Looping

Abstract

Looping is an educational practice in which a class of students is promoted and progress as a group with the same teacher through two or more grades and for two or more years. Looping is also known as multiyear education, multiyear instruction/teaching, multiyear placement, multiyear assignment, and by other related names. Looping has innumerable advantages as recounted in the educational literature. The continuity of relationship, care, and instruction associated with the long-term, continuous-learning environment and continuous-progress curriculum characteristic of looping classes provide perhaps the most important advantages of the practice. The most common disadvantages for looping classrooms can occur in traditional classrooms as well. A plethora of anecdotal evidence and a paucity of empirical research suggest many positive academic, social, and emotional benefits attendant to the use of looping as an educational strategy.

Overview

Although the practice of looping appears to have had numerous antecedents, its origin is most commonly attributed to Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925), who founded the Waldorf School method of schooling in the early 1900s. A key feature of the Waldorf approach to education is continuous teachers: teachers who remain with the same class and teach all subjects through the elementary grades. Steiner's child-centered pedagogical ideas, concepts, and principles form a theoretical and philosophical foundation for the practice of looping. Among the primary practitioners of looping in US schools are early childhood and preschool teachers who use the practice in childcare facilities with infant and toddler groups. Looping is also successfully implemented in the primary or early elementary grades (K–3) and in middle school education.

Looping is a concept, a model, and an experience. It is an approach that is based on a continuous progress school curriculum and instructional design with a nontraditional class structure. In some schools, looping is considered as an intervention (Forsten, Grant, & Richardson, 1999; Haley, 2007, Krogman & Van Sant, 2000). Table 1 summarizes key elements and characteristics associated with the educational practice of looping.

Looping is also called multiyear education or multiyear instruction/ teaching because teachers are given multiyear teaching assignments and make multiyear commitments to teach the same group of students. With looping, single-grade teachers become multigrade teachers. Other names for looping include extended relationship schools and classes, teacher-student or student-teacher progression, or persistence grouping (Bellis, 1999; Lincoln, 1998; Reynolds, Barnhart, & Martin, 1999). Schools, programs, curricula, classes, structures, experiences, teachers, and students can be looping or non-looping.

Students who are currently participating or who have participated in a looping classroom are sometimes called "loopers" (Coash & Watkins, 2005). With the practice of looping, the teacher or caregiver is promoted with a group of students to the next grade level. The students and teacher move as a group through (minimally) two successive or consecutive years and sometimes for multiple years—three or more. Students stay together with the same classmates and sometimes remain in the same classroom (Hitz, Sonners, & Jenlink, 2007; Kenney, 2007). Although it is a relatively simple concept, there has been increasing interest in the practice of looping.

History. The historical origins of looping are commonly attributed to the German Austrian social philosopher Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925), who founded the Waldorf School movement in the early 1900s. The Waldorf School movement is based on Steiner's philosophic and pedagogical teachings, particularly his Volks pedagogy, social pedagogy, or "schooling of the people." There are over one thousand privately operated Waldorf schools, Steiner schools, or Steiner-Waldorf schools located worldwide in various countries that use looping ("A global education," 2018). A key feature of the Waldorf approach is continuous teachers: teachers who remain with the same class and teach all subjects throughout the elementary grades 1–8 (Bellis, 1999; Black, 2000; Foster, 1984; Irinyi, 2007; Kenney, 2007; Oberman, 1997; Oberski, Pugh, MacLean, & Cope, 2007; Ogletree, 1975; Ogletree, 1998; Prescott, 1999; Vernoff & Shore, 1987; Von Baravalle, 1963).

Another antecedent to looping was the "family grouping" arrangement of British primary schools. Italian preschools, which are reputed to be some of the world's best, use three-year looping assignments of teachers and students. Some German schools have used multiyear teacher-student groupings for up to six years. Looping is also used in Japanese middle school education (Bellis, 1999; Burke, 1997; Whitman, 1999).

The one-room schoolhouses in the US were effectively looping classrooms (Hitz et al., 2007). Another example of the application of looping is the Attleboro, Massachusetts, Public Schools, which experimented with the use of multiyear teaching assignments in the 1980s. Then, in the early-to mid- 1990s, the school district extended the practice and required all grade 1–8 classroom teachers to spend two consecutive years with their classes and students (Hanson, 1995). The practice of looping has been initiated in an ever increasing number of settings and is an increasingly common practice in schools across the US (Little & Little, 2001). It is also practiced in many Montessori schools (Irinyi, 2007).

