Homestyle Education, Part IV

I’ve spent the last three posts reviewing a particular innovative classroom from about twenty years ago: Part I, Part II, and Part III. I’d like to do some followup, now with hindsight.

The Followup

At the time I wrote, it was during my son’s second year in the class. We wondered what to do for the following year. He had been recommended, since kindergarten, for the gifted program at a magnet school across town. I was hesitating, because sending him far away seemed uncomfortable if it wasn’t necessary. During the two years in the multi-age class with an extraordinary teacher, I think he got much of what he would have gotten in a gifted class.

But for third grade we needed to make a decision. The school was trying to expand the multi-age classroom concept. It was going to be tried with a third-fourth class. The teacher wasn’t as experienced or as flexible as Mrs. Crane, but I thought it was worth a try.

In retrospect, we missed a good year we could have had at the gifted school. This next multi-age classroom was just one teacher handling two groups of kids: one assigned third-grade level work, and the other assigned fourth-grade level work. A kid could choose harder work if he wanted, but there wasn’t anything really self-paced or individualized.

Now we had the standard rows of desks, with students sitting unnaturally quiet, and doing the same work others were doing. It was boring. And while our very smart son didn’t get behind, he didn’t really thrive either. So for fourth grade we sent him to the gifted school. By then, it turned out all his neighborhood friends were being sent there as well, so socially it was a good choice. And the gifted classes were innovative in many of the same ways as Mrs. Crane’s class.

Meanwhile, Economic Sphere, our second son, had gotten through kindergarten. His older brother’s kindergarten teacher had moved up to teach a first-second grade multi-age classroom, with some additional innovations. She began the year team-teaching with yet another teacher and classroom. So really there were two classrooms full of students (about 52 total), half assigned to each teacher, but all receiving some attention from both. And the kids ranged from Down’s Syndrome first graders to gifted second graders—a wide range. (Special Ed students also had an aide assigned to them.)

Mrs. Helmsley had been an excellent kindergarten teacher, and her philosophy about how to run a multi-age classroom coincided with Mrs. Crane’s. In fact, eventually they worked together to train other teachers in the district in methods that worked. Part way through the year, it became apparent that the chaos of having 52 kids in a room was too much, so the divider between classrooms was replaced, and the two multi-age classrooms worked separately. But the other innovations continued.

I used to volunteer as a writing helper in the classroom, during what they called Writing Workshop. Kids wrote their own “books,” with whatever help they needed. They illustrated as well. And when they were finished (which often took a number of Writing Workshop sessions), they would “publish,” which meant getting the pages bound. And then they would share, reading aloud to others who had recently published. It was a very satisfying experience to have that sense of completion and recognition. I still have some of Economic Sphere’s first books tucked away somewhere. (His very first published “writing” was a wordless picture book, which was unorthodox even in that setting.)

They adjusted for individual children, which we needed. Economic Sphere came home from school in September of his first grade year, about two weeks into the school year, and said, “I’m the best speller in my class.” He’d only been reading aloud since June, but he was reading the Encyclopedia at that point. I wasn’t aware of the spelling skill yet, so I said, “You mean you’re the best first grade speller in your class.”

“No,” he said, with certainty; “I’m the best speller.” Within days I got a call from Mrs. Helmsley recruiting my help. They had no spelling lists that would do. He needed to come up with his own spelling lists, going through the dictionary to find words he didn’t know yet. Among those early lists were Tyrannosaurus Rex, dolphin, constellation, and reindeer. By year’s end, he had moved on to archaeopteryx. What I appreciated was how delighted his teacher was by his special abilities, and how willing she was to accommodate, rather than say, “Since he’s doing fine, we just won’t worry about him.”

When he got through those two years, we sent him directly on to the gifted school for third grade. The gifted school also did themes, lasting a semester or even longer. They put on plays and musicals. They did murals. The teachers used a portfolio approach to progress reports as well. I looked for just a couple of things at parent-teacher conferences: Was my child progressing well? And did his teacher appreciate him and like him—see in him the delightful things I saw.

I knew these several extraordinary teachers spent their lives thinking up new and different ways to share learning with the kids. These brave souls allowed a kid to bring in the heart of a deer (during hunting season) and led the kids in the dissection. We had a class that used small wading pools to contain habitats for spiders and their webs. We provided a large, green, striped garden spider that was known for beautiful webs.

