multi-age classes - graduate teacher support -...

MM U L T I - A G EU L T I - A G E

CC L A S S E SL A S S E S

I N N E W S O U T H W A L E SI N N E W S O U T H W A L E S

New South WalesNew South WalesDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAININGDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

19971997

M U L T I - A G E C L A S S E SM U L T I - A G E C L A S S E S

I N N E W S O U T H W A L E SI N N E W S O U T H W A L E S

Curriculum Directorate

© 1997 Department of Education and TrainingCurriculum Directorate

ISBN 0 7313 0873 5SCIS 917518

Design by Joanna Durney, Public Relations Directorate

1Multi-Age classes in new south wales

CONTENTS

BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 3

MEMBERSHIP OF THE WORKING GROUP ............................................................... 3

TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................... 3

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 3

RANGE OF MULTI-AGE CLASSES ............................................................................... 5

LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................. 7

CURRENT AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT ......................................................................... 11

CASE STUDIES AND SURVEYS ................................................................................. 13

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 23

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 25

APPENDIX A: SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED FOR SURVEYING .......................................... 26

APPENDIX B: SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN CASE STUDIES ................................... 26


BACKGROUND

In July 1996 the Minister for Educationand Training, the Hon John Aquilina, MPrequested that a working group beformed to look at a range of multi-ageclasses in NSW primary schools.

The review was to provide the latestinformation about the range of multi-ageclasses in NSW, research findings andsuccessful practices in regard to:

forming multi-age classes; andteaching and learning in such classes.

MEMBERSHIP OF THEWORKING GROUP

Peter Bray, Director of PrimaryEducation, was asked to chair theWorking Group. The Minister haddirected that a classroom teacher and aprimary principal be included in thegroup. Following consultations with theNSW Primary Principals’ Council,invitations to join the group wereaccepted by Colin Kaye, Principal ofTerrigal Public School, and SandraUsher, a classroom teacher fromVillawood Public School.

Doug Cole, Chief Education Officer, wasassigned to coordinate the work of thegroup. Sheldon Rothman, Manager ofthe Information Unit of the Departmentof School Education, was co-opted toadvise on the availability andinterpretation of data on the organisationof classes across the State, and LeolaJacobs was commissioned to prepare aliterature review.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Working Group was asked to advisethe Minister on:

the range of multi-age classesoperating throughout the State,including details of any unusualarrangementsthe latest research on multi-ageclassessuccessful practices in forming multi-age classessuccessful teaching in multi-ageclasses (including planning andorganisation).

METHODOLOGY

MULTI-AGE CLASS ORGANISATIONACROSS THE STATE

Members of the Working Groupexamined the 1994, 1995 and 1996Organisation of Classes data collectedfrom school returns.

Schools with more than seven classeswere selected for closer investigation, inorder to identify those schools whichhad formed multi-age classes on thebasis of an educational philosophyrather than because of unevenenrolments. Each school’s return wasexamined and, where the organisationappeared to be different from thetraditional composite combinations,principals of these identified schoolswere interviewed by telephone.

To complete this process, principals ofthese schools were invited to complete asurvey.

A list of the schools surveyed ispresented as Appendix A.

4 Multi-Age classes in new south wales

THE EDUCATIONAL EVIDENCE ANDLATEST RESEARCH ON MULTI-AGECLASSES

The following steps were taken:a comprehensive literature searchwas completedarticles, papers and books werecirculated within the Working Groupa literature review was undertakentelephone contact was made withresearchers and educational officersinvolved in research projects inQueensland, Western Australia,Victoria and the Northern Territory.

SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES IN FORMINGMULTI-AGE CLASSES ANDSUCCESSFUL TEACHING IN MULTI-AGE CLASSES

In addition to the processes describedabove, chief education officers (CEOs)visited urban and rural schools toidentify the successful practices in bothof these focus areas. The CEOs, inconsultation with districtsuperintendents, selected schools toachieve a balance in regard to the size ofschools and, where appropriate, abalance in regard to the range ofcombinations of age groupingsoperating.

The CEOs assigned to visit schools tocollect and analyse information onsuccessful practices were:

Warren Brown (Riverina area)Doug Cole (Bankstown area)Don Goodsir (Yagoona area)Ron Hankin (Western NSW)Barry Laing (St George District)Mary McRae (Coffs Harbour District)Pat Skinner (Lismore District)Judy Whittaker (Tweed/BallinaDistrict).

Focus areas for the visits to schools weredeveloped to reflect the terms ofreference.

Questions were framed as a guide toCEOs and a report format devised tofacilitate the analysis of informationcollected.

The list of schools participating in thecase studies, along with the focus areasand questions, are presented asAppendix B.


RANGE OF MULTI-AGECLASSES

“Grouping students from several yearstogether is not a new form of classorganisation. Composite classes havebeen, and are likely to remain, thecommon class organisation in smallschools when the number of children ineach year is not sufficiently large to formclasses based on age grouping.” (Roseth1981)

These classes are the accepted pattern oforganisation in many government andnon-government schools acrossAustralia, especially in rural areas.

Whereas in larger schools formingclasses by years is the more commonpractice, multi-age classes are usuallyformed because of the uneven pattern ofenrolments at the school. Sometimes,however, these classes are formed foreducational reasons in schools where itis felt that the mixing of children ofdifferent ages is educationally andsocially advantageous. The number ofschools in this latter category has beenincreasing steadily during the past tenyears.

The most common pattern of organisingsuch classes continues to be to combinetwo consecutive years, particularly Years1/2, 3/4 and 5/6. However, a wide rangeof variations exists in schools, includingmulti-age classes which involveKindergarten students.

While the majority of these classes arestill across two years, a variety of multi-age organisations have developedrecently.

A number of schools have organisedmulti-age classes for sections of theschool. Of the schools surveyed, ten hadorganised all classes for Year 5 and Year6 students as multi-age classes ratherthan having a mixture of “straight” and“composite” classes.

Similarly another five schools hadorganised all the Year 3 and Year 4students into multi-age classes and threehad used the same approach for Year 1and Year 2 classes.

These schools reported that such apattern of class organisation hadadvantages in regard to flexibility whenplacing enrolments during the year, inseparating difficult students and ingrouping students in accord withsyllabus stages as outlined in English K-6.

Some schools described a 3-moduleform of multi-age organisation whichaccommodated elements of teamteaching and integrated learning centres(Model A).

Some schools excluded Kindergartenfrom the multi-age class organisation ofStage 1 students (Model B).