Theoretical & Philosophical Foundations. The child-centered, educational ideas and principles, pedagogical concepts, and curricular/instructional strategies of Rudolf Steiner, as employed at the elementary school level in Waldorf schools and Waldorf education, form a theoretical and philosophical foundation for the practice of looping. Steiner's views of the natural developmental stages of children constitute an intrinsic basis of the philosophy and the curriculum for both looping schools and their precursor, Waldorf schools. Steiner's comprehensive view of child development attends to the physical, physiological, psychological, and spiritual needs of children (Ginsburg, 1982; Karrow, 1998; Ogletree, 1997; Prescott, 1999).

It is broadly perceived by educators that the short-lived character of single-year learning groups hinders their effectiveness (Wynne & Walberg, 1994). The association of students in small groups exerts a strong emotional influence. Keeping discrete groups of students together with their teachers over long time periods and increasingly using small groups and small-group activities demonstrate the efficacy of group persistence and promote academic learning (Wynne & Walberg, 1994).

Applications

Educational Practice. Looping can be used from preschool and kindergarten through high school (Gaustad, 1998). The pedagogical practice of looping in the US is generally associated with elementary schools, especially early elementary or primary grades, and middle school grades (Finder, 2005; Gaustad, 1998). Among the practitioners of looping are early childhood teachers and early caregivers. Looping is often used in high-quality childcare facilities for preschool classes and preschool education, including infant and toddler groups (Hegde & Cassidy, 2004). The looping of teachers and the transitioning of students between infant and toddler classrooms, and between toddler and three-year-old classrooms, support existing relationships and facilitate new relationships. The looping process provides for continuity and consistency of care and supports the development of peer groups (University of New Hampshire, 2007).

Looping practices are successfully implemented in the primary (K–3) grades. Learning communities of kindergartners and first-grade students form a common two-year grade combination. Keeping kindergartners through grade two students together creates a three-year grade combination (Chapman, 1999). Figure 1 schematically illustrates the looping of K–2 students in two different classes with one teacher over a six-year period. It is common to loop students for first and second grades and keep them together for two years (Jacoby, 1994; Willoughby, 2004). In the primary grades, the primary teacher remains with the same group of children through the looped period (Albrecht et al., 2000). Looping has been used especially to increase literacy achievement in grades K–5 based on a continuous progress conceptual approach (Haley, 2007).

Loping has also been implemented in the intermediate grades (Forsten et al., 1999). For example, the elementary grades 4–5 and 4–6 are common looping grade combinations (Kelly, Brown, Butler, Gittens, Taylor, & Zeller, 1998). Looping projects and programs have been instituted in middle schools, used and carried through the entire three middle school years: grades 6–8 (Coash & Watkins, 2005). Looping has been recommended as an educational adaptation to improve the academic and the social-emotional environments of secondary school classrooms (Liu, 1997). They have particularly been used in high school settings with low-income and at-risk students (Yamauchi, 2003).

Viewpoints

Advantages. The practice of looping has an extensive educational research literature base dealing with its many advantages and disadvantages. In fact, most articles deal specifically with the many perceived advantages and benefits of the strategy. The literature is so rife with anecdotal support for the technique that educators are left to ponder exactly why it has not already been adopted by every school in the country.

Ease of Implementation. Looping is easier to implement than many other educational reforms and it is compatible with many other practices. For example, it can work in concert with the whole-language approach. In addition, looping can also facilitate assessment (Gaustad, 1998). Teachers have increased academic autonomy and increased ownership of student progress with looping. Because continuity demands greater responsibility for results, accountability is improved with the practice (Kerr, 2002; Liu, 1997; Simel, 1998).

Classroom Discipline. Looping can be less stressful for teachers, since they are able to adopt more positive approaches to classroom management. As discipline problems are reduced in a looped classroom, students' attitudes, behavior, and achievement improve (Black, 2000; Burke, 1997; Chapman, 1999; Kenney, 2007; Lincoln, 2000). This improves student learning and increases children's success in the primary grades. It may also increase student achievement in different subject areas in grades K–5. Achievement for middle school students looped for two or more years can also be improved (Brown, Johnson, & Grueninger, 2002; Haley, 2007; Little & Little, 2001).

