Peter E. Pflaum - Golden Globe -

The Synergy Network

Wiredbrain Pflaump@wiredbrain.com

ONE-ROOM SCHOOLS

AND

AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL TRADITION

Introduction

When my husband Peter and I moved from the Virgin Islands

back to Florida in spring of 1982, our mode of transportation was

our 27-foot sloop Far Tortugas. Our journey took two months.

Lack of a working engine since Puerta Plata forced us to become

true sailors.

In early June in the Bahamas, the wind dies. Giving up final

hope for engine repair in Freeport, we set our sails for Cape

Canaveral. That first evening we observed a Bahamian town full

of lights. At two a.m. Peter woke me.

The lighted "island" was

a supertanker on autopilot, obviously and directly approaching

Far Tortugas. We sent up all our flares; we blew our horn; we

called on the emergency channel; we tried to tack.

The tanker

kept coming.

There was no wind.

The largest supertankers -- those in Freeport -- are about a

quarter of a mile long. This was the size of the monster that

bore down upon us, apparently unaware of our existence. Even

with awareness, the tanker on autopilot was powerless to stop or

turn. Ten years later, I see similarities between this

frightening experience and our current educational system. While

many schools do an excellent job, too many do not. Part of the

problem is a system grown so large it cannot stop; it cannot

maneuver.

Perhaps the most frightening characteristic of our present

dilemma is lack of recognition of the magnitude of our plight.

As Peter and I failed to see the supertanker for what it really

was, how many of us sail along, blind to the reality of the

bureaucratic monster towering above us? Peter and I initially

viewed the supertanker as just another Bahamian island. When the

truth became obvious, we were dangerously close to collision.

Because of skills and teamwork developed through experience, we

were able to find and use a saving breath of wind.

Dewey writes of "evils in education" (Dewey, 1920, p. 197) when

discussing isolation of subject matter from experience. Ethics

are central to his philosophy of democracy and education. Is it

immoral and unethical -- perhaps evil -- to continue to employ

methods, subject matter, and organizational features we know are

not just ineffective but are in fact detrimental to students?

The supertanker is on autopilot. Is it powerless to stop or

turn? Peter and I were saved from imminent demise by a breath of

wind, allowing us to tack just in time. Before our educational

system can respond, we must have a system capable of change.

The

supertanker could not alter its course. Can we?

Review of the Literature

Much educational writing, both current and past, addresses

reorganization for improvement of schools. Literature describing

the one-room school and its multiage nongraded grouping offers a

logical, appropriate place to start. Perhaps investigating some

of this literature will enlighten our search for a restructuring

path. Historical Overview

The Buildings. America's little red schoolhouse often

pictured nostalgically is not without its critics. Physical

conditions of rural public school buildings came under attack in

1930 by the U.S. Office of Education (USOE). Poor lighting from

broken windows; inadequate heating from old open box stoves;

unsanitary conditions; nails used as coat hooks; lack of

workrooms, libraries, cupboards, and bookcases; defective floors,

ceilings, and walls are problems of some schools as noted by

authors of the USOE report. In teacher training programs,

colleges failed to prepare eager young educators for crude and

demanding teaching conditions (Dressler & Pruett, 1930 in Muse,

Smith, & Barker, 1987).

Thirty years after the USOE report, the National Education

Association (NEA) noted further physical problems with such

schools. Through time, building maintenance became increasingly

difficult. In 1960 most one-teacher school buildings were 43

years old; 20% were built prior to the turn of the century.

Building materials often reflected local resources. As recently

as 1934 a Nebraska community established a sod school for its

children. Many earlier schools were built of logs or other wood

(84%), and destruction by fire was not uncommon. By 1984 fewer

buildings were wood; 22% were brick or cement; 6% were trailers.

Whatever their physical problems, one-room schools are considered

retrospectively as a foundation of the American elementary

educational system (Muse et al., 1987; Muse & Moore, 1988).

Decrease in Number

The demise of the one-room school as a major force in

American education began following the close of World War I.

Returning soldiers moved from farms to urban areas seeking better

paying factory work. Twenty years later with scientific

development of agricultural methods, large farms grew larger at

the expense of many traditional small family farms. Often small

farmers simply could not keep up financially and sold out to

organized cooperatives. This trend continued and by 1954 farms

of over 260 acres were increasing while farms of 30 to 80 acres

were decreasing rapidly (Muse et al., 1987).

Exodus to cities combined with changes in farms and farming

methods had dramatic effect on one-room schools. Frequently

established to serve children of farmers, decrease in rural

population and number of farms impacted directly on American

educational needs. Often school districts transported their few

remaining pupils to other districts. Distance to the nearest

operating school sometimes prevented daily travel, so students

boarded or stayed with relatives in other communities. Other

children in isolated areas lived at home and were educated by

correspondence. Some small school districts were virtually

abandoned.

As early as 1922 Cubberly noted the distressingly high ratio

of school board members to teachers in thousands of small school

districts. District efficiency was questioned where 150 to 500

school officials supervised 50 to 175 teachers. Poorly

maintained small rural schools with poorly prepared teachers were

viewed as unjustified educational means when compared to

attractive larger schools featuring well-qualified instructors.

The result is a collection of small schools, a horde of school

officials, short school terms, cheap teachers, poor buildings,

poor teaching equipment, schools behind the times, and a general

lack of interest on the part of the people in the schools

maintained (Cubberly, 1922 in Muse et al., 1987, p. 3).

Decrease in population, remote location, and cost were often

cited as reasons for discontinuing education through the little

red schoolhouse. Policy-makers increasingly recommended closing

of small rural schools rather than correction of their problems.

The answer was consolidation (Muse et al., 1987). Number and

Location

In 1900 approximately 200,000 one-room schools existed in

America (Gulliford, 1981 in Barker, 1986). In 1917-18 there were

about 196,000 public one-room schools. Found in all 48 states,

these schools made up 71% of all U.S. public schools and were

attended by 25% of school children (Gaumnitz & Blose, 1950 in

Muse et al., 1987). By 1920 this number had dropped to 188,000

(Swanson, 1976 in Barker, 1986).

In 1930 there were 128,000 districts and 238,000 public

elementary schools in 48 states. Of these schools, 149,000 had

only one teacher (Muse et al., 1987); Muse & Moore, 1988). With

the trend toward consolidation, number of school districts

decreased as did total number of public schools. Numbers of

one-room schools dropped to 121,000 in 1938; 75,000 by 1948

(Lambert, 1960 in Barker, 1986).

By 1950 amount of districts had dropped to 84,000 with

128,000 total public elementary schools. Of these schools,

60,000 had one room. Of 200,000 operating one-teacher schools in

1900, 140,000 had been closed in 50 years; about 30% remained.

By 1980 this rapid decrease of districts and schools resulted

in slightly less than 16,000 total number of districts, slightly

more than 61,000 total public elementary schools. In the 50

years since 1930, over 148,000 of these schools disappeared --

921 were left. This total continued to drop with 837 reported in

1984 by Muse et al. (1987). Gulliford (1985) reported

approximately 835 for the same year, down about 199,000 since the

turn of the century. Figure 1.1 NUMBER OF SCHOOLS 1930-1980 Page

8 Comparisons

By comparing data of Muse et al. (1987) to Dewalt's (1987)

information regarding 674 operating public one-room schools, a

trend downward appears to remain. This could be a statistical

aberration due to difficulty in locating accurate data or often

in finding any data at all. Muse and Moore (1988), however,

estimate number of remaining public one-teacher schools has

stabilized. This number is likely to be around 800.

Dewalt (1989), in non-public as well as public counts, finds

growth in number of Amish and Old Order Mennonite schools helps

stabilize present total number of public and private one-teacher

schools. Establishment of these religious schools increased

rapidly following the 1972 United States Supreme Court ruling in

Wisconsin v. Yoder, giving Old Order religious groups right to

end formal education after grade eight (Dewalt, 1989).

Some sources for data listed by Muse et al. (1987) include a

National Education Association (NEA) Research Monograph (1960)

for 1958-59 counts, National Center on Education Statistics

(NCES) (1980) for 1980 counts, and original research by the

authors for 1984. Dewalt's sources for public schools include

review of literature, state departments of education

information, data from Freeman (1986), and some estimates from

the 1985 data for 1986 and 1987 numbers. For Amish and Old Order

Mennonite numbers he used the December 1987 issue of

The

Blackboard Bulletin (Dewalt, 1989).

Comparison of Muse, Smith, & Barker's 1984 report with Dewalt's

of 1987 shows some states gained slightly in number of public

one-room schools. According to the data, Colorado increased from

3 to 6; Illinois added 1; Montana added 11; Oregon added 2.

State departments of education vary in information recorded and

accuracy of reporting data. Due to research problems in finding

correct data, the possibility of inconsistencies between various

reports must be considered.

One questions whether schools actually increased or if one

researcher found a school missed by others. Small gain in

Colorado may be accurate and may be explained by the existence,

as listed in Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), of

Mountain Plains Library Association in Silt, Colorado -- the

Country School Legacy Project. In 1985 the Denver Post applauded

one-teacher schools in an article headlined "One teacher, six

students: that's quality education" (in Muse et al., 1987, p.

1). Local belief in effectiveness of small schools could

conceivably cause increase. Historically, it was not uncommon

for one- teacher public schools, especially in remote places, to

open and close as rise and fall in student population demanded.

This could still be true today (Muse et al., 1987; Barker, 1986).

As far back as 1958-59 Nebraska, with 2,812 of 23,695

nationwide, led in number of one-teacher schools. This remained

true in 1984 with Muse et al. (1987) reporting 385 and Gulliford

(1985) reporting 360 in Nebraska for the same year. Dewalt

(1989) reports 264 in 1987. To gather information about

Nebraska's one-teacher schools Muse et al. (1987) surveyed all 93

county superintendents for 1984 numbers.

These researchers

actually verified 306 one-room schools.

The rest were estimated

using Nebraska State Department of Education information (Muse et

al., 1987).

Dewalt used Freeman's 1986 information (Freeman, 1986 in

Dewalt, 1989), information from state departments of education,

and estimates from 1985 data. Colorado and Connecticut

departments of education estimated their 1950 data as listed by

Dewalt. Twenty-six states had no data to report in 1950; 2 had

no data in 1985. In 1986 and 1987, 8 and 7 states respectively

listed no data, but for these years Dewalt estimated numbers for

Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, and Michigan using 1985 information

(Dewalt, 1989).

Muse et al. (1987) list Florida as having 27 public one-teacher

schools in 1958-59 and only 1 in 1980 and 1984. Dewalt lists

Florida as having no data for number of public one-room schools

in 1950, and he found 0 in 1985, 1986, and 1987. In searching

for private one-room schools, Dewalt found none in Florida in

1987 (Dewalt, 1989).

The Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Southern Union Conference,

Small Schools (1990) reports 11 one-teacher schools in Florida

representing 35% of SDA small schools (one, two, and three-room) in Florida. Ninety-one SDA one-

teacher schools operated in 1990 in 8 area districts comprising

the Southern Union.

These 91 schools make up almost 55% of SDA

Southern Union small schools.