Other schools are implementing a mixedability form of multi-age organisationwhich accommodates elements ofvertical grouping and overlapping stages.In these circumstances the classes wereformed as set out in Model C.

Another variation of a pattern influencedby English K-6 syllabus stages is set outas Model D.

Model E illustrates a variation whichaccommodates vertical grouping withinoverlapping stages, preferred teaching


styles, special needs, and flexibility ofstudent placement on such grounds associal factors, parental wishes and timeof enrolment.

This model represents a sample of thetypes of multi-age class organisationwhich are appearing more frequentlyacross NSW. Principals of the schoolswhere such arrangements are in placeidentify them as multi-age because theybelieve that there are educational andsocial benefits to be gained.

This organisation also provides forteaching styles in that there is a blend ofmulti-age and “straight” classes. It alsofacilitates team teaching, collegialplanning and flexible progression ofstudents.

Model B

Kindergarten

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

STA

GE

2ST

AG

E 1

STA

GE

3

Model C

Model D

Kindergarten

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Kindergarten

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Model A

Model E

Kindergarten

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Kindergarten

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

STA

GE

2ST

AG

E 1

STA

GE

3


LITERATURE REVIEW

Multi-age grouping is a term used todescribe a structure whereby studentsare drawn from two or more age levelsto form one class unit. This method offorming a class is also referred to asmixed-age, family and vertical grouping.Multi-age classes, however, need to bedistinguished from what has been knownas the composite class. Historically, thecomposite class was formed in manyinstances as an administrative responseto uneven enrolments, and was oftentaught as distinct year levels. Compositeclasses remain a common form of classorganisation in schooling systems. Theyare often referred to as multi-grade andmixed age classes. Multi-age grouping,on the other hand, adopts adevelopmental approach to teaching andlearning which does not separatestudents according to age, grade orability.

The purpose of this review is to researchthe educational evidence with regard tomulti-age classes. Most of the evidencesearched comes from North Americanand British sources, with some studiesconducted by Australian researchers.

A major review of international researchinto multi-age classes was recentlyundertaken by Veenman (1995).Veenman investigated 56 studiesconducted in 12 countries, includingone study from Australia (Pratt andTreacy, 1986). He reviewed the results ofresearch that compared the effects ofmulti-grade/multi-age classes and single-grade/single-age classes on cognitiveand/or non-cognitive outcomes. Basedon the review of the studies in which thecognitive and non-cognitive effects ofmulti-grade and single-grade classes,and multi-age and single-age classeswere compared, Veenman concluded

that there is no empirical evidence forthe assumption that student learning maybe hindered in multi-grade or multi-ageclasses.

It is important to note that the reviewdivided the research studies into twodistinct groups, multi-grade andmulti-age classes. On the one hand,multi-grade classes referred to thosegroupings that were formed for financialor administrative reasons, while multi-age classes referred to those groups thatwere formed for educational andpedagogical reasons.

In summarizing the cognitive andnon-cognitive outcomes of the 56studies, Veenman concluded that in the45 studies concerning “multi-gradegrouping”, students in multi-gradeclasses do not appear to learn more orless than their counterparts in single-grade classes. There were no consistentdifferences found with respect tomathematics, reading, language orcomposite scores. A similar patternemerged with regard to non-cognitivemeasures. Veenman concluded that inthe affective areas of attitudes towardsschool, self-concept and individual andsocial adjustment, students aresometimes advantaged in multi-gradeclasses as against single-grade classes.

Summing up the outcomes of the elevenstudies examining “multi-age grouping”Veenman found that students in multi-age classes did not learn more or lessthan students in single-age classes. Innine of the eleven studies of thecognitive effects of multi-age grouping,no significant achievement differenceswere identified. Similarly, in terms ofnon-cognitive outcomes, no significantdifferences were found. The findings aresummed up as follows:

“In conclusion, parents, teachers, and


administrators need not worry aboutthe academic progress or social-emotional adjustment of students inmulti-grade or multi-age classes.These classes are simply no worse,and simply no better, than single-grade or single-age classes.“(Veenman: 371)

In contrast to Veenman’s conclusions,findings of research studies in NorthAmerica are beginning to indicate thatmulti-age grouping, when implementedas a philosophy of education, provideseducational and social benefits.

Anderson and Parvan (1993), inanalysing 64 research studies publishedbetween 1968 and 1990 in the UnitedStates and Canada, found substantialevidence to demonstrate that non-gradedschools are most likely to benefitstudents from all circumstances and inall ability ranges. Their researchinvestigated the viability of the conceptof nongradedness, which is defined as awhole-school developmental approachto multi-grouping. In other words, theconcept of nongradedness for Andersonand Parvan is a philosophy of educationthat means more than the verticalorganisation of students into one classunit.

Analysis of the research studies ledAnderson and Parvan to draw thefollowing conclusions:

(i) Comparisons of graded andnongraded schools usingstandardised achievement testscontinue to favour nongradedness.

(ii) Attendance in a nongraded schoolmay improve the student’s chancesfor good mental health and positiveattitudes toward school.

(iii) Longitudinal studies indicate that thelonger students are in a nongraded

program, the more likely it is thatthey will have positive attitudes andhigh academic achievement.

(iv) A nongraded environment isparticularly beneficial for blacks,boys, underachievers, and studentsof lower socioeconomic status interms of academic achievement andmental health.

(v) Further research is needed thatincludes an assessment of the actualpractice in the allegedly graded ornongraded schools in order todetermine if the labels as describedare accurate.

In summary, Anderson and Parvan(1993) argued that the 64 studies mostfrequently favoured nongradedness onstandardized measures of cognitiveeffects and mental health. The results ofacademic achievement show that, of the64 studies, 58 percent found thatstudents in non-graded programs hadhigher academic achievement scoresthan those students in graded programs;33 percent found that students’performance was the same; and only 9percent found that students in multi-ageclasses performed worse.

With regard to mental health and socialattitudes, 52 percent of the studies foundthat non-graded schools performedbetter; 43 percent found that theperformance was similar; and only fivepercent found that nongraded schoolsperformed worse than graded schools.They concluded that the researchfindings regarding nongraded, multi-graded and ungraded groupings ofstudents generally support the adoptionof these organisational forms in schools.This conclusion is not supported by thefindings of a recent review of mixedaged class groups in Sweden (Sundell,1994). Sundell found that the mixed agegroup can be viewed as overrated in


terms of the influence of the organisationon student outcomes and that theteacher’s instructional competence andparent’s importance were undervalued.

