Multi - Age Classrooms

This article explores the philosophical framework and historical perspective of multiage education, common characteristics of multiage classrooms, and advantages and disadvantages of non-graded programs. Multiage classrooms ignore age distinctions and group children of varying developmental levels together, primarily in the elementary years. Researchers point to the social and emotional benefits of multiage classrooms asserting that such educational environments boost self-esteem and confidence through positive interactions between peers of varying age levels. While literature does not clearly identify specific academic benefits, supporters discuss various indicators that point toward increased academic achievement as a result of multiage pairings. Regardless of documented benefits, some educators hold strong that multiage classrooms require too much preparation and monitoring, confuse parents, and often do not match well with school based organizational schedules. This article provides a comprehensive overview of multiage education and highlights the dramatic increase of non-graded classrooms throughout the 1990's and the eventual decline in such classrooms in the early 21st century.

Keywords Common Interest Group; Differentiated Instruction; Dyads; Learning Center; Learning Style Group; Multiage Classrooms; Needs-Requirement Group; Problem Based Group; Reinforcement Group; Shared Task Group; Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Overview

Traditional graded classrooms group students according to age criteria and apply specific grade level distinctions (1st grade, 2nd grade, etc.) throughout a child's education from Kindergarten through Grade 12. Multiage classrooms ignore age distinctions and group children of varying developmental levels together, primarily in the elementary years. Gaustad (1992) defines multiage education as the practice of teaching children of different ages and ability levels without dividing them into grade specific classrooms based on age. Multiage classrooms are often referred to as non-graded classrooms due to the lack of grade level distinction.

Multiage classrooms date back all the way to the one-room schoolhouse. Aina (2001) discusses the unique characteristics of the one-room schoolhouse that still hold true in modern non-graded classrooms. Children remained with one teacher and the same classmates for many years throughout their education, creating a safe, stable and consistent environment for learning. The mix of different ages, ability and developmental levels provided many opportunities for increased social interaction, positive self-esteem development and enhanced responsibility. Children in one-room schoolhouses had no perceived ceiling with regard to what could be taught and what they could learn (Aina, 2001). All of these characteristics are true of modern multiage classrooms.

Multiage classrooms include a wide variety of backgrounds, abilities, ages, cultures, learning styles, and interests. The age range typically spans three or more years, thus creating an optimal learning situation for students of various developmental levels. Students in a non-graded classroom typically remain with the same teachers and students for many years as they progress at their own pace (Hoffman, 2003).

Team teaching is a common practice, and teachers employ many instructional methodologies to effectively reach all students in the classroom. Cooperative learning techniques are used extensively, as the emphasis is on student-centered learning as opposed to teacher directed instruction. With the realization that people learn in many different ways, differentiated instructional methodologies are used to meet the varying readiness levels, learning styles and interests in the classroom.

Often, people confuse multigrade and multiage classrooms. Both terms apply to classroom environments with more than one age level of students. However, the key difference is that multigrade classrooms continue to instruct students according to grade level distinctions, whereas multiage classrooms group students heterogeneously according to developmental and ability levels, interests, and learning styles without reference to age. It is common in multiage classrooms for students of different ages to work together on a cooperative task. Hoffman (2003) asserts that the difference between multigrade and multiage classrooms is often blurred in research and literature, thus making it sometimes difficult to separate studies concerning pure, authentic multiage environments from those referencing multigrade classrooms.

Horace Mann introduced graded classrooms in the early 1900's as a way to provide an education for the vastly increased population of the United States due to the flood of immigrants into schools (Aina, 2001). Thus the one room schoolhouse waned in popularity in most areas of the country, excluding rural areas. In the 1950's, multiage classrooms gained momentum, again due to an increase in population as the baby boom generation grew to school age (Viadero, 1996). In both cases, the sheer numbers of students drove schools to reconsider class configurations in order to provide an education for all school aged children. It was not until the 1980's that people began to think of multiage classrooms from an educational perspective considering the benefits of teaching and learning in a non-graded setting (Viadero, 1996).

During the early 1990's the movement was in full force, especially in primary grades, and involved a large number of supporters. Perhaps the biggest boost to the movement came in 1990, when the Kentucky Education Reform Act mandated that every school in the state provide a non-graded primary program. Kentucky fully embraced the multiage philosophy and required that all children be provided the opportunity to work from Kindergarten through 3rd grade at their own pace (Pardini, 2005). Interestingly, the biggest blow to the movement also came from Kentucky in 1998 when the state relaxed the non-graded primary mandate in response to teachers and administrators who yearned for more flexibility with regard to grouping children and development of curriculum objectives (Pardini, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has further driven the movement off course as teachers and administrators are being held accountable for student mastery of grade-specific standards. By the year 2005, multiage classrooms had found it increasingly more difficult to meet the rigid standards required by the legislation (Pardini, 2005). In 2012, the administration of President Barack Obama distributed waivers to the act, which exempted states from certain aspects of the educational standards (Klein, 2013).

