Thanks to Randy Trani, Ed.D., for his kind permission to post what follows:
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Multi-age Education
From Fallacies in Education: Why Schools are Mired in Mediocrity
By Randy K. Trani and Robert K. Irvine
Why would a School go multi-age?
There are two main reasons schools use multi-age education. First, it is pedagogically sound, in short it is better than single grade level education. Second, it is economically the most efficient way to operate a school.
Corbett provides and interesting case study in what can happen to achievement when a district adopts a multi-age approach. Since Corbett has gone to multi-age education both the high school and middle school have gained national recognition as being among the best schools in the country. The success of the high school and middle school can be traced directly back to the move to multi-age classrooms.
Corbett's most thoroughly multi-age program is their math program. When you allow students to work in a multi-age environment and combine that configuration with a continuous progress approach great things happen. Math students are expected to make progress at their own rate without regard to their age; this is what we call continuous progress. Corbett uses this approach in all disciplines not just math. This forces a school to regroup students according to achievement level rather than grade level. When this approach is used it is not uncommon to find 3rd-6th grade students working in the same math room, or 7th-12th grade students working together in pre-calculus. The end result of this approach has led Corbett High School students to take and pass Advanced Placement Calculus exams at a rate more than 1000 times what would be expected of a school their size.
Who Says that Multi-Age Classrooms are Better?
Looking at Corbett's steady improvement over the last 10 years provides evidence that this method of instruction is better than the old single grade level configuration. Comparing Corbett's K-12 achievement to all other schools in the state, the vast majority of which are still using the assembly line single grade level model of Henry Ford's era, also provides evidence that this way is better. So, we say it is better. But does anyone else?
A review of more than 2,000,000 peer reviewed articles on education, when filtered for articles pertaining to multi-age education, produces a unified voice from the education community that this model is better than the single grade level model, particularly with regard to social, emotional, and developmental needs of students. In fact there appears to be no serious dissenting voices in the peer reviewed literature with regard to multi-age classrooms.
What does the literature say about traditional grade level classrooms?
According to Hallion (1994) John Dewey one of the foremost authorities on education considered graded classrooms too confining and machine like.
Pardini (2005) says that graded education is the antithesis of developmentally appropriate practice, and despite its popularity there is no research showing that it helps students.
Placing students in classrooms according to their age within a given time to cover curricular expectations is detrimental to their academic, social, and psychological growth (Goodland & Anderson, 1987).
Children's learning is effected negatively when they are forced to follow grade level constraints (Copeland, 1998).
Although traditional classrooms continue to be the most common way of organizing elementary students there is no evidence to show that all children of the same 12-month age range are able to learn the same things, the same way, at the same time (Katz, 1995).
Drawbacks of traditional classrooms include first, children of the same age vary in readiness to learn. Second, children have different learning styles so a single grade level classroom is unlikely to be effective for all children. Third, traditional classrooms compare children with each other. Children who are not within the norm are considered failures. This leads to feelings of discouragement and low self esteem (Gaustad, 1992).
What does the literature say about achievement in multi-age classrooms?
Research studies reporting significant outcomes for students in non graded classroom have demonstrated improved performance in language, including vocabulary and literacy, and in mathematics (Kinsey, 2002).
A continuous progress approach produces superior academic performance and children do better academically (Calkins, 1992).
Teachers report that through a continuous progress approach they experience fewer classroom behavior problems. Classrooms that use a continuous progress approach experience more time on task, they become self regulators, and help enforce classroom rules (Hanes, 2008).
First graders in multi-age classrooms function at significantly higher average cognitive development then first graders in traditional classrooms (Cromey, 1999).
Continuous progress multi-age schools make students responsible for their own learning and produce increased learning (Mack, 2004).
New Zealand, the country with the highest literacy rate in the world, uses multi-age grouping as a common educational practice (Kasten & Clark, 1993).
In 1981 Milburn compared the reading achievement scores of 6-11 year old children in multi age and single grade level classrooms. Children in multi-age classrooms scored significantly higher on standardized tests, especially the young children.
In nongraded classrooms, students of different abilities, interests and backgrounds can interact, and student in all ranges of ability can benefit from nongradedness (Merrit, 2008)
The state of Kentucky mandated non-graded programs. A review of Kentucky's top 20% of all students showed that they outperformed the top 20% of all other states (Viadero, 1996).
Applying a continuous progress approach utilizing grouping children of various age and ability levels maximizes teaching and learning (Nye, 1993).
Students in multi-age classrooms have more positive attitudes about school, develop and exhibit more advanced social skills, benefit in the areas of cognitive development, and show improve performance in reasoning skills (Merrit, 2008; Green, 1997; Kruglik, 1993; Stegelin, 1997; Thelin, 1981).
Children in multi-age classrooms attained a higher cognitive developmental level at a faster pace compared to children in traditional classroom and they scored significantly higher on a standardized reading achievement test (Fosco, et. al., 2004).
According to Maeda (1994) there is mounting evidence that multi-age classrooms have the following benefits:
Optimal learning occurs in a nurturing environment.