The SDA North American Division --

Small Schools (omitting Canada), reports 461 total number of SDA

one-teacher schools across the United States (SDA, 1990).

Gulliford (1985) reports Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Board for Parish Education had 36 one-room schools in 1983-84,

down just 3 schools 6 years. According to a church official,

these Lutheran schools often begin as one-room schools and add

more rooms within a few years (Gulliford, 1985). While Dewalt

(1989) reports private one-room schools for 1987 only, he notes

for Wisconsin 24 Amish, 3 Old Order Mennonite, and 0 other. In

comparing data of SDA, Gulliford, and Dewalt, one notices

discrepancies.

Summary: Decline of

The Little Red Schoolhouse

Nostalgic recollection of one-room schools continues for many

Americans, despite criticisms. Physical problems of the schools

coupled with historical events and trends impacted substantially

on their existence. Poor conditions, ill-prepared teachers, and

exodus from rural to urban areas following World War I marked a

beginning of dramatic decline. As returning soldiers sought

higher paying urban employment and numbers of small family farms

decreased, the appearance of rural America began to change.

Country schools became less necessary and perhaps even more

importantly, less fashionable.

Influence of one-room schools on American public education is

evidenced in part by enormous numbers of Americans educated in

these small rural schools. Current data, although often

conflicting in exact amounts, shows an overall rapid decline

leaving today less than 1,000 of 200,000 public one-room schools

operating in 1900. Numerous research problems include lack of

extensive historical data and variation in accuracy and

information recorded by states. It is interesting now to examine

one-room educational practices and students and most importantly

to focus on a person instrumental to life in the little red

schoolhouse -- its one teacher.

One-Room Educational Practices, Teachers, and Students

Yesterday

In 1940 and 1959 Gaumnitz noted several reasons for original

establishment of one-teacher schools. Equality of educational

opportunity was perceived as a vital ingredient during the early

struggle for democratic equality in America. Providing education

to isolated pioneer families presented a problem different from

small towns or rural areas in Europe. American pioneers required

low-cost educational institutions designed to serve a few

students and located within walking distance of their homes.

"

The one-teacher school and the local school district seem to

have been the logical answer to the demands of the day"

(Gaumnitz, 1940, p. 3; 1959, p. 1, 10).

Since educational studies were not conducted in colonial

America, early one-room schools can be examined retrospectively

through such information as historical descriptions and period

novels. Colonial schools were primarily religious institutions

offering learning through mediums such as the popular seventeenth

century textbook, Spiritual Milk for American Babes, Drawn out of

the Breasts of Both Testaments for

Their Soul's Nourishment

(Cubberly, 1919 in Devin-Sheehan & Allen, 1975). Basically the

teaching method during this period was independent study at the

student's desk followed by recitation at the teacher's desk.

"School discipline was often harsh, with the teacher's rod a

frequent reminder that children should not be spoiled" (Muse &

Moore, 1988, p. 9). Public education was most often a community

or district school supervised by local citizens (Cubberly, 1919

in Devin-Sheehan & Allen, 1975).

Nineteenth century one-room schools consisted of students in

the first eight grades who spent most of the day sitting on log

benches. Schools were often heated by potbellied stoves or

fireplaces; drinking water was provided by a communal bucket and

dipper; lunches were brought from home (Mead, 1963; Orr, 1962;

Rissler, 1966 in Devin-Sheehan & Allen, 1975).

The teacher was

often a young single woman who taught school until she married.

Frequently, her own education had ended with high school

(academy) graduation or less. Lack of data prohibits analysis of

the educational attainment of past one-room teachers. Throughout

the literature, however, runs suggestion of numbers of marginally

prepared instructors in these small schools. "Teachers were

poorly trained and not much older than the students that they

taught" (Muse & Moore, 1988, p. 9).

Secularization of schools increased throughout the nineteenth

century. In 1897 and again in 1960, the NEA cited unsatisfactory

conditions of many rural one-teacher schools. Criticisms

included attendance problems (either too high or too low), lack

of equipment, and low pay for teachers (Devin-Sheehan & Allen,

1975; Muse & Moore, 1988).

Perhaps the closest living example of colonial and nineteenth

century educational practices exists through examination of

one-room schools sponsored by religious groups resistant to

change. It is interesting to examine a 1987-88 case study

conducted through observation of an Old Order Mennonite community

school in Snyder County, Pennsylvania.

Educational Practices. To preserve cultural values and ethnic

identity, it is often necessary for groups to avoid mainstream

acculturation. Old Order Mennonites have been successful in this

goal through "[retention] of economic self-sufficiency,

residential independence, and complete control of their own

schools" (Dewalt & Troxell, 1989, p. 308). Old Order Mennonite

one-teacher schools combined with other societal aspects and

institutions successfully socialize Mennonite children ethnically

and culturally. Rejection of government school funding gives the

community a certain amount of autonomy in running its own

schools.

The Mennonite community described in this case study,

however, does comply with some government regulation such as

attendance and teaching of the English language (Dewalt &

Troxell, 1989). Old Order Mennonites do not use electricity or

many other modern conveniences.

Physical structure of the school is important in this

examination of educational practices.

The frame building with

its vestibule, classroom, and dirt cellar containing a wood

stove, resembles American public one-room schools around the turn

of the century. Set amid pastures and fields, a dirt road ends

many yards from the school. Outhouses and a shed for the

teacher's horse are behind the main building.

Lunch boxes and outer clothing are stored in the vestibule; the

schoolroom contains rows of students' desks attached to the

floor.

The teacher's desk, blackboards, and bookshelves are in

front of the room; wooden benches for visitors are in back.

The

only light is from single pane windows on both sides of the room.

The school year runs 180 days, September to May, with few

vacation days. Grades one through eight are taught in one room

by one teacher.

The teacher works separately with each grade

according to schedule, but she divides and varies her time

according to need.

Subjects taught are reading, arithmetic, spelling, geography,

English, German, penmanship, and some art and music. A program

is given at the end of the school year.

Textbooks are most often specially designed for Mennonite

children.

The school does accept from the public school system

some discarded older textbooks.

These books must meet Mennonite

standards for content. All eight grades use the 1934 Practical

Mathematics series, Columbia University, reprinted by the

Gordonville Print Shop of Pennsylvania. Researchers note, "

These

books are predominately mathematical problems with no

illustrations and minimum explanation" (Dewalt & Troxell, 1989,

p. 315).

Students work by grades with the teacher on math, spelling,

and reading. During this time, other students work independently

at their desks. For reading, the teacher calls each grade level.

Students file to the front, face the class, and read individually

in predetermined order. Students know how much to read, when to

stop and start. No direction from the teacher is necessary.

The

teacher asks comprehension questions at the conclusion of the

story.

These questions are answered in turn by each child. If

someone does not know an answer, the next pupil in line responds.

The teacher also uses phonics flashcards. Students return to

their desks, individually complete workbook comprehension

exercises, and read silently to prepare for the next day.

Teacher.

The teacher, a single woman of 29 years, drives her

horse and buggy to school. She stays with a married sister

during the week and on weekends travels ten miles to her home

where she lives with an unmarried sister.

The teacher dresses

conservatively according to Mennonite custom. Because of its

necessity in mastering other subjects, she believes the most

important subject is reading. She enjoys working with children,

reading, and writing in her diary.

Innovation in methodology is discouraged by the Mennonite

community.

The teacher, therefore, teaches as she was taught.

Pennsylvania has no certification requirements for Old Order

Mennonite teachers. Researchers did not specifically mention

this particular teacher's educational attainment level. Teachers

are selected by the community school board made up of parents

(Dewalt & Troxell, 1989).

Students. Researchers did not address class size but did

indicate 25 student desks in a schoolroom floor plan. Students

spent 65% of their time working individually, 15% in groups with

the teacher, 9% listening to another group, and 6% reading

individually. Off-task behavior was observed just 5% of the

time. Researchers observed students out of their seats less than

0.01% of the time and never observed a student leaving to use the

outhouse, get a drink, or sharpen a pencil. Students do not

leave their seats during class except by the teacher's

instruction. After students listen to another group, they return

to their own individual work without direction.

Researchers observed little time spent with the teacher

explaining procedure (5%). Students know what to do at specific

times. Students receive little praise or criticism from the

teacher (0.01% of the time). Occasionally they do receive a

small reward such as a sticker for good work.

The students never

have a discussion but spend 48% of class time reading aloud,

reciting, and giving answers. About 30% of class time is devoted

to lecturing and the teacher asking questions.

The classroom is

silent 16% of the time (Dewalt & Troxell, 1989). Researchers

note in a typical classroom 65-75% of time is used for statements

by the teacher. This is in sharp contrast to the 35% in this Old

Order Mennonite school (Flanders and Simon, 1969 in Dewalt &

Troxell, 1989).

Student attendance rate is high (96.6% for September 1986 to

December 1987) reflecting community educational values. Local

public schools have a similar attendance rate. After completion

of grade eight, children no longer attend school but learn

homemaking and farming under the direction of their parents.

Analysis of student interviews showed students were satisfied

with school and enjoyed parental school visits (about twice a

year). Most children had given little thought to future

occupations realizing there was little choice. Many said reading

was their favorite pastime (Dewalt & Troxell, 1989).

Past educational practices, teachers, and students can, of

course, never be exactly reproduced. However, from an unmarried

female teacher arriving at a one-room schoolhouse via horse and

buggy, to eight grade levels of disciplined children seated in

nailed-down desks, to a basic curriculum liberally interspersed

with religion, to local school control, this case study is a

remarkable reflection of customs and values of this religious

community. With Old Order Mennonite resistance to change, it

appears to be as accurate a living picture of the past available

to us today. 1920's - 1960's

Several common threads run through literature of these

twentieth century years. Among them are energetic movement

toward consolidation. Another is interest in the child- centered

approach to education, a progressive movement explored by (among

others) Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Rugg.

Consolidation - 1920's. Post World War I population movement

toward urban areas and away from rural communities combined with

improvement in roads and the widespread conviction that bigger is

better worked to eradicate one- room schools at the dramatic rate

described earlier. In a 1928 Department of Interior, Department

of Education bulletin, Covert notes, "One hundred years ago

Horace Mann made a vigorous attack on one-room schools. Since

then educators have continually bombarded them" (Covert, 1928, p.

1). In this 1928 bulletin the author lists growing and

apparently prevalent attitudes of the day

* one teacher's inability to cover all grades as well

as in a graded system;

* one-room teachers are often young and inadequately

trained;

* percentage of attendance in one-teacher schools is

much less than in graded schools;

* centralized schools offer advantages small isolated

schools cannot, such as socialization and training

for life (Covert, 1928, p. 1).

The central purpose of Covert's report is gathering

information and disseminating results of educational testing

programs in two types of educational settings. Through this

examination the author seeks to determine the more advantageous

learning environment -- small rural one-room or larger modern

consolidated ones. This author feels scientific methods of the

times are dependable measures of achievement. "Before the advent

of standardized tests, comparing schools in educational

achievement was practically impossible; with age grades and

achievement norms scientifically established, it becomes a simple

matter" (Covert, 1928, p. 1). Such evidence can substantiate

elimination of one-teacher schools through consolidation.

