic reader in combination with supplementary texts. Only 8 per cent of the participants made exclusive use Of the basic reader. Since individual— ized reading was indicated by more than half of the respon- dents (56 per cent), it is surprising to note the relatively small number Of reSpondents who utilized trade books exten- sively. Table 2. Procedures and practices used in the teaching of reading Number of Operational Practices Responses Per Cent Ability grouping 178 74.1 Reading levels 165 68.8 Interest grouping 66 27.5 Combination of grouping patterns 124 51.7 Individualized reading 135 56.3 Basal readers only 20 8.3 Basal readers and supplementary texts 183 76.3 Multi-series texts 89 37.1 Some use Of trade books 59 24.6 Extensive use Of trade books 46 19.2 Table 3 brings into focus the practices and proce- dures teachers follow in a nongraded classroom in the area Of mathematics. The greatest number of respondents (61 per cent) followed a sequential develOpment skills approach. Ability grouping was evidenced by more than half Of the respondents; however, only a small percentage Of respondents 46 individualized instruction in mathematics. This may be attributed, in part, to the nature of mathematics and the need for a systematic approach in order tO ensure sequential develOpment of skills. Table 3. Procedures and practices in the teaching of mathematics Number of Instructional Practices Responses Per Cent Ability grouping 130 54.2 Mathematics levels 100 41.7 Individualized instruction 88 36.7 Sequential development skills approach 148 61.7 The investigator attempted to determine how teachers in the nongraded classroom approached the teaching of science. Table 4 reflects the teaching practices in this area. Table 4. Procedures and practices in the teaching of science Number of Instructional Practices Responses Per Cent Instruction by television 89 37.1 Instruction primarily through textbooks 34 14.2 Unit approach 177 73.8 Units developed around recurring themes 88 36.7 Differentiated instruction 52 21.7 Independent projects 112 46.7 47 It is clearly indicated in Table 4 that the unit approach in science is most widely used by respondents. The data reflect some tendency toward considering the individual needs and interest Of pupils. Twenty-one per cent of the teachers gave differentiated instruction, and 46 per cent indicated independent projects in science. The data presented in Table 5 reflect the instruc- tional procedures used by respondents in the area of social studies. Table 5. Procedures and practices in the teaching Of social studies Number of Instructional Practices ReSponses Per Cent Instruction primarily through basic texts 57 23.8 Multi-texts approach 90 37.6 EXperience units, primarily 130 54.2 Units developed around recurring themes 117 48.8 Instruction by television 36 15.0 Individual projects 57 23.8 Some use Of trade books 67 27.9 Extensive use of trade books 41 17.1 The majority of the participants in this investiga— tion utilized eXperience units in teaching social studies concepts. Fifty-four per cent reported the use of eXperi— ence units, and 48 per cent indicated the utilization of the thematic approach to social studies. It appears noteworthy that 37 per cent indicated the use Of multi-texts. 48 Changes in organizational patterns and curriculum tend to reflect changes in instructional media. Table 6 gives some indication of the instructional media utilized by respondents in their nongraded classrooms. Table 6. Instructional media utilized by teachers Number Of Instructional Media Responses Per Cent Books on various levels in each subject matter field 170 70.8 Programmed materials 47 19.5 Films, movies, recordings, and audio-visual materials 219 91.3 Self-teaching or independent study materials 124 51.7 The data presented in Table 6 indicate the use of a variety of instructional materials. It is interesting to note that fifty-one per cent of the respondents reported the use of self-teaching or independent study materials. The data also indicate a tendency to recognize various learning rates within a class, through the use of books on various levels in each area of the curriculum. Seventy per cent Of the participants indicated the use of books on various achievement levels. Continuous diagnosis and evaluation would seem to be as essential, if not more, in a nongraded classroom as in a O graded situation. Table 7 reflects the testing and 49 evaluation practices in the nongraded classrooms included in the study. Table 7. Pupil evaluation practices in nongraded schools Number of Testing and Evaluation Procedures ReSponses Per Cent Use Of standardized tests at begin- ning and end Of term 86 35.8 Use Of standardized tests at various intervals 114 47.5 Formal and teacher-develOped instru— ments and techniques Of evaluation 185 77.1 Individual testing 128 53.3 Evaluation of pupil in light of his previous growth record 179 74.6 Evaluation of pupil in light of his standing in the class 105 43.8 Evaluation of pupil in light of regional or national norms 83 34.6 Seventy-seven per cent of the participants indicated the use Of both informal and formal measures Of evaluation. Emphasis upon the individual may be noted in Table 7, as the data point out that 74 per cent of the participants evaluated pupils in relation to their own growth profile. Many educators have indicated that changes in report— ing practices appear to be a concomitant factor in nongrading. Table 8 reflects the reporting practices Of participants in this study. 50 Table 8. Reporting practices in nongraded schools Number of Procedures Used Responses Per Cent Pupil progress reported through report cards only 18 7.5 Letter grades given on report cards 85 35.4 No letter grades given on report cards 87 36.3 Report cards and parent-teacher conference 186 77.5 Parent-teacher conference only 37 15.4 It appears that the combination Of report cards and parent conferences is the most widely used reporting prac- tice among participants. Seventy-seven per cent indicated the use Of report cards with parent-teacher conferences. Only 7 per cent relied solely on report cards. The elimina— tion of letter grades was indicated by 36 per cent of respon- dents; however, it is interesting to note that an almost equal number of participants (35 per cent) still used letter grades on report cards. Respondents were asked to indicate the composition of classroomsin relation to the ability range Of the pupils. The data presented in Figure 3 indicate that classrooms are about equally divided between those with pupils! abilities spreading over a wide range and those with a narrow range. Fifty per cent of the participants indicated that their classes were composed Of pupils with a wide range Of abil- ities. A somewhat narrow range is indicated by the 25 per 51 .mHoonum Ompmnmcoc QHLDHB mmmmmHo mo QOHDMNHCMOHO RON Xmm XOm Ti _ _ H M q (A w H OOH om om on O0 Om on Om O OH qu0 Mom .m mnzmHm 3onnm: mH mmcmn usn mmmHo CH£DH3 mum> mmHuHHHQO msonm mdomcmmofio: mum> m mo OmmomEoo EooummMHO mmeHHHnm mo mmcmu OOHB nuHB mHHmsm mo OomomEOo EoonmmmHO 52 cent who reported having homogeneous groups. An additional 24 per cent also indicated a somewhat narrow range of apti- tudes and abilities. Continuous progress is considered one of the hall- marks of the nongraded school. Figure 4 brings into focus this mobility. The data reflected in Figure 4 indicate a great deal of flexibility in the movement of pupils. Sixty-eight per cent Of the respondents indicated that pupils were moved from one classroom situation to another when the teachers deemed it advisable. The data also reveal a continuation of the lock-step movement in some nongraded schools. Classroom orggnization.--The investigator attempted to determine how teachers organized their classes for in- structional purposes within a nongraded structure. Table 9 presents the practices of respondents in the area of reading. Upon inspecting Table 9 it may be noted that, just as in the typical graded classroom, use of three reading groups tends to be the most popular practice. Fifty per cent of the group taught reading by dividing the class into three reading groups. The utilization of two and four read- ing groups was indicated by a smaller number of teachers; 15 per cent used two reading groups, and 16 per cent organized the class into four groups. 53 .mHoocom Ompmumcoc cHnuHB mHHmsm mo huHHHQoS .w musmHm KOO XOH Xmm OOH -5 —: om om Ob _ n I H . OO Om Ow Om ON HCOU Hmm ch0 new» Hoosom mo Odo um OO>OE Ho OocmHmmmou mHHmsm mHnmmH>Om DH mEOOO Honommu map Hm>mcm£3 Om>oa Ho OmcmHmmmmH mHHmsm mOOHHmm OmumcmHmmO um EooummmHo Hmsuocm ou Om>OE Ho OmcmHmmmmu mHHmsm 54 Table 9. Classroom organizational practices in the area Of reading Grouping Per Utilization Per Procedure Number Cent of Texts Number Cent Individualized 8 3.3 Multi—texts 23 9.6 One Group 11 4.6 One series 87 36.2 Two Groups 38 15.8 Two series 53 22.1 Three Groups 120 50.0 Three series 42 17.5 Four Groups 40 16.7 Four series 22 9.2 Five Groups 13 5.4 Five series 8 3.3 Other* 10 4.2 Other* 5 2.1 Total 240 100.0 240 100.0 *More than five groups (flexible—varied). It may also be noted in Table 9 that the use of one basic series continues to hold forth in the nongraded class— room. Thirty-six per cent of the respondents indicated a utilization of one basic series for reading. An additional 22 per cent used two reading series. With the increased emphasis upon individualization of instruction in the non- graded philOSOphy, it is significant to note that only 9 per cent Of the teachers used multi-texts. An attempt was also made to determine organizational practices in teaching the language arts, exclusive of read- ing. Table 10 reflects the practices in this area. The data presented in Table 10 reveal a tendency toward one-group instruction within nongraded classrooms. Forty-three percent Of the participants gave instruction in 55 the language arts to the classroom group as a whole. Only a small number of the respondents used individualized proce- dures or multi-texts for language arts. Organization Of the classroom into two groups and the utilization Of two series of textbooks appear to be the next most frequently utilized practices. Approximately 20 per cent of the teachers taught the language arts by organizing the class into two instruc- tional groups. Twenty-one per cent also used two printed sources for instructional purposes. Table 10. Classroom organizational practices in the area of language arts Grouping Per Utilization Per Procedure Number Cent Of Texts Number Cent Individualized 8 3.3 Multi-texts l 4.6 One Group 104 43.3 One series 96 40.0 Two Groups 50 20.8 Two Series 52 21.7 Three Groups 36 15.0 Three series 22 9.2 Four Groups 4 1.7 Four series 2 0.8 Five Groups 0 0.0 Five series 21 8.8 No Response 22 9.2 NO Response 36 15.0 Other* 16 6.7 Other* 21 8.8 Total 240 100.0 240 100.0 * More than five groups (flexible-varied). Table 11 gives some insight into the way the teachers approached classroom organization in the area of mathematics. 56 Table 11. Classroom organizational practices in the area Of mathematics Grouping Per Utilization Per Procedure Number Cent Of Texts Number Cent Individualized 7 2.9 Multi-text 18 7.5 One Group 37 15.4 One series 108 45.0 Two Groups 116 48.3 Two series 63 26.3 Three Groups 35 14.6 Three series 28 11.7 Four Groups 7 2.9 Four series 1 ...