Students generally have an improved attendance record with looping and it aids in student retention. Students are more easily able to transition from grade to grade and looping mitigates problems with social promotion (Hegde & Cassidy, 2004; Kenney, 2007; Reynolds, Barnhart, & Martin, 1999; Yamauchi, 2003). The longer-term learning environment characteristic of looping provides for improved quality, continuity of relationship, and continuity of child care. There is greater continuity of instruction and more continuous learning (Albrecht et al., 2000; Burke, 1997; Forsten et al., 1999; Hegde & Cassidy, 2004).

Student-Teacher Familiarity. There is less anxiety for students when their teacher remains the same from year to year. There is less apprehension for students prior to an upcoming school year when they need not change to a new teacher, unlike the continual uncertainty in traditional classrooms. Students are more familiar with their teacher's methods and expectations and there is less pressure on them to accomplish curricular objectives in one year (Chapman, 1999; Chirichello & Chirichello, 2001; Hanson, 1995; Kenney, 2007; Little & Dacus, 1999).

With looping, teachers can be knowledgeable of students' cognitive and affective needs, can better anticipate them, and can thereby individualize instruction and learning. Teachers are better able to observe students, determine their individual needs, and make adjustments in instruction accordingly. Teachers can "follow the child" for two or more years of their development and observe their progression before recommending any necessary intervention, such as a child study team evaluation (Bellis, 1999; Chirichello & Chirichello, 2001; Hegde & Cassidy, 2004; Irinyi, 2007; Kenney, 2007; Little & Little, 2001).

Regardless of demographics, looping develops and fosters a feeling of "family pride" and a family-like classroom atmosphere. Looping helps to create a sense of belonging among students. The looped classroom becomes "a home away from home" and is viewed by students as a place of support and comfort. Looping often produces a nurturing and caring setting where schoolchildren feel a strong sense of an inclusive community. As children get to know each other better, they work better together, and a friendly environment motivates and stimulates students to give their best efforts. Participation improves so much that even quiet and shy students become more comfortable and open in looping classrooms. As students' confidence increases, they like school more (Bellis, 1999; Black, 2000; Burke, 1997; Callaghan, 2007; Coash & Watkins, 2005; Hanson, 1995; Jacoby, 1994; Kaplan & Owings, 2000; Kelly et al., 1998; Kenney, 2007; Nichols & Nichols, 2002; Simel, 1998; Yamauchi, 2003).

Curriculum Planning. Curriculum planning can be more effective with looping because teachers can implement a more coherent instructional plan; thus, classroom instruction can be better structured and more efficient. Teachers can better contextualize and customize instruction based on their knowledge of their students, so there is less repetition (Forsten et al., 1999; Irinyi, 2007; Kerr, 2002; McCown & Sherman, 2002; Yamauchi, 2003). Academic time is maximized with looping, making it generally a time-effective strategy. There is less adjustment time at the beginning of the school year and teachers are not required to start from scratch each fall. As a result of not needing to repeat a lot of the early-year class processes and procedures, teachers gain an estimated extra month of teaching time during the second year. The class roster remains constant and teachers are not forced to learn the names and personalities of a new group of students each year. Looping negates the loss of class time at the start of each school year for teachers and students to build relationships, and it foregoes the loss of time due to the establishment of rules and routines. Time is also saved in student skills assessment and teachers have time to bring low-performing students up to grade level (Bellis, 1999; Burke, 1997; Forsten et al., 1999; Gaustad, 1998; Hanson, 1995; Krogman & Van Sant, 2000; Lincoln, 1997; Reynolds et al., 1999).

Socioeconomic Issues. Looping also reduces social and economic barriers. Low-income and single-parent families are very positively disposed to looping. The stability of looping classrooms is particularly beneficial for at-risk students (Nichols & Nichols, 2002; Simel, 1998).

Teachers, students, parents, and families perceive and support the many positive academic, social, and emotional benefits, advantages, and results of looping. Students and parents have improved attitudes toward school and there is increased parent involvement and support in their children's education. Parents form deeper relationships with teachers. With better communication between teachers and parents, school-home partnerships, interactions, and interrelations are strengthened. Parents of students are able to form friendships and to network. The connections and benefits created by looping may impact students long after they have transitioned to other classrooms and to higher grades (Burke, 1997; Callaghan, 2007; Chirichello & Chirichello, 2001; Coash & Watkins, 2005; Hegde & Cassidy, 2004; Kerr, 2002; Lincoln, 1997; Nichols & Nichols, 2002).