The NEA Department of Rural Education conducted a study

(1921-22) comparing academic achievement of one-teacher and

consolidated schools. Never before had such an extensive study

been conducted in this area of research. Approximately 11,000

pupils in 135 consolidated schools and 4,700 pupils in 370

one-teacher schools were tested in reading, arithmetic, language,

spelling, and handwriting. Grades 3-8 were tested. Testing

instruments used include Monroe Standardized Silent Reading

Tests, Woody-McCall Mixed Fundamentals of Arithmetic, Iowa

Spelling Scales, and the Ayers Handwriting Scale.

Due to small print and age of the document, specific

comparative scores are difficult to decipher. Overall findings,

however, indicate in each grade children in consolidated schools

obtained higher median reading scores than children in

one-teacher schools; handwriting indicated even or higher scores

for consolidated school pupils. Generally the report shows

better academic achievement of students attending larger schools

(NEA Department of Rural Education, 1922 in Covert, 1928).

Pointing to rapid increase in centralized schools (1000 per

year since the turn of the century) and more rapid decrease in

one-teacher schools (5 times that rate for the same period)

Covert continues:

There are few thoughtful people left who fail

to see the many social and administrative advantages of the

larger, better-equipped schools. [Factors causing growth in

number of large schools include] great improvement in roads . . .

; the modern school bus, equipped with comfortable seats,

heaters, windows, and front and rear doors (Covert, 1928, p. 2).

Problems of Smallness - 1950's. About 30 years after

Covert's bulletin, U. S. Department of Health, Education and

Welfare reported "Small Schools Are Growing Larger" (Gaumnitz,

1959). This document concerns status and trends of size factors

in public education. Problems with rural education were

frequently attributed to smallness -- "small administrative

districts, small school systems, small enrollments, small

instructional staffs, and small classes" (Gaumnitz, 1959, p.

iii).

To properly evaluate smallness factors, one must examine the

overall picture. Data of state and geographical areas showing

size in this 1959 report is more comprehensive than previous

information on size of school districts, systems, staffs, and

classes across the United States. Special attention is given to

rural counties (Gaumnitz, 1959).

Gaumnitz notes the role our pioneer heritage plays in

smallness. Desire for local control resulted in many small

school districts, each with its own school board and school often

employing one or two teachers. Often the district area was small

-- four or five square miles. Life was simple. Skills such as

reading, writing, and arithmetic made up the bulk of curriculum.

Persons possessing these skills were deemed qualified to impart

these skills to others. Thus one or two teachers were chosen by

local citizens for their community school. As consolidation

spread, many communities valuing small schools reluctantly

relinquished local control. Gaumnitz points to tradition in

American education as a major factor in such reluctance; to

economic, demographic, and production changes as reasons for

change in educational structure; to the remaining necessity of

smallness in remote undeveloped areas having inadequate roads.

Gaumnitz cautions against one administrative system as the

solution to smallness problems. Educational researchers

recommend urgent need for experimentation in development of

appropriate school programs. "Rural life in America is

characterized by diversity, rather than homogeneity, and the

fitting of many patterns of rural life to one type of

administrative unit is highly questionable. Research needs to

point the way to other solutions to this problem" (Monroe, 1950

in Gaumnitz 1959, p. 2). In light of this recommendation, it is

interesting to briefly review growing interest in child-centered

and community-oriented education.

Child-Centered and Community-Oriented Education

Recollections of a One-Room Schoolhouse. In a 1975

interview, Marian Brooks, Professor Emeritus, City University,

New York, recalls her initial teaching experience (1924-26) at

age 15 in a one-room school in rural New Hampshire. Due to

shortage of certified teachers, high school graduates were

recruited, given a six-weeks course in methodology, and placed in

small communities needing instructional staff.

In this fascinating account, Marian Brooks vividly describes

her eleven students (grades 1-8), their parents, and their

isolated Irish farming community of about 15 families (Dropkin,

1975). Through her perceived inability to function effectively

within confines of prescribed strict time schedules, this

educator successfully ran her school in terms of the individual

child. Using local resources (for example, mud to study dikes

and medieval villages; snow to study ice houses and Eskimo way of

life), Ms. Brooks often implemented a project-oriented and

integrated curriculum. Nailed-down student desks were moved to

suit educational needs.

The platform for the teacher's desk

became a stage.

Several years after leaving this one-room post, Ms. Brooks

was introduced to works of Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Rugg regarding

progressive education. Later she studied and served as Professor

Harold Rugg's assistant at Teachers College (Dropkin, 1975).

The Rural School Improvement Project. Berea College of

Eastern Kentucky participated in the Rural School Improvement

Project (RSIP) of 1953-57. With a longstanding philosophy

regarding commitment to needs of surrounding mountain

communities, this college reports remarkable improvement in

educational opportunities and services initiated through this

project.

Here again, concern for individual children, parents, and

community is reflected in this description of rural education.

Through teacher training and travel, Berea assisted in widening

the scope of student and parent awareness of life beyond their

mountains and in reducing the scope of racial prejudice. Through

encouragement of community effort, poorly maintained schools were

improved. Through initiation of a project-oriented integrated

curriculum, students and parents gained knowledge meaningful to

their own lives (Buckland, 1958).

1956 Yearbook. Teaching in the Small Community: 1956

Yearbook, a collection of essays documenting experiences in rural

America, further indicates growing interest in pupils, parents,

and communities as individuals. Contributors to this yearbook

reflect on Gaumnitz's observation Defenders of small schools

insist . . . that many of the recognized advantages of largeness

are lost to the mechanization of child development.

They declare

that the intimate relationship of the teacher and the child in

the small school is the ideal way to develop children (Gaumnitz,

1959, p. 7).

From a small desert community north of Phoenix, Arizona, to

a mountain community involved in the Rural School Improvement

Project of Eastern Kentucky, educators contributing to this

yearbook echo several common themes. Learning is enhanced when

students perceive relevance to their own lives; learning is

enhanced when curriculum is integrated forming a comprehensive

whole; learning is enhanced when students, parents, and

communities work together for the common good (Fox, 1956). Today

Rural Location. Today many rural areas in America are

experiencing growth rather than decline. Country life has long

been treated idyllically by lyricists and other artists.

Throughout history man has sought simplicity in pastoral

existence.

Departure from rural areas following World War I lasted for

about 50 years. Decrease in number of farmers continues today.

The 1970's and 80's, however, saw population increase in some

sparsely inhabited areas. In 1981 the American Association of

School Administrators called this move from city to country a

"rural renaissance -- a [realization that] small can be

beautiful" (Muse et al., 1987, p. 7).

Reasons for increased country population include improved

highway systems and relocation of business and industry in small

rural communities.

These two factors work synergistically,

increasing opportunities for country employment while allowing

city workers to more easily commute. Additionally, there is a

growing perception of country living as much improved over

earlier years. Shopping centers, government, and professional

services are common aspects of smaller communities while problems

of crowded streets and heavy traffic are not. Characteristics

such as these contribute to return to a more relaxed rural

lifestyle (Muse et al., 1987; Gulliford, 1985).

Teachers. Muse et al. (1987) surveyed 402 one-room teachers in

1984. Ninety-three percent of these teachers hold a bachelor's

degree or higher. About 33% of the teachers were raised in

country settings, and 25% grew up in communities with populations

under 2,500. Another one- fourth lived for much of their lives

in communities of over 25,000.

When researchers surveyed reasons for teaching in small rural

schools, the most frequent response was desire to do so (72%).

Other reasons given were "limited employment opportunities

elsewhere," "reasonable salary and benefits," "spouse works in

the area," "family and relatives in the area," and "recreational

area nearby" (Muse et al., 1987, p. 9-10). According to the 1960

NEA study, rural teachers were paid much less than the national

average. Salary schedules for rural teachers, however, have

risen in recent years (Gulliford, 1985). Today these teachers

often have salaries commensurate with local cost of living (Muse

et al., 1987). Wyoming supplements some teachers with isolation

pay or mileage allotments (Hobbs, 1979).

The 1984 study often found spouses of rural teachers to be

farmers (almost one-third). Other reported occupational areas

include management/self-employment, skilled/ semiskilled, and

professional/semiprofessional.

These 3 areas ranged from

13%-10%. Homemaking was reported at slightly over 5% (Muse et

al., 1987).

Isolation. Slightly over half of the teachers surveyed in

1984 lived within the school district (54.2%). Teacherages,

homes provided by the school district, were provided one-fourth

of the time. In isolated places housing is often adjacent to the

school. In one case in Wyoming, the teacher lives in one end of

the trailer; the school occupies the other (Gulliford, 1985). In

remote areas in Wyoming, house trailers are frequently utilized.

These mobile schools can be located on a ranch as required. When

the school is no longer needed, it can be moved (Hobbs, 1979).

While improved communication, roads, and transportation gives

some contact to the outside world, isolation continues as a major

problem of rural schools today. Hazardous weather conditions in

Albany County, Wyoming, prompted a requirement for teachers to

take survival courses; all schools have emergency supplies of

food and water; schools without telephones have citizens band

radios.

Distance to shopping and services such as health care and

government services varies according to the 1984 study.

Twenty-five percent of teachers surveyed reported easy access

(within 4 miles) to shopping facilities; 25% reported shopping

facilities within 20 miles. Teachers in more remote locations

reported distances of 50 miles or more.

The greatest distance

was almost 1000 miles for one teacher in Alaska (Muse et al.,

1987).

Teachers working in isolated areas have special needs for

community support. While some teachers do remain on the outside,

others become a vital part of community life. In a rural school

there can be an obligation to conform to local values (Gulliford,

1985).

Frequently one-room teachers provide a variety of extra

services. From teaching all subjects, to performing janitorial

and maintenance duties, these teachers are among the most

resourceful in our nation (Muse et al., 1987). Even though many

one-room teachers are versatile and hardy, need for peer

consultation can be a problem in rural areas.

In recognition of teacher and student special needs due to

remote location, Wyoming often provides traveling teacher teams

as a supplement to small school instruction in areas such as art,

music, physical education, and reading.

These teams, however,

are not always available to the one-teacher schools. In the 1984

study, Muse (et al., 1987) found traveling teachers providing

support in music (12.5%), in remedial reading (6.5%), and in

special education (7.7%) (Muse et al., 1987). Some Wyoming

districts schedule breaks to "[bring] the teacher out" for

weekends at the Holiday Inn. District supervisors and rural

coordinators commonly travel to remote schools on a regular basis

(Hobbs, 1979).

Educational Practices.

The 1984 (Muse et al., 1987) study

found isolation frequently prevented field trips to urban areas

with 85% of teachers surveyed reporting no such outings. When

questioned regarding use of television, computers, and guest

speakers for instructional purposes, teachers responded to

moderate use of television (40%); 36% used computers "often" or

"sometimes"; 75% reported using guest speakers "infrequently" or

never.

Gulliford (1985) reports use of project-oriented curriculums

similar to those described by Marian Brooks (Dropkin, 1975), by

the Rural School Improvement Project (Buckland, 1958), and by

contributors to the 1956 Yearbook (Fox, 1956).