* Five Groups 6 2.5 Five series 2 0.8 NO Response 15 6.3 NO Response 16 6.7 Other* 17 7.1 Other* 4 1.6 Total 240 100.0 240 100.0 *Less than .5%. The majority of the teachers (48 per cent) had two instructional groups for instruction in mathematics. It is interesting to note, however, that 45 per cent utilized one mathematics series. It is somewhat revealing to note that, as with reading and the language arts, only a very small number Of teachers organized their classes for individual— ized instruction. In the area of mathematics, only 2 per cent used an individualized approach, and 7 per cent used multi-texts. Science in the elementary school Offers many possi- bilities for the eXploration Of ideas and the utilization Of special interests. Data presented in Table 12 reveal the prevailing practices in organizing for instruction in science within nongraded classrooms. 57 Table 12. Classroom organizational practices in the area of science Grouping Per Utilization Per Procedure Number Cent of Texts Number Cent Individualized 8 3.3 Multi—texts 12 5.0 One Group 140 58.3 One series 107 44.6 Two Groups 30 12.5 Two series 50 20.8 Three Groups 21 8.8 Three series 19 7.9 Four Groups 1 ...* Four series 5 2.1 Five Groups 1 ...* Five series 6 2.5 NO ReSponse 14 5.8 No Response 24 10.0 Other 25 10.4 Other 17 7.1 Total 240 100.0 240 100.0 * Less than .5%. Table 12 reveals wide utilization of one and two groups for instruction and reliance on one and two textbook series. Upon reviewing the data it appears that approximate— ly 70 per cent Of the teachers gave science instruction by organizing the class into one or two groups. Considering the emphasis upon the development of critical thinking and problem solving in the area of science, it is interesting to note that 64 per cent of the individuals represented in Table 12 utilized one or two textbooks for instruction. Table 13 reveals the procedures teachers used in organizing classes for social studies. 58 Table 13. Classroom organizational practices in the area Of social studies l Grouping Per Utilization Per Procedure Number Cent Of Texts Number Cent Individualized 7 2.9 Multi-texts 12 5.0 One Group 136 56.7 One series 113 47.1 Two Groups 44 18.3 Two series 36 15.0 Three Groups 15 6.3 Three series 17 7.1 Four Groups 0 0.0 Four series 0 0.0 Five Groups 3 1.3 Five series 2 0.8 No ReSponse 10 4.1 NO ReSponse 28 11.7 Other 25 10.4 Other 32 13.3 Total 240 100.0 240 100.0 In the area of social studies Table 13 reveals the tendency toward presenting social studies concepts to the class as a whole. Fifty-six per cent of the teachers gave instruction to the group as a whole, and 47 per cent utilized one series. Since reading is required in the content areas, it appears significant to note that only a small percentage of the teachers organized their classes in more than two groups. However, additional comments Offered by respondents suggested the utilization Of varied and flexible grouping in related unit activities. An additional item related to grouping was included in the questionnaire for the purpose of eliciting informa— tion regarding changes in instructional groups occasioned by nongrading. Specifically, participants were asked to indi— cate whether the number of groups in the classroom had 59 increased, decreased, or remained basically the same. Table 14 yields this data. Table 14. Changes in the number Of instructional groups in the classroom Groups Basically Content Areas Increased Decreased the Same NO. % NO. % NO. % Reading 82 34.2 27 11.3 103 42.9 Science 27 11.3 15 6.3 156 65.0 Social Studies 30 12.5 13 5.4 159 66.3 Mathematics 83 34.6 21 8.8 101 42.1 Language Arts 48 20.0 17 7.1 138 57.5 Considering the emphasis on flexibility inherent in the nongraded school structure it appears especially note- worthy in Table 14 that very little change was effected in relation to the number of instructional groups within the classroom. The greatest change indicated was in the areas Of mathematics and reading, but in every subject area a dis- cernable majority Of respondents indicated that the number of instructional groups remained, generally, the same as in the graded classroom. However, a small number Of partic- ipants reacted to the item with comments. Their comments indicated flexible or varied grouping and large-group—small group instruction associated with team teaching. 60 Teaching Procedures and Teaching Tasks in Graded and Nongraded Classrooms Respondents were asked to compare teaching tasks and teaching procedures in graded and nongraded schools. Table 15 shows the information regarding Operational practices in the classroom. Table 15. Comparison of operational practices in graded and nongraded schools Degree Of Difference in Number of Operational Practices Responses Per Cent No difference in operational practices 29 12.1 Slight difference in Operational practices 73 30.4 Great difference in Opera- tional practices 126 52.5 NO response to item 12 5.0 Total 240 100.0 It may be noted in Table 15 that the majority Of respondents (52 per cent) indicated a great difference in Operational practices while 30 per cent indicated a slight difference in operational practices. Only 12 per cent found no difference in Operational practices and 5 per cent did not respond to the item. It was noted in some instances by respondents that they had not taught in the graded school and thereby could not make a comparison. Less than .5 per 61 cent of respondents indicated that their only eXperience in the graded school was student teaching, and their comparison was made on this basis. InSpection Of Table 16 reveals that Opinions were quite varied in regard to the ease or difficulty in teaching in nongraded classrooms. However, the largest number of respondents (46 per cent) felt that teaching in a nongraded classroom was more difficult than teaching in a graded class. In their comments regarding this item, respondents attrib- uted the increased difficulty to the need for more diagnosis and evaluation, record keeping, and planning for individual— ized instruction. A constant footnote to this item suggested that although respondents felt the teacher's task to be more difficult in the nongraded classroom, they found teaching to be more personally rewarding. A representative sample of responses follows: 1. Nongraded is more difficult because there is no graded structure to hide behind; you're thinking through a new system. 2. It is much more time-consuming--clerica1 work and individual record keeping more difficult, but the results more than compensate for effort eXpended. 3. Nongraded is much more difficult in many areas. Planning for individualized instruc- tion takes much more time and materials; continuous diagnosis and varied techniques of evaluation are imperative in assessing individual pupil progress. 62 Table 16. Comparison Of teaching tasks in graded and non- graded schools Number of Degree Of Difficulty Responses Per Cent NO difference in ease or difficulty in teaching 55 22.9 Teaching in nongraded classes less difficult 62 25.8 Teaching in nongraded classes more difficult 111 46.3 NO response to item 12 5.0 Total 240 100.0 It is interesting to note that the respondents who felt that teaching in a nongraded classroom was easier (25 per cent) Offered comments in direct contrast to those above. Many of these respondents felt that planning was much simpler and other instructional practices less complex. This was attributed to the presence Of well defined levels in instruc- tional areas and less need for extensive planning due to the "homogeneity" of pupils in their classroom. The following samples of responses reflects the nature of their comments. 1. Nongraded is easier, because children are more or less on the same level. 2. Planning is much easier, because children with like abilities are together. There- fore, I can plan once for the entire group. 3. Nongraded is less difficult-~all pupils are engaged in similar tasks. 63 The lowest number Of respondents (22 per cent) who indicated no difference in ease or difficulty in teaching and found no difference in Operational practices commented that nongrading was an organizational tool and nothing more; therefore, no instructional or procedural change would be effected in the classroom. The final section Of the questionnaire for teachers elicited their personal reactions toward selected asPects Of the nongraded school. The essential questions raised in this part Of the questionnaire were: 1. What are your most rewarding eXperiences in teaching in a nongraded school? 2. What are the most crucial problems you face in teaching in a nongraded school? 3. Would you prefer teaching in a graded or nongraded school? Why? 4. What courses or inservice work do you feel should be Offered to persons who are going to teach in nongraded schools? 5. What techniques and eXperiences do you feel teachers should have prior to teaching in a nongraded school? Most Rewarding Experiences Of Teachers All Of the respondents listed at least three of their most rewarding eXperiences in teaching in a nongraded school. With few exceptions their comments reflected an inner per- sonal satisfaction which is concomitant with pupil success. Specifically, more than three—fourths of the respondents listed the following "rewards" inherent in their teaching in a nongraded classroom: (1) meeting individual needs more 64 effectively; (2) working with happier, relaxed, less frus- trated children; (3) having pupils progress at their own rate; (4) increased self-confidence and independence of pupils as shown in class activities; (5) high pupil interest and enthusiasm; and (6) growth of positive self-concept, leadership, and desirable personal qualities which come when each child eXperiences a measure Of success. Other comments mentioned less frequently but rather consistently alluded to: (1) flexibility of the structural pattern; (2) freedom from restricting "graded" barriers; (3) improved parental attitudes; (4) better human relations among faculty; and (5) professional growth through inservice training. Most Crucial Problems Of Teachers Respondents were asked to list the most crucial prob- lems encountered in teaching in a nongraded classroom. Table 17 presents these findings. Inspection of Table 17 reveals a numerous array of problems encountered by respondents. Many of the problems seem typical of those which may beset teachers in any class- room situation; however, some appear unique to nongrading. The largest number of respondents (70 per cent) listed various difficulties related to grouping and subgrouping practices. Their comments indicated a concern for pupil placement, progress levels, and group mobility. The next 65 Table 17. Summary Of responses regarding current problems encountered by teachers in nongraded schools Most Difficult Problems Number of of Teachers Responses Per Cent Grouping and subgrouping 168 70.0 Lack of sufficient time for planning 142 59.2 Use Of graded textbooks 124 51.7 Lack of nongraded instructional materials 110 45.8 Establishing criteria for evaluation 104 43.3 Insecurity in parent-teacher conferences 102 42.5 Overcrowded classes 98 40.8 Interpreting program to parents 95 39.6 Pupil placement 94 39.2 Record keeping 92 38.3 Scheduling 88 36.7 Techniques of diagnosis 85 35.4 Explaining nongraded philoSOphy to others 82 34.2 Developing individualized instruc- tional materials 76 31.7 Meeting needs of the "extremes" in the classroom 71 29.6 Planning for individualized instruction 65 27.1 Inadequate number of trades books 65 27.1 Transfer records 54 22.5 Using instructional aids effectively 45 18.8 Homogeneous grouping 42 17.5 Lack of direction in social studies 41 17.1 Difficulty in communicating