CHILDREN AT THE CENTER

CHILDRENAT THE CENTER

Implementingthe

MultiageClassroom

BRUCE A. MILLER

ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management

®

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Implementingthe

MultiageClassroom

BRUCE A. MILLER


®



Published by

Northwest Regional

Educational Laboratory

Portland, Oregon

and the

ERIC Clearinghouse on

Educational Management

University of Oregon

Eugene

1994

ii

Copyright © 1994 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permissionin writing from the Publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Miller, Bruce A.Children at the center : implementing the multiage classroom / by

Bruce A. Miller. p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p. ).ISBN 0-86552-130-11. Nongraded schools--Northwest, Pacific--Case studies.

I. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. II. ERICClearinghouse on Educational Management. III. Title.LB1029.N6M49 1994371.2'54--dc20 94-34054

CIPDesign: LeeAnn AugustCover Photo: Kelly FenleyType: 12/13 TimesPrinter: Thompson-Shore, Dexter, Michigan

Printed in the United States of America, 1994Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory101 S.W. Main, Suite 500Portland, OR 97204Telephone: (503) 275-9549 Fax: (503) 275-9489

ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational ManagementUniversity of Oregon1787 Agate StreetEugene, OR 97403-5207Telephone: (800) 438-8841 Fax: (503) 346-2334

ERIC/CEM Accession Number: EA 025 954

This publication was prepared in part with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. OERI-RR 93002006 (ERIC/CEM). The opinions expressedin this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No federal fundswere used in the printing of this publication.

The University of Oregon is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution committed to cultural diversity.

iii

P r e f a c e

and community involvement, and edu-cational leadership and management hasbecome increasingly clear.

This publication is based on the mostrecent research activities at NWREL toidentify effective practices in terms ofboth implementation and what teachersdo with children.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on EducationalManagement has long been committedto disseminating information useful forthe operation and improvement of el-ementary and secondary schools. Thusthe Clearinghouse staff relished this op-portunity to cooperate with NWREL inpublishing Children at the Center andin making it available to policy-makers,administrators, teachers, and others whoare interested in multiage instruction.

Robert R. RathExecutive DirectorNorthwest Regional EducationalLaboratory

Philip K. PieleProfessor and DirectorERIC Clearinghouse onEducational Management

his publication is the re-sult of a cooperative effort of the North-west Regional Educational Laboratory(NWREL) and the ERIC Clearinghouseon Educational Management.

NWREL’s attention became focused onmultiage, or multigrade, instruction inthe mid-1980s as an effective, and inmany cases necessary, approach for de-livering education to students attendingvery small schools in rural, isolated com-munities. Initially, staff of the NWRELRural Education Program concentratedon the role and concerns the classroomteacher faced with planning and carry-ing out instruction for children in two ormore grade levels together in a singleclassroom.

Subsequently, as states such as Ken-tucky, Mississippi, and Oregon empha-sized multiage organization in legisla-tively mandated educational reform ini-tiatives, NWREL’s focus broadenedbeyond small, rural schools. As BruceMiller and his colleagues have contin-ued their research and development workon multiage instruction over the pastseven years, the importance of theschool’s organizational climate, parent

T

iv

MISSION OF NWREL

The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) provides leadership, expertise, and services thatare based on research and development. NWREL services are designed to address systemic changes for theimprovement of educational outcomes for children, youth, and adults in schools and communities throughoutthe region.

An independent, nonprofit institution established in 1966, NWREL is one of ten regional educationallaboratories comprising a national network supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement (OERI). NWREL offices are located at 101 SW Main, Suite 500,Portland, Oregon 97204.

NWREL research, development, dissemination, training, and technical assistance activities are carried out ineleven programmatic units focusing on: (1) Child, Family, and Community; (2) Drug-Free Schools andCommunities; (3) Education and Work; (4) Evaluation and Assessment; (5) Indian Education; (6) Literacy,Language, and Communication; (7) National Origin, Race, and Sex Equity; (8) Rural Education; (9) School,Community, and Professional Development; (10) Science and Mathematics Education; and (11) Technology.

MISSION OF ERICAND THE CLEARINGHOUSE

The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) is a national information system operated by the U.S.Department of Education. ERIC serves the educational community by disseminating research results andother resource information that can be used in developing more effective educational programs.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, one of several such units in the system, wasestablished at the University of Oregon in 1966. The Clearinghouse and its companion units process researchreports and journal articles for announcement in ERIC’s index and abstract bulletins.

Research reports are announced in Resources in Education (RIE), available in many libraries and bysubscription from the United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-9371.

Most of the documents listed in RIE can be purchased through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service,operated by Cincinnati Bell Information Systems.

Journal articles are announced in Current Index to Journals in Education. CIJE is also available in manylibraries and can be ordered from Oryx Press, 4041 North Central Avenue at Indian School, Suite 700,Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Semiannual cumulations can be ordered separately.

Besides processing documents and journal articles, the Clearinghouse prepares bibliographies, literaturereviews, monographs, and other interpretive research studies on topics in its educational area.

CLEARINGHOUSENATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD

Timothy J. Dyer, Executive Director, National Association of Secondary School PrincipalsPatrick Forsyth, Executive Director, University Council for Educational AdministrationPaul Houston, Executive Director, American Association of School AdministratorsJoyce G. McCray, Executive Director, Council for American Private EducationJoseph Murphy, Vice-President, Division A, American Educational Research AssociationMaggie Rogers, Director, Information Center, Northwest Regional Educational LaboratorySamuel Sava, Executive Director, National Association of Elementary School PrincipalsThomas Shannon, Executive Director, National School Boards AssociationDon I. Tharpe, Executive Director, Association of School Business Officials InternationalBrenda Welburn, Executive Director, National Association of State Boards of Education

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Philip K. Piele, Professor and DirectorStuart C. Smith, Associate Director for Publications

v

List of Tables.......................................................................................... vii

List of Figures ....................................................................................... viii

Foreword ................................................................................................. ix

Acknowledgements................................................................................. xi

Introduction ............................................................................................. 1

Collecting Information from the Field ................................................... 3

A Veteran Teacher’s Story .................................................................. 3

Surveys and Indepth Interviews .......................................................... 5

Survey Results: Reasons for Implementing a Multiage Program....... 7

Factors of Successful Multiage Programs ........................................... 9

Implementation Problems.................................................................. 11

Recommendations ............................................................................. 11

Summary ........................................................................................... 13

Implications ....................................................................................... 15

Interview Results ................................................................................... 17

What Could Be So Compelling? ....................................................... 17

The Conceptual Foundation:Developmentally Appropriate Practice........................................ 18

Lincoln Elementary School................................................................... 22

In the Beginning ................................................................................ 23

The Relational Foundation: Trust, Respect, and Sharing Power ...... 26

The Evolving Program: A Chronology of Change............................ 28

The Uncertainty of Change: Mapping Uncharted Territory .............. 35

Making the Grade: Challenges in Becoming Multiage ..................... 36

Enlarging the Rewards of Teaching .................................................. 44

Overland Elementary School................................................................ 49

Instructional Organization ................................................................. 50

The Emerging Vision ........................................................................ 50

C o n t e n t s

vi

Ownership: The Key to Problem Solution ........................................ 57

Benefits Have Outweighed Difficulties ............................................ 61

Boise-Eliot School.................................................................................. 64

Easing Transitions: Time, Staff Development, and DeepUnderstanding .............................................................................. 65

Indicators of Readiness ..................................................................... 67

Changing to a Multiage Classroom: Through the Eyes of Teachers. 69

What Benefits Students, Benefits Teachers ...................................... 72

Concrete Elementary School................................................................ 77

1988-90: Years of Exploration .......................................................... 78

1990-91: A Year of Orientation and Planning .................................. 80

1991-92: First-Year Implementation and the Unknown ................... 81

1992-93: Expansion and Refinement ................................................ 83

1993-94: Refinement and Full-Speed Ahead .................................... 85

Commitment, Support, and the Dilemma of Change ........................ 87

We Did It! The Benefits of Seeing It Through.................................. 90

Conclusion.............................................................................................. 93

Compelling Reasons for Implementation .......................................... 93

The Roles and Knowledge of Teachers Participating inImplementation ............................................................................ 95

Organizational Climate That Facilitates Change............................... 97

Parent Involvement and Support ....................................................... 98

Leadership, Support, and Transformation ......................................... 99

Implications .......................................................................................... 101

Prerequisites for Success: Leadership, Commitment, Support ....... 102

Guiding Principles from the Four Schools ...................................... 103

Magnitude of Change ...................................................................... 104

Appendices........................................................................................... 109

Appendix A: Methodology.............................................................. 110

Appendix B: Data Collection Instruments ...................................... 113

Appendix C: Codebook ................................................................... 117

Bibliography ......................................................................................... 118

vi CHILDREN AT THE CENTER

vii

Table 1: Overview of the Nine Data Sources Used inPreparing This Report .......................................................................... 6

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of the FourInterview-Site Schools ......................................................................... 6

Table 3: A Rank-Ordered Comparison of the Most FrequentlyMentioned Reasons for Implementing a Multiage Program ................ 8

Table 4: A Rank-Ordered Comparison of the Most FrequentlyMentioned Factors of Successful Multiage Programs ....................... 10

Table 5: A Rank-Ordered Comparison of the Most FrequentlyMentioned Implementation Problems ................................................ 12

Table 6: A Rank-Ordered Comparison of the Most FrequentlyMentioned Recommendations............................................................ 14

Table 7: Four Categories of Learning...................................................... 21

Table 8: Perceived Benefits of Multiage Teaching for Teachersand Students, Lincoln Elementary School ......................................... 45

Table 9: A Comparison of Three Dimensions of Program Change ........ 53

Table 10: Perceived Benefits of Multiage Teaching for Teachersand Students, Overland Elementary School ....................................... 62

Table 11: Perceived Benefits of Multiage Teaching for Teachersand Students, Boise-Eliot Elementary School ................................... 73

Table 12: Positive Changes in Concrete Elementary Schoolfrom 1987 to 1992 .............................................................................. 86

Table 13: Perceived Benefits of Multiage Teaching for Teachersand Students, Concrete Elementary School ....................................... 91

Table 14. The Most Frequently Mentioned Reasonsfor Implementation Found Across the Four Interview Sites .............. 94

Table 15. Comparison of Teacher and Student Normsin Straight and Multiage Classrooms ............................................... 105

Table 16. The Most Commonly Mentioned Strategies Facilitativeof Multiage Instruction and Organization ........................................ 107

Table A1. Sample of Coded Data .......................................................... 112

L i s t of T a b l e s

viii

Figure 1: Lincoln School Assessment Model .......................................... 34

Figure 2: Concrete Elementary School .................................................... 92

Figure 3: Depth of Collaboration and Knowledge Use ........................... 96

L i s t o f F i g u r e s

ix

here are times when Ifind my professional life as an editorand writer blending with my personallife as a husband and father. Editing thismultiage guide for Bruce Miller has pro-vided just such an opportunity.

As I edited, I peppered Bruce with ques-tions based on my life as a parent of afive-year-old as well as on my work asan editor: How is it that teachers in amultiage setting can address the diverseneeds of children at such a broad rangeof developmental levels? Aren’t five-,six-, and seven year-olds going to beleft behind in a classroom that includessix- to eight-year-olds? What additionaltraining does a teacher need to effec-tively teach in a multiage environment?How will I know if my child is doingwell? How do you teach math to a groupthat includes five-, six-, and seven-year-olds? How do you assess these kids?How does half-day kindergarten fit intoa multiage environment?

Frequently, my questions were framedby my search for a kindergarten for mydaughter, McKenzie, as much as by mydesire for a quality multiage guide.Should I seek a multiage environment,or should I go with what I know best

F o r e w o r d

and place McKenzie in a more tradi-tional school? My personal frame ofreference was based on attending publicschools that consisted of single-gradeclassrooms, teachers who dispensed in-formation as if it was a rare gem, andstudents who passively absorbed thematerial—or didn’t, depending on howwell they fit the mold.

Throughout Oregon, public schools arebeing decimated by a voter-approvedproperty tax limitation that has classsizes swelling, resources dwindling, andthe number of school days declining.Despite these constraints, some schools— led by dynamic principals and staffedby innovative teachers like those in thisguide — are meeting the needs of anincreasingly diverse student population.Their schools are emerging as true learn-ing centers that honor the individualstyles of students, encourage the uniquestyles of teachers, and address the grow-ing concerns of parents and others whocare for children.

Parents are becoming increasingly vo-cal about their desires for educationalquality. For example, about a year ago,my partner Sharon and I got involvedwith a group of parents concerned about

T

x

equity, individual learning styles, alter-native assessment, parental involvement,rising teacher-student ratios, and otherschool-related issues. Our early discus-sions have led to the creation of a parentcooperative school that will open itsdoors this fall in the Portland PublicSchool system. Already, there is a wait-ing list to get in.

Multiage education is a critical part ofthe charter for the parent cooperativeschool we helped create. But writing aconcept into a charter is a world awayfrom understanding how multiage edu-cation works in practice.

As I continued to edit and talk withBruce, my own walls about multiageeducation began crumbling. I listenedto the stories that the teachers, adminis-trators, and parents tell in this guide,and I realized that their journey wasmotivated by what is best for children. Ialso noticed that they didn’t provideanswers; they offered ideas. But theyalso walked their talk: Every day, theseteachers and administrators modeledcooperative learning, applied learning,shared decision-making, and other val-ues that they sought to instill in theirstudents.

At the heart of it, that’s what this guideis about: the ideas, concepts, values,and actions of educators, parents, andothers intimately concerned about thechildren in their communities. As an

editor, I hope you find it a good read. Asan educator, I hope you find it useful inyour school setting. And as a parent, Ihope you find it as provocative andstimulating as I have.

Tony KneidekEditorNorthwest RegionalEducational Laboratory

X CHILDREN AT THE CENTER

xi

would like to acknowledge and pay special thanks to themany individuals and organizations who supported and helped this publicationcome to life. I especially want to recognize the dedication and hard work clearlyevident among all the people I interviewed and observed during field-site visits. Itis their commitment to children that inspired much of my efforts. The followingprovides a list of all those interviewed:

Lincoln Elementary School, Interviews conductedCorvallis, Oregon September 1993

Elise Bradley teacher, 1-3 blendKaren Eason teacher, 1-3 blendEllen Germaneri teacher, special education K-5Larry Harris teacher, 1-3 blendDan Hays principalLinda Henselman teacher, 1-2 blendBrook Leaf teacher, 1-3 blendMike Martin music specialistJerri Otto teacher, K-2 blendKay Reeve art specialist, K-5Lou Ann Tacchini instructional assistantMary Williams teacher, 3-5 blend

Overland Elementary School, Interviews conductedBurley, Idaho September and October 1993

Mrs. Beabout parent/secretaryKevin Bushman principalKayelle Bywater teacher, first gradeHelen Craner teacher, mathematicsTera Craner teacher, first gradeLucia Gonzales teacher, social studiesDan McCarty teacher, reading/writingSamantha McElhinney parentJana Rogers resource room

Acknowledgments

I

Nilene Turner teacher, scienceDelia Valdez former math teacher; principal

(other school)Kimberly Whitaker teacher, reading

Concrete Elementary School, Interviews conductedConcrete, Washington October 1993

Joan Berg and Judy Shepherd instructional assistantsDan Brauer teacher, Chapter Lab 3-5 blendSherry Cowan instructional aideBarb Hawkings teacher, 4-5Lora Hein teacher, 3-4 blendDon Jeanroy principalMardi Johnson parent, volunteerPeggy Kerschner teacher, special educationMarilyn Land and Hallie Elms team teachers, 1-2 blendMeridith Loomis teacher, 4-5 blendDeborah Money teacher, 4-5 blendJanice Schmidt instructional assistant, parentLynda Stout school secretary, parent

Boise-Eliot Elementary School, Interviews conductedPortland, Oregon November 1993

Alexis Aquino-Mackle teacher, 1-2 blendBetty Campbell principalErin Cason teacher, 4-5 blendAnne Hasson teacher, 4-5 blendRobin Lindsley teacher, 1-2 blendSharon Sheeley teacher, 3-5 blendVicky Swartz curriculum coordinator

Lastly, I would like to thank the manyindividuals who edited, reviewed, and,in general, encouraged me to keep writ-ing: Jane Braunger, Jerry Schwab,Steven Nelson, K.C. Jones, TonyKneidek, and Marian Grebanier.

I would also like to thank NorthwestRegional Educational Laboratory andthe ERIC Clearinghouse on EducationalManagement for the insight in recog-nizing the importance of multiage edu-cation and the financial support thatmade the research and publication pos-sible. The Society for DevelopmentalEducation also contributed to this pub-lication by facilitating the distributionand collection of a multiage survey.

xii CHILDREN AT THE CENTER

I n t r o d u c t i o n

eachers and administra-tors from country schools to urban class-rooms are hungry for information onmultiage education. I see it in the nu-merous calls I receive as a rural educa-tion specialist at the Northwest RegionalEducational Laboratory in Portland, Or-egon.

These requests come on the heels ofnumerous research reports emphasiz-ing whole language, cooperative learn-ing, heterogeneous grouping, and de-velopmentally appropriate practice, allof which have implications for multiagelearning environments. Moreover, therequests coincide with legislativelymandated educational reform initiativesin Kentucky, Oregon, and Mississippithat also emphasize multiage organiza-tion (Lodish 1992). This legislative ac-tion has caused teachers, administra-tors, and parents to ask whether this issimply another educational trend or alasting educational reform. Despite suchconcerns, educators throughout the na-tion are implementing multiage class-rooms and schools with insufficientforethought, planning, and participationof key stakeholders. I can think of nobetter way to destroy a potentially soundeducational practice.

Unfortunately, promising practices andinnovations are often implemented forthe wrong reasons or with little under-standing of key factors such as teacherreadiness, staff ownership, parental in-volvement, and collaborative planning.Each of those issues must be consid-ered if the change effort is to have apositive and lasting effect on studentsand teachers.

This need for caution seems obviousbut is often overlooked by well-inten-tioned administrators who fail to under-stand how unsettling change may be forteachers who have little or no controlover it. In that regard, implementingmultiage instructional practices raisesimportant questions that should be askedand understood before the journey be-gins:

1. Why would a school staff implementa multiage program, especially whenevidence from the field suggestsmultiage classrooms, at least initially,are more work?

2. What roles should teachers play inplanning and implementation, andwhat knowledge do they need to ef-fectively participate?

1

T

2 CHILDREN AT THE CENTER

3. What type of school or organizationalclimate is likely to facilitate success-ful multiage implementation?

4. How should parents and the commu-nity be involved in deciding, plan-ning, and implementing the changeeffort?

5. What does leadership look like insuccessful multiage implementation?

6. Are there factors associated withimplementation of successfulmultiage programs that can be gener-alized to other settings?

These six questions provide the frame-work for this implementation guide. Theanswers to these questions are complexand can be found in the ideas, stories,and experiences of educators who havestruggled to implement multiage prac-tices, as well as among the researcherswho have studied the multiage conceptfor years.

There is frequent confusion around themeaning of multiage among both prac-titioners and researchers. Such terms asnongraded, ungraded, multigrade, ver-tical grouping, blends, and multiage arebeing used, in many cases, interchange-ably (Katz 1988, Miller 1989).

Such semantic confusion creates mis-understandings that may damage pros-pects for successful implementation. Forthis guide, I use multiage to mean twoor more grade levels that have beenintentionally placed together to improvelearning. The child’s developmentalneeds, regardless of grade-level curricu-

lum or administrative placement, standout as a key defining characteristic ofthe multiage concept. Ideally, there is ablurring of grade- and age-level distinc-tions as students blend into a caringcommunity of learners.

The educators interviewed for this guideaspire to this ideal. I hope you find theirexperiences and ideas enlightening andmeaningful. Above all, I hope you findthis guide useful as you embark on yourjourney toward a multiage classroom orschool.

Collecting InformationFrom the Field

3

n illustration of the dam-aging effects of blindly hopping on thebandwagon—and a key reason for writ-ing this multiage implementationguide—can be seen in the experiencesof a teacher in an urban school system inthe Midwest.

A Veteran Teacher’s Story

Sarah has been teaching elementaryschool for thirteen years. A year anda half ago her school became one ofeight pilot sites in her district toimplement multiage organizationand instruction. When school startedin the fall, she found herself in aclassroom with firstthrough fourth-grade students. In addition, testscores were used to place a repre-sentative academic range of studentsin Sarah’s class. She ended up withten boys and four girls. Sarah men-tioned that this imbalance of boysand the placement of several stu-dents with behavior problems madethe implementation of a multiageclassroom especially difficult.

Sarah had received two half-daytraining sessions on whole languagein preparation for implementing thenew multiage program. Not surpris-

ingly, Sarah said there was not muchin the training for teaching in amultiage classroom. When she wasinterviewed shortly after schoolstarted, she spoke like a first-yearteacher, full of anxiety and concernabout her students. In describing theplanning and implementation pro-cess that occurred in her district, heranxiety appeared understandable.

A new superintendent had been hiredwith an agenda for change. Withinhis first year, he had mandatedmultiage organization and com-puter-assisted learning. Sarah indi-cated she knew very little aboutmultiage teaching or computer-as-sisted learning. In addition, the dis-trict allocated $2,000 per pilot class-room for materials. However, themoney only became available in thefall, so teachers did not have materi-als when school began. To compli-cate matters, the school year beganwith a new principal, who, like Sa-rah, found herself thrust into themiddle of mandated change.

Teachers in Sarah’s school were allassigned to self-contained class-rooms with a student age span offour years (that is, grades 1 through4). Sarah mentioned that teachersdid not talk about their successes orproblems, nor did they conduct staff

A


meetings where multiage practiceswere discussed. By Sarah’s account,collegial-planning and staff-devel-opment structures that would allowteachers time to share their successesand struggles were nonexistent. Sa-rah, like her colleagues, was ex-pected to implement the changealone.

Sarah also said that teachers werenot involved in the decision to imple-ment multiage classrooms. The planwas developed at the central office,with program success measured bystandardized test scores. This cre-ated intense pressure for teachers.To complicate matters, Sarah saidthe computer-based learning pro-gram created additional tension. Evi-dently, the district contracted with aCalifornia company that offered aprogram in reading and math thatguaranteed academic growth pro-vided certain standards were met.One standard created special prob-lems for Sarah: Students were re-quired to be at a terminal for thirtyminutes a day. If students missedthe regularly scheduled computertime, Sarah and other teachers wererequired to schedule a makeup timeto validate the agreement with theCalifornia company.

Five months after initially interview-ing Sarah, problems remained at herschool. Teachers had gone on strikeand the pilot project emerged as anissue. Sarah felt she was getting abetter handle on instruction, but shewondered what the long-term im-pact might be on students and teach-ers. In her building, only two teach-ers seemed to be comfortable withmultiage classrooms. Several teach-

ers had resigned. Sarah said shethought about resigning, but felt shecould tough it out.

Sarah’s story is all too common. Sheleft the impression that there had beenlittle or no analysis of such key factorsas teacher readiness, staff ownership,parental involvement, and collaborativeplanning. And although Sarah had asmall class size compared to nationalnorms, she faced what many teacherswould perceive as an extreme range ofdevelopmental levels without relevanttraining or assistance. In addition, itappears that minimal advance planningthat involved Sarah and her colleaguestook place. For example, while eachpilot teacher received $2,000 to pur-chase multiage resources, there simplywas not sufficient time to order materi-als and have them available for the startof school.

It also appears that Sarah and her col-leagues had insufficient knowledge ofmultiage learning to use the money inthe most effective manner. Moreover,the isolated manner in which teacherswere expected to carry out a variety ofreforms suggests that the changes wereimplemented without the most basicunderstanding of the change process.

Recent empirical studies and researchreviews demonstrate that multiage or-ganization produces beneficial resultsfor students (Cotton 1993, Gutierrez andSlavin 1992, Anderson and Pavan 1993,and Miller 1989). In addition, the workof early childhood researchers such asKatz (1988) and learning psychologistssuch as Dweck (1986), Vygotsky

(1978), and Gardner (1983) providepractitioners with a powerful founda-tion and rationale for understanding andimplementing multiage programs.

While there is a rich and solid researchbase for understanding and implement-ing multiage programs, practitioners of-ten neglect to integrate it with othersuccessful classroom practices. Worseyet, teachers can be overwhelmed by aplethora of change mandated by admin-istrators unmindful of the impact thatsuch reform efforts have on classroomteachers. Sarah’s story is a good ex-ample of change imposed by a well-intentioned administrator who did notestablish a process that involved staffand the community in the reform effort.Moreover, he neglected to provide theresources and training to adequately pre-pare teachers and increase the potentialfor success.

The research conducted for this docu-ment addresses this complex issue bypresenting information collected fromteachers, principals, and parents. Theirexperiences provided the grist for thebroad implications and applications ofmultiage approaches presented in thisguide. Moreover, to increase the useful-ness of the research underlying thisguide, nine separate sources of data werecollected across a range of schools andcommunities (table 1). This strategy pro-vided the opportunity to cross-check in-formation and to note similarities anddifferences across data sets.

However, bear in mind that the purposeof the research underlying this publica-

COLLECTING INFORMATION FROM THE FIELD 5

tion was to describe how successfulmultiage programs have been developedand implemented. Therefore, no effortwas made to collect and analyze cogni-tive and affective outcome measures.Instead, multiple self-report strategies(surveys and interviews) were used todevelop a rich descriptive picture ofmultiage practices and their perceivedbenefits in the four interview-siteschools.

Surveys and IndepthInterviews

Open-ended survey questions were usedto collect information in four areas: (1)reasons for implementing a multiageprogram, (2) factors contributing to pro-gram success, (3) problems or challengesfaced, and (4) recommendations forthose considering a multiage program.

Multiage teachers and principals, and asample of instructional assistants andparents at four schools in three states,completed the surveys. In addition, sur-veys were given to participants attend-ing a national conference on multiageinstruction to obtain a broad cross-sec-tion of information from the UnitedStates and Canada. Finally, tape-re-corded interviews were conducted withthe principal and a representative sampleof teachers (including curriculum spe-cialists) and parents from the four inter-view-site schools (see Appendix A for acopy of the survey and interview instru-ments). Nearly all surveyed respondentswere either planning to implement a


tics for each school. Taken as a whole,these schools represent a cross-sectionof school types: large, small, rural, ur-ban, small town, ethnically diverse, andpoor. These schools also reflect a com-mon desire to better serve the needs ofstudents generally considered at risk foracademic underachievement.1

Interview questions, in part, grew froman analysis of the survey data and weredesigned to gain an indepth understand-ing of how multiage practices becamesuccessfully institutionalized in eachschool. Beginning with a discussion ofsurvey results, emergent themes and is-sues will be identified and then elabo-rated through an analysis of the inter-views conducted at each school. More-over, the ideas and words of parents,teachers, and principals will provide arich and varied picture of these fourschools as they have developed and sus-tained multiage programs. Finally, im-plications for practice will be discussedusing the six questions presented above.

multiage program or currently doing so,thus increasing the likelihood of obtain-ing well-informed contributions.

In fact, the four elementary schools cho-sen for onsite interviews were selectedon the basis of their reputation for suc-cessfully implementing multiage orga-nization and instruction and sustainingit for more than four years. Table 2provides the demographic characteris-

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of the Four Interview-Site Schools

School Comm District School No. of No. of MA Age/Grade SchoolName Type Size Size Teachers Classroms Span Demographics

Lincoln Small K-12 = K-5 = 14 12 2, 3 & 4 ethnic = 1<%university 7,652 444 age span poverty = 45%town

Overland Rural K-12 = K-4 = 9 5 3 ethnic = 76%5,494 184 age span poverty = 96%

Boise- Urban K-12 = P,K = 45 6 2 ethnic = 57%Elliot 54, 975 768 age span poverty = 64%

Concrete Isolated K-12= K-5= 17 14 2 & 3 ethnic = <1%rural 855 405 age span poverty = 60%

__________________1Budgetary and time constraints limited the num-

ber of schools participating in the study. However,the survey data were used to broaden the informationbase beyond the four interview-site schools.

Table 1

Overview of the Sources of DataUsed in Preparing This Report

Surveys Interviews

National multiage Lincolnconference Elementary(n = 202) (n = 13)

Lincoln OverlandElementary Elementary(n = 16) (n = 13)

Overland Boise-EliotElementary Elementary(n = 9) (n = 7)

Boise-Eliot ConcreteElementary Elementary(n = 4) (n = 13)

ConcreteElementary (n = 10)

7

urveys were analyzedthematically, noting how often a themeor topic was mentioned. Rank ordersfor the national and interview-site datasets were determined by selecting theten most frequently mentioned themes.Since items were not ranked by qualita-tive criteria, the remaining themes werelater included in the analysis of the in-terviews. This procedure ensured thatpotentially important concepts and ideaswere not overlooked. For example, stu-dent placement was only mentionedonce on the surveys but emerged as afrequent topic during teacher interviews.

Table 3 was constructed to delineatethe various shadings of why respon-dents engaged in multiage instruction.The survey results indicate that practi-tioners paint a positive picture of themultiage classroom. For example, “ben-efits” emerged as a complex factor fromboth sets of survey data. For the na-tional survey, “benefits children” wasranked number one; for the interview-site schools, it was ranked third.

In analyzing these data, the category“benefits children” was only marked asa response if it was explicitly stated.However, if a respondent mentioned abenefit such as “develops peer learn-

ing,” then a new category was created.From this perspective, nearly all re-sponses suggested multiage practice ben-efits students.

Only two categories represent other rea-sons for implementation: “result of ex-ternal forces” and “required conditionof employment.” The high priority rank-ing of “result of external forces” on thenational sample may reflect where thesurvey was administered. The confer-ence was in Kentucky, where multiageprimary schools were legislatively man-dated and have been implemented formore than two years. But mandates canbe beneficial. For example, numerousrespondents from Kentucky said thatdespite the mandate, they loved teach-ing in a multiage environment. How-ever, as detailed later, mandates oftenare perceived as negatively affecting thechange effort.

