Peter E. Pflaum - Golden Globe - The Synergy Network http://www.wiredbrain.net/ Pflaump@wiredbrain.com education to logically address individual student needs. Marian Brooks, Professor Emeritus, City University, New York, ran her school with progressive ideals. As a young, briefly trained, one-room school teacher in 1920 rural New Hampshire, Ms. Brooks quietly rejected unrealistic mandates imposed by the system. Because of how her students learned, Ms. Brooks instituted an integrated, project- oriented curriculum in her multiage one-room school. Several years after leaving this rural post, Ms. Brooks was introduced to the works of Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Rugg. Later at Teachers College, she served as assistant to Professor Harold Rugg (Dropkin, 1975). With this historical overview in mind, it is time to look at research regarding multiage nongraded grouping in American education. Review of Literature Summary of Studies David Pratt presents a case for nongraded multiage instruction by examining implications from anthropology, history, and education. In simple societies, Pratt found interaction between ages common. Heterogeneous groupings for a variety of purposes appears to be the norm. Such interaction often seems essential for natural development of the young. Problems in implementing curriculum reform are increased by certain structural characteristics of schools including homogeneous age grouping. A further obstacle is ability classification, a practice intensified after the introduction of standardized testing around 1920. An example of faith in dependability of scientific measures during this time can be observed in Covert's 1928 bulletin. "Before the advent of standardized tests, comparing schools in educational achievement was practically impossible; with age grades and achievement norms scientifically established, it becomes a simple matter" (Covert, 1928, p. 1). An early attempt (1925) at instituting self-paced individualized instructional programs is credited to Carleton Washburne, Superintendent of Schools, Winnetka, Illinois. Washburne saw variation in time as a necessary ingredient for success in learning. To master the same material, some students require more time than others. In adapting Washburne's system, however, many school boards resorted to "dividing the students in each grade into sections of slow, average, and rapid learners on the basis of group intelligence tests" (Cremin, 1961, cited in Pratt, 1983, p. 15). After World War II educational research began to address the question of age grading. In 1948 the first empirical examination of age grading was completed by Arthur Foshay for a doctoral thesis at Teachers College. Classes combining three years were compared with those using the conventional one-year approach. Nonrandomly selected children of lower IQ made up the experimental group. Findings showed less progress than projected for these children in reading and arithmetic achievement. Age-graded children chose friends from within the same age group 81% of the time. Children in the multiage group chose friends from within the same age group just 46% of the time (Foshay, 1948, cited in Pratt, 1983, p. 12; cited in Goodlad & Anderson, 1987, p. 69). In 1949 for a doctoral study at the University of Minnesota, Dreier compared graduates from graded and nongraded elementary schools in rural Minnesota. No important differences were found between the two groups (Dreier, 1949, cited in Pratt, 1983). In contrast to the two studies mentioned above, a 1956 study conducted by Rehwoldt and Hamilton in Torrance, California, showed significant advances both socially and academically by pupils in multigrade classes (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987, p. 69). Pratt located 27 experimental studies on age grading conducted between 1948 and 1981. Ten of the 27 were doctoral dissertations. Design is lacking in many of the studies. Problems include difficulty in differentiating between effects of age heterogeneity and effects of individualization and intraclass grouping. Regarding academic achievement, 3 studies favored conventional grouping, 10 favored multiage grouping, 12 were inconclusive. In the doctoral studies 1 favored conventional grouping, 2 favored multiage grouping, 5 were inconclusive. Regarding social/emotional development none of the 27 studies favored conventional grouping, 9 favored multiage grouping, 6 were inconclusive. No doctoral studies favored conventional grouping, 3 favored multiage grouping, 4 were inconclusive (Pratt, 1983, p. 16- 19). In surveying research studies conducted between 1968 and 1976 comparing graded and nongraded schools, Tamsen Banks Webb notes: * favor of nongradedness over gradedness using measurements of standardized tests; * students in a nongraded structure may have improved chances for good mental health and positive attitudes about school; * longitudinal studies suggest the longer students are in nongraded programs, the more likely they are to have higher academic achievement and positive attitudes about school; * mental health benefits for Blacks, boys, underachievers, and students of lower socioeconomic status (SES) appears to be enhanced by nongradedness (Pavan, 1977, p. 93, cited in Webb, 1992, p. 90). Important Generalizations Major writing in the area of nongraded multiage grouping became available in 1959 when John Goodlad and Robert Anderson published The Nongraded Elementary School. This book was revised in 1963 and reissued in 1987. Goodlad and Anderson criticized Procrustean attempts to shape children to fit the system. Greek mythology tells us of the cruel robber, Procrustes (the stretcher). When travelers sought his house for shelter, they were tied onto an iron bedstead. If the traveler was shorter than the bed, Procrustes stretched him out until he was the same length as the bed. If he was longer, his limbs were chopped off to make him fit. Procrustes shaped both short and tall until they were equally long and equally dead. Certain time-honored practices of pupil classification, while perhaps not lethal, trap school-age travelers in much the same fashion as Procrustes' bed trapped the unwary. These practices are concomitants of our graded system of school organization (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987, p. 1). In support of nongraded organization, Goodlad and Anderson point to important generalizations such as: * children entering first grade range from three to four years in readiness to benefit from a "graded minimum essentials" approach to schooling; * this ability range increases through the years and is almost double by the time a child finishes elementary school; * the achievement range of students reflects learning readiness soon after first grade students receive normal school instruction; * for the same children, achievement varies depending on area of learning (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987, p. 27-28). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (Goodlad, 1984) offers an in-depth examination of 38 elementary, junior high, and high schools. Goodlad and his associates determined that these schools were representative of contemporary American education. The author details findings and offers restructuring plans. A major aspect of these plans is the multiage nongraded approach. Many administrative and organizational problems exist in implementing a nongraded educational structure. Often these problems stem from our history of gradedness. With standardized tests, textbooks, and other materials relying on the graded educational structure, break with tradition becomes more difficult. In addition, educators and parents are familiar with gradedness, most having been schooled that way themselves. Connell, however, doubts customary age segregation in schools, "Segregating children by sex, race, ethnic, or socioeconomic differences is against the law. Is it right to segregate by age?" (Connell, 1987, p. 33, cited in Webb, 1992, p. 90). Self-esteem Research strongly indicates retention impacts negatively on children's self-esteem and further achievement (Shepard & Smith, 1990, p. 88 & Katz, 1988, p. 38, cited in Webb, 1992, p. 90; Goodlad & Anderson, 1987, p. 34, 162). Elimination of nonpromotion is indicated through much literature. Along this vein, Goodlad and Anderson suggest need to also eliminate promotion (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987, p. xli). Questions of whether to promote or not to promote individual students can be removed through an idea of continuous progress. Each student proceeds through material which is often the same; the difference is time. Nongradedness lends itself to this concept. Lack of readiness in kindergarten follows the child through later school years. Frustration because of lack of readiness to master expectations of adults results in low self-esteem. Fetzer and Ponder see the system of designating a child's class according to birth date alone as "antiquated" (Fetzer & Ponder, 1988, p. 192). A recent report published by the National Association of Elementary School Principals identified 163 indicators of school quality. Suggestions include: maximum class size of 20, or fewer in the primary grades; grouping by needs, not by age and grade only. School effectiveness is enhanced by the idea that all students can learn (Raze, 1985, p. 6). The idea also enhances student self-esteem. Grouping Debate over grouping according to ability and achievement measures has continued since 1920. Sputnik (1957) heightened interest in identifying and encouraging children of high aptitude to enter scientific fields. Ability grouping often results in tracking where both students and teachers in "low" classes easily can become discouraged. Hall and Findley suggest one defect of this system is the small percentage of teachers who prefer to teach the low achieving groups (Hall & Findley, 1971, p. 556). Goodlad views tracking as a repulsive practice that often begins in primary school (Goodlad, 1984, p. 295). Evidence shows "higher- achieving students do not do better when together, and lower-achieving students do much worse when together. Tracking clearly discriminates and clearly perpetuates inequities among students . . . " (Glickman, 1991, p. 5). Recommended alternatives are groups of various sizes, formed for special purposes and dissolved when the specified purpose has been accomplished. Goodlad reminds us of how much we learn by teaching others. Cooperative learning, peer tutoring, and student leadership are just some advantages of students helping each other. Leadership can change and rotate according to need. Anton S. Makarenko devised such a plan in the Gorky Colony, a multiage school for "wayward youth" established in the Ukraine in the 1920's. After much trial and error, Makarenko successfully arranged a system of "mixed detachments" where all colonists except the "most glaringly unsuitable" served as detachment leaders. Depending on the project, mixed detachments were scheduled and organized according to the job at hand. Upon completion of a task, the group was dissolved. Detachment leaders were responsible for organization and quality control. A leader in one group served as a follower in others (Makarenko, 1973). Makarenko is known as the founder of modern Soviet elementary education. The British, realizing problems with their own infant schools (k- 3), looked at models around the world. They then developed a long- term strategy for change. Through organization of materials and teacher training/retraining, a nongraded multiage concept was adapted. Children work at their appropriate levels and speed. The teacher facilitates learning, moving around the room as necessary. Lack of research regarding the basic question of what ages to group together is noted by Paula Freedman. While Freedman's document focuses on early childhood centers, she cites Goodlad and Anderson "who deplore this lack of concrete data for elementary schools as well" (Freedman, 1981, p. 1). "A Two-Year Kindergarten That Works" describes a nursery- kindergarten classroom at Malcolm Price Laboratory School, Cedar Falls, Iowa. Program philosophy states, "the greater the difference among children in a classroom, the richer the learning environment for the child" (Doud & Finkelstein, 1985, p. 19). Standardized Testing Today In an opinion paper on reorganizing American education, Leona Tyler sees inadequate attention to individual differences; an excess of compulsion. Age grouping "is perhaps the worst possible strategy for maximizing the learning of individuals" (Tyler, L., 1985, p. 1). "A Proposal for Reorganizing American Public Education" cautions against focusing on averages of standardized test scores rather than on the spread of scores. This author criticizes reporters for lack of realization of a naturally occurring situation. They continue to be shocked at the finding that half of any group tested is below the average of the group. Human beings differ inherently in how much they learn and how rapidly they learn it. Yet we go on categorizing them by age and treating them all alike. What sense does it make to assign the same tasks to all members of an age group and expect them all to succeed equally well? (Tyler, L., 1985, p. 