A Basic Understanding of Multiage Grouping.

Teacher Readiness, Planning, and Parent Involvement Required for Successful Practice

Teachers and administrators from country schools to urban classrooms hunger for information on multiage education. I see it in the numerous calls I receive as a rural education specialist.

These requests come on the heels of numerous research reports emphasizing whole language, cooperative learning, heterogeneous grouping, and developmentally appropriate practice, all of which have implications for multiage learning environments. Moreover, the requests coincide with legislatively mandated educational reform initiatives in Kentucky, Oregon, Mississippi, and Tennessee that emphasize multiage organization.

These state-level mandates have raised concerns among educators and parents as to whether multiage education is the educational fad of the moment or a lasting and productive classroom reform.

In spite of such developments, too many educators are implementing multiage classrooms and schools with insufficient forethought, planning, and participation of key stakeholders. I can think of no better way to destroy a potentially sound educational practice.

Essential Questions

Unfortunately, promising practices and innovations often are put into use for the wrong reasons or with little understanding of key factors, such as teacher readiness, staff ownership, parental involvement, and collaborative planning. Each of these issues must be considered if the change is to have a positive and lasting effect on students and teachers.

This seems obvious but often is overlooked by well-intentioned administrators who fail to understand how unsettling change may be for teachers who have little or no control over it. In that regard, implementing multiage instructional practices raises important questions for administrators and teachers alike that should be asked and understood before the journey begins:

1. Why would a school staff implement a multiage program, especially when evidence from the field suggests multiage classrooms, at least initially, require more work?

2. What roles should teachers play in planning and implementation, and what knowledge do they need in order to effectively participate?

3. What type of school or organizational climate is likely to facilitate successful multiage implementation?

4. How should parents and the community be involved in deciding, planning, and implementing the change effort?

5. What does leadership look like in successful multiage implementation?

6. Are there implementation factors associated with successful multiage programs that can be generalized to other settings?

The answers to these questions are complex and can be found in the ideas, stories, and experiences of educators who have successfully implemented multiage classrooms. The research presented here reflects the experiences of teachers, administrators, and parents at four Northwest elementary schools that have successfully provided multiage education for at least four years: Boise-Eliot in Portland, Ore., Concrete in Concrete, Wash., Lincoln in Corvallis, Ore., and Overland in Burley, Idaho.

These schools represent both rural and metropolitan areas. On-site interviews were conducted with principals, multiage teachers, and parents from each school. An analysis of survey and interview data provides valuable insights into the role of school leaders, as well as the parts played by teachers and parents, in creating and running multiage programs.

A Defining Matter

Frequent confusion exists about the meaning of the term "multiage" among practitioners and researchers. I use multiage to mean two or more grade levels that have been intentionally blended together to improve learning. The child's developmental needs, regardless of grade-level curriculum or administrative placement, stand out as a key defining characteristic of the multiage concept.

To illustrate the damaging effects of blindly hopping on a multiage bandwagon, I offer the experiences of Sarah, a teacher in an urban Midwest school system who contacted me for help.

Sarah told me she had been teaching elementary school for 13 years. A year and a half ago her school became one of eight pilot sites in her district to implement multiage organization and instruction. When school started in the fall, she found herself in a classroom with first- through fourth-grade students. In addition, test scores were used to place a representative academic range of students in Sarah's class. She ended up with 10 boys and four girls.

Sarah received two half-day training sessions on whole language in preparation for implementing the new multiage program. Not surprisingly, Sarah said there was not much in the training for teaching in a multiage classroom.

A new superintendent had been hired in her district with an agenda for change. Within his first year, he had mandated multiage organization and computer-assisted learning. Sarah indicated she knew very little about multiage teaching or computer-assisted learning.

While the school district allocated $2,000 per pilot classroom for materials, the money only became available in the fall, so teachers were unable to purchase materials before the start of school. To complicate matters, the school year began with a new principal, who, like Sarah, found herself thrust into the middle of mandated change.