The teacher of

the Cozy Hollow School (Wyoming) feels remoteness is a blessing.

Without others around to imitate or impress, children must "draw

upon themselves.

They have time to think, to use their own

imaginations" (Gulliford, 1985, p. 11). Another Wyoming teacher,

besides teaching regular subjects, uses the lunch hour to

instruct children in fishing and preparing the fish for lunch,

starting fires on ice, skating, playing the piano, and ballet.

Further descriptions of projects carry messages of teacher

creativity in using local resources as learning tools (Gulliford,

1985).

Recommendations made by contributors to

The Wisdom of Practice:

Managing the Multigraded Classroom (Wolfe et al., 1990) mirror

those made by contributors to the 1956 Yearbook (Fox, 1956) and

other child-centered, project-oriented, integrated curriculum

proponents previously described. Throughout this 1990 handbook,

master teachers of Alaska promote the importance of the

individual child, correlation of subject matter, and teacher

individuality in determination of class structure (Wolfe et al.,

1990).

Instructional methods born and developed in the little red

schoolhouse, continue as mainstays of educational practice in

these schools today. Devin-Sheehan and Allen (1975) reported 31%

of 110 one-teacher schools surveyed in Nebraska in 1973 had some

form of peer tutoring. One-room teachers in the 1984 survey

reported widespread use of peer tutoring (70%) and individualized

instruction (95%) (Muse et al.,1987). In addition, there is

growing evidence of trends in consolidated schools toward use of

these teaching methodologies. Educational emphasis on

consideration of each child's special needs is increasing beyond

the one-room school (Devin-Sheehan & Allen, 1975).

Mario Fantini, dean of the University of Massachusetts School

of Education, supports one-room schools. He believes number of

one-room schools may increase due to dissatisfaction with larger

more bureaucratic schools. "

The trend in education today is

toward smaller, more community based, more intergenerational

settings . . . . [In many schools] students have lost their

sense of identity" (Gulliford, 1985, p. 11-12). Without

significant change by larger consolidated schools, departure will

continue toward other kinds of nonpublic education -- the kind

that "takes on the characteristics of the one-room schoolhouse"

(Gulliford, 1985, p. 12).

Further criticism of large schools was voiced in 1981 by Bruno

Bettelheim, University of Chicago. He held little optimism for

improvement of most public schools today. Pointing to the

necessity of peer tutoring in one-room schools, Bettelheim

stated, I've found that having some children help teach is the

best way for all children to learn.

The older child learns

material that can be mastered only by rote much better by

teaching it to a younger child.

The one-room school was the best

school we ever had (Gulliford, 1985, p. 10).

Historian and Nebraska State Board of Education member

Dorothy Weyer Creigh adamantly disagrees writing in 1980

There

are unfortunately a number, an appalling number, of one-room

country schools still in existence in Nebraska, with outdoor

privies, incredibly slipshod teaching, with a criminal lack of

books and other teaching tools . . . . I know the present-day

one-room country schools for the anachronisms they are, and am

eager to dispel the myth of the rural school now as the be-all

and end-all of educational excellence. For their time they

served a purpose.

Their time is long past (Gulliford, 1985, p.

9).

Students. Little information exists regarding race of

one-room school students. During the era of segregation in

America, black students attended their own one-room schools with

white one-room schools nearby (Buckland, 1958).

The literature

reflects a predominance of white students in these schools today.

Currently there are hints in some rural areas of an increasing

appreciation of cultural pluralism (Muse et al., 1987).

Since the 1960 NEA report, there is evidence of one- room

school improvement in physical condition, materials, and teacher

training. Little quantitative study, however, has been conducted

regarding academic achievement and social adjustment of

one-teacher school graduates when they attend high school. To

provide current information, researchers at Brigham Young

University investigated academic and social performance of 204

high school students who spent their elementary school years in

one-teacher rural schools. Chosen for the study were Nebraska,

South Dakota, and Montana (Muse et al., 1985).

School personnel and former one-room students were surveyed

using questionnaires designed to determine student attitude

toward small school experience, social adjustment in high school,

academic preparedness for high school, and educational plans

following high school graduation. Additionally, socioeconomic

status (SES) of the entire high school student body was addressed

through questionnaires administered to school personnel.

Questionnaires were not administered to graduates of larger

elementary schools. Standardized test results were analyzed to

compare academic achievement of one-room elementary school

graduates with graduates of larger elementary schools.

Results indicated small school students:

* were similar academically to graduates of larger

elementary schools;

* tended to have some difficulty adjusting to the first

year of high school but not to later years; (Note:

Some faculty members felt this difficulty was due to

boarding in town);

* viewed their elementary years as worthwhile and no

disadvantage;

* would have liked more students in elementary school

for increased participation in sports and other

activities;

* were not dropouts; were not disruptive;

* were well-behaved and performed as well in school as

other students (Muse et al., 1985).

In conclusion researchers note problems in attempting to

measure school effectiveness. Many factors besides school size

can temper a student's performance in school. While it may be

possible to measure academic achievement with some amount of

standardization, it is certainly not a perfect measure (as

alluded to by Covert [1928] -- see Consolidation - 1920's

section), nor is it accepted in every instance. Such tests

measure only a fraction of a student's school experience.

According to these researchers, further study is needed.

Participation of a greater number of schools and samples

representative of states having one-room schools are two

suggestions for improved research design. While keeping in mind

study limitations and the large versus small controversies,

researchers remind the reader, "It is not a requirement that

rural schools be better than their city counterparts, only

hopefully that they be as good" (Muse et al., 1985, p. 17).

Summary

Reasons for original establishment of one-room schools are

embedded in America's colonial way of life.

These schools worked

because of unique requirements of frontier existence. Where

small communities or groups of families settled, one-teacher

schools were established to educate their children according to

American ideals of democracy in education. Early ideas of

democracy impacted directly on the desire for local control of

local schools. Numerous small school districts were formed;

their remnants often exist today.

Some early American educational practices can be witnessed

through existing one-room schools of religious groups resistant

to change such as those of Old Order Mennonites. Early methods

were often rigidly structured, but over the years several

one-room methods evolved such as peer tutoring and individualized

instruction applicable today in large as well as small schools.

The 1950's saw increase in support of child-centered,

project-oriented, integrated curriculums explored earlier by

Brooks, Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Rugg. Attention to dilapidated

school buildings, unprepared teachers, and isolation was given

during this decade through projects such as the RSIP in Eastern

Kentucky. Further effort to assist teachers in isolated areas

through sharing of instructional ideas for multigrade classrooms

became recently available through

The Wisdom of Practice (Wolfe

et al., 1990). Improvement in rural roads throughout the

twentieth century reduced isolation while promoting

consolidation.

There is very little evidence regarding social or academic

performance of one-room school students. Researchers of Brigham

Young University conducted two studies in the 1980's. After

identifying existing one-room public schools, Muse et al. (1985)

surveyed academic achievement and social adjustment of

one-teacher elementary school graduates who attended high school.

While these former one-room students appear to perform as well

academically as high school students who attended larger

elementary schools, further study is indicated. With data

showing one-room school students virtually do not drop out and

are not discipline problems in high school, important classroom

framework implications may exist.

These factors require further

study.

There is lack of research regarding one-room students of

races other than white. Current increase in appreciation of

cultural pluralism in rural areas is a mere hint in the

literature, suggesting more examination is needed.

While public rural one-room schools greatly decreased in

number in the twentieth century, there is suggestion of increased

interest in nonpublic one-room schools. This interest is

partially prompted by dissatisfaction with larger consolidated

schools. Criticisms of these larger schools include inadequate

academic effectiveness and impersonal factory-like atmosphere.

There is lack of study in this area. Possible trends in

nonpublic one-room schools in communities of all sizes present a

challenging area for research.

The battle of large versus small, one-room versus

consolidated continues. Both types of schools, historically and

today, have advocates and opponents. Only through more extensive

well-conducted research will answers regarding strengths and

weaknesses of these differing educational frameworks become more

apparent.

CHAPTER 2

SMALL SCHOOLS, EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

Teachers in one-room schoolhouses almost never lectured.

These

teachers knew that there wasn't much they could say

simultaneously to a roomful of kids of different ages and stages

of learning. So teachers moved from one group of two or three

students to another. Because they couldn't spend much time with

any group, they usually assigned some work to each, making sure

that the group had a pretty good idea of how to proceed.

Periodically the teacher would return to each group to make sure

the work was being done correctly and to offer more help where

it was needed. And teachers frequently asked students who'd

mastered a particular task to help those who were still

struggling to learn it. What one-room teachers did out of

necessity -- avoid teacher talk and get kids to learn on their

own or in small groups -- is actually a superior way of getting

them to learn (Shanker in Fiske, 1991, p. 90).

While evidence supports both sides of the large versus small

school issue, there is reason to believe it is easier for small

schools to be effective.

There are few small Florida public

schools. This researcher, therefore, studied small Florida

nonpublic schools.

The American nonpublic school universe

consists of 26,712 schools. Most of these schools enroll less

than 150 students (National Center for Education Statistics

[NCES], 1992). In Florida there are about 1300 nonpublic

schools. Approximately 450 of these are elementary schools

enrolling 50 or fewer students; or are combined elementary and

high schools (K-12) enrolling 150 or fewer students (Florida

Department of Education [FDOE], 1991).

There are not enough

small nonpublic high schools in Florida to study. Chapter 3

describes this researcher's survey of 138 of these 450 small

nonpublic Florida schools.

To evaluate effectiveness of the 138 schools, information

from Hot Topics: Usable Research, Comprehensive School

Improvement (FDOE, 1990) was used.

The FDOE selected twelve

characteristics to frame Comprehensive School Improvement:

1. Clear Goals

2. School-Focused Improvement

3. Strong Leadership

4. High Expectations

5. Focused Program of Instruction

6. Collaborative Decision-Making

7. Individual & Organizational Development

8. Order & Discipline

9. Maximized Learning Time

10. Parent/Community Involvement

11. Incentives/Rewards for Academic Success

12. Careful and Continuous Evaluation (FDOE, 1990, p. v).

School improvement is often associated with the effective

schools movement. Restructuring refers to fundamental and

lasting changes. Information provided by the FDOE seeks to

provide useable research to insightful educators so curriculum

and instruction design can address the needs of Florida's diverse

student population and thus enhance the education of all students

(FDOE, 1990).

There are limitations to this research of 138 small nonpublic

Florida schools. Personal visits to these schools would yield

more accurate information and a more comprehensive picture. A

longer questionnaire surveying a bigger sample would give fuller

representation.

Small schools employ effective teaching practices, not

necessarily because of special training or theoretical

orientation, but simply because of physical make-up of the

organization.

The twelve characteristics identified by FDOE are

inherent in small school structure. For example, in a class of

ten students of multiple ages and stages of progress (a frequent

educational situation in small schools), it is hard to lean on

one's shovel and not be noticed. Conversely, in a traditional

graded lecture- oriented classroom of 30 students, as long as one

does not cause overt problems, unobserved shovel-leaning is more

feasible (conversations with S. McKee, 1992). "It is not

impossible to have a good large school; it simply is more

difficult" (Goodlad, 1984, p. 309).

