Composite Classes - Stages not Ages

At the beginning of the new school year your child may be in a composite class. If your child is younger you may query - will my child be able to keep up? If they are older - will my child be held up?

By “composite classes,” we mean putting two consecutive year-groups together in one class. Some of the overseas literature refers to multiple ages in the one class, such as you would associate with small country schools where you may find a bigger range of ages in the same class.

Composite classes are formed in most schools partly because of the way in which the pupil roll is configured in any given year (i.e. - the numbers of pupils in different year groups). It is not uncommon for this situation to change from year to year as the sizes of year groups can vary quite dramatically. In 2013 the numbers of students in year 5 and 6 are insufficient to form 6 straight classes.

Over the years composite classes have been the source of controversy, with parents sometimes believing that their child is being disadvantaged in some way if they are placed in a composite class.
The key to understanding composites is realising that growth is determined in stages and not magically by ages.

Although a child might be chronologically older or younger - their maturity, social needs, academic needs and behaviour are uniquely their own. Some need stimulating, some need more maturing. Some have needs in certain areas, but not in others. An obvious example is that although all 7 year olds may be the same age, it is unrealistic to expect that they are all at the same level of ability in reading or in PE, etc. even if they are all placed together in one class. Far better that they be grouped according to need, thus they will gain confidence and skill by working with their peer ability level. There is no hard and fast rule that says a ‘straight’ class will meet a child’s needs any better than a composite class. Children all get there, the path may be different but the destination is the same.

It makes sense then to group children who are going through the similar stage so they can relate, help and experience together. Even within the same class, children will be at different levels. New Zealand teachers are trained in identifying this. We are renowned the world over for extending those who learn more quickly and supporting those who are slower. Unlike other countries where whole-class teaching is often the norm, NZ teachers are trained to teach in ability groups. Straight classes require as much group teaching as composite classes because this is the hallmark of good teaching. There is no difference in the range of abilities present in a straight class compared to a composite.
The good thing about composite classes is that it draws attention to individual needs and development and facilitates individualised learning (sometimes called Personalised Learning).

Older students are not held back in composite classes. There is no one curriculum level per age group in NZ. It is not as simple as Year 1 learns Level 1, Year 2 learns Level 2. In fact, the NZ curriculum is set up in developmental bands which range from 1-3 years per level. Invariably students in any one class are all at different places on these curriculum bands, whether they be in straight classes or composites. Separate programmes are used, in most curriculum areas, for the different groups of students according to their level of development or ability level, and there are some whole class activities such as in art and drama.

Composite classes can provide significant benefits to both the younger and older students in the class. Older students  benefit from helping younger students in co-operative learning situations. The younger students have the opportunity of enhanced learning experiences where they are ready for it. There are many examples where younger children can show older ones a thing or two! Role models and leaders can come from both the younger and older children; the children who excel at these traits do so irrespective of age.

Research, both in New Zealand and overseas, has shown no detrimental academic effects from composite classes but many additional benefits. A major review of international research into multi-age classes was undertaken by Veenman (1995). He investigated 56 studies in 12 countries including Australia, looking at the cognitive and non-cognitive effects of multi-age and single-age classes. He found that there were no differences found with respect to maths, reading, or language and that with respect to attitudes towards school, self-concept and social adjustment, students are sometimes advantaged by being in multi-age classes instead of single-age classes.

Hattie (2009) a world renown New Zealand researcher has concluded that:
“across 34 studies comparing multi age classes there were no differences in achievement and there were small positive effects on student attitudes to school and self concept favouring these classes. Veenman (1995) concluded that  - parents, teachers and administrators need not worry about academic progress or social emotional adjustment of students in multi age classes. These classes are simply no better or worse than single age classes.”

Research from the UK has shown children in composite classes do ‘no better or worse’ academically than their peers in a straight grade class, but that, socially, their development is enhanced. They are more confident, can operate better as part of a group, are more assertive, become more independent learners and better problem-solvers. They also make friends outside of their standard age-groups. In later life, if we have a one year age difference with someone this becomes of no consequence.

A University of Glasgow study found that in Europe, there is“no evidence to show that composite classes affect pupils’ academic performance adversely. It is possible that pupils may gain socially from the experience and show non-cognitive benefits which to date have not been quantified… the academic performance of pupils in composites may ‘simply be no worse and simply no better’ than that of pupils in single-age classes. Some evidence from Scottish primary schools seems to suggest that pupils in composite classes may even have out-performed any other group in the… assessment process.”

Anderson &Amp; Parvan (1993) analysed 64 research studies in the US and Canada and found that schools with composite classes were most likely to benefit students from all circumstances and all ability ranges. They noted that longitudinal studies show that the longer the students are in a composite programme the more likely it is that they will have positive attitudes and high academic achievement. Of the 64 studies, 58% found that students in composite programmes had higher academic achievement scores than those students in single-graded programmes; 33% showed the attainment was the same and only 9% showed that the students in multi-age programmes performed worse.

A New Zealand research project led by Ian Wilkinson and Richard Hamilton to study learning to read in composite classes found that being in a composite class did not contribute to lower reading achievement. The most important factor in reading success was the nature and the quality of the instruction.

Composite classes are not new. They are a common form of class organisation in schools in all nations’ education systems. In most schools that adopt the practice, while straight classes may operate from time to time the decision is often based more on a “numbers game” caused by uneven patterns of enrolments. By juggling the numbers of students, schools attempt to come up with the best solutions to provide an equitable and practical school structure in any one school year. This ensures that no one age group in a school has too many or too few children in each class.

There is no empirical evidence for any assumption that student learning is hindered in composite classes. Ultimately, whether children are in composite or straight-age classes, it is not the age combinations that matter. What matters is the quality of teaching and learning and the relationship between the child and the teacher.

Reference sites
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/04/1070351719035.html?from=storyrhs
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/14/1068674374150.html
http://planningwithkids.com/2010/09/16/composite-classes/

Acknowledgement: Susanne Witt, Green Bay School

The waiting is over - National Standards data has hit the public domain. If it has done nothing else, it has stimulated a debate about student achievement in New Zealand that is probably long overdue. The responses to the release of this information by and large align with interest groups and was to be expected.

As professionals we owe it to our students and our schools to reflect critically on the information and respond with leadership.

Stuart Middleton, a well respected  New Zealand educationalist has started the debate. 

This is a reprint of Stuart Middleton's latest post from his BLOG EDTalkNZ

Stuart Middleton's EDTalkNZ

Talk-ED: Rdg btwn lines – Have we lost the