Characteristics of a Multiage Classroom

Robert Anderson (1993) discusses specific criteria that multi-age classrooms must meet or come close to meeting in order to be considered authentic multi-age experiences. First and foremost, he indicates that such classrooms must be void of specific grade level distinctions. Classrooms must be created with at least two heterogeneous groups of students of different ages to create opportunities for flexible grouping and collaborative learning opportunities. When assessing students, teachers need to replace traditional grading and assessment tools with methodologies that truly reflect student performance and growth without comparison to other students. Curriculum must be interdisciplinary in nature, and teachers must have the freedom to be as flexible as necessary with curriculum objectives to ensure that all children succeed. Finally, Anderson asserts that schools need policies consistent with the multi-age philosophy and must stick to them to ensure success.

Hoffman (2003) further articulates common beliefs held by multiage classroom teachers. He asserts that teachers need to know their students well in order to adapt their lessons to meet a wide range of learning abilities and styles. Moreover, teachers need to employ flexible groups as often as possible while taking on the role of facilitator of learning, as opposed to director. Teachers must also take student interest into account while building opportunities for student choice. Most important, multiage classroom teachers must create the conditions necessary for students to appreciate and celebrate the diversity of learners (Hoffman, 2003).

One of the key hallmarks of a multi-age classroom is the fact that deep relationships are formed between students, teachers and parents. Hoffman (2003) indicates that students in a multi-age classroom celebrate differences and appreciate one another for their unique personal characteristics and qualities. In graded classrooms, students from cross grade levels usually attach a specific grade level identity to individual students and may not socialize or engage in learning opportunities with others simply because of this grade level distinction.

Because multi-age classrooms highly value interpersonal relationships and include a wide variety of learners with different developmental levels, ability levels, interests, and cultural and family backgrounds, they create ideal conditions for capitalizing on collaborative learning opportunities. Additionally, because the range of ages in a multiage classroom generally spans three years, teachers cannot rely heavily on whole group instruction. Much of the daily routine, therefore, is designed to take maximum advantage of cooperative and peer based learning activities. Teachers use a variety of grouping practices ranging from individual and partner work to small and large group discussions. Such flexible grouping strategies allow teachers to effectively meet the needs of students in a multiage classroom (Chapman, 1995).

Applications

Hoffman (2002) highlights three of the most common group configurations in a multiage classroom including interest groups, shared task groups and dyads. Students form their own groups when participating in common interest activities, which usually take the form of learning centers. Kaplan et al. (1980) defines a learning center as an area in the classroom containing a variety of activities or materials developed specifically to teach, reinforce, or extend a skill or concept. Common interest groups allow students to investigate and explore their own interests with other students within the structure of an already designed center and are often organized to encourage meaningful connections between content areas (Hoffman, 2002).

Another common grouping practice involves student-led shared task groups. Small heterogeneous groups consisting of four to five students arranged according to ability, gender, or age work together on a common task (Hoffman, 2002). These tasks are developed in such a way that different abilities are required and each student plays an integral role in completion. Dyads are also used as a way to form permanent relationships between "old timers" and "new timers." Usually, in the beginning of the school year, those students who have been in the class previously pair up with students new to the class to help them learn the daily routines, etc. These relationships usually blossom throughout the school year (Hoffman, 2002).

Cushman (1990) further describes alternative methodologies used to create cooperative learning opportunities within a multiage classroom. Often, problem based groups are developed for students to work in teams on a common unsolved problem. Such groups require students to apply problem solving strategies in a collaborative nature and touch on different developmental and ability levels. Needs-requirement groups are created to instruct students in a specific concept, skill or value. These groups are usually developed homogeneously for a group of students who all need instruction in a particular skill or understanding. The main goal of this strategy is to reach with students the mastery level before moving on to a new skill (Al-Makahleh, 2011). Reinforcement groups are used for learners who need extra work, support, or re-teaching, and learning style groups are developed to capitalize on the variety of learning preferences that students bring to the classroom experience. Howard Gardner's research (1993, 1997) regarding multiple intelligences acts as a guide for teachers with regards to developing learning style groups. Gardner discusses eight major intelligences, including verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, visual/spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, musical/rhythmical, naturalist/environmental, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Sternberg (1988, 1997) adds another element for teachers to consider with research related to analytical, creative, and practical intelligences.