Sarah also said that teachers were marginally involved in the decision to implement multiage classrooms. The plan was developed at the central office, with program success measured by standardized test scores. This created intense pressure for teachers.

In Sarah's situation, such key factors as teacher readiness, staff ownership, parental involvement, and collaborative planning received little or no attention. And although Sarah had a small class size compared to national norms, she faced what many teachers would perceive as an extreme range of developmental levels without relevant training or assistance. Moreover, minimal planning that involved Sarah and her colleagues took place.

Personal Changes

Teachers can be overwhelmed by a plethora of changes mandated by administrators who are unmindful of the impact that such reform efforts have on classroom teachers. Sarah's story is a good example of change imposed by a well-intentioned administrator who did not establish a process that involved staff and the community in the reform effort. Moreover, he neglected to provide the resources and training to adequately prepare teachers and increase the potential for success.

All change represents a personal transition from the known to the unknown across many dimensions at the same time. However, personal changes within each individual can trigger the greatest concerns and fears. Can I do this new approach? Will students learn? What will my colleagues think of me? Changing to a multiage class-room reflects a magnitude of change far greater than simply changing to a new textbook or learning a new strategy or program.

Since multiage instruction and organization represents a significant shift in classroom norms, major attention needs to focus on supporting the emotional as well as the cognitive changes occurring to those engaged in the innovation.

School Lessons

Principals in the four schools studied worked closely with staff and parents to develop relationships that were characterized by openness, trust, and mutual respect. Principals accepted and valued the developmental differences in staff and conveyed patience and belief that all teachers could implement the desired changes. They also tended to see themselves in a support role to teachers: finding resources, writing grants, protecting instructional time, taking over classes, being in classrooms with children, and even helping teachers prepare materials.

The principals' most significant role centered around their skills at transforming the work environment in ways that opened staff to their own personal capacities for change and growth. In this sense, they helped institute norms of continuous growth and improvement. They helped create learning communities where people felt empowered to question, investigate, and challenge prevailing assumptions about learning such as ability grouping, textbook-driven curriculum, standardized testing, and direct-instruction models of learning.

All the principals and curriculum specialists interviewed described the changes in their schools as continuously evolving journeys.

Another constant across the four schools was the commitment and dedication of teachers to the needs of children. Ironically, prior to the change efforts in each school, isolation, autonomy, and self-interest constrained teachers' collective action. However, the development of dialogue among staff and between the school and the community created a collective vision uniting teacher commitment into a powerful force for change. Solidarity and teamwork emerged as key facilitative factors in the change to multiage classrooms.

Lastly, all schools recognized the vital place support plays in bringing about the changes each school faced. Staff sought to develop support from a wide range of people involved with their schools.

In the case of Overland, support was cultivated all the way to the governor's office in order to ensure the program's survival. In other cases, support was concentrated within the staff and with those parents whose children were in multiage blends. In still other schools, site councils were developed and parents brought in as partners in planning and decision making. At each school, parents were seen as vitally important partners without whose support the change efforts would fail.

Climate Factors

In each school there appeared to be a widespread consistency regarding the school's mission and the purposes of learning. This consistency reflected a shared language and understanding of the nature of the innovation. Staff retreats and opportunities for personal interaction were powerful elements in transforming school climate from norms of isolation and independence to norms of mutual support and pervasive caring.

Interview data suggested that each school developed widespread norms of help-seeking and help-giving. Teachers demonstrated a strong commitment to learning and norms of improvement, and risk-taking permeated the lives of teachers in these schools. Certain teachers stood out as risk-takers, often serving on site-based teams, helping develop grants, and pilot testing ideas.

However, in the final analysis, their vote did not appear to have more weight than others on the staff, although they certainly had influence. More importantly, what emerged instead of individual influence was the collective agreement of staff on the direction the school would take.

These school norms, in some cases, pressured individuals to conform to the dominant beliefs about learning in the school. A feeling of solidarity and trust eased personal concerns about sustaining the appearance of being in control and not needing help.