Multiage Perspective Foundations

Before the founding of public school systems, much formal

American education took place in settings such as Dame schools,

one room-schools, and homes with family hired tutors. Multiage

grouping was inherent to these types of educational organization.

Society, neighborhood, and family make-up typical of the times

naturally involved children in multiage groups. Average American

nineteenth century families were much larger than those of today.

Infant mortality frequently caused wide differences in ages of

siblings. Extended families often lived in the same

neighborhoods or homes. Commonly, children on the farm worked

cooperatively with adults and siblings (Pratt, 1983, p. 8).

In the eighteenth century, foreshadowing of graded schools

can be seen through establishment in Boston of separate reading

and writing schools. Both boys and girls attended these schools

but were segregated by gender (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).

Another step toward modern educational organization can be

seen through the monitorial system where a teacher taught older

students who then tutored younger groups. Student "monitors"

also were responsible for discipline, record keeping,

examinations, and even promotion (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987;

Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988).

After visiting Prussia in 1843 Horace Mann observed:

The first

element of superiority in a Prussian school . . . consists in the

proper classification of the scholars. In all places where the

numbers are sufficiently large to allow it [emphasis mine] the

children are divided according to ages and attainments, and a

single teacher has the charge only of a single class . . . .

There is no obstacle whatever . . . to the introduction at once

of this mode of dividing and classifying scholars in all our

large towns (Mann, 1843, p. 84 in Pratt, 1983, p. 9). It is

interesting to note, as emphasized above, the historical link

between largeness and gradedness.

In 1848, five years after Mann's report of the Prussian method

of educational age grouping, Quincy Grammar School was

established in Boston (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Pratt, 1983).

This institution is widely considered the first graded school in

the United States. Support for gradedness grew, becoming the

"accepted wisdom" (Pratt, 1983, p. 9).

During the nineteenth century, belief of education for all

increased.

There was pressure in the 1830's and 40's to enroll

and socialize a giant influx of immigrant children (Radner,

1991). Establishment of normal schools helped unify educational

ideas and practices. Growth in school attendance rates, teacher

training, and popularity of new textbooks enhanced favor of

gradedness. Enthusiasm for

The McGuffy Eclectic Readers (graded

and illustrated) impacted on production of these texts as well as

on production of numerous others. Motivated book salesmen seized

opportunities to sell these materials to teachers who were often

unskilled in determining book quality (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).

The Lowell School Committee Report of 1852 compared logic of

age grouping to logic of division of labor in industry:

The

principle of the division of labor holds good in schools, as in

mechanical industry. One might as justly demand . . . all

operations of carding, spinning and weaving be carried out in the

same room, and by the same hands, as insist that children of

different ages and attainments should go to the same school and

be instructed by the same teacher (Lowell School Committee Report

of 1852 in Pratt, 1983, p. 9). Here lies the logic for our

factory model of schooling.

In 1837 Horace Mann became secretary of the state board of

Massachusetts; in 1843 Henry Barnard was assigned a similar

position in Connecticut. John Dewey sees these two events as

marking the beginning of our American system of public schools.

Between 1837 and 1850 grew up all the most characteristic

features of the American public- school system: from this time

date state normal schools, city training schools, county and

state institutes, teachers' associations, teachers' journals, the

institution of city superintendencies, supervisory officers, and

the development of state universities as the crown of the

public-school system of the commonwealth (Dewey, 1903, p. 228).

Here one sees foundations of our bureaucratic system of

schooling. Our modern classification system of elementary,

secondary, and post-secondary divisions of educational levels was

fairly well established by 1890. Age of entry to school was

standardized through laws requiring school attendance (Pratt,

1983). Natural Grouping

David Pratt (1983) presents a case for nongraded multiage

instruction by examining implications from anthropology, history,

and education. In simple societies, Pratt found interaction

between ages common. Heterogeneous groupings for a variety of

purposes appear to be the norm. Such interaction often seems

essential for natural development of the young.

Problems in implementing curriculum reform are increased by

certain structural characteristics of schools including

homogeneous age grouping. A further obstacle is ability

classification, a practice intensified after the introduction of

standardized testing around 1920.

An early attempt (1925) at instituting self-paced

individualized instructional programs is credited to Carleton

Washburne, Superintendent of Schools, Winnetka, Illinois.

Washburne saw variation in time as a necessary ingredient for

success in learning. To master the same material, some students

require more time than others. In adapting Washburne's system,

however, many school boards resorted to "dividing the students in

each grade into sections of slow, average, and rapid learners on

the basis of group intelligence tests" (Cremin, 1961 in Pratt,

1983, p. 15).

After World War II educational research began to address the

question of age grading. In 1948 the first empirical examination

of age grading was completed by Arthur Foshay for a doctoral

thesis at Teachers College. Classes combining three years were

compared with those using the conventional one-year approach.

Nonrandomly selected children of lower IQ made up the

experimental group. Findings showed less progress than projected

for these children in reading and arithmetic achievement.

Age-graded children chose friends from within the same age group

81% of the time. Children in the multiage group chose friends

from within the same age group just 46% of the time (Foshay, 1948

in Pratt, 1983; in Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).

In 1949 for a doctoral study at the University of Minnesota,

Dreier compared graduates from graded and nongraded elementary

schools in rural Minnesota. No important differences were found

between the two groups (Dreier, 1949 in Pratt, 1983).

In contrast to the two studies mentioned above, a 1956 study

conducted by Rehwoldt and Hamilton in Torrance, California,

showed significant advances both socially and academically by

pupils in multigrade classes (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).

Pratt located 27 experimental studies on age grading

conducted between 1948 and 1981. Ten of the 27 were doctoral

dissertations. Design is lacking in many of the studies.

Problems include difficulty in differentiating between effects of

age heterogeneity and effects of individualization and intraclass

grouping.

Regarding academic achievement, 3 studies favored

conventional grouping, 10 favored multiage grouping, 12 were

inconclusive. In the doctoral studies 1 favored conventional

grouping, 2 favored multiage grouping, 5 were inconclusive.

Regarding social/emotional development none of the 27 studies

favored conventional grouping, 9 favored multiage grouping, 6

were inconclusive. No doctoral studies favored conventional

grouping, 3 favored multiage grouping, 4 were inconclusive

(Pratt, 1983).

In surveying research studies conducted between 1968 and 1976

comparing graded and nongraded schools, Tamsen Banks Webb notes:

* favor of nongradedness over gradedness using measurements

of standardized tests;

* students in a nongraded structure may have improved chances

for good mental health and positive attitudes about school;

* longitudinal studies suggest the longer students are in

nongraded programs, the more likely they are to have higher

academic achievement and positive attitudes about school;

* mental health benefits for Blacks, boys, underachievers,

and students of lower SES appears to be enhanced by nongradedness

(Pavan, 1977 in Webb 1992).

Recent work by James P. Comer (Fiske, 1991) emphasizes need

for a community atmosphere in schools serving disadvantaged

youth. Miller (1990 in CRESS ERIC DIGEST, May 1991) reviewed 13

studies comparing academic achievement in single-grade and

multigrade classes. Studies showed no significant differences

between the two types of groups. Regarding student affect,

however, multigrade groupings appeared much stronger than

single-grade groupings. Important Generalizations

Major writing in the area of nongraded multiage grouping

became available in 1959 when John Goodlad and Robert Anderson

published

The Nongraded Elementary School. This book was revised

in 1963 and reissued in 1987. Goodlad and Anderson criticized

Procrustean attempts to shape children to fit the system. Greek

mythology tells us of the cruel robber, Procrustes (the

stretcher). When travelers sought his house for shelter, they

were tied onto an iron bedstead. If the traveler was shorter

than the bed, Procrustes stretched him out until he was the same

length as the bed. If he was longer, his limbs were chopped off

to make him fit. Procrustes shaped both short and tall until

they were equally long and equally dead.

Certain time-honored practices of pupil classification,

while perhaps not lethal, trap school-age travelers in much the

same fashion as Procrustes' bed trapped the unwary.

These

practices are concomitants of our graded system of school

organization (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987, p. 1).

In support of nongraded organizations, Goodlad and Anderson

point to important generalizations such as:

* children entering first grade range from three to four

years in readiness to benefit from a "graded minimum essentials"

approach to schooling;

* this ability range increases through the years and is

almost double by the time a child finishes elementary school;

* the achievement range of students reflects learning

readiness soon after first grade students receive normal school

instruction;

* for the same children achievement varies depending on area

of learning (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).

A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (Goodlad,

1984) offers an in-depth examination of 38 elementary, junior

high, and high schools. Goodlad and his associates determined

that these schools were representative of contemporary American

education.

The author details findings and offers restructuring

plans. A major aspect of these plans is the multiage nongraded

approach.

Many administrative and organizational problems exist in

implementing a nongraded educational structure. Often these

problems stem from our history of gradedness. With standardized

tests, textbooks, and other materials relying on the graded

educational structure, break with tradition becomes more

difficult. In addition, educators and parents are familiar with

gradedness, most having been schooled that way themselves.

Connel doubts customary age segregation in schools.

"Segregating children by sex, race, ethnic, or socioeconomic

differences is against the law. Is it right to segregate by

age?" (Connel, 1987 in Webb, 1992, p. 90). Self-Esteem

Research strongly indicates retention impacts negatively on

children's self-esteem and further achievement (Shepard & Smith,

1990 & Katz, 1988 in Webb, 1992; Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).

Elimination of nonpromotion is indicated through much literature.

Along this vein, Goodlad and Anderson suggest need to also

eliminate promotion (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987). Questions of

whether to promote or not to promote individual students can be

removed through an idea of continuous progress. Each student

proceeds through material which is often the same; the difference

is time. Nongradedness lends itself to this concept.

Lack of readiness in kindergarten follows the child through

later school years. Frustration because of lack of readiness to

master expectations of adults results in low self-esteem. Fetzer

and Ponder see the system of designating a child's class

according to birth date alone as "antiquated" (Fetzer & Ponder,

1988, p. 192).

A recent report published by the National Association of

Elementary School Principals identified 163 indicators of school

quality. Suggestions include: maximum class size of 20, or

fewer in the primary grades; grouping by needs, not by age and

grade only. School effectiveness is enhanced by the idea that

all students can learn (Raze, 1985).

The idea also enhances

student self-esteem. Grouping

Debate over grouping according to ability and achievement

measures has continued since 1920. Sputnik (1957) heightened

interest in identifying and encouraging children of high aptitude

to enter scientific fields. Ability grouping often results in

tracking where both students and teachers in low classes easily

can become discouraged. Hall and Findley (1971) suggest one

defect of this system is the small percentage of teachers who

prefer to teach the low achieving groups.

Goodlad (1984) views tracking as a repulsive practice that

often begins in primary school. Evidence shows "higher-achieving

students do not do better when together, and lower-achieving

students do much worse when together. Tracking clearly

discriminates and clearly perpetuates inequities among students .