because of terminology 36 15.0 Achieving balance in the school day 35 14.6 COOperative planning among staff 35 14.6 Pressure by parents at end of third year 16 6.7 Discipline problems 14 5.8 NO problems 12 5.0 Lack Of pupil understanding of non— graded concept 5 2.1 66 problem mentioned most frequently was the lack of time for planning and implementing the program. Time is a crucial element in any classroom; however, it was indicated that record keeping, COOperative planning, evaluation, and at- tempts to meet individual needs were much more time consum- ing in a nongraded classroom. Use of graded texts due to lack of nongraded instructional materials and difficulty in developing individualized materials appeared constantly as crucial problems. Other problems Of frequent mention were related to interpreting the nongraded philosophy, record keeping, parent-teacher conferences, diagnosis, and evalua- tion. Attitudes Of Teachers Toward Nongrading A summary of teachers' responses regarding their reactions toward teaching in a nongraded school is presented in Table 18, which follows. Table 18. Teachers' reactions regarding their preference Of teaching in graded or nongraded schools Number of Reaction of Teacher Teachers Per Cent Prefers nongraded--without reservation 194 80.8 Prefers nongraded-~with reservation 22 9.2 Prefers graded 7 2.9 No preference 5 2.1 NO response to item 12 5.0 Total 240 100.0 67 It is readily apparent in Table 18 that the greatest number of respondents indicated a favorable attitude toward teaching in a nongraded school. Eighty per cent expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the nongraded organizational pattern. In giving reasons for their preference of the non- graded school, many responses assimilate statements made relative to their most rewarding eXperiences, as may be noted in the sample of comments which follows: 1. I prefer the nongraded approach, because it is in harmony with my philOSOphy of teaching and what we know about child growth and development. 2. I prefer teaching in the nongraded school, because I am satisfied at the end of the day. I feel an inner personal satisfaction that I am meeting the needs Of children. 3. Nongraded--It provides the best possible education for the individual child and this is what we all desire, isn't it? 4. I prefer nongraded because it helps good students who are often neglected and allevi— ates pressure and comparisons. 5. I like the nongraded approach because it matches the fluid and Often sporadic growth in childhood and eliminates superimposed eXpectations which are not realistic. A relatively small percentage of the respondents eXpressed a preference for the nongraded school, in princi- ple, but appeared to have misgivings about specific facets, which are reflected in the sample of comments which follows: l. 68 I adhere to the principle of nongradedness, but I am not sure it is really being implemented. I prefer teaching in a nongraded school-7i: it's truly nongraded. Instead of asking how many readers have been covered, as in the graded school, nongraded teachers ask how many levels have been covered. I fail to see the difference. I favor the nongraded school, but with this reservation--the intermediate grades should also be nongraded. Terminating the nongraded pattern at the primary level, I feel, makes a farce Of continuous progress. Generally, I believe in what the nongraded school purports to do, but I don't think we are doing that. For example, we're still grading A, B, C, D, and F. I prefer the nongraded school, but I feel that our levels approach is much too restrict- ing. We use the same Old basic series with some "new" names attached. A discernable minority of respondents (3 per cent) preferred the graded school. Without exception, their comments related to dissatisfaction with the nongraded structure as implemented in their reSpective schools. The following sample of comments is representative of their reactions: 1. I prefer the graded school, because the nongraded school leaves much to be desired. The organizational pattern creates a halo effect for the bright children and "brands" the slower learners. Our change to nongraded has done more harm than good. The children remain together throughout the primary years, and the bright groups tend to exhibit an air Of superiority and disassociate themselves from the others. 69 3. Gradediii Why? At least I know what it is! 4. I prefer the graded school, because of my training I feel secure. Our "two-day work- shOp" orientation to nongrading has accom- plished no more than removing the grade designations.. A "graded" school by any other name remains the same. 5. Teaching in the nongraded school has not been rewarding to me. I have a multiplicity of discipline problems because slow-learners are all concentrated in one unit--and every year it happens to be mine. An analysis Of individual responses suggests that the grouping pattern or basis for setting up classes in a given school affects the attitude Of respondents toward non— grading. It appears significant to note that the nature Of responses frequently implied implications of heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping patterns. Courses and/or Inservice Training Recommended for Teachers The participants were asked to eXpress their Opinions regarding undergraduate or inservice training necessary for teachers in nongraded schools. The responses were quite numerous; however, there was considerable agreement in their recommendations, as may be noted in Table 19. 0f the 240 participants responding to this item, 85 per cent felt that some course should be Offered which incul— cated the philosophy of the nongraded school. Workshops on the nongraded school at the graduate level were recommended by 50 per cent of the respondents, and 30 per cent recommended 7O nongraded school workshOps on the undergraduate level. More than half of the respondents felt that student teaching in a nongraded school should be provided, if possible. Table 19. Recommendations regarding courses and/or inservice training for prospective nongraded school teachers Number of i Recommended Courses Responses Percentage Philosophy of the nongraded school 204 85.0 Individualized instruction 132 55.0 Child growth and development 155 64.6 Graduate workshOp on nongraded school 120 50.0 Student teaching in the nongraded school 165 68.8 Psychology of learning 113 47.1 Individual differences 95 39.6 Undergraduate workshOp on non- graded school 74 30.8 Group dynamics 42 17.5 Multiple responses 41 17.1 Next in frequency, recommendations concerned the closely related areas of child develOpment and psychology Of learning. Fifty-one per cent Of respondents felt that there should be greater emphasis in the general area Of child growth and development; 47 per cent indicated psychology Of learning; and 39 per cent suggested individual differences. Respondents largely agreed that more stress in these areas would precipitate a greater understanding of the concept Of nongradedness. 71 Many of the respondents commented on the nature of course Offerings at the undergraduate level. The major con- cern here was not an increase in the number of courses, but a change in the organization, methods, and content of profes- sional courses. Of frequent mention were (1) greater indi— vidualization Of instruction in college classes; (2) more laboratory-type eXperiences providing techniques Of analysis, discovery, and eXperimentation; and (3) more effort by pro- fessors Of education in directing experiences which would involve implementation of the nongraded concept. Multiple responses included curriculum revision, diagnosis, remediation, audio-visual instruction, and team teaching. Techniques and EXperiences Recommended by Teachers Respondents cited techniques and experiences which they considered essential for successful teaching in a non- graded school. A listing of comments and their frequencies are summarized in Table 20. The data in Table 20 show that more than half of the respondents (128) felt that teachers should in some way be eXposed to the philosophy of the nongraded school. Directed observation and participation was recommended by 102 respon- dents, and 65 felt student teaching to be desirable. Visit— ing successful nongraded schools was recommended for inser- vice teachers by 82 respondents. These experiences comprised 72 a total Of 377 responses, by far the largest number relative to a given area. Table 20. Opinions Of teachers regarding techniques and eXperiences essential for teachers in nongraded schools Frequency Recommended Technigues and Experiences Of Mention EXposure to the philOSOphy Of nongraded school . 128 Planning for individualization of instruction . 112 Techniques in grouping procedures . . . . . . . 109 Directed Observation and participation in non- graded schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Techniques of evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Record keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Visits to successful nongraded schools . . . . . 82 Techniques in parent- -teacher conferences . . . . 78 Working with multi-age and multi-level groups . 76 Understanding sc0pe and sequence Of levels . . . 75 Student teaching in the nongraded school . . . . 65 Broader use Of multi-media for instruction . . . 61 COOperative planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Techniques Of diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Curriculum construction . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Techniques of remediation . . . . . . . . . . . 21 DevelOping materials for enrichment . . . . . . l8 EXperience in planning for individualized instruc— tion was listed as essential by 112 respondents. The major- ity of reSpondents who commented on this item felt that, generally, methods presented in college courses were geared to the graded concept of planning for two or three groups in the classroom, with individualization more the exception than the rule. Similar reactions were reflected in relation to grouping procedures. Respondents frequently indicated a need for greater understanding of varied types of grouping; 73 coupled with some eXperience in working with multi-age and multi-level groups. Next in frequency were techniques of evaluation and record keeping. The above findings account for approximately 70 per cent Of the total number Of responses regarding essential techniques and experiences. The remaining 30 per cent cover a wide range Of suggestions. These, as can be noted, refer to parent-teacher conferences, sc0pe and sequence of levels, multi-media, COOperative planning, diagnosis, curriculum, remediation, and enrichment. General comments indicated a greater need for pro— spective teachers to engage in more laboratory-type exPeri- ence and more actual "doin " ex eriences with children. 9 P CHAPTER V ANALYSES OF ADMINISTRATORS' RESPONSES The information Obtained from responses of the admin- istrators included in the study was compiled and summarized. An analysis of results follows. Academic Preparation Of Administrators The investigator was interested in determining the academic background of the ninety administrators participat- ing in the study. The academic preparation of the respon- dents is presented in Table 21. Table 21. Academic preparation of administrators Major Field Adminis- Academic Elementary Secondary, tration Other Preparation NO. % NO. %. NO. ‘% No. % B.S. degree 38 42 20 22 0 0 32 36 M.A. degree 31 34 0 0 56 62 3 3 Study beyond Masters .. .. 