Vicki Swartz, the curriculum specialist at Boise-Eliot, pointed to the importance of establishing a climate of community at all levels within the school, saying, "There is problem solving with staff and making a community of learners among staff, just like we're encouraging the multiage teachers to have in their own classrooms with students."

Parental Support

Gaining community and parental support for the change effort consistently has emerged as a No. 1 priority across survey and interview data. However, not all staffs involved their parents and community to the same degree.

Involving parents requires a commitment of time, often outside the regular workday. It also requires a focused effort at many levels simultaneously: effort on a one-to-one basis at the individual parent level, classroom level approaches, and schoolwide activities where the entire staff shares values and beliefs with the community. Each school made some effort to address these levels.

Boise-Eliot provides free daycare for parent volunteers and to parents attending school-sponsored meetings. Lincoln and Boise-Eliot have established site councils on which parents provide advice and make decisions. Concrete held community forums to discuss multiage issues with parents. Several schools include parents in the same staff development activities offered teachers, while other schools have offered parenting classes. Concrete publishes a parent newsletter.

The most productive approach appears to be one that is multifaceted (addressing all levels with a variety of strategies) and ongoing. Interestingly, those interviewed conveyed very positive attitudes toward the role of parents. A collective belief emerged from the interviews that schools exist to serve the needs of children and families.

One Lincoln teacher said: "To be a community, working for the betterment of all of the children and the community and bringing in the families, is our goal. To see a cohesiveness between parents and neighbors and staff. One big thing about this is that it means having volunteers and parents in the classroom. What I see is a community working together to educate the children."

Staff in these four schools respected parents' feelings and opinions and their role as significant caregivers in the lives of children.

Leadership Role

Leadership played a significant role in the success achieved by each school. Principals at all four schools described how they kept in balance the need to build and protect the school community from unwanted outside influence and the need to cultivate support from the community and the central office.

However, when teachers and parents were asked to describe factors contributing to the success of the change efforts in their schools, only about 25 percent explicitly mentioned the principal. On the surface, this omission might suggest to some that principals were not instrumental in change. However, the interview data clearly presents evidence to the contrary. Principals played pivotal roles as agents of change.

Why were principals not mentioned more often? The answer seems to be in the principals' leadership style, their emphasis on collaboration, and on actions that facilitate leadership development in others--parents, teachers, students, and support staff.

Interestingly, the demeanor of principals in all four schools shared some common characteristics. As a group, the principals appeared relaxed, warm, and unaffected. They seldom, if ever, mentioned themselves as being essential or key to the changes happening in their respective schools.

When principals discussed multiage change, they spoke of the needs of children and families. They emphasized the "we" and seldom the "I." In words that reflect these, the Lincoln principal said, "I think my task is to embrace our community and have that community work together to develop the most peaceful, harmonious environment they can develop."

For these principals, community reflects an ever-expanding circle of inclusion--the classroom community within the school community, within a neighborhood community, and so on. Their primary strategy for building community centers around themselves as models. They act and speak in ways that communicate the importance of openness, trust, and a belief in the individual's capacity to learn and grow.

Karen Eason, an instructional facilitator at Lincoln, concisely summarized this notion, saying, "You yourself are operating on the outcomes that you're expecting of students and teachers. There's no difference."

Common Traits

An analysis of data about leadership of the four schools yielded 11 common characteristics. In each school, the site administrator:

* Recognizes developmental differences among staff and acts with appropriate support;

* Empowers staff by providing leadership opportunities and shared decision making;

* Builds a dialogue among key stakeholders regarding the purpose of learning;

* Facilitates the development of a vision;

* Becomes highly visible in classrooms, the school, and the community;

* Has a strong personal vision about children and learning;

* Builds a climate characterized by trust, mutual respect, and risk-taking;

* Keeps the program visible;

* Strives to ensure needed resources: time, materials, space, and staff development;

* Possesses effective interpersonal skills; and

* Models personal vision and expectations.