According to Sundell, organisationalchanges may have merit for somepurposes but they do not ensureessential changes in the classroom.(Sundell: 390)

While the research findings of Andersonand Parvan (1993) support the claim thatmulti-grade and multi-age groupings,when based on sound educationalprinciples, provide educational benefits(improved cognitive and affectiveoutcomes), it would appear that sucheducational benefits are dependent onthe effective implementation andoperation of these programs (Vogel andBowers, 1974; Roseth, 1981).

Vogel and Bowers (1974) conducted aten-year research project into thepractices of multi-age classes. Thesepractices were measured against certaincriteria they considered necessary for theeffective operation of such classes. Theircriteria were as follows:

no grade labelscontinuous progress of course studyin the skill areas, rather than a coursebased on graded materialorganisation of subject areas in acyclical manner, so that students ofdifferent ages learn the same conceptcontinuous educational progressionof all studentsflexibility in student grouping thatprovided for the creation of groupsfor specific purposesmulti-age groupingflexibility in the instructional programto provide for adjustments to suitindividual studentstypes of staff organisation thatfacilitated flexible grouping patternsabundance of multi-media materialsa written statement of the school’sobjectives.

Vogel and Bowers found that thevariables contributing towards theeffective implementation and ongoingoperation of multi-age classes were:

staff committed to developing amulti-age program and to collegialsharingparents and community thatsupported the conceptboard of education and central officethat supported the programprovision of in-service education forstaffdynamic leadershipmaterials, facilities and budget thatprovided flexibilitycurriculum consistent with a multi-age philosophy.

According to Vogel and Bowers, the keyvariables in creating problems regardingthe successful implementation andoperation of multi-age programs were:

reluctance of staff to changelack of support from parents and thecommunitylack of materialslack of adequate in-serviceeducation.

In an Australian context, Roseth (1981)conducted a research study thatexamined the organisation, mode ofoperation and attitudes held by teachers,students and parents to compositeclasses. The evaluation consisted of casestudies of four schools that differed intheir approach to the operation ofcomposite classes. The study identifiedfour central variables for the successfuloperation of composite classes:

an across-the-school commitment tothe concept of composite classes andto the method of their formationteachers who have had training in themethods of group training andindividualised instruction generallyand specifically in the methods ofteaching composite classes


parents who are informed about thereasons for forming composite classesand the method of their operationschool staff who are aware of theperceived disadvantages associatedwith composite classes and arewilling to respond to problems.

The study argued that State Office shouldpromote the educational and socialbenefits of composite classes and suggestto schools ways in which the limitationscan be overcome.

At the school level the formation ofcomposite classes should involve:

whole-school commitment to thedecisions made regarding theformation of composite classes, theircomposition, age range andallocation of teachersdevelopment and articulation of theeducational philosophy underlyingthe type of class organisation formedavoiding particular types of classorganisation that are contrary to thegeneral school philosophyavoiding forcing composite classeson teachers or studentsavoiding class organisations thatconsist of older, less able studentsand younger, more able studentsexplaining the benefits of compositeclasses to parents.

In examining multi-age teaching,Murdoch (1994) reported that animportant educational principleunderlying successful programs is ashared staff view of student learning.Murdoch interviewed five teachers atMaidstone Primary School, one of 36schools involved in Victoria’s PilotProject for the First Years of Schooling.The project is an outcome of the 1991Ministerial Review of School Entry Agein that State, and involves the upgradingof the complete junior/primary section of28 Government and 8 Catholic schools

for three years starting in 1994. From theinterviews conducted at MaidstonePrimary School, Murdoch identifiedeight characteristics for successful multi-age teaching:

teaching to need rather than to anage or grade levelteam workusing different grouping strategies fora range of purposesdeveloping a broad repertoire ofopen-ended activitiesorganisation and predictable routinesinforming and involving parentsplanning and record-keepingdeveloping a sense of community.

Concerns and problems that emergedfrom the interviews were:

difficulties of timetabling in a smallschoolongoing search for resources tochallenge and support studentlearningthe exhaustion caused by a greaterworkload.

In summary, the crucial variable inovercoming the above concerns andproblems was collegial sharing.Murdoch concluded:

“Time needs to be available for staff tomap out the big picture—to develop ashared view and ways of working. Onlythen will the pieces of the puzzle fittogether with real meaning and successfor children.” (Murdoch, 1994)

An important conclusion drawn byMurdoch (1994), Sundell (1994) andVeenman (1995) is that classorganisation on its own will not produceeducational benefits for students.Successful student learning is dependenton quality teaching practices and thespecific needs and characteristics ofeach particular school and of itscommunity, and the skills andunderstandings of its teachers.


CURRENT AUSTRALIANCONTEXT

In Australia, interest in multi-agegrouping as an educational practice hasattracted varying attention and debate.The following summary providesinformation on current projects relatedto multi-age grouping which areoperating in the various states andterritories of Australia.

QUEENSLAND

In December 1995 the QueenslandDepartment of Education received aninterim report entitled Review of FlexibleSchooling in the Early Childhood Years.

The report was requested to enable theDepartment to respond to the WiltshireReview Panel’s recommendation thatthere be a

”...move to a more flexiblearrangement for early childhoodclasses that takes account ofdevelopmental differences anddifferences in home background ofchildren - specifically, a move awayfrom the ‘lockstep’ approach basedon chronological age to a multi-levelapproach for Years 1, 2 and 3, wheresome children may take four years tocomplete the first three years ofschooling.” (Wiltshire et al, 1994)

As a result of the review the followingrecommendations emerged:

that the Department of Educationofficially recognise the value of multi-age grouping as one of theapproaches for providing appropriatelearning environments that allow forflexible progression through the earlyyears of schooling and beyond

that consideration be given to thedevelopment of informationalmaterials for use by schools choosingto implement a multi-age approach

that schools be encouraged to focuson teaching to individual differencesacross year levels throughout theearly years of schooling and beyond,irrespective of the school’sorganisational pattern.

Department of Education, Queensland(1995). Interim Report on the Review ofFlexible Schooling in the EarlyChildhood Years.

Contact:Ms Sherrard BlessingSenior Policy Officer (Early ChildhoodEducation)Department of EducationQueensland.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

In Western Australia a pilot project isunder way in 13 schools to examine theimplications of school organisationalstrategies that focus on multi-ageapproaches in the early years (K-3). ThisMulti-age Grouping Project arose out ofinterest in the report of the MinisterialTask Force on Voluntary Full TimeEducation in Western Australia, 1993,the Scott Report.

VICTORIA

In Victoria 36 schools are participatingin a project to explore translating theconcepts of multi-age grouping intopractice. Known as the First Three Yearsof Schooling Report, the project wascommissioned by the Victorian Ministryof Education in 1994 as a response tothe Ministerial Review of School EntryAge in Victoria (1992).