They foster self esteem and improved decision making.
Individual differences are accommodated.
Learning is more holistic.
Students construct their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them.
A major meta analysis of 57 multi-age studies that examined standardized academic achievement test scores of multi-age and traditional grade level found that in 91% of the studies the multi-age students scored as well or better than their grade level peers (Paven, 1992).
Learning in non-graded classrooms is more developmentally sound (Kruglik, 1993).
Multi-age classrooms maximize student learning (Aina, 2001).
Mix- age programs permit flexible learning arrangements for developmentally appropriate instruction of all students. The approach creates an active learning environment that encourages individual development and and fosters growth of staff and students (Hanes, 2008).
What does the literature say about social/emotional development in multi-age classrooms.
One of the most important benefits of multi-age groupings is the opportunity to learn nurturing behaviors (Tangen-Foster, 1998)
Mixed age groups were shown to be better at taking turns than single-age groups, and to exhibit greater social responsibility and sensitivity to others (Chase & Dolan, 1994).
Social competence develops for younger children as they observe and emulate the behavior of older classmates, who in turn grow in their role as nurtures and teachers (Katz, 1995).
In multi-age groups fewer children are isolated or rejected by peers. Children are more willing to watch our for one another, to include less popular children in play, and to ask one another for assistance with problems (Mclellan & Kinsey, 1996).
Multi-age classrooms improve life for middle school students particularly in the social, emotional, and developmental arenas (Petrie, Lindauer, Dotson, & Tountasakis, 1996).
Students in multi-age classrooms have more positive attitudes about school, develop and exhibit more advanced social skills, benefit in the areas of cognitive development, and show improve performance in reasoning skills (Merrit, 2008; Green, 1997; Kruglik, 1993; Stegelin, 1997; Thelin, 1981).
Teachers report that through a continuous progress approach they experience fewer classroom behavior problems. Classrooms that use a continuous progress approach experience more time on task, they become self regulators, and help enforce classroom rules (Hanes, 2008).
When students are placed in same-age groups and asked to complete a task there is more bullying behavior than in multi-age group (Chase & Dolan, 1994).
According to Maeda (1994) there is mounting evidence that multi-age classrooms have the following benefits:
Optimal learning occurs in a nurturing environment.
They foster self esteem and improved decision making.
Individual differences are accommodated.
Learning is more holistic.
Students construct their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them.
Multi-age classrooms allow teachers and students to develop long-term learning partnerships (McLaughlin, Irvin, & Doda, 1999).
Mix- age programs permit flexible learning arrangements for developmentally appropriate instruction of all students. The approach creates an active learning environment that encourages individual development and and fosters growth of staff and students (Hanes, 2008).
What does the literature say about special populations and multi-age classrooms?
Multi-age grouping is good for special needs children since it creates a classroom where individual differences are more likely to be accepted and more importantly are expected, and roles are found to suit the strengths of all children (Clark, 1996, Tangen-Foster 1998).
In nongraded classrooms, students of different abilities, interests and backgrounds can interact, and student in all ranges of ability can benefit from nongradedness (Merrit, 2008)
In a review of a K-2 school Fu et al. (1999) found that for single-age classrooms the first week of school is the hardest week for teachers, while the teachers in the K-2 classrooms had a far different experience. The teachers new most of the parents and students and instead of one teacher having to train 24 new students each year, the teacher had 16 classroom helpers to welcome the 8 new Kindergarten students each year. Kindergarten students and their older peers enjoyed a much smoother start to the school year then other children in single grade classrooms. Furthermore, parents expressed satisfaction with the arrangement and also had a much smoother start to the school year.
When students are placed in same-age groups and asked to complete a task there is more bullying behavior than in multi-age group (Chase & Dolan, 1994).
According to Maeda (1994) there is mounting evidence that multi-age classrooms have the following benefits:
Optimal learning occurs in a nurturing environment.
They foster self esteem and improved decision making.
Individual differences are accommodated.
Learning is more holistic.
Students construct their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them.
What does the literature say about parents and multi-age classrooms?
Communication lines between parents and teachers are open and maintained better in multi-age classrooms (Aina, 2001).
In a review of a K-2 school Fu et al. (1999) found that for single-age classrooms the first week of school is the hardest week for teachers, while the teachers in the K-2 classrooms had a far different experience. The teachers new most of the parents and students and instead of one teacher having to train 24 new students each year, the teacher had 16 classroom helpers to welcome the 8 new Kindergarten students each year. Kindergarten students and their older peers enjoyed a much smoother start to the school year then other children in single grade classrooms. Furthermore, parents expressed satisfaction with the arrangement and also had a much smoother start to the school year.
By working with students individually in multi-age classrooms, teachers are better able to provide useful information to parents about how to assist their child (Kruglik, 1993; Pardini 2005).