Disadvantages. There are few challenges or concerns with the practice of looping. The potential problems that can arise can be largely avoided with prior planning. The most common disadvantages that are reported for looping classrooms can occur in traditional classrooms as well. For example, class composition can become a critical factor to the success of a looping class as it can for a traditional class (Burke, 1997; Gaustad, 1998).

Teacher Training. Looping may be harder for teachers, as additional teacher training is required and planning activities for a looped class can be difficult. Teachers may have an age-group preference and may have skills that are best suited for a particular grade (Hegde & Cassidy, 2004; Simel, 1998). If the practice of looping is not a regular part of a school's program, the teacher could also be resentful about not having had the opportunity to prepare early enough when asked spontaneously to move on with the same group of students the following year. Knowing early on allows the teacher to design the curriculum according to the learning practices and interests of the students based on the longer timeframe and to create relevant summer assignments (MacAulay, 2016). Additionally, teacher shortages have become increasingly common worldwide, and high turnover means that the practice can be difficult to implement as there is no guarantee that a teacher will stay with an educational institution for long enough (Nitecki, 2017).

Restricted Environment. In looping classrooms, students may have less opportunity to experience new things or change. After time in a looped classroom, students must move on to higher grades and transition to new philosophies and new teaching practices and may not be prepared for the transition (Hegde & Cassidy, 2004; Kerr, 2002).

Problems that could be manageable and endurable for a single year can become unbearable over extended time. For example, if there is a strained teacher-parent relationship, then it may be worsened with looping. It is possible, as well, to have an inappropriate match and a personality conflict between a student and a teacher (Burke, 1997; Gaustad, 1998; Hegde & Cassidy, 2004).

Conclusion

There is a dearth of empirical research on looping. Although largely based on anecdotal evidence, there are assertions that looping is both academically and socially beneficial for primary-grade students (Kenney, 2007). Student test scores of first and second graders were higher in a looping class than in a non-looping class as measured from the end of the first year to the middle of the second year (Krogman & Van Sant, 2000). Research in another case study found that elementary students in multiyear programs score higher on standardized reading and mathematics tests and basic skills tests than students in traditional-grade, organizationally structured programs (Burke, 1997). Higher standardized test scores have been reported even in situations where looping classes and regular classes have been taught by the same teacher (Gaustad, 1998). After evaluating the results of a pilot test project of looping with seventh- and eighth-graders, a Connecticut school extended the practice to all seventh- and eighth-grade classes (Lincoln, 2000). Regardless of the relative abundance of empirically based research evidence, the reputation of looping as a sound and viable pedagogical strategy continues to grow with educational practitioners.

Terms & Concepts

Continuous Progress Curriculum: A curriculum that allows for the individualization of instruction and pacing of student learning at variable rates through course content.

Continuous Teachers: Teachers who remain with the same class and teach all subjects through multiple grades and for multiple years.

Learning Communities: Small groups or cohorts of students who become actively involved, participate in shared learning activities, and learn collaboratively and cooperatively together and from each other based on bonding relationships, strong connections, and effective social interactions.

Looping: Also multiyear education, multiyear instruction/ teaching, multiyear placement or multiyear assignment; an educational concept and practice in which a teacher and his or her students are promoted, progress to the next grade level, and stay together for at least two to three years.

Looping Classroom: Also looped classroom; a classroom in which a teacher and a group of students are promoted, progress to the next grade level, and stay together for several years.

Multiyear Education: Also looping, multiyear instruction/teaching, multiyear placement, multiyear assignment, teacher-student or student-teacher progression, or persistence grouping; practice in which a teacher and students progress as a group or class through minimally two consecutive years.

Multiyear Placement: Also looping, multiyear assignment, multiyear instruction/ teaching; practice in which a teacher and students are promoted, progress to the next grade level, and remain together as a class for two, three, or more years.

Waldorf Education: System of schooling founded by Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925), a German Austrian social philosopher after whom Waldorf schools are named; a key feature of the Waldorf approach to education is continuous teachers, or as they are otherwise known, "looping teachers."

A simple schematic describes the looping of one teacher with two different classes or groups of students over three grades (K–2) and six school years.