2). Here problems of standardized testing validity should be observed. A basic problem with research trying to discriminate between two populations may involve method of measuring performance. For the purpose of comparing two populations as opposed to comparing individuals within a population, differently designed measurement instruments should be used. Use of standardized tests designed to discriminate between individuals applied rather to discriminate between groups, can yield misleading information. Ralph Tyler, in examining problems of evaluating student learning, suggests a new paradigm to assess educational potential and educational achievements of large populations (Tyler, R., 1986). Implications for Change Literature on nongraded multiage instruction is plentiful. The writer of this paper did not search for references on advantages of graded and age segregated educational structures. Although empirical research is lacking in many specific areas, review of writings on nongraded multiage grouping shows much support by many well-respected educators. Findings on academic achievement of graded and nongraded classes are inconclusive. There does, however, seem to be evidence of positive social and self-esteem advantages in a nongraded approach. Another thread running through much of the literature concerns belief that all children can learn -- the varying factor is time. Some students require a longer period to master the same tasks. Multiage nongraded groupings can vary in size depending on purposes. Advantages of teaching as a method of enhancing one's own learning is a device well known to educators. Implications exist here for peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and valuable leadership and followship experiences for students. Teacher cycling is mentioned in the literature. Advantages of teaching the same students for several years include greater opportunity to know those students well; possibilities for determining and designing effective individual learning programs can be increased. Critics of teacher cycling sometimes cite lack of exposure of students to teachers of different talents. Here supporters often suggest team teaching where educators can draw on strengths of each other. Carl Glickman wonders why we continue, "Pretending Not to Know What We Know" (Glickman, 1991). Through identification and discussion of 11 points, Glickman describes what we know about teaching and learning. Traditional practices often continue in American education despite knowledge of ineffectiveness. At least three of Glickman's points are especially pertinent to discussion of multiage nongraded schooling. * Tracking students does not help students. * Retention does not help students. * There is nothing inherently sacred about Carnegie units . . . and grade levels! (Glickman, 1992, p. 5-6). Glickman suggests not all schools and not all educators are ready for innovation in American schools. He proposes "elite" schools -- places where people "trust each other to share in decisions about teaching and learning" (Glickman, 1992, p. 9). Glickman does not expect all or most groups to change. Unprepared schools should not be expected to change. They should rather be encouraged to sit and watch as elite schools progress and achieve through proper implementation of knowing what we know (Glickman, 1992, p. 9). Educators looking for a place to start in reading the enormous array of literature on multiage and nongraded concepts will probably find The Nongraded Elementary School (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987) useful. The book is less than 250 pages long and is quite readable. The 1987 edition of this book features a new introduction by Goodlad and Anderson where nearly thirty years after the original writing, the authors comment on each chapter. Currently this latest edition is available in paperback for about $23; the University of Central Florida library has two copies (1987 and 1963 editions). Chapter 4, "The Nongraded School in Operation" relates an interesting account of adoption of a nongraded organizational structure by Englewood Elementary School, Sarasota County, Florida. This writer plans to find out more about the present status of Englewood Elementary School. Does the school still exist? If so, is it still nongraded? If not, why? Conclusion Factors impacting on nineteenth century enthusiasm for gradedness included teacher training through normal schools, growing popularity of textbooks, population movement from rural to urban areas, industrialization, and consolidation. According to Dewey, most features of our American educational system were instituted between 1837 and 1850. Gradedness is part of this American tradition. Proponents of multiage grouping see it as a natural order of society. Studies of simple societies and early American history reflect such grouping. Small colonial schools featured variations of multiage groupings. Along with less desirable approaches, peer tutoring and cooperative learning existed in these schools. Introduction of progressive education in the first quarter of the twentieth century promoted a project oriented, integrated curriculum. Many respected educators of the twentieth century vigorously uphold the concept of multiage nongraded educational organization; many suggest there are problems with implementation. None of the supportive literature reviewed by this writer, however, proposes that these problems are insurmountable. Writings about change emphasize necessity of willing participation by those directly involved. Benefits of multiage grouping advanced by advocates include individualized self-paced instruction, opportunity of increased self- esteem, leadership and followship experiences, peer tutoring, and cooperative learning. Multiage nongraded schooling lends itself to a child-centered approach to learning where creativity and individuality are respected and enhanced. To report and summarize current literature about multiage nongraded elementary education, LUIS and ERIC databases were consulted. While this search yielded much writing on the topic, well- designed empirical studies are lacking. Conflicting conclusions exist in much of the literature. Extensive and carefully conducted research is indicated. In our search for excellence in American education, we look both backward and forward. Selecting and adapting appropriate schooling practices require acute perception; require some innovation; require some letting go. Through such give and take, perhaps educators will discover what we seek in American education -- a more natural flow, a more gentle balance in raising our children.