The First Three Years of SchoolingProject involves 36 schools with a three-year commitment to translate theconcepts of multi-age grouping intopractice. The project has five majorcomponents: curriculum, organisation,transition, teacher education, and parenteducation.

Department of Education, Victoria(1992). Summary of the Report by theMinisterial Review of School-Entry Agein Victoria.

Recommendation:that the Victorian Ministry of Educationcommission a 3-year pilot project ofmulti-age classes.

Contact:Christine Ure, Faculty of Education,University of Melbourne.

Molly De Lemos, Australian Council forEducational Research.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

In 1991 the Education Department ofSouth Australia published a monographas an example of current practice withinits schools. It was entitled Multi-AgeGroups: A Teaching and LearningPerspective and was essentially aresource which included four casestudies of schools that had classesstructured with multi-age groups.

For a brief history of multi-age groupingsin South Australia see Freda Biggs’ Multi-Age Grouping: It Shouldn’t Be An Issue.

NORTHERN TERRITORY

In 1994 the Northern Territory publishedthe findings of the investigation/researchreport on Multi-age grouping for

effective teaching and learning. Thereport was commissioned by the DeputySecretary, Schools Policy and Operation,Northern Territory.

The researchers found that multi-agegrouping based on educational groundsis one approach to flexible schoolorganisation and that, where schools areconsidering the approach, the needs ofeach individual school should be takeninto account.

As a result of the Report, the NorthernTerritory Department of Educationendorsed the philosophy of multi-agegrouping for effective teaching andlearning and approved the establishmentof a multi-age network and theappointment of a full-time project officer.

Department of Education, NorthernTerritory (1994). Multi-age grouping foreffective teaching and learning.

Contact:Helen O’ Sullivan, Investigation/Research Officer,Curriculum Advisory Support Unit,Northern Territory Department ofEducation.

Jan Senior, Multi-age Project Officer,Northern Territory Department ofEducation.


CASE STUDIES ANDSURVEYS

The case studies were conductedprimarily to identify successful practicesin the areas specified in the terms ofreference:1. the forming of multi-age classes2. the teaching of multi-age classes.

The survey was designed to allowprincipals to identify successful practicesin the above areas as well.

In addition, participants in the casestudies and the surveys were asked toidentify the reasons why multi-ageclasses were working well in theirschools.

1. SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES INFORMING MULTI-AGE CLASSES

(In this focus area the matters canvassedincluded the rationale for formingclasses, the selection of students and theinvolvement of teachers and parents inthe planning process.)

From the information gathered from thesurveys, case studies and enrolmentdata, the Working Group identified threecategories of schools where theformation of multi-age classes wasinfluenced by varying factors:

the small primary school where,because of insufficient enrolments,the forming of multi-age classes hadbeen the normal and acceptedpractice

the primary school where the formingof classes on the basis of age was thenormal and preferred practice, unlessuneven numbers in sections of the

school caused the formation of multi-age classes

the primary school where,irrespective of enrolments, multi-ageclasses were formed because of abelief that such an organisation led toimproved learning outcomes.

An analysis of the information confirmedthat the dominant reason for formingmulti-age classes was administrativenecessity, although there wereindications of a growth in the number ofmulti-age classes formed primarily orsolely for educational reasons.

Although the initial reason for formingclasses across two or more years in thefirst two categories above wasadministrative necessity, the differencesin how these classes were formedreflected diverse educationalphilosophies.

In the third category the particularphilosophy which initiated the multi-ageclasses was reflected in the manner inwhich the classes were formed.

Multi-age classes initiated foradministrative necessity

Most schools in NSW form multi-ageclasses because either the total numberor the spread of students within schoolshave compelled them to do so.

The majority of schools large enough toform homogeneous classes based on agewould have preferred to do so.The reasons given included:

Composites were unpopular withparents.Teachers preferred “straight” ageclasses.Students preferred to be with theirpeers.


There was a perception that theworkload was less with “straight” ageclasses.

The dominant pattern of multi-ageclasses in these schools is the traditionalcomposite, where students mostly fromtwo adjacent years are placed in acombined age class (for example, a Year3/4 composite, a Year 1/2 composite).

In these cases uneven numbersoccasioned by either a fall or an increasein enrolments in a section or sections ofthe school resulted in the forming ofcomposites. Those interviewed,however, acknowledged that much ofthe unpopularity of composites wasattributable to a perception in thecommunity that composites were causedby falling enrolments alone andtherefore associated with the loss ratherthan the gain of a teacher.

A number of schools reported formingcomposite classes to provide theflexibility necessary to accommodatefuture enrolments during the year. Inthese situations the total enrolment at thebeginning of the year was close to thenumber which would entitle the schoolto an additional teacher. A compellingreason for this practice was to preventthe disruption to students, teachers andparents caused when classes had to bereorganised later in the year.

Because of uneven numbers, severalschools formed gifted and talentedclasses with students drawn from threeor four years (for example, a Year 3/4/5or a Year 4/5/6). The reasons advancedincluded the following:

The stigma of composite classes waseliminated.The school needed to market itscapacity to meet the needs of thegifted and talented students.

Academically gifted students weremissing out in the “straight” ageclasses because the teacher neededto concentrate on those studentsexperiencing learning difficulties.A member of staff was trained andcommitted to the education of giftedand talented students.

Some principals and teachers reportednegative effects of such classes on theYear classes from which the studentswere selected. In addition to a “residue”effect on both students and teachers, theabsence of academically able studentshad a negative effect on the expectationsof achievement within the class.

Small schools, where multi-age classeswere the usual form of organisation,reported that such arrangements wereaccepted as a logical and normal way tooperate. The stigma of composite classeswas not an issue in school communitieswhere a “straight” age class would be anunusual arrangement. Generally theseschools were positive about the familyatmosphere of the small school andpointed to such attributes as flexibleprogression, longer-term relationshipsbetween students and students, studentsand teachers, and teachers and parentsas educational advantages.

Multi-age classes initiated forphilosophical reasons

Schools of the third category (primaryschools where, irrespective ofenrolments, multi-age classes wereformed primarily because of the belief inthe benefits to learning) reported thesereasons for moving away from the normin regard to the organisation of classes:

multi-age philosophyBoard syllabuses arranged in Stageswith associated outcomesgifted and talented provisions.


The majority of these schools, where themulti-age form of class organisation wasoperating, placed equal value on thedevelopment of non-cognitive andcognitive skills. Structures needed to bealigned with a developmental learningcurriculum based on the principle ofindividual growth through recognisablestages of development.