Bibliography

Albrecht, K., Banks, M., Calhoun, G., Dziadul, L., Gwinn, C., Harrington, B., Kerr, B., Mizukami, M., Morris, A., Peterson, C., Summers, R. R. (2000). The good, the bad, and the wonderful! Keeping children and teachers together. Child Care Information Exchange, 136, 24–28.

Bellis, M. (1999). Look before you loop. Young Children, 54, 70–73.

Black, S. (2000). Together again: The practice of looping keeps students with the same teachers. American School Board Journal, 187, 40–43.

Brown, M., Johnson, I. D., & Grueninger, C. E., III. (2002). Getting middle school students back on track: A school-university-corporation partnership. Educational Forum, 66, 262–270.

Burke, D. L. (1997). Looping: Adding time, strengthening relationships. (Report EDO-PS-97-25). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 414 098).

Callaghan, B. (2007). Looping classes. Family Education.com. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://school.familyeducation. com/education-administration/alternative-education/ 42559.html

Chapman, J. (1999). A looping journey. Young Children, 54, 80–83.

Chirichello, M., & Chirichello, C. (2001). A standing ovation for looping: The critics respond. Childhood Education, 78, 2–9.

Coash, V., & Watkins, K. (2005). Looping for long-term success. Middle Ground, 9, 16–18.

Finder, A. (2005). Goodbye, class: See you in the Fall. New York Times, 154 (53272), B1–B6.

Forsten, C., Grant, J., Johnson, B., & Richardson, I. (1997). Looping q & a: 72 practical answers to your most pressing questions. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.

Forsten, C., Grant, J., & Richardson, I. (1999). The looping evaluation book. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.

Foster, S. W. (1984). An introduction to Waldorf education. Clearing House, 57, 228–230.

Gaustad, J. (1998). Implementing looping. (Report EDO-EA-98-7). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED42330).

George, P. S., & Lounsbury, J. H. (2000). Making big schools feel small: Multiage grouping, looping and schools-within-a-school. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Ginsburg, I. H. (1982). Jean Piaget and Rudolf Steiner: Stages of child development and implications for pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 84, 327–337.

A global education. (2018). Waldorf School of Lexington. Retrieved October 18, 2018, from http://thewaldorfschool.org/waldorf-worldwide/

Haley, C. E. (2007). Improving literacy achievement: An effective approach to continuous progress. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Hanson, B. J. (1995). Getting to know you: Multiyear teaching. Educational Leadership, 53, 42–43.

Hegde, A. V., & Cassidy, D. J. (2004). Teacher and parent perspectives on looping. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 133–138. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http:// search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14841889&site=ehost-live

Hitz, M. M., Sonners, M. C., & Jenlink, C. L. (2007). The looping classroom: Benefits for children, families and teachers. Young Children, 62, 80–84.

Irinyi, M. (2007). Looping: An option for managing the public Montessori classroom. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://montessoritraining.blogspot.com/2007/06/ loopingoption-for-managing-public.html

Jacoby, D. (1994). Twice the learning and twice the love. Teaching PreK-8, 24, 58–59.

Kane, J. (2011). Chapter 6 Toward living knowledge: A Waldorf perspective. Encounter, 24, 115–132. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65049101&site=ehost-live

Karnow, G. F. (1998). Child development and the coworking of doctor and teacher: A Waldorf School doctor's perspective. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED417802).

Kelly, P. A., Brown, S., Butler, A., Gittens, P., Taylor, C., & Zeller, P. (1998). A place to hang our hats. Educational Leadership, 56, 62–64.

Kenney, M. K. (2007). Social and academic benefits of looping primary grade students. Unpublished master's thesis, Dominican University of California, San Rafael, CA.

Kerr, D. L. (2002). 'In the loop' responses about looping at the middle school level as seen through different lenses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National-Louis University, Evanston, IL.

Krogman, J., & Van Sant, R. (2000). Enhancing relationships and improving academics in the elementary school setting by implementing looping. Unpublished master's thesis, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL.

Larsson, J., & Dahlin, B. (2012). Educating far from equilibrium: Chaos philosophy and the quest for complexity in education. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity & Education, 9, 1–14. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp x?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=80733877&site=ehost-live

Lincoln, R. D. (1997). Multi-year instruction: Establishing student-teacher relationships. Schools in the Middle, 6, 50–52.

Lincoln, R. D. (1998). Successful looping at the middle school level. Curriculum Administrator, 34, 30-31.

