National level
Regional/district level
Teacher/classroom level
Researchers on multi-grade teaching are unanimous on at least one point. For children to learn effectively in multi-grade environments teachers need to be well organised, well resourced and well trained, as well as to hold positive attitudes to multi-grade teaching. Yet, as we have seen in previous chapters, many teachers who find themselves teaching in a multi-grade environment are frequently under-resourced, and are often the most undereducated and under-trained members of a national teaching force. In this chapter various pointers to action to improve the effectiveness of multi-grade teaching are drawn together. Four documents are particularly useful in this respect. Collingwood's (1991) Multiclass Teaching in Primary Schools is a handbook prepared with and for teachers in the Pacific region, with support from the UNESCO Office for the Pacific States. It is extremely well presented and could be adapted for use with teachers in many countries. Abhayadeva's (1989) account of a pilot project in Sri Lanka, carried out with assistance from UNICEF, sets out a number of pointers to action which have emerged at the classroom and teacher level. The UNESCO/APEID (1989) synthesis of country reports also offers advice at this level, but goes further and sets out implications for curriculum planning at the district and national levels. This multi-levelled approach is also adopted in Thomas and Shaw's (1992) Issues in the Development of Multi-grade Schools.
Since there is a degree of overlap in the lengthy recommendations which are made in the four documents they will be summarised and synthesised here in the form of questions, a format which may be useful both in work with policymakers and practitioners, and in defining developmental research work in this area. To these will be added additional points which arise from the case-studies and research studies presented in chapters 2 and 3.
Although we could start with a series of questions for the teacher in the classroom and work out from there, those initiatives which have had far reaching and lasting effects on the multi-grade classroom appear to have received support from district and national level authorities. Experience suggests that the multi-grade teacher cannot, and indeed should not, be expected to solve the problems of the multi-grade classroom alone. Hence, the list begins with questions for the national-level policymaker.
1. What is the extent of multi-grade teaching in the country? In what types of schools, and in what locations, is it prevalent?
2. Do the enrolment projections and costs of provision suggest that multi-grade teaching will continue in many schools?
3. What are the qualifications and educational backgrounds of the teachers who teach in multi-grade settings? What are the conditions under which they work?
4. Do nationally-prescribed pre-and in-service teacher training programmes (both face-to-face and distance) include content on effective teaching in multi-grade settings? Do they include content on effective teaching more generally eg self-study, peer learning, planning and organisation, alternative ways of grouping students for learning assessment skills?
5. Is multi-grade teaching a recognised field of specialisation in teacher training institutes?
6. Is there provision in nationally prescribed teacher training curricula for the practice as well as the theory of teaching in multi-grade settings? Are there model schools practising multi-grade teaching?
7. Have multi-grade techniques been considered for use in mono-grade settings?
8. Are there material and professional incentives for teachers in multi-grade schools in difficult locations? (eg salary supplements, housing, training opportunities, promotion prospects?)
9. Have attempts been made to structure the content of the national curriculum and all associated curriculum materials (eg syllabi, teachers guides) in a way that supports multi-grade teaching (eg integrated subject matter, i.e. teaching the same subject at different conceptual levels; or a modular curriculum, i.e. allowing the student to proceed at his her own pace through learning modules)? Have such attempts attracted serious support from national-level research and curriculum institutions over a period of time?
10. Have self-study materials been developed for extensive parts of the curriculum? Do these incorporate self-correction and feedback? From which age/grade can they be used? Could textbooks be designed to support self-study? Are textbooks and self-study materials available to students in adequate numbers?
11. Could national-level learning assessment schemes (eg minimum levels of learning (MLL), minimum levels of competency (MLC)) be used to support the development and structure of curriculum suitable for the multi-grade setting? Do such schemes have implications also for the mono-grade classroom?
12. Have or could adequate resources been allocated to libraries and other materials necessary to support self-leaning?
13. Is it practical/feasible to use radio/TV in support of the multi-grade teacher, both in the classroom and in the community i.e as a medium for student learning in the classroom, and as a means of mobilising community support for this way of organising schools and classrooms?
14. Is there an adequate budgetary commitment from government to support multi-grade schools?
15. Is there an understanding among national-level professionals and administrators of the cognitive and non-cognitive benefits of multi-grade teaching? Does more research need to be conducted?
16. Is there an effective mechanism for the regular supervision, monitoring and evaluation of multi-grade schools? Are supervisors supported in their work through training and through materials developed by/with them? Are supervisors expected to "police" as well as to "professionally guide" principals and teachers? If so, how are they expected to handle the conflicts inherent in the duality of the role?
17. What are the recruitment criteria used to select supervisors of multi-grade schools? Do they have any experience of teaching at the primary level, let alone multi-grade primary? How might they gain this experience? What steps might be taken to promote into multi-grade supervisory positions those teachers who have demonstrated prowess in multi-grade teaching?