Schools often face difficulties with parents , or community members at large, who view themselves as experts on education simply because they themselves went through the primary grades, or that they “know what is best for their child”, or because “it was good enough for me so why is it not good enough for my kid”. Educating parents by showing them the literature as well as the success of schools that use multi-age education can help minimize these distractions (Petrie, Lindauer, and McKinney, 1998)
Parents sometimes feel apprehension about new multi-age programs. They want to know what the benefits for their child will be, will they learn more or less? Multi-age grouping is actually more natural and educationally more beneficial than many realize (Aina, 2001)
Often times multi-age configurations never get off the ground because administrators are unwilling to take on, and convince, the inevitable “Doubting Thomases” in every community. Taking on one more political task of reassuring anxious parents and community members is often one task too many for school leaders who have extensive responsibilities of advocating for school bonds, formulating yearly budgets, providing building maintenance, fighting drugs, etc. Yet, multi-age schools promise to deliver Americans the schools they demand and need. The challenge for administrators is to convince the public that yesterday's graded barriers need to be replaced with tomorrow nongraded opportunities (Yarborough, B. & Johnson, R., 2000).
Multi-Age Rersources
Aina, O. (2001), Maximizing learning in early childhood multiage classrooms: Child, teacher, and parent perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2001.
Calkins, T. (1992) Off the track: Children thrive in ungraded primary school. School Administrator
49 (5) 8-133.
Chas, P. & Dolan, J. (1994). Full Circle: A new look at multi-age education. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman Publishers.
Clark, A. (1996). Special needs children and mixed-age grouping. The Magnet Newsletter. 5(1). Internet document retrieved from http://ericeece.org.pubs.mag.magfal96.html#b.
Copeland, K. (1998) Reflections. Primary Voices K-6. 6 (2) p44-46.
Cromey, A. (1999). Impact of multi-age programming on social competency in five to seven year old children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, Institute of Psychology.
Fu, D., Hartle, L., Lamme, L., Copenhaver, J., Adams, D., Harmon, C., and Reneke, S. (1999). A comfortable start for Everyone: The first week of school in three multi-age (K-2) classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol 27, No. 2, 1999
Fosco, A., Schlesser, R., & Andal, J.(2004). Multiage programming effects on the cognitive developmental level and reading achievement in early elementary school children. Reading Psychology, 25:1-17, 2004.
Gaustad, J. (1992) Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and developmentally appropriate education for primary children. Oregon School Study Council, 35(7) 1-38.
Goodland, J. I. & Anderson, R. H. (1987). The Non-graded elementary school. New York: Teachers College Press
Green, B. G. (1997) Reading instruction in the nongraded classroom. Reading Psychology, 18(1), 69- 76.
Hanes, J. (2008). Continous Progress Approach. Research Starters. Ebsco Research Starters 1-7.
Hallion, A. M. (1994). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Washington DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 373 899), p25.
Kasten, W. C., Clarke, B. K. (1993) The multiage classroom: A family of learners, Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen
Katz, L. G. (1995, May). The Benefits of mixed-age grouping. ERIC Digest.
Kinsey, S. G. (2002). Multiage grouping and academic achievement. Washington, DC: Education Resource Center (document number ED 466 328).
Kruglik, M (1993). Results from nongraded classroom program: Good, bad, and unclear. Curriculum Review, 33(4), 16.
Mack, J. (2004) Continuous progress schools see the “whole child”. Education, Vol. 129, No. 2, p.324- 27.
Maeda, B. (1994) The Multi-age classroom: An inside look at one community of learners. Los Angeles, CA: Creative Teaching Press.
McClellan, D. & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children develop social skill and a sense of belonging. The Magnet Newsletter 5(1) retrieved from http://ericeece.org/pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a
McLaughlin, H., Irvin J. L., & Doda, N. M. (1999). Crossing the grade level gap: Research on multiage grouping. Middle School Journal, 30(3), 55-58.
Merrit, R., (2008). Non-Graded Instruction. Research Starters. Ebsco Research Starters 1-9.
Milburn, D. (1981). A study of multi-age or family-grouped classrooms. Phi Delt Kappan,
62(7), 513-514.
Nye, B. (1993) Questions and Answers about multiage grouping. Educational Research Service (ERS)
Spectrum. 38-45.
Pardini, P. (2005) The slowdown of the muttiage classroom. School Administrator. 62(3) 22-30.
Paven, B. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 22-25.
Petrie, G.; Lindauer, P.; Dotson, K.; & Tountasakis, M. (1996) The nongraded middle school: Can it improve life for early adolescents? Education, Vol. 121. No. 4, p 781-786.
Steglin, D. A. (1998). Creating contexts for middle-age learning. Childhood Education, 74(4), 234-236.
Tangen-Foster, J & Tangen-Foster, L (1998) The caring capacity: A case for multi-age experiential learning, Electronic Green Journal, 1998.
Viadero, D. (1996). Mixed Blessings. Education Week, 15:33, 31-33. Editorial project in education, Inc. Washington, DC.
Yarborough, B. & Johnson, R. (2000). Nongraded schools: Why their promise has not been realized and should be reconsidered. Contemporary Education, 2000, Vol. 71 Issue 3, p.42.