2 2 4 4 0 0 Doctorate .. .. .. .. 5 6 1 l 74 75 It may be noted in Table 21 that the majority of respondents (64 per cent) received their undergraduate train- ing in education, 42 per cent at the elementary level and 22 per cent at the secondary level. All respondents had earned the Master's degree, the greatest number (62 per cent) major- ing in some phase Of administration. In comparing the number Of years Of eXperience admin- istrators had in both graded and nongraded schools, it is shown in Figure 5 that the majority of the administrators with l to 5 years Of eXperience (69 per cent) had gained their eXperience in nongraded schools. Forty per cent Of the group with 6 to 10 years of eXperience had gained their eXperience in graded classrooms. It may be noted that in each category, excluding the first five—year period, the percentages indicate more eXperience in graded schools. Many Of the reSpondents indicated teaching eXperience in the elementary school prior to assuming their present administra— tive role. Administrative Profile Of Schools In an attempt to gain general information regarding the schools represented in the study, the respondents were asked to indicate (1) the grades replaced by the nongraded structure, (2) the primary basis for setting up classes, and (3) the length of time school has been nongraded. This in— formation is presented in Tables 22 through 24, which follow. 76 .mHoonUm Owcmumcoc can OmOmHm CH muoumuumHGHEOm mo mocmwummxm .m musmHm mummm mm mumm» mummm mummh mummm mummm _Gm£p mqu. mm 0» Hm ON OH OH -mH Op HH OH on O m 0u H O A \ .i.-. , § 33 as. . \\ an I OH .ION XOH . ONN _RNN 1.0m 1.O¢ d va e I iom m. u 1 .IOO some, low V Omcmumcoz xxxxww .IOm OOOOHO .uom FOOH 77 Table 22. Grades replaced by nongraded structure Grades Replaced Number Per Cent Primary unit only K-3 38 42.2 Primary and intermediate *K-8 50 55.6 Other 2 2.2 Total 90 100.0 Table 22 shows that 42 per cent of the schools represented in this study are nongraded at the primary level only. Two schools were reported tO be nongraded at the pri— mary level and departmentalized at the intermediate level. The largest number of respondents (55 per cent) indicated that grades had been eliminated at both the primary and intermediate levels. These findings reflect an extension Of nongrading to the intermediate grades within recent years. The 1957-58 survey by GOOdlad and Anderson pointed out that very few schools had included grades four, five, and six in their nongraded structure. It is apparent in Table 23 that homogeneous grouping was most widely used as a basis for assigning pupils to classes in the nongraded schools reported in the study. Some type Of ability grouping was reported in 67 Of the 90 schools, reading achievement being the most prevalent crite- rion mentioned. Fifteen participants reported heterogeneous— ly grouped classes, and chronological age was used as the 78 primary basis in only 4 schools. Under the category of "other," respondents indicated peer style grouping, multi— factor grouping, and a combination of grouping patterns based on interest, emotional, and social maturity. Table 23. Primary bases for assigning pupils to classrooms in nongraded schools Criterion Used Number Per Cent Homogeneous grouping 28 31.1 General achievement 3 3.3 Reading achievement 25 27.8 Chronological age 4 4.4 Heterogeneous grouping 15 16.7 General achievement and reading 11 12.2 Other 4 4.4 Total 90 100.0 Of the 90 schools represented by the responding administrators, Table 24 shows that the largest number of schools (41) had been nongraded from 4 to 6 years; the second largest number of schools (23) were nongraded within the last three years. Schools nongraded within the last ten years comprised 86 per cent Of the sample. Four schools were reported to have been nongraded for more than 20 years. 79 Table 24. Length Of time schools have been nongraded Number of Years Number of Nongraded Schools 1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4—6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 13—15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 16-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 19-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 22-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 25-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Percgptions of Nongradedness in Individual Schools At the present time there is little definite informa— tion as to what one means when he describes a nongraded school. Nongrading has a different point Of reference for individual educators. It was thus imperative for the writer to determine what was meant by nongrading in each school. The administrators were therefore asked to describe what non— grading meant in their specific school. The following repre- sentative sample of comments reflects their perceptions: An organizational pattern which permits flexible grouping, continuous progress, and team teaching. An attempt to provide flexibility and freedom for pupils to progress continuously through the skill areas Of language arts and mathematics. Pupils progress at own rate. They are acceler- ated when ready or put in a group working more slowly when needed. Continuous progress for each child in each sub- ject area. 8O Nongradedness does not mean an organizational pattern. An organization that (vertically) has no borders, boundaries, or road blocks by years or quarters; no failures at placement levels. Continuous progress in reading and mathe- matics. Pupils move from one reading level to next. At the end Of the first year, pupil may go to level 4 which is a first reader instead of level 5 which would be a second reader. A series of reading levels through which the children progress as they are able. Placing children on instructional levels for instruction rather than placing by traditional grade levels. Children are grouped homogeneously by achieve- ment in reading and mathematics. Gearing a program to the child, not a child to a program. Recognizing individual differences and implementing a program to fit the differ- ences. A complete erasure of grade lines and "require- ments"; multi-aged (three-year spread) with complete emphasis on the individual. Children move through fourteen levels in reading and mathematics rather than six grades. The first three years are considered a block Of time and information. Grade designations have been replaced by nine levels. Children are allowed to advance at their own rate. A flexible system of grouping in which children in the primary grades are grouped together in order to make extensive effort toward adapting instruction to individual needs. Eight required levels replace the primary grades; level 9 for enrichment. Children move from one level to the next as soon as they finish their requirements. 81 The sample Of comments serves to indicate the gamut of perceptions regarding nongrading and the meaning of non- gradedness in individual schools. The majority of the respondents, however, indicated the use of instructional levels replacing traditional grade demarcations. Inherent in most of the comments was some mention of flexibility, continuous progress, and the Opportunity for the pupil to progress at his own rate. Procedural and Curriculum Changes Resulting from Nongrading One would assume that changing from a graded school to a nongraded school would lead to procedural and curricular changes. Therefore, the investigator asked administrators to list practices which had been introduced as a result of nongrading. A sample of comments reflecting curricular changes is presented: We have given increased attention to revision of curriculum and report cards to support our philosophy. More inservice work is provided to increase teacher understanding of the needs and problems of children and ways Of meeting them more effectively. We have grouped somewhat homogeneously to narrow the ability Spread within a specific class. Levels are set up for reading and mathematics that children progress through according to ability. Advanced pupils are allowed to complete the elementary school in less time. 82 Some eXperimentation with new materials is being done. There is no grading nor reporting via report cards but communication with parents through conferences several times a year. We are using COOperative teaching and multi- aging as avenues to continuous progress for each child in each subject area. Submitting report cards to parents at different times upon the completion of a basic series reading text. The emphasis is now on individual growth, diag- nosis of needs, and preparing suitable programs. Children move among classrooms during a day; they may have two or three teachers during the day but keep these same teachers for the school term. We are now moving into two—age groupings in the primary unit. Records are kept to show achieve- ment levels of each child, and the program is planned so that it can be a continuous progres- Sion. We have completely eliminated reading groups. There are no failures; the enrichment program is not just "on paper." Children may now be re-assigned at any time dur- ing the school year, if deemed advisable. More extensive use Of audio—visual materials and multi-level materials for individuals and groups. We now group heterogeneously rather than attempt to make unattainable "homogeneous" classes based on spurious achievement scores. We now afford released time for teacher planning. We make use of team teaching techniques. There is a master teacher for each area and for each level who is largely responsible for planning, executing plans, and evaluating with teammates and with principal. 83 We have narrowed the ability Span in each class section thereby increasing teacher efficiency. Though the original achievement levels were based on reading achievement levels, cross grading was done in other subject levels. A team Of three teachers and a teacher aide are working with around 85 children. We are now placing children or more than one age group within a classroom. This helps to further remove the artificial grade lines and allows a teacher more flexibility in grouping and planning for the needs of individual children. There was no discernable pattern evidenced by admin- istrators regarding procedural and curriculum changes. How- ever, development of achievement levels and change toward some type of homogeneous grouping were indicated most frequently. Reaction of_Administrators Toward Nongrading The attitude of an individual toward an innovation or any educational endeavor plays a significant part in its success. Thus, it appeared relevant to determine the atti— tudes Of the administrators in this study toward the non- graded organization and the instructional program within the nongraded pattern. The reaction Of the administrators are reflected in Table 25. Data in Table 25 present the reaction of administra- tors to the nongraded organization and instructional program. Approximately 90 per cent Of the administrators were highly 84 satisfied or satisfied with the nongraded organizational structure. There appears to be less satisfaction with the instructional program within the organizational structure. Thirty-seven per cent indicated some degree Of dissatisfac- tion with the instructional program. It is significant to note that only 1 per cent indicated total dissatisfaction with the organizational structure, and 5 per cent total dissatisfaction with the instructional program. Table 25. Reaction Of administrators toward nongraded organization and