Non-Graded Instruction

Abstract

This article presents an overview of non-graded instruction in U.S. public schools. Non-graded classrooms refer specifically to ones in which grade-level designations or divisions have been eliminated for a grade-sequence range of two or more years and students of varying grades, ages and ability levels are mixed together in the same class. Non-graded classrooms are learner-centered environments that are implemented through the application of individualized, developmentally-appropriate instruction and a continuous-progress approach to the curriculum. While research has in many cases shown both cognitive and social benefits, including increased academic achievement and positive affective outcomes, most schools and the general public have remained resistant and steadfastly opposed to the educational practice of any approach other than the graded system.

Overview

Introduction. Non-graded, un-graded, or multi-age education is the practice of placing, grouping, and teaching students of varying grades, ages, and ability levels together in the same classroom (Baker & Hall, 1995; Gaustad, 1992a; Gaustad, 1996; Schubert, 1986; Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 1992). Although non-grading can occur by varying degrees, grade-level designations or divisions are eliminated for a typical grade-sequence range of two or more years (Thelin, 1981; Webb et al., 1992). Thus, in non-graded classrooms, students are mixed based on grade (multi-grade, e.g., K through 2), age (multi-age, e.g., 5–7 years, younger and older), and ability (multi-ability, e.g., a range or continuum of levels).

Non-gradedness is a concept that can refer to a holistic model of education; an educational theory, philosophy, and practice; a system; a program; a school; a classroom; and a grouping scheme (Pavan, 1992; Schubert, 1986). There are a variety of terms that are found in the educational literature and that are commonly used with reference to non-gradedness, non-graded classrooms, and non-graded instruction. This basic terminology is summarized in Figure 1.

A generally accepted premise underlying non-gradedness is that student development is uneven. It is not smooth, level, or "clean." It is not uniform or consistent. It is jagged—disparate and different—and varies across individual students. It, in fact, varies within the same student in different areas of the curriculum.

Non-graded or multi-age classrooms constitute a form or plan of internal school organization, an innovative approach to curricular and instructional organization, and a structural context of learning (Stone, 1998). Non-graded classrooms are an unconventional pattern of organization that contrasts with conventionally graded classrooms.

Although non-graded classrooms utilize different organizational arrangements, they all have certain features and attributes in common. For example, they are generally student-centered learning environments. The focus of the curriculum in non-graded classrooms is on the student. Instruction is individualized to adapt to the individual differences inherent among students.

Non-graded multi-age classrooms are implemented based on a continuous-progress curriculum and a continuous-progress approach to education. Students are allowed to progress continuously and to master the prescribed curriculum at their own pace as individuals and not as a class. Progress is also evaluated continuously and formative feedback is provided recurrently to students and parents.

History. The educational practice of non-graded multi-age instruction during the elementary years in the U.S. has been an option of schools since at least the introduction of graded education in the mid-nineteenth century (Kinsey, 2002). The first graded classrooms were implemented by Horace Mann, then the secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, in the 1840s (Hallion, 1994). It did not take long for educators to determine that the graded divisions of classrooms created artificial barriers to effective student learning. The Quincy Grammar School of Boston, Massachusetts, began experimentation with non-graded organization in 1848 (Dean, 1964). Post-Civil War America saw a number of uncoordinated efforts that questioned the use of graded practices and sought alternative means to non-grade schools and other ways to operate them (Anderson, 1992). The educator Preston W. Search has been credited with the first documented attempt at personalized instruction in a school setting (Keefe & Jenkins, 2000). Search set up a continuous-progress curriculum with student self-paced mastery of learning in the schools of Pueblo, Colorado, in 1888 (Keefe & Jenkins, 2000).

The basic concept of "non-graded multi-age education" was practiced in rural American one-room schoolhouses from the mid-seventeenth to the mid-twentieth centuries and has flourished since then (Greene, 1997; Pardini, 2005). As such, non-graded education became one of many innovations that were pioneered by small schools.