There were hamsters, rabbits, and chicks in various classrooms. One Saturday we ran over to the school when we got word the chicks were hatching—phonecalls going out to every child’s parents so the kids wouldn’t miss out just because it was a weekend.

It has been a couple of decades, and we left the area fifteen years ago, so I have no way to follow up and find out whether the multi-age classroom concept is still thriving there. It might have been dependent on those few extraordinary teachers. I believe the gifted program is still there; the gifted program we got when we moved here was nothing like that, and the culture shock of disappointment is what led us to homeschool.

Again, these great classrooms I’ve described were all in public schools. But what worked was everything standardization prevents:

·         Personal decision making by the teacher, in concert with the parents, about a particular child and his/her learning style and needs.

·         Curriculum and learning materials chosen by the teacher for her classroom, sometimes for a particular child.

·         Enrichment brought in when it was available, adjusting other things so the special opportunity wouldn’t be lost.

·         Bringing in parents to help in the classroom, so parents were part of the learning taking place.

·         Plenty of individualized education—each child at his own pace, with plenty of opportunity to follow his own interests.

·         Accepting differences in pace and style without shame, stigma, or labeling; this included the “learn, then teach” method, where students helped tutor someone in a subject they already understood.

All of these things are natural within a family homeschool. It would be difficult to approach homeschooling some other way. Schooling within the home is the natural, normal method that has been used, at least for elementary education, through most millennia. The factory-institution style schools we see so often now are a recent anomaly. Functional illiteracy grows as responsibility and choice are taken over by government, usurping the parental role.

The only way for public schools—or private schools—to successfully educate a leadership class is to use the methods that work in the home. Make the school less like a factory and more like a natural learning environment, where differences are cherished.

Next time you come up against Common Core, or CSCOPE, or any other top-down decision, speak up and say, “That’s not acceptable for my child.” And if you can’t get the schools to give you what they can and should, get your child out of there.

Homestyle Education, Part III

This piece is one I wrote two decades ago, about the innovative classroom my oldest child was in. I’m including the entire piece, in three parts (with name and places changed—and I didn’t start referring to my son as Political Sphere until I began this blog; he has a normal name), with some commentary about how this can be useful today. Part I introduced what the classroom looked like; part II covered some of the research being implemented. Today’s part III looks at how the innovations were affecting children in the class.

Results

As a writer involved in education, and a parent of school children, I’ve been particularly interested in Mrs. Crane’s classroom. My own child, Political Sphere, is in his second year with Mrs. Crane. I would describe Political Sphere as bright and creative, a little on the quiet side, but very sociable. My concern, after a delightful kindergarten year, was that he continue to have the kind of freedom and creative opportunity that would keep him interested. He has thrived in Mrs. Crane’s class. And I’m quietly pleased that Mrs. Crane even appreciates his sense of humor.

I wondered whether Political Sphere’s success was just that the multi-age classroom worked for him, or whether it was as successful with other students. My curiosity led to this article. There are other multi-age classrooms in the Tripletown area. There are even others at Blue Sky Elementary. However, I’m leaving an exhaustive study to experts. Mine is, rather, a case study.

I talked with parents of nearly half the students. Most parents were not just pleased, but enthusiastic.

Sherry Beaumont, whose son Drew is a first grader, said, “Drew is not a child who likes to sit still.” The individual learning style, the experiential, tactile approach, works for him. She compared that to his older sister’s first grade experience, which was “very structured. It didn’t provide for difference.”

Jessica Williams, mother of Monica, a first grader, said she was skeptical at first, but Monica has done so well, “her reading and writing are tremendous—even punctuation and capitals.” Jessica, a parent volunteer in the class, observed, “Working there, you see children work well together. It seems odd and unorganized at first until you see what Mrs. Crane is doing.”

A couple of mothers told me the class has made a significant difference in their children. One girl, in her second year in the class, started first grade in a different class. It was with a teacher her older brothers had had and enjoyed. And after a very good kindergarten experience, mother and daughter started the year with high hopes. Jenna is a very quiet girl. Her kindergarten teacher felt it was a great accomplishment if she came out of her shell enough to talk and giggle with friends. But at the beginning of the first grade year, notes came home saying Jenna needed to be disciplined because of too much talking and giggling. Jenna began having stomach aches, even started having bed-wetting problems. She was aware that she was behind her class in reading ability and dreaded being called on in class. And she said her teacher didn’t like her.

