“Why Implement “Multi-Age” Education?”

***See sidebar for references.
The cheeky answer to the aforementioned question in my own mind is “that it couldn’t hurt.” The traditional system that we are currently using is so broken in my opinion, that anything else would be a welcome reprieve. As Jim Grant and Bob Johnson wrote in their article “Why Get Rid of Graded Schools? The History and the Research” that, “The graded system in which children pass or fail each year was a factory model that was accepted as appropriate in the nineteenth century.” It seems incredible to me that two centuries later we are still embracing what could be euphemistically be called as, “old technology.” Many of us would never consider using televisions, cell phones, computers, etc. that are more than ten-years-old, but we unquestioningly embrace a system that has not served our past and our current students very well.

I jokingly refer to some of my very strong students as not having to need a teacher in the room. Regardless of who is there as their teacher, these students have either the skills, aptitudes, interests in whatever subject that they are presented or they have become very adept at negotiating the public school system. However, it is the remaining students that worry me; those that struggle, are disaffected, and underserved. As Grant and Johnson state, “In looking for what frustrates our effort to educate all children, we are increasingly trying to define the problem by labeling children -"learning disabled," " children-at-risk: "attention deficit," "gifted," "minimally performing," etc.” I have a remarkable number of these students in my classroom and from my casual conversations with my colleagues, so do they.

In our efforts to better identify areas of needs and give students supports in the same we are now expected to meet with our grade-level colleagues in “professional learning communities (PLC).” While informative to our current situation, these meetings cannot address the larger systemic problems that result from our grade-level circumstances. Simply put, we are marshaling students through a curriculum that they may not be interested in or ready for as a result of their chronology. In my PLC conversations with colleagues we often speak of our frustrations in trying to reach our learners. We end up asking more questions than discovering answers. One theme that tends to be reflected on is, “What to do with those that aren’t ‘ready’ for what we are working on in class?”

In her article, “Why Does Multiage Make Sense? Compelling Arguments for Educational Change” Wendy Kasten discusses what we commonly refer to as “young” students; those that are not “ready” for school when they enter. Her thoughts on this subject resounded on a personal level for me.  I was particularly struck by her assertion that, “…even particularly bright children continue to be at the young end of the developmental continuum as they proceed through schooling. They remain less advanced, less mature, and less confident in their abilities than others in their group.” I had always felt a step behind my peer group; never quite “getting it.” I had always felt as though there was something wrong with me; that somehow I was at fault.  It wasn’t until I became an adult that I realized that perhaps there was more at play and that it wasn’t “my” fault that I felt adrift in school.

As she continues to write, Karsten asks, “… if this child proceeds through school always in the same relatively low position as compared to classmates, how does this affect an overall sense of self? Aspirations? Self-esteem?” As someone who always felt as though they were in a “low position” I can unequivocally state that yes, this position does affect a sense of sense, aspirations and self-esteem. This struggle did not go unnoticed as my mother watched me become withdrawn and unhappy during my Primary year. Fearing that the same would happen to my brother and sister, whose birthdays were also in the summer as my own, she decided to keep them home for one more year. She endured a lot of commentary and criticism for this bold move, but in the end it was the best decision for them as they were ready to enter school at six-years-old respectively.

It was interesting to note that in Dr. Barbara Pavan’s “Summary of Research about Benefits of Multiage” that students in multiage classrooms, “…were more likely than their peers to have positive self-concepts, high self-esteem, and good attitudes toward school.” In regards to their academic achievement it was noted that, “…58% of those students in multiage classes performed better than their peers on measures of academic achievement. 33% performed as well as their peers, and only 9% did worse than their peers.” With what we have learned from her research and that of others, I continue to wonder why we rely on the factory model of education? If the potential is there to develop a system that would not only benefit our students’ academic performances, but also their self-esteem why are we continuing to move forward with a system that simply cannot address the problems that it creates?

            Obviously the answer to this question has to be more than, “it couldn’t hurt” as I had opened with in this essay. There are many considerations to reflect upon such as placement, addressing needs, teacher support, etc. However, in my classroom I see the glimmer of what is possible as I teach a split classroom. As the literature suggests in the readings for this section my younger students enable the nurturing elements of my older students and my older students are able to refine their own thinking as they support the younger students. Often, the lines between who is younger and who is older are blurred as they support each other. These are my favourite moments in our day when we are engaged in activities as a group and regardless of age or grade-level we are working together. I find that the learning evolves more naturally and concretely as the students create it together – working on strengths that the individuals bring together.

            If one were to compare these moments in my classroom to a real-world setting you would find that it would be remarkably similar. In both settings people are brought together on a common goal based on their areas of strength, skill set, knowledge base, or interest level. Unlike my classroom however, in a work environment people are not brought together merely by chronology or years employed by a company. My “Professional Learning Community” in school is a testament to this where there is one thirty-something, a fifty-something, and me at forty-three years old. It makes sense to place us together as we have our common grades to consider rather than placing us with colleagues who are similar in age.

            Ultimately I did not have questions of the readings. I was surprised by my strong reaction to Karsten’s article in her discussion about immature students. It was as though a weight had lifted from my shoulders to finally reconsider that the fault had not been my own in feeling a step behind in school. This was good to be reminded of how my students must feel at times and to be mindful as a teacher in supporting my students; both academically and emotionally.