In a now historic study, the Educational Commission in the late 1800s recommended that vacation schools with non-graded or ungraded classrooms be established in more crowded areas of U.S. cities (Sabin, 1898). John Dewey considered graded classrooms too confining and machine-like (Hallion, 1994). His Laboratory School, which operated from 1893 to 1903, sought to be sensitive to the differences in students' learning styles (Anderson, 1992). Jenkins (1998) considered two of the pioneering historical models of non-graded high schools: the Dalton plan and the Winnetka plan of the early 1900s.

Among the European influences on American non-graded schools were the British primary school system, the German Peterson School, and Maria Montessori's schools (Anderson, 1992). The non-graded and learner-centered British primary schools experienced success in reading instruction, in students' learning to read, and in students' total development (Johnson, 1974). The heterogeneous age groupings of the Peterson School in early 1920s Germany influenced non-graded schools that were later established in Wisconsin (Anderson, 1992). The Montessori method of preschool education, developed by Maria Montessori (1870-1952), an Italian physician and educator, is an example of an educationally grounded non-graded multi-age program. It emphasized individualized instruction and independent self-learning, and it exposed students to a wide range of educational opportunities and allowed them to progress at their own pace (Ahlfeld, 1970; Pardini, 2005). The Montessori method was introduced into U.S. schools in the early 1900s, was popular for a brief time thereafter, ebbed until about 1958 when Montessori returned to the U.S., and subsequently proliferated anew (Ahlfeld, 1970).

Non-graded classrooms thus experienced a resurgence of popularity in the 1950s. There were also some non-graded, continuous-progress-planned high schools established around the mid-twentieth century (Jenkins, 1998). Early advocates of non-graded elementary schools were Goodlad and Anderson (1959). A twentieth-century alternative model in which students spent half of the school day in a homeroom and the other half studying elective subjects with specialist teachers was Chancellor George Stoddard's "dual-progress plan." In 1950, Stoddard's model, characterized by individualized instruction and a continuous-progress curriculum was implemented in four Long Beach, California, elementary schools (Anderson, 1992).

Non-graded schools are considered by some educators as a vestige of progressivism, the philosophy that dominated American education through the 1960s and 1970s (Webb et al., 1992). There was strong interest and advocation of non-graded schools during this time period, which was toward the end of the progressivist era. Two additional general examples of non-graded multi-age-type programs are open classrooms of the 1960s and 1970s, which grouped and re-grouped students based on their specific needs throughout the school day, and "individually-guided education" of the late 1970s in which students worked their way independently through personalized learning plans (Pardini, 2005).

The late twentieth century saw increased attention given to non-graded multi-age classrooms. Renewed interest in the 1980s continued to grow during the 1990s (Gaustad, 1996; Hallion, 1994). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requirements for grade-level testing, the standards and accountability movement (including Race to the Top and Common Core learning standards), and the general decline of affective education brought non-graded multi-age education to a virtual standstill in the first decade of the twenty-first century (Pardini, 2005).

Applications

Practice. Most schools and the general public have been consistently resistant and steadfastly opposed to anything other than the graded system of education (Schubert, 1986). As a result, subdividing students into grades based on their ages became common and accepted educational practice. In fact, it was convenient in that all students used the same textbooks and were exposed to the same curriculum (Pardini, 2005). However, graded programs do not provide for learning differences in students and for individual growth (Tewksbury, 1967). Converting from a graded to a non-graded approach requires extensive changes and the transformation of entire schools.

Schools and classrooms that operate under the non-graded structural system and organizational model employ multiple strategies and various practices. Tewksbury (1967) describes three ways of implementing a non-graded program: assigning students to self-contained classes according to their performance levels; providing multi-level instruction in a self-contained heterogeneously-grouped classroom; and regrouping large aggregations of students from time to time to form classes working at different levels and under different teachers. Gaustad (1994) associated the application of non-age-graded education with a "family" of complementary organizational and instructional practices that include mixed-age grouping, continuous-progress learning, and developmentally-appropriate learning, cooperative learning, and integrated or thematic instruction. Ultimately, the successful implementation of a non-graded program requires extensive staff development, a common philosophy, teacher choice, and incentives rather than mandates (Pierce, 1993).