What emerges from the remaining cat-egories reflects a strong and compellingbelief that a multiage learning environ-ment changes the way teachers view thelearner and the curriculum. Respondentsfelt multiage “promotes a recognitionof diversity that necessitates appropri-ate action” and “encourages natural de-velopment of each child.” In other words,

Survey Results: Reasons forImplementing a MultiageProgram

S


Rank National Survey (N=202)1 Benefits children

2 Result of external forces such asstate legislation or grant funding

3 Encourages natural development ofchild (that is, encourages develop-mentally appropriate practices)

4 Increases continuity of instruc-tional and interpersonal relationsacross school years for students,teachers, and parents

5 Facilitates flexible student pacing

6 Develops peer learning andpositive peer relations

7 Wanted to do it, love it

8 Required condition of employment

9 Encourages teachers to be morestudent centered

10 Promotes a recognition of diversitythat necessitates appropriate action

Surveys from Interview Sites (N=39)Promotes a recognition of diversity thatnecessitates appropriate action

Develops peer learning and positive peerrelations

Benefits children

Increases continuity of instructional andinterpersonal relations across school yearsfor students, teachers, and parents

Reduces evaluation and competitivepressures on children

Encourages natural development of child(that is, encourages developmentallyappropriate practices)

Promotes positive professional relationshipsand interpersonal support

Required condition of employment

Encourages teachers to be more studentcentered

Result of external forces such as statelegislation or grant funding

Table 3

A Rank-Ordered Comparison of the Most FrequentlyMentioned Reasons for Implementing a Multiage Program

it “encourages teachers to be more stu-dent centered.”

Several other categories provide insightinto how this change may occur. First,the multiage classroom helps develop“peer learning and positive peer rela-tions.” Moreover, by having students

for more than one year, a “continuity ofinstruction and interpersonal relations”is created among all those involved: stu-dents, teachers, and parents.

As will be presented later, informationfrom the interview data indicates thatcontinuity across several school years

was a compelling reason for consider-ing multiage instruction.

Educators from the four interview sitesmentioned that a reduction in “evalua-tion and competitive pressures on chil-dren” occurred in their schools. It ap-pears that this relates to the increase inthe category “peer learning and positivepeer relations” because, under certainconditions, “evaluation and competitivepressures” negatively affect studentlearning and relations (Nicholls 1989).Interestingly, these educators also saidthat teaching in a multiage environment“promotes positive professional relation-ships and interpersonal support.” Caremust be taken in how much weight togive this category. As we learned fromSarah’s experience, multiage, in and ofitself, does not promote improved rela-tions or guarantee support. Other keyfactors must be present.

Factors of SuccessfulMultiage Programs

Many subtle ideas and relationshipsemerged from analyzing surveyresponses to a question that askedabout which factors contribute tosuccessful multiage implementation.Table 4 provides insight into thosefactors mentioned most frequently.“Having support” was the most com-monly noted factor, which suggeststhe high priority that should be givento developing support among parents,principals, and the central office.

However, the form of the support mat-ters. The best support comes from par-ents who are “well-informed and ac-tively involved,” from a “flexible prin-cipal who understands the change ef-fort,” and from an “active school boardand superintendent.” Moreover, thereare suggestions for how support is de-veloped and maintained. Support is nota given.

“Cooperation and ongoing communica-tion among all stakeholders” is criticaland should include “ongoing staff de-velopment that focuses on the changeeffort and includes the whole staff work-ing and learning together.” In a relatedmanner, the item “teaching teams whoare given time for mutual planning andcollaboration” was ranked as important.Teaching teams not only provide sup-port but also peer learning opportuni-ties. In the analysis of the interviewdata, the importance of collaborationamong teachers directly relates to thesuccess of the change effort, especiallywhen teacher teams are encouraged andsupported with common planning timeand shared instructional space.

Flexibility also plays an important role.Having a “flexible principal,” a “flex-ible and well-organized plan,” and “flex-ible teachers” contribute to successfulimplementation. Finally, respondents be-lieve teachers need to know how to usethe “teaching strategies” and a “rangeof materials that help address classroomdiversity.” Taken as a whole, the infor-mation in table 4 suggests that imple-mentation is likely to be successful if a

SURVEY RESULTS 9


Table 4

A Rank-Ordered Comparison of the Most FrequentlyMentioned Factors of Successful Multiage Programs

Rank National Survey (N=202)

1 Having supportive parents who havebeen well informed and activelyinvolved

2 Having a flexible principal who issupportive and understands the changeeffort

3 Providing ongoing staff developmentthat focuses on the change effort andincludes the whole staff working andlearning together

4 Having cooperation and ongoingcommunication among all stakeholders

5 Having active school board andsuperintendent support

6 Having a flexible and well-organizedplan cooperatively developed well inadvance of implementation

7 Using open-ended teaching strategiessuch as hands-on science and math,whole language, and cooperativelearning to ensure student success

8 Having teachers who are enthusiastic,flexible, and open to change

9 Having teaching teams situated inclose proximity to one another andgiven time for mutual planning andcollaboration

10 Having an understanding and belief inmultiage instruction as a tool foraddressing and respecting the diversityof how children develop and learn

Surveys from Interview Sites (N=39)

Having cooperation and ongoing commu-nication among all stakeholders

Using open-ended teaching strategies suchas hands-on science and math, wholelanguage, and cooperative learning toensure student success

Having supportive parents who have beenwell informed and actively involved

Having an understanding and belief inmultiage instruction as a tool for address-ing and respecting the diversity of howchildren develop and learn

Providing ongoing staff development thatfocuses on the change effort and includesthe whole staff working and learningtogether

Having teaching teams situated in closeproximity to one another and given timefor mutual planning and collaboration

Having a flexible and well-organized plancooperatively developed well in advanceof implementation

Having a flexible principal who issupportive and understands the changeeffort

Having teachers who are enthusiastic,flexible, and open to change

Having a wide range of materials that helpaddress classroom diversity

systemic approach is used to considerall stakeholders—parents, teachers, ad-ministrators, and students. The approachshould seek to build their supportthrough ongoing communication that de-velops understanding and cooperation.

Implementation Problems

What are the problems or challengeseducators encounter prior to and duringimplementation of multiage learning?The national survey group represents arange of implementation stages, fromthose just beginning to think and plan tothose with institutionalized programs.The interview-site group, on the otherhand, has been involved in multiage pro-cesses for more than four years. Table 5presents the results of a survey questiondesigned to generate information on thechallenges and problems faced by thoseinvolved in multiage implementation.For the national and interview-sitegroups, “developing support” rankedfirst and second, respectively. Buildingsupport clearly represents a primary con-cern and need. This emphasis on sup-port is not surprising.

Like any improvement effort, whetherit be a new program or a new building,without a well-developed support baseor foundation, the new structure is likelyto collapse.

The areas of “assessing programchanges” and the “lack of time for col-laborative team and/or staff planning”ranked in the top four. Respondents from

both data sets suggest that using stan-dardized achievement measures toevaluate program success is problem-atic. In a related matter, respondentssuggest that additional time be providedfor planning and working together. Forexample, creating a more valid approachto assessment requires both time andexpertise; developing expertise requiresthe time to engage in staff development.

There were also concerns that focuseddirectly on the classroom. As one mightexpect from their stage of implementa-tion, the interview-site respondents men-tioned classroom-level themes more of-ten than did the national survey respon-dents. For example, the interview-sitegroup suggested the need for “havingappropriate curriculum that addressesstudent diversity” and “placing studentsso there is a balance across a range ofareas such as academics, behavior, andgender.” On the other hand, nationalsurvey respondents more frequentlycited issues relating to the initial stagesof implementation, such as “support,financing, overcoming staff and com-munity resistance,” and “forcingmultiage education through top-downmandates.” Only the classroom-leveltopic of “letting go of traditional grade-level thinking and instruction” emergedas a priority issue by all respondents.

Recommendations

The recommendations presented in table6 demonstrate a high level of compat-ibility with the information presented in

SURVEY RESULTS 11


Table 5

A Rank-Ordered Comparison of the Most FrequentlyMentioned Implementation Problems

Rank National Survey (N=202)

1 Developing support for the changeeffort with parents, teachers, and theprincipal

2 Providing ongoing staff develop-ment

3 Assessing program changes withtraditional measures such asstandardized achievement tests

4 Financing materials, instructionalresources, staff development, andchange-related costs

5 Lacking time for instructional andcollaborative team and/or staffplanning

6 Having difficulty letting go oftraditional grade-level thinking andinstruction

7 Receiving school district support,especially in terms of knowing andvaluing the change through bothwords and deeds

8 Overcoming staff and communityresistance

9 Forcing multiage education throughtop-down mandates, especiallywhen the developmental differencesof staff members are not considered

10 Sustaining the multiage changeeffort through such activities asmonitoring implementation, keepingabreast of new research, ensuringstaff members continuity, andongoing refinement

Surveys from Interview Sites (N=39)

Having difficulty letting go of traditionalgrade-level thinking and instruction

Developing support for the change effortwith parents, teachers, and the principal

Lacking time for instructional and collabora-tive team and/or staff planning

Assessing program changes with traditionalmeasures such as standardized achievementtests

Sustaining the multiage change effortthrough such activities as monitoringimplementation, keeping abreast of newresearch, ensuring staff continuity, andongoing refinement

Placing students so there is a balance acrossa range of areas such as academics, behav-ior, and gender

Having appropriate curriculum for address-ing student diversity, including curriculumframeworks

(All remaining items had a consensus of twoor fewer)

the previous tables. “Securing support”once again emerged as a dominant theme.Moreover, many of the topics delineatedin the table reflect ways of developingsupport. For example, if efforts are madeto “educate and involve parents” in thechange effort, they are more likely tounderstand and feel a sense of owner-ship.

In a similar manner, if parents and staffmembers are allowed to “visit a varietyof multiage schools” and “plan wellahead of implementation,” their involve-ment is encouraged and their role asstakeholders is validated.

Many of these recommendations alsoindicate the kind of condition or climatemost conducive to facilitating and sus-taining change. For example, words suchas “trust, shared understanding, provid-ing choices,” and “being flexible in work-ing with staff” are behaviors that pro-mote positive working relationships.When people feel supported, involved,and trusted, they are more likely to takethe risks necessary in learning some-thing new. In other words, people aremore receptive to learning (for example,letting go of traditional grade-level think-ing and instruction) when they feel sup-ported and trusted. “Sharing successesand challenges” provides an opportu-nity for trust building.

However, as noted by both surveygroups, “staff have to desire and ownthe change; it cannot be a forced man-date.” When individuals are forced tomake a change, they generally feel ex-cluded from the decision-making pro-

cess and their attitude toward the changeoften turns to resistance. Survey resultsclearly suggest that securing a wide baseof support and ensuring that the com-munity and “all staff develop a sharedunderstanding of the change effort” isvital to successful implementation.

Several other themes mentioned in table6 are worth noting. Recognizing thatchange requires time and persistenceand that stress and conflict are naturalelements of the change process seemslike good advice. Too often, in the faceof change, there is a tendency to equatestress and anxiety with competence aseducators. This is why “communicatingamong staff about reasons for multiage,sharing successes and challenges” iscritically important. Moreover, the un-settling effect of change increases sen-sitivity to the changes children face ev-ery day as learners. When educators jointheir students and become learners, theyalso become better teachers. In the pro-cess, they also become “open to newideas” and are more “willing to takerisks and trust that children can learn.”

Summary

A multiage survey was developed andadministered to two sets of individuals.Results of the survey provide informa-tion to help guide those contemplatingthe implementation of multiage prac-tices. The first sample consisted of indi-viduals representing a diverse cross-sec-tion of teachers, parents, board mem-bers, administrators, and consultants at-

SURVEY RESULTS 13


Table 6

A Rank-Ordered Comparison of the Most FrequentlyMentioned Recommendations

Rank National Survey (N=202)1 Strive to learn and improve as a

staff and individually, ensuring allstaff members develop a sharedunderstanding of the change effort

2 Plan well ahead of implementation(1-2 years), focusing on slow,incremental change that includes ananalysis of the impact on allconstituent groups

3 Build trust through communicationamong staff members by discussingbeliefs, reasons for multiage,sharing successes and challenges

4 Educate and involve parents so theyunderstand and support the change

5 Visit a variety of multiage schoolsand ask questions of staff andstudents about the implementationprocess, materials, grouping, wholelanguage, hands-on math andscience

6 Secure support early on from thecommunity, parents, administrators,and colleagues for the multiageeffort

7 Persist, give it time, and expectsome stress and conflict as naturalto change

8 Staff members have to desire andown the change; it cannot be aforced mandate

9 Be flexible in working with staff,meeting student needs, and tryingnew ideas

10 Provide choices for parents andteachers who cannot support themultiage change effort

Four Interview Sites (N=39)

Secure support early on from the community,parents, administrators, and colleagues forthe multiage effort

Build trust through communication amongstaff members by discussing beliefs, reasonsfor multiage, sharing successes and chal-lenges

Strive to learn and improve as a staff andindividually, ensuring all staff membersdevelop a shared understanding of thechange effort

Plan well ahead of implementation (1-2years), focusing on slow, incremental changethat includes an analysis of the impact on allconstituent groups

Educate and involve parents so they under-stand and support the change

Visit a variety of multiage schools and askquestions of staff and students about theimplementation process, materials, grouping,whole language, hands-on math and science

Be flexible in working with staff, meetingstudent needs, and trying new ideas

Be open to new ideas, take risks, and trustthat children can learn

Build a foundation of whole language,hands-on math and science, authenticassessment, themes, and integrated curricu-lum

Staff members have to desire and own thechange; it cannot be a mandate

tending a national conference onmultiage education. This group also pro-vided a cross-section of implementationlevels. Some were in the early stages ofthinking and collecting information,whereas others had implemented multi-age practices in their classrooms andschools.

The second set of surveys was drawnfrom educators and parents who havebeen involved in successful implemen-tation for more than four years. Hence,they have weathered the early storms ofimplementation and controversy, emerg-ing with viable programs. More impor-tant, their programs were implementedrecently enough for them to recount theirjourneys.

How can the results of this survey helpeducators make informed decisions re-garding the implementation of multiagepractices, and what additional informa-tion would be beneficial? From a practi-cal point of view, these data representthe collective experience of individualswho, for the most part, believe in andare committed to multiage organizationand instruction. Taken as a whole, theseare well-informed individuals. However,survey data only provide us with gen-eral themes or topics and can, at best,only identify key points to consider indeveloping a strategy for implementa-tion. The interview data, presented inthe second part of this guide, providethe rich detail necessary for construct-ing a roadmap for action.

SURVEY RESULTS 15

Implications

First and foremost, ensure that your rea-sons for change reflect the needs andinterests of the children you serve. Re-spondents were clear on this point: Theirnumber one reason for implementingmultiage practices was their belief thatit would benefit children. Moreover,practitioners must know what practiceswill produce the benefit. Will the ben-efit accrue through simply putting vari-ous ages together in the same room? Orwould it be better to have the samechildren over several years? Knowingand understanding why you are imple-menting multiage is critical to its suc-cess.

Second, build a solid base of supportamong key stakeholders: community andparents, teachers, and administrators.Engage these groups in analyzing anddiscussing the reasons for change: Isthere research to support the desireddirection? Are there resources to helpanswer questions? If possible, visit avariety of multiage schools. Ask ques-tions of staff and students about theimplementation process, materials,grouping, whole language, and hands-on math and science. If time and/or re-sources do not allow for personal visits,then reading case studies, making phonecalls, and securing videotapes may bethe next best option.

Third, build a climate throughout theschool and community that is character-


ized by open communication and trust.Include people in the process and takethe time to explain the changes. In thecommunity, this may mean providingopportunities for direct involvement indecision-making, community forums,and other strategies for parent educa-tion. In the school, this means learningtogether as a staff, where beliefs andpractices are discussed and evaluated.Above all, create an environment wherepeople feel safe taking the kinds of risksnecessary to change classroom practice.

Finally, be realistic. Implementation re-quires planning, patience, time, and anunderstanding of the process of change.Both respondent groups placed a majoremphasis on planning at least one totwo years in advance of implementa-tion. Moreover, research on successfulinnovation (Miles and Huberman 1980,Fullan 1993), indicates that successfulchange efforts take three years or longerto become part of the everyday realitiesof school life.

As realists, one must recognize that ulti-mately it is people who are being askedto change. As the survey data show, it isdifficult for people to “let go of tradi-tional grade-level thinking and instruc-tion.” After all, most parents, students,teachers, and administrators have spenttheir entire lives in graded learning in-stitutions. Putting a multiage programin place is easy compared to changingthe way people think, especially whencurriculum and the textbook industryare dominated by graded materials.Moreover, individuals vary in how

readily they embrace new ideas, strate-gies, and practices. Again, drawing onthe themes emerging from the surveys,educators must avoid top-down man-dates, especially when the developmen-tal differences of staff are not consid-ered.

17

I n t e r v i e w R e s u l t s

zation to succeed, a series of questionsmust be addressed.

1. What roles should teachers play inplanning and implementation, andwhat knowledge do they need formaximum effectiveness?

2. What type of school or organizationalclimate is likely to facilitate success-ful multiage implementation?

3. How should parents and the commu-nity be involved in deciding, plan-ning, and implementing the changeeffort?

4. What does leadership look like insuccessful multiage implementation?

5. Are there implementation factors as-sociated with successful multiage pro-grams that can be generalized to othersettings?

Each of the interview-site schools rep-resents a unique context and set of cir-cumstances around which the introduc-tion and development of multiage orga-nization and instruction emerged. Todelineate these differences, interview re-sults are presented by school. A com-parative discussion of the interview sitesis presented with an eye toward draw-

esults from interviewsconducted at the four multiage schoolsprovide detailed information at the heartof why the schools, their communities,and staffs have been successful atmultiage innovation and change. Ananalysis of the rationale underlying theiractions and how they have sustainedtheir efforts through conflict, budgetcuts, and staff turnover will be presented.In addition, the patterns of action thatunite these diverse schools and the quali-ties that give them their own uniqueidentities will be described.

What Could Be SoCompelling?

Why would a school staff want to imple-ment a multiage program, especiallywhen evidence from the field suggestsmultiage classrooms, at least initially,are more work? What could compelteachers to give up the relatively safelife as a single-grade teacher? Surveyresults suggest strong beliefs in the effi-cacy of a multiage organization. Re-spondents cited better continuity, morepeer learning, and more positive peerrelationships as reasons for implement-ing multiage. But for multiage organi-

R


cause there is variation and diversitywithin a developmental timeframe, wecannot predict the exact moment whena child will talk. Some children maylearn to talk as early as nine monthswhile others may begin at twenty-fivemonths—all these ages fall within thebroad range of normal.

Lowery (1993) provides a research-based overview of these two dimen-sions of development. In the field ofbiological science, evidence supportingdevelopmental stages has been estab-lished by periodic increases in brain sizeand weight, cellular growth within thebrain, electrical functioning within thebrain, and head circumference.

From the field of psychology, evidencehas been established surrounding threephenomena: the individual’s capacity todeal with independent ideas and to re-late them in increasing combinations intwo- or three-year spurts from about theages of three through seventeen; theindividual’s tendency to exhibit the samekinds of behaviors and view of the worldas other individuals within two- to three-year ranges; and the individual’s abil-ity, upon growing older, to replace eachview with a more sophisticated viewwhich, in turn, is replaced.

Variability among individuals consti-tutes the area needing the greatest atten-tion because schools too often underem-phasize or neglect student developmen-tal differences. This includes both thetimeframe for a developmental stage(that is, the two- to three-year range)

ing out implications for those desiringto implement their own multiage pro-gram.

Several interview-site schools, notablyLincoln and Boise-Eliot, began theirimplementation of multiage as an out-growth of developmentally appropriatepractice (DAP), a concept gaining na-tional prominence in the last decadethrough major research efforts in earlychildhood education and psychology.The following section presents a gen-eral overview of the concept of DAPand its implication for multiage organi-zation and instruction.

The ConceptualFoundation:DevelopmentallyAppropriate Practice

Developmentally appropriate practice(DAP) is not a set of clearly delineatededucational strategies that teachers canuse like a recipe to ensure studentachievement. Instead, it is a research-based philosophy of how children de-velop and learn. Research from the fieldsof biology and psychology demonstratethat human development occurs in pre-dictable and sequential stages, but withindividual variation as to when a devel-opmental stage is attained. For example,we can predict a timeframe for whenchildren reach the developmental levelwhere they learn to talk. Moreover, wecan safely anticipate that all normallydeveloping children learn to talk. Be-

and those factors that mediate differ-ences among learners, such as socialbackgrounds or dispositions towardlearning. Educators have traditionallytaken a normative view of development.For example, by the beginning of firstgrade all children should be ready toread; by the beginning of second grade,all children should be reading. The con-cept of the graded school, graded cur-riculum, and standard achievement testsall rest on this normative assumption.

The philosophy underlying DAP stressesthe need for a balanced perspective onthe whole child in all of his or her com-plexity. This means that educators needto be just as concerned with the child’ssocial, psychological, and physical well-being as they are with academic perfor-mance.

Moreover, child-development research-ers have looked closely at the social andenvironmental conditions that facilitateand inhibit the short- and long-termdevelopment of the child. For example,is there a relationship between howchildren learn to read and their attitudetoward reading when they are older?The answer, unequivocally, is yes. Manychildren learn to read text but seldomread for pleasure when they are older.

Lillian Katz (1988), a respected author-ity on early childhood development andeducation, suggests that the primary con-cern of educators should be the types oflearning experiences schools provide andhow they relate to the development ofthe child over time:

The developmental question is notsimply, “What can children do?”Nor is it “How do they learn?” Chil-dren always learn. Learning is a neu-tral term. Children learn undesir-able as well as desirable things; tomistrust as well as to trust, to hurt aswell as to help. The critical devel-opmental question for educators is,“What should young children bedoing that best serves their develop-ment in the long term?” (p. 34)

Although Katz’s research focuses pri-marily on the early years, her conclu-sions have application for both olderchildren and adults. What learnersshould be doing to best support theirlong-term development cannot be de-scribed precisely. Individuals and envi-ronments are too complex for such sim-plistic thinking. Researchers have nev-ertheless identified several broad learn-ing principles associated with develop-mentally appropriate practice:

Learning naturally occurs in all hu-man beings. Children do not need tobe formally taught and motivated tolearn. They are naturally inquisitive.

Learning is enhanced when individu-als actively interact with their envi-ronment. This means learningthrough a variety of ways that en-gage all the senses: observation, trialand error, building, touching, talk-ing, reflecting, and so forth. In op-position to this principle is the viewof learners as passive receivers ofinformation.

INTERVIEW RESULTS 19


Learning is primarily a social pro-cess involving communication andcontact. Individuals exist in theworld with others. Even when alone,a person’s thoughts and experiences,if they have language, are derivedfrom other people. Language com-petence is strengthened when learn-ers have the opportunity to engagein dialogue with others.

Learning is a process of continu-ously constructing meaning throughinteraction with the environment.Learners develop attitudes towardthemselves, others, and learningbased on the meaning they derivefrom their interactions with the en-vironment (for example, setting,people, activities, and so forth).Thus, a learner’s disposition towardschool, teachers, peers, and so forthgrows from the quality of this inter-action.

Katz (1988) has identified four catego-ries of learning: knowledge, skills, dis-positions, and feelings. Table 7 presentsthe defining characteristics for each cat-egory along with their respective impli-cation for learning.

All four categories are important in thedevelopment of the child. Traditionally,educators have placed greater emphasison knowledge and skill acquisition atthe expense of dispositions and feel-ings. Similarly, they have placed majoremphasis on teacher-directed learningexperiences, ability grouping, and otherinstructional practices that treat learnersas passive receptors of information.

These practices minimize peer interac-tion, especially across a diversity oflearning levels and experiences. For ex-ample, students may learn to read ordecode text by a direct instructional ap-proach accompanied by drill and prac-tice. At the same time, they may neverdevelop a positive disposition towardreading. This is especially true of stu-dents who find themselves in the lowestreading groups throughout their elemen-tary years. These practices often pro-duce negative feelings toward self, learn-ing, and school, especially among chil-dren considered at risk.

Table 7

Four Categories of Learning

Category Defining Characteristics Implication

Children acquire knowl-edge through exploration,which can be helped whenadults explain, describe,and apprise them ofrelevant information.

Children acquire skills inmany ways: throughobservation, imitation, trialand error; with guidancefrom adults, throughinstruction, directions, anddrill and practice.

Dispositions grow from thediversity of opportunitiesprovided for demonstratingthe disposition, and fromthe confirmation of theirvalue by others in thelearning environment (forexample, helpfulness,independence, inquisitive-ness, and so forth).

Feelings develop over timefrom the types of interac-tions children have withtheir environment. Forexample, children developfeelings of belonging inlearning climates withnorms of cooperation andinclusiveness.

Refers to what we learn fromcurriculum and store in ourmind, such as information, ideas,stories, facts, concepts, schemes,songs, and names.

A unit of action or behavior thatcan easily be observed anddescribed, and that occurs in ashort timeframe, such as placingletters in a sequence.

Refers to attitudes or habits ofmind that characterize the waysindividuals respond to differenttypes of situations. Theseinclude dispositions such asgenerosity, curiosity, resource-fulness, involvement, andhostility.

Subjective emotional or affec-tive states such as anger or afeeling of belonging, self-confidence, and acceptance.

Knowledge

Skills

Dispositions

Feelings

INTERVIEW RESULTS 21


Lincoln ElementarySchool

22

hung in hallways, on classroom walls,and from ceilings throughout the school.Everywhere, children worked and in-teracted together. Nearly every area ofthe school was organized to facilitatepeer affiliation and support. In somerooms, students read and studied onwell-worn couches. In the primary class-rooms, students worked alone and to-gether on the carpeted floors. A groupof kindergarten through second-gradestudents sat in a circle while a guineapig walked from one child to another.Students talked excitedly about the nextmoves of the animal.

Mixed-aged groups of children, whethergathering around a teacher for discus-sion or focusing intently at a writingcenter, were the norm. For the 1993-94school year, nearly every teacher choseto have a three-age (or three-grade)classroom span. During interviews,teachers indicated that a wide age spanmade them more sensitive and respon-sive to the diverse needs of students. Insome ways, teachers were consciouslyunlearning much of what they had beentaught and come to believe were invio-lable educational practices. In general,they found the sorting of children bygrade and ability to be detrimental to

incoln is a K-5 elemen-tary school located in the small univer-sity town of Corvallis, Oregon. Anothercollege campus, Western Oregon StateTeachers College, is located nearby inMonmouth. Both campuses provide awealth of staff-development opportuni-ties for veteran teachers as well as asteady source of student teachers andteachers seeking employment.

Located along a busy highway in a semi-industrial working-class neighborhoodon the south side of Corvallis, LincolnElementary School is a sprawling, oldbuilding consisting of long, wide halls,narrow connecting corridors, and apatchwork of portable and permanentclassrooms in a maze-like setting. Insome cases, it is necessary to passthrough one classroom to reach another.The building needs repairs and, somewould argue, total renovation. However,the condition of the building was sel-dom mentioned during numerous inter-views and discussions with staff andparents. Everyone seemed intently fo-cused on meeting the needs of children,a large percentage of whom are consid-ered at-risk.

Lincoln represented a highly energizedlearning environment. Student work

L

base when compared to the other schoolsin Corvallis. And it had a reputation forhaving a considerable number of at-riskstudents, behavior problems, and othersimilar issues.”

At the time, after completing a three-year examination of elementary educa-tion, a district study committee recom-mended that developmentally appropri-ate practice (DAP) be implemented.Each building principal was to provideinservice to staff on the concepts andstrategies associated with DAP. “Theten schools were told that they could dothis in a way of their own choosingconsistent with the philosophy of DAP,”Hays says. “The feeling was that areasaround town were all different and eachmight choose a different way to go aboutit.”

Hays took this advice to heart. A coregroup of staff members met with himand provided guidance regardinginservicing the staff on DAP. A consult-ant was hired from the local college. Inaddition, Hays developed several struc-tures that would help build bridges be-tween the school staff and the commu-nity. His first action was to create aprincipal’s advisory organization. Un-like the Parent Teacher Organization(PTO) at the school, which attended toactivities such as fundraisers and carni-vals, the advisory group would focus oninstruction and learning, especially as itrelated to DAP. At the same time, Haysinitiated the formation of a similar groupconsisting of the school staff.

LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 23

children, especially with the at-riskpopulation they served.

Many classrooms have been modifiedwith wide door openings between adja-cent rooms. For example, door open-ings connected intermediate classrooms(grades 3-5), thus facilitating the move-ment of both students and teachers be-tween instructional areas. Since the in-ception of the multiage program in 1988,the staff at Lincoln—as well as commu-nity members—have continuouslybroadened their efforts to focus energy,time, and resources to meet the needs ofchildren. Analysis of interview data willfocus on this evolving journey throughthe eyes of the teachers, the principal,and parents who collaborated in bring-ing to life their beliefs and vision forchildren and for learning in a multiageenvironment.

In the Beginning

When Dan Hays was hired as the princi-pal of Lincoln School in 1988, it wasindistinguishable from other elementaryschools in the district except in one keyarea: the nature of the clientele. “WhenI arrived five years ago, the school waslike others in Corvallis,” he says. “Ithad a traditional approach to teachingand a traditional organizational struc-ture for a K-5, 450-student school. Whatstood out was its lower socioeconomic


could look at the intent behind DAP andmaybe understand and work with it.”

Moreover, each group also identifiedwhat they perceived as successful andunsuccessful building-level practices.When the two groups had established abase of trust and openness, they sharedtheir frustrations and concerns aboutschooling.

What did Hays do to develop trust andopenness? “Nothing special,” he says.“I sat in front of the group and we begana dialogue about our educational beliefsand values.” As a result, Hays learnedthat both groups were disturbed aboutstudent behavior, the failure of children,and whether or not bright and able stu-dents were being adequately challenged.“I urged advisory members to throw outeverything, as if they were starting allover,” Hays says. And he asked them,“What kind of school would you build?”

I need to get parents to see that ifa child is always at the bottom ofthe heap, then that’s their view ofthemselves. They need to be onthe top of the heap to understandthat they’re worthy of being onthe top of the heap. Hays

“The notion of the old one-room schoolcame back up,” he says. “People werefeeling that if kids felt more connected,more associated with each other and theschool, that perhaps attitudes and be-haviors would improve.” In other words,

We try real hard to bring theparents along with us, and some-times it’s hard because you wantto ask their input and yet we arefirm in our beliefs. Leaf

The two groups maintained separateidentities for several reasons. Hays hon-ored teacher requests to meet initiallywithout the direct involvement of par-ents. He also felt that the communitywould express their educational con-cerns more readily if teachers were notpresent.

Hays’ long-term goal, however, was toget the two groups together to talk abouttheir school. To achieve this, a relation-ship of trust and openness had to bebuilt. Over the 1988-89 school year,each group met separately but regularly.Group members read and shared re-search, discussed their concerns, andexpressed desires for a better learningenvironment for children. The princi-pal, on his own initiative, informallyshared information between the twogroups.

Advisory group meetings focused onhelping participants understand and talkabout DAP. Often, research was simpli-fied and summarized for use by thegroups. “I have an appreciation for howdifficult it is to take a book or pages andpages of written material and read andreally understand it,” Hays says. “Oneof my strategies was to provide excerptsand quotes to parents and staff so they

if staff created a family-like atmosphere,students might respond more positivelyto school and each other, thereby im-proving student learning.