instructional program Reaction of Organizational Instructional Administrators Pattern Program No. % NO. % Highly satisfied 60 66.7 26 28.9 Satisfied 21 23.3 25 27.8 Some degree Of dis- satisfaction 8 8.9 34 37.8 Totally dissatisfied 1 1.1 5 5.6 Total 240 100.0 240 100.0 85 Future School Organizational Preferences Among Administrators The investigator was interested in determining the future stability Of the nongraded school among the 104 non- graded schools represented in the study. The administrators were asked to cite the school organizational pattern they would select, if given a choice. Only one administrator stated that, if given a choice, he would select the graded structure. All others indicated that they would prefer the nongraded organizational pattern in their school. Some of the respondents were spe— cific in their comments and stated that they would organize their schools: with a nongraded team teaching combination with multi—age classes with nongraded homogeneous classes with nongraded heterogeneous classes with nongraded classes from kindergarten through grade six with teacher cycling over a two to three year Span in a nongraded unit with a nongraded primary unit and departmental- ized intermediate unit The administrators' remarks, while favoring nongraded- ness, did indicate that there is little consistency as to how the nongraded school should be organized. The largest number of administrators seemed to favor the homogeneous grouping 86 pattern and team teaching; respondents favoring heteroge- neous classes and multi-age classes were in the minority. AS was reflected in the teachers' comments, some of the administrators preferred the nongraded pattern, basically, but evidenced concern about the way it was currently being implemented. There was also a great deal of variability as to the reasons for preferring the nongraded school. Administrators' Recommendations for Courses andgor Inservice Training One Objective of this study was to determine the implication of present practices in nongraded schools for teacher training. On the bases of their eXperienceS with teachers in nongraded schools, the administrators were asked to recommend courses for 'preservice and inservice teachers. Their responses are summarized in Table 26. Upon inspecting Table 26 it appears that understand- ing Of the philosophy and structure Of nongrading is essen— tial; 90 per cent of the respondents recommended courses dealing with this concept. Eighty-one per cent of the administrators recommended courses concerned with individ- ualized instruction and child development. In light of the large number of respondents recommending courses in child development and individualization of instruction, it seems surprising to note that, comparatively, a small number (35 per cent) recommended courses involving diagnosis and remediation. 87 Table 26. Administrators' recommendations for preservice= and inservice training Recommended Courses Number Per Cent Structure and philOSOphy of nongraded school 81 90.0 Child growth and development 73 81.1 Individualization of instruction 73 81.1 Grouping for instruction 70 77.8 Workshop on nongraded school 68 75.6 Curriculum theory 65 72.2 Students teaching in nongraded y school 64 71.1 Group dynamics 49 54.4 Psychology of learning 42 46.7 Individual differences 37 41.1 Diagnosis and remediation 32 35.6 Team teaching 29 32.2 Recommended Techniques and Experiences Essential for Success in Nongraded Schools The administrators represented in the study were asked to recommend techniques and experiences which they believed were essential to successful teaching in the non- graded school. These recommendations and their frequencies follow in Table 27. Table 27 brings into focus the need for a variety of experiences before delving into nongrading. Fifty-one admin- istrators recommended that teachers have eXperience in plan- ning individualized instruction. Forty-five reSpondentS recommended student teaching in nongraded or individualized 88 settings. An additional 42 respondents recommended eXperi- ences with multi-age groups. Table 27. Administrators' recommendations Of techniques and eXperienceS essential for teaching in the non- graded school Frequency Techniques and EXperiences of Mention Observation of nongradedness in the classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Opportunities for planning individualized instruction . . . . . . . . . . 51 Student teaching in nongraded or individualized instruction setting . . . . . . 45 EXperience with multi-age groups . . . . . . . . 42 Experience with a variety of grouping patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Techniques used in parent-teacher conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 EXperiences in decision-making and group dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 EXperience in team teaching or COOperative teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Development Of materials for multi- level groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Experience in diagnosis and remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Experience in develOping individual pupil records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Creative eXperiences in children's literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Problems of Teachers as Viewed by Administrators In an elementary school, the principal Should be keenly aware of the problems teachers face. Upon inSpecting Table 28 the reader might gain some insight into the prob- lems of teachers as Observed by the administrators. 89 Table 28. Problems of teachers as viewed by administrators Current Problems Number Per Cent Meeting individual needs 74 82.2 Lack of understanding of non— graded philosophy 63 70.0 Providing adequate individual- ized materials 59 65.6 Reporting to parents 53 58.9 Establishing criteria for evaluation 52 57.8 PrOper placement Of pupils 51 56.7 Mobility and flexibility of classroom grouping 48 53.3 "Grade mindedness" and tradi- tional practices 47 52.2 Collective decision-making 42 46.7 Record keeping 36 40.0 Allowing pupils to advance 35 38.9 Time for planning 22 24.4 Human relations 21 23.3 Teaching social studies 4 4.4 It seems Significant to note that a majority of the administrators (70 per cent) felt that teachers were lacking in understanding of the nongraded philOSOphy even though they were teaching in a nongraded school. A larger number of respondents (82 per cent) felt that teachers were eXperi- encing difficulty in meeting individual needs of pupils. The data also indicate that in spite Of the flexibility which is said to be a part of nongraded schools, some teach- ers were still adhering to traditional practices and strict guidelines. Administrators indicated that much "grade- mindedness" still exists among teachers; fifty-two per cent considered this to be a major problem. 90 Problems related to grouping, evaluation, human rela- tions and reporting to parents were frequently mentioned. This is highly consistent with the crucial problems as reported by the teachers (Table 17). Future Plans Regarding the Nongraded Proggam An attempt was made to determine the future direc- tion of nongraded schools included in the investigation. The administrators were asked to indicate plans for extend— ing and/or modifying existing programs. In response to the questions, many plans were indicated. The administrators pointed out that they planned to: nongrade the entire school establish materials center implement team teaching develop social studies program develOp mathematics program move toward parent-teacher conferences only use more programmed instructional materials extend individualized procedures revise reporting system develop diagnostic prescriptive type materials conduct research on follow-up pupils nongrade other content areas use lay personnel in program 91 create post kindergarten room for disadvantaged pupils study spiral approach in social studies utilize problem solving approach in content areas extend nongraded concept through junior high and high school initiate COOperative teaching develop sequential units in science and social studies initiate library summer program study more effective system of record keeping Among the numerous prospective plans, those mentioned most frequently include team teaching; extending program to upper levels; developing social studies programs; extension of individualized procedures; and revision of reporting system. Only one respondent indicated a return to the graded system; all others planned to continue the nongraded structure and modify or extend their existing program. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary The principal purpose of this study was to eXplore the dimensions Of the nongraded School concept in selected elementary schools. Specifically, an attempt was made (1) to find out how individual teachers and administrators per- ceived the nongraded concept, (2) to determine the Opera- tional practices of teachers, (3) to determine the nature and extent of problems encountered by teachers in nongraded classrooms, and (4) to analyze the findings with implica- tions for teacher education. The nongraded school was viewed by the writer as an §—.- organizational structure which removes formal grade lines q‘_ ,_-—-—k—* - —- .— —+ —— — -—_ and provides_the flexibility that permits continuous prog- ,,...v——-"—"—— I'— ress and attention to the individual needs of all children; K 7* the concept embraces the basic principles Of child growth \_I_____,._ _ .. and develOpment, learningL school function, and pedagogical __ _ .._ ..._ 5 .~_ practice. -.._. - — To provide a knowledgeable basis and gain greater ,- insight into the various dimensions of nongrading, an inten- sive review Of the literature was pursued. This review 92 93 focused primarily on (1) the historical develOpment Of elementary school organization, (2) the emergence of the nongraded school, (3) a review of the nongraded school concept, and (4) the role Of teacher education in relation to public school innovations. The review revealed a paucity of actual research in the area of nongrading, but numerous descriptions Of schools currently operating under the non- graded plan were cited. In addition, an attempt was made to examine the nongraded concept in depth through citations in the literature Offered by educators regarding the nongraded idea. In order to procure data for this study, interviews were held with teachers and principals currently working in nongraded schools. The information gathered during inter- view sessions was summarized and categorized to formulate the nucleus Of a questionnaire for teachers and a question- naire for administrators. The survey instruments were sent to administrators Of schools cited in the literature as be— ing nongraded. Questionnaire returns yielded data from non- graded schools representing a wide geographical distribution; Specifically, one hundred five school systems in thirty—two states. Responses from two hundred forty teachers and ninety administrators comprised the total sample. The information accumulated through use of the questionnaires was summarized, and the analysis Of data resulted in the following findings: 94 Findings 1. The majority Of the participants in this study, both administrators and teachers, had eXperience in teaching in both graded and nongraded schools. The more recent graduates had more eXperience in nongraded schools. Eighty per cent of the teachers and 69 per cent Of the administra— tors, with one to five years of eXperience, had gained this eXperience in nongraded schools. 