As with almost any educational program, non-graded multi-age classrooms do not automatically bring about increased student learning (Kruglik, 1993). Teacher experience with the non-graded approach is important to the effectiveness of its application. Non-graded classrooms can be set up and operated in different ways based on the philosophy of the teachers. However, teaching a non-graded classroom with multi-age students and multi-ability groups requires a very different set of skills and knowledge base than teaching a traditional or conventional single-graded class (Gaustad, 1996). Teachers actively facilitate opportunities for cross-age learning (Kinsey, 2002). Team teaching is compatible with the non-graded approach and teaching teams can best implement the innovative, student-centered practices of non-graded programs. Teachers typically teach topics rather than subjects. They utilize cooperative learning, small-group work, and independent activities. Learning centers and projects, which are also commonly used in non-graded classrooms, constitute social contexts of learning (Anderson, 1992; Stone, 1998). A variety of authentic-assessment means, methods, and measures can be adopted and used to obtain constructive feedback from students in non-graded classrooms. In addition to the aforementioned projects, these include demonstrations, discussions, debriefings, explanations, essays, and portfolios (Calkins, 1992).

Heterogeneous, multi-age, mixed-age grouping is a structural arrangement of non-gradedness. Students are placed in smaller, more natural groups with flexible-age boundaries based on educational and academic status; mental, social, and emotional maturity; related personalities and physical development. A typical non-graded multi-age class includes students that are up to three years apart in age and even farther apart in ability levels (Pardini, 2005). There is a minimal range in ages of at least two years. Having two grades, such as 1 and 2, in one classroom is sometimes termed inter-grade or inter-age grouping. And, of course, when there are three or more grades, such as 1 through 3 or 4, then it is termed multi-grade or multi-age grouping. Teachers of mixed grades in a multi-age class might include students from kindergarten, first, and second grades.

Non-graded multi-age organizational structures, classrooms, programs, and schools have been commonly used for and are focused on early-childhood, preschool, kindergarten, and primary or early elementary education because developmental differences make them especially appropriate for young children (Gaustad, 1992b). Mixed-age groupings have also been applied for elementary education, elementary classrooms, and elementary school students—grades 1 through 5. Thelin (1981) reported on their use in middle and junior high school education—grades 7 to 9—and Brown (1963) advocated their use in high schools.

A non-graded multi-age continuous-progress approach has been used in teaching a variety of classes. For example, it has been used to teach Spanish to elementary students (Haase, 1999). It has been used to pace elementary students in gifted-education programs, and it has been examined in terms of its efficacy and outcomes as a form of acceleration (Cox, 1982; Rogers & Kimpston, 1992). It has also been recommended for teaching laboratory-based science to multi-age groups of students in mixed-ability classrooms (Dowling, 2003).

Viewpoints

Advantages. Non-graded education is based on the continuous progress of students in contrast to the practice in graded schools of promoting students on an annual basis. Students are not subdivided into grades and labeled by these designations. Since students are encouraged and allowed to progress at their own paces, they never fail or need to repeat a grade. Students are taught, evaluated, and assessed based on their ability and not on their age. The focus of non-graded education is not on how long students ultimately remain in school but on how well they master learning (Gaustad, 1992; Kruglik, 1993).

Non-graded classrooms have an atmosphere of reduced pressure and competition. Students engage in learning tasks on a flexible basis depending on the amount of time they need to master them. Whereas students in a given grade of a graded educational arrangement are expected to complete the same amount of work over the school year, students in a non-graded program work at their appropriate individual level of mastery in each subject area (Tewksbury, 1967).

Non-graded education recognizes the individual differences of students. In non-graded classrooms, students of different abilities, interests, and backgrounds can interact, and students in all ranges of ability can benefit from non-gradedness. Teachers are forced to examine and attend to students' unique interests and individual needs. By working with students individually, teachers are better able to provide useful information to parents about how to assist their children (Kruglik, 1993; Pardini, 2005).

Because students learn in different ways and at different rates, the heterogeneous multi-age groupings of non-graded classrooms provide a natural learning environment (Anderson, 1993). And, since non-graded curricula can be designed to be appropriate to the developmental levels of students, learning in non-graded classrooms is more developmentally sound (Kruglik, 1993).