Jenna pleaded with her mother to let her stay home. The situation was emotionally tense enough that her mother considered home schooling to avoid the distress. But Mrs. Turner, Blue Sky’s principal, said there was one more opening in the pilot multi-age class and suggested they try it.

Jenna’s attitude toward school changed dramatically right away. She enjoyed going to school, and the stress-induced illness disappeared. Her mother says it has taken until now, well into the second year, for Jenna to regain her self-confidence. Her reading isn’t perhaps as good as many second graders, but she is learning and enjoys school.

Another mother described her first-grade daughter as a “right-brain thinker—very creative.” Unfortunately, she spent her kindergarten year in a very structured environment. It didn’t work for Tanya. Comments from the kindergarten teacher were discouraging to both student and parents. The teacher described her as dull, spaced-out. She stared out into space and didn’t even answer when the teacher talks to her. Tanya’s mother said she was nothing like that at home. She was lively and excited about everything. The teacher suggested counseling, which the mother now regrets. Tanya didn’t have a problem; that class was just wrong for her.

For Tanya’s first grade year, her mother went to the principal and insisted on something better—a teacher that would nurture and understand. This year, in Mrs. Crane’s class, Tanya’s reading and math have improved tremendously, and Mrs. Crane describes her as a happy girl.

A couple of parents had neutral, rather than positive, comments about the class. They thought students would be better off separating into grades. They thought this was just one more theoretical fad, and one parent said, “We’ve been through them all.” But even these parents said their children were doing well in the class.

My unofficial poll showed this: Unanimously, parents praise Mrs. Crane. They describe her as nurturing, loving, caring, and responsive to parents. Everyone thinks Mrs. Crane would be a wonderful teacher in any classroom.

All parents I talked with say their child is doing well in reading and math skills. All parents say their child likes Mrs. Crane and enjoys being in the class. Most parents like the flexible, experiential approach Mrs. Crane uses; it works for their child.

About half the parents like the multi-age classroom. Several say Mrs. Crane’s style of teaching would work just as well in a single grade classroom. Most disagree with Mrs. Crane and Mrs. Turner that the multi-age class should expand to include third graders. (Personally, if I could keep my child in the class a third year, I would.)

All second grade students had Mrs. Crane both years. All first grade students plan to stay with Mrs. Crane next year.

I also talked with a couple of parents whose children were second graders the pilot year of Mrs. Crane’s multi-age class. They say their children were very well prepared for third grade. Their basic reading and math skills were well above average for their grade level. But they miss Mrs. Crane’s approach. The more structured classroom just doesn’t work as well for their children.

I have yet to find a young child who prefers structure and regimentation to freedom and experimentation. But, then, I didn’t poll for that. So, to be fair, let’s just say, in an age when education reform in many places is an attempt to get guns and gangs out of the classrooms, it’s nice for a change, to see a class where parents and students have nothing but good to say.

*******************

That finishes the original piece. After two more decades I can’t say that multi-age classrooms are seen as a solution. But there are several things I think we can learn from this one classroom that worked. I’ll cover those conclusions in a part IV followup.

Homestyle Education, Part II

I’m reprinting, in three parts, with a little added commentary, a piece I wrote 20 years ago on a classroom that was working well by imitating the natural learning that happens in a home. Part I described what the multi-age classroom looked like. Today’s part II covers some of the research, which was newer at the time, and possibly less adulterated by “experts.”

The Research

Howard Gardner’s “theory of multiple intelligences”[i] for instance, has had an effect on how information is offered to students. Gardner has identified seven intelligences—distinct ways that we come to know our world. These are verbal/linguistic; logical/mathematical; visual/spatial; body/kinesthetic; musical/rhythmic; interpersonal; and intrapersonal. Schools, as well as standardized tests, have concerned themselves mostly with only the first two. Students who could be geniuses in several other intelligences but weak in those two could be labeled dull and slow. Children who are otherwise bright fail school—or, more precisely, school fails them.