. ." (Glickman, 1991, p. 5). Recommended alternatives are

groups of various sizes formed for special purposes and dissolved

when the specified purpose has been accomplished. Goodlad

reminds us of how much we learn by teaching others. Cooperative

learning, peer tutoring, and student leadership are just some

advantages of students helping each other. Leadership can change

and rotate according to need.

These practices are inherent to

the structure of one-room and other small schools.

Anton S. Makarenko devised such a plan in the Gorky Colony, a

multiage school for wayward youth established in the Ukraine in

the 1920's. After much trial and error, Makarenko successfully

arranged a system of mixed detachments where all colonists except

"the most glaringly unsuitable" (Makarenko, 1973, p. 356) served

as leaders. Depending on the project, mixed detachments were

scheduled and organized according to the job at hand. Upon

completion of a task, the group was dissolved. Mixed detachment

leaders were responsible for organization and quality control. A

leader in one group served as a follower in others. Each

colonist also belonged to a permanent detachment with a permanent

commander. Permanent detachments formed a "nucleus for the

colony" (Makarenko, 1973, p. 355). Standardized Testing Today

In an opinion paper on reorganizing American education, Leona

Tyler sees inadequate attention to individual differences; an

excess of compulsion. Age grouping "is perhaps the worst

possible strategy for maximizing the learning of individuals"

(Tyler, 1985, p. 1). "A Proposal for Reorganizing American

Public Education" cautions against focusing on averages of

standardized test scores rather than on the spread of scores.

This author criticizes reporters for lack of realization of a

naturally occurring situation.

They continue to be shocked at the

finding that half of any group tested is below the average of the

group. Human beings differ inherently in how much they learn and

how rapidly they learn it. Yet we go on categorizing them by age

and treating them all alike. What sense does it make to assign

the same tasks to all members of an age group and expect them all

to succeed equally well? (Tyler, 1985, p. 2).

Implications for Change

Literature on nongraded multiage instruction is plentiful.

Although empirical research is lacking in many specific areas,

review of writings on nongraded multiage grouping shows much

support by many well-respected educators. Findings on academic

achievement of graded and nongraded classes are inconclusive.

There does, however, seem to be evidence of positive social and

self-esteem advantages in a nongraded approach.

Another thread running through much of the literature concerns

belief that all children can learn -- the varying factor is time.

Some students require a longer period to master the same tasks.

Multiage nongraded groupings can vary in size depending on

purposes. Advantages of teaching as a method of enhancing one's

own learning is a device well known to educators. Implications

exist here for peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and valuable

leadership and followship experiences.

Teacher cycling, a common practice in small schools, is

mentioned in the literature. Advantages of teaching the same

students for several years include greater opportunity to know

those students well; possibilities for determining and designing

effective individual learning programs can be increased. Critics

of teacher cycling sometimes cite lack of exposure of students to

teachers of different talents. Here supporters often suggest

team teaching where educators can draw on the strengths of each

other.

Discussion Total Quality

In 1950 W. Edwards Deming, an industrial engineer, introduced

to Japan a method of statistical quality control. Over the last

several decades Deming's approach has become well-known as

quality control circles. An analysis of Deming shows there is a

basic misunderstanding of evaluation in manufacturing. Similar

confusion is shown by belief that objective testing is likely to

improve educational quality. A central point in this discussion

is the difference between standards and quality. Multiage

grouping in schools can achieve quality when people of various

ages work together to achieve results of distinction.

"

The Total Quality Classroom" (Bonstingl, 1992) applies to

education Deming's 14 principles for Total Quality Management

(TQM). John Jay Bonstingl sees relevant similarities of business

organizations and schools. Alan M. Blankstein (1992) explains

how five of Deming's principles translate into school terms.

Principals and superintendents are management or leadership;

teachers are employees, leaders, and managers; students are

employees; student knowledge is the product; parents and society

are customers; legislators are the board of directors. Lewis A.

Rhodes explores TQM concepts concerning values. He points to

importance of the totality of educational organizations. Work

processes encompass a unified system. Synergy

"In a school, everything important touches everything else of

importance," notes

Theodore Sizer recognizing "the synergistic

character of a school" (Sizer, 1991, p. 32). "No Pain, No Gain"

suggests restructuring often involves painful break with

tradition. Effective change demands attention to all parts of a

school.

"

The Quality School" (Glasser, 1990) is an adaptation of the

book by the same name where psychiatrist William Glasser, M.D.,

examines educational application of TQM. In analysis of control

theory, motivation theory, and non- coercive management employed

by "lead-managers," Glasser recognizes naturally resulting

high-quality educational outcomes. Our system must encourage

lead-management in teachers and principals. It must discourage

"boss- management," a scientific management approach employing

fear, coercion, and intimidation. Because of district office

bureaucratic power struggles, Glasser feels lead- management

usually must be initiated at the building level. He sees

teachers and principals as leaders who can make a real difference

in producing high quality American schools. Quality Versus

Standards

Can quality be defined, or is it more accurate to view

quality as a recognizable characteristic? Quality isn't something

you lay on top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas

tree. Real Quality must be the source of the subjects and

objects, the cone from which the tree must start. To arrive at

this Quality requires a somewhat different procedure from . . . .

"Step 1, Step 2, Step 3" instructions . . . (Pirsig, 1974, p.

262).

"Quality can be defined only in terms of the agent. Who is

the judge of quality?" (Deming, 1986, p. 168). Deming sees

determination of quality as involving three agents, including

workers and managers as well as customers.

Multiage nongraded grouping in American education offers a

framework where quality can be found through development of

uniquely appropriate strategies. Quality is realizing the

potential within an environment. Choice in District 4

Quality was the concern in Community School District 4, East

Harlem, New York. Choice developed as a way to improve education

of inner-city students. Almost all students are members of

minority groups.

There is a high poverty level. Test scores of

District 4 in the early 1970's were lowest or almost the lowest

of all 32 school districts of New York City. Superintendent

Anthony Alvarado gave teachers and administrators opportunities

and authority to improve education in their classes by devising

their own programs.

They then received resources to "turn their

ideas into little schools" (Fiske, 1991, p. 181). Students and

parents who shared their vision could choose to attend a

particular school.

In 1974 Deborah Meier with 100 children opened Central Park

East Elementary School.

The school served grades K-2 only.

Children who attended came because their parents chose the

school. Central Park East uses child-centered approaches to

learning and stresses content, thinking, experimenting,

discussion, research, and writing. Dramatic success of the

school gave rise to two others, Central Park East II and River

East. Central Park East Secondary School, part of Ted Sizer's

Coalition of Essential Schools, opened in 1985.

The 50 District

4 schools include alternative, bilingual, and theme schools. All

began as small schools. Rather than grow larger, popular schools

were copied in new locations. "Less is Better" is the district

belief. "Fewer students per school and classroom, less

bureaucracy, and less top-down management make up their reform

formula. [Says Mrs. Meier,] `Small schools are not the answer,

but without them none of the proposed answers stands a chance'"

(Fiske, 1991, p. 184).

Holweide Comprehensive School

Located in Cologne, West Germany, Holweide Comprehensive

School is a contemporary example of quality education.

The

school began as an experiment in the mid- 1970's and serves the

equivalent of American grades 5 through 11. Culturally diverse

students include children of foreign guest workers and children

from single-parent or poor German families. Almost all pupils

are considered non- college bound.

Teams of teachers remain with the same students for the

entire six years of Holweide schooling. School administration is

composed of only one teaching principal and two assistants who

also teach. Students are not tracked according to assessed

ability. Teacher teams determine how to group students and how

to organize the school day. Readjustments are made as needed.

Because of this structure, authentic accountability is

possible. Since teachers have the same students for six years,

former instructors cannot be blamed for pupil deficiencies.

Teachers cannot pass problem students along to others. Teacher

teamwork increases chances of defining appropriate ways to

improve schooling of individual pupils. "Holweide's approach

thus turns the usual bureaucratic, assembly-line processing of

children into a teaching and learning enterprise, a moral

community" (Shanker, 1990, p. 351).

The School and Society

In reading early twentieth century Dewey and in reading

Goodlad's recent book (Goodlad, 1984), one is struck by recurrent

themes and by apparent inability of the American educational

system to adapt to changing circumstances. Schools are part of a

complex web of life.

The social change of which Dewey was an

early prophet continues to evolve.

The philosopher's concern

with the exigency of learning to learn permeates his 1920

thinking. Dewey notes rapid progress of his times. Advances in

industrialization, transportation, and communication dictated

need to adapt to a continuously and quickly changing environment.

Experience and thinking involve connection of relationships.

This connection is essential for reasoning to occur. While all

thinking results in knowledge, ultimately the value of knowledge

is subordinate to its use in thinking. For we live not in a

settled and finished world, but in one which is going on, and

where our main task is prospective, and where retrospect -- and

all knowledge as distinct from thought is retrospect -- is of

value in the solidity, security and fertility it affords our

dealings with the future (Dewey, 1920, pp. 177-178).

Implications of such thought exist today in our post- industrial

information age.

The core of Dewey's educational theory was encouragement of

flexibility, creativity, and practicality in individual thinking.

His argument suggests these qualities are required of a broadly

democratic society as he defined it. Public schools were

originally designed for students who would settle well into

industrial discipline. Waves of immigrants arriving in the

mid-nineteenth century were socialized to American ways through

the public schools.

As a segment of society, early public schooling saw as part

of its role this preparation of factory workers. Assembly lines

were largely staffed by immigrants from foreign countries and

rural America. Factory-like compartmentalization was reflected

in physical traits of schools (rows of nailed down desks) as well

as in curriculum with its segmented structure. Subjects were and

often are separated from other subjects and from life itself.

Dewey is a prophet of contemporary critics of our educational

system.

The American school system is not working. Goodlad

(1984) sees necessity for change even in our best schools.

The system designed to produce factory workers is no longer

relevant. Rather than factory mentality, we need reason --

reason derived from thinking and knowledge. As technology rushes

forward, it is imperative for citizens to have learned how to

learn. Dewey saw schools as small communities where students

grasp larger concepts through smaller concepts relevant to their

own worlds. Individual discovery of findings established

centuries earlier, are new in the sense of unique interpretation.

As a child uncovers wonders of nature, the individual's

revelation is as fresh as an initial discovery. Goodlad (1984)

sees the role of schools as communities for changing society, not

as mere reflections. Sadly, what we often see inside of our

schools is a mirror image of what is wrong outside.

Dewey the philosopher and social theorist based much of his

thought on the social sciences and psychology. He spoke of

organizations as the organic whole. As industry changes from

production lines to cooperative work groups, X

Theory becomes

Theory Z.

Traditional schools espouse X

Theory (individuals are

inherently unmotivated, needing coercion to work or learn).

Dewey's school is based on

Theory Z (learning occurs naturally

through relevance). Organizational structure of small schools

lends itself to Type-Z application.

The nongraded multiage approach is an attempt to break out of

the industrial mold and teach the child as an individual being,

rather than as a product to be processed. Age segregation is as

unnatural as subject matter segregation. Retention shatters

self-esteem into small bits. Goodlad proposes teacher cycling,

schools within schools, and multiage nongraded grouping in an

effort to bring continuity to schooling.