2. The majority of teachers revealed a lack of sound understanding of the meaning of nongrading; their comments revealed mixed perceptions of nongradedness. A minority of the participants perceived the nongraded school as one in which (1) pupils follow a developmental skills approach, (2) the instructional program in each area Of the curriculum is geared to the ability of individual students, and (3) the program is flexible so as to promote flexibility and continuous progress. Only 27 per cent of the teachers perceived Of the nongraded school as one encompassing the dimensions above. 3. The data reflect that misconceptions were also apparent among administrators in nongraded schools. In response to the question, ”What does nongrading mean in your particular school?" the perceptions appeared varied and con— flicting. The majority of respondents perceived a nongraded program to be one in which reading levels followed a basic reading series, and each child was required to complete each 95 level. An almost equal number Of participants perceived nongrading to be synonymous with homogeneous grouping. Still another group perceived of nongrading as an arrange- ment in which pupils are grouped heterogeneously, "rather than attempting to achieve unattainable homogeneous classes." A small minority perceived of the nongraded program as a complete erasure of grade lines and "requirements" with emphasis on individual needs. 4. Administrators indicated no consistent pattern for assigning pupils to classroom groups. The largest num— ber of respondents, 31 per cent, used homogeneous grouping for classroom assignment. Twenty-seven per cent set up classes on the bases of chronological age, general achieve- ment, heterogeneous grouping, and a combination of the above mentioned factors. 5. The data relative to the academic range of pupils within nongraded classrooms revealed no predominant pattern. Fifty per cent reported that classroom units included pupils with a wide range Of abilities. Twenty-five per cent indicated homogeneous grouping; an additional 24 per cent reported that the academic range was somewhat narrow. 6. Data relative to mobility of pupils reflected a change when compared to the common practice Of moving pupils at the middle or end of school year. Sixty-Six per cent of the teachers indicated that pupils were moved from one 96 classroom group to another when the teacher deemed it advis- able. Ten per cent, however, restricted movement to the end of the school year. 7. In the area of reading instruction, 50 per cent of the teachers organized their classes into three reading groups, and 36 per cent relied on one reading series. Other instructional procedures included ability grouping, individ— ualized reading, and a combination of grouping patterns. 8. In the area of mathematics, instruction was limited to one textbook in 45 per cent Of the classrooms. Sixty-one per cent Of the teachers utilized a developmental Skills approach. Other procedures included ability grouping and individualized instruction. 9. In the area Of language arts, the teachers relied heavily on large group instruction. Forty-three per cent indicated that instruction in the language arts was given to the group as a whole; 20 per cent divided the class into two groups. Forty per cent of the participants utilized one text in this area. Only 3 per cent of the participants utilized individualized instruction. The multi—text approach was used by 4 per cent Of the teachers. 10. In the area of science, total group instruction was the dominant pattern. Fifty-eight per cent pointed out that science instruction was geared to the class as a whole; eight per cent Of the reSpondents utilized three instruction- al groups in this area. 97 11. When reporting their classroom practices in the area of social studies, 54 per cent of respondents indicated development Of eXperience units. Thirty-seven per cent of the teachers utilized the multi-text approach. 12. The findings relating to instructional media indicated the utilization of a variety of instructional materials. When responding to the "checklist" section of the questionnaire dealing with instructional media, 70 per cent indicated the use of books on various levels in each content area. However, when responding to questions rela- tive to instructional practices, the majority of respondents indicated the use of one text for instruction. 13. In comparing general Operational practices in graded and nongraded schools, 52 per cent of the teachers pointed out that there were great differences in Operational practices, and 30 per cent indicated slight differences. Forty—Six per cent noted that teaching in nongraded classes was more difficult than teaching in graded situations; whereas 25 per cent felt that teaching was less difficult in nongraded classes. Twenty-two per cent saw no difference. 14. Relatively few changes were noted in the num- ber of instructional groups in nongraded classrooms. In each content area listed, without exception, the largest number of respondents indicated that groups remained basi- cally the same. The greatest change occurred in reading and 98 mathematics. In these areas, 34 per cent of the respondents indicated that the number of groups increased. 15. Evaluation in nongraded schools included a variety Of approaches. Both formal and informal techniques were utilized by 77 per cent of the participants. Seventy- four per cent Of the teachers reported that pupil progress was evaluated in light of the individual's growth record; 43 per cent evaluated pupils in relation to their standing in the class; and 34 per cent used national norms in eval- uating pupils. 16. Only 7 per cent of the teachers relied solely on report cards for reporting pupil progress. Seventy-seven per cent used both the report card and parent—teacher confer- ences for reporting, and 15 per cent used parent-teacher conferences only. 17. The data relative to problems encountered by teachers revealed that an overwhelming majority of the par- ticipants had some problem; only 8 per cent indicated that no problem existed. The greatest Single problem appeared to be grouping and subgrouping for instruction, as indicated by 70 per cent of the group. Insufficient time for planning and lack of nongraded materials were considered crucial prob- lems by approximately one-half Of the responding group. In sharp contrast, only 6 per cent noted problems with parents, and discipline was considered a problem by only 5 per cent of the teachers. 99 18. In spite Of the endorsement of nongrading, administrators by no means considered the nongraded school a remedy for all instructional problems, as indicated by their view Of teachers' difficulties in the classroom. Eighty-two per cent indicated that teachers had problems meeting individual needs; 72 per cent felt that problems resulted from a lack of understanding of the nongraded con— cept; and 52 per cent pointed out that teachers had problems due to grade-mindedness and traditional practices. 19. In recommending courses for preservice and inservice teachers, 85 per cent of the teachers and 90 per cent Of the administrators recommended a course on the philosophy of the nongraded school. Eighty-one per cent of the administrators suggested courses in child development and individualized instruction. 20. Techniques and eXperiences considered essential were Offered by respondents, the largest number suggesting opportunities for developing skill in individualized instrucw tion. Student teaching in nongraded schools was also highly recommended by both groups. 21. In reacting to their preference Of teaching in a graded or nongraded school, 80 per cent of the teachers preferred the nongraded school, without reservations. Only 3 per cent indicated a preference for graded classes. The reasons teachers gave for their choices appeared to be quite significant. 100 22. Reactions Of administrators to existing pro- grams varied. Sixty—six per cent were highly satisfied with the nongraded organization, but only 28 per cent were highly satisfied with the instructional program. Only 8 per cent cited dissatisfaction with the nongraded organizational pat- tern, but 37 per cent eXpressed some degree of dissatisfac- tion with the instructional program. 23. Of the curriculum changes indicated by adminis— trators, most frequently mentioned were setting up reading levels, increasing inservice programs, and initiating COOper- ative teaching. Noteworthy, but less frequently mentioned, were setting up multi—age groups and eliminating traditional report cards. 24. Eighty-nine of 90 administrators included in the study indicated continuance Of the nongraded organiza— tion with plans for modification. The most frequently men— tioned future changes were to combine team teaching with nongrading, extend the nongraded structure to upper levels, develOp the social studies program, increase individualized procedures, and revise the existing reporting system. 25. The nature Of comments Offered by respondents who grouped homogeneously or according to a criterion Of achievement tended to indicate more "gradedness" in class— room practices; whereas, respondents who grouped heteroge— neously or according to a criterion other than ability tended to indicate greater differentiation and individualiza— tion Of instruction. 101 Conclusions The study of professional literature, analysis of data received from three hundred thirty questionnaires, personal interviews, and observation in nongraded classrooms enabled the investigator to gain a rather comprehensive View of various dimensions of nongrading. Upon this basis, and subject to the limitations of this study, it appeared justi- fiable to offer the following conclusions. 1. There is a strong possibility that future grad- uates in the area Of teacher education will be teaching in nongraded classrooms or schools in which the traditional organizational patterns have been modified. 2. The actual perceptions of nongrading indicated by the majority of administrators and teachers appeared to be conflicting and incompatible with the philosophical con- cept of a nongraded school. The principles of flexibility, continuous progress, individualization, and a personalized curriculum, which are hallmarks of the nongraded concept, failed to be built into the majority of nongraded programs. 3. There appeared to be little significant differ- ence between the way teachers Operate in nongraded classes when compared with the typical graded class. 4. In Spite of the fact that the nongraded school provides an Opportunity for creativity and flexibility in teaching, the majority of the teachers still relied heavily 102 on mass instruction, one textbook, and the same curriculum for all. 5. Nongrading is said tO be realistic in a demo- cratic society because of its underlying respect for individ- ual differences. Yet, less than one-third of the partici— pants indicated individualization Of instructional practices. The concept of individualism was not evidenced in Operational practices. 6. The conflict in perceptions of nongrading becomes evident when teachers and administrators view non- grading as being synonymous with homogeneous grouping. 7. In a number of schools, nongraded classes were organized around reading achievement, Often in accordance with textbook levels--beginning with a pre-primer level and extending to a third reader, second semester level. These rigid textbook levels substitute nine or twelve lock-steps for the typical three lock-steps in the conventional graded situation. 