Pricing and Availability
Chapter 1: Collecting Information from the Field
An illustration of the damaging effects of blindly hopping on the bandwagonÑand a key reason for writing this multiage implementation guideÑcan be seen in the experiences of a teacher in an urban school system in the Midwest.
A Veteran Teacher's Story
Sarah has been teaching elementary school for thirteen years. A year and a half ago her school became one of eight pilot sites in her district to implement multiage organization and instruction. When school started in the fall, she found herself in a classroom with first- through fourth-grade students. In addition, test scores were used to place a representative academic range of students in Sarah's class. She ended up with ten boys and four girls. Sarah mentioned that this imbalance of boys and the placement of several students with behavior problems made the implementation of a multiage classroom especially difficult.
Sarah had received two half-day training sessions on whole language in preparation for implementing the new multiage program. Not surprisingly, Sarah said there was not much in the training for teaching in a multiage classroom. When she was interviewed shortly after school started, she spoke like a first-year teacher, full of anxiety and concern about her students. In describing the planning and implementation process that occurred in her district, her anxiety appeared understandable.
A new superintendent had been hired with an agenda for change. Within his first year, he had mandated multiage organization and computer-assisted learning. Sarah indicated she knew very little about multiage teaching or computer-assisted learning. In addition, the district allocated $2,000 per pilot classroom for materials. However, the money only became available in the fall, so teachers did not have materials when school began. To complicate matters, the school year began with a new principal, who, like Sarah, found herself thrust into the middle of mandated change.
Teachers in Sarah's school were all assigned to self-contained classrooms with a student age span of four years (that is, grades 1 through 4). Sarah mentioned that teachers did not talk about their successes or problems, nor did they conduct staff meetings where multiage practices were discussed. By Sarah's account, collegial-planning and staff-development structures that would allow teachers time to share their successes and struggles were nonexistent. Sarah, like her colleagues, was expected to implement the change alone.
Sarah also said that teachers were not involved in the decision to implement multiage classrooms. The plan was developed at the central office, with program success measured by standardized test scores. This created intense pressure for teachers. To complicate matters, Sarah said the computer-based learning program created additional tension. Evidently, the district contracted with a California company that offered a program in reading and math that guaranteed academic growth provided certain standards were met. One standard created special problems for Sarah: Students were required to be at a terminal for thirty minutes a day. If students missed the regularly scheduled computer time, Sarah and other teachers were required to schedule a makeup time to validate the agreement with the California company.
Five months after initially interviewing Sarah, problems remained at her school. Teachers had gone on strike and the pilot project emerged as an issue. Sarah felt she was getting a better handle on instruction, but she wondered what the long-term impact might be on students and teachers. In her building, only two teachers seemed to be comfortable with multiage classrooms. Several teachers had resigned. Sarah said she thought about resigning, but felt she could tough it out.
Sarah's story is all too common. She left the impression that there had been little or no analysis of such key factors as teacher readiness, staff ownership, parental involvement, and collaborative planning. And although Sarah had a small class size compared to national norms, she faced what many teachers would perceive as an extreme range of developmental levels without relevant training or assistance. In addition, it appears that minimal advance planning that involved Sarah and her colleagues took place. For example, while each pilot teacher received $2,000 to purchase multiage resources, there simply was not sufficient time to order materials and have them available for the start of school.
It also appears that Sarah and her colleagues had insufficient knowledge of multiage learning to use the money in the most effective manner. Moreover, the isolated manner in which teachers were expected to carry out a variety of reforms suggests that the changes were implemented without the most basic understanding of the change process.
Recent empirical studies and research reviews demonstrate that multiage organization produces beneficial results for students (Cotton 1993, Gutierrez and Slavin 1992, Anderson and Pavan 1993, and Miller 1989). In addition, the work of early childhood researchers such as Katz (1988) and learning psychologists such as Dweck (1986), Vygotsky (1978), and Gardner (1983) provide practitioners with a powerful foundation and rationale for understanding and implementing multiage programs.
While there is a rich and solid research base for understanding and implementing multiage programs, practitioners often neglect to integrate it with other successful classroom practices. Worse yet, teachers can be overwhelmed by a plethora of change mandated by administrators unmindful of the impact that such reform efforts have on classroom teachers. Sarah's story is a good example of change imposed by a well-intentioned administrator who did not establish a process that involved staff and the community in the reform effort. Moreover, he neglected to provide the resources and training to adequately prepare teachers and increase the potential for success.
The research conducted for this document addresses this complex issue by presenting information collected from teachers, principals, and parents. Their experiences provided the grist for the broad implications and applications of multiage approaches presented in this guide. Moreover, to increase the usefulness of the research underlying this guide, nine separate sources of data were collected across a range of schools and communities (table 1). This strategy provided the opportunity to cross-check information and to note similarities and differences across data sets.
However, bear in mind that the purpose of the research underlying this publication was to describe how successful multiage programs have been developed and implemented. Therefore, no effort was made to collect and analyze cognitive and affective outcome measures. Instead, multiple self-report strategies (surveys and interviews) were used to develop a rich descriptive picture of multiage practices and their perceived benefits in the four interview-site schools.
Surveys and Indepth Interviews
Open-ended survey questions were used to collect information in four areas: (1) reasons for implementing a multiage program, (2) factors contributing to program success, (3) problems or challenges faced, and (4) recommendations for those considering a multiage program.
Multiage teachers and principals, and a sample of instructional assistants and parents at four schools in three states, completed the surveys. In addition, surveys were given to participants attending a national conference on multiage instruction to obtain a broad cross-section of information from the United States and Canada. Finally, tape-recorded interviews were conducted with the principal and a representative sample of teachers (including curriculum specialists) and parents from the four interview-site schools (see Appendix A for a copy of the survey and interview instruments). Nearly all surveyed respondents were either planning to implement a multiage program or currently doing so, thus increasing the likelihood of obtaining well-informed contributions.
In fact, the four elementary schools chosen for onsite interviews were selected on the basis of their reputation for successfully implementing multiage organization and instruction and sustaining it for more than four years. Table 2 provides the demographic characteristics for each school. Taken as a whole, these schools represent a cross-section of school types: large, small, rural, urban, small town, ethnically diverse, and poor. These schools also reflect a common desire to better serve the needs of students generally considered at risk for academic underachievement.
Interview questions, in part, grew from an analysis of the survey data and were designed to gain an indepth understanding of how multiage practices became successfully institutionalized in each school. Beginning with a discussion of survey results, emergent themes and issues will be identified and then elaborated through an analysis of the interviews conducted at each school. Moreover, the ideas and words of parents, teachers, and principals will provide a rich and varied picture of these four schools as they have developed and sustained multiage programs. Finally, implications for practice will be discussed using the six questions presented above.