By the end of the 1988-89 school year,the two groups decided they would be-come a single organization in the fall ofthe next school year. In addition, therewas consensus regarding the directioneducational improvement would take.The core area of concern related to thetransitory nature of the single-gradeclassroom and the impact that had onbuilding positive relationships with stu-dents. Hays says:

We saw at-risk kids whom teachersworked hard with to build a trustrelationship. It would take themmany months to get some connec-tion, some bonding. By February orMarch, these kids would just beginto connect and build up some speed.Then the year would be over and thekid would be moved to the nextclass and the same thing would hap-pen all over again. It was such aterrible waste. We concluded that ifwe have children stay with a teacherfor two years, we could beat thatproblem a little bit.

Both groups also felt that mixed-ageclasses would provide older childrenwith opportunities to take on responsi-bility, experience leadership roles, andgain self-esteem. Thus, parents, teach-ers, and the principal decided to pilotseveral multiage classrooms as a strat-egy to implement developmentally ap-propriate practice.

The eventual success of these pilot ef-forts can be traced to the establishmentof a solid foundation upon which thechange effort was built. First, throughdiscussion, inservice, and application,stakeholders worked together to developan understanding of DAP. During thistime, participants developed a commonbelief about the efficacy of DAP and ashared language in which to communi-cate their experiences. The second struc-tural piece was the development of posi-tive working relationships characterizedby trust and respect.

The staff and community of LincolnElementary School sought to balance acurriculum that traditionally had placedgreater emphasis on knowledge andskills than on the development of posi-tive dispositions and feelings. Througha process of self-study facilitated by theprincipal, they established developmen-tally appropriate educational practicesand conditions designed to balance thelearning environment with the wholechild. Hays notes that during the firstfew years the staff focused on amelio-rating student social and behavioralneeds and then began placing greateremphasis on academics.

We’re in a lower socioeconomic cli-mate, and the first and most trou-bling issue we were dealing with inour first two years was the social-behavioral side of this. Now we’removing to the academic. We’re re-ally beginning to sink our teeth intoskill development and a strongercurriculum, and we’re trying to de-velop some things that will help our



kids perform better wherever theyfind themselves.

In a similar manner, dispositions andfeelings were the first area of emphasisin working with staff and community.Issues relating to curriculum and con-tent in a DAP environment could not beadequately addressed until a climatecould be created that supported and sus-tained a change effort, especially onerequiring a radical rethinking of the waythe school went about educating stu-dents. To cultivate such a climate, em-phasis was placed on breaking downstatus barriers among people and recog-nizing the power inherent in shared re-sponsibility.

“I’d answer the phone right there infront of my secretary because she wasbusy,” he notes. “Similarly, if there wasa mess on the floor, I might clean it upjust as quickly as anybody else. And ifthere is a child in need crying, I mightturn to the custodian and ask his helpjust as quickly as I would a counselor. Iwas showing respect for what they didand modeling for other people that weare all in this together, and we are goingto share it together.”

The RelationalFoundation: Trust,Respect, and SharingPower

In the beginning, teachers worked inisolation from their colleagues and fromthe community. Each grade, classroom,

and teacher was separated by time, space,and curriculum. Professional relation-ships were coordinated around a sched-ule with little or no time for collabora-tive planning or decision-making. Thephysical design of the building limitedteacher access to one another much likethe cells in a honeycomb isolate thework of individual bees. The organiza-tion of curriculum into graded levelsassured each teacher an assigned terri-tory to monitor and protect.

To further consolidate teacher responsi-bility, students were divided by abilityand assigned to classes: remedial, tal-ented and gifted, behaviorally disturbed,and so forth. Moreover, within eachclassroom, teachers had nearly absoluteauthority to direct and control studentlearning. After nine months, most stu-dents moved on to the next grade orplacement. The continuity from year toyear was provided by informal discus-sion, testing, and permanent records.Teacher evaluation functioned to en-sure the orderly execution of responsi-bilities within the existing organization.

In many ways, educators have tradition-ally given priority to maintaining anorderly environment. While administra-tors, teachers, and parents have beenconcerned with children’s needs, theyhave not questioned traditional ap-proaches to learning in a way that wouldchange how the school system carriedout its educational mission. In theCorvallis School District, the process ofeducational self-analysis began in ear-nest with the DAP study committee.

At Lincoln School, the DAP report ques-tioned how current educational prac-tices were meeting the developmentalneeds of children. Through the use ofparent and teacher advisory groups, aprocess of self-study was initiated. This,in turn, created a context for developingpositive working relationships amongstakeholders. A full school year of meet-ing, analyzing, and assessing personaland organizational values and beliefsabout the purposes of schooling pro-vided an opportunity to build relation-ships characterized by trust and respect.Through this process, a vast majority ofschool staff members and communitymembers developed a strong sense ofownership and support for the changesoccurring at the school.

I had a little boy say to me today,“You know, it’s okay to makemistakes.” And I said, “Yes!”That’s what we want these kids toknow. It’s really powerful. Reeve

Mike Martin, a veteran teacher of twentyyears, has been at Lincoln since DAPwas first implemented. He reflects thefeelings of many teachers and parentswhen he says he appreciates the waychange occurred. He feels he has beenpart of the decision-making process, thathis ideas have been sought, and his viewsvalued. Martin reflects:

I like change when it’s personal,when I can make the change, andwhen I choose to make it. I like it

when we get the opportunity to cre-ate ourselves. For example, whenDan opens us up with a vision ofwanting students to be doing evalu-ation, doing synthesis, and creatingthings, he allows for staff to do that,too. In other words, we now have anopen-ended, creative, and dynamicprocess for change.

LouAnn Tacchini, a parent who partici-pated in the formation of the parent ad-visory group, says her direct involve-ment in the change process helped alle-viate fears that her children were goingto be DAP guinea pigs:

I came in with very big doubts andvery big concerns as a parent. End-ing up with two children in themiddle of it is like, “Oh, my gosh,my kids are getting fixed!” It wasreally scary. I think everyone has torealize that this is scary for parentsand it’s also scary for teachers whohave been teaching a different wayfor a long time. And, of course, it’schanged because I’ve been a part ofit and I’ve seen it working.

By moving slowly and involving staffand the public, Hays helped create thesense of a community working togetherin the best interest of children. Artteacher Kay Reeve felt the support shereceived from the entire staff increasedher confidence. “It’s a wonderful feel-ing,” she says. “It makes you feel likeyou can do anything. And it takes awaya lot of the fear.”

Reeve says that the risks teachers weretaking also provided positive modelsfor children. “That’s what we’re trying



to teach these kids,” she says. “It’s okayto fail. I had a little boy say to me today,‘You know, it’s okay to make mistakes.’And I said, ‘Yes!’ That’s what we wantthese kids to know. It’s really power-ful.”

Her comment, “That’s what we wantthese kids to know,” reflects a powerfulconcept that underlies much of whatoccurs at Lincoln and much of whatmakes its change effort successful. Theprincipal and staff model the values theydesire to instill in students. This involvessharing responsibilities and opening upthe decision-making process to includeteachers, support staff, students, parents,and others in the community.

For example, each teacher was given aclassroom budget of more than $650,which allowed them to make decisionsbased on knowledge of student needs.Jerri Otto, a K-2 teacher, points out thevalue she feels in controlling her class-room budget. “I can buy stuff,” she says.“One of the first things I did was buytables instead of having desks. So it’severything. If I want carpet, I have topay for the carpet. But it lets me decidewhat is important that year in setting upan environment.”

According to Hays, empowering peopleto collectively make decisions createsthe basis for active participation in thechange process. “Empowerment meansallowing them the opportunity to par-ticipate in decision-making, in choos-ing what we are going to do,” he says.“It doesn’t mean that each one gets todictate for him or herself, because I think

that would probably lead to chaos. Butit does enable them, legitimizes theirparticipation. . . . You have to empowerthe people to decide for themselves whatthey are going to do.”

The Evolving Program: AChronology of Change

From 1989 to 1994, Lincoln Elemen-tary School focused attention and hardwork on implementing developmentallyappropriate practices throughout theschool. A chronology of the variousstages the change effort has taken willprovide an overview of how DAP hasevolved and where it appears to be head-ing.

From the outset, school staff and com-munity representatives blazed a trailthrough uncharted territory. Since 1989they have implemented site-based deci-sion-making, a site council, DAP in amultiage environment, divergent teach-ing and curriculum strategies, multipleintelligence learning, and specialists inthe regular classroom.

Since DAP was implemented five yearsago, the Lincoln community has focusedits efforts on meeting the needs of thewhole child. This has been the guidingcriteria for making all decisions withinthe school. Hays is philosophic whenasked about the mission and vision ofthe school:

I couldn’t say with confidence wherewe’re going. What we’re trying todo is respond to the emerging pic-


ture, and we can’t predict what thatemerging picture is going to be. Ihave a real deep desire to have anenvironment where we can embracechildren, come to know them as hu-man beings, and nurture their growthand development as they move ontoward their teen years. I’m drivenby the concept of a principal whosays, “Your role is to meet the needsof children wherever they are.”

The 1988-89 school year: Thefoundation phase

In the first year, the school and commu-nity developed a positive relationshiparound the concept of DAP and its ap-plication to the students and adults atLincoln. After careful study, parent andstaff advisory groups decided to pilotseveral two-age/grade multiage class-rooms. Stakeholders believed themultiage environment would providemore continuity in the lives of the at-risk children served by the school.

“The most central piece we saw wasthat teachers worked hard to build atrust relationship, to get some connec-tion, some bonding,” Hays says. “ByFebruary or March, [when students]would begin to connect, the year wouldbe nearly over.” Moreover, Hays adds,multiage classrooms would create op-portunities for children to exercise lead-ership and helping behaviors. “In mixedclasses, older children would get realexperiences of responsibility and lead-ership and would help with self-esteem.”

The 1989-90 school year: Thepilot phase, year 1

Unlike combination classrooms, whereeach grade is taught separately, themultiage blended classrooms deliber-ately blur grade distinctions in favor ofan emphasis on the notion of a family oflearners. In other words, instruction isbased on the developmental needs ofstudents rather than grade or curriculumlevels. Parents and teachers decidedwhether to have a straight-grade or ablended-age classroom. It was hopedthat the blends would help answer twoquestions:

1. Does having the same students formore than one year facilitate the de-velopment of trust and bonding withthe teacher and enhance learning fromone year to the next?

2. Do blends provide the opportunityfor responsibility and leadership thatfacilitates growth of student self-es-teem?

Person after person told positivestories, hopeful stories, enthusi-astic stories about what was hap-pening with their children. Hays

By the end of the school year, Hayssays, the blends appeared to improvestudent leadership, responsibility, andself-esteem for all ages. Children andfamilies also seemed pleased that they


would be returning to the same teach-ers. The real benefits of the continuitycould not be assessed until the follow-ing year, when half the children wouldreturn to the same teachers.

The reforms at Lincoln also sparkeddissension among parents; some claimedthat Hays was trying to ruin the school.More than ninety people attended ameeting organized by the parent advi-sory group to discuss the program.

Hays was unsure of what to expect, butby the end of the meeting it was clearthat the program had overwhelming pa-rent support. “Person after person toldpositive stories, hopeful stories, enthu-siastic stories about what was happen-ing with their children,” he says.

Because parents and staff played an ac-tive part in the decisions that led to themultiage program, a potentially explo-sive situation was disarmed and the pro-gram allowed to continue and evolve.Interestingly, this conflict solidifiedcommunity and staff beliefs regardingthe value of the program and the impor-tance of its survival. “The salvation forall of us was the tremendous sense ofcamaraderie that developed among mostof the people in this building,” Hayssays. “They were ready to fight to pro-tect what they believed in, what theywere working toward.” However, thereremained four teachers who did not sharethe same level of enthusiasm towardDAP and multiage organization as theircolleagues. Eventually, each of themtransfered to other schools.

The 1990-91 school year: Theshakedown cruise

During this phase, parents and teachersreinforced their commitment to multiageclassrooms and discontinued the prac-tice of providing a single-grade classfor each grade level. More than 50 per-cent of the teachers chose mixed-ageclasses.

I was trying to teach long-divi-sion to a child who was havingdifficulty. I just threw my armsup and said to the kid standing byme, “Work with her.” Two min-utes and the girl came back andsaid, “Gee, Mrs. Williams, this iseasy.” And I thought, you have touse the kids as resources. Will-iams

By the end of the second year of pilottesting, Hays says an “incredible amountof disruption and polarization had de-veloped.” While some teachers wantedto continue with multiage classrooms,others wanted to return to a straightgrade. Nearly everyone interviewed de-scribes this period as very stressful andfull of conflict. A mixed-age primary-level teacher said the conflict sent amixed message to the community thatjeopardized the program’s success.

As a result, an all-staff meeting wascalled, and Hays openly addressed theconflict in terms of the school’s missionto be an open and caring community.

“There was such a hullabaloo not onlyinternally but also externally. Factionsdeveloped all over the place,” says Hays.“We had at that time developed as ourmission that we are a caring, coura-geous community. We brought every-body together and said, ‘This will notwork. We care about people and whatwe are doing now is not caring’.”

By the end of the meeting, four of four-teen teachers remained adamantly op-posed to multiage organization. In thespring of that year, two of the teacherstransferred to a school that shared theireducational philosophy.

The 1991-92 school year: Fullsteam ahead

The staff decided to go all mixed-ageexcept the five sections of kindergarten.Three compelling reasons drove the de-cision: the benefits for children, thepower of a collaborative culture, andoverwhelming parent support. Of thethree reasons, it was the benefits to chil-dren that had the greatest impact oneveryone. Hays says:

I would get [a call] on an averageabout once a month from somebodyin the neighborhood angry becausesome of our kids were fighting ordoing something really abusive outin the neighborhood. That began todecrease dramatically and disappearwithin the first year of reorganiza-tion. Also, we had a lot of problemson our playground with second-graders taking on the first-graders,

fourth-graders taking on third-grad-ers, and that disappeared right awayin the first year. . . . The teacherssaw a change to cooperation andinteraction. Indeed, what the par-ents had envisioned was evolving—the old one-room school notion ofkids helping each other.

When all classrooms except kindergar-ten sections became mixed-age, theschool environment began changingquickly. Teachers who had formerlytaught straight grades now found them-selves facing different instructional is-sues. They became painfully aware ofthe diversity among children. With achange to a more collaborative climateand the expertise gained from the pilotphase, these teachers sought the helpand support of their colleagues. Artteacher Kay Reeve, who visited all theclassrooms, says changes were dramatic:

Instead of sitting in their desks inlittle rows and listening to theteacher, I began to see childrenworking here on tubes, building,counting; children over there work-ing with paints and paper. Class-rooms began to function in a differ-ent way, where the child became thecenter of what they learn each day.“What are your goals?” “How willyou do this?” “What is your plan?”Instead of the teacher being the di-rector of everything, the childrenbecame much more involved.

That spring, a third teacher transfered toanother school, leaving only one of theoriginal four dissenters at Lincoln.



The 1992-93 school year:Settling in

During this year, only two sections ofkindergarten remained as straight grades.The rest of the school reorganized intovarious multiage configurations of two-and three-age blends. With the majorconflicts surrounding implementationbehind them, staff members settled intoa year of refining existing changes. How-ever, as their reputation spread, theyfound themselves deluged with visitorsseeking answers about implementingmultiage.

Ironically, as Hays points out, there areno answers except the ones a school andcommunity uncover through self-studyand careful analysis of what is best fortheir children. “I think people have togo through the process of self-analysis,self-development, and self-training un-til they are ready to have some success,”Hays says. “They cannot do that over-night. It is not a quick fix. And, indeed,mixing ages is not the issue. The issue isdevelopmentally appropriate practice.”

Moreover, as the Lincoln parent advi-sory group reminded Hays, self-studyneeds to be ongoing. For example, staffmembers became increasingly absorbedin their unique teaching situations. Inprevious years, staff members had col-lectively struggled to implement DAP.Now, though, they found themselvesworking intently in age-level teams. Asa result, a perception of fragmentationsurfaced with the parent advisory group.Awareness of the concern began withthe site council saying, “We’re not to-

gether right now. We are kind of frag-mented and we are losing our focus anddirection.”

After careful reflection, Hays decidedto bring everyone together and reviewtheir evolution as a community, focus-ing on the why and how of their progress.“I had them do this in small groups,identifying the problems we had fouryears ago, and recalling the solutionswe chose to act upon to solve thoseproblems,” he says. “Then we discussedhow that’s all playing out today. Thisbrought our focus back. We realizedthat our working so hard in the smallteams had fragmented our sense of com-munity.”

The end result was an affirmation andcelebration of what had been accom-plished and the identification of theirnext steps as a team. These included aclear delineation of three levels of col-laboration: small instructional teams(two or three staff), wing teams (six oreight staff), and the school team (allcertificated and support staff). There wasa clear recognition, Hays says, of theimportance and value of each of theteams, and a commitment to maintain-ing their viability and function.

At the same time, a set of issues, orga-nized into three general areas, was col-lectively developed to provide focus forthe coming school year. First were thoseissues relating to developmentally ap-propriate practices such as teaming,multiage organization, integrative edu-cation, multiple intelligence (that is,learning styles), open-ended instruction,

and assessment. The second cluster ofissues related to developing student re-sponsibility through problem solving.Finally, the team identified systemwideissues such as site-based council man-agement, training new people, parentcommunication and involvement, bal-ancing one’s personal and professionallives, and networking and coordinationwith local colleges.

Most important, staff acted immediatelyto address concerns by brainstormingshort- and long-term strategies. For ex-ample, they decided to change staffmeeting formats to reflect the three lev-els of teaming and to form several com-mittees to work on assessment andsystemwide issues.

By the summer of 1992, the assessmentcommittee had completed a model(figure 1) of assessment appropriate forLincoln School. The model, in keepingwith their philosophy of DAP, providesa clear picture of the child-centered na-ture of the changes that have taken placeat their school. A key element was de-veloping a reporting system for parentsthat would reflect the assessment model.As seen in the last box in figure 1, thestaff chose an approach using multiplemethods, with goal-setting as a drivingstrategy.

With the spring came a budget crunch:The school was forced to reduce its bud-get by more than 10 percent because ofa voter-approved state property tax limi-tation. The site council and staff col-laborated to ensure program prioritieswould be maintained, and teachers chose

to increase their class loads to preservethe performing arts program. Mike Mar-tin, the music and drama teacher, feltthis decision portrayed the high level ofcommitment to students as well as theneed for flexible blocks of time. “Thewhole faculty voted last year to actuallyeliminate four classroom teachers [po-sitions], up their loads, and keep all thespecialists,” Martin says. “I mean, notmany do that. I really feel good that wehave that support. They also wanted flextime; they wanted us to have the time tohave a script-writing group and to workwith drama.”

By the end of the year, the site counciland staff had refocused their efforts as ateam and set priorities for the comingschool year. In addition, the last teacherwho opposed multiage instruction trans-ferred to another school.

The 1993-94 school year:Expanding the vision

In the five years since the introductionof DAP, teaching, instructional organi-zation, and community relations haveundergone major transformations. Acomparison of a 1993-94 school mapwith those of previous years portrays aconcrete picture of the changes that havetaken place. Every class, except one sec-tion of kindergarten, is multiage. Tenclassrooms are organized around a three-age/grade span, while three classroomshave a two-age/grade span. Connectingdoorways have now been built betweenevery adjoining multiage classroom, andteaching teams have become more for-



Figure 1

Lincoln School Assessment Model

WHOLE CHILDMultiple Intelligences

Three Purposes of Assessment

• Teacher Information

• Parent Information

• Student Information

Three Tools for Assessment

• Portfolios

• Projects

• Performance(includes daily observations)

Benchmarks-Benchmarks Benchmarks-Benchmarks

Three Ways of Reporting to Parents

• Parent-Teacher Conferences(including goal-setting)

• Student-Hosted Conferences(including goal-setting)

• Narrative Reports

mal to include specialists and commonplanning time.

A new area has been designated as acommunity room, replete with couch,rocking chair, and decor with an invit-ing ambiance. A performing arts centerconcept has been introduced, and mu-sic, art, dance, and drama are central-ized in adjoining classrooms. Accord-ing to Hays, this was done to facilitatethe integration of the arts into the cur-riculum. “We’re moving to integratedinstruction,” he says. “We’ve given theart teacher a room and the music teachera room next to the PE area. We’re tryingto develop a kind of performing artscenter.”

In addition, a former staff room hasbeen transformed into a child care cen-ter, which currently serves about tenfamilies. DAP, says Hays, must be ex-tended to the early childhood years andaddress the transitions in children’s lives.Hays says he is driven by a role to “meetthe needs of children wherever they are.”Clearly, one of these needs is preparingyoung children to enter the world offormal schooling. “We see ourselvesgetting more and more involved withearly childhood education,” Hays says.“We’ve talked to Head Start and we’regoing to get involved with Montessoriand do some things that would actuallyhelp three- and four-year-olds get usedto the school.”

Hays also notes that test scores went upduring the first several years of imple-mentation, but have fallen recently. Al-though Hays understands their limita-

tions, he also says, “I respect them asone way to look at our work.” As aresult, the staff will be “looking hardnow at what we’re doing instructionallyand with our curriculum and asking our-selves, ‘Are we allowing the behavioraland social side of things to dominate toomuch, at the expense of academics?’ ”

The Uncertainty ofChange: MappingUncharted Territory

For most people, change is not easy. Itmeans moving from the known and com-fortable to the uncertain. Lincoln Schoolstaff and parents were no exception.When they began the move toward de-velopmentally appropriate practice in amultiage setting, there were few schoolsin the state or in the nation that couldserve as models or provide assistance.As noted earlier, some research wasavailable and used by Hays to help cre-ate conceptual understanding. In addi-tion, many teachers had developed ex-pertise across a range of instructionalapproaches, such as Math Their Way,cooperative learning, whole language,and hands-on science activities. Thisexpertise facilitated the curriculumchanges required of a multiage class-room.

However, for the most part, their pro-gram evolved through a trial-and-errorapproach over four years. “What tran-spired here was four years in the mak-ing before we mixed classes,” Hays says.



“And, admittedly, no models to go on,nobody there to help us. We were doingit pretty much on our own and in thesearch of what was right for kids.”

You should be able to go into aclassroom and ask a child, “Whyare you doing this?” You shouldbe able to ask a teacher, “Why isthe class doing this?” And youshould be able to ask the princi-pal, “Why is all this going on?”Eason

Interestingly, trial-and-error learninghelped to create interdependence amonga majority of staff members, a neces-sary condition of a collaborative workenvironment. Implementation had to bea team effort because the changes oc-curring in the school were significantlydifferent than the ways most teachershad been trained or the ways they taughtchildren.

Teachers found they needed each otherfor both emotional and curricular sup-port. For example, Hays observed thatwhen teachers moved into multiageclassrooms, they faced not only moregrade levels at one time, but differentgrade levels from what they had beenteaching as single-grade teachers. Thisforced them to rely on colleagues withappropriate grade-level knowledge.Hays describes the changes he observed:

Another change I saw was that wehad noticed how isolated all the dif-

ferent teachers and specialists were.The mixed age drove them togetherbecause they had to collaborate inorder to learn about a new age groupthat they hadn’t worked with be-fore. The interactions increased dra-matically and I saw teachers goingto each other for help and assistanceand ideas.

Teachers and parents had to unlearnmany sacred beliefs about educationalpractice as the school moved fromteacher-centered, single-grade class-rooms to student-centered learning en-vironments characterized by a high levelof student diversity. For example, ateacher of grades K, 1, and 2 foundherself with a developmental span wellbeyond three grade levels.

Traditional ways of implementing cur-riculum, such as ability grouping andthe direct teaching of convergent skilllessons to the whole class, were incom-patible with DAP and a multiage set-ting. As a result, teachers discoveredmany new challenges. To better under-stand the distinctive characteristics ofthe transition to a developmentally ap-propriate multiage classroom, teacherswere asked to describe challenges andproblems they encountered.

Making the Grade:Challenges in BecomingMultiage

The interview data provide snapshots ofthe terrain perceived to be difficult asthe school traveled toward a develop-

mentally appropriate learning environ-ment. Seven general areas emerged fromthe data. Although these areas are allinterrelated, they are presented sepa-rately for the purposes of discussion.One also needs to keep in mind thatmany of the challenges have no defini-tive solution. They require ongoing at-tention and a problem-solving orienta-tion that works best when there is acollective effort among key stakehold-ers.

Relationships

All respondents mentioned that staff andcommunity relationships had been ofprimary concern during all phases ofplanning and implementation. Especiallyproblematic during initial stages ofimplementation were staff members whoadamantly opposed the changes occur-ring in the school. They engaged in ob-structive behaviors ranging from lobby-ing in the community to get rid of theprincipal to passively resisting effortsto collaborate with staff. By the fourthyear of the program, these teachers hadvoluntarily transferred to other schoolsin the district.

Many of the problems associated withthe resistant teachers appear to be re-lated to an either/or way of thinking. Inother words, some individuals believedthat there was only one right way toteach. For some, the right way wasmultiage; for others, it was single grade.This attitude conveyed a divisive mes-sage to the community. “When the ini-

tial change was being made, some wereteaching straight grades and some teach-ing mixed grades,” says one parent.“There was a feeling of some doing itthe right way while some were doing itthe wrong way. Those kinds of divi-sions were an initial barrier or hard-ship.”

Instead of saying “You’ve beendoing it wrong all along,” say,“Well, there’s some differentneeds now that we need to change,to adapt to.” Leaf

Another relationship issue surrounds therole of parents and community. Clearly,having parent support is critical if theprogram is going to succeed. One wayto develop support is to actively involveparents in planning and decision-mak-ing. However, like teachers, parents areat many different levels of educationalunderstanding and awareness. Whenseeking their input, how does one handleviewpoints that are diametrically op-posed to the philosophy underlying thechange being implemented in theschool? Staff at Lincoln tended to dealwith this problem through ongoing com-munication and staff-development op-portunities for parents. In addition, theprincipal’s willingness to actively listento parents and share power by engagingthem in decision-making proved to beeffective in building a strong supportbase for changes in the school.



Adjusting to a wide age span

Learning to teach multiple ages togetherrequired rethinking how curriculum isimplemented. Traditionally, teachers hadviewed the needs of students through asequenced and orderly curriculumframework dominated by convergentskill acquisition. In a multiage setting,teachers had to learn how to developlessons that provided meaningful learn-ing for a wide range of student ability.This meant providing divergent or openlearning experiences. Fortunately, amajority of teachers had been trained ininstructional approaches, such as pro-cess writing, cooperative groups, andproject learning, that lent themselves todivergent or open types of lessons. Nev-ertheless, it was still difficult to let go oftraditional grade-level ways of thinkingabout curriculum.

Comments from a parent and a teacherhelp illuminate this difficulty. “It’s moreof a looking at learning in a global man-ner,” says LouAnn Tacchini, a parentwith two children in the program. “It’staking a theme and making it work forkids over a broad range, not just teach-ing specific skills or facts about thingsthat might be totally inappropriate forone age.”

Linda Henselman, a primary-levelteacher, says that lessons must be broadenough to reach all children. This en-tails providing children with choices,then focusing on specific skills as theneed arises. “You’ve got to open up thekind of things that they do so it reaches

every individual at his or her place, athis or her own level,” she says. “You’reteaching individually. When you inter-act with the children, it’s according towhat they’re choosing—and you helpthem with their skills that way.”

The children are so natural atteaching each other. And I’m try-ing to really emphasize in thisroom that we’re all teachers,every one of us. And that theyteach me all the time because Ilearn from them every day. Theycome up with incredible ideasand thoughts that I never hadconsidered. Reeve

Teachers also work to develop a com-munity of learners where children feel asense of responsibility toward their class-mates. Reeve, the school art teacher,says peer helping is indispensable: “Chil-dren will sit at the table—two or threedifferent ages—and they will listen tothe directions and watch the demonstra-tion,” she says. “Some may not haveunderstood a single thing, but they willwatch the child near them. I’ve watchedthe children teaching each other and Ithink that’s a powerful thing.”

Some parents have raised concerns aboutthe use of older students as tutors. Oneparent asked her son’s teacher, “Whatare you doing to challenge my child?”Another parent was more direct when

she said, “I don’t want my child spend-ing all of his time teaching kids whodon’t know as much.” Although the is-sues implicit in these comments reflectperennial parent concerns for any typeof classroom, they pose a much greaterchallenge in a multiage classroom. Witha wide age span, it is particularly chal-lenging to keep track of student progress.Teachers have to be especially attentiveto each and every child.

Aware of the complexity of a wide agespan, staff members have asked them-selves what is the best configuration formultiage settings: two-age blends; three-age blends; K, 1, 2; 1, 2, 3; and so forth.The general consensus has been that athree-age span may best enable theteacher to see the diversity among stu-dents, thus requiring a change in in-structional strategies. In addition, threeages also ensure greater carryover ofstudents from one year to the next. Suchcontinuity facilitates instruction becausemore than half of the students know theteacher and how the classroom oper-ates. “Teachers are feeling that it is help-ing them be better teachers,” Hays ob-serves. “It also assures them that they’llhave more carryover. We have such ahigh rate of kids moving in and out—that if they draw on a wider age span,then they’ll be assuring themselves thatat least half of their class has been therethe year before.”

Consistent with the school’s student-centered philosophy, the decision tomove from two to three ages is grounded

in the nature of the student population.In other words, the continuity created ina three-age classroom provides moreinstructional stability for both the stu-dent and the teacher, thereby helpingthe teacher improve instruction. Hays iscognizant, however, of a potential prob-lem: Student achievement could declinein an area if a teacher’s skills are weakunless some compensating mechanism,such as team teaching, is put in place.

Implementation

Four general problem areas are groupedunder implementation. Each area is pre-sented as a question with a brief sum-mary of how the problem was ap-proached.

1. How do we apply the concept ofDAP to adults?

Developmentally appropriate practice,according to Hays, applies to all levelsof human activity, to adults as well aschildren. One of the first barriers thathad to be overcome was a belief thatbeing a teacher means you have the“right answers,” that competent teach-ers do not fail or make mistakes. KarenEason, a curriculum specialist, says thatto survive a change effort, it is neces-sary to admit you don’t know every-thing. “It’s okay not to have the rightanswer, not to know what you are sup-posed to be doing,” she says. “I think ifyou don’t do that and you figure youhave to know everything you’ll nevermake it.”