Non-gradedness and multi-age grouping foster the development of collaborative relationships of teachers and students in a flexible, shared-space learning environment (Anderson, 1987). Multi-grade and multi-age classrooms allow teachers and students to develop long-term learning partnerships (McLaughlin, Irvin, & Doda, 1999). Students remain with the same teacher for more than one school year and in some cases for several school years.

There are educational benefits that are perceived for non-gradedness and pedagogical reasons that support the use of non-graded multi-age classrooms. Non-graded classrooms offer a variety of choices to students, who are encouraged to participate in activities and assume a more active role in the educational process (Thelin, 1981). Grouping students by multi-grade and multi-age fosters interaction across age groups. Students learn to play various roles in the non-graded classroom and peer learning is encouraged. Students form strategic peer relationships. Older and higher-ability students model actions and behaviors for younger students and can offer them "teaching" and tutoring assistance in developing new skills (Greene, 1997; McLaughlin at al., 1999).

Non-graded multi-age classrooms provide a supportive learning environment for students. As a result of the friendly, family-like classroom climate, students develop and exhibit increased sharing, nurturing, and other family-oriented behaviors. The interaction of students with others of different ages and abilities builds self-confidence and self-esteem. Students' leadership skills improve. They have a more positive attitude about school, their teachers, and classmates. Students develop and exhibit more advanced socialization skills. In addition to the enhanced social and emotional development experienced by students, they also benefit in the areas of cognitive development. Students' conceptual-maturity levels develop more readily and they show improved performance in reasoning skills (Greene, 1997; Kruglik, 1993; Stegelin, 1997; Thelin, 1981).

Disadvantages. Non-graded multi-age classrooms require substantially increased workloads for teachers (Pardini, 2005). Greater preparation and planning time and record-keeping requirements result in teachers working more hours (Kruglik, 1993). The individualization of instruction presents a curricular and instructional challenge in non-graded classrooms. Teachers need greater knowledge of child development and practical experience in the use of integrated curricula and developmentally appropriate instructional strategies (Gaustad, 1992b). Teachers also spend more time facilitating and guiding students' learning activities (Thelin, 1981).

Teachers in non-graded classrooms require more materials and teaching resources, including a broad range of instructional materials that appeal to learners of different ages. These needs make the associated costs of non-graded classrooms more expensive than graded classrooms (Kruglik, 1993). Textbooks also present problems for non-graded classrooms. Because they are published for single-graded classrooms, it is difficult to find appropriate ones to use in non-graded classrooms (Kruglik, 1993).

The concept and practice of non-gradedness can be complex for students who are struggling academically. Non-graded classrooms have multiple activities occurring concurrently. Students who are easily distracted and bothered by the continuous activity of a busy class, the animated movements of others, and the loud din of numerous voices talking at once may have problems with the environmental milieu of non-graded classrooms. Students in non-graded classrooms require independent initiative, self-motivation, and the desire to control the direction and pace of their own learning. Although higher-ability students quite often possess these traits, lower-ability students may be less able to assume a significant degree of personal responsibility for their own learning.

Teachers oftentimes have inadequate training and professional development in the classroom management of, and individualized instruction for, non-graded multi-age classrooms (Kruglik, 1993). Most teachers are unprepared to implement non-graded instruction (Schubert, 1986). Teachers lacking flexibility, for example, find it difficult to teach in these settings (Kruglik, 1993). Continued staff development and increased professional development funding are essential for implementing non-graded educational programs.

Non-graded curricula, such as the Montessori method, has caused difficulties for some public charter school teachers trying to also fulfill state curriculum and testing requirements (Scott, 2017; Sparks, 2016). Those teachers often fear putting undue pressure on their students to learn material before they are ready or before they would ordinarily learn it in the Montessori program (Scott, 2017); others find that time and financial constraints made it difficult to satisfy state expectations (Sparks, 2016). One small study by Scott (2017) also found that teacher-centric lessons were presented more often than usual and student-generated ideas pursued less. Many teachers addressed the challenge of blending non-graded, student-centered curriculum with the assessment model by incorporating additional lessons on non-Montessori material that appears on tests and introducing and reinforcing commonly used vocabulary terms (Scott, 2017).