Lincoln, R. D. (2000). Looping at the middle school level: Implementation and effects. ERS Spectrum, 18, 19–24.

Little, T. S., & Dacus, N. B. (1999). Looping: Moving up with the class. Educational Leadership, 57, 42–45.

Little, T. S., & Little, L. P. (2001). Looping: Creating elementary school communities. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International.

MacAulay, J. (2016). In the loop: Following my students to grade 5. Aviso, 32(3), 21–22. Retrieved October 18, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=116596307&site=ehost-live&scope=site

McClellan, D. (Ed.) (1997). The MAGnet Newsletter on mixed-age grouping in preschool and elementary settings, 1992–1997. MAGnet Newsletter, 1–6 . Washington, D.C.: Office of Education Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED417841).

McCown, C., & Sherman, S. (2002). Looping for better performance in the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 33, 17–21.

Nichols, J. D. (2002). The impact of looping and nonlooping classroom environments on parental attitudes. Educational Research Quarterly, 26, 23–40. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7592678&site=ehost-live

Nitecki, E. (2017). Looping and attachment in early childhood education: How the applications of epigenetics demand a change. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 85–100. Retrieved October 18, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=123448096&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Nordlund, C. (2013). Waldorf education: Breathing creativity. Art Education, 66, 13–19. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85691456&site=ehost-live

Oberman, I. (1997). The mystery of Waldorf: A turn-of-the-century German experiment on today's American soil. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409988).

Oberski, I., Pugh, A., MacLean, A., & Cope, P. (2007). Validating a Steiner-Waldorf teacher education programme. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 135–139.

Ogletree, E. J. (1975). Waldorf Schools: A child-centered system. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 178 188).

Ogletree, E. J. (1997). Waldorf education: Theory of child development and teaching methods. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420418).

Ogletree, E. J. (1998). International survey of the status of Waldorf schools. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED438075).

Prescott, J. O. (1999). A day in the life of the Rudolf Steiner School. Instructor, 109, 21–25.

Reynolds, J. C., Barnhart, B., & Martin, B. N. (1999). Looping: A solution to the retention vs. local promotion dilemma? ERS Spectrum, 17, 16–20.

Simel, D. (1998). Education for 'bildung': Teacher attitudes toward looping. International Journal of Educational Reform, 7, 330–337.

University of New Hampshire, Child Study and Development Center. (2007). Curriculum: foundations, framework and intentions. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://csdc.unh.edu/Classrooms/Toddlers/Curriculum/

Vernoff, E., & Shore, R. (1987). The international dictionary of 20th century biography. New York, NY: New American Library.

Von Baravalle, H. (1963). The international Waldorf School movement. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED015019).

Whitman, N. C. (1999). The Japanese middle schools: A reflection on practices. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED434094).

Willoughby, B. (2004). 'That's what I am: I am a teacher.' Teaching Tolerance, 22–23.

Wynne, E. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). Persisting groups: An overlooked force for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 527–528.

Yamauchi, L. A. (2003). Making school relevant for at-risk students: The Wai'anae High School Hawaiian Studies program. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 8, 379–390.

Suggested Reading

Bailey, G. J., Werth, E. P. ., Allen, D. M. ., & Sutherland, L. L. (2016). The Prairie Valley project: Reactions to a transition to a schoolwide, multiage elementary classroom design. School Community Journal, 26(1), 239–263. Retrieved October 18, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=116431880&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Elliot, D. C., & Capp, R. (2003). The gift of time. Leadership, 33, 34–36. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http:// search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11540981&site=ehost-live

Forsten, C., Grant, J., Johnson, B., & Richardson, I. (1997). Looping q & a: 72 practical answers to your most pressing questions. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.

Grove, K., & Fisher, D. (2006). 'Doing collaboration': The process of constructing an educational community in an urban elementary school. Ethnography & Education, 1, 53–66. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20535483&site=ehost-live

Haines, L., & Garran, D. (2006). Alternative methods. Teacher Magazine, 18, 40–41. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23206677&site=ehost-live

O'Neil, J. (2004). We're baaack! NEA Today, 22, 40–41. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12672598&site=ehost-live

Parker-Rees, R. (2011). Meeting the child in Steiner kindergartens: An exploration of beliefs, values, and practices. New York, NY: Routledge.

Scholastic Inc. (2006). The benefits of looping. Instructor, 116, 17. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22830410&site=ehost-live