Some relatively small schools describeda 3-module form of multi-ageorganisation which accommodatedelements of vertical grouping, teamteaching and integrated learning centres.

Some large primary schools haveintroduced a form of multi-age classorganisation which reflects a verticalgrouping approach.

Reports from these schools havehighlighted the flexibility gained to:

allow students to develop at theirown pacematch teachers to eitherhomogeneous classes or multi-agegroupings, depending on theirexperience and dominant teachingstylereduce negative interactions betweenstudentsoffer a variety of options to parentswhen they seek to enrol theirchildren.

Other primary schools have based theirorganisation on stages. Students aregrouped into three broad stages to alignwith the stages of the English Syllabus.(Some schools maintain Kindergarten asa discrete group; others includeKindergarten in Stage 1).

Selection of students

Differences in philosophies becomeapparent in the way students areselected.

Most schools adopting the stages modelhave maintained the mixed abilityelement. In these circumstances theclasses could be formed as follows:

Stage 1 class or classes, composed ofstudents from Kindergarten, Year 1and Year 2

Stage 2 class or classes, composed ofstudents from Year 3 and Year 4

Stage 3 class or classes, composed ofstudents from Year 5 and Year 6.

Although there is a reasonableexpectation that the majority of studentsin each stage class will be at a certainstage of development in aspects ofEnglish, individual differences will resultin some students achieving higher orlower outcomes, as specified in theEnglish syllabus. Of course, specialconsideration would need to be given toESL students.

Importantly, the students are not taught“a Stage 2 program” on the assumptionthat they are a homogeneous group.Teachers are expected to provideteaching and learning experiences whichmeet the needs of a diverse range oflearners. The key motivation inorganising the classes as stage classeswas to dismantle the limits of classesorganised on a single year basis toprovide structural support for adevelopmental learning approach and toderive the benefits of multi-agegrouping.

Some schools surveyed are using thesame mixed ability selection principlesto broaden further the class groupings byforming overlapping stage classes,selecting students whose developmentranges over the three stages of EnglishK-6.


In these circumstances the arrangementcould be:

a class or classes made up of Years 2,3 and 4 students, most rangingdevelopmentally from Stage 1 toStage 2, as described in the EnglishK-6 syllabus

classes made up of Years 4, 5 and 6students, most rangingdevelopmentally from Stage 2 toStage 3, as described in the EnglishK-6 syllabus.

Once again such arrangements weremotivated by developmental learningprinciples to break away from primarilyhomogeneous age classes to derive thebenefits of multi-age grouping.

A minority of schools surveyed isforming classes which resemble theexamples described above. However theway in which the students are beingselected makes them markedly different.The desire to form classes ashomogeneous as possible, on the basisof cognitive development, is evident inthe selection of students for “stage”classes.

Students are being sorted or “streamed”using the outcomes aligned to Stages 1,2 and 3 of the K-6 English syllabus.

The Working Group was informed ofvariations to the homogeneous abilitytype. Some schools organised theirclasses in the normal parallel and/orcomposite manner, then “staged” forEnglish and mathematics in sections ofthe school or across the whole school.Some multi-age gifted and talentedclasses were formed on the basis thatacademically gifted students needed tointeract with students of similar abilityand needed a teacher trained orexperienced in the education of thegifted and talented.

The majority of schools participating inthe case studies, as well as thosesurveyed, indicated that parallelselection was the dominant process. Aswith parallel classes across a Year, thegoal was to form classes as cross-representative as possible. These schoolsexplained that some balancing criteriawere applied, such as gender, ethnicity,Aboriginality, academic ability andsocial skills. Generally, however, for thisgroup of schools, the selection ofstudents for multi-age classes did notdiffer from selection for parallel “straight”age classes (apart from the requirementthat the representative group be drawnfrom two or more year levels).

A number of schools, where totalnumbers or uneven numbers were theprime reasons for forming multi-ageclasses, reported special selection ofstudents to facilitate a successfuloperation and to minimise the concernsof parents and teachers. The criteriaincluded:

ability to work independentlybehaviour likely to disrupt othersdegree of parental support orresistanceage and maturity, e.g. placing theolder Kindergarten students with theyounger Year 1 studentsparent nomination for preferred classorganisationacademic ability, based onstandardised tests, the Basic SkillsTests and achievement of outcomesof the English syllabusspecial ability, as indicated in profilesfor gifted and talented classesstudent choiceclass placement history (has thestudent been placed in a compositebefore?)placement of siblingssociometric reasons, where teachersindicate which students work welltogether.


These schools generally operated from adeficit view of across-age classes. Giventhe “stigma of composites”, it madegood sense to minimise parentalconcerns by selecting not only a capableteacher but students who wereindependent workers. This had theadded benefit of attracting the teacher tothe class, particularly if the “difficult”students were to be allocated to a“straight” age class. The homogeneousprinciple is reflected in many of theseselection criteria, the aim being to groupchildren of similar ability or work habits.

The involvement of teachers in schoolplanning

The extent to which teachers wereinvolved in the decision-making largelydepended on the significance of thechange to the class organisation beingcontemplated.

In small school situations, wheremulti-age classes were accepted asthe normal form of organisation, thefocus of teacher involvement was ontraining and development activities,in which the pedagogical issues ofaddressing diverse student needs andachieving syllabus outcomes wereconsidered.

In situations where a multi-age classorganisation was needed because ofuneven student numbers in sectionsof the school, schools reported thatthe options for forming classes werecanvassed at meetings of staff andexecutive staff members. In manycases, teachers were asked for adviceon the placement of particularstudents.

The allocation of teachers to multi-age classes varied from no

involvement, where the principalnominated the most suitable, to fullinvolvement, where the teachervolunteered to teach a multi-ageclass.

Some principals nominated teacherson the basis of their reputation, toovercome parental anxiety about theproposed multi-age class.

Most schools advised that theallocation of classes was a negotiateddecision, which took into accountsuch factors as preferred teachingstyle, experience with multi-ageclasses, interest, training and personalchoice.

In schools where a majorreorganisation of classes on a multi-age basis was proposed, informationgathered from the case studies andsurveys revealed major thrusts intraining and development forteachers and a high degree ofparticipation in the decisions to trial,review and proceed toimplementation.

Teachers valued opportunities to:visit other schoolsinteract with guest consultantsbe briefed on the latest researchfindingsplan collaboratively with colleaguesreflect on teaching and learningbe members of collegial teamsspecialising in particular key learningareasteach cooperatively with one or morecolleagues.