It’s okay not to have the rightanswer, not to know what youare supposed to be doing. If youfigure you have to know every-thing, you’ll never make it. Eason

At Lincoln, Hays set a tone of trust andopenness by modeling behaviors of ac-ceptance and understanding toward thedevelopmental differences within hisstaff. He consistently conveyed a beliefin the staff’s capacity to solve any in-structional problems they encountered.Moreover, this was the same expecta-tion he felt should be afforded students.

Ellen Germaneri, a special educationteacher, describes the importance andthe difficulty of dealing with develop-mental differences among staff mem-bers. In looking back, she voices someregret that they could not have beeneven more accommodating to resistantstaff.

Administration needs to be realaware of the levels of change thatpeople go through. If you don’t knowwhat’s in store, you have a lot ofquestions and a lot of doubt. If you’refeeling you’re being forced to makethe change without having time toprocess and without having yourquestions answered or time to learn,there’s going to be a lot of resis-tance.

2. How do we integrate specialistsinto the multiage classroom?

The reorganization into developmentallyappropriate multiage classrooms allowedchildren to progress at a rate that wascomfortable to them, thereby avoidingthe stigma of not being at grade level. Inaddition, Germaneri adjusted individualeducational plans (IEPs) to reflectclassrom needs, then stopped pullingchildren out for instruction except on anoccasional basis. Germaneri workscollaboratively with the regular multiageteacher within the regular classroom.According to Germaneri:

I might work one-on-one with a childor with a small group of children. Ioften float around and work with alot of different children. This givesme the opportunity to see differentability levels in what the childrenare doing. It also gives me the op-portunity to be more of a consultantand to give feedback for childrenwho might need help.

Rather than fragmenting a child’s learn-ing experiences by pulling her out andlabeling her, teachers work as a team tocreate the most appropriate learning en-vironment for the child. This takes col-laboration and time to plan.

3. How do we get the time it takesfor planning and developmentwork, especially common timeamong team members?

Time to plan individually as well ascollaboratively is essential. By the thirdyear of implementation, the staff workedout a formal schedule to provide com-mon planning time for instructionalteams. However, several people reported

the schedule needed further refinement.In addition, the specialists for music,art, P.E., and special education said theyneeded to improve communication withregular teachers so they could improvesupport. The staff discussed this needand restructured staff meetings aroundteam coordination.

4. How do we slow the pace ofchange, especially when we seeso many ideas worth trying?

As the staff made more decisions aboutinstruction and organization, they alsobecame more energized and committedto the change effort. As a result, theprogram took on a momentum of itsown. Hays found himself having to re-mind staff members to balance their pro-fessional and personal lives. The will-ingness of staff members to work hardspeaks to their level of commitment tostudents. “I want to know all I can knowabout cooperative learning,” says oneteacher. “I want to know all I can knowabout multiple intelligences and theproject approach and integration—allof those kinds of things—because I thinkit is all part of developmentally appro-priate practice.”

Slowing the pace of change may not bepossible in any absolute sense, but stepscan be taken to ensure people are notoverwhelmed by the changes they havechosen to implement. A first step fol-lowed by several of the schools in thisguide involved creating and protectingteacher time for individual and groupplanning and development work. An-other step is to help staff set priorities so

energies can be used in the most effi-cient manner possible. For example, Lin-coln staff members conducted periodicreviews of the goals and activities oftheir project, setting priorities they wouldemphasize for a given time. Finally, be-ing vigilant to staff workload and pro-viding resources to reduce extra demandson their time can also be effective.

Another teacher confided that the highlevel of motivation among staff mem-bers has “been really hard on teachers,the time they’ve put in just adjustingand learning. I mean, this building workson a lot of things at one time.”

Assessment and accountability

Nearly every person interviewed voicedconcerns about how to assess studentlearning in a developmentally appropri-ate multiage classroom. Valued out-comes such as leadership, responsibil-ity, problem-solving, helping and car-ing about others, and positive disposi-tions toward learning cannot be mea-sured by standard achievement tests.This is especially problematic becausethe public expects test scores to be anaccurate measure of learning. Haysmaintains that achievement measures areonly a small part of what needs to hap-pen in assessment to present a realisticpicture of learning. As mentioned pre-viously, the school has adopted an as-sessment model that relies heavily onmore authentic measures, such as stu-dent portfolios, performance indicators,and projects.



Another issue raised during interviewsrelates to the quality of student out-comes. In a more traditional curricu-lum, student quality might be determinedby the number correct on a worksheet orthe percentage correct on an achieve-ment measure. The Lincoln staff hasbeen struggling with how to developappropriate standards upon which tojudge student growth.

Karen Eason, the curriculum specialistat Lincoln, believes this assessment is-sue is important because the more di-vergent, open-ended nature of curricu-lum in a multiage classroom requires adifferent approach. “When you’re nottaking the textbook and going from page1 to page 210, then assessment takes ona totally different meaning,” she says.“How do you know that kids are learn-ing? How does a child know and howdo you know when something is doneand what quality it is?”

During the first few years of implemen-tation, staff members also struggled withdefining the appropriate behavior stan-dards for their transformed learning en-vironments. For example, one specialistindicated that students would walk tohis class in a relaxed, talkative mannerwith little regard for the disruption theymight be causing.

Staff chose to cope with behavior prob-lems in ways that would build studentresponsibility. As a result, music, drama,and other forms of instruction were used

to help students focus on appropriateforms of behavior. For example, Mar-tin, the music teacher, worked with staffto develop songs about effective waysto communicate feelings. At assemblies,the entire school participated in singingsongs and developing a sense of com-munity. According to Martin, the stu-dents and staff learned a song called“Playground Rules,” and staff and stu-dents sang and did a soft-shoe type ofdance. “Everyone accepted and boughtinto a common language,” he says. “Wealso did an ‘I-message’ song that was aheavy rocker number.” These effortspaid off as the school principal and teach-ers saw a radical decline in behaviorproblems and an increase in positivestudent interactions.

Sustaining the program

Two issues have been grouped in thiscategory. The first is how to keep theprogram vital while faced with budgetcuts. In Oregon, schools have been facedwith a major reduction in support be-cause of voter approval of a propertytax limitation. The most serious disrup-tion is likely to occur in classroomswith younger children because they re-quire more direct support until they learnto function independently. Lincoln class-rooms also use high levels of hands-on,project-driven learning, which requiresmore planning and materials prepara-tion. Additional financial cutbacks willbe especially detrimental.

With all of our changes—and it’sbeen much more than mixed-agegrouping—we always try to pullback and say, “Is this really bestfor the kids? Is this really meet-ing the needs of our learners?”We’ve been really good at pull-ing back and asking that. Leaf

The second concern reflects the need tobalance professional demands with per-sonal life. Nearly everyone intervieweddescribed the implementation of DAPas a rewarding challenge requiring in-creased commitment and time. Severalstaff members mentioned that the prin-cipal continuously reminded everyoneto keep their lives in balance and toavoid feeling they needed to do every-thing at once. He was also flexible abouttime, allowing staff to attend to per-sonal matters as needed. “He focuses onbuilding vision, building community,making sure people are taking care ofthemselves,” one teacher says. “You’vegot two principals—there’s Dan andthere’s the traditional, old-fashionedprincipal who watches the clock. Noone watches the clock here. You’re re-spected as a professional.”

Learning to live withuncertainty

In general, the Lincoln School stafflearned there are no permanent solu-tions or quick fixes in the effort to im-

prove student learning. The rate ofchange in today’s world requires thatschool personnel and parents continu-ously examine and question their deci-sions and ideas in light of the changingneeds of children. Brook Leaf, a pri-mary-level teacher, says that assessinghow an idea benefits kids is a mainstayof the decision-making process. “Withall of our changes—and it’s been muchmore than mixed-age grouping—we al-ways try to pull back and say, ‘Is thisreally best for the kids?’ he says. ‘Is thisreally meeting the needs of our learn-ers?’ We’ve been really good at pullingback and asking that.”

You have to trust intuitions, youhave to trust children, you haveto have the courage to operate inthe black of night. No signposts,no road stripes. Hays

Hays believes this questioning approachis necessary to meet the diverse devel-opmental needs of children. There sim-ply are no clear roadmaps or prescrip-tions that make the educational enter-prise predictable for any extended time.“We’re talking about taking children intheir many, many varied developmentalstages and trying to bring them along,”he says. “It is an incredibly complextask. You cannot simply label or cat-egorize or sequence a series of stepsthat will accomplish that. You have totrust intuitions, you have to trust chil-dren, you have to have the courage to



operate in the black of night. No sign-posts, no road stripes.”

Enlarging the Rewards ofTeaching

A major source of teacher commitmentand satisfaction comes from directlyexperiencing success as a result of theirown efforts (Firestone and Pennell1993). If Lincoln teachers view theirefforts as producing appreciable ben-efits to students and themselves, then itstands to reason that they would in turnfeel more committed and energized inrelation to their role as teachers. Fromwhat has been presented so far, this ap-pears to be the case. Information elic-ited during interviews provides a wealthof supporting detail.

Table 8 presents the perceived benefitsof multiage teaching for both teachersand students. Benefits are shown in de-scending order; topics most frequentlymentioned are listed first. However,those topics are not necessarily signifi-cantly more important than topics fur-ther down the list. For example, thetopic “intensifies the reward of teach-ing” was mentioned fewer than twotimes. This does not mean that few teach-ers are rewarded by seeing the successof their students in this program. On thecontrary, the high level of teacher sup-port and commitment to students andthe program suggests this to be a highlyvalued area. In a similar manner, “in-creases flexibility of placement” is an

integral part of the multiage classroomand would be considered by most teach-ers as invaluable.

You’ve really got to pay atten-tion to how you’re going to cre-ate an environment for the chil-dren where they can all feel goodabout themselves and they canstill grow. I just think you have tobe really willing and open toexperimentation and trial-and-error and not be locked into “butI’ve done this before and I knowit works.” Just be brave enoughto jump in. Reeve

The most frequently mentioned topicssuggest valued consequences of DAPand the multiage classroom. As such,they constitute powerful reasons thatdrive the high level of teacher motiva-tion and commitment emerging frominterview data. For example, seeing stu-dents with increased levels of esteem(“build esteem”), valuing diversity(“value the diversity of people”), hav-ing a multiplicity of friends (“across-age friendships”), and helping one an-other and helping to create a caring at-mosphere (“helping behaviors, coopera-tion”) are highly prized outcomes ofteacher effort as well as indicative of aquality program. Moreover, many ofthese outcomes appear reflective of theworking environment of the staff and

Table 8

Perceived Benefits of Multiage Teaching for Teachers andStudents (ranked from most frequently mentioned to least

frequently mentioned)—Lincoln Elementary School

Benefits for Teachers Benefits for Students

Builds continuity in relationships, learning,class management, and assessment

Helps the teacher provide a more develop-mentally appropriate environment

Improves teaching by increasing sensitivityto diversity, puts student in the center oflearning, and makes one more developmen-tally sensitive

Promotes collaboration and caring amongstaff

Encourages instructional variety, thusmaking opportunities for expressingcreativity and imaginative problem-solving

Promotes peer modeling of classroomroutines and desirable behaviors

Topics Mentioned Less Than Twice

Diffuses negative attitudes among staff

Increases flexibility of placement

Intensifies the rewards of teaching byallowing the teacher to directly observe thegrowth and progress of students overmultiple years

Helps to unify staff beliefs about learning

Promotes the value and acceptance ofdiversity among colleagues

Builds esteem by providing opportunities formodeling and leadership among children

Helps children acknowledge and accept alldevelopmental levels, personal differences,and value the diversity of people

Facilitates across-age friendships; promoteshelping behaviors, cooperation, and cross-age/peer tutoring

Promotes instructional variety: processwriting, whole language, hands-on scienceand math, and so forth

Allows the natural development of childrenby providing opportunities for naturalgroupings by age, maturity, interests, and soforth and a longer timeframe for growth

Reduces competitive and comparative/evaluative pressures


Child becomes the center of learning ratherthan the curriculum

Having the same teacher for more than oneyear facilitates an ongoing relationship withthe teacher (that is, bonding)

Breaks down the status barriers of grade,performance, and ability

Promotes community, a sense of being afamily of learners in a caring environment

Reduces fear of middle school transitionbecause students have already establishedfriends in middle school



community as suggested in topics suchas “promotes collaboration and caringamong staff,” and “helps to unify staffbeliefs about learning.”

Continuity across school years

Teaching children for more than oneyear has benefits for students, parents orother guardians, and teachers. For stu-dents, especially those at risk, havingthe same teacher for two or three yearsprovides greater academic and socialstability and eliminates the anxiety as-sociated with yearly promotion or re-tention. Students also have increasedopportunities to be leaders, which Hayssays can play a critical role in a child’sdevelopment. “When a child becomeseight in a six-seven-eight-year arrange-ment, we have to be cognizant of thefact that socially and experientially thatchild is the oldest and most experiencedin that group,” he says. “This carriescertain rites of passage, if you will. Ifchildren are denied that [leadership]opportunity to be at that highest level,then I think you do something to theirvision of themselves.”

For parents or others raising children,developing a long-term supportive rela-tionship with teachers improves com-munication and understanding. Build-ing strong relationships with the parentsof at-risk students is often difficult. Butit is also critical because many of theseparents have had poor relations withschool.

My child was extremely shy whenhe started school. Just being inthe same setting and with thesame teacher has been wonder-ful. He’s actually in a classroomwith K, 1, 2, 3, so he is now quitea bit older than some of the chil-dren in the classroom. And forhim it’s a real advantage. Andhe’s opened up; he feels so self-confident. He can be a leader inthe class. And his self-esteem isgreat. Tacchini

The benefits for teachers are equallysignificant. Returning students providea steady source of mentors and modelsto socialize new students into the cul-ture and routines of the classroom. More-over, for the returning students, theteacher already has indepth knowledgeof the child, which facilitates assess-ment and learning.

Having students for more than one yeardoes have potential problems. What hap-pens if the teacher and child do not getalong? What happens if the teacher isweak in an academic area? These prob-lems have been partially resolved bygiving parents the choice of where toplace their child and by using teachingteams.

In some cases, children have been di-rectly involved in making the decisionregarding their placement. For example,at the end of the fourth grade, one stu-

dent requested to stay with the samefourth-grade teacher for another year. Itturned out to be a wise decision. SaysWilliams:

Last year I did a three-four blendwith one fifth-grader. I had a childfrom my previous year who was afourth-grader then who chose to staywith me. After really talking withhim and telling him that it probablywasn’t a good decision, he still de-cided to stay. It worked out to be avery good decision on the child’spart.

This example also illustrates the flex-ibility of the multiage classroom andthe influence teachers have learned toafford students. Teachers actively en-gage students in all phases of classroomlife: goal setting, developing learningcenters, teaching, and so forth. Moreimportant, this example illustrates thestaff’s child-centered philosophy. Inmost traditionally graded schools, thischild’s needs would have taken secondseat to the graded curriculum—he wouldhave been placed in the fifth grade.

DAP and student diversity

The graded school fosters the myth ofhomogeneity, a belief that all childrenin a given grade reflect the skills andabilities the curriculum ascribed to thatparticular grade level. Children not per-forming at grade level find themselvesremediated or subtly classified as belowstandard. Students internalize these nor-mative views of grade level and applyevaluative judgments to themselves

when they do not measure up. More-over, a status hierarchy emerges wherethe higher the grade, the greater the sta-tus. For example, being a sixth-grader isperceived as being better than being afourth-grader.

In the multiage classrooms at Lincoln,students live in diverse environmentsconsisting of multiple developmentallevels. Students are expected to respecteach other as individuals and to cooper-ate with one another. Competitive goalstructures found in most single-gradeclassrooms have been replaced with co-operative goal structures and evaluationpractices based on a student’s socialand academic growth over time. As aresult, students become socialized as acommunity of learners and the hierar-chy created by graded organization dis-solves.

In a community of learners, childrenhave manifold opportunities for mixingand matching with other students acrossa wide range of characteristics, amongthem interest, emotional maturity, ath-letic prowess, and age. The diverse popu-lation and the opportunity to be with thesame teacher and students for multipleyears increases the likelihood that thechild’s needs will be met. Because theentire school is multiage, the teacheralso can place the child in other situa-tions that may better meet the child’sneeds. Brook Leaf says that grade/agedistinctions hardly exist. “We have a lotof three-grade and some two-gradeclasses, but when it comes right down toit, it doesn’t really matter,” he says.



“We’re really allowing ourselves toplace the kids where we feel their needswill be best met, regardless of their ageand grade.”

It has taken immense effort and hardwork to transform Lincoln School intothe learning environment described byinterview respondents. However, thestaff members maintain that the rewardsoutweigh any misgivings or trepidationthey may have had during the earlyphases of implementation.

verland ElementarySchool is one of fifteen schools in theCassia County School District. The dis-trict reflects a consolidation effort bythe state that occurred in the mid-1960s.Overland Elementary is located in thecounty seat of Burley, a town of about8,700 that serves a vast rural area insoutheast Idaho. The district is 50 milesacross at the widest point and averagesabout 7.6 people per square mile as com-pared to the statewide average of 12.57(Oregon has 28.35 people per squaremile).

Built in the early 1920s of stone blocks,the school now overlooks Overland Av-enue, a busy arterial that connects thedowntown area with the interstate free-way. A large storm fence protects chil-dren from the busy street, but does notdiminish the constant din of cars andtrucks. On two sides of the school, agrassy park-like area provides studentswith ample space to play; a playgroundwith swings, slides, and a steel playstructure occupies the remaining side ofthe building.

The 184-student school includes 12 in-structional and support staff. Five sub-ject-area learning centers, the special-

education resource room, the principal’soffice, and the library are located on thefirst floor. The two first grades, pre-school, community outreach, music, andlunchroom are located in the first-floorbasement. The school is situated on thenorth side of Burley and serves what isconsidered the poorest section of town.The principal, Kevin Bushman, saysmany low-income migrant or Hispanicfamilies live on the north side, wherehousing is affordable.

Railroad tracks separate the north sideof town from the more affluent southside. This symbolism has not been loston staff at Overland. As is discussed inthe following sections, the low socio-economic status prevalent within theschool’s attendance area creates bothbenefits and problems for the school.

Bushman, trained as a kindergartenteacher, began teaching in the district in1980. Six years later he was assignedprincipal of Overland. His leadershipstyle reflects the tone and climate of theschool. Bushman reflects:

The first couple of years I spentgetting to know the staff—a realsmall school with no turnover tospeak of. This school is like a fam-

49

Overland ElementarySchool

O


ily, and I tell people we fight andargue and make up. A lot of thedecision-making and a lot of my jobis done in a real pragmatic way.Whatever needs to be accomplished,we just get together and do it.

In many ways, this description reflectsthe informal nature of many ruralschools. Bushman’s understanding ofand ability to operate in this informalsetting may be an essential ingredient ofprogram accomplishments.

Instructional Organization

The school program consists of grades1 through 4; a preschool program ishoused in the building, but does notparticipate in the regular school pro-gram. First-grade students are taughtseparately in self-contained classrooms.Grades 2 through 4 are organized intofive multiage groups. Students first goto grade-level homerooms for fifteenminutes. During this time, teachers takeattendance, complete housekeepingchores, and provide whatever supportstudents may need. At 8:30 a.m., a fifty-five-minute rotation schedule begins.Monday through Thursday, each grouprotates through five different learningcenters: reading, writing lab, social stud-ies, math, and science. Teachers serveas subject area specialists. The schedulechanges on Friday, when first gradersjoin the rotation. “Fine Arts Friday,” aseveryone calls it, consists of classes inPE, drama, music, learning games, andart. Staff initiated Fine Arts Friday to

enrich student learning opportunitiesbeyond the core curriculum areas of-fered the other four days of the week.

First of all, don’t be afraid of thedrastic change. This was my per-sonal fear. I liked a comfortablegroove, and I thought, “This istoo radical; it’ll never work.”But the more I got into it, themore I liked it. And my son likedit too. Beabout

By most standards, the Overland Schoolclientele and program are unusual inthis rather traditional rural community.Most visitors are surprised that thismultiage program was developed andhas remained viable for nearly fouryears, winning both praise from the gov-ernor of Idaho and a second cycle offunding as a Chapter 1 school-improve-ment project.

The Emerging Vision

Overland School serves the highest per-centage of low-income students in thestate. The school also serves the largestpercentage of migrant students in thedistrict. Seventy-four percent of thepopulation is Hispanic. Standardized testscores are the lowest in the district, earn-ing the school a reputation for being theworst in the county. The only advantagesuch a reputation has is that district offi-cials are willing to give school person-

nel latitude in trying new approaches tolearning. Through the coalescence ofseveral key people and events, theschool’s staff was given an opportunityto test the limits of the district’s support.

The 1989-90 school year:Developing the plan

In the fall of 1989, Bushman and thedistrict Chapter 1 coordinator attendeda conference on Chapter 1-sponsored,schoolwide improvement projects. Fed-eral resources, channeled through theIdaho State Department of Education,were available for schools in which en-rollment was predominantly Chapter 1.Funding was available in three-yearcycles and could be used for any projectthat targeted improving student aca-demic outcomes as measured by stan-dard achievement tests. Unlike Chapter1 achievement targets of the past, thenew regulations placed major emphasison higher order thinking and problem-solving.

Encouraged by information from theconference and district support, Bush-man returned to Overland and “told thestaff that we were being given the rareopportunity to do whatever we wantedin order to bring about the changes weneed to make school work for our stu-dents.”

The staff members began by assessinghow well they were meeting the needsof students. Bushman points out:

Staff agreed that they weren’t doinga very good job of teaching students

for several reasons. For one, weweren’t doing a very good job withreading. We also weren’t doingmuch outside the state-mandatedcurriculum in math and science, andmuch of what we did was the resultof following the “traditional/mythol-ogy” of education—“It has alwaysbeen done this way.”

The staff decided to apply for funding.

We can do anything we want.We’re going to have the freedomto completely redo this wholething—not based on educationaltradition but on what’s best forkids, what’s best for learning,and what research says works.Bushman

A major factor in the staff’s decisionwas the need for change and the leader-ship of the school’s “matriarch,” HelenCraner. She had taught for more thanthirty years, including twenty-one atOverland. Two years before the projectstarted, she began serving as the school’sChapter 1 teacher. She is strong-willedand respected by staff for her dedicationand commitment to children.

Craner was especially taken with theideas presented by the principal andthrew her active support into helpingdevelop a school-improvement project.Craner’s involvement sprang from frus-tration at seeing children continuouslyfail, drop out, or withdraw. She says:

OVERLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 51


I would go to the band concerts andhunt for my kids and they weren’t inthe band. I’d go to the ball gamesand hunt for my kids, and theyweren’t there. My vision was that atsome point, if this program wouldwork, then my kids would graduatefrom high school and my kids wouldbe in band and my kids would be inathletics and my kids would be partof a group.

In many ways, Craner’s views representthose of the entire staff and suggest thehigh level of need for change.

Because the staff was small and close-knit, decisions were made as a group.The first major task they faced was plan-ning and developing an intervention pro-gram to be submitted in a proposal forfunding. With inservice funds from thestate, the staff began by envisioning whattheir school might look like if changeswere made. Bushman told staff “to pre-tend we have the four walls, and that’sit. We can do anything we want. We’regoing to have the freedom to completelyredo this whole thing—not based oneducational tradition but on what’s bestfor kids, what’s best for learning, andwhat research says works.”

The state provided some initial staff de-velopment to help with planning. HankLevin of Stanford University conducteda workshop on his accelerated schoolsmodel, which heavily influenced theOverland staff. “We decided that one ofthe keys would be an interactive, hands-on approach,” says Bushman. “We alsowanted to incorporate whole language,cooperative learning groups, and a col-

laborative use of staff and special ser-vices.” As a result, a program was de-veloped and christened with the acro-nym WINCH (Whole Language, Inten-sive Instruction, Nongraded, Coopera-tive/Collaborative Learning, Hands-onInstruction).

So let’s treat kids as if they aretalented and gifted. Bushman

A key principle of the program is theexpectation that every child is talentedand gifted. According to Bushman, whenteachers begin to perceive students fromthis frame of reference, they “interactwith them differently than if they seethem as all remedial—so let’s treat kidsas if they are talented and gifted.” Withthis idea in mind, three key dimensionsof the school underwent major change:grade configurations, instructional de-livery, and staff working relations. Table9 presents a comparison of the schoolbefore and after plans were developed.

The school received notice of fundingas a Chapter 1 improvement project inJanuary 1990. This meant the entire staffwas entitled to participate in any Chap-ter 1 staff development offered by thestate, which increased funding, and, mostimportant, waived many Chapter 1guidelines. In their proposal, staff mem-bers said Chapter 1 students would showachievement gains of three NCEs (Na-tional Curve Equivalents). NCEs arescores that can be averaged and com-pared across grade levels and across

Table 9

A Comparison of Three Dimensions of Program Change

Dimension Before Program Change After Program Change

Students are organized intomultiage groups that rotatebetween five core learningcenters: reading, writing lab,math, social studies, andscience. Friday is reserved forfine arts.

Students interact in coopera-tive groups and are encour-aged to help one another.Themes are chosen across theschool. Teachers have becomemore facilitative of studentactivities and projects. Anemphasis on skills develop-ment still predominates.

Teachers have responsibilityfor a single subject they teachto all students. This createscommon ground that unitesthe staff. Meetings forplanning and developmentwork occur frequently.Reporting to parents requiresinput from all the staff.Interpersonal communicationand support are necessary forcoordination of learning.

Students were sorted into firstthrough fourth grades in self-contained classrooms.

Students sat in rows, sequen-tially read textbooks, andcompleted workbooks anddittos. The learner was prima-rily passive, absorbing basicskills presented directly by theteacher.

Teachers worked in isolationand rarely collaborated onprojects. Talk and discussionoccurred mostly in the stafflounge during lunch and in thehallways between class. Eachteacher was responsible for agrade level and a specifiedcurriculum.

tests. Moderate gains would reflect fiveto ten NCEs.

With minimal outside help, the staff col-laborated in developing schedules,choosing schoolwide themes, and pre-paring their classrooms for the start ofschool. When school was ready to open,teachers felt they simply needed an ex-tra day to get physically situated. “Weprepared before the start of school and


GradeConfiguration

InstructionalDelivery

TeacherRelations

then we felt there were still some thingswe needed to do,” says math teacherDelia Valdez. Kevin Bushman went tothe district and got approval to give us aday off to get ourselves physically situ-ated. That was something that you don’tsee very often.” When school began,the principal had randomly assigned stu-dents in grades 1 through 4 into sevengroups.


The 1990-91 school year: Thebig surprise

With few models to follow and no op-portunity to visit or talk with othermultiage teachers, staff memberslaunched into their first year of instruc-tion with little premonition of how dif-ficult the transition would be. As tradi-tional teachers who were used to struc-turing learning around grade-level cur-riculum, they now found themselves inunfamiliar territory. Staff members de-scribed the first months of school asincredibly stressful and frustrating be-cause their primary model of teaching(that is, direct instruction) and their em-phasis on basic skills appeared out ofplace. The first refinement of the pro-gram was to eliminate first grade fromthe rotation. As Craner points out, teach-ers felt it “was too hard to challenge afourth-grader and give the first-gradersall the skills they need.”

I was really upset at the begin-ning. And other people were, too.There was a whole new thing,you have to go through the chang-ing process. But once you getinto it and you become comfort-able with each other, it’s not sobad any more. Rogers

Even with the elimination of one grade,staff remained apprehensive. DanMcCarty, a seasoned teacher, says:

The biggest difficulty that I had wasthat I didn’t know how to start. I hadsecond-, third-, and fourth-gradersin the room at the same time. Iwanted to meet all their needs. Iknew I had fourth-graders beyondsecond-grade skills; I had third-grad-ers in the middle. How do I preparea lesson where I reach everyone?

During this critical phase of implemen-tation, teachers felt especially vulner-able. They had their reputations as ex-perienced, competent teachers to uphold.They had received a grant to produce aprogram that would demonstrate NCEgains on district standardized tests. Andthe central office was watching to seehow things were going.

Every school is different, everyatmosphere, every faculty, andso you need to fit your programto your area, your students, andyour staff. H. Craner

By the year’s end, staff began to feelmore confident. Student attendance in-creased, fighting and negative forms ofbehavior began to decrease, and stu-dents seemed truly motivated to learn.Moreover, staff gained sufficient expe-rience to better define needs and makeinformed decisions about changes to theprogram. Bushman indicated there wereseven key modifications the staff madeduring the year:

1. The student placement method waschanged to ensure a balance of gen-

der and age. At the beginning of theyear, Bushman randomly assignedstudents to groups. It became readilyapparent that some groups wereimbalanced in terms of gender andage.

2. Textbooks were eliminated as a basisfor structuring learning. This re-quired teachers to rethink how theyplanned and used activities, requir-ing more creativity and time. To usetime more efficiently, staff decidedto not switch their subject areas eachsemester as they had originallyplanned. This helped them developgreater familiarity with the contentarea. However, they still planned toswitch at the year’s end.

3. Use of themes was strengthened inan effort to increase integrationacross content areas. During the pre-vious year, themes had been used ona superficial level, mainly around bul-letin boards and in an occasional ref-erence to the theme.

4. Pullouts for the library and specialprograms were restructured to avoiddisruptions during core instructionaltime.

5. Fine Arts Friday was created. Teach-ers felt that the arts needed greateremphasis. They also wanted timewhen everyone could relax and justhave fun. Students nicknamed thisperiod “Fun Friday.” First graderswere included in the Friday rotationto help with the transition to the

multiage groups and to enhance thesense of community.

6. Recess was eliminated to increaseinstructional time. It was felt that theFriday activities would compensate.

7. Student reporting format was com-pletely revised. Teachers felt thegraded report card they had been us-ing was useless in the new program.As a result, they created a reportingsystem based on specific skills with aplace to indicate “mastered” and “stilllearning.”

The 1991-92 school year:Settling in

After a demanding first year of imple-mentation that saw teachers pushed tothe edge of their knowledge—and, insome cases, to tears—staff embracedthe second year with a renewed sense ofenergy and optimism. They found them-selves featured as a showcase Chapter 1improvement project that had both posi-tive and negative results. On the posi-tive side, they hosted visitors about ev-ery three weeks. In some cases thesewere individual teachers; in other cases,school teams. According to Bushman,the attention had two effects on the staff.First, staff members felt their effortsvalidated by the positive attention. Sec-ond, the presence of visitors tended topush the staff toward higher levels ofimprovement. In a similar fashion, teach-ers found themselves invited to presentProgram WINCH at conferences, spon-sored by such organizations as the In-



ternational Reading Associations and theAlaska Department of Education.