Summary

Factors impacting on nineteenth century enthusiasm for

gradedness include teacher training through normal schools,

growing popularity of textbooks, population movement from rural

to urban areas, industrialization, and consolidation. According

to Dewey, most features of our American educational system were

instituted between 1837 and 1850. Gradedness is part of this

American tradition.

Proponents of multiage grouping see it as a natural order of

society. Studies of simple societies and early American history

reflect such grouping. Small colonial schools featured

variations of multiage groupings.

These practices are seen today

in many small schools. Demand for community and calm focus in

schools is particularly essential today because of deteriorating

family conditions.

Many respected educators of the twentieth century vigorously

uphold concepts of multiage nongraded educational organization;

many suggest problems with implementation. Benefits of multiage

grouping advanced by advocates include individualized self-paced

instruction, opportunity for increased self-esteem, leadership

and followship experiences, peer tutoring, and cooperative

learning. Multiage nongraded schooling, an inherent aspect of

small school structure, lends itself to a child-centered learning

approach where creativity and individuality are respected and

enhanced.

Organizational features of one-room and small schools make

multiage nongraded grouping natural.

The FDOE defines twelve

characteristics to be considered in improving schools. General

areas for attention include goals, focus, leadership,

expectations, instruction, collaboration, development, order,

time, involvement, incentives, and evaluation (FDOE, 1990).

Chapter 3 describes these areas as perceived by small nonpublic

schools in Florida.

CHAPTER 3

NONPUBLIC SCHOOL SURVEY

Private Schools in America Numbers

In 1987-88, there were more than 105,000 elementary,

secondary, or combined schools. Of these schools, 78,600 were

public and 26,800 were private. More than 45,100,000 students

attended these schools: 39,900,000 went to public schools, and

5,200,000 [11.5%] went to private schools.

The average school had 428 students. Public schools were

larger (averaging 508 students) than private schools (averaging

195 students).

In 1987-88 there were just over 2,630,000 elementary and

secondary school teachers: about 2,320,000 public school

teachers and 307,000 private school teachers.

There were more

than 103,000 school principals (National Center for Education

Statistics [NCES], July 1992, School and Staffing Survey (SASS),

1987-88, p. v).

In public schools less than 1% of urban and suburban schools

enroll less than 150 students; 3.4% of rural schools enroll less

than 150 students. In nonpublic schools, about 12% of urban and

suburban schools and 31% of rural/small city schools have less

than 150 students.

The average size of these small (150 students

or less) schools is 70 (NCES, July 1992, pp. 10-11).

The sample of 63 Florida schools used in this study averaged

62.9 students in size. Forty-five percent of the 138 schools in

the sample responded.

The 39 schools with enrollments below 64

were called "small" and 24 with enrollments above 64 called

"big".

Nationally the Amish have the smallest nonpublic schools

followed by the Mennonites and the Seventh-day Adventists. Roman

Catholics (average enrollment 291) tend to have larger schools.

Average public elementary school enrollment is 550; secondary is

1,100; overall 650 (NCES, p. 10).

Although one expects small schools to have a lower student to

teacher ratio (Figure 3.2), this is not always true. Small

school size and small class size are not the same issues.

Students in Roman Catholic schools make up about 64.6% of

nonpublic school students in the United States. Figure 3.1 gives

number of schools and enrollments. In Florida (Figure 3.3) Roman

Catholic school students make up 36% of nonpublic school

students. Students attending Baptist schools in Florida comprise

12.7% of nonpublic school students compared to 6.8% nationally.

Florida reports more "other" nonreligious schools (20.7%) than

the national average of 11.7%.

Different methods of counting explain differences between

Florida figures and national figures.

The NCES (July 1992)

survey did not count hospital schools, daycare centers with

kindergarten only, or privately run special education and

juvenile detention centers. A large number (1000) of

kindergartens in Florida are attached to daycare centers. A

large number of these are not counted as schools by the NCES

(July 1992) survey. First grade must be part of the school for

NCES to include them. In Characteristics of Nonpublic Schools

in Florida, 1990-91 (FDOE, 1991), Florida also counts some home

education centers where regular classes are not meeting four

hours per day.

NCES (July 1992) eliminated home schools from the Schools and

Staffing Survey - 1987-88 (SASS). In cooperation with the United

States Census Bureau, NCES used field representatives to check

telephone books, state department of education lists, and lists

from private school associations to make the SASS as accurate as

possible.

The state of Florida did not have such extensive

resources.

Therefore, the Florida list (FDOE, October 1991)

contains home schools, hospital schools, marine institutes,

juvenile treatment programs, and many private

daycare/kindergartens.

In Florida nonpublic school students represent about 9.5%

(compared to about 11.5% nationally) of all elementary and

secondary school students (about 200,000 of the 2.2 million

school children). About 70% of Florida nonpublic school students

attend elementary schools, as they do nationally (Figure 1.2).

Nationally, 16% of elementary school students attend

nonpublic schools; and 7% of secondary school students attend

nonpublic schools. Teacher Perceptions

Nonpublic school teachers are paid less than public school

teachers. Many more nonpublic school teachers are part time

teachers than public school teachers. NCES (July 1992, pp.

64-65) figures show $18,378 (nonpublic teacher annual salary

compared to $27,231 (public teacher annual salary). However,

nonpublic school teachers are happier.

They feel they have more

influence and would take up teaching again (NCES, July 1992, pp.

98-99). Even more interesting, teachers in smaller schools are

happier than teachers in larger schools. Fifty percent of

nonpublic school teachers in schools enrolling less than 150

students certainly would be a teacher again, while only 30% of

public school teachers in schools enrolling over 750 students

would choose the same profession if given that option. This is

true regardless of being urban, suburban, or rural small city.

School size appears to be a factor of teacher satisfaction with

work and having a feeling of input into decision making.

Sixty-two percent of nonpublic school teachers in schools of less

than 150 students feel they have a great deal of influence on

discipline policy compared to 22.5% of public school teachers in

schools of 750 students or more.

Percentage of nonpublic and public school teachers who were

highly satisfied with various aspects of working conditions

(NCES, July 1992, p. 82-83): * Overall view of working

conditions (highly satified): Public 750 or more students -

25.6% of teachers Nonpublic less than 150 students - 52.6% of

teachers * Administrative support/establish common goals: Public

750 or more students - 12% Nonpublic less than 150 students -

37.8% * Buffering/enforcement of rules: Public 750 or more

students - 21.5% Nonpublic less than 150 students - 64.3% *

Collaborative norms/teacher participation in decision making:

Public 750 or more students - 4.1% Nonpublic less than 150

students - 29.2% * Adequacy of resources: Public 750 or more

students - 2.3% Nonpublic less than 150 - 1.7%

The smaller the school (both public and nonpublic), the more

positively teachers view working conditions, administrative

buffering and enforcement of rules, and collaborative decision

making. Nonpublic schools, however, are far ahead in all these

criteria except for resources where scores are universally low

(NCES, July 1992, pp. 82- 83). Small School Survey

Fifty-nine schools responded to the Small School Survey

(Appendix A, Survey Instrument).

Question 1 - Most students are in multi-age classes.

The

average answer was 3.9 which is between undecided and agree.

The

sample was broken at the average size of respondents' schools

which was 65.5 students. Those schools enrolling 65 or more

students are called "big," and schools enrolling less than 64

students are called "small."

The small schools answered an

average of 4.3 on Question 1. On Question 1 the larger schools

answered 3.2 (Figure 3.6).

The difference is 1.1 (Figure 3.5).

The schools with less than 64 students tend to have multiage

classes (Figure 3.4).

Question 2 - Teachers have groups of students with three or

more years difference in age.

The average answer was 3.7

(between undecided and agree). Again the smaller schools are

more likely to have classes of students with three or more years

difference than the larger schools.

Question 3 - Students spend more than one year with the same

teacher.

The average answer was 4.0 (agree) with the small

school answer being 4.6 (between agree and agree strongly).

Small school students are more likely to spend more than one year

with the same teacher.

Question 4 - Students learn to study on their own. Students

in smaller schools are more likely to learn to study on their

own.

The average for all schools was 4 (agree) but the small

schools answered 4.5 (between agree and agree strongly).

Question 5 - Teachers, parents, students, and administration

share a vision for the school.

The overall score was 4.5

(between agree and agree strongly).

There was a small

difference, but vision sharing may be slightly clearer for larger

schools. No difference was reflected in religious and

nonreligious schools in any of the questions. Clear goals is

identified as Goal 1 in What Do Effective Schools Have In Common?

"Teachers and principals in effective schools express their

expectations clearly, so students and parents understand that

high academic standards have been established (Brookover, 1979;

Lee County, 1985). Schools that reach board consensus on their

goals and expectations are more likely to be successful" (Purkey

& Smith, 1983 in FDOE, June 1990, p. 2).

Question 6 -

The principal is highly visible around the

school.

The average answer was 4.5 (between agree and agree

strongly). No difference was evident between small and larger

schools. Some teaching principals answered not applicable to

this question.

Question 7 -

There is clear and effective instructional

leadership from the school principal. Schools report they have

good leadership (4.6). Questions 6 and 7 relate to strong

leadership, Goal 3 of What Do Effective Schools Have In Common?

Effective schools have effective principals. It would be

difficult to overstate the importance of the principal's role in

any school improvement effort, for the principal occupies a

"strategic position in the school organizational structure for

developing and maintaining a school climate conducive to

learning" (Block, 1983). As the chief officer of a school, the

principal must lead by visible example (FDOE, June 1990, p. 6).

Question 8 - Teachers believe students can master basic skills.

Teachers believe each child can master basic skills (4.7).

Question 9 - Low-achieving students are called upon as often

as other students. Most respondents answered they think so

(4.4). Questions 8 and 9 relate to high expectations, Goal 4 of

What Do Effective Schools Have In Common? Teachers and

administrators believe they can create a climate in which all

students can learn and improve. Teachers let children know they

are capable of good work and that it will be expected of them.

Students feel they can positively affect their futures . . . .

The landmark 1968 study, Pygmalion in the Classroom, by

Rosenthal and Jacobsen, demonstrated that when teachers had low

expectations, even of high achieving children, those expectations

became a self-fulfilling prophecy and the students performed

poorly (FDOE, June 1990, p. 8).

Question 10 - Subject objectives are coordinated and

monitored through all grades. Yes -- 4.5, between agree and

strongly agree. Goal 5 of What Do Effective Schools Have In

Common? concerns having a focused instructional program.

Instructional programs in effective schools focus on the

achievement of clearly defined and displayed objectives.

Commonly stressed is student acquisition of basic skills,

particularly reading and math skills. Effective schools

implement programs to help students with learning difficulties,

and adapt their curriculum and instructional strategies to

individual classroom needs (Levine & Stark 1981). Once basic

skills are mastered, successful schools focus on higher

order/critical thinking skills.

The curriculum is well-planned

and designed to provide continuity across grades and subjects

(FDOE, June 1990, p. 10).

Question 11 - Administrators, teachers, and parents

participate in school planning and decision-making processes.

There is not universal agreement (3.9 between undecided and

agree).