Most principals emphasised theimportance of gaining the commitmentof teachers to at least trial and evaluatethe proposed change.


Involvement of parents in schoolplanning

As with teachers, the extent to whichparents were involved in the decision-making depended largely on thesignificance of the change to the currentorganisation of classes.

In small-school situations where multi-age classes were accepted as the normalform of organisation, no specificstrategies to involve parents werereported.

In situations where a multi-ageorganisation was needed because ofuneven student numbers in sections ofthe school, parents were informed of theintentions through:

newslettersmeetings of the Parents and CitizensAssociationmeetings of the School Councilletters to the parents of students whowere likely to be involvedindividual meetings with the parentsof students likely to be involved.

In schools where a major reorganisationof classes on a multi-age basis wasproposed, information gathered from thecase studies and surveys revealed thatthe following strategies were employedsuccessfully:

referral of the issue to the SchoolCouncilspecial day or night meetings inaddition to the regular Parents andCitizens Association meetings toexplain the rationale to as manymembers of the school community aspossiblevisits to other schools where multi-age classes were operatingsuccessfully (in some cases parentstravelled interstate)

engaging outside consultants to raiseawarenessdissemination of research on theeffects of class organisationsurveying parents to ascertainpreferencesguarantees given to pilot, then reviewthe organisation before proceeding tofull implementationextending invitations to parents tovote on the proposals.

In one school, parents received abrochure in Term 4 of each year askingthem to nominate which form of classorganisation they would like for theirchildren. A number of options weredescribed, with a brief commentary onthe advantages and disadvantages. Anindication was given of which classforms were operating at the school andin what section of the school. If sufficientparents nominated a particular form ofclass organisation, the school undertookto introduce it or maintain it thefollowing year.

At one of the schools surveyed, theSchool Council initiated a change toform classes on a multi-age basis. In thiscase it was members of the SchoolCouncil who set about researching theissue before securing the commitment ofthe principal, the teachers and theparents to implement the change.


2. SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES IN TEACH-ING MULTI-AGE CLASSES

(In this focus area matters canvassedincluded organising the classroom andgrouping students for learning,programming for multi-age classes andthe assessment of student progress.)

Organising the classroom and groupingstudents for learning

The ways in which the classrooms wereset up and the students grouped forlearning reflected differences inphilosophical principle and preferredteaching styles.

In schools which had a positive view ofa class organisation representing a broadrange of ages, backgrounds, interests andstages of development, the followingpractices were reported or observed.

The classroom is arranged so thatchairs, tables and floor spacefacilitate whole-class, small-groupand independent learning:• Resources are organised for easy

access and are clearly labelled.These arrangements allow forflexible groupings and ease ofmovement from whole-class tosmall-group activities andindependent learning. Whereavailable, activity areas, such aswet areas and shared classcooking areas, are usedextensively during the school day.

• Where there is an excess ofclassrooms, the additional spaceis used to establish KLA resourceareas and quiet areas forindependent learning.

• Some classrooms are organisedinto three learning centres whichstudents use on a rotational basis.

• Ongoing access to the libraryprovides opportunities forindependent and small-groupresearch.

Students were grouped in a variety ofways to suit the particular activity.The range of groupings included:• whole class• twos, threes and fours• teams within the class, based on

fractions of the class working indifferent KLAs or on differentactivities within a KLA.

The allocation of the students to theabove groupings varied according tothe purpose of the activity. Thecriteria for allocation included:• ability and age for peer tutoring• ability for extension and

remediation• interest in project work• friendship for a variety of activities• expected role within class teams:

leadership, research skills, writingability and other presentationskills

• special needs, such as ESL support• learning centres in the classroom.

In those schools and classrooms wherehomogeneous grouping was believed tobenefit teaching and learning, thefollowing practices were reported orobserved:

Class furniture was arranged in Years(for example, Year 3; Year 4).Students had their own seats andhome tables.Students moved to different rooms fordifferent KLAs.Students were graded on ability inEnglish and mathematics within theclassroom.Students were graded on ability inEnglish and mathematics across the


whole Year or two or more Years (forexample, Years 4, 5 and Year 6)Students were grouped in abilitygroups in all the KLAs.

Many schools reported practices whichincluded variations of all the abovearrangements. There is a degree ofoverlap and some variance attributableto teacher preference and whole-schoolpolicy, such as “stage groups” forliteracy, English and mathematics. Forexample, a teacher of a multi-age class,with students from Years 4, 5 and 6, mayfavour flexible and varying sized groupsacross the curriculum but be required byschool policy to “stream” the studentsfor reading groups across the primarysection of the school.

Programming for multi-age classes

From the case studies and surveys, theWorking Group concluded that most ofthe good programming practicesdescribed would apply to homogeneousage classes as well.

Highly valued was collaborativeprogramming involving class teachers,support teachers learning difficulties,support teachers ESL, integration supportstaff and relief-from-face-to-faceteachers.

Many responses emphasised the need toplan theme-based units of work withinwhich the activities were of sufficientrange and flexibility to addressindividual learning needs.

The good programming describedcontained the following elements:

the identification of students’ abilities,interests and special needs across theKLAsthe identification of availableresources, both material and human

the selection of learning outcomesappropriate for a range of abilities,interests and special needs across theKLAs

the planning of whole-class andflexible group activities to enablestudents of differing abilities, interestsand special needs to achieve the setoutcomes across the KLAs

provision for evaluation of theeffectiveness of the planned activitiesin achieving student learningoutcomes.

In some schools, forms of specialisedprogramming were operating. Forexample, where teachers are allocatedresponsibility for a particular KLA, thatresponsibility involves programming.

Similarly, in situations where sections ofthe schools “ungrade” for particularKLAs or aspects of KLAs, such asliteracy, teachers allocated to theability-based groups plan andimplement the program for each group.This involves planning activities forstudents in groups of theoreticallyhomogeneous ability.

The strategy of implementing a two-yearcurriculum cycle was regarded asespecially important in programming formulti-age classes. This cycle is appliedto the theme-based units of workplanned across the KLAs. The purpose isto minimise the repetition of themes tostudents progressing through multi-ageclasses. For example, a Year 3 studentplaced in a Year 3/4 class in one yearcould be presented with an integratedKLA unit on Our Neighbourhood.Without some form of monitoring, thestudent could well be presented withOur Neighbourhood the next year ifplaced in a Year 4 class.