Teachers in multiage classrooms often employ many differentiated instructional methodologies. Differentiated instruction is a philosophy of teaching that stems from the belief that all students are different. Students differ with regard to how they learn best, their strengths and weaknesses, their cultural and family backgrounds, what they are interested in learning about, etc. In addition, Mills & Keddie found that, across many parts of the world, the student population is becoming increasingly diverse, bringing to classrooms divergent racial, ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic experiences (Mills & Keddie, 2012). Nowhere are these differences more apparent than in a multiage classroom.

Multiage classrooms provide ample opportunities for student choice, a hallmark of differentiated instructional methodologies. As Benjamin (2006) indicates, when students have choice, it provides them with a sense of self-determination that translates into increased commitment. Since students are afforded this freedom of choice, they often move at their own pace from easier to more difficult material. As students move at different paces through different material according to developmental and ability level, teachers need to employ alternative assessments including checklists, portfolios, observations, and anecdotal records (Gaustad, 1992). Furthermore, teachers often use weekly student-teacher conferences to check in, set goals, review progress, and directly instruct when necessary (Miletta, 1996). Throughout the learning experiences in a multiage classroom, teachers act more as facilitators of learning as opposed to directors.

Viewpoints

Advantages of Multiage Classrooms

Social Benefits

Kolstad & McFadden (1998) indicates that students in multiage classrooms often improve and acquire social behaviors through direct involvement with a diverse age group. In fact, research overwhelmingly asserts that students make considerable advancement in social and affective skills in such a classroom (Kolstad & McFadden, 1998). Older students act as positive role models for younger students and children and, by nature, care for and help each other more in a multiage setting. This role modeling and peer tutoring translates directly into increased positive self-esteem (Aina, 2001).

Due to the significant emphasis on cooperative learning experiences and differentiated group practices, students often work together on common tasks requiring varying skills sets. These learning experiences encourage students to work through both positive and negative group interactions, thus enabling them to acquire unique perspectives on group dynamics. Hoffman (2002) highlights the fact that students in a multiage classroom learn to accept differences in abilities and social behaviors through shared work experiences. Allen (1989) further illustrates that because no grade level distinctions exist, students are more likely to find and belong to social groups without reference to age or maturation.

Academic Benefits

In a multiage classroom, older students reinforce their own learning by teaching younger peers (Viadero, 1996). Conversely, younger students stretch academically, at times, when working with older peers. Multiage classrooms operate on the principles of Vygotskian theory and research regarding the zone of proximal development. According to Vygotsky (1978), the zone of proximal development refers to the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under the guidance of an adult or when collaborating with more capable peers. When an older student helps a younger student work on a task that he/she might not be able to do on his/her own, the older student works to "pull" the younger student through his/her zone of proximal development. Multiage classrooms create just the right conditions for application of Vygotskian theory (Hoffman, 2002).

Multiage classrooms also seek support in Piaget's theory that learning and conceptual development is more likely to occur in contexts where there is mutuality of power and influence (Hoffman, 2002). When students choose groups based on interest, they exercise power over their own learning. When older students work with younger students and provide scaffolding when grappling with difficult concepts, students exert influence over each other's learning. Thus, power and influence play a crucial role in the theoretical underpinnings of the multiage classroom.

Grant (1993) provides additional insight into how multiage classrooms require students to take on more responsibility for their own learning. Without frequent whole-group teacher directed lessons, students find themselves in charge of their own learning opportunities. Students often set their own goals for learning, choose their own interest groups, navigate through social interactions, and work cooperatively on shared tasks and assignments. Although teachers guide and facilitate learning in a multiage classroom, student directed learning takes precedence. Thus, students benefit tremendously from increased responsibility and self-confidence.

Continuity Benefits

Students in a multiage setting usually remain in the same classroom with the same teachers for a number of years. This continuity from year to year helps teachers to have a much stronger sense of each individual student's strengths and weaknesses as compared to teachers in traditional graded classrooms. In a typical graded classroom, teachers begin each year with very little knowledge of student learning profiles and family backgrounds. In a multiage classroom, teachers know the students and their families well. This familiarity helps teachers, parents and students feel comfortable because they understand the philosophy, routines and expectations for learning (Kolstad & McFadden, 1998).