8. In nongraded schools included in this study, respondents indicated that pupils are able to move on the basis of personal development rather than age or years in school. There appears to be Opportunity for flexibility in pupil mobility from one classroom unit tO another. In this area there appeared to be a major difference when compared with graded schools. 103 9. Grouping procedures appeared little different from those found in graded schools. The maintainance of three groups was the predominant pattern. The majority of participants, while not operating differently, saw the need for different procedures. 10. If the trend toward nongrading is to bring about improvement in education, there appears to be little doubt that those now engaged in nongrading and those antic- ipating teaching in tomorrow's schools need extensive train— ing and eXperienceS in nongrading and its ramifications. The findings Of this study indicate a lack of perceptions and know-how on the part Of the practitioners. 11. The data of this study substantiate Anderson's assertion that the majority of today's nongraded schools are but modest efforts to achieve nongrading within an inadequate theoretical frame of reference. In many cases, the vocabu— lary of nongradedness is utilized to describe a conventional graded program.54 12. It appears that while the majority Of partici- pants in this study have some limitations in making the non- graded concept a reality, there are some concomitant factors which have been implemented with success. Reporting and evaluation procedures seem to have improved in a large num- ber of the nongraded schools included in this study. 54Anderson, op. cit., p. 51. cations 104 Implications and Recommendations In light of this investigation, the following impli— are presented: Professional educators who are advocates of nongrad- ing have a responsibility to the field to provide (a) a basic nomenclature and (b) criteria for evalu— ation of nongraded programs. A nongraded school should reflect continuous prog- ress, flexibility, and pupil individuality in its operational programs and practices. a. "Continuous" progress programs Should not cease at the primary level. b. Greater individualization Of instruction Should characterize the nongraded program. c. Grouping practices should reflect the flexibil— ity inherent in the nongraded school concept. d. Curricular revision becomes a necessity for full employment Of the nongraded school concept. School systems Should not move toward nongrading without a continuous and extensive program in retrain— ing Of administrators and teachers. School systems, which are currently Operating as non— graded, should take a critical look at the existing program and engage in continuous inservice training designed to help teachers and administrators incorpo— rate the concept Of nongradedness in actual opera- tional practices in the school. There is a need for teacher education institutions to give attention to the nongraded concept in pre- service and inservice programs. a. Teacher education programs should provide the Opportunity for laboratory-type experience in a good nongraded school program. b. Programs offered in teacher education Should seek to bridge the gap between theoretical assumptions and practical application in the area Of child growth and development. 105 Teacher education institutions should offer courses or workshops, at the undergraduate and graduate levels, which focus primarily on the nongraded school and/or innovations in education. Teacher education would facilitate a greater understanding of individualized and innovative techniques if similar procedures were to be used in college courses. In light Of the data procured during this study, it is a. recommended: that proponents of nongrading establish a clear— ing house so that more definite guidelines may be developed to give public school personnel a greater sense Of direction. that colleges of education set up model, non- graded laboratory situations or schools where preservice and inservice teachers may see theory translated into practice. that research studies be conducted to ascertain the nature and extent of flexibility and pupil mobility in nongraded schools. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Anderson, Robert H. Teaching in a World of Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1966. Good, Carter V. Dictionary of Education. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1959. GOOdlad, John I. "A Survey of Nongraded Schools," The Engyclopedia Of Educational Research. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960. and Robert H. Anderson. The Nongraded Elementary School. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., Revised edition, 1963. Hillson, Maurie. Change and Innovation in Elementary School Organization. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Morse, Arthur D. Schools Of Tomorrow--Todgy. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1960. Otto, Henry J. Elementary School Organization and Adminis- tration. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc., 1954. Winge, Max. The Philosgphy Of Education. New York: D. C. Heath and Company, 1965. Publications of the Government, Learned Societies and Other Organizations Dawson, Martha E. "A New Look at An Old Idea--The Nongraded Elementary School at Hampton Institute," Pioneer Ideas in Education, Committee on Education and Labor. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December, 1962. 107 108 Dean, Stuart B. Elementagy School Administration and Organization. U.S. Office of Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December, 1964. . "Nongraded Schools," Education Briefs. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1964, p. 2. Delaney, Eleanor C. "The Case for the Ungraded Primary Unit,” Research Bulletin. New Jersey School Development Council, VI, 2:7-12, December, 1961. Department Of Elementary School Principals. Elementary School Organization--Purposes, Patterns, PerSpective. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1961. GOOdlad, John I. "Individual Differences and School Organization," Individualizipg Instruction. The Sixty- First Yearbook, NSSE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Howard, Elizabeth. "Let's Have a Nongraded School," Howardletter Number Six. Science Research Associates, Inc., November 15, 1965. "Nongraded School Organization," NEA Research Bulletin, XXXIV, NO. 4 (October, 1965). Stendler, Celia B. "Grouping Practices," Those First Years. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, Department Of Elementary School Principals, 1960. Webb, L. N. "Nongrading: A Modern Practice in Elementary School Education," NEA Research Memo. October, 1961. Periodicals Anderson, Robert H. and John I. GOOdlad. "Self-appraisal in Nongraded Schools: A Survey Of Findings and Percep- tions," The Elementary School Journal, LII (October, 1962), pp. 33-40. Austin, Kent C. "The Ungraded Primary School," Childhood Education, XXXIII (February, 1957). Ayer, Fred C. "The Status Of Promotional Plans in City Schools," American School Board Journal, April, 1923. 109 Carbone, Robert F. "The Nongraded School: An Appraisal," Administrator's Handbook. Chicago: University Of Chicago, 1961. . "A Comparison Of Graded and Nongraded Elementary Schools," The Elementary School Journal, LXII, 2:82—88 (November, 1961). Collier, Calhoun C. "The Nongraded School," School and Society, XCIV (January 22, 1966). Dean, Stuart E. "The Nongraded School — Is There Magic In It?" School Life, XLVII (December, 1964). Di Lorenzo, Louis T. and Ruth Salter. "COOperative Research on the Nongraded Primary," The Elementary School Journal, February, 1965. Eldred, Donald M. and Maurie Hillson. "The Nongraded School and Mental Health," Elementary School Journal, LXIII:218- 22 (January, 1963). Frazier, Alexander. "Needed: A New Vocabulary for Individ- ual Differences," Elementapy School Journal, LXI, No. 5 (February, 1961). GOOdlad, John I. "Inadequacy Of Graded Organization," Childhood Education, XXIX:274-277 (February, 1963). Halliwell, Joseph W. "A Comparison of Pupil Achievement in Graded and Nongraded Primary Classrooms," The Journal Of EXperimental Education, XXXII, 1:59-64 (Fall, 1963). Hamilton, Warren and Walter Rehwaldt. "By Their Differences They Learn," National Elementapy Principal, XXXVII (December, 1957). Hart, Richard H. "The Nongraded Primary School and Arithme- tic," Arithmetic Teacher, IX (March, 1962). Hillson, Maurie and Charles J. Jones §£_pl, "A Controlled EXperiment Evaluating the Effect of a Nongraded Organi- zation on Pupil Achievement," Journal of Educational Research, LVII, 10:548-50 (July, 1964). Hunter, Madeline. "The Dimensions Of Nongrading," Elementary School Journal, October, 1964. Ingram, Vivian. "Flint Evaluates Its Primary Cycle," Elementary School Journal, LXI (November, 1960). 110 Jameson, Marshall C. "How Shall We Teach?" National Elemen- tary Principal, December, 1960. Johnson, Glenn R. "Lots Of Smoke, But Little Fire," Educational Forum, XXIX (January, 1965). Perkins, Hugh V. "Nongraded Programs: What Progress?" Educational Leadership, 3:169 (December, 1961). Skapski, Mary K. "Ungraded Primary Reading Program: An Objective Evaluation," Elementary School Journal, XXII, 61:41L45 (October, 1960). Smith, Lois.. "Continuous Progress Plan," Toward Effective Grouping, Association for Childhood Education Interna- tional, Washington, D.C., 1963. Unpublished Materials "A Report of a Three—Year Study of Mixed Group Classes at Huntley," Prepared by Appleton Public Schools, Appleton, Wisconsin, May, 1963. Buffie, Edward G. "A Comparison of Mental and Academic Achievement: The Nongraded School vs. the Graded School," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Education, Indiana University, 1962. Dufay, Frank R. "The Development of Procedures for Implementation of the Nongraded Primary Schools in Central School District NO. 4." Kluwe, Mary Jane. "An Investigation of the Effects Of an Integrated Kindergarten-Primary Program," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, 1957. Moore, Daniel I. "Pupil Achievement and Grouping Procedures in Graded and Ungraded Primary Schools," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1963. Ritzenheim, Betty. "Survey Of Personnel Perceptions Of Selected Factors in Nongraded Programs in Eight Detroit Elementary Schools," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, 1963. 111 Roberts, George Myers. "Case Studies of Two Nongraded School Programs," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Tennessee, 1964. "The Appleton Story." Prepared by Appleton Public Schools, Appleton, Wisconsin, October, 1965. (Mimeographed.) APPENDIX DISTRIBUTION APPENDIX A OF RESPONDENTS IN THE STUDY Adminis- trators Teachers State School System Responding Responding Alaska Anchorage 1 1 Arkansas Little Rock 1 1 California Garberville l 1 Los Angeles (UCLA) 1 1 Los Angeles 1 1 Connecticut Avon l 2 Delaware Wilmington 1 3 Florida Englewood 1 1 Ft. Lauderdale 1 1 Melbourne 1 2 Miami 1 3 Georgia Athens. 