There is no difference in school size or religious or

nonreligious.

Question 12 - School coordination reflects democratic

decision-making. As in Question 11 on participation, there is

some doubt about full democratic decision making (3.7). Goal 6

of What Do Effective Schools Have In Common? discusses

collaborative decision making. Comprehensive school improvement

involves the entire school structure, so principals, teachers,

advisory committees, teachers' unions, parents, and students

should participate to some degree in the planning and

decision-making process. As Thomas Sergiovanni and John Moore

write in Schooling for Tomorrow (1989), "the model of an

individual who unilaterally `runs' a school no longer works very

well." Schools wanting to improve recognize this and develop

many kinds of leadership among the school community. Teachers,

for example, are the critical component in the delivery of

instruction in a school, so their input in decisions involving

curriculum is vital (FDOE, June 1990, p. 14).

Question 13 - Generally, student discipline is not an issue

at the school. Average answer was 3.9 (agree). Goal 8 concerns

order and discipline. Edmonds (1979, 1982) reported that a school

must have an orderly, safe, clean, and otherwise pleasant

environment for effective learning to take place. In effective

schools there is an orderly purposeful atmosphere which is free

from the threat of physical harm.

The climate is not oppressive

and is conducive to teaching and learning (Edmonds & Lezotte,

1982 in Smock, 1986). Successful schools take stock of the

physical and disciplinary situations at their schools, and

faculty and staff work together to identify areas for

improvement. A written code of conduct is produced based on this

collaboration, and is distributed and explained to students and

parents. Rules are taught -- not merely announced (FDOE, June

1990, p. 20).

Question 14 - Outside interruptions rarely interfere with

instructional time. Average answer was 3.86.

Question 15 - Classroom time is focused on content and

students are involved in active learning. Large and small,

religious and nonreligious schools indicated an average of 4.6

(between agree and agree strongly). Goal 9 is Maximized Learning

Time. "How teachers manage available classroom time is more

important than the actual number of minutes allocated for

instruction" (Block, 1983 in FDOE, June 1990, p. 23).

Question 16 -

There is an active parent group in the school

involving a majority of parents. Surprisingly, a low score was

reflected on average (3.3 or undecided). One would think in

small nonpublic schools parents would be very active. Perhaps

working parents are not as active as respondents think they could

be. This is also reflected in Question 17.

Question 17 - Ninety to 100 percent of parents attend

scheduled parent-teacher conferences. Average answer was 3.8

(between undecided and agree). This may still be higher than in

many large schools. Smaller nonpublic schools indicated a

greater parental attendance at conferences. Goal 10 concerns

Parent/Community Involvement. Schools which are successful in

improving achievement actively encourage and assist parents to

help their children master essential skills, particularly with

regard to homework. Effective schools welcome parents and meet

with them often, providing parents with various options for

becoming involved in schooling -- especially in ways that support

the instructional program (Armour, 1976; Block, 1983; Brookover

et al., 1979; California SDE, 1977; Cotton, 1980; Edmonds &

Fredericksen, 1979; Fetters et al., 1968; Fisher et al., 1980;

Gigliotti & Brookover, 1975; Levine & Stark, 1981; New York SDE,

1974; Wilson, 1981 in FDOE, June 1990, p. 25).

Question 18 - Assessments measure what students are expected

to learn. Average answer was 4 (agree).

Question 19 - Assessment information is used regularly to

improve curriculum and instruction. Average answer was 4.3

(agree). Goal 12 is Careful and Continuous Evaluation. "Student

achievement and overall school improvement efforts are monitored

carefully and frequently. Progress is noted and made public.

Activities are modified and refined as necessary to improve

performance and the instructional program (Block, 1983; Edmonds,

1979; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Squires et al., 1983; Weber, 1971 in

FDOE, June 1990, p. 30).

There is a high level of agreement among all of the schools

that students can master basic skills (Question 8); low achieving

students are called upon as often as other students (Question 9);

curriculum is coordinated (Question 10); and classroom time is

focused and students are active in their learning (Question 15).

See Figure 3.4 for average responses to the 19 questions.

See Figures 3.5 and 3.6 for the differences between smaller and

larger schools. Figure 3.6 shows average scores of larger and

smaller schools.

Conclusion

Small schools seem to be happy schools.

They tend to have

high levels of participation, cooperation, and coordination.

Students in small schools are likely to spend time on task, learn

good study habits, and become self- reliant. Structure of the

school requires high levels of participation by all students.

Standardized test scores appear to be at least equal to larger

schools, holding SES constant. Small school structure offers

greater opportunity for educational quality. Some reasons are

discussed below. Quality in Education

Deming's philosophy represents a conceptual shift in how we

view organizations. Quality does not result from inspection.

Inspection and standards reduce rather than promote excellence.

Quotas, inspections, and slogans exhorting persons to work harder

and faster do not motivate.

They merely defeat the purpose.

We must pay attention to process, but effective process cannot

be prescribed. It is developed through attention to guiding

principles. Process in any organization is unique. Harmonious

relations should bloom spontaneously as flowers do. It is a poor

workshop where operators and foremen are considered to be part of

the machinery and required to do a job specified by set

standards. What constitutes a human being is the ability to

think. A workshop [and a school] should become . . . place[s]

where people can think and use their wisdom (Ouchi, 1981, p.

228).

Inspection of schooling through instruments such as

standardized tests does not improve quality. Emphasis on

teamwork rather than on individual competition enhances

productivity. Grades and similar assessment measures do not

promote excellence.

They defeat it. Some leaders forget an

important mathematical theorem that if 20 people are engaged on a

job, 2 will fall at the bottom 10 per cent, no matter what . . .

.

The important problem is not the bottom 10 per cent, but who

is statistically out of line and in need of help (Deming, 1986,

p. 56).

Asking teachers and schools to rework mistakes following

years of system failure is not a feasible path to improved

educational outcomes. Parents and communities must work with

teachers and administrators in developing and adapting a process

capable of yielding educated, skilled, value-driven youth.

Adapting Deming to schools involves restructuring our

educational organizations as dramatically as the Japanese

restructured their business organizations. Dewey's presence can

be seen in efforts to adapt Deming to education. Thinking and

Doing

Schools must, as Dewey advised, reconnect thinking and doing.

Group and teamwork, projects, integrated curriculum, peer

tutoring, and teacher as facilitator reflect views of both Dewey

and Deming. Multiage nongraded grouping is a logical framework

where such educational approaches can work.

In education as in industry "defects are not free. Somebody

makes them, and gets paid for making them" (Deming, 1986, p. 11).

Rework of defective goods is not free; it is expensive.

The

product of schools is student knowledge. When student knowledge

is defective, it must be reworked, compounding time and expense.

Members of the educational community who define quality --

students, teachers, administrators, and society must have input

into our system of education.

As organizations mature and grow in size, they tend to become

more structured and bureaucratic. Bureaucracy separates thinking

from doing (teacher-proof curriculum, textbooks, etc.). Under

scientific management the doer merely follows instructions.

Doers are often placed in difficult and unmotivating

circumstances.

There may be fool-proof systems, but often the

fools are too clever. This results in more inspections, more

layers of management, more bureaucracy.

Years after publication of A Nation at Risk (1983), American

Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker notes

implementation of numerous and various school reforms throughout

our country. Largely, these attempts have not positively

affected student learning (Shanker, 1990). Often in education

sound ideas are found "ineffective" following poor

implementation. Sometimes implementors fail to follow guidelines

closely enough. Consolidation of One-Room Schools

Public schools grew up with the factory system. Scientific

managerial practice suggested division of labor into separate

units; division of time marked by bells. Rows of desks were

attached to floors. Textbooks were divided into units.

Teachers, standing before the class, covered material in

specified segments of time. Students, seated in fixed desks, all

"learned" in standard fashion.

The advent of school busses -- "with comfortable seats,

heaters, windows, and front and rear doors" (Covert, 1928, p. 2)

-- and paved roads encouraged consolidation of small schools into

larger factory-like buildings. Scientific management encouraged

standardized testing as an accurate measure of educational

effectiveness. Because of lack of documentation, we will never

know if or how effective one- room nongraded schools were.

During the early part of the twentieth century a prejudice

evolved-- one-room schools lacked the latest in fashion and the

latest in facilities.

There was much local control of one-room

schools. Consolidation reflected political power as well as

educational and managerial theory of the times.

Education concerns character and thinking. Many educators

have long been uncomfortable with the factory system of schooling

and its large impersonal bureaucratic organization. Education is

personal and moral. With the economy moving away from factories

into information processing, old style industry is disappearing.

Eighty percent of employment today is in small business and

information processing. Schooling has always followed the

leading economic institutions of the period. Education now is

dealing with down-sizing, decentralizing, school-based

management, and other ideas currently fashionable in the

industrial world.

As Dewey was the prophet of post-industrial management

styles, he was keenly aware of human and moral dimensions of

education.

The connection of thinking with doing, of learning

with practice is critical in modern information- processing

businesses. It is equally critical in education. Small is

beautiful. Less is more. Fix the System

American schooling faces a serious systems problem. Deming

urges business and industrial management to fix the system, not

the blame. Students must be viewed as workers, not products to

be processed. "

The traditional model of schooling is . . .

incompatible with the idea that students are workers, that

learning must be active, and that children learn in different

ways and at different rates" (Shanker, 1990, p. 350). Too many

American schools today remain based on the factory model where

employees produce piecework and scientific managerial principles

are administrative guidelines. Small Schools and Educational

Quality

In a small school quality is easier to accomplish. With

fewer students and fewer disruptions, teachers can focus on

children. With teacher cycling and multiage nongraded grouping a

learning community evolves. Students cannot merely lean on their

shovels.

They must be involved in their own learning. Good or

great education can happen anywhere.

Smaller school size is not the entire answer to America's

present educational dilemma, but it is a viable place to start.

For size to help significantly, schools must become small enough

for people to know each other well. Small schools offer

opportunities for development of stable, caring learning

communities.

Today America has about 8500 small nonpublic schools and about

1000 one-room public schools. Evidence suggests these schools

are interesting and worthy of further study.

Small schools and small sailboats are reminders of our simpler

past. Small schools involve a human connection of teachers and

children. Small sailboats involve a spiritual connection of

sailors and surroundings. Supertankers on autopilot involve a

disconnection of thinking and doing.

Edward B. Fiske argues . . . the time for tinkering with the

current system of public education is over. After a decade of

trying to make the system work better by such means as more

testing, higher salaries, and tighter curriculums, we must now

face up to the fact that anything short of fundamental structural

change is futile. . . . . American public schools grew up around

an early industrial model that has outlived its usefulness in

education as well as in the industry that created it.

The

renewal of public education in this country requires nothing less

than a frontal assault on every aspect of schooling -- the way we

run districts, organize classrooms, use time, measure

achievement, assign students, relate schools to their

surroundings, and hold people accountable. Trying to get more

learning out of the current system is like trying to get the Pony

Express to compete with the telegraph by breeding faster ponies

(Fiske, 1991, p. 14-15). A major helpful educational reform is

simply making schools smaller --

MUCH smaller.