Disadvantages of Multiage Classrooms

Although multiage classrooms encourage students to stretch academically, provide opportunities for students to exert power and influence over their own and others' learning, and creates opportunities for continuity from year to year, there is little research and evidence pointing to vast increases in student achievement. Veeman (1995) concluded that multiage classrooms are no better and no worse than single age classrooms largely because many of the instructional methodologies employed are also used in single grade classrooms due to a similar diversity of learning profiles.

Teacher Work-Load

Teachers in a multiage classroom find that they must work extremely hard to ensure that they are able to plan a variety of activities that are developmentally appropriate for individual students. Similarly, teachers find that they need to consistently use ongoing assessments to monitor student performance and to create as many opportunities as possible for responsive teaching (Grant, 1993). Classroom management in a multiage classroom also poses much difficulty in that teachers need to be extremely adept and flexible enough to have many different groups working on a variety of tasks and activities at one time. As Chapman (1995) indicates, multiage classrooms involve an extensive amount of planning needed to constantly group and regroup students to maximize optimal learning situations.

Parent Misunderstandings

Many parents misunderstand the philosophy of multiage education primarily because their experience in school involved graded or single age classes. Parents sometimes express that they believe their children will not be challenged enough as they become older because they will be paired with younger students in cooperative learning situations (Kolstad & McFadden, 1998). Some parents even feel that there will come a point when their child might reach a learning ceiling and won't be able to learn any more in such a setting. Similarly, parents of younger children sometimes feel that their child will be discouraged in learning situations when paired up with students of greater developmental and academic ability.

Schedule Mismatches

Oftentimes, multiage classrooms coexist in the same school building with single age or graded classrooms. Kolstad & McFadden (1998) indicate that the schedule necessary for a multiage classroom to operate smoothly doesn't quite fit into traditional schedules in most schools. In order for multiage education to be successful, teachers need large chunks of time for learning centers, extended projects, student-teacher conferences, etc. With the emphasis on student directed learning opportunities, traditional forty or fifty minute classes do not provide enough time for the type of work that occurs in a multiage classroom.

Decline of Multiage Classrooms

Many educators believe that multiage classrooms have fallen victim to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pardini, 2005). With rigid standards for learning and mandatory grade level testing, multiage classrooms suffer because teachers feel their flexibility and creativity must be compromised to ensure success on standardized tests. Additionally, some educators attribute the decline in multiage classrooms to the sheer amount of work and preparation that must be invested to keep a multiage classroom operating smoothly. It is difficult to find teachers willing to invest the time and energy required to manage a multiage classroom, especially if their compensation is equivalent to their counterparts in traditional graded settings. Finally, some say the decline is due to the difficulty experienced when attempting to explain the multiage philosophy to parents, especially in schools where graded and multiage classes coexist (Pardini, 2005). Regardless of a marked decline in multiage classrooms, there still exists a cadre of educators who are committed to the philosophy and will remain so through any future obstacles.

Terms & Concepts

Common Interest Groups: Groups that allow students to investigate and explore their own interests with other students within the structure of an already designed center and are often organized to encourage meaningful connections between content areas.

Differentiated Instruction: A philosophy of teaching that stems from the belief that all students are different. Students differ with regards to how they learn best, their strengths and weaknesses, their cultural and family backgrounds, what they are interested in learning about, etc.

Dyads: A way to form permanent relationships between "old timers" and "new timers." Usually, in the beginning of the school year, students who have been in the class previously pair up with students new to the class to help them learn the daily routines, etc.

Learning Center: An area in the classroom containing a variety of activities or materials developed specifically to teach, reinforce, or extend a skill or concept.

Learning Style Groups: Groups that are developed to capitalize on the variety of learning preferences that students bring to the classroom experience. Howard Gardner's research (1993, 1997) regarding multiple intelligences acts as a guide for teachers with regards to developing learning style groups.

Multiage Classrooms: The practice of teaching children of different ages and ability levels without dividing them into grade specific classrooms based on age. Multiage classrooms are often referred to as non-graded classrooms due to the lack of grade level distinction.

Needs-Requirement Groups: Groups that are created to instruct students in a specific concept, skill or value. These groups are usually developed homogeneously for a group of students who all need instruction in a particular skill or understanding

Problem Based Groups: Groups that are developed for students to work in teams on a common unsolved problem. Such groups require students to apply problem solving strategies in a collaborative nature and touch on different developmental and ability levels.

Reinforcement Groups: Groups that are used for learners who need extra work, support, or re-teaching.

Shared Task Groups: Small heterogeneous groups consisting of four to five students arranged according to ability, gender, and age that work together on a common task. These tasks are developed in such a way that different abilities are required and each student plays an integral role in completion.