Systems of education vary in the division of roles and responsibilities between national and sub-national levels of administration. Consequently many of the questions listed above may apply equally to policymakers and practitioners working at the regional or district levels. The following may also apply.
1. Are there mechanisms in place at the regional and sub-regional levels which can support the pedagogy of multi-grade teaching? Are there resource centres where teachers can meet and share experiences? Are there regular and frequent newsletters developed by multi-grade teachers for multi-grade teachers? Are there local radio networks and/or distance learning schemes which can support the teacher in the field?
2. Are there general guidelines on effective multi-grade teaching? Are guidelines developed with teachers on the timetabling of multi-grade teaching?
3. Are there administrative tasks which face the multi-grade teacher in difficult areas which could be handled more effectively by local education offices eg arrangements for delivery of materials, building repairs, monthly payments?
4. Are there ways of supporting horizontal linkages between schools so that teachers may learn from each other in situ, visiting and working in each other's schools, combining schools for cultural and sports events, competitions etc?
5. Are there ways of stimulating horizontal linkages with local community members so that assistant teachers and volunteers can support the work of the multi-grade teacher?
6. Are professional and regional level staff aware of changes at the national level which support the multi-grade teacher? (eg through changes in curriculum teacher training, criteria for promotion etc?)
7. Are there promotion and repetition policies at the regional level which are sensitive to the organisation of multi-grade classes?
1. Are teachers aware of the different ways of organising the multi-grade classroom? (eg subject staggering, subject grouping, common timetable, integrated day?) Are teachers able to discriminate between optimal ways of organising the teaching of different subjects?
2. Are teachers given guidance on syllabus coverage across the day, week, term, school year in multi-grade settings?
3. Are teachers familiar with the pedagogic advantages (both cognitive and non-cognitive) of multi-grade teaching? Are teachers able to convince parents of the advantages?
4. Are teachers able and willing to encourage self-study and peer learning in multi-grade settings? Do teachers have access to an adequate supply of high quality materials for self-study and peer learning? Do teachers have the possibilities of creating their own materials for self-study and peer learning?
5. Do teachers have access to effective and practical means for assessing learning outcomes in multi-grade settings on a regular basis? Do those assessments enable teachers to set learning tasks of an appropriate level for students on an individual basis?
6. Are teachers aware of the variety of ways of grouping students for learning (eg whole class, sub-groups, pairs, individuals?) and of different criteria for subgroups (eg by achievement, interest, friendship)?
7. Have teachers established classroom routines so that learning may continue even in the absence of the teacher (eg through the use of student monitors and access to self and group-learning activities?)
8. Are teachers sensitive to alternative ways of using space and arranging resources inside and outside the classroom for multi-grade groups?
9. Are teachers able to request support from higher levels of authority for problem-solving in relation to multi-grade teaching?
These questions may be regarded as a checklist of use in both assessing the present status and support for multi-grade teaching, and stimulating discussion at different levels of the education system about improved ways of supporting the teaching of the multi-grade teacher and the learning of the multi-grade student. As well providing a useful framework for dialogue between policymakers and practitioners, each could also usefully provide a framework for further developmental research.
The questions pitched at the level of the teacher and the classroom are particularly amenable to action research by teachers and teacher educators. Action research is distinguishable from other types of research in a number of ways. Action research is a form of self-reflective enquiry conducted by educational practitioners to understand practice and improve it. It may be undertaken by an individual practitioner or undertaken collaboratively. It involves the definition of a problem and the trying-out of an idea with a view to changing or improving a local or immediate situation.
The questions pitched at the level of the regional or national authorities are also amenable to action research by practitioners and policymakers working at this level. In practice however few have the time, resources, skills and interest in conducting the type of research which has implications which go beyond their immediate and local environment. In such situations outside researchers can play a useful role, especially where insiders are interested in seeing the research conducted. Research may usefully be seen as an extension of the process of dialogue.
It is also important to understand that not all useful research is executed quickly, nor do all research results have immediate application. National authorities may sometimes need evidence provided by long term evaluation research of the kind reported in the Escuela Nueva programme if they are to promote national level reform. Teacher education institutions may need a critical mass of staff members who have conducted longer term research on multi-grade teaching and associated strategies (eg self-study, peer-learning), or who have direct experience of working in these settings, if they are to carry conviction with teacher trainees about the benefits of multi-grade teaching.
Teacher education institutions and university departments of education are members of national and international academic and professional hierarchies which legitimise some types of knowledge as more valuable than others. It is symptomatic of both hierarchies that the realities facing the multi-grade teacher world-wide barely warrant a mention in national and international education research agenda, in priorities attached to training scholarships, in books about the problems of education, in manuals on effective teaching, in information and dissemination networks and in teacher education curricula. This review and the research it will hopefully support in the future are an attempt to reverse this trend.