On the negative side, the positive pub-licity brought out jealousies within theschool district, and the Overland staffwas ostracized. One teacher describesbeing confronted in the produce sectionof the local market by a teacher fromanother building and being “read theriot act” about Project WINCH. Bush-man hypothesizes that others in the dis-trict were viewing things in winner/loserterms, with an attitude that says, “EitherOverland is doing it right and we aredoing it wrong, or vice-versa.” If Over-land was doing it right, then other teach-ers in the district feared that their schoolswould have to become like Overland.The sense of being under siege onlyserved to strengthen resolve among staffat Overland and brought them evencloser together.

During this year, the Department of Edu-cation chose Overland to participate ina project to increase collaboration amongspecial- and regular-program teachers.Staff members received training thathelped them see the value of minimiz-ing or eliminating pullout programs be-cause they fragmented learning for at-risk students. Staff members also re-ceived training in cooperative learningthat helped them better understand thepotential of small-group learning.

Test scores at year’s end showed stu-dents gaining, on average, nearly twelveNCE points on the annual achievementtests. This created some breathing room

for staff. “After we tested and we didscore higher than expected, we all startedto relax a little,” Craner says. “We feltthat we were accomplishing something.”

The 1992-93 school year:Refinement

Staff entered the new school year feel-ing positive and vindicated that ProjectWINCH was beneficial to students. Staffexpected this to be a year of refinementand an opportunity to relax. This wasalso the end of their three-year Chapter1 schoolwide improvement grant. Testscores at year’s end showed no improve-ment over the previous year’s twelveNCE points gain. The state said Over-land would not be funded for anotherthree-year cycle because it failed to meetits achievement targets. Interestingly,the state recanted and refunded ProjectWINCH for another three years.

The key to the success of theproject is the involvement andsense of ownership on the part ofthe staff. It’s their program andthey’re going to do everything tomake sure it works. Bushman

Bushman suggests several reasons. First,the project was receiving very positiveattention throughout the state, making itpolitically risky to end funding. Sec-ond, the small number of students testedraised questions about test result valid-ity. The state agreed to rethink how to

accurately assess learning at the school.For the Overland staff, three more yearsas a Chapter 1 school-improvementproject meant freedom to continue theirprogram, additional staff-developmentopportunities, and some increased fund-ing.

The 1993-94 school year:Looking toward the future

Overland Elementary will be closed atthe end of 1995-96 school year. Plansare under way to transfer the staff toanother elementary school locatednearby (on the other side of the tracks).The principal and staff are working on aplan that would make Project WINCH amagnet program, drawing students fromall over the county. The only thing thatis assured is the continuation of the pro-gram in some form. Bushman says thestaff will work to refine assessment inlight of program emphasis on writingand problem solving. There is also aneffort to increase the depth of thematicinstruction to ensure greater integrationof content across the five learning cen-ters.

Ownership: The Key toProblem Solution

“The key to the success of the project,”Bushman believes, “is the involvementand sense of ownership on the part ofthe staff. It’s their program and they’regoing to do everything to make sure itworks.” Because of this strong sense of

ownership and Bushman’s leadershipstyle, the staff has felt empowered tocollectively address problems and chal-lenges as they have surfaced, withouthaving solutions imposed on them fromoutside the school. Teachers unani-mously see Bushman as an integral ele-ment of the school’s problem-solvingapproach. Problems faced by the staff,Bushman says, “have been frequent, butgenerally minor in nature.” He identi-fies five problem areas:

1. Personalities and decision-makingstructure. The staff is small and closeknit. “If you don’t fit in,” says Bush-man, “the staff will generally exertpressure in a subtle but effective man-ner until a change occurs.” In addi-tion, “there exists a kind of fluid,loose, staff-centered style of deci-sion-making that works well for someand is deadly for others.”

2. Curriculum alignment and assess-ment. Program evaluation has beenbased, primarily, on standardizedachievement. These measures do notreflect the nature of classroom in-struction or content. Moreover, theyare not sensitive to affective out-comes.

3. Changing staff assignments. The pro-gram is organized around five learn-ing centers, with one teacher assignedto each center. Staff memberschanged assignments on numerousoccasions to emphasize their strengthsand better meet the needs of students.These changes may contribute to alack of continuity.



4. Curriculum integration. Becauseteachers are organized as subject-areaspecialists with their own rooms andprograms, the integration of math,reading, science, and the other con-tent areas is problematic. Teacherscollaborate on using common themesacross subject areas, but curricularchallenges persist. “Sometimes thecurriculum seems a bit disjointed,”Bushman says.

5. Slipping back into a graded frame ofreference. External pressures to showimprovement in test scores and thecomplexity of the multiage classroomhave caused the staff to occasionallyfall back into viewing students froma grade-level perspective.

The principal’s there and I cango talk to him without feelingjudged or that my job is in jeop-ardy. McCarty

For the most part, instructional staff con-cur with Bushman’s analysis. However,there are noteworthy exceptions.

Problems seen throughteachers’ eyes

Change and the change process bringwith them as much trauma as excite-ment, insecurity as empowerment, anddoubt as exhilaration. At Overland, mostteachers portrayed change as traumatic.“When we first started out, we felt likefirst-year teachers,” Craner says. “I

mean, it was hard.” McCarty, who runsthe reading and writing center, says thechanges also triggered self-doubt abouthis abilities in the classroom. “Therewere days that I remember going homein tears and telling my wife, ‘I don’tknow how to teach anymore. I don’tknow what I’m doing anymore’.” Thosesentiments were echoed by the special-education teacher. “I didn’t know whatI was doing at first,” she says. “I didn’tknow if I was supposed to be in theroom or if I was supposed to pull kidsout.”

There were days that I remembergoing home in tears and tellingmy wife, “I don’t know how toteach anymore. I don’t know whatI’m doing anymore.” McCarty

During interviews, teachers most oftenmentioned the challenges posed by thebroad range of developmental levels intheir multiage classrooms, where an at-risk first-grader would work side-by-side with an exceptional third-grader.Teachers appeared to be caught betweentwo opposing concepts of learning.

The first reflects the belief that at-riskstudents can only achieve by learningbasic skills directly taught in small, in-cremental steps. This belief wasstrengthened by such external pressuresas district and state standardized achieve-ment testing and curriculum guidelinesbased on grade level. The assumptionunderlying this approach rests on the

belief that students cannot process in-formation at higher order levels of think-ing without first mastering basic skills.

Although there is merit to learning ba-sic skills, there is no evidence suggest-ing higher order thinking depends onmastering these skills. Moreover, text-book-driven methods of teaching basicskills tend to rob students of their desireto learn.

The second conception of learning ap-peared to grow from staff frustrationwith student failure. Project WINCHwas born from this frustration and re-flects a significant reorientation to learn-ing. Staff sought to provide learningexperiences generally associated withthe accelerated or talented-and-giftedstudents. Instruction involved a majoremphasis on cooperative learning, en-richment, and other interactive forms ofinstruction. Teachers faced majorchanges in their expectations and theway they delivered curriculum.

For the majority of staff members, imple-menting WINCH meant unlearning pow-erfully held notions about how childrenlearn. For example, McCarty describesthe difficulty he had resolving the ten-sion between his focus on basic readingskills and what he calls enrichment.

I had the responsibility of seeingthat students had a certain level ofskills, but I’m not sure I ever re-solved this need. I knew that if Istarted with the enrichment activi-ties, that the projects and differentactivities would provide students theskills they needed. Then I would

see something really lacking and Iwould go to a skill page.

When asked what approach to learningworked best with his students, McCartysaid, “The enrichment, the project, oractivities. They definitely learn more.They liked it more, so they’re more re-ceptive.”

You have to change your way ofthinking. It’s kind of a struggle,especially if you’ve taught foryears and years and you’re in-grained in that old way. I wasone of those teachers—I didn’twant Johnny copying off Mary.That was a no-no. And now, that’show children learn. I finallylearned that after all these years.H. Craner

Teachers said that several factors influ-enced the stress they felt in making thetransition to multiage teaching. For ex-ample, experienced teachers conveyeda sense of feeling more frustrated thantheir less-experienced colleagues. Fur-thermore, teachers said subjects such asmath and reading were more stressfulthan subjects such as science, social stud-ies, and writing, where content wasviewed as less skills-dependent or con-vergent.

Staff invariably mentioned NileneTurner, the science teacher, as a personwho had the best grasp on multiage cur-riculum. Teachers, Turner says, must



let go of control in the classroom andprovide experiential, hands-on learningopportunities for students. “We’ve putthem in little groups, we work with them,we do a lot of hands-on things,” shesays. “But I’m also trying to have morethings in the room that they can go andjust experiment with. . . not so muchthat I’m controlling it.”

Parent relations andcommunity

By all accounts, parent relations havebeen positive and supportive. However,their actual involvement has been mini-mal. Two main reasons have been sug-gested. First, many parents have hadpoor experiences in school themselvesand feel intimidated by educators. Sec-ond, it is difficult for parents to comeinto the school because of work andother obligations.

If the teachers, the principal, andthe parents are really interestedin what’s best for the childrenand want them to grow and de-velop into decent human beingsand not problems, they will try towork together. Because withtoday’s changing times, we haveto. McElhinney

The school has struggled with this prob-lem by offering parent conferences attimes that would not conflict with work

hours. Results have been mixed, butefforts continue. “You have to have par-ent involvement,” says Turner. “Youjust keep trying.” To build support andimprove relationships among Overland’ssizable Hispanic community, Bushmanreceived funding for a home-school co-ordinator.

It’s nice to have the support al-ways there. And if you don’t haveit, I don’t think you can survive.You just won’t make it. Bush-man

Occasionally, Overland staff has feltostracized from the rest of the schooldistrict. On the one hand, it has receivedextra resources to carry out its missionas well as praise from outside the dis-trict for its multiage project. This, inturn, has created additional pressure todemonstrate program viability. Bush-man has consciously cultivated allies atstate and local levels to protect his staffand program from potentially damagingcommunity influences.

“You’ve got to be ready for that pebblein the pond when things come back toyou,” he says. This means building sup-port “everywhere along the line—thesuperintendent all the way up to thegovernor. Unfortunately, it doesn’t hap-pen naturally. You have to work on itconstantly and establish those relation-ships all the way along the line.”

helping to develop leadership and anappreciation for cultural and develop-mental diversity. For example, SandraBeabout, whose son has been with theprogram since its inception, believes itis “good for kids to know other culturesand to experience working with olderand younger students. There are thingsto learn and things to teach. This issomething a child can use as he devel-ops throughout life.”

In many ways, the multiage environ-ment has made teaching easier. It hashelped reduce class size. It has providedteachers with an opportunity to learnmore about their students and to betterunderstand their individual learningstyles. It has eliminated retention andprovided an environment where all chil-dren can succeed at their own develop-mental level. However, the most often-mentioned advantage, and a key ele-ment in program success, has been theuse of peer learning as an instructionaltool.

In past years, teachers followed thedominant instructional paradigm thatplaced them as the controlling center ofthe classroom. To maintain order anddiscipline, students were seldom allowedto help each other or work in smallgroups. Once teachers were given li-cense to share control with students,motivation and learning began to im-prove. “If you walk into any of the learn-ing centers, the desks are not in rowsanymore,” notes a first-grade teacher.“Teachers have become less dominant,and children have become more in-


Benefits Have OutweighedDifficulties

Project WINCH has been a catalyst intransforming the educational beliefs andpractices of everyone involved in theproject. Table 10 summarizes the re-wards and benefits that have helped sus-tain the project for more than four years.Central to all comments is the powerfulplace rewards play in teacher experi-ences. Respondents unanimously feltteaching to be more rewarding. Studentsseemed more confident and motivatedto learn. Friendships emerged across allage levels, and new interpersonal normsemerged in the school. Students demon-strated a willingness to give and receivehelp, especially in terms of older stu-dents modeling for the younger ones.

I sent a couple of fourth-gradersdown to help a first-grader for afew minutes a day. And whenthey went out for recess, thatstudent was their friend, and theycould talk to them, less fighting,less things went on in the play-ground, because all of a suddenit wasn’t, “He’s a first-grader!Ha, ha, ha!” Now “he’s myfriend.” And there was a bigchange. T. Craner

Parents who were interviewed said theirchildren were better off because themultiage program was instrumental in


Table 10

Perceived Benefits of Multiage Teaching for Teachers andStudents (ranked from most frequently mentioned

to least frequently mentioned)Overland Elementary School


Improves the rewards for teaching andeliminates criticism from other districtstaff over poor achievement results.

Reduces class size by distributing studentsacross the five learning centers.

Creates continuity across years so teacherscan build on knowledge learned in thepast.

Creates an environment where every childcan succeed by eliminating retention andallowing children to develop at their ownrate.

Improves student behavior through peermodeling and leadership opportunities.


Reduces pullouts to a minimum, therebyeliminating tendency to fragment thechild’s learning and the program.

Increases staff cohesion and school unity.

Learning center format allows teachers touse their time more efficiently.

Increases the amount of one-to-one that ispossible (using other students and teach-ers).

Builds self-esteem and confidence byexposing students to a wide variety ofcurriculum and by varying learningexperiences: group work, conflict manage-ment, hands-on math and science, and soforth.

Creates a family-like atmosphere wherestudents learn to help one another and havecross-age friendships.

Creates an environment where every childcan succeed by eliminating retention andallowing children to develop at their ownrate.

Motivates students and helps buildconfidence by exposing them to a varietyof teachers.

Improves student behavior through peermodeling and leadership opportunities.

Teaches students to accept and valuediversity.


Reduces pullouts to a minimum, therebyeliminating tendency to fragment thechild’s learning and the program.

volved. They have more say in what’sgoing on.” For example, Hispanic stu-dents were encouraged to use Spanishto help peers understand concepts pre-sented in English. It may be that ac-tively promoting peer interaction andlearning has been the most powerfulinstructional strategy employed by theOverland staff.

We’re looking more for the wayto work out the answers and workout the process. I see people get-ting together and discussing moreissues and sharing more things.Bywater

The project has also improved instruc-tion by creating conditions in whichteacher collaboration can flourish. Forexample, Craner describes the situationof Jesse, a very large fourth-grade boyfunctioning at the second-grade level.On his first day of school, he ploppeddown into a chair, refusing to changeseats when asked by the teacher. Cranersays:

Jesse went through the program andhe plopped and he plopped until oneday in the faculty lounge we said,“What are we going to do withJesse?” We brainstormed at lunchtime or whenever we were together.Before, if he was just in my room, Iwould be the only one concerned.But now we’re all concerned be-cause we all see him. I would tellwhat I found worked with Jesse.And then somebody else would say,


“Well, this is working.” After awhile, Jesse didn’t plop any more.Jesse came in and Jesse started to beenthusiastic. Jesse started to partici-pate.

For the majority of school staff mem-bers, project WINCH ushered in changesin their professional lives, and, like Jesse,they underwent a positive transforma-tion in attitude and behavior toward theirwork lives. Norms of professional iso-lation, competition, and a territorial be-havior toward curriculum gave way tonorms of collaboration and cooperationamong staff. Further, an expansive viewof curriculum emerged that placed stu-dents rather than grade level at the cen-ter of instructional decisions.


Boise-Eliot School

oise-Eliot School, lo-cated in the heart of Portland, Oregon’sinnercity, serves more than 700 studentsin preschool through fifth grades. In1964, the school became an early child-hood learning center and was later re-modeled to optimize the use of spacefor young children. The school currentlyoffers six full-day kindergartens and fivehalf-day prekindergarten classrooms.These programs focus on the social,emotional, physical, and cognitive needsof innercity children. Boise-Eliot is alsoan early childhood magnet school, draw-ing children from all over the city. Itsstudent population includes a rich cul-tural mix of African-American, Cauca-sian, Hispanic, Native American, andAsian children and their parents andfamilies.

The school philosophy and missionstatement place the child in the center oflearning and decision-making. The needsof the child are always the determiningfactor underlying the solution of anyproblem. Moreover, learning is empha-sized as a lifelong activity encompass-ing all aspects of the child’s life. Exten-sive parent and family involvement op-portunities are also provided. These op-portunities include parenting classes, a

grandparent support group, and inschoolchild care to support parents who vol-unteer in the classroom. Of significantinterest is the inclusive nature of howthe school defines the terms involve-ment, family, and parents to maximizethe important influences in children’slives:

Involvement is any way a familyhelps a child to learn. All involve-ment by family or friends is valued,whether it is to encourage regularattendance or to volunteer hundredsof hours of classroom time.Parent and family can be defined asthe caregivers and friends who arein an extended family who interactin any way to encourage the child inthe learning process. Parents, fam-ily, and friends are the child’s firstteachers before they enter school.The school staff are co-teachers.(Boise-Eliot 1994, p.1)

Boise-Eliot reflects these beliefs. In theentryway to this two-story remodeledbrick school, a large scoreboard dis-plays school goals and tracks the degreeto which they have been achieved. Hall-ways are wide, spacious, and reflect con-stant student use. For example, learningcenter areas—a minikitchen, small-group work areas, and art centers—are

64

B

located throughout the hallways. A den-tal facility provides inschool examina-tions for students. Bulletin boards por-tray a range of themes—from a celebra-tion of the cultural diversity of the schooland community to examples of studentwriting and science projects. Many dis-plays emphasize self-esteem-buildingactivities, showing pictures of studentsand their families. Everywhere, displaysreflect the value of children in relation-ships with other people.

Principal Betty Campbell has been atBoise-Eliot for more than eleven years.In that time, the school and Campbellhave earned a reputation for excellencein education and commitment to chil-dren and their families.* Campbell hasbeen instrumental in establishing schoolnorms supportive of improvement andinnovation. Says Erin Cason, a teacherwith twenty years of teaching inPortland’s innercity:

There’s a sense of having lots ofsupport schoolwide. One of the neatthings about this school is that inno-vation and going your own direc-tion have always been encouragedand always been accepted. No onewould feel that they were settingthemselves apart or in any way be-coming outcasts by saying, “I wantto do this,” just because it was dif-ferent from what other people mightbe doing. And there is enough mo-mentum right now toward multiageand administrative support behind

BOISE-ELIOT SCHOOL 65

the concept that it was very com-fortable going in this direction.There was no level of discomfort atall.

Many changes reflect elements found inmultiage programs. For example, de-velopmentally appropriate practice(DAP) is a mainstay of the instructionalprogram. Numerous teachers remainwith their same classes over several yearsof instruction to enhance the stability inthe lives of children with many needs.*Pullout programs have either been elimi-nated or modified to reduce instructionalfragmentation. Teachers collaborate forthe purposes of instructional planning,teaching, and decision-making.

In such a climate, one would expect theimplementation of multiage organiza-tion to be rapid and unconstrained. How-ever, district and school size, leadershipstyle, and the complexity of working ina culturally diverse, innercity commu-nity have placed constraints on thechange process. Thoughtful analysis andcareful navigation are required forchange efforts to be successful.

Easing Transitions: Time,Staff Development, andDeep Understanding

Robin Lindsley has taught preschool andprimary-age children for twenty years.She holds a master’s degree in early

__________________

*For the 1993-94 school year, Betty Campbell hasbeen job sharing with a principal partner, EileenIsham, on a half-time basis.

__________________

*Campbell prefers this term rather than the com-monly used term at-risk. She feels “at-risk” impliesan inability to learn.


childhood education and teaches col-lege-level courses on developmentallyappropriate practice and early childhoodeducation. At Boise-Eliot, many peoplesay she is without peer in her under-standing and application of DAP. Fornearly three years, Lindsley sought tobring a multiage blend to Boise-Eliot.“Finally,” she says, “the principal said,‘We’ll juggle some numbers and haveyou try it’.” For the 1990-91 schoolyear, Lindsley began piloting the firstmultiage classroom in the building withgrades 1 and 2. It was not until twoyears later that five additional blendswere initiated. Currently, six multiageblends have opened—about 17 percentof the classrooms in the school.

Activities that involve everybody

have to be open-ended enough to

accept the attempts of the young-

est to the oldest, most mature

child in the classroom. Lindsley

Implementation has been gradual andappears carefully orchestrated. Campbellfelt essential building blocks had to bein place for the change effort to suc-ceed. Her reasoning suggests a cautionbased on experience and an apprecia-tion for the complexities of change:

As I look at whole language fromwhat Canada, New Zealand, and dif-ferent people do, I see that it’s avery big package, something I willbe learning all my life and not some-

thing that is an either/or program.You don’t have just one year staffdevelopment and it’s over. Youevolve in a process of how childrenlearn, what the research says, allthese different things.

Campbell believes some teachers rushedto get on the bandwagon of multiageteaching as soon as the Oregon Legisla-ture enacted the Oregon Educational Actfor the Twenty-first Century, which in-cludes provisions for multiage organi-zation.

In a school as large and complex asBoise-Eliot, and with a history of suc-cessful innovation in the innercity, theidea of caution takes on the unique mean-ing of care—care to ensure the best in-terests of children and their families arepreserved. It suggests a strategic way ofthinking that focuses on providing stu-dents with the maximum opportunityfor success. For example, teachers in-terested in multiage grouping were of-fered a course by Vicki Swartz, amultiage teacher and consultant from anearby school.

During the summer, Campbell offeredSwartz a full-time curriculum position.“I didn’t seek out Vicki for multiage,”Campbell says. “I didn’t seek out Vickifor British primary. I didn’t have thatknowledge. I sought Vicki out becauseshe had the capacity and talent to de-liver the kinds of staff development weneeded for taking us to the next stage ofadult growth and development.” Swartzproved to be strategically important tothe school’s mission.

The first question Campbell asks teach-ers who show interest in going into amultiage classroom is whether they havetaken a course from Swartz on multiagegrouping and instruction. Campbell alsoraises other important questions whenshe talks with teachers:

1. What will your instruction look likenext year?

2. How will your instruction look dif-ferent?

3. How will you address the childrenwho come with limited experiences?

4. How will you challenge children whocome with a broad range of experi-ences?

5. How will you communicate with par-ents?

6. What will your learning expectationslook like?

It is not for everyone. I think it’sa very complex form of teaching,and the teacher has to truly becommitted to this kind of philo-sophical base, because it’s hardwork to make this kind of a class-room work. Swartz

With Swartz in a full-time curriculumrole, Campbell has ensured the avail-ability of ongoing staff development andexpertise in assisting teachers to answerthese and other relevant questions re-garding multiage implementation. Soon

after assuming her new role, Swartzworked collaboratively with staff to de-velop a new student reporting systemthat reflected the school’s developmen-tally appropriate philosophy. Gradeswere replaced with developmental scalesthat allowed reporting growth on a rangeof content and process indicators.

Indicators of Readiness

Campbell described what she considersrequired indicators of teacher readinessto teach in a multiage classroom. Someindicators related to her understandingof the change process. “I would not jumpinto multiage,” she says. “I would see itas an evolutionary process of changethat takes time and a focus on staff de-velopment.” Other readiness indicatorsreflect content specific to multiage teach-ing, such as hands-on learning and cur-riculum planning to accommodate theincreased age span. Taken as a whole,five general indicators were identified.

Commitment. Does the teacher reallywant to teach in a multiage classroom?Does he or she understand the extratime and work it takes? Campbell looksfor evidence that an interested teacher istruly committed. She observes whetherthe teacher has taken courses offeredwithin the school or district on multiageteaching. Since all instructional staffmembers are organized into teams, in-cluding specialists and support staff,Campbell also looks to see if only oneteacher is committed or whether thechange has the support of a team of



teachers. “We are encouraging teamingthroughout the building,” she notes.

Robin Lindsley opened our firstmixed-aged classroom. Wewaited three years before weopened any other classrooms,and I feel so happy and so proudthat we gave the program thattime to get going so we could doit right and make sure that peoplewere prepared and make surethat support was there. Swartz

Experience. Does the teacher have ex-perience at one of the multiage levels heor she will be teaching? Has the teachertaught a multiage class in the past? Oneof the teachers interviewed had taughtfor twelve years in a multiage class-room in another state. What experiencedoes the teacher have with DAP, withhands-on science and math, and withwhole language? These types of experi-ence support the transition to a multiageclassroom.

Curriculum. Does the teacher haveknowledge and skill in curriculum plan-ning, and has she or he effectively imple-mented other instructional strategies?“So teacher A is all excited, wants to domultiage,” says Campbell, “and teacherA doesn’t have themes and units or anunderstanding of whole language or havethe new math criteria and guidelines inplace. If a teacher can’t do it for the age

span she has now, how can she do itwith an even greater span?”

I think the important issue reallyis relationships—the relation-ships of children with childrenand the relationships of the childwith the adult. Campbell

Expectations. Do teachers hold highexpectations or standards for studentbehavior and performance? “In Ameri-can education we don’t have highenough expectations or standards,”Campbell says. “In the name of processand content, we have not expected qual-ity.” In the context of the multiage class-room, this means teachers must place asmuch emphasis on outcomes as they doon the process and skills required tofunction in the classroom. Campbellstresses she does not mean more testing,though she believes that has a place. “Itmeans that when students exit the doorat fifth grade, they can do things likeindependently fill out a job application,write many different types of letters, getalong with many different types ofpeople, difficult people, all races ofpeople—those kinds of issues.”

Relationships. “I think the importantissue really is relationships,” Campbellsays, “the relationships of children withchildren and the relationships of the childwith the adult.” Campbell looks to see ifthe teacher has stayed with the samegroup of children for more than oneyear and learned how beneficial such

continuity is in building relationshipswith students and their families. Plus,teachers need to think about how theywill build parent support for a multiageclassroom. All six of the multiage teach-ers at Boise-Eliot stayed with the sameclass of students for more than one year.

In summary, Campbell’s approach tothe implementation of multiage has beento go slow, provide staff development,ensure “that things are going to be posi-tive for children, expect enough of chil-dren, and cover areas that I think theyneed for world citizenship.” Once as-sured of these goals, Campbell says sheneeds to “stand back and let teachersmove in their own philosophy and styleand accept the many variations andthemes thereof.”

Changing to a MultiageClassroom: Through theEyes of Teachers

As a magnet school, Boise-Eliot tapsthe reservoir of talented and gifted chil-dren from throughout the city. And, as aneighborhood school, Boise-Eliot en-rolls children from some of the toughestinnercity areas in Portland. The mix,Campbell notes, provides “the biggest[achievement] span in every classroomof any school in Portland. Right now,we have thirty-nine different neighbor-hoods represented. So there’s a greatspan.”

It is noteworthy that addressing the needsof such a wide range of students has not

been a significant problem for the fiveteachers interviewed for this project.Two additional factors may have easedthe transition to multiage and teachingin classrooms with such diversity. First,most of the teachers had taught the samegroup of students for two consecutiveschool years. Second, participatingteachers either had previous experiencein a multiage classroom or had taken acourse on multiage grouping. Nonethe-less, these teachers faced challenges inseveral general areas.

Parent communication

Every teacher interviewed expressedconcern about parent understanding ofthe changes in their classrooms. Threeof the teachers said that parents had notbeen notified their children would beplaced in a blend until the week beforeschool started. “I knew that a letter ex-plaining what was going to happenshould go to parents when they receivedtheir letter about student placements,”says Erin Cason, a grade 4-5 blendteacher. “That didn’t happen. So we felldown on that. Fortunately we didn’t haveany huge blowups, but communicationto parents is vital.” Similarly, Lindsleysays that the responsibility for notifyingparents was not clear. “The first yearwas interesting because I thought theboss was letting parents know that I wasdoing a blend, but nobody let the par-ents know until the first day of school.”

Campbell, though, says the confusion ispart of the difficulty in communicatingwith parents and other groups—you can



send them letters, but you cannot guar-antee that they’ll receive, read, or un-derstand them. The principal says shewrote letters and included informationin the school newsletter about thechanges at Boise-Eliot. In addition, ad-ministrators and teachers held at leasttwo information sessions indicating thatparents would be allowed to decidewhether they wanted their child in amultiage classroom. “Even when wethought we communicated well and gaveparents choices,” Campbell says, “they’dcome back and not understand what wasgoing on.”

Sharon Sheeley, a third- and fifth-gradeblend teacher, believes helping parentsto understand how the change will ben-efit their children is a major challenge.“We still have three or four parents whoare very nervous, convinced that it’s notgoing to work,” she says. “They thinktheir kids are going to get out of hereand not know anything.” Alexis Aquino-Mackles, who teaches a primary blend,makes a similar observation. “Some par-ents were nervous, especially second-grade parents. They’d say, ‘What’s mysecond-grader going to get out of thisexcept babysitting?’”

Clearly, given the importance of paren-tal understanding and support, educa-tors should not assume parents receiveinformation or that they understand it.Like any learners, parents will vary inhow they process information and whatthey understand. To be effective, com-munication must be ongoing and multi-dimensional, drawing on diverse ap-proaches to ensure understanding.

Staff relations and support

Lindsley started a blend nearly threeyears before any other staff member.This created several problems. She feltisolated from other teachers. Her class-room reflected many developmentallyappropriate practices that departed radi-cally from what other teachers perceivedas effective teaching. Students activelyengaged in projects, buddy reading,learning centers, and so forth, whichsome teachers viewed as play. “It was alittle bit threatening to people at first,”Swartz says. “Were they to move in thisdirection as well? And would they stillbe considered good teachers in the eyesof the principal and people they careabout in the building if they chose to notgo mixed age?”

In many ways, Lindsley found herselflike a left-handed person in a right-handed world. “Being the only one do-ing a blend creates problems in commu-nication,” she says. “I can’t go nextdoor and say, ‘Well, what are you doingin math?’ It won’t help you to go nextdoor because they’re not doing mathwith a range like mine.” Interestingly,nearly every new blend started sinceLindsley piloted the first blend has beenimplemented by teacher teams.

Adapting curriculum

Teachers mentioned two problems inthis area. The first relates to the rotationof grade-level content and themes toensure required content is covered andto avoid repetition. Erin Cason, whocharacterizes herself as well organized,

found curriculum planning to be herbiggest challenge. “Curriculum planningwas like the wall in front of the carrot,”she says. “How am I going to get throughthat? Do I really want to put myself intodoing this much extra work? Oh, myGod! I’ve got another year’s curriculumto plan. The issue was, ‘I have one yearof lesson plans; I need two!’” Casonand her teaching partner, Anne Hasson,collaborated in developing the outlineof a two-year instructional plan. Withinthe first month of school, her curricu-lum concerns melted away. “My issuesnow are standard teacher-type issueslike, ‘How am I going to meet the be-havioral needs and the academic needsof the kids I have?’”

Math also emerged as a curriculum con-cern. Swartz speculates the reasons re-late to the way math is structured. As abody of knowledge, it tends to be se-quential, necessarily building on previ-ous skills and concepts. Her view tendsto be born out by comments from Casonand Hasson, who indicate they have be-gun to group math students by skill level.Lindsley also describes math as prob-lematic. However, her concerns reflecther emerging awareness of mathemati-cal thinking. “I’m trying to move out ofthinking that math is computation,” shesays. “I’m trying to integrate. I’m goinga lot toward problem-solving becausethat’s the end result anyway.”