Although these characteristics were present in all four schools, the degree of emphasis placed on them varied. For example, at Boise-Eliot, where the multiage classrooms are clearly in the minority, less emphasis was placed on their visibility than at the other three schools. Moreover, a curriculum specialist appears to have assumed a leadership role in ongoing development and support of the multiage classrooms.

In many ways, these characteristics and how they were described by participants suggest that principals and teacher leaders engaged in a form of leadership that helped transform the school culture and work environment from one characterized by staff isolation and competition to one reflecting care, collaboration, and a strong collective sense of staff efficacy.

Guiding Principles

Six key principles emerged from the research. Although not exhaustive, the principles and the descriptive information presented below may help to guide planning and development efforts for those contemplating a move toward multiage practices:

* All stakeholders spent time reviewing research-based information before seriously beginning implementation planning.

* No single model or recipe exists for becoming a multiage classroom or school.

* Neither bottom-up nor top-down implementation by itself is effective. For all four schools, change was initiated from several directions at the same time.

* Multiage programs require major conceptual change. For most educators, especially those who have taught in traditional, direct instruction classrooms, the changes can be dramatic.

* The implementation of multiage instruction and organization is best viewed as an evolving long-term change at the deepest levels of teacher beliefs about how humans learn. Teachers in the four schools learned to let go of many sacred notions of the teachers' role in learning.

* Strategic, incremental steps facilitate and improve the likelihood of success rather than large leaps that are not well thought out and articulated.

Creative Forces

Teachers and/or parents reviewed ideas and research together to develop common understanding and build relationships. Such an approach helps move staff development beyond the direct teaching of instructional skills to opportunities to deepen understanding and open a debate about what's best for kids.

This concept motivated and guided the four schools involved in this study. By laying a foundation for reform based on the needs of the children in their schools, teachers also transformed their relations with one another in ways that enhanced their capacity for collective action. Rather than mere consumers of educational trends, products, or the ideas of other people, they became creators of their own work environments.

Bruce Miller is the author of Children at the Center: Implementing the Multiage Classroom, published by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

The Movement's Forerunner Still Fighting for Nongradedness

Lest anyone think that nongradedness is a school reform new to the 1990s, Robert H. Anderson would like to dispel you of that notion.

Anderson, an AASA member since 1949-50, is one of the earliest proponents of abandoning the graded system of K12 schooling. His first article on the nongraded philosophy appeared in 1956 and three years later he and John Good-lad collaborated on a seminal work, The Non-Graded Elementary School, which was reprinted in 1963 and then reissued in 1987 by Teachers College Press.

Though he retired in 1983 after 19 years as a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and 10 years as dean of the education school at Texas Tech, he remains at the top of the field of nongraded education. His 1993 book, Nongradedness: Helping It To Happen, co-authored with Temple University Professor Barbara Nelson Pavan, is one of Technomic Publishing Co.'s top 3 best-selling books with 30,000 copies in print. The 240-page work is about to enter its sixth printing, though Technomic won't issue an exact sales figure.

Anderson's knowledge of and enthusiasm for the nongraded philosophy was a central part in his being named the first superintendent in Park Forest, Ill., in 1949. The school board there wanted to start a nongraded program.

Now president of Pedamorphosis, a nonprofit school reform foundation based in Tampa; Fla., and a consulting professor at University of South Florida, he remains a visible force in the nongraded movement, though he's not as much the regular on the lecture circuit these days. He thinks the conservative backlash to multiage grouping that some educators are experiencing is coming from parents and community members who don't understand the benefits, as well as from parents of gifted children who don,t want to lose their privileged status.

"Otherwise, there's the generic concerns--people who don't want any change to report cards, grade levels, sorting mechanisms. ... Conservative religious groups have a kneejerk reaction against anything unfamiliar. There's not a single respectable educator in this field who's concluded multiage is not advantageous," he says.

Anderson says he believes as strongly today in multiage grouping as he ever has. "If I had a grandson who was found to be 'gifted' (a label he eschews), I would much rather he be placed in a multiage or multiability classroom," he says.

--Jay P. Goldman