Assessment of student progress

As with programming, the WorkingGroup could not identify any strategieswhich pertained to multi-age classesalone. A variety of practices weredescribed, including:

individual profiles, includingdate-registered work samples, teacherobservation, results of BSTs,standardised tests and checklistsbased on syllabus outcomesthree-way interviews involving thestudent, the parents and the teachernegotiated assessment, with a strongelement of student self-evaluation.

REASONS WHY MULTI-AGE CLASSESARE WORKING WELL

In small primary schools where theforming of multi-age classes had beenthe normal and accepted practice,positive and regular interaction withparents, continuity of teaching and theprovision of individualised attentionwere perceived as strengths of multi-ageclasses in the small school setting.

Opportunities for peer tutoring, peercounselling and student leadership infamily group settings were characteristicof successful operations.

A number of members of small schoolcommunities emphasised the importanceof teachers and parents holding highexpectations of student performance tocounter the negative effects of isolation.

When formed primarily foradministrative reasons

In primary schools where unevennumbers in sections of the school causedthe formation of multi-age classes,reasons advanced for success were

framed in terms of gaining the support ofthe parents and teachers involved.

Multi-age classes worked well whereteachers and parents accepted that thequality of the teaching and learningtaking place was far more important thanwhether or not the classes were formedon an age basis. The understanding ofparents was enhanced when theirchildren’s progress was reported in termsof outcomes associated with stages, ascould be done in English, for example.

In some schools successful operationwas attributed to compensatorystrategies.

The allocation of the teacher wasreported as the critical factor. Someschools advised that parentalconcerns about “composites”receded when a teacher with a goodreputation within the schoolcommunity was allocated to theclass. This was especially the casewhen the teacher presented a positiveview of teaching a multi-age class tothe parents, and demonstrated thecapacity to address the needs of abroad range of students.

The selection of students was anotherimportant factor. Teachers who werereluctant to teach a multi-age classwere more positive when studentswere selected on the basis of“positive” criteria. Criteria citedincluded independent work habits,academic capacity, and behaviour.

Sometimes, gifted and talented multi-ageclasses are formed as a strategy to avoidthe negative response to “composites”.Teachers, parents and students notassociated with the class can to somedegree resent being overlooked, and theloss of the academically able from each


class in the Year restricts the extent towhich peer modelling can be used.

In all cases where there is specialselection of students, variations of the“leftovers” syndrome may appear. Forexample, all the students with behaviourproblems may be left in one “straight”Year class. The practice of mixing theacademically able younger students witholder students experiencing somelearning difficulties may exacerbate anysense of failure the older students feel.

Where students are selected from two ormore Years on the basis of academicachievement, for the purpose ofminimising the range of abilities withinthe class, an over-reliance on whole-class teaching may disadvantage thosestudents requiring extension orremediation.

Where the students were selected to berepresentative of a broad range oflearning needs, irrespective of age,teachers were less likely to operate fromfixed assumptions about Year 4 or Year 5students (for example) but insteadadapted their teaching to suit groups ofstudents of varying interests and needs.

When formed primarily forphilosophical reasons

In schools where multi-age classes wereoperating successfully, the followingconditions were reported:

a high degree of collaborationbetween teachers to plan, implementand evaluate activities which addressthe needs of students. In anincreasing number of schools,teachers were operating in teams toplan across a syllabus stage or shareplanning in the KLAs. In many

instances the teams operated asresearchers, searching the literature,training together, team teaching andrecording progress

a high degree of trust in theleadership. Successful principalswere able to manage change well. Tovarying degrees, teachers and parentswere part of the decision to organiseclasses on a multi-age basis. Allneeded to be shown the benefits tostudents and the link with qualityteaching. Resistance to multi-ageschool organisation has appearedwhere the principal has forced thechange without addressing thelegitimate concerns of teachers andparents

an informed and supportingcommunity. All successful multi-ageschools had included the parents intraining and development programs.Special public meetings with visitingexperts, visits to other schools wheremulti-age classes were operating,dissemination of the latest research,piloting then reviewing, are amongsuccessful strategies employed

effective training and developmentprograms aimed at ensuring thatpractices in the classroom werebased on a strong research base.Valued practices included jointtertiary/school projects, visits byteams of teachers to other schoolsand educational centres, and theprovision of up-to-date researchfindings

an emphasis on the teaching andlearning of core skills. Students whodemonstrated leadership, self-discipline and independent workhabits thrived in a multi-ageenvironment in which co-operative


learning strategies and technology-assisted learning were regularlyemployed

the introduction of an outcomes-based curriculum. The specificationof learning outcomes within stages inEnglish K-6 is providing the means forteachers and parents to recognise thestage of development of particularlearners. A clearer view of studentprogress enhanced by a curriculumset out in stages and supported byeffective assessment and reportingprocedures, is contributingsignificantly to successful multi-ageoperations.

CONCLUSION

Multi-age classes are a necessary patternof organisation in many government andnon-government schools across NSWand Australia, especially in rural areas.They will continue to be a significantproportion of classes formed in NSWschools.

While in larger schools, forming classesby years is the more common practice,multi-age classes are usually formedbecause of the uneven pattern ofenrolments at the school.Sometimes, however, these classes areformed for educational reasons inschools where it is considered thatmixing children of different ages iseducationally and sociallyadvantageous.

There is an increase in the number ofschools choosing to introduce multi-ageclass groupings on the basis of the beliefthat they provide a better matchstructurally with a curriculum groundedin developmental learning principles.

The recent move to arrange the EnglishKindergarten to Year 6 syllabus in stages

with related learning outcomes hasencouraged some schools to arrangetheir classes on the basis of stages ratherthan ages.

More schools are forming multi-ageclasses, not because they have to, butbecause they want to.

THE LATEST RESEARCH ON MULTI-AGE CLASSES

Research continues to confirm thatmulti-age classes do not disadvantagestudents academically and may benefitthem socially and emotionally.

Moreover a growing number of teachersand principals believe that formingmulti-age classes on sound educationalprinciples (rather than as just a reactionto administrative necessity) results inacademic benefits to students.The difficulty which continues toconfront research in the area is thenumber of variables which couldaccount for improvement ordeterioration in student learning.

Researchers have a similar difficulty withthe issue of the workload associated withteaching multi-age classes. Someteachers, particularly those teaching amulti-age class for the first time, reportedan additional workload. Others whoidentified as predominantly student-centred in approach did not believe thatmulti-age classes created more workthan a “straight” Year class, where theteacher was balancing whole-classactivities with flexible group activities toaddress a range of abilities and interests.The range of academic abilities in a“straight” Year class could be wider thanthat in a multi-age class, depending onthe criteria for placing students in themulti-age class. The selection ofstudents, individual teaching styles andexperience are important influences onthe workload of teachers.