Materials and graded curriculum frame-works also have been a problem. In try-ing to teach to the child’s individualneeds and bring several grade levels

together as a community of learners,teachers have found the graded materi-als create barriers. Likewise, traditionalactivities that sort children into grades,such as state testing and middle-schoolorientation programs, tend to run counterto their multiage philosophy.

Recordkeeping and reporting,space, and monitoring progres

Teachers also raised issues around thechange in classroom dynamics that oc-curs when several grades are blended.For example, a teacher may be respon-sible for as many as fifty students. Even

It didn’t matter what age theywere or what grade they were;what mattered was what werethe talents they had that theycould share with each other andhelp with each other. Lindsley

though there may now be two teachers,recordkeeping has doubled and moni-toring student progress has become morecomplex. “How are you going to keeptrack of what the kids need and howthey’re moving and how they’re pro-gressing?” asks Sheeley. “How are yougoing to organize materials?” BothLindsley and Sheeley raise concernsabout classroom space, suggesting thatclassrooms designed for whole-class,direct-instruction formats are inappro-priate. As teachers have gone to moresmall-group work, classrooms do not



accommodate a wide variety of activi-ties.

What Benefits Students,Benefits Teachers

Table 11 summarizes the benefits at-tributed to the multiage learning envi-ronment. Many of these benefits havebeen obtained in straight-age classroomsat Boise-Eliot. However, the multiagesetting appears to produce greater re-sults than found in the single grades.For example, teachers in single-gradeclassrooms who stayed with the samestudents for several years said they sawreduced behavior problems and moreefficient use of instructional time. Teach-ers also found that pairing different gradeclassrooms (for example, third- andfourth-grade) for tutoring produced simi-lar results, especially for children with ahistory of behavior problems.

Students are really getting a com-munity feel for themselves, and ithappens more rapidly than wepossibly could have imagined.It’s much more possible to get asense of community with abroader range of ages and inter-ests than in a small classroom.Sheeley

The multiage classroom combines bothmultiple-year continuity and cross-agetutoring, but on a continuous basis and

in a more natural setting. Sheeley, whostayed with her class for several yearsbefore becoming a multiage teacher,says, “Students are really getting a com-munity feel for themselves, and it hap-pens more rapidly than we possiblycould have imagined. It’s much morepossible to get a sense of communitywith a broader range of ages and inter-ests than in a small classroom.” ForSheeley and everyone else interviewed,creating a “sense of community” re-flects their belief that the learning mustbe built on a foundation of valued rela-tionships.

Healthy, durable relationships

As table 11 indicates, teachers perceivedtheir mulitage classrooms as producing“healthy, durable relationships.” “Thestrongest part of multiage grouping restson the bonds of trust between the teacherand the child and the teacher and thefamily,” Swartz says. Campbell echoesthis view. “We’re seeing children de-velop much better, much quicker.There’s a lot less time wasted on begin-ning of school things.”

Having the same teacher(s) for severalyears creates strong relations and pro-vides continuity in academic and sociallearning. Everyone interviewed felt thatin a straight-grade class, nearly fourmonths of instructional time was lost—two months in the fall as everyone adaptsto the new learning environment andtwo months in the spring when every-one adjusts to separating for the sum-mer.

Table 11

Perceived Benefits of Multiage Teaching forTeachers and Students (ranked from most

frequently mentioned to leastfrequently mentioned)

Boise-Eliot Elementary School


Builds healthy, durable relationshipsamong students, between students andadults, and between teachers andfamilies.

Continuity saves time in ways thatfacilitate classroom management andenhance learning.

Teaming reduces workload, enhancesplanning, and allows greater flexibility.

Students are more motivated to learn,thus reducing behavior problems.

Provides a more developmentallyappropriate environment.

Provides leadership opportunities forstudents as role models, mentors, andnurturers, thus reducing classroombehavior concerns.

Topics Mentioned Fewer Than Twice

Provides challenge, motivation, andopportunity for professional growth.

Builds healthy, durable relationshipsamong students and between studentsand adults.

Increases the developmental appropri-ateness of the learning environment,thus helping children be successful,confident learners.

Continuity facilitates learning, reducesanxiety about changing teachers, andincreases opportunities for leadership.

Enhances learning through increasedsocial interaction with a wide, diverserange of individuals.

Topics Mentioned Fewer Than Twice

Creates a safe, secure learning environ-ment.

Blurs differences among children byminimizing many of the causes ofstatus: grade labels, learning labels, andso forth.



Swartz compares her experiences of hav-ing children for multiple years with thoseof single-grade teachers undergoingseparation in the spring: “While otherteachers in the staff room were talkingabout their classes being off the walland having spring fever and not beingable to pay attention for more than threeminutes, my class was spending threehours at a time doing independent re-search work in our library and had theirwriting folders right up to the last day,”she says. “And they continued with thosestories day-one of the next year.”

However, as Campbell has clearly em-phasized, teacher characteristics, suchas commitment, high expectations, andappropriate training, play a significantpart in whether positive outcomes oc-cur. Simply having students for morethan one year is not a sufficient condi-tion for improved learning.

I get to know families so muchbetter because of having the kidsfor a couple years. We reallylearn to work as a team, which ismuch better for the child.Lindsley

Several other important benefits weredescribed. Students Sheeley has for asecond year “know the ropes” and donot waste time testing her or the system.Moreover, they quickly model expectedclassroom behaviors and routines foryounger, first-time students. This mod-

eling provides leadership opportunitiesfor older students. Overall, these sec-ond-year students help reduce teachers’stress and save valuable instructionaltime.

Lindsley says relationships with parentsare also strengthened. “I get to knowfamilies so much better because of hav-ing the kids for a couple years,” shesays. “We really learn to work as a team,which is much better for the child.”

Facilitating the developmentallyappropriate environment

The multiage classroom facilitates de-velopmental opportunities for children,especially when teachers capitalize onthe inherent strengths of classroom di-versity. Being with the same teacher forseveral years allows children to developmore naturally, following a pattern oflearning more in keeping with the child’suniqueness. Aquino-Mackles says herfirst- and second-grade blend allowschildren “to mix and match so that animmature second-grader will do verywell with first-graders.” Sheeley and herteaching partner have had similar expe-riences. “We found children have a widerpool of interests and abilities to choosefrom, and we’re able to better meet theirneeds,” she says. This natural blendingof the different developmental levelsand needs of students is empowering toboth teachers and students. In such class-rooms, moreover, differences amongchildren blend in as a normal part of thecommunity. Status characteristics such

as grade level, reading ability, and learn-ing labels become meaningless for mostchildren.

Enhanced motivation to learn

According to Cason and Hasson, learn-ing and motivation have become conta-gious. There has been a ripple effect forboth teachers and students. Hasson andher teaching partner have seen remark-ably positive changes in fifth-grade stu-dent attitudes toward learning comparedto their single-grade experiences. “Theblend seems to add more life,” Casonsays. “The fifth-graders are not as cyni-cal. They’re not as blasé. The fourth-graders add the spark; the fifth-gradersadd the knowledge, and together theyjust seem to work well.”

As Campbell has clearly empha-sized, teacher characteristics,such as commitment, high expec-tations, and appropriate train-ing, play a significant part inwhether positive outcomes oc-cur. Simply having students formore than one year is not a suffi-cient condition for improvedlearning.

Hasson notes similar changes. “Kids hadalready checked out when they came tome in the fifth-grade. They were readyto move to the middle school. They weretoo cool for anything. Adding those

younger students has kept them veryenthusiastic.”

Having three brains working onthis instead of one makes thingsjust a whole lot more workable.Cason

Other teachers perceived similar resultsin their blends. “The diverse ages spurchildren on to higher levels of think-ing,” Aquino-Mackles says. Sheeley,whose team has a blend of third- andfifth-graders, reports that “third-gradersare learning faster about things and theparents are giving us feedback abouthow the kids have all this sophistica-tion. There’s a bigger pool of peoplewho talk at their sophistication level.The third-graders are just moving byleaps and bounds.”

Reducing the load: Teaming,planning, and supervision

Finally, those who team teach describethis arrangement as a significant part oftheir teaching. Although having a part-ner is not a necessary condition formultiage teaching, evidence fromteacher interviews suggests definite ad-vantages. Teaching partners interviewedall agreed that being on a team providednumerous advantages over teachingalone. Planning together was more pro-ductive because of the pooled knowl-edge and the synergy resulting from theinteraction. A partner could help reduce



the workload by sharing responsibili-ties. Teaching partners also allow formore flexibility in teaching and super-vision. Sheeley has found that if sheneeds to work with a small group inreading, she can arrange with her part-ner to take a larger group. Finally,Lindsley points out that you can domultiage without a teaching partner, butit is more difficult because you are with-out someone close at hand to share yourexperience and understanding.

Concrete ElementarySchool

77

ocated on the westernslope of the northern Cascade mountainrange, the community of Concrete,Washington, reflects many small ruralcommunities that have been dependenton a natural resource. In the last decade,Concrete’s timber-based economy hasdeclined. Concrete, population 750, is35 miles east of Mt. Vernon, with itspopulation of 17,600 people. By moststandards, Concrete is an isolated, small,rural community. This isolation, coupledwith economic downturns, creates chal-lenges in obtaining educational resourcesbeyond the basic state allocation.

Concrete Elementary, the middle school,the high school, and the district officeare located on a campus one mile out-side of town. The elementary schoolwas built in the 1970s. Its open designwas common among many schools con-structed during that time. The brightlycarpeted hallways and classrooms feelspacious and open, and there is a con-spicuous absence of student desks.Tables where students engage in groupprojects were strategically placed withinvarious resource centers. In hallwaysand classrooms, student artwork andwriting are attractively displayed. Theyear’s learning themes—discovery, di-

versity, and decisions—are visible uponentering the building.

In 1993, the Concrete School Districtreceived the prestigious Golden AppleAward for excellence in educationgranted yearly by Channel 9, KCPS TV,a public broadcasting station. ConcreteElementary contributed significantly tothe reasons why the district received theaward. During the last four years, theelementary school restructured its en-tire instructional program with fundingsupport from the Washington Office ofthe Superintendent of Public Instruc-tion.

Concrete Elementary received approvalfor a four-year implementation proposalstarting with the 1990-91 school year.Proposal guidelines provided a plan-ning and development framework, butallowed flexibility for addressing localneeds. In addition, these guidelines re-quired dissemination of project resultsto assist other schools in their efforts toimprove education. As a result, detailed,written information chronicled theschool’s evolution. These materials havebeen used to outline the project’s devel-opment and serve as a framework foranalyzing and presenting the interviewdata.

L


1988-90: Years ofExploration

Staff members agreed that changes wereneeded in the school’s education pro-gram. According to the principal, Dr.Don Jeanroy, the biggest concern cen-tered around retention. “Every springI’d get a list of between twenty andthirty kids who teachers were recom-mending for retention, and we probablyretained two-thirds of those after exten-sive study of the children,” he notes.

Dissatisfaction with retention providedan initial starting point for evaluatingmany aspects of the instructional pro-gram. “Starting with that program,”Jeanroy says, “you begin looking at otherthings. You begin looking at teachingstrategies. You begin looking at cur-riculum. You begin looking at manyareas.”

From this initial concern, Jeanroy orga-nized a site committee of staff, parents,and community representatives to dis-cuss and explore the school program.Six questions guided their explorations:

1. How can each child improve his orher learning capabilities?

2. How can each child be appreciatedfor his or her unique individuality?

3. How can school be structured to ac-commodate children who learn at dif-fering rates and are developmentallyvaried?

4. What tools can we use to help chil-dren when learning temporarilystops?

5. What are assessment approaches thatenrich classroom instruction and en-able children to demonstrate their truecompetencies?

6. How can the entire Concrete com-munity, including parents, businesspeople, and others deepen their in-volvement at the Concrete Elemen-tary School?

In seeking to answer these questions,the site committee, over a two-year pe-riod, identified problem areas and po-tential solutions, designed multiage con-cepts, shared their research, and obtainedsupport from colleagues and the com-munity. The net result was a grant pro-posal under the state’s Schools for theTwenty-First Century Program. Theschool received funding to achieve fourgoals and related activities.

Goal 1. To restructure Concrete Elemen-tary into a nongraded, continuous-progress school:

• Students will be organized intomultiage clusters.

• Teachers will be organized intoteams, with each team responsiblefor a cluster.

• Student needs will determine the cur-riculum, the materials, and the num-ber of children to be engaged in anygiven educational experience.

• Student progress will be continuousand self-paced according to student-written goals, needs, and develop-ment without regard to grade level.

• There will be no procedures for re-tention or promotion, but there willbe procedures for continuous studentprogress and reporting.

• Testing and monitoring of progresswill be continual and integrated as anatural expression of what has beenlearned.

• Release time and staff developmentwill be provided.

These activities were scheduled forimplementation over four years: 1990-91, design new program; 1991-92,first-, second-, and third-grade class-rooms adopt the continual progress for-mat; 1992-93, fourth-grade classroomsadopt the new format; 1993-94, fifth-grade classrooms adopt new format.

Goal 2: To provide teachers and par-ents with tools to assist children whentheir learning temporarily stops:

• Teachers and parent volunteers willbe taught research-based cognitivelearning skills and strategies for usein facilitating student learning. Meth-ods will include observation and as-sessment skills, instructional pro-cesses, and tools for developing stu-dent-learning programs.

• Students will be taught independentlearning skills that will help thembecome life-long learners.

Goal 3: To deepen the involvement ofConcrete community members at theConcrete Elementary School:

• Policy development will outline andlegitimize parental involvementthrough site-based managementteams.

• Administrative financial support willbe provided to help implement par-ent programs.

• Parents will be engaged as partnersby extending the concept of a com-munity learning center and offeringworkshops on a range of topics ap-propriate to program goals, such asparenting skills, literacy education,and skills in life-long learning.

• A mentoring program will be pro-vided for students with local busi-nesses.

Goal 4. To replace traditional forms ofassessment with competency-based as-sessment:

• New student assessment and evalua-tion reporting procedures appropri-ate to the continuous-progress pro-gram will be developed.

Additionally, a staff-incentive-pay planincorporated three key elements de-signed to enhance intrinsic motivationand ownership in the program. Theseincluded: (1) formation of collaborativeworkgroups with decision-making au-thority regarding details of the program,(2) extra pay for program-related hoursbeyond the regular work-day, and (3)

CONCRETE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 79


extensive staff development aligned withprogram goals. An underlying objec-tive, according to proposal documents,was to “stimulate greater teacher par-ticipation in school affairs and decision-making policies as well as encouragehigher levels of performance” (ConcreteElementary School, 1989, p. 19).

One of the things that was themost helpful to me was to go tosome other schools, see what theywere trying, see what they’vedone, see what was working andwhat wasn’t working, and talk tothe teachers. Hein

This objective also embodies many ofthe same outcomes desired for students.The site committee intended the con-cept of continuous progress in learningto include the staff and the community.In this way, a community of learnerscould be developed that would cut acrossage, role, and occupation. The proposedrestructuring plan received assurancesof cooperation and compliance from thedistrict school board, superintendent,school staff, and local teachers’ asso-ciation.

1990-91: A Year ofOrientation and Planning

Staff members worked collaborativelyto develop details of their implementa-tion plan, build relationships, and im-

prove communication. “We spent a fullyear in active study,” says Dan Brauer,a Chapter 1 teacher and member of thesite committee. “We heard John Goodladand other people, read materials, andvisited schools in British Columbia, Or-egon, and around our state. Sometimeswe sent teams, and other times the en-tire staff went to visit.”

Also during this time, staff held retreatswhere beliefs, ideas, and desires werediscussed and consensus was formedabout program design and staff devel-opment. Staff learned to collaborate,began deciding who they wanted to teamwith, what ages they wanted to teach,and how much they were willing to com-mit. They also experienced and learnedmany of the strategies they would lateremploy in their own classrooms in fa-cilitating cooperation and self-directionin students. Out of the year’s activities,the following tasks and events were ac-complished:

• Visit other multiage programs.

• Staff development workshops wereprovided in collaborative decision-making, integrating the curriculum,whole-language instructional ap-proaches, cooperative learning, andaddressing student diversity throughmultiple-intelligence theory.

• Design program components.

• Establish basic policies.

• Identify student-placement proce-dures.

• Inform other professionals and par-ents.

There’s nothing better than par-ents speaking. Word travels, es-pecially when you have a smallcommunity. Parents can spreadthe word about what’s going onto those parents who aren’t in-volved. Stout

Keeping parents informed and involvedearly on was critically important. Openforums were held with teachers and par-ents to discuss the proposed program.Some teachers found these forums dif-ficult. “We were doing these open fo-rums when in reality we hadn’t put con-tinuous progress in practice yet,” saysMarilyn Lane, a primary-grade teacher.However, parents are a powerful forcein a school’s efforts to restructure.“There’s nothing better than parentsspeaking,” says Lynda Stout, a parentand school secretary. “Word travels, es-pecially when you have a small com-munity. Parents can spread the wordabout what’s going on to those parentswho aren’t involved.”

The year of orientation and planningwas an exciting time for the majority ofstaff members. Many staff-developmentactivities occurred outside regular work-ing hours, but the desire for inclusionand compensation through the grantmotivated 100 percent participation. Asa result, all staff members received the

same training, regardless of whether theywanted to pilot a multiage classroom.By year’s end, motivation was so highthat staff accelerated the grant timelinesto allow more teachers to pilot multiageclassrooms. “We sat down and exam-ined our golden year [orientation andplanning],” Brauer says, “and one of thefifth-grade teachers said, ‘Why do wehave to wait if it works for all of us?Why can’t we do it now?’ And we did.”

1991-92:First Year Implementationand the Unknown

In the spring of 1991, Jeanroy inter-viewed the staff to determine teachingassignments. The interview process al-lowed the principal another opportunityto assess staff readiness, interest, andcommitment to continuous progress. Aninstructional strand of straight-gradeclassrooms was offered to parents andteachers who were not ready or did notwant a continuous-progress classroom.

Through the interview process, Jeanroyidentified staff who would pilot the firststrand of continuous multiage class-rooms. Some staff members felt theywere not ready for the continuous-progress strand, and one straight-gradeclassroom was offered for each of grades1 through 5. Kindergarten remainedseparate because of scheduling and afeeling the children were too young tobe placed with first-graders.



Make sure that everyone has achance to be heard and is hon-ored for their place in the pro-cess. We all need to feel in-cluded.... The teachers that stillhad a single grade in their classesshouldn’t be sort of set off to theside as some kind of school withina school, that we should beblended. Hein

Many staff members conveyed ambiva-lence toward having two instructionalstrands. On the one hand, staff believedit necessary to go slow and providechoices. On the other hand, some staffmembers feared two separate programswould create division. “By spring, thestraight-grade teachers came right outand said, ‘We feel like we’re being ig-nored here’,” says Meridith Loomis, afourth-fifth teacher. “We had a retreatas a staff. We talked and let people saywhat they thought. That brought the bigpicture in; maybe we made even moreof an effort to make sure those teacherswere still supported.”

Feelings of division also emerged in thecommunity, where people started tak-ing sides and aligning themselves withone program or the other. However, on-going communication and communityinvolvement diffused any major con-flict.

Staff also felt pressure because therewere so many new things to learn and

do. Says Lora Hein, a third-fourthteacher, “We were trying to figure outhow to do cooperative learning, tryingto figure out how to do thematic teach-ing, and how to do whole language.We’re trying to do all that and shuffleall these kids of different ages in, andbasically throwing out almost everythingwe’ve been doing, at once.”

There needs to be teachers thathang on to things they see asvaluable until they’re convincedthat they’re no longer valuable.Those people are good becausethey make us think about whywe’re doing it and if it is valuableand are we making the progressthat we should. Berg

Some pressure was self-imposed, butsome pressure resulted from emerginginconsistencies in the learning environ-ment. For example, staff implementedan inclusion model for special-educa-tion students that moved them into theregular classroom along with special-education staff. Additionally, staff feltthe graded report card was inappropri-ate, which led to the creation of an un-graded, narrative reporting format thatrequired significantly more time to com-plete than the old format. This, in turn,led to changing to trimesters as a meansof reducing the number of reporting pe-riods. The systemic relationship amongthe diverse elements of the learning en-

vironment led to many such unforeseenevents.

We went from enthusiasm to thepits to some self-confidence to asense of pride over a period oftime. Jeanroy

By year’s end, staff felt both frazzledand elated. “Because the staff wanted tojump into it that quickly, I think it wasreally difficult on them,” says Joan Berg,an instructional assistant in Chapter 1.“It was just a lot of work, but they allcommitted to it and they did it. Theypulled it off.”

Hein sums up staff feeling at year’s end:“It was incredibly stressful but we madeit!” A strengthened sense of solidarityemerged, and a few more teachers de-cided to try a continuous-progress class-room.

1992-93: Expansion andRefinement

Results from the first year of implemen-tation looked promising. Jeanroy notedin an evaluation report that average dailyattendance was up by 3.6 percent, be-havioral referrals were down by 42.2percent, and achievement data indicatedstudents “were near or slightly abovegrade level in reading and math.” Inaddition, a survey of parents revealedincreased support for the continuous-

progress program. “Eighty-two percentof the parents wanted their childrenplaced in a multiaged classroom com-pared to 65 percent during the previousyear,” Jeanroy noted in a 1992 report.

Our principal allowed no facultymeetings or interruptions for thefirst three-and-a-half months oflast school year, and then said,“Now we are ready to face someof the other issues,” because heknew we were all working ex-tremely hard. Brauer

Changes were also occurring within thestaff, especially with those who had beenslow to embrace new teaching strate-gies, such as cooperative learning, wholelanguage, and learning centers. The staffvoted to replace desks with tables tofacilitate group work. A new readingseries emphasizing whole language wasadopted. Training and direct classroomassistance continued unabated, but staffmembers were given time to make thechanges at a pace comfortable to them.According to Barbara Hawkings, afourth-fifth teacher:

Those who were uncomfortable withit were allowed time. They took thesame class offerings, the same dol-lars, the same enrichment materials,and as those materials came in, theirstyle slowly changed. They devel-oped, they started using some of thecurriculum and the cooperativelearning. So some of their styles



changed. Some of them retired be-cause it was too much.

We got hot breakfasts for thekids. The minute you fed themand clothed them and got thecounselor to tell them they werevaluable, lovable people, boy,you know, they were on the roadto the change. Jones

As a result of increased parent and staffsupport, additional continuous-progressclasses were added. Parent requests forstraight-grade classes were sufficient towarrant single-grade classes at thethird-, fourth-, and fifth- grade levels. Inaddition, kindergarten continued as self-contained.

We try to keep parents apprisedand aware of what we’re doing.Don has written up pamphlets tohand out. He sends letters hometo parents, various things ex-plaining the program. Stout

For the 1992-93 school year, the staffworked in twelve general goal areas:

• Multiage classrooms

• Multiple intelligence (in progress)

• Student portfolio assessments

• Cross-age tutoring

• Cooperative learning

• Josten Computer Lab

• Team teaching

• Immersion in Chapter 1 and L.A.P.

• Whole language / thematic units

• Narrative report cards to parents /parent conferences

• Integrated curriculum / alternativeschedules

• Special education inclusion / collabo-rative teaching

Staff members, with input from parents,conduct a yearly review of implementa-tion progress. Moreover, they havelearned to be flexible, making continu-ous adjustments to their program in lightof emerging needs and conditions.

When Don brings people in now,he can say, “Here’s one way thatwe team-teach in our building.”And then he brings them to theother and says, “This is our otherway of team-teaching.” Youknow, both are great models.Loomis

Goal areas adopted by staff reflect manyinstructional elements that appear as in-tegral and necessary for multiage class-rooms to become meaningful learningenvironments for students and teachers.Staff seemed to recognize these elementswere essential to their success asmultiage teachers, but in their eagerness

to learn, the timeframe for implementa-tion may have been too short. “If you’regoing to be doing multiage, maybe spenda year or two working on training incooperative learning, thematic teaching,and that sort of thing to build a basicfoundation,” Hein says. “A multiageclassroom is not a split class.”

Staff members have also used goal re-view as an opportunity to set yearlypriorities for training. “Jeanroy’s beenreally great in encouraging us to priori-tize what we thought we needed train-ing in,” Hawkings stressed. “At our staffmeeting the other day, we wanted towork on portfolio assessment, thematic/integrative curriculum, and celebration.”

Staff also had to face new and unex-pected challenges. The superintendentbegan pushing his instructional agenda,which was not viewed favorably by theelementary staff. For example, schoolstaff members were required to imple-ment a Josten Computer Lab while si-multaneously implementing a thememultiage program. In addition, a budgetshortfall negatively affected elementarysupport staff.

These events, though quite disruptive,also unified staff. “Last year we hadother factors thrown in—our budgetproblems and cutbacks,” says SherryCowan, an instructional assistant andparent. “We all had to struggle, but wereally kept glued together as a school.We really did a good job in that depart-ment.” Interestingly, though the budgetcrisis led to community anger and the

superintendent’s resignation, the com-munity remained solidly behind the con-tinuous-progress program and the staff.

At the end of the school year, Jeanroygenerated a list of the changes that haveoccurred over the five-year period from1987 to 1992. Table 12 provides asample overview of staff accomplish-ments drawn from this list.

1993-94: Refinement andFull-Speed Ahead

The school year started on positive foot-ing. Evaluation data from the 1992-93school year continued to show improve-ment in academics, social relations, andbehavior. For example, Jeanroy reportsthat all classes except second gradeshowed grade-level equivalent scoresabove the national norms. The greatestgains were demonstrated by special edu-cation students.

One of the teachers that we sendkids to came down and said, “Boyyour kids know how to cooper-ate. They say kind things; theyknow how to tell their partner‘Oops! you need to change this’.”Lane

Jeanroy attributes gains for special stu-dents to the inclusion/collaboration ap-proach implemented with the continu-ous-progress program. Student average



Table 12

Positive Changes in Concrete Elementary Schoolfrom 1987 to 1992

1987 1992

Self-contained, traditional classrooms;departmentalized intermediate grade levelswith students sitting in desks all in rows

A stable, very conservative, and committedfaculty

Most discipline problems handled throughthe office with set consequences adminis-tered by the principal

Staff development based on the teachers’special subject-area interests

Basal reading program with standardspelling, grammar, and writing activities

A competitive atmosphere for achievingindividual grades

Traditional pullout program for specialeducation, Chapter 1, and L.A.P. programs

Learning centers used as a reward forsuccessful academic work

Standard report cards using letter grades andsocial-skill indicators with minimal com-ments

Three afternoons for parent/teacher confer-ences, with each parent having a twenty-minute time slot

Some cross-age tutoring

Small group of intensely supportive parents

Few support services and a counselor fortwo days a week

Little school spirit or self-identity

Daytime use of school facilities only

Combination of multiage and traditionalstraight-grade classrooms with team teachingand cooperative planning; desks replaced bytables

Faculty more dynamic, innovative, andchild-centered

A schoolwide Self Managers and ConflictManagers program in which the students areheld accountable for their behavior

A schoolwide staff-development planadopted with a focus on improving theinstructional process

Whole-language, literature-based readingand writing program

A cooperative atmosphere where childrenwork together on most academic and socialactivities

Collaborative teaching and inclusion ofspecial education, with immersion inChapter 1 and L.A.P.

Learning centers developed to supplementand expand academic activities

Narrative student progress reports using thecomputer to record ongoing data

Parent conferences conducted after schooleach week from early November to mid-December

Increased cross-age and peer tutoring

Increased parent support with PTO participa-tion and parent and community volunteerism

Full-time school counselor, district nurse,district speech and hearing therapist, andfull-time district psychologist

School colors, a mascot, sweatshirt, andbadge designs

Communitywide use of facilities with anactive community education program

daily attendance rose to 93.3 percent,and discipline referrals declined overthe previous year. Moreover, parent sup-port rose as measured by volunteers andattendance at parent-teacher confer-ences.

Because of parent requests, 92 percentof all classrooms have become multiage;all classes are expected to be multiageby the 1994-95 school year.

The kids like to come to school.My own children whine, “Youmean I have to stay home? I haveto be there. I’m part of the team.The team needs me.” Jones

Activity goals have been continued fromthe 1992-93 list, with emphasis and train-ing in five areas: cooperative learning,integrated curriculum, whole-language/thematic units, multiple intelligenceteaching strategies, and portfolio assess-ment. Gary Bletsch, the last straight-grade teacher, provides a fifth-gradeclassroom for those parents who did notwant their children in a multiage set-ting. For the most part, these are parentswhose children were enrolled in theschool before the continuous progressapproach began.

What remains to be done is refinementand sustaining the program over time.The grant ends this year. Teachers wereasked if they felt the school would havemade the changes if they had not re-ceived the grant money. Nearly every-

one said yes. However, they said it wouldhave taken much longer.

“I think it started the system initially forus, and it got us to a point quicker thanwhat we would have if we had not hadthat money,” Jeanroy says. As a ruralschool, it is more difficult to obtain staff-development, and the grant resourcesallowed staff-development people tocome to Concrete.

Would teachers go back to how theirschools operated before the grant? “Ithink we have proven to ourselves thatit’s working and we all love it,” Loomissays. “I don’t think anybody would evergo back to the way it was.”

Commitment, Support,and the Dilemma ofChange

The process of change, Jeanroy says, islike a “train pulling out of the station—you’re either on board or you’re not.And if you’re not aboard, you’re goingto have to run awfully fast to catch up.”

In interviewing staff and community,this train image reflects a majority view-point regarding the challenges and prob-lems of implementation. Staff mentionedthe difficulty of change more frequentlythan any other problem. “We becamecognizant of the fact that we had a tre-mendous workload by the second orthird week of school,’’ says Jeanroy.“And it just got worse after that for along period of time, until we finally got



a handle on what we were supposed tobe teaching, and within several monthswe were just exhausted.”

In addition to the issues of change andinclusion, several related concerns sur-faced among staff members. Facing awide developmental span of studentswith grade-level materials and develop-ing appropriate curriculum and assess-ment resources required many new skillsand immense amounts of time. “Theyhad all these wonderful ideas and justnot enough time and not enough man-power to implement them,” says Cowan.“I think they all felt overwhelmed. ”

Staff also found it difficult to gain andsustain parents’ acceptance and under-standing of the changes on two levels:(1) Direct classroom support—parentsdid not volunteer in large numbers tohelp in classrooms or with other projects;and (2) Emotional support—staff oftenfelt that some parents were skeptical ofthe change efforts and did not share thebelief that what they were doing was inthe best interest of the children.