1 3 Atlanta 1 3 Broxton 1 1 Douglas * l Nicholls * 1 Hawaii Waimanolo * 3 Illinois Barrington * 1 Chicago 2 4 Glencoe 1 2 Ottawa * 3 Park Forest 1 1 Rockford 1 3 Indiana South Bend * 1 Iowa Cedar Falls 1 3 Decorah 1 1 Waterloo 1 3 Kansas Topeka l 2 113 114 Appendix A--Continued State School System Adminis- trators Responding Teachers Responding Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Missouri New Hampshire New Jersey New York New Orleans Aberdeen Adelphi Annapolis Baltimore Baltimore County Rockville Gloucester Newton Quincy Sudbury Dearborn Detroit East Lansing Kalamazoo Lansing Muskegon Rochester Warren Columbia Kansas City St. Louis Tarkio University City Gorham Milford Norwood Bainbridge Bethpage Cheektawaga Deposit East Williston Farmingdale Glen Cove Groton Hastings-on—Hudson Ithaca Liverpool 3‘. Ht‘ Hrakasra Hrekawidhawrd HrHPJH bawrakawia H Ht‘h‘Ht‘F‘H *k‘Ht‘ NN NI—‘Nww Ni—Iwwwww WWWH Nthi—‘LUH i—' [—4 wI—wawawwww 115 Appendix A--Continued Adminis- trators Teachers State School System Responding Responding Marion * 1 Niagara Falls 1 3 Roslyn Heights 1 2 Williston Park * l Yorktown Heights 1 2 North Carolina Durham 1 2 Ohio Chagrin Falls * 3 Columbus * 3 Leetonia l l Youngstown 1 1 Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1 3 Tulsa l 2 Oregon Hillsboro l 1 Milwaukee 1 3 Pennsylvania Pittsburgh * 2 South Carolina Rock Hill 1 2 Texas Corpus Christi 1 3 Pasadena 1 1 Vermont Burlington 1 1 Virginia Alexandria 1 7 Charlottesville 1 3 Chesterfield l 1 Dumeries l 3 Fairfox County 1 * Hampton 1 4 Norfolk 1 l Petersburg * 2 Portsmouth * 3 Richmond 1 3 Salem 1 3 Waynesboro 1 1 Williamsburg 1 3 116 Appendix A--Continued Adminis- trators Teachers State School System Responding Responding Washington Bellevue * 1 Lynwood 1 2 West Virginia Elkins 1 1 Wisconsin Appleton 2 5 Ford du Lac 1 1 Green Bay * 2 Milwaukee 1 2 * No response. APPENDIX B HAMPTON INSTITUTE HAMPTON, VIRGINIA April 22, 1966 Dear Sir: No doubt you are aware of the increased interest educators are showing in nongraded schools. Each month more and more schools are changing from the "graded" structure to the nongraded organizational pattern. I have been informed that your school has an outstanding nongraded program. I should therefore like to invite you and three members Of your staff, whom you select, to participate in a nationwide study which focuses on the perceptions, problems, and practices in nongraded schools. I am conducting this study as a part Of the require- ments for the Ph.D. degree at Michigan State University. As a college teacher Of methods courses and student teaching, I am greatly aware Of the need for colleges to train prospec- tive teachers to work effectively in nongraded schools. The findings of this study will be used to recommend needed changes in teacher education programs. In order that colleges may prepare quality teachers for schools such as Yours, it is essential that we get some insight into teaching and learning as they exist in real classroom Situations. Thus, I sincerely hOpe that you and three teachers on your staff will take this Opportunity to make a contribution to teacher education by reacting to the enclosed questionnaire and returning it at your very earliest convenience. If you should like to have a summary of my findings, I shall be happy tO send it to you at the end Of the inves- tigation. May I eXpreSS my sincere appreciation to you for your cooperation. I look forward to receiving your question— naire within a few days. Sincerely yours, Mary T . Christian Enclosures 117 APPENDIX C Dear Teacher: I am attempting to ascertain what the common percep- tions, problems, and practices are in nongraded classrooms throughout the nation. The findings of this study will be used to recommend changes in teacher education programs. Because of your success in a nongraded situation, I should like very much to have you react to the enclosed question- naire. Your reactions will be invaluable to college profes- sors who must train teachers to work in outstanding schools such as yours. May I express my Sincere appreciation to you for your cooperation. I look forward to receiving your question— naire within a few days. Sincerely yours, Mary . Christian —-----—————-—------—---—-—------------—-- --—-_———--——-—--——— SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (TEACHERS) NAME OF SCHOOL CITY STATE TEACHING AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE: Graded Elementary School: Position Number of Years Nongraded Elementary School: Position Number of Years LENGTH OF TIME SCHOOL HAS BEEN NONGRADED * * * * * * Please check the items below which best describe the nongraded school as you perceive it. 1. A school where the word "grade" is simply dropped in referring to pupil placement. 2. A school where children are given an Opportunity to move from one skill to another with little regard to age or number Of years in school. 118 PART II : OOCDQOU‘I-PWNH i—J 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 119 A school where grades are replaced with reading levels. Example: Level l——pre—primer; Level 2-- primer; etc. A school where each pupil follows an instructional program in each area Of the curriculum according to his ability. A school where grade designations are dropped and children are assigned to homogeneous classes. An organizational pattern designed to promote flexibility and continuous progress. Please check the items which best describe the procedures and practices in your classroom. Ability grouping in reading Reading achievement levels Interest grouping Combination of various grouping patterns Individualized reading Basal readers only Basal readers and supplementary readers Multi-series texts Some use Of trade books Extensive use Of trade books Other: Ability grouping in mathematics Achievement levels in mathematics Individualized instruction in mathematics Sequential development Skills approach in mathematics Other: Science instruction by television Science instruction primarily through textbooks Unit approach in science Science units develOped around recurring themes Differentiated instruction in science Independent projects in science Other: 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 120 Social studies instruction primarily through basic text Multi—text approach in social studies EXperience units used primarily in social studies Social studies units developed around recurring themes Social studies instruction by television Individual projects in social studies Some use Of trade books in social studies Extensive use of trade books in social studies Other: Books on various levels in each subject matter field Programmed materials Films, movies, and audio—visual materials Self-teaching or independent study materials Tape recordings and records Other: Use of standardized tests at beginning and end of term Use of standardized tests at various intervals Formal and informal measures of evaluation Individual testing Evaluate child in light Of his previous growth record Evaluate child in light of his standing in the class Evaluate child in light of regional or national norms Other: Pupil progress reported through report cards only Letter grades given on report cards NO letter grades given on report cards Report cards and parent-teacher conferences Parent-teacher conferences only Other: The children in my class have an extremely wide range Of abilities; they are working on many different levels. My present class consists of an average group; abilities and variations in aptitude are not too extreme. 121 48. My present class is a very homogeneous group; all children have about the same general ability. Other: 49. Children are reassigned or moved from one class- room tO another at certain specified times. 50. Children are reassigned or moved from one class- room tO another at any time the teacher feels it advisable. 51. Children are reassigned or moved to another classroom at the end of the year only. Other: Please indicate the number Of groups, levels within the class, and basic textbook series used in each area of the curriculum listed below. Content Number of Number of Number of Areas Groups Levels Textbook Series Reading Science Social Studies Mathematics Language Arts Other: (Please comment) Please react to changes in instructional groups occasioned by nongrading by checking the apprOpriate column below: Number of Number Of Groups Content Groups Groups Basically Areas Increased Decreased the Same Reading Science Social Studies Mathematics Language Arts Other: (Please comment) 122 Compare teaching procedures in graded and nongraded class- rooms. Please check the appropriate response and elaborate where feasible. Difference between Graded Reaction Comment and Nongraded Practices (check) (if any) 1. I have found no difference in Operational practices between graded and nongraded classes. 2. I have found a Slight differ- ence in operational practices. 3. I have found a great deal of difference in Operational practices 4. Teaching in a nongraded structure is more difficult. 5. Teaching in a nongraded structure is less difficult. 6. There is no appreciable dif- ference in ease or difficulty in teaching in a nongraded class. Further Comments: (if any) PART III: 1. What are your most rewarding experiences in teaching in a nongraded school? 123 What are the most crucial problems you face in teaching in a nongraded school? Would you prefer teaching in a graded or nongraded school? Why? What courses or inservice work do you now feel should be offered to persons who are going to teach in nongraded schools? Be specific. I -'.u r _ l. What techniques and eXperiences do you feel teachers should have prior to teaching in a nongraded school? Please return this questionnaire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope enclosed for your convenience. Many thanks for your cooperation. APPENDIX D SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (PRINCIPAL) NAME OF SCHOOL CITY STATE TEACHING AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE: Graded Elementary School: Position Fa} Number of Years Nongraded Elementary School: Position Number Of Years ACADEMIC PREPARATION: I i Undergraduate Degree Major Field Graduate Work and/or Degree Major Field ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN OF SCHOOL: Check the organizational pattern which applies. Primary Unit Intermediate Unit Both Primary and Other Only Only Intermediate Units PRIMARY BASIS FOR SETTING UP CLASSES: Homogeneous General Reading Chronological Heterogeneous Grouping Achievement Achievement Age Grouping LENGTH OF TIME SCHOOL HAS BEEN NONGRADED: 1. Describe what is meant in this particular school by "nongraded"? 2. What are you doing differently in your new organization when compared to the type you had before? 124 125 3. On the whole, how well satisfied are you with the non- graded organizational structure? the instructional program? 4. Knowing what you now know, and given your choice, which organizational pattern would you select? Why? 5. What courses or inservice work do you feel Should be offered to persons who are going to teach in nongraded schools? Be specific. 6. What techniques and experiences do you feel teachers should have prior to teaching in a nongraded school? ‘ —.-v . ‘0 22' . fEFLssxl -—-- _ 126 7. In light Of your Observations, what do you think are the most difficult problems encountered by teachers in your school? 8. What educational practices have been developed following implementation of the nongraded structure? Are there plans for extensions or modifications? If so, in what areas? * 'k * * * So that I may keep in touch and Share my findings, I should appreciate having your name and address and the teachers whom you selected to participate. Name of Administrator Address Name of Teacher Address Name of Teacher Address Name of Teacher Address Thank you. Please return in the self-addressed, stamped envelope enclosed for your convenience.