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): Refers to the distance between the actual developmental levels as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under the guidance of an adult or when collaborating with more capable peers.

Bibliography

Aina, O. (2001). Maximizing learning in early childhood multiage classrooms: Child, teacher and parent perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28, 219-224. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11305183&site=ehost-live

Allen, J. P. (1989). Social impact of age mixing and age segregation in schools: A context-sensitive investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 408–416.

Al-Makahleh, A. (2011). The effect of direct instruction strategy on math achievement of primary 4th and 5th grade students with learning difficulties. International Education Studies, 4, 199–205. Retrieved December 12, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=69755320&site=ehost-live

Anderson, R. H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal, 72, 9–12.

Benjamin, A. (2006). Valuing Differentiated Instruction. Education Digest, 72, 57–59. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22680784&site=ehost-live

Chapman, M. (1995). Designing literacy learning experiences in a multiage classroom. Language Arts, 72, pp. 416–428. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9510114379&site=ehost-live

Cushman, K. (1990). The whys and how's of the multiage primary classroom. American Educator, 14, 28–32.

Fink, J. W. (2013). Capital success. Instructor, 122, 12–13. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87745979

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1997). Reflections on multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 200–207. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9512053705&site=ehost-live

Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded primary education. Eugene, OR: Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Grant, J. (1993). Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools. Peterborough, NH: The Society for Developmental Education.

Hoffman, J. (2002). Flexible grouping strategies in the multiage classroom. Theory into Practice, 41, 47–52. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6437539&site=ehost-live

Hoffman, J. (2003). Multiage teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18, 5–17. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11145477&site=ehost-live

Kaplan, S., Kaplan, J., Madsen, S., & Gould, B. (1980). Change for children: Ideas and activities for individualizing learning. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Klein, A. (2013). As NCLB waivers take hold, revision of law remains up in air. Education Week, 32, 25. Retrieved December 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85766993&site=ehost-live

Kolstad, R. & McFadden, A. (1998). Multiage classrooms: An age-old educational strategy revisited. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=394604&site=ehost-live

Kyle, D. W. (2011). Families' goals, school involvement, and children's academic achievement: A follow-up study thirteen years later. School Community Journal, 21, 9–24. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=69646848

Miletta, M. (1996). A multiage classroom: Choice & possibility. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Mills, C., & Keddie, A. (2012). “Fixing” student deficit in contexts of diversity: Another cautionary tale for pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 7, 9–19. Retrieved December 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85204977&site=ehost-live

Pardini, P. (2005). The slowdown of the multiage classroom. School Administrator, 62, 22–30. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16172690&site=ehost-live

Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking Press.

Sternberg, R. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational Leadership, 54, 20–24. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9703145800&site=ehost-live

Torrence, M. (2012). An idea whose time has come?. Montessori Life, 24, 18–23. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78296116

Veeman, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and multiage classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 319–381.

Viadero, D. (1996). Mixed blessings. Education Week, 15. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9605160105&site=ehost-live

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Suggested Reading

Fosco, A., Schleser, R., Andal, J. (2004). Multiage programming effects on cognitive developmental level and reading achievement in early elementary school children. Reading Psychology, 25, 1–17. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12377194&site=ehost-live

Grant, J. (1993). Questions and answers about multiage programs: The multiage resource book. Peterborough, NH: The Society for Developmental Education.

Grant, J. & Johnson, B. (1994). A common sense guide to multiage practices. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.

Heins, E., Tichenor, M., Coggins, C., Hutchinson, C. (2000). Multiage classrooms: Putting theory into practice. Contemporary Education, 71. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4467694&site=ehost-live

Holloway, J. (2001). Grouping students for increased achievement. Educational Leadership, 59, 84-85. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7147074&site=ehost-live

Hunter, K. (2012). Responding to the challenge of providing continuity of care in multi-age classrooms. Exchange (19460406), , 57–59. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73781265

Lloyd, L. (1999). Multiage classes and high-ability students. Review of Educational Research, 69, 187–212.

Melliger, S. (2005). Our long, winding road to multiage classrooms. School Administrator, 62, 22–30. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16172691&site=ehost-live

Ong, W., Allison, J., Haladyna, T. (2000). Student achievement of 3rd-graders in comparable single-age and multiage classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 205–215.

Palmer, S. (2005). Culture shock: An inside study of multiage programs. School Administrator, 62, 26.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Viadero, D. (1996). Mixed bag. Teacher Magazine, 8, 20–23. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9609010194&site=ehost-live