Further Insights

According to Pardini (2005), graded education, which is the antithesis of developmentally appropriate practice, has no research showing that it helps students. At the same time, it is a given that there is a paucity of empirical and statistically based evaluative research studies on non-graded schools, programs, and classrooms. One of the difficulties of evaluating research on non-graded education is that very few, if any, of the studies control for teaching practice (McLaughlin et al., 1999). New research on non-graded multi-age classrooms is virtually nonexistent (Pardini, 2005).

The theories of Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, and Bandura provide a foundation for research on non-graded education, multiple-age groupings, and cross-age learning (Stone, 1998). Non-graded primary education is supported by Jean Piaget's research showing that young children vary in their rates of intellectual development and learn best through hands-on activities with concrete materials (Gaustad, 1992b). Jerome Bruner theorized that a child's cognitive development depends on systematic interactions with a tutor (Gage & Berliner, 1988). The Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky concluded from his research that the cognitive development of children depends on their social environment and that cognitive development is enhanced when children work cooperatively or collaboratively with other children and adults (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Albert Bandura, a psychologist and social learning theorist, postulated that in order for children to develop a sense of well-being, self-control, and self-efficacy (i.e., individual competence and effectiveness), they must experience success. Bandura's work also supported the findings of Bruner in relation to the role of modeling in personality development. That is, when younger children observe the behaviors and identify the consequences of older children's actions, they then imitate or emulate them (Weber, 1991).

Research has shown both cognitive and social benefits accruing to non-graded multi-age and mixed-age groups. Gutierrez and Slavin (1992) found that non-graded programs in which students were grouped according to their performance in one or several subjects had a positive effect on student achievement if teachers were able to provide direct instruction outside the individualized instructional-model framework. Anderson and Pavan (1992) concluded that non-graded schools benefit students from all circumstances in all ability ranges. Pavan (1973) found that underachieving students appear to be particularly benefited by the practice of non-gradedness.

Research has shown that there are a variety of factors that may affect the degree of success or level of positive outcomes for students in non-graded multi-age groups. Among these factors are age range, group size, amount of time spent together, and the context of specific curriculum activities (Stegelin, 1997).

Research studies reporting significant outcomes for students in non-graded classrooms have demonstrated improved performance in language, including vocabulary and literacy, and in mathematics (Kinsey, 2002). Lawson (1973) found that students in non-graded schools scored significantly higher in reading achievement than students in graded schools and that girls scored higher than boys in all measures. Ramayya (1972) conversely found that non-graded programs were more beneficial for boys than girls in the attainment of reading skills.

Research comparing student performance and academic achievement in graded and non-graded schools is at best ambiguous and conflicting. While research has occasionally shown positive effects of multi-grade and multi-age grouping on achievement, most research studies and syntheses indicate that these grouping schemes have largely neutral effects on achievement (McLaughlin et al., 1999). Some research studies have shown that students in non-graded classroom settings do just as well as or better than students in traditional single-graded, self-contained classrooms on standardized test measures (McLaughlin et al., 1999; Pavan, 1973; Pavan, 1992). Non-graded multi-age classes may become more widely accepted after their impact on academic achievement is clearly understood.

Terms & Concepts

Affective Education: Curricular and instructional practice focusing on outcomes within the affective domain-attitudes, feelings, emotions, interests, and values; examples of affective outcomes would be enjoying reading, appreciating music, or loving outdoor adventures.

Continuous-Progress Approach: A curricular and instructional plan of practice in which students are allowed to master educational tasks and learning experiences at their own pace as individuals and not as a class.

Developmentally Appropriate Learning: Educational practice that takes into account the cognitive, social, and emotional growth stage of each child and that plans learning experiences, opportunities, and activities that are compatible with each learners' age and intellectual capacity.

Individualized Instruction: Educational practice in which teachers work with students on a personalized basis, that is, singly or one-on-one, and plan and structure learning activities for each student.

Mixed-Ability Groups: Organizational scheme of placing together students with a range of ability levels in one classroom.

Mixed-Age Groups: Organizational scheme of placing together students of two or more ages in one classroom.

Mixed-Grade Groups: Organizational scheme of placing together students of two or more grades in one classroom.