Change and the pressure ofresponsibility

The Twenty-First Century grant pro-vided a plan and the resources for re-forming education at Concrete Elemen-tary School. Staff shouldered the re-sponsibility for implementation througha process of shared exploration and de-cision-making. Once staff committed toa plan of action, they proved tenaciousin their desire to succeed. However, the

transition from traditional single-gradeclassrooms, graded textbook curriculum,and teacher dominance over learningproved problematic.

How can we make school a warm,comfortable place for us to havea retreat? People broughtcouches from home; we movedall the furniture in the libraryand sort of made a big livingroom for the retreat. Hein

The year of exploration and traininggave teachers entry-level skills for work-ing with cooperative groups, recogniz-ing student differences, and adaptingcurriculum to address student diversity.During this time, staff also laid a stronginterpersonal foundation to serve as asupport network for coping with change.However, the training did not fully pre-pare staff for the magnitude of thechanges they encountered.

Don has a vision and he’s notafraid to step out on a limb. Ithink he really, in a very quietway, is always there for every-body. We see him daily; he’s inand out of the classrooms. Hisdoor is always open. I think that’snumber one on our list of why itworks. Cowan

Jeanroy has characterized the early pe-riod of implementation as the “curve ofsuffering.” This was a period when staffbegan to abandon familiar patterns andto incorporate new ones. Such transi-tion tends to create high levels of stressand anxiety. Passing through this transi-tion requires a safe and secure learningenvironment where risk-taking is sup-ported by ongoing technical and emo-tional support. Ongoing staff develop-ment provided the technical support. Theemotional support grew over time asstaff relationships developed. Staff re-treats proved beneficial in this regard.Hein says:

The retreat we went to and thechances to meet and talk and sort ofdiscover what other people’s priori-ties and ideas and goals were wasreal helpful. You know there wassome real nervousness about head-ing into this, and some people hadreal strong fears about letting go ofthings they were feeling successfulwith. But we really pulled togetherand had a lot of support for eachother.

In many ways, the stress created bychange helped them better appreciatethe role of learner. Moreover, the typeof leadership provided by the principalreminded them of the support studentsneed when learning. “Jeanroy was al-ways pointing out the benefits,” Lanesays. “He was always easing into it.He’s very tactful. He’s a very good ad-ministrator. He knows how to bringabout change. You don’t shove it. Youlet people adopt it as their own.

Ensuring everyone shares thespotlight

During all phases of implementation,continuous-progress classrooms re-ceived special attention. Visitors ob-served the classrooms and discussedchanges with teachers. Some teachers,too, were more adept at promoting theirprograms than others. “Some are veryflamboyant and very exotic,” notesMardi Jones, a parent volunteer. “Oth-ers are very quiet, but what they pro-duce is outstanding. Unfortunately, it’sthe quiet ones who don’t often get asmuch attention.”

Don has a vision and he’s notafraid to step out on a limb and Ithink he really, in a very quietway, is always there for every-body. We see him daily; he’s inand out of the classrooms. Hisdoor is always open. I think that’snumber one on our list of why itworks. Cowan

The attention had two direct forms ofimpact. First, it built resentment amongsome teachers and divided staff mem-bers. This was especially true whenConcrete still provided a single-gradestrand in the school. Second, the atten-tion created an unhealthy pressure toconform to the new program and ben-efit from the new resources. The pres-sure may have motivated others to geton board, but it also may have done soin a way that fostered resentment.



We Did It! The Benefits ofSeeing It Through

“Don has asked us if we thought it’sgotten easier as we’ve gone along,” saysLoomis. “And it definitely has. Our pro-gram is good and I think we know thatnow. It’s very successful and we seedefinite positive results.” Table 13 pre-sents what staff perceive as successesand the rewards that justify the hardwork. Interestingly, the two top-rankedbenefits are the same for teachers andstudents. Flexibility was mentioned mostoften in conjunction with multiage in-structional organization.

If you put a child in a context andthe context doesn’t change much,the relationships get fixed, andthen it becomes almost a kind ofmyth or stereotype. Hein

By having very diverse groups of mixedages together, issues of grade-level sta-tus and academic competition are easilyblurred and eliminated. Students canthen adjust to their unique developmen-tal levels without the pressure associ-ated with graded curriculums and curvedgrading practices. “It’s much easier towork with special students in a regularclassroom setting where there are otherkids who are maybe a grade below orwhatever,” says Peggy Kerschner, thespecial-education teacher. “They’re justkids working on a project, rather thanbeing singled out.” Students blend to-

gether with the common goal of learn-ing.

I feel like I really do know thatwhole child, because I’ve hadthem for so long. They’ve grownwith me, and I’ve grown withthem. Loomis

Building relationships emerged as animportant element of the continuous-progress environment.

Teacher teams, for example, proved tobe one type of relationship highly val-ued by some teachers because itprovided emotional and instructionalsupport, especially during the earlystages of implementation.

For the 1993-94 school year, threeteacher teams were built into the classschedule. In figure 2, these teams aredesignated by “T-T,” which alsoindicates that a door has been created toconnect team-teacher classrooms. Forexample, Money and Hawkings, Loomisand Hedgpeth, and Elms and Lane areteaching pairs with connecting rooms.The instructional schedule has been re-vised to ensure common team planningtime. Staff members have sought toexpand teaming. However, they havebeen realistic in recognizing that teamscannot be imposed, but work best whena bond exists between those desiring toteam.

In a manner very similar to the bondingthat occurred with staff, students havebeen encouraged and given many op-

Table 13

Perceived Benefits of Multiage Teaching for Teachers andStudents (ranked from most frequently mentioned to least

frequently mentioned)—Concrete Elementary School


Flexibility of the learning environmentallows teachers to continuously adjustlearning variables such as grouping andplacement without labeling children.

Facilitates relationship-building andpromotes a family-like climate that bondsteachers, parents, and students togetherinto a community of learners.

Having children for multiple years createscontinuity in assessment and curriculumfrom one year to the next.

Empowers teachers to act on their ownexperience, thus increasing motivation andenhancing growth and learning.

Promotes a focus on the whole child andcreates an environment driven by childneeds rather than curriculum, thus freeingthe teacher from the lock-step routines ofthe textbook.

Children learn classroom routines andteach them to new children, thus savingvaluable time and facilitating classroommanagement.

Flexibility of the learning environmentpromotes success for all students byallowing placement and learning pace to bedevelopmentally continuous for each child.

Promotes security, safety, and learning bypromoting peer learning and relationshipsamong all students, regardless of age, andcreates lasting bonds between students andteachers.

Develops student motivation to learn andlove of school.

Tends to eliminate status differences amongstudents based on grade placement andachievement.

Develops a learning climate where diversityis valued and accommodated.

Provides opportunities for leadership andesteem-building through modeling andassuming a variety of learning roles.

Students learn more because they arestretched by their close association witholder, more experienced students.


portunities to create bonds across agelevels and school years. By keeping stu-dents together for more than one yearwith the same teacher, bonds developthat have significant positive impact onlearning. “Rather than starting at zeroevery year and trying to figure out wherestudents are, we already have that infor-mation. You can continue working with

them,” says Kerschner. “I’ve seen a lotof growth with special-education stu-dents in not losing time at the beginningof the year.”

Moreover, the continuity creates manymore opportunities for all children to berole models and leaders. “Right there,within their own classroom, they get tobe on the top of the heap,” says Hein.


Figure 2

Concrete Elementary School

Concrete, WashingtonProgram Configuration 1993-94

5

4

3

2

1

K

Mrs.BarbHawkings4-5

Mrs.ArdisJeanroy2-3

Mr. LarryHedgpeth4-5

Mrs.EleanorOvenell3-4

Mrs. MargueriteKruse1-2

Mr. DanBrauer3-4-5CH/LAP

Ms. Linda BromleyDevelopmentallyDisabled Preschool

Ms. Maryann AtkinsHeadstart

T — T - Team TeachingContinuous Progress Program

425 Students

Mrs.MeridithLoomis4-5

Mrs.JaciGallagher3-4

Mrs.MarilynLane1-2

T — T

T — T

T —

T

Mrs.JennyQueen3-4

Mrs.HallieElms1-2

Mr. GaryBletsch 5

Ms.Lora Hein3-4

Mrs.MaryBianchini1-2CH/LAP

Mrs.DonnaThompson A

Mrs.DeborahMoney4-5

Mrs.Ruth AnnBrooke1-2-3

Mrs.DonnaThompsonB

C o n c l u s i o n

he research conductedfor this multiage implementation guidewas derived from two sources. A surveywas completed by educators attending anational conference on multiage educa-tion and by teachers and administratorsat four elementary schools in the North-west who had implemented multiageeducation for at least four years. In ad-dition, onsite interviews were conductedwith principals, multiage teachers, andparents from the four schools. Resultsfrom an analysis of survey and inter-view data provided valuable insight intohow each school implemented multiagepractices.

Six questions helped guide data analy-sis and were used to organize the con-clusion. Commonalties and differencesfound among the four schools were usedas a basis for developing guidelines foreducators contemplating restructuringtheir educational program around themultiage classroom. These guidelinesconstitute the content of the implica-tions chapter.

Compelling Reasons forImplementation

Even though reasons for implementinga multiage program are varied and com-plex, consistent patterns emerged acrossboth the survey and interview data. Sur-vey data revealed that all respondentsbelieved students benefited from beingin multiage learning environments. Ben-efits accrued for various reasons, amongthem increased opportunities for socialinteraction and cooperative group learn-ing. Furthermore, working daily withstudents of diverse ages, backgrounds,and abilities produced an acceptance andvaluing of diversity. And working withthe same children two or more yearswas also viewed as beneficial. More-over, respondents consistently indicatedthat the multiage classroom facilitatedthe natural development of children.

Rich descriptions of what these manybenefits look like in practice emergedfrom the interview data. Table 14 pro-vides an overview of the topics mostconsistently mentioned across all inter-views. Descriptive elements for each

93

T


Table 14

The Most Frequently Mentioned Reasons forImplementation Found Across the Four Interview Sites

Topic Area Key Elements

In blends of two or more ages/grades, students aresocialized into a community of learners through suchtechniques as heterogeneous-grouped cooperativelearning, ignoring age/grade distinctions, and emphasiz-ing the importance of helping and cooperative behav-iors.

Having cohort groups of children for multiple yearsfacilitates bonding among children, teacher(s), andparents. It also increases the quality of learning timebecause students and teachers do not experiencediscontinuity and separation commonly found in thestraight-grade class. Students transfer both content andclass-management knowledge to a higher degree, thusproviding leadership opportunities for returningstudents.

Students learn to value differences as they live and learnamong a heterogeneous student population. Differencesin status based on grade or academic performance arediminished or eliminated.

The diverse nature of the student population createsopportunities for all students to find academic andsocial success. Learning is continuous. Students,regardless of age and level of performance, can gener-ally find other students of similar developmental levels.

Students tend to become more intrinsically motivatedand positive about learning. This improvement inattitude facilitates their academic growth.

Promotes family-like climate

Creates social andacademic continuity

Promotes acceptanceand a valuing ofdiversity

Facilitates a devel-opmentally appro-priate learningenvironment

Leads to improvedaffective andacademic growth

topic have been included. These ben-efits did not simply emerge because chil-dren were placed in multiage classrooms.Teacher sensitivity, knowledge, and in-structional quality helped to create thelearning environments within these fourschools. Moreover, the benefits appearedto be as great for teachers as for stu-dents. Teachers indicated they felt revi-talized and renewed. In Lincoln, Con-

crete, and Overland schools, teacherssaid staff professional relationships be-came more personal, more intense, moremeaningful, and more collaborative.

Cousins, Ross, and Maynes (1994) haveidentified four levels of teacher collabo-ration and the knowledge use corre-sponding to each level (figure 3). Evi-dence from interviews conducted at allfour schools demonstrated that teacher

joint actions occurred at all four levelsof collaboration with the correspondingknowledge use. Cousins, Ross, andMaynes suggest that the fourth levelseldom happens in most schools. Inter-estingly, data from all four schools sug-gest a high frequency of level 4, espe-cially at Lincoln and Concrete Elemen-tary Schools. Moreover, interview com-ments suggested that team teaching en-hanced outcomes, such as feeling in-cluded, increased confidence, and pro-fessional stimulation. Meridith Loomis,a fourth-fifth-grade blend teacher fromConcrete, sums up her colleagues’ feel-ings regarding the transformation inteacher work relations:

When I first came here it was justsingle grades. You only taughtwhales in second grade and youdidn’t share your stuff. People taughta lot with their doors closed. If teach-ers went to somebody else for help,it was a sign they were feeling de-feated and they didn’t want otherpeople to know they needed help.Now people don’t care. We haveother teachers come in our roomsthat maybe feel like they need to dodifferent things in their programs.People are super willing to ask forhelp and to give help. We need eachother a lot more than we did.

The Roles and Knowledgeof Teachers Participatingin Implementation

In the four schools, teacher roles in de-cision-making, planning, and imple-

menting varied, depending on such fac-tors as school size, access to staff devel-opment opportunities, and availabilityof resources. During initial stages ofimplementation, teachers and parentshad choices about whether they wantedto be in a multiage classroom. Choicesdiminished in those schools where amajority of staff members becamemultiage teachers.

The degree of involvement in planningand decision-making appeared relatedto the personality or disposition of indi-vidual staff members. For example, atBoise-Eliot, Robin Lindsley, a first-sec-ond blend teacher, was characterized asbeing in the forefront with new ideas.At the other three schools, certain teach-ers stood out as risk-takers. These teach-ers often served on site-based teams andhelped develop grants and pilot testideas. However, in the final analysis,their vote did not appear to have moreweight than others on the staff, thoughthey certainly had influence. More im-portant, what emerged instead of indi-vidual influence was the collectiveagreement of staff members on the di-rection the school would take.

Each school demonstrated similar pat-terns of instructional organization anddelivery. Differences among schools re-lated to the degree of sophistication andexperience of teachers. For example,nearly all teachers used cooperativelearning, whole language, learning cen-ters, and other forms of active learning.However, there were interesting differ-ences among schools. For example,teachers from Concrete and Overland

CONCLUSION 95


Figure 3

Depth of Collaboration and Knowledge Use

Depth of Collaboration Knowledge Use

Instrumental

• division of labor,saving time

• stress relief• equitable resource

distribution• consensus decisions• product development

Conceptual

• idea generation• communication• growth in practice• goal clarification• knowledge of

students

Affective

• professional stimula-tion

• recognition andesteem

• sense of belonging• confidence develop-

ment

1. Information Exchange

• hallway discussions• material and idea sharing• one-way dissemination of

knowledge

2. Joint Planning and Participation

• divisional planning• instructional unit design• coursework and materials

production

3. Concurrent Implementation

• common, independent imple-mentation

• rotating activity centers• class coverage with shared

feedback about students

4. Joint Implementation

• common, shared implementation• team teaching• peer coaching and observations

▼

Deep Level

▼▼

▼

▼

Source: Cousins, Ross, and Maynes (1994, p. 450)

tended to learn these strategies concur-rently with implementation. In part, theirrural locations isolated them from staff-development opportunities about theseinteractive approaches. As a result, theyoften felt overwhelmed during imple-mentation with the number of changesoccurring at the same time. On the otherhand, teachers from Lincoln and Boise-Eliot changed to multiage classroomswith extensive prior training in earlychildhood education, DAP, whole lan-guage, and programs such as Math-Their-Way.

Interview data suggest that the moreexpertise staff has in these interactiveinstructional areas, the smoother the tran-sition to multiage organization. There-fore, school staffs contemplatingmultiage implementation might considerstaff development that addresses theneed for curricular and instructionalstrategies that facilitate successfulmultiage programs.

Organizational ClimateThat Facilitates Change

Interview data suggest that each schooldeveloped widespread norms of help-seeking and help-giving. Teachers dem-onstrated higher than average commit-ment to children and learning. Norms ofimprovement and risk-taking permeatedthe lives of teachers in these schools.These norms, in some cases, pressuredindividuals to conform to the dominantbeliefs about learning in the school. A

feeling of solidarity and trust eased con-cerns about sustaining the appearanceof being in control and not needing help.

In many ways, teachers reestablishedthemselves as continuous learnersamong a community of other learners—colleagues, parents, students, and theschool principal. Vicki Swartz, the cur-riculum specialist from Boise-Eliot, re-flects on the importance of establishinga climate of community at all levelswithin the school: “There is problem-solving with staff and making a com-munity of learners among staff, just likewe’re encouraging the multiage teach-ers to have in their own classrooms withstudents.”

I think that Hays attempts to beopen to having people disagreewith him; and I think he gives alot of power to teachers, in termsof allowing us to do what we dobest. I don’t always agree withhim, and I tell him. And I feelperfectly comfortable telling himthat. Otto

In each school there appeared to be wide-spread consistency regarding theschool’s mission and the purposes oflearning. This consistency reflected ashared language and understanding re-garding the nature of the innovation. AtLincoln and Boise-Eliot, for example,staff consistently described learning interms of developmentally appropriate

CONCLUSION 97


practice and student-centered curricu-lum decisions. Staff retreats and oppor-tunities for personal interaction appearto have been a powerful element in thetransformation of school climates fromnorms of isolation and independence tonorms of mutual support and pervasivecaring.

Parent Involvement andSupport

Gaining community and parent supportfor the change effort consistentlyemerged as the number one priorityacross survey and interview data. How-ever, not all staffs involved parents andcommunity to the same degree. Involv-ing parents requires commitment of time,often outside the regular workday. Italso requires a focused effort at manylevels simultaneously. There need to beefforts on a one-to-one basis at the indi-vidual parent level; there need to beclassroom-level approaches; and thereneed to be schoolwide activities wherethe entire staff shares values and beliefstogether with the community. All theschools studied made some effort to ad-dress all these levels.

It really needs to be a teamworkbetween the parents and theteachers and the administratorsworking together for what’s re-ally best for the child. Tacchini

Boise-Eliot provides free daycare forparent volunteers and to parents attend-ing school-sponsored meetings. Two ofthe schools, Boise-Eliot and Lincoln,have permanently established site coun-cils where parents play a major role inboth advisory and decision-making ca-pacities. Concrete has held communityforums to present and discuss multiageissues with parents. Several of theschools include parents in the same staff-development activities offered teachers,while other schools have offeredparenting classes. Concrete has a parentwho publishes a newsletter describinghappenings in the school and commu-nity.

The most productive approach appearsto be one that is multifaceted (address-ing all levels with a variety of strate-gies) and ongoing. Interestingly, thoseinterviewed conveyed very positive at-titudes toward the role of parents. Acollective belief emerged from the in-terviews that schools exist to serve theneeds of children and families. There-fore, school personnel must respect par-ents’ feelings, opinions, and role as sig-nificant caregiver in the lives of chil-dren. Williams, a fourth-fifth-gradeblend teacher from Lincoln, provides anexcellent summary of why parents arevalued:

To be a community, working for thebetter of all of the children and thecommunity and bringing in the fami-lies, is our goal. To see a cohesive-ness between parents and neighborsand staff. One big thing about this isthat it means having volunteers and

parents in the classroom. What I seeis a community working together toeducate the children.

Leadership, Support, andTransformation

Results of the interview analysis stronglysuggest that leadership played a signifi-cant role in the success achieved byeach school. When respondents wereasked to describe factors contributing tothe success of the change efforts in theirschools, however, only about 25 per-cent explicitly mentioned the principal.On the surface, this omission might seemto suggest that principals were not in-strumental in change. However, the in-terview data clearly present evidence tothe contrary. Principals were pivotalchange agents.

It’s that kind of leadership. Youhave to: (1) get out of the way;and (2) lend a hand to whoeverneeds a hand, and then get themgoing in the right direction.Jeanroy

Why were principals not mentionedmore often? The answer seems to be inthe principals’ leadership style, their em-phasis on collaboration and on actionsthat facilitate leadership developmentin others—parents, teachers, students,and support staff. Interestingly, the de-meanor of principals in all four schools

shared some common characteristics. Asa group, the principals appeared relaxed,warm, and unaffected. They seldom, ifever, mentioned themselves as beingessential or key to the changes happen-ing in their respective schools.

Teachers have been there a longtime and they know a lot of things.And if principals would justbrainstorm with them and listen,why they’ve got a real resourcethere. But I think sometimes prin-cipals feel like they’ll lose theircontrol. H. Craner

When principals discussed multiagechange, they spoke of the needs of chil-dren and families. They emphasized“we” not “I.” In words that reflect thebeliefs of each principal, Hays says, “Ithink my task is to embrace our commu-nity and have that community work to-gether to develop the most peaceful,harmonious environment they can de-velop.” Hays and the other principalsconceptualize community as an ever-expanding circle of inclusion—the class-room community within the school com-munity, within a neighborhood commu-nity, and so forth. Their primary strat-egy for building community centers onusing themselves as models. They actand speak in ways that communicatethe importance of openness, trust, and abelief in the individual’s capacity to learnand grow. Karen Eason, a curriculumspecialist from Lincoln, provides a con-

CONCLUSION 99


These characteristics were present indata from all four schools, but the de-gree of emphasis placed on them varied.For example, at Boise-Eliot, where themultiage classrooms are clearly in theminority, less emphasis was placed ontheir visibility than at the other threeschools. Moreover, a curriculum spe-cialist appears to have assumed a lead-ership role in ongoing development andsupport of the multiage classrooms.

In many ways, these characteristics andhow they were described in the inter-view data suggest that principals andteacher leaders engaged in a form ofleadership characterized by the termtranformational. Leithwood (1992) sug-gests leaders achieve change and im-provement by maintaining a balancebetween top-down and bottom-up formsof power. He suggests leaders musttransform schools by:

1) Helping staff members developand maintain a collaborative, pro-fessional school culture;

2) Fostering teacher development;and

3) Helping staff solve problems to-gether more effectively. (pp. 9-10)

The interview data gathered from thefour schools clearly suggest principalsassumed this transformational role.Morevoer, they empowered other staffto act in similar ways.

cise summary of this notion: “You your-self are operating on the outcomes thatyou’re expecting of students and teach-ers. There’s no difference.”

When interview data were analyzed interms of topics associated with leader-ship characteristics, eleven areas werefound in common across the fourschools:

• Recognizes developmental differ-ences among staff members and actswith appropriate support

• Empowers staff by providing lead-ership opportunities and shared de-cision-making

• Builds a dialogue among key stake-holders regarding the purpose ofschooling and learning

• Facilitates vision development

• Highly visible in classrooms, theschool, and the community

• Has a strong personal vision aboutchildren and learning

• Builds a climate characterized bytrust, mutual respect, and risk-tak-ing

• Keeps program visible

• Strives to ensure staff has neededresources, including time, materi-als, space, and staff development

• Possesses effective interpersonalskills

• Models personal vision and expec-tations

I m p l i c a t i o n s

implementation. The large size of theschool was a factor in the staff’s deci-sion to proceed cautiously. In three years,six multiage blends have been imple-mented, all with few conflicts and mini-mal disruption. Although some teachersmay feel impatient with the pace ofchange, the transition from single-gradeto multiage classrooms has been nearlyflawless. In part, this is because manyof the practices found in multiage class-rooms—such as staying with childrenfor several years, DAP, diversity, projectwork, whole language, and so forth—were already in place in a majority ofBoise-Eliot classrooms. The school alsohas a demonstrated history of innova-tion and improvement.

Overland represents the most divergenceof the four schools. Teachers chose aform of departmentalization as a meansof reducing the workload. Each teacherspecializes in a subject area. In general,Overland teachers possessed the mosttraditional educational backgrounds andteaching styles. Thus, they had to makethe greatest conceptual transition whenmoving to multiage instruction.

he research conductedfor this multiage implementation guideprovides a rich description of the expe-riences of teachers, principals, and par-ents from four elementary schools withsuccessful multiage programs. All fourschools serve a large percentage of at-risk students, thus providing many com-mon issues across the schools.

Reasons for implementing multiageclassrooms were evenly split among thefour schools. Developmentally appro-priate practices (DAP) reflect the initialreason for implementing multiage in-struction at Lincoln and Boise-Eliot.Concrete and Overland began with aconcern about student failure and reten-tion practices. Lincoln and Concretebegan their programs by offering staffand parents a choice between single ormultiage classrooms. Within two years,both schools were nearly all multiagewith plans to phase out remaining single-grade classrooms. Operating a school-within-a-school proved to be divisiveand counterproductive.

Of the four schools, Boise-Eliot’s moveto multiage classrooms represents themost careful and deliberate approach to

101

T


Prerequisites for Success:Leadership, Commitment,Support

The changes at Overland demonstratethat even the most radical shifts in in-structional practice are possible if cer-tain conditions are in place. These con-ditions appear as constants across allfour schools, though with some varia-tion relating to local context, size ofschool, and location.

Leadership in these schools can be char-acterized as facilitative and transforma-tional. Principals and curriculum spe-cialists (in the cases of Boise-Eliot andLincoln) developed relations and com-munications that were characterized byopenness, trust, and mutual respect. Theyaccepted and valued the developmentaldifferences in staff members. They werepatient and expressed the belief that allteachers could implement the desiredchanges. They also supported the act ofteaching by finding resources, writinggrants, protecting instructional time, tak-ing over classes, being in classroomswith children, and even helping teach-ers prepare materials.

Their most significant role centered ontheir skills at transforming the work en-vironment in ways that opened staffmembers to their own personal capaci-ties for change and growth. In this sense,they helped institute norms of continu-ous growth and improvement, thus help-ing to create learning communitieswhere people felt empowered to ques-tion, investigate, and challenge prevail-

ing assumptions about learning. JudithWarren Little (1993) has writteninsightfully about the conditions thatsupport such changes:

It requires that teachers and otherswith whom they work enjoy the lati-tude to invent local solutions—todiscover and develop practices thatembody central values and prin-ciples, rather than to implement,adopt, or demonstrate practicesthought to be universally effective.(p. 133)

The principals and curriculum special-ists interviewed all described the changesin their schools as continuously evolv-ing journeys. In this sense, they reflecteda problem-solving orientation to changeas opposed to an answer-seeking ap-proach.

Another constant across the four schoolswas the commitment and dedication ofteachers to the needs of children. Ironi-cally, prior to the change efforts in eachof the schools, norms of isolation, au-tonomy, and self-interest constrainedteachers’ collective action. However, thedevelopment of a dialogue among staffmembers and between the school andthe community created a collective vi-sion uniting teacher commitment into apowerful force for change. As is dis-cussed later, solidarity and teamworkare key facilitative factors in the changeto multiage classrooms.

Finally, all schools recognized the vitalplace support plays in bringing aboutthe kinds of change efforts each schoolfaced. Staff members garnered support

from a wide range of people involvedwith their schools. In some cases, sup-port was cultivated all the way to thegovernor’s office. In other cases, sup-port came primarily from the staff itselfand those parents whose children werein multiage blends. In still other cases,site councils were developed and par-ents brought in as partners in planningand decision-making. At each school,parents were seen as vitally importantpartners without whose support thechange efforts would fail.

Guiding Principles fromthe Four Schools

Six key principles emerged from theresearch data. Although not exhaustive,the principles and the descriptive infor-mation presented below may help toguide planning and development effortsfor those contemplating a move towardmultiage practices:

1. There are compelling benefits for stu-dents and teachers that justify imple-menting multiage organization: Allstakeholders spent time reviewing re-searched-based information beforeseriously beginning implementationplanning. In some cases, many of thepractices that proved beneficial, suchas cooperative learning and develop-mentally appropriate practice, werein place before multiage classroomswere initiated. However, the mostconvincing evidence came from thekids themselves. Everyone inter-viewed said students were the best

ambassadors. For many students,school suddenly became a meaning-ful and positive place.

2. There is no single right model orrecipe for becoming a multiage class-room or school: Each school existsin a unique context that must be care-fully considered in planning. Theteachers, parents, and students wholive and work in the environment arein the best position to reflect on theneeds of their school. Their directinvolvement is essential.

3. Neither bottom-up nor top-downimplementation, by themselves, areeffective: In all four schools, changewas initiated from several directionsat the same time. Teacher involve-ment in all phases of planning anddecision-making, coupled with dis-trict and administrative support, pro-duced conditions favorable to change.

4. Multiage programs require majorconceptual change: For most educa-tors, especially those who have taughtin traditional, direct instruction class-rooms, the changes were dramatic.Even after three years of implemen-tation, many teachers described theirstruggles in letting go of practicessuch as inflexible ability groupingand a reliance on the direct instruc-tion of skills. For these teachers, thechange to multiage was extremelychallenging and required ongoingsupport in an environment wherepeople are valued, trusted, and en-couraged to take risks.

IMPLICATIONS 103


5. The implementation of multiage in-struction and organization is bestviewed as an evolving, long-termchange at the deepest levels of teacherbeliefs about how humans learn:Teachers in the four schools are learn-ing to let go of many sacred notionsof the teachers’ role in learning. Theyare learning to share control with stu-dents. In many cases, they have faceda multitude of new experiences thatraise as many questions as answers.What has emerged is a collaborative,problem-solving orientation tochange.

6. Several incremental steps can facili-tate and improve the likelihood ofsuccess. A staff in partnership withparents should spend at least one yearin advance of implementation doingthe following:

• Build a dialogue between staff andcommunity about the purposes oflearning.

• Assess existing practices, identify-ing school strengths and areas of dis-satisfaction.

• Identify what information is neededprior to taking additional steps: re-search, school visitations, speakers,sharing experiences.

• Identify possible strategies andideas.

• Build consensus around a directionfor the school.

• Decide on next steps: staff develop-ment, piloting, exploring.

• Build long-term plans: goals, tasks/activities, timelines, who will be re-sponsible, expected outcomes.

• Identify how everyone will be keptinformed and involved.

• Identify how support will be devel-oped and maintained: community,teachers, parents.

Magnitude of Change

All change represents a personal transi-tion from the known to the unknownacross many dimensions at the sametime. However, personal changes withineach individual can trigger the greatestconcerns and fears. Can I do this newapproach? Will students learn? Whatwill my colleagues think of me? Chang-ing to a multiage classroom entails farmore than simply changing to a newtextbook or learning a new strategy orprogram. Implementing multiage in-struction and organization represents amajor shift in classroom norms.

Table 15 presents two ends of an educa-tional continuum. One end representsthe traditional, teacher-directed, single-grade learning environment (unidimen-sional), and the other end represents el-ements commonly found in a multiagelearning environment (multidimen-sional). Comparing classroom normstypically found in traditional straight-grade classrooms with those frommultiage classrooms reveals the magni-tude of change teachers face. It shouldbe noted that many single-grade class-

IMPLICATIONS 105

Table 15

Comparison of Teacher and Student Norms in Straightand Multiage Classrooms

Classroom Unidimensional Classroom Multidimensional ClassroomNorm (teacher directed single grade) (multiage with DAP)

Competence and abilityviewed as a fixed entity. Somestudents possess high aca-demic ability while othershave low ability.