There is general agreement thatorganising classes in a particular waycan not guarantee improved learningoutcomes. The determining variable isthe quality of the teaching and learningprovided within that organisation.

SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES ASSOCIATEDWITH THE FORMING AND TEACHINGOF MULTI-AGE CLASSES

Across all schools, common elements ofsuccess included the degree ofcommitment of teachers, the acceptanceand support of parents and above all thequality of classroom teaching.

In organising classes, schools reportedsuccessful practices which variedaccording to the circumstancessurrounding the decision to form theclass. Where schools form classesprimarily because of administrativenecessity, considerable attention is givento allaying the concerns of parents andattracting teachers to the proposed class.Where schools are forming multi-ageclasses across the school primarily forphilosophical reasons, success isattributed to managing change strategies,including extensive training anddevelopment for teachers and parents, toallow them to achieve a shared belief inthe benefits of multi-age classes and astrong commitment to their success.

In regard to successful teaching practicesfor multi-age classes, schools reported arange of ways in which students wereorganised in groups and taught, to matchthe range of teaching philosophies andpreferred teaching styles.

Although the strategies recommended inprogramming, teaching and assessingand reporting apply equally to age-basedclasses, the multi-age class structure canfacilitate student-centred approaches toteaching, including flexible grouping of

students for a variety of purposes,opportunities for student leadershipthrough peer tutoring, cooperativelearning and technology-assistedlearning.

The key finding of this report is that thetype of class organised will notdetermine either educational advantageor disadvantage. Important successfactors for multi-age classes will includethe degree of commitment of teachers,the acceptance and support of parentsand, above all, the quality of classroomteaching.

Multi-age classes can encourage student-centred learning, widen choices forplacing students in classes and facilitatethe flexible progression of studentsthrough a curriculum organised in stagesand associated learning outcomes.


REFERENCES

Allen, J.P. (1989). Social Impact of AgeMixing and Age Segregation in School: AContext-Sensitive Investigation. Journalof Educational Psychology, 81(3), 408-416.

Anderson, R.H. and Parvan, B.N. (1993).Nongradedness. Helping It To HappenLancaster, PA: Technomic.

Black, S. (1993). Beyond Age andGrade. The Executive Educator,(September), 17-20.

Carter, J. (1994). Breaking Out The BOX:Learning in the Multi-age Junior-PrimarySchool. Primary Education, 25(4), 12-13.

Hill, P.W. & Rowe, K.J. (1996).Multilevel Modelling in SchoolEffectiveness Research. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement,7(1), 1-34.

Murdoch, K. (1994). Putting the PiecesTogether: Puzzles and Purposes in Multi-Age Teaching. Primary Education, 25(4),9-11.

Roseth, N. (1981). Evaluation Study ofComposite Classes in Primary Schools.Research Department, New South WalesDepartment of Education.

Sundell, K. (1994). Mixed-Age Groups inSwedish Nursery and CompulsorySchools. School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement, 5(4) 376-393.

Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and Non-cognitive Effects of Multi-grade andMulti-Age Classes: A Best EvidenceSynthesis. Review of EducationalResearch, 65(4), 319-381.

Viadero, D. (1996). Mixed Blessings.Education Week, (May 8), 31-33.

Vogel, F.W. and Bowers, N.D. (1972).Pupil Behaviors in a Multi-Age Non-graded School. Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 41 (Winter), 78-86.


APPENDIX A: SCHOOLSIDENTIFIED FORSURVEYING

Batemans Bay PSBayldon PSBellingen PSBelmont PSBidwill PSBlackheath PSBlayney PSBoambee PSBooragul PSBourke PSBrighton PSCamden South PSCampbelltown East PSCardiff South PSChertsey PSCobar PSCooma North PSCootamundra PSDorrigo PSDulwich Hill PSEastern Creek PSEllison PSFrenchs Forest PSGerringong PSGillwinga PSGlenroi Heights PSGrafton South PSGrahamstown PSGwandalan PSKempsey South PS

South Grafton 2 PrimaryBathurst West 2 PrimaryBellingen 2 PrimaryLithgow 2 PrimaryMcCallums Hill 2 PrimaryNambucca Heads 3 PrimaryAriah Park Central 3 CentralLismore South 3 PrimaryLennox Head 3 PrimaryYagoona 3 PrimaryClemton Park 3 PrimaryWest Wyalong 3 PrimaryUki 4 PrimaryBrunswick Heads 4 PrimaryBankstown West 4 PrimaryRevesby South 4 PrimaryUlong 5 Primary

APPENDIX B: SCHOOLSPARTICIPATING INCASE STUDIES

Baryulgil 5 PrimaryGrevillea 5 PrimaryWilsons Creek 5 PrimaryWyalong 5 PrimaryCoopers Creek Upper 6 PrimaryNaradhan 6 Primary

2 Primary = An enrolment from 451 to 7003 Primary = An enrolment from 301 to 4503 Central = An enrolment from 160 to 3004 Primary = An enrolment from 160 to 3005 Primary = An enrolment from 26 to 1596 Primary = An enrolment of 25 or less

Kenthurst PSLake Albert PSLavington East PSLeppington PSLewisham PSLucas Heights CSManning Gardens PSMinto PSMorisset PSMt Annan PSMurwillumbah East PSMurwillumbah PSNambucca Heads PSNormanhurst West PSNoumea PSOberon PSOcean Shores PSPenrith PSRaymond Terrace PSRoseville PSSouth Wagga PSSouthern Cross PSTanilba Bay PSTempe PSThe Oaks PSTolland PSWagga Wagga PSWentworth PSWidemere PSWillmot PS

FOCUS AREAS AND QUESTIONS

1. School planning• overall organisation of classes• number and type of multi-age classes

• rationale for forming multi-ageclasses

• the basis for selecting children forthese classes

• parental involvement in the process• the extent of training provided for

teachers.

2. Class organisation and pedagogy• the organisation of students in each

multi-age class• planning and organisation of learning

for students

• grouping of students for learningactivities

• special needs arrangements

• the assessment of student progress• structuring of the learning

environment.

3. Reasons why the multi-age classesare working so well

• Effective multi-age classes: formedprimarily for administrative reasons

• Effective multi-age classes: formedprimarily for philosophical reasons.

4. Questions• What is the rationale? Why were the

classes established?• How were the children selected?

• How were the parents involved?• What specific training and

development were provided?

• How were the teachers selected orallocated?

• How is the school day organised?

multi-age classes - graduate teacher support -...

Documents