Montessori Method: An educational approach to early-childhood education that emphasizes individualized instruction and independent self-learning and that exposes students to a wide range of educational opportunities and allows them to progress at their own pace.

Multi-Age Classrooms: Also non-graded classrooms; school settings in which students of multiple ages (typically three or more) are placed together for learning and instruction.

Non-Graded Classrooms: Also called ungraded classrooms or multi-age classrooms; school settings without grade designations or divisions and in which students of multiple mixed grades, ages, and abilities are placed together for instruction and learning activities.

Non-Graded Education: Curricular and instructional practice in which grade-level designations have been eliminated for a grade-sequence range of two or more years and students of varying ages, grades, and ability levels are placed together in the same classroom.

Non-Graded Instruction: Teaching and learning that is conducted within a classroom in which grade designations or divisions have been eliminated for a grade-sequence range of two or more years and students of mixed grades, ages, and abilities are placed together.

Non-Gradedness: Educational model and practice in which grade-level designations or divisions have been eliminated for a typical grade-sequence range of two or more years.

Peer Learning: Classroom context in which a student is "taught," tutored, or receives individual and personal assistance from another student in carrying out activities and in developing new skills.

Personalized Instruction: Type of educational practice in which teaching and learning strategies are geared to the individual-student learner based on his or her specific interests and needs and that address particular strengths and weaknesses of each learner.

Bibliography

Ahlfeld, K. (1970). The Montessori revival. Education Digest, 35(8), 18–21. Retrieved June 4, 2007 From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18844739&site=ehost-live

Anderson, R. H. (1987). Shaping up the shop: How school organization influences teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 44(5), 45.

Anderson, R. H. (1992). The nongraded elementary school: Lessons from history. Washington, DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 348 161), 14 pp.

Anderson, R. H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal, 72 (3), 9–12.

Anderson, R. H., & Pavan, B. (1993). Nongradedness: Making it happen. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company.

Baker, S. K., & Hall, T. E. (1995). Using classroom assessment data to monitor school reform: Evaluating student performance in nongraded classrooms. Diagnostique, 20 (1–4), 175–203.

Brown, B. F. (1963). The nongraded high school. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Calkins, T. (1992). Off the track: Children thrive in ungraded primary schools. School Administrator, 49 (5), 8–13.

Cox, J. (1982). Continuous progress and nongraded schools. G/C/T, (25), 15–20.

Dean, S. E. (1964). Nongraded schools. Washington, DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 001 535), 29 pp.

Dowling, D.C. (2003). The multi-age classroom. Science Teacher, 70 (3), 42–46.

Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Gaustad, J. (1992a). Nongraded primary education. Research Roundup, 9 (1), 5 pp.

Gaustad, J. (1992b). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated and developmentally appropriate education for primary children. OSSC Bulletin, 35 (7), 47 pp.

Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstacles to implementing the multiage classroom. OSSC Bulletin, 38 (3–4), 97 pp.

Gaustad, J. (1996). Implementing multiage education. Research Roundup, 13 (1), 5 pp.

Goodlad, J. I., & Anderson, R. H. (1959). The nongraded elementary school. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Greene, B. G. (1997). Reading instruction in the nongraded classroom. Reading Psychology, 18 (1), 69–76.

Gutierrez, R., & Slavin, R. E. (1992). Achievement effects of the nongraded elementary school: A retrospective review. Washington, DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 346 996), 66 pp.

Haase, V. A. (1999). A two-tier multiage model for the elementary school classroom. Hispania, 82 (1), 111–112.

Hallion, A. M. (1994). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Washington, DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 373 899), p.25

Individualized instruction: A recurrent theme. (2012). TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 56 (6), 12–14. Retrieved December 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=82763730&site=ehost-live

Jenkins, J. M. (1998). Nongrading the high school. International Journal of Educational Reform, 7 (3), 276–280.

Johnson, T. D. (1974). A comparison of British and American reading instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 55 (10), 678–679.

Keefe, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (2000). Personalized instruction: Changing classroom practice. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

Kinsey, S. J. (2002). Multiage grouping and academic achievement. Washington, DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 466 328), 4 pp.