Child development experts base much of their work on the theories of Jean Piaget.[ii] Piaget was more concerned with how a child learned than with what the child learned, and how ways of learning differ according to development. Further studies have led to a teaching approach referred to as “developmentally appropriate practices.”

Developmentally appropriate practices emphasize allowing a child to develop at his or her own rate. No two first graders are expected to be at the same level in their gradual development of reading, for example. Recognition of beginning sounds comes before recognition of beginning and ending sounds, which in turn precedes phonetically sounding out entire words and full sentence comprehension. Reaching a new stage of development is an accomplishment for each child, regardless of whether his peers have already reached that stage. Developmentally appropriate practices are flexible enough to allow development at a personalized rate, much the way a gardener allows roses to bloom according to their own timing. (Please note the real meaning of kindergarten—a garden of children.)

Multi-age classrooms, or non-graded classrooms, are a logical step in allowing the flexibility of developmentally appropriate practices. While developmentally appropriate practices are recent improvements, multi-age classrooms were around long before grade separated schools. What we call a traditional school is actually only a century old. Grade separation was an attempt to efficiently handle as many students at a time as possible. This was done at a time when schools were assigned the task of taking children of low income families off city streets and educating them. Ironically, the students the education system targeted to save are the very ones most likely to fail, be retained, and eventually drop out of school.

There is no research showing that students learn better with same age peers. There is a growing body of research showing the opposite.

In a multi-age school environment, students are not expected to be the same age. Nor are they expected to know the same things or be at the same developmental level as the rest of the class. In this classroom it is all right to know less than someone else. It is expected. Just as in the real world, there will always be someone who knows more about something than you. And there will also be someone who can benefit from something you know.

Some of the most difficult problems facing current school systems disappear in a multi-age classroom. The question about when to retain students, a difficult, life-affecting decision, is simply irrelevant. No one is held back for developing at a slightly different rate from others born in the same year. No one is labeled slow learner; everyone is labeled learner at his or her own comfortable pace. Theoretically, even mainstreaming special education students becomes easier in this environment.

What about incentive, if there is no threat of retention to force a student to learn? Real learning, the ability to think, comes because it is natural and interesting. Threat of failure is, at best, a negative incentive.

Mrs. Crane is constantly finding incentives and encouragements for students to do more than required. She does it without requiring homework. Fifteen minutes of reading at home is all that’s expected. Students keep track of their reading minutes, and most read far more than the assigned quarter hour. They also may do their own math, science, or writing projects at home. Students do it because it is their choice, because learning is a joyful part of life rather than a tedious duty.

How is progress measured? Progress is measured continuously. Portfolios, personalized goal charts, examples of student work are used in addition to formal evaluations. Mrs. Crane can sit down with a parent at any time and show exactly how the child is developing. A mini-grant for a video camera is added this year, giving parents a visual record of their child’s progress. The portfolio approach can be more satisfying to parents than report cards and comparison with classmates. It can also be healthier for the child’s self-esteem.

There is added stability in the multi-age classroom of having the same teacher for two or more consecutive years. Teacher and students already know each other at the beginning of the school year, reducing the slow start-up time inherent in the current system.

****************

One thing I’ve found is that research is often interpreted differently by different people. It’s possible the term “developmentally appropriate practices” could be interpreted to fit square peg students into round holes, to insist that students fit standard expectations, rather than as intended to adjust methods to a particular child’s development. So knowing the right buzz words is no guarantee of a curriculum’s effectiveness. Seeing the way something is put into practice is a better indicator.

As for the portfolio approach of grading, I thought it made very good sense. The portfolio approach was also used in the gifted magnet school my children later attended. What I needed to see, as a parent, was the progress my child was making—comparing where he was to where he’d been. The “data mining” that is being pressed on schools through Common Core provides an overwhelming amount of data, but coldly, without anything like teacher and parent getting together to share delight over a child’s specific growth.

I clearly liked what was happening with my child in this classroom. In Part III I’ll share the views of some of the other parents.

---

[i] Howard Gardener’s original book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, was published in 1983. He has since added a couple of additional possible intelligences. He answers frequently asked questions here.

[ii] Jean Piaget’s work on cognitive development is summarized here, along with a 4-minute video.

Homestyle Education, Part I

Back some twenty years ago, I wrote a piece on the kind of classroom my son Political Sphere was in (and later son Economic Sphere). It says something about the particular teacher, but also the things that worked in that classroom. This was years before I considered homeschooling, but looking back at it, what I find is that, the closer to a family situation, the better the learning. I thought it might be instructive, during the current push to standardize the whole country into limited mediocrity, to look at this case study of what worked in a particular classroom.

The piece wasn’t published, except among teachers in the district; the local paper was only interested in pieces about whatever version of reform was being talked about in education articles—this was a decade before the No Child Left Behind Act, and I'm guessing the phrase du jour was "outcome-based education." It wasn't something I was focused on as a parent.

The piece is long, about 2500 words. So at this point I’m debating how to break it up, or to choose which parts are most useful to look at from our current perspective. But I’m sharing this because so much still applies, and still shows cross purposes with government “experts.”

So today's Part I is an introductory look at the special classroom and teacher in our case study. I’m leaving the piece basically as written, except for changing names of people and places.

 

Case Study of a Multi-Age Classroom

Mrs. Crane’s classroom at Blue Sky Elementary in Tripletown does not look like an ordinary classroom. It isn’t. You won’t see students sitting quietly at assigned desks. In fact, there are no desks, just tables and chairs in small groups around the room, and plenty of open floor space. Walls are covered, ceiling to floor, with finished student work, work in progress, and pictures that may inspire future work. One wall has a life-size drawing of a student, traced around him, covered with positive comments from his classmates.

The room includes computers in one corner. Just inside the door you’ll find a classroom store where children can buy goods with motivational money they earn by doing more than is expected. Several shelves are filed with books for children to choose and read on their own—which they read while lying on a rug, sitting at a table, or wherever is comfortable.

On afternoon visits during reading time, you’ll find the place silent, except for a few quiet voices reading to each other. But the room is anything but quiet during most of the morning. An hour of each morning is activity time. Several parent volunteers come to help out with reading, writing, and math projects. Math sometimes includes cooking during this hour. Students move from station to station, deciding what they want to accomplish, getting personal adult attention while they do it. There’s a lot of talking going on. If you visit now, unprepared, you may see what looks like chaos.

Adding to the apparent chaos is the inherent difference in student ability. This is a multi-age classroom, with first and second graders mixed together. There is no first grade group or second grade group. There is no group of struggling readers or successful readers. There are twenty-seven different students at different developmental stages in math, reading, and social skills. Difference is not only welcome here; difference is expected.

Managing all the difference is a teacher with a plan. Barbara Crane is an energetic and exciting personality. She often responds to student accomplishments with hugs and cheers. At times it’s difficult to identify her in the classroom. Her small size and her place among, rather than in front of, students help her blend in. Several years ago Crane completed her master’s degree in elementary education. Always ready to find a better way, she is now putting the latest in elementary education research to work.

Mrs. Crane’s plan is designed to help students discover how to learn, and to enjoy doing it. Students don’t all learn the same way. That doesn’t matter. Her classroom provides so many different approaches—hands-on experience, pictures, graphs, reading, writing, explaining to one another, experimenting, singing—something has to work for every child.

During the morning Mrs. Crane gathers students for circle time. This is as close as she gets to a class lecture. They talk together as a group about the current theme, which was recently inventions. The purpose is not to learn all there is about inventions; the purpose is to experience many ways of learning about something---such as inventions. The emphasis is on the process, rather than the product, of learning.

Together teacher and students examine unknown inventions brought in for them to examine. They make predictions. They try some experiments. They make charts and graphs about the various inventions they examine. They make up stories about how the inventions could be used.

Themes, such as inventions, are chosen specifically for their ability to supply multi-layered learning experiences. In exploring the theme, students use their growing math, verbal, and social skills. Learning about a theme is not meant to replace basic math and English; it is meant to make them relevant so they can more easily be learned.

This thematic, or holistic, approach to learning is one of several current trends in education. A body of research has become available in the past couple of decades about how children learn, which is slowly making its way into classrooms.

***************

So part I has given us a taste of what this particular classroom looks like. Part II will look at the research behind the approach and how well it addresses education challenges. I expect there will be a part III, looking at the outcomes for the students in our case study. And either mixed in or following, we’ll compare with what we know twenty years down the road.