promise of multiage grouping, The

Kappa Delta Pi Record, Summer 2002 by Kappler, Elizabeth, Roellke, Christopher

With roots in the one-room schoolhouse, multiage grouping may be 'just right"for some classrooms.

Educators of many time periods have experimented with various versions of multiage approaches to classroom organization, some out of necessity and some out of a desire to improve learning. Recent research findings are mixed on the effects of multiage grouping on academic and social student outcomes. However, multiage grouping emerges as a promising and viable reform initiative. Following a historical and conceptual discussion, we offer an outline of suggestions for practitioners who may be considering a multiage approach to instruction.

Currently, 95 percent of American students are schooled in single-grade classrooms (Mason and Stimpson 1996). During the 17th and 18th centuries, however, students of all ages learned together, with the one-room schoolhouse serving at least half of the school population (Gulliford 1984). In the early 1900s, the industrial model of production heavily influenced the United States education system. Fueled by concerns about productivity and efficiency, these reforms focused on educating students rationally and efficiently. Mass schooling, with strict age and grade separations, became the norm.

Although this age and grade segregation persisted throughout the 20th century, it was challenged in the 1950s, especially by Goodlad and Anderson's classic, The Nongraded Elementary School (1959). Goodlad and Anderson (1959, 2-3) challenged the notion that "the work of a grade, a year of progress, and a chronological year in a child's life are seen as roughly comparable for school purposes." Instead, they proposed a new model of education in which students would be grouped by both chronological and developmental criteria, focusing on the needs of each individual student. Although they found very few schools experimenting with multiage grouping, their work and the work of others motivated a new wave of alternative educational programs, such as the open school movement and the Individual Guided Education Movement. These programs ultimately failed from lack of planning, support, and understanding, and multiage grouping eventually faded away from the education reform agenda.

Recent Developments

Although U.S. educators have shown a renewed interest in these progressive programs, particularly those centered on more creative grouping of students, the number of multiage programs is still relatively small. Mason and Stimpson's (1996) survey of 12 states found that single-grade classes are still the norm, with mixed-age classrooms occurring in an average of just 5 percent of classrooms. Nongraded classrooms were particularly rare, with the highest percentage in Mississippi at .9 percent. Combination classes were more common, ranging from less than 1 percent in New Jersey to more than 15 percent in California. Recent reform legislation in Kentucky mandated the introduction of the ungraded primary school (Kentucky Board of Education 1998). Ten years since this landmark legislation, approximately 75 percent of the primary programs are now using some form of mixed-age groupings (Kentucky Board of Education 2000).

In addition, many areas of the United States, particularly rural areas operating schools with low enrollments, form mixed classes out of necessity. In these cases, multiage classrooms are often permanent fixtures in a school. As Miller (1993,66) noted, parents and educators in these rural areas are often faced with situations where multiage grouping is "not an experiment or a new educational trend, but a forceful reality based on economic and geographical necessities."

In contrast to the U.S., multiage classrooms are quite popular in many other countries. The Netherlands, Finland, Portugal, and Western Australia have multiage groupings in more than half their classrooms, and Switzerland, Germany, England, Wales, Austria, and many Asian and Pacific countries make some use of these types of programs. In Canada, one in seven classrooms are multiage (Veenman 1995).

Many different types of programs fall into the mixed-age category, and terminology is not well defined. However, two general types of programs can be identified-multigrade and multiage. Multigrade classes, often referred to as combination classes, are usually the result of low or uneven student enrollment at certain grade levels, with classes combined at the last minute. In these classrooms students retain their gradelevel titles and their separate grade-level curricula, as they will rejoin their single-grade counterparts the following year. Teachers often do not have the flexibility to combine or change curricula, as in multiage classrooms, and are forced to teach two separate curricula at once. Veenman (1995) noted that divided instruction time, diminished planning, and curriculum coverage are typical criticisms of such programs. Mason and Burns (1995) have stated that teachers in such classrooms have expressed negative views of these arrangements.