Presenter of curriculumcontent, grader of studentaccomplishment, manager ofresources, and controller ofstudent behavior.

Reading ability is used as theprimary gauge of competenceand ability.

A narrow range of activitiesare used for learning. Theseare whole-group instruction;independent study; seat work;or small, stable ability groups.

Grades are arbitrarily curvedand normally distributed,which ranks and labelslearners. Evaluation is highlyvisible and comparative.

For low-achieving studentsthere is a negative effect onself-concept, motivation, andwork effort. High achieversare reinforced and givengreater opportunities to learn.Students also develop adependence on the teacher.

There are many different forms ofability or competence. Every childdemonstrates competence and abilityon some instructional task. Therefore,many diverse activities and tasks areused.

Problem-solver, tutor, facilitator,promoting all children to achievelearning objectives and to excel acrossa broad range of competency areas.

Competence and ability are recognizedin a variety of areas. Students demon-strate competence in reading, art,music, idea generation, cooperativeskills, and so forth.

Wide range of different activities forlearning, where students can demon-strate a variety of competencies. Theseinclude individual, pair, small-group,and large-group activities.

Focus is on identifying studentperformance strengths and needsacross a wide variety of instructionalareas and tasks. Growth is measuredon a continuous basis and is privateand individual.

Student academic self-concept, senseof efficacy (personal control), achieve-ment, and motivation are enhanced.Students learn that everyone has abilityand can demonstrate competence insome area. Self-direction and indepen-dence develop.

Belief aboutstudentability

Teacher role

Basis fordeterminingcompetence

Taskstructure

Learnerassessmentand evalua-tion

Effects onlearners

(Adapted from Miller 1989, p. 130)


rooms operate as multidimensionallearning environments, especially withthe recent advances with whole lan-guage, cooperative learning, and otherhighly interactive learning approaches.

Interview data from all four schools pointto changes in classroom norms alongthe six dimensions presented in table15. For example, most teachers foundthat shifting to multiage organizationforced them to address the diverse learn-ing styles of children in their classrooms.Direct instruction, which is most effec-tive for learning convergent content, wasno longer sufficient in a multiage class-room where the age span increased thediversity of learners. As a result, teach-ers developed instructional approachesbased on more divergent and process-based learning, such as hands-on sci-ence, problem-solving, process writing,cooperative learning, and learning cen-ters. Little (1993) notes that current ap-proaches to educational reform and staffdevelopment tend to view teachers asconsumers of educational knowledge.She suggests that staff development ismost effective when it provides teach-ers with opportunities to work together“in the construction and not mere con-sumption of subject matter teachingknowledge” (p. 135). Instead, Little says,current reform efforts:

demand a greater facility amongteachers for integrating subject con-tent and for organizing students’opportunities to learn. They repre-sent, on the whole, a substantial de-parture from teachers’ prior experi-ences, established beliefs, and

present practice. Indeed, they holdout an image of conditions of learn-ing for children that their teachershave themselves rarely experienced.(p. 130)

The transition from a unidimensional toa multidimensional classroom as pre-sented in table 15 illustrates the com-plexity of change, suggested by Little,that each school faced as it moved onthe continuum from a single to amultiage environment.

A review of the practices teachers men-tioned as supportive of multiage organi-zation and instruction help to illustrateLittle’s (1993) observation that currentreform underestimates the amount ofchange expected of teachers and princi-pals. Table 16 presents the most com-monly mentioned multiage strategies.Teachers who had prior experience withmany of these practices, as was the caseat Boise-Eliot, made a relatively smoothtransition to multiage. On the other hand,teachers who learned many of these strat-egies concurrently with implementingmultiage organization found the transi-tion traumatic. This was the case withmany teachers at Overland and Con-crete Elementary Schools.

All these strategies have research sup-porting their effectiveness. The fact thatall four schools found them reliable prac-tices in a multiage setting adds credenceto their benefit. However, their cost andthe manner in which they are often mar-keted to teachers raise questions aboutwhether there may be places to beginstaff development that do not rely on

Table 16

The Most Commonly Mentioned Strategies Facilitative ofMultiage Instruction and Organization

Cooperative learning

Whole language

Teaching partners and teaming

Inclusion of support programs

Chapter 1 immersion

Student goal setting

Learning centers

Project learning

Hands-on math

Hands-on science

Authentic assessmentportfoliosperformanceanecdotal

Performance and narrative reportstrategies

Multiple intelligence

Student choices

Shift to trade books for reading

Process writing

Use community volunteers

Use schoolwide themes

Integration of subject matter

Cross-age tutoring

Schoolwide focus on multiage

Adapt textbooks

Emphasis on arts

IMPLICATIONS 107


external sources of expertise and fund-ing.

The four schools involved in this studyprovide evidence that a good startingplace may be to analyze existingstrengths, resources, and needs. For ex-ample, Lincoln began with parent andstaff advisory groups that later blendedinto a site council. These groups ap-peared to follow a strategy based onself-study, where teachers and/or par-ents reviewed ideas and research to-gether to develop common understand-ing and build relationships. Little (1993)suggests such an approach helps movestaff development characterized by di-rect teaching of instructional skills toopportunities to deepen understandingand open a debate about what’s best forkids.

That concept—what’s best for kids—motivated and guided the four schoolsinvolved in this study. By laying a foun-dation for reform based on the needs ofthe children in their schools, teachersalso transformed their relations with oneanother in ways that enhanced their ca-pacity for collective action. Rather thanmere consumers of educational trends,products, and the ideas of other people,they became creators of their own workenvironments.

A p p e n d i c e s

Appendix A: Methodology

Appendix B: Data Collection Instruments

Appendix C: Codebook

109


110

Appendix A:

Methodology

for interviews and scheduled site visits.Interviews were conducted at eachschool. All interviews, with the permis-sion of the participants, were taped andlater transcribed. In addition to inter-views, documents such as mission state-ments, class schedules, school maps,report cards, and other pertinent mate-rial were collected. Informal tours ofthe school and visitations were also con-ducted.

Survey Instruments

A survey was developed and adminis-tered to multiage teachers at each school.Parents who were actively involved inthe implementation efforts at each schoolwere also surveyed. The survey con-sisted of demographic questions andopen-ended questions about implemen-tation (see Appendix B for copies of thesurvey questions). In addition, the sur-vey was distributed at a national confer-ence on multiage education sponsoredby the Society for Developmental Edu-cation in Lexington, Kentucky (SDE1993).

Data Collection

The four interview-site schools wereselected on the basis of their reputationsfor excellence in implementing andmaintaining multiage instruction and or-ganization. They were also selected be-cause they represented diverse locationsand varied in their program design. Prin-cipals from each school were contactedby phone. The research project was dis-cussed and their consent to participateobtained.

An initial visit was made to LincolnElementary School, where the principaland several teachers were interviewed.Broad questions regarding implementa-tion were used. Interviews were tran-scribed. From these data a set of inter-view questions were written and re-viewed for clarity by several people withexpertise in qualitative data collection(see the section on instrumentation thatfollows for copies of the interview ques-tions).

At each school, the principal (and thecurriculum specialist at Boise-Eliot)served as a liaison and selected a repre-sentative sample of teachers and parents

Data AnalysisProcedures

The purpose of data analysis was toidentify and describe the perceptions ofteachers, principals, and parents regard-ing the implementation of multiage in-struction and organization in fourschools with successful multiage class-rooms. All interviews, field notes, andsurveys were transcribed and enteredinto Ethnograph (Seidel, Kjolseth, andSeymour 1988), a computer programdesigned to sort and manipulate qualita-tive data.

All interviews and surveys were treatedas separate files for topical analysis andcoding. Files were also organized byschool, thus allowing for analysis byschool and across schools. Survey datawere handled in a similar manner.Ethnograph allows for the developmentof a codebook of topics and their defini-tions (see Appendix C). The codebookserves as a repository for topics emerg-ing from the data during analysis andhelps ensure consistency in applyingcodes across data sets.

Because of the quantitative nature ofthe surveys, data were analyzed with aneye toward counting the frequency withwhich topics were mentioned. Tableswere then constructed to show thosetopics most frequently mentioned (forexample, see table 3).

Analysis of interview data was both ex-ploratory and ongoing, following fourgeneral strategies:

1. Data collection and analysis were in-tertwined. As data were collected andanalyzed, new information revealedavenues for further inquiry. Thesewere pursued where appropriate.

2. Categories were formed to serve as ameans of organizing data, usuallybeginning with broad, descriptive cat-egories such as “leadership.” Afterdata were sorted into these broad cat-egories, further analysis createdsmaller, more concrete pieces of in-formation using new code words. Forexample, Ethnograph would gener-ate a data set for all interview seg-ments coded “leadership.” This dataset would then be read, analyzed, andnew codes created and attached tothe pertinent interview segments. Theprocess of analysis moved from thegeneral to the specific, creating addi-tional code words as new topicsemerged. Table A1 contains a codedsegment that illustrates this process.

As can be seen, this segment hasbeen coded with five additional codes.Further analysis, for example, couldbe conducted by sorting all segmentscoded with “ownership.”

3. Themes or patterns that describe regu-larities, shared beliefs, or norms ofschool personnel toward multiagepractices were inferred from the data.Interview information was comparedand contrasted as a means of cross-checking the reliability of individualperceptions of events within the

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY 111


Table A1

Sample of Coded Data (SearchCode: LEADERSHIP)

#-DIALOGING #-PARENT REL #-LEADERSHIP#OWNERSHIP #-RESEARCH #-SELF QUEST

: then I got involved. But it was 604 -#

: anyone was invited to join this 605 #

: group, but it was discussions of school 606 #

: and the principal would feed us research 607 #

: as we could handle it, and 608 #

: just discussions about what do you 609 #

: think is good about education, what 610 #

: is important, and we would you know 611 #

: kind of springboard from there to 612 #

: more 613 #

school. These, in turn, were com-pared with the emergent themesacross the schools and with resultsfrom the survey data. In this way,trends were identified that may haveapplication beyond the existing datasets.

4. Tentative conclusions drawn fromone data set were compared and con-trasted with other data sets. For ex-ample, teacher perceptions of the ben-efits of multiage practices were com-pared across the four schools.

Draft reports of the data analysis weresent to the principals and the curriculum

specialist at Boise-Eliot for field review.Appropriate suggestions were incorpo-rated into the final report.

113

A MULTIAGE/MULTIGRADE IMPLEMENTATIONSURVEY

INTRODUCTION : The purpose of this survey is to identify key issues educatorsfeel are important for the implementation of multiage/multigrade instruction.Survey results will be used in a handbook to help guide educators toward success-ful planning and implementation of multiage/multigrade learning environments.The terms multiage and multigrade are used here interchangeably to mean learn-ing environments where students are organized and taught together across agesand grades. This may mean a combined classroom (two grades/ages), more thantwo years, multiage/grade grouping for a single subject or an ungraded school.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please respond to each question by circling the appropriatechoice in the response section or writing in a narrative answer.

1. What is your current role?teacher principal/supervisor other (specify: )

2. What is your current grade span responsibility (circle all that apply)?

preschool primary intermediate middle school high school(grades K-2/3) (grades 3/4-5) (grades 6-8) (grades 9-12)

3. What is your current stage of involvement in implementing multiage/grade organi-zation and instruction?

thinking planning 1st year 2nd year 3 or more yearsabout it for use of use of use of use

4. What is your current or expected pattern of use?

single grade two ages/grades three or morew/cross-grade combined and taught ages/grades combinedgrouping together and taught together

Appendix B:

Data Collection Instruments


5. Please write in the state which you represent: _____________________________

6. Please explain why you are considering or currently implementing multiage/gradeinstruction and organization.

7. What do you consider to be important factors to the successful implementation ofmultiage/grade instruction?

8. What problems or difficulties have to be overcome for a) successful implementa-tion and b) sustaining multiage/grade instruction over time?

9. What recommendations do you have for schools considering the implementation ofmultiage/grade instruction?

MA Implementation Interview Protocol

Name: _______________ Date: ____ School: ______________________

1. Let’s begin by having you tell a little about who you are, your role, teachingexperience, background, etc. (probe for length of teaching, experience MA)

2. If you received a request to help a school implement a multiage approach to organi-zation and instruction, what are some of the issues or areas you would want to focuson? (Probe: community support, preparing students, staff risk-taking/support)

3. What reason or rationale would you offer as a justification for trying multiageinstruction?

4. How long has your school used a multiage approach to organization and instruc-tion?

Tell me how your concerns may have changed over that time? (Probe: Has theirfocus changed over time?)

APPENDIX B: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 115


5. You have been doing this for more than three years, to what would you attributeyour success? (Probe: how has involvement been sustained, motivation, etc.?)

6. Could you describe any difficulties you may have encountered in implementing thisapproach? In other words, barriers or challenges that have had to be overcome.(probe for solutions)

7. What suggestions would you have for school principals considering the implemen-tation of multiage instruction?

8. How would you deal with the diverse nature of most faculties in trying to imple-ment this change? (Probe: reluctant staff, developmental differences, etc.)

9. Is there anything you may wish to discuss that I left out?

117

Appendix C:

Codebook

he following list of code words represents a sampleof the codes used in analyzing the multiage interview data. A total of 173 codeswere created and organized into parent groups. For example, CLM represents theparent group climate. For those interested, a complete list of the codes may beobtained from the author.

Codeword Parent Definition

QUOTE * Quotable material

SUMMARY * Where I have summarized what aspeaker has said

ASSESSMENT ASE Relating to assessing, measuring andevaluating multiage programs,student progress, etc.

CARE CLM Demonstrating care and concern forothers

CELEBRATE CLM Recognizing and rewarding effortsand successes

CLIMATE CLM Issues relating to the ethos of theschool: relationships,communications, attitudes, etc.

COMMITMENT CLM Evidence of commitment tomultiage: hard work, extra time,reputation, etc.

COMPETE CLM Being competitive regarding bestpractice

CONFLICT CLM Any disagreement about beliefs,values, etc. that is cause ofdiscussion

DIVERSITY CLM Accepting the differences in people

EMPOWER CLM Sharing power with teachers, givingthem the freedom to act on their ownprofessional judgment

T


B i b l i o g r a p h y

118

any of the items in this bibliography are indexed inERIC’s monthly catalog Resources in Education (RIE). Reports in RIE are indi-cated by an “ED” number. Journal articles, indexed in ERIC’s companion catalog,Current Index to Journals in Education, are indicated by an “EJ” number.

Most items with an ED number are available from ERIC Document ReproductionService (EDRS), 7420 Fullerton Rd., Suite 110, Springfield, VA 22153-2852.

To order from EDRS, specify the ED number, type of reproduction desired—microfiche (MF) or paper copy (PC), and number of copies. Add postage to thecost of all orders and include check or money order payable to EDRS. For creditcard orders, call 1-800-443-3742.

Each citation has a letter code indicating the topic or topics covered as follows:

W = whole language

A = assessment

R = research

B = background information

C = curriculum

I = implementation and change

D = DAP

S = instructional strategies

(1989). Special issue on whole language. TheElementary School Journal, 90(2). W, A,C

American Association of School Administra-tors. (1992). The nongraded primary: Mak-ing schools fit children. Arlington, VA:Author. ED 363 939. B, I

Anderson, R. H., & Pavan, B. N. (1993). Non-gradedness: Helping it to happen.Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co.ED 355 005. I, B, C

Anthony, R. J., Jones, T. D., Mickelson, N. I.,& Preece, A. (1991). Evaluating literacy: Aperspective for change. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann. A

Argondizza, M., Foster, D., Miller, M., VanDeusen-Henkel Cote, D. R., Lynch, A., &Reidman, B. Big book for educators, devel-opmentally appropriate practices: A guidefor change. Augusta, ME: Maine Depart-ment of Educational and Cultural Services.D

M

Beane, J. A. (1990). Affect in the curriculum:Toward democracy, dignity, and diversity.New York: Teachers College Press. C

Boise-Eliot School (1994). Boise-Eliot school:Parent/family involvement. One-page in-formation sheet.

Branscombe, N. A., Goswami, D, & Schwartz,J. (Eds.). (1992). Students teaching, teach-ers learning. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann. C, S

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentallyappropriate practice in early childhoodprograms serving children from birththrough age 8 (expanded edition). Wash-ington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young Children. D

Bridge, C. A., Reitsma, B. S., & Winograde, P.N. (1993). Primary thoughts: Implement-ing Kentucky’s primary program. Lexing-ton, KY: Kentucky Department of Educa-tion. D, I

Bridges Bird, L. (Ed.). (1989). Becoming awhole language school: The Fair Oaksstory. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Pub-lishers, Inc. I, W, S

Brookes, C. (1990). Multi-age grouping: A strat-egy for reducing truancy of at-risk chil-dren. Master’s Practicum Report, NovaUniversity, Florida. ED 323 011. I, S

Brown, H., & Cambourne, B. (1987). Read andretell: A strategy for the whole-language/natural learning classroom. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann. W, S, C

Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching:Theory and practice. New York: TeachersCollege Press. I

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making con-nections: Teaching and the human brain.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-sion and Curriculum Development. ED 335141. R, C

Calkins, T. (May 1992). Off the track: Childrenthrive in ungraded primary schools. TheSchool Administrator, 49(5), 8-13. EJ 441301. B

Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natu-ral learning and the acquisition of literacyin the classroom. Auckland, New Zealand:Ashton Scholastic. ED 359 497. W, R

Chaile, C., & Britain, L. (1991). The youngchild as scientist: A constructivist approachto early childhood science education. NewYork: Harper Collins. C, S

Chase, P., & Doan, J. (1994). Full circle: Re-envisioning multiage education. Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann. B, I

Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing groupwork:Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom.New York: Teachers College Press. S, R

Concrete Elementary School (1989). 2Twenty-firsttcentury program proposal. Concrete,WA: Author.

Costa, A. L., Bellanca, J., & Fogarty, R. (1992).If minds matter: A foreword to the future(volumes one and two). Palatine, IL: Sky-light Publishing, Inc. A, R, C

Cotton, K. (1993). Closeup #14: Nongradedprimary education. (School ImprovementResearch Series). Portland, OR: NorthwestRegional Educational Laboratory. R, S

Cousins, J. B., Ross, J. A., & Maynes, F. J.(1994). The reported nature and conse-quences of teachers’ joint work in threeexemplary schools. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 94(4), 441-465. R, I

Davis, B. I., Frankovich, M., et al. (1991).Continuous progress with multi-age group-ing and teacher teaming: A nongradedimplementation guide for small school dis-tricts. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.ED 337 341. I, B

BIBLIOGRAPHY 119


DelForge, C., & DelForge, L. (1991). Whatrural combination classroom teachers sayabout teaching combination classrooms.Cullowhee, NC: Western Carolina Univer-sity. ED 330 525. R, I, B

Dunn, S., & Larson, R. (1990). Design technol-ogy: Children’s engineering. New York:The Falmer Press. S, A, C

Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes af-fecting learning. American Psychologist.41(10), 1040-1048. EJ 360 271. R, D, I

Educational Research Service. (1989). Coop-erative learning. Arlington, VA: Author.B, R, C, S

Educational Research Service. (1989). Thewhole language approach to reading, writ-ing, and language arts. Arlington, VA:Author. W, C, R, S

Educational Research Service. (1990). Enhanc-ing student self-esteem. Arlington, VA:Author. R, C, S

Educational Research Service. (1991). Educat-ing a culturally diverse student population:Teaching methods and the learning pro-cess. Arlington, VA: Author. R, C, S

Falk, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Theprimary language record at P.S. 261: Howassessment transforms teaching and learn-ing. New York: NCREST, Teachers Col-lege, Columbia University. ED 358 964. A,W

Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993).Teacher commitment, working conditions,and differential incentive policies. Reviewof Educational Research, 63(4), 489-525.R, I

Fischer, K., & McBride, J. (1993). Multiagehandbook. Issaquah, WA: Issaquah ValleyElementary School. B

Fullan, M. G. (1993). The new meaning ofeducational change, (2nd edition). NewYork: Teachers College Press. ED 354 588.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: Theory ofmultiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks, Inc. A, R, C, D

Gaustad, J. (1992). Making the transition fromgraded to nongraded primary education.Oregon School Study Council Bulletin,35(8), 1-42. ED 343 282. R, I, D

Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded education:Mixed-age, integrated, and developmentallyappropriate education for primary children.Oregon School Study Council Bulletin,35(7), 1-38. ED 343 227. R, D

Gayfer, M. (Ed.). (1991). The multi-grade class-room: Myth and reality. Toronto: CanadianEducation Association. ED 333 532. R

Glazer, S. M., Brown, C. S., et al. (1993).Portfolios and beyond: Collaborative as-sessment in reading and writing. Norwood,MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.A

Gnezda, M. T., Garduque, L., & Schultz, T.(Eds.). (1991). Improving instruction andassessment in early childhood education:Summary of a workshop series. Washing-ton, DC: National Academy Press. ED 337279. A, R

Goodlad, J. I., & Anderson, R. H. (1987). Thenon-graded elementary school Revised edi-tion. New York: Teachers College Press.ED 279 084. R, I, B

Goodman, K. S., Goodman, Y. M., & Hood,W. J. (Eds.). (1989). The whole languageevaluation book. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann. ED 359 500. A, W

Gutierrez, R., & Slavin, R. E. (1992). Achieve-ment effects of the nongraded elementaryschool: A retrospective review. Baltimore,MD: Center for Research on Effective

Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. ED346 996. R

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1990). An integrativemodel of the classroom: The enhancementof cooperation in learning. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Edu-cational Research Association, Boston, MA.ED 322 121. R, S

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (1992). In-teraction in cooperative groups: The theo-retical anatomy of group learning. NewYork: Cambridge University Press. R, S

Hill, B. C., & Ruptic, C. A. (1994). Practicalaspects of authentic assessment: Puttingthe pieces together. Norwood, MA: Chris-topher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. A

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin,L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge ofchange. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.ED 282 876. I

Hunter, M. (1992). How to change to a non-graded school. Alexandria, VA: Associa-tion for Supervision and Curriculum De-velopment. ED 348 719. I

ILEA/Centre for Language in Primary Educa-tion. (1988). The primary language record:Handbook for teachers. London, England:Author. A, W

Jones, A. (1993). Celebrating growth over time:Classroom-based assessment in languagearts. (Literacy Improvement Series for El-ementary Educators). Portland, OR: Lit-eracy, Language, and Communication Pro-gram, Northwest Regional EducationalLaboratory. A, W

Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. SanJuan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teach-ers, Inc. S

Katz, L. G. (1988). Engaging children’s minds:The implicationsof research for early child-

hood education. In C. Warger (Ed.), A Re-source Guide to Public School EarlyChilhood Programs. Alexandria, VA:ASCD. pp. 32-52. B, C, D, S

Katz, L. G., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J. A.(1990). The case for mixed-age grouping inearly education. Washington, DC: NationalAssociation for the Education of YoungChildren. ED 326 302. D, R

Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engagingchildren’s minds: The project approach.Norwood, NJ: Ablex. S, D, R

Kentucky Education Association and Appala-chia Educational Laboratory. (1990). Un-graded primary programs: Steps towarddevelopmentally appropriate instruction.Frankfort, KY: KEA. I, B

Kovalik, S. (1993). Integrated Thematic In-struction: The model (2nd edition). Villageof Oak Creek, AZ: Books for Educators. C,S

Kovalik, S. J., & Olsen, K. D. (1991). Kid’s eyeview of science: A teacher’s handbook forimplementing an integrated thematic in-struction approach to teaching science, K-6. Village of Oak Creek, AZ: Center for theFuture of Public Education. C, S

Lazear, D. (1991). Seven ways of knowing:Teaching for multiple intelligences (2ndedition). Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing.C, S

Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move towardtransformational leadership. EducationalLeadership, 49(5), 8-12. EJ 439 275. R, I

Liontos, L. B. (1993). Shared decision-making.Oregon School Study Council Bulletin,37(2), 1-42. R, I

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional de-velopment in a climate of educational re-

BIBLIOGRAPHY 121


form. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 15(2), 129-151. EJ 466 295. R, I

Lodish, R. (1992). The pros and cons of mixed-age grouping. Principal, 71(5), 20-22. EJ444 286. R, B

Lowery, L. F. (1993). Thinking and learning:Matching developmental stages with cur-riculum and instruction. (p. 7). PacificGrove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Soft-ware. R, D, S

Maeda, B. (1994). The multi-age classroom.Cypress, CA: Creative Teaching Press. I,B, R

Manitoba Department of Education. (1988).Language arts handbook for primary teach-ers in multi-graded classrooms. Winnipeg,Manitoba. ED 300 814. C, S

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1980). Therealities of school improvement programs:Analysis of qualitative data. Proposal toNational Institute of Education (funded asNIE Grant G-81-0018). R, I

Miller, B. A. (1989). The Multigrade class-room: A resource handbook for small, ru-ral schools. Portland, OR: Northwest Re-gional Educational Laboratory. ED 320 719.A, R, B, C, S

Miller, B. A. (1990). A Training guide for themultigrade classroom: A resource hand-book for small, rural schools. Portland, OR:Northwest Regional Educational Labora-tory. ED 332 844. I, R, S

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethosand democratic education. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. R, C, S

Nye, B. (1993). Some questions and answersabout multiage grouping. ERS Spectrum,11(3), 38-45. EJ 466 852. R, B

Olson, C. B. (Ed.). (1987). Practical ideas forteaching writing as a process. Sacramento,

CA: California State Department of Educa-tion. ED 294 193. W, C

Pace, G. (1993). Making decisions about group-ing in language arts. (Literacy Improve-ment Series for Elementary Educators).Portland, OR: Literacy, Language, andCommunication Program, Northwest Re-gional Educational Laboratory. ED 354 486.S, W

Pappas, C. C., Kiefer, B. Z., & Levstik, L. S.(1990). An integrated language perspec-tive in the elementary school: Theory intoaction. White Plains, NY: Longman. ED315 775. W, C, S

Peterson, R. (1992). Life in a crowded place:Making a learning community. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann. I

Province of British Columbia Ministry of Edu-cation. (1990a). Primary program founda-tion document. Victoria, British Columbia:Author. B, I, C

Province of British Columbia Ministry of Edu-cation. (1990b). Primary program resourcedocument. Victoria, British Columbia: Au-thor. B, I, C

Province of British Columbia Ministry of Edu-cation. (1990c). Our primary program: Tak-ing the Pulse. Victoria, British Columbia:Author. R, B, C, I

Rathbone, C., Bingham, A., Dorta, P.,McClaskey, M., & O’Keefe, J. (1993).Multiage portraits: Teaching and learningin mixed-age classrooms. Peterborough,NH: Crystal Springs Books. R, C, S, A

Rhodes, L. K., & Shanklin, N. L. (1993). Win-dows into literacy: Assessing learners, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ED 358428. A, W

Roelofs, E., Veenman, S., & Lem, P. (1989).Training teachers in complex classroomorganizations (mixed-age classes) to im-

prove instruction and classroom manage-ment behaviour: Effects of a staff develop-ment programme. The Hague, Netherlands:Institute for Educational Research in theNetherlands. ED 338 580. R

Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace:The social organization of schools. WhitePlains, NY: Longman. R, I

Seidel, J.; Kjolseth, R.; & Seymour, E. (1988).The ethnograph. Corvallis, OR: QualisResearch Associates.

Severeide, R. C. (1992). Promoting develop-mentally appropriate practice throughteacher self-study. (Literacy ImprovementSeries for Elementary Educators). Portland,OR: Literacy, Language, and Communica-tion Program, Northwest Regional Educa-tional Laboratory. ED 354 485. D, I

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expandingcooperative learning through group inves-tigation. New York: Teachers College Press.C, S

Short, K. G., & Burke, C. (1991). Creatingcurriculum: Teachers and students as acommunity of learners. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann. W, C, S, R

Shulman, J. H., & Mesa-Bains, A. (Eds.).(1993). Diversity in the classroom: Acasebook for teachers and teacher educa-tors. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates, Publishers. ED 361 333. B, R, S

Society for Developmental Education. (1993).Multiage classrooms: The ungrading ofAmerica’s schools. Peterborough, NH: Au-thor. R, C, B, I, S, W

Stevens, A. (1993). Learning for life throughuniversal themes. (Literacy ImprovementSeries for Elementary Educators). Portland,OR: Literacy, Language, and Communica-

tion Program, Northwest Regional Educa-tional Laboratory. C, W, S, I

Tierney, R. J., Carter, M. A., & Desai, L. E.(1991). Portfolio assessment in the read-ing-writing classroom. Norwood, MA:Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. ED331 055. A, W

Virginia Education Association and Appala-chia Educational Laboratory. (1990). Teach-ing combined grade classes: Real prob-lems and promising practices. Charleston,WV: Author. ED 339 557. S, R

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Thedevelopment of higher psychological pro-cesses. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner,S. Scribner, & E. Souberman. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press. R, D

Yatvin, J. (1992). Beginning a school literacyimprovement project: Some words of ad-vice. (Literacy Improvement Series for El-ementary Educators). Portland, OR: Lit-eracy, Language, and Communication Pro-gram, Northwest Regional EducationalLaboratory. ED 354 484. W, R, I

Audio/Video

Katz, L. (1993). Multiage groupings: A key toelementary reform. Alexandria, VA: Asso-ciation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment. (Audiocassette) D, I

Province of British Columbia Ministry of Edu-cation. A time of wonder: Children in theprimary years. Victoria, British Columbia.(Video) D, B

Thompson, E. (1994). How to teach in amultiage classroom. Columbus, OH: Teach-ers’ Publishing Group. (Video) I, B, S

Thompson, E. (1994). The nuts and bolts ofmultiage classrooms. Columbus, OH:Teachers’ Publishing Group. (Video) I, B,S

BIBLIOGRAPHY 123

Implementing multiage instructional practices raisesimportant questions that should be asked and under-stood before the journey begins:

• Why would a school staff implement a multiageprogram, especially when evidence from the fieldsuggests multiage classrooms, at least initially, aremore work?

• What roles should teachers play in planning andimplementation, and what knowledge do they needto effectively participate?

• What type of school or organizational climate islikely to facilitate successful multiage implementa-tion?

• How should parents and the community be in-volved in deciding, planning, and implementing thechange effort?

• What does leadership look like in successfulmultiage implementation?

• Are there factors associated with implementationof successful multiage programs that can be gener-alized to other settings?

These six questions provide the framework for thisimplementation guide. The answers to these questionsare complex and can be found in the ideas, stories, andexperiences of educators who have struggled to imple-ment multiage practices, as well as among the re-searchers who have studied the multiage concept foryears.

®



®



Implementingthe

MultiageClassroom

BRUCE A. MILLER


Documents

CHILDREN AT THE CENTER