Kruglik, M. (1993). Results from nongraded classroom program: Good, bad and unclear. Curriculum Review, 33 (4), 16. Retrieved June 4, 2007 From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9407222137&site=ehost-live

Lawson, R. E. (1973). A comparison of the development of self-concept and achievement in reading of students in the first, third and fifth year of attendance in graded and nongraded elementary schools. Washington, DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 092 865), 101 pp.

Lindstrom, E., & Lindahl, E. (2011). The effect of mixed-age classes in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55 (2), 121–144. Retrieved December 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60040926&site=ehost-live

McLaughlin, H. J., Irvin, J. L., & Doda, N. M. (1999). Crossing the grade level gap: Research on multiage grouping. Middle School Journal, 30 (3), 55–58.

Pardini, P. (2005). The slowdown of the multiage classroom. School Administrator, 62 (3), 22–30. Retrieved June 4, 2007 From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16172690&site=ehost-live

Pavan, B. N. (1973). Nongradedness?: One view. Educational Leadership, 30 (5), 401–403.

Pavan, B. N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational Leadership, 50 (2), 22–25.

Pierce, C. D. (1993). Nongraded programs: Opinions and aspects of change. Washington, DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 374 524), 15 pp.

Ramayya, D. P. (1972). Achievement skills, personality variables, and classroom climate in graded and nongraded elementary schools. Psychology in the Schools, 9 (1), 88–92.

Rogers, K. B., & Kimpston, R. D. (1992). Acceleration: What we do vs. what we know. Educational Leadership, 50 (2), 58–61.

Sabin, H. (1898). Suggestion for the improvement of a system of city schools. Education, 19 (1), 1–10.

Scott, C. M. (2017). Un-“chartered” waters: Balancing Montessori curriculum and accountability measures in a charter school. Journal of School Choice, 11(1), 168–190. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=121307148&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm and possibility. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Sparks, S. D. (2016). Charter movement fuels boom for public Montessori schools. Education Week, 35(32), 1–21. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=116076570&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Stegelin, D. A. (1997). Outcomes of mixed-age grouping: Research highlights. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 25 (2), 22–28.

Stone, S. J. (1998). Creating contexts for middle-age learning. Childhood Education, 74 (4), 234–236.

Tewksbury, J. L. (1967). The meaning of nongrading [and] the nongraded movement in perspective (pp. 1–33). In J. L. Tewksbury (Ed.), Nongrading in the elementary school. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc.

Thelin, A. A. (1981). The PANG project: Process analysis of non–grading. Newsletter School Research, (2), 17 pp.

Webb, L. D., Metha, A., & Jordan, K. F. (1992). Foundations of American education. New York, NY: Merrill/Macmillan Publishing Company.

Weber, A. L. (1991). Introduction to psychology. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Zohrabi, M. (2011). Enhancing learner autonomy through reciprocal approach to curriculum development. English Language Teaching, 4 (3), 120–127. Retrieved December 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65316152&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Cozza, B. (2017). The multi-age learning community in action: Creating a caring school environment for all children. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1585979&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Kruglik, M. (1993). Results from nongraded classroom program: Good, bad and unclear. Curriculum Review, 33 (4), 16. Retrieved June 4, 2007 From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9407222137&site=ehost-live

LaFee, S. (2013). Flipped learning. Education Digest, 79 (3), 13–18. Retrieved December 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91748058&site=ehost-live

Miller, B. A. (1996). What works in multiage education. Education Digest, 61 (9), 4–8 Retrieved June 4, 2007 From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9605140411&site=ehost-live

Pardini, P. (2005). The slowdown of the multiage classroom. School Administrator, 62 (3), 22–30. Retrieved June 4, 2007 From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16172690&site=ehost-live

Wall, B. (1994). Managing your multi-age classroom. Teaching PreK–8, 25 (1), 68–70. Retrieved June 4, 2007 From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9409137635&site=ehost-live

Yarborough, B. H., & Johnson, R. A. (2000). Nongraded schools: Why their promise has not yet been realized and should be reconsidered. Contemporary Education, 71 (3), 42–48. Retrieved June 4, 2007 From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4467697&site=ehost-live