In
my ten years of teaching I have primarily taught split classes. (I should note
that I refer to these classes as “split” classes as I have been directed to
work with two different curriculums with my two groups of students.) During one
period, I had taught one group of students for two years in a row. This was a
particularly interesting experience as I learned a lot about students
progression through curriculum and the dynamics of working with the same group
of students over the course of two years. So, it was with great interest that I
read the articles and power-point presentations on multi-age classrooms.
I
believe that I have a unique perspective on this topic given my practical
experience on split-grade education as most of my professional colleagues have
avoided these classes. Teaching a “split” is understood to mired with pitfalls
such as the constraints of attending to two curricula. Trying to get two distinct
groups of students to achieve their specific sets of outcomes is not willingly
embraced by many educators. In fact, on a daily basis I am told, “I don't know
how you do it.”
The
issues that are raised regarding “combined/split” classes spill over into the
term “multiage” and as such there are misguided impressions of the latter. What
does multiage really mean? More students? More of an age range among the
students? More curriculum concepts to “cover?”
These
fears were not easily placated as I read Dr. Stone's article, “Multi-age
Education” as I felt overwhelmed by the messages contained
therein. Repeatedly the phrase “the students will” and “the teachers will”
kept popping up in the article and I kept interrupting the flow of the reading
with the question, “How is this achieved?”
For
example, Stone wrote, “You would see teachers using whole group, small group,
and individual instruction based on the needs and interests of the children”
(Stone, p.1). While this should not seem herculean or very far removed from my
own practice, I was concerned as I reflected on the phrase “...instruction
based on the needs and interests of the children.” Currently, the system that I
am engaged in is focused on grade-specific curriculum that may or may not be of
interest to my students. As much as I compact the curriculum and open the
topics of one grade to another (very often in the guise of language arts) and I
feel pressured to provide opportunities for students to meaningfully engage in
topics of their specific grade.
Another
area that I struggled with as I read Stone's article was the description of
the usage of curriculum in a multiage classroom as he wrote, “...the
teacher uses the available curriculum like an assortment
of tools from which to choose the most appropriate ones to fit the
child’s learning needs” (Stone, p. 2). While this may seem innocuous or
perhaps idyllic to others I have grave concerns about how this may be done.
From
my own experience I have had problems that have arisen when students come to me
without the prior knowledge or experience that are required for my grade
levels. If teachers chose their tools without little understanding or regard to
the continuum of learning, gaps within a child's education may result.
Currently I have the benefit of the wisdom of two particular math teachers in
my school who I consult on a regular basis as they teach two grade levels above
my own. These conversations are invaluable in helping me to effectively plan
and support my students for not only where they are now, but where
they need to go with respect to the curriculum.
Obviously
I am writing from my own experience of grade-level and curriculum-based
teaching, but the central concern still holds in my opinion. If the choice of
tools is not deliberate and based on the sound understanding of a child's
development or of a sense of purpose than gaps may ensue. For example, in my
conversations with others I have been horrified to hear how some teachers
glibly admit that they hate teaching geometry and do very little work in this
area in their classes. When questioned, these teachers assert that the students
will get it eventually when they come to my classroom.
I
found solace in reading Dr. Mulcahy's article, “Multiage and Multi-Grade:
Similarities and Differences” as I understood the “virtues” that arose from the
necessities that rural teachers in Newfoundland faced. In particular I felt
vindicated as he wrote about “the two different timetables” as he wrote, “Such
teachers often operated with two different timetables. An official one sent to
the district office detailed the required graded format and 'time allotments.'
An unofficial one kept in the drawer of the teacher's desk reflected a more
flexible and responsive approach to learning and teaching actually followed in
the classroom (Mulcahy, 2000).” If truth were to be told, I have an official
copy of my own schedule and my unofficial one that is often put into place. To
negotiate the myriad of outcomes I tend to “switch” things around to try to
attend to both the demands of the curriculum and the needs and interests of my
students.
I
readily agree with Dr. Mulcahy's belief that many teachers would be willing to
make changes to how their classes are structured as he states, “All they are
waiting for is 'official' permission to do so” (Mulcahy, 2000). In my own
practice I have enjoyed working with students whose age range is three years.
The myriad of interests, experiences and places on the progression maps of
various topics has made for rich discussions and wonderful learning
experiences. However, having such a broad range of topics to “cover” and
pigeonhole students into specific learning experiences can be a frustrating
experience for all concerned. Often I feel as though I am doing a disservice to
my students as I feel rushed to hurry them through a given topic so that I can
meet deadlines and other constraints. As Mulcahy states, “Time and curriculum
must be made flexible so learning is not held hostage to inappropriate
schedules of coverage (Mulcahy, 2000).” Ultimately, I would love to experience
a multiage classroom so that I could once again enjoy the wide scope of ideas
and experiences that comes with teaching students with a three-year range of
age. However I would like to do so without feeling “hostage” to the dictates of
two curricula.
If
were were to move away from “split/combined” classes and move towards multiage
classrooms I have some unanswered questions which are as follows:
1. If
students were moving from another district that focused on traditional grade
based structures, where would the child be placed and how would this placement
affect the child? Do we consider a child's development, age, previous school
experiences, parent/guardian expectations?
2. How
do we prepare students who are moving from a multiage classroom to a more
grade-based classroom?
3. How
do we support teachers to plan the curriculum for their classroom to reflect
students developmental stages so that they are ready for the next stages of
instruction, etc. in subsequent years?
4. If
multiage classrooms are designed for both the teacher and students to move
along together for two or three years what happens when their are severe
behavioural or social issues at hand and the it is not recommended to keep
certain children together in a classroom?
5. While
the power-point presentations helped me to have a clearer vision of the
pragmatics of a multiage classroom, I am curious to learn more about how a
teacher can effectively plan, assess, and support the needs of students of
various age levels in one classroom?
I
look forward to learning more about the answers to these questions and other
topics as I continue through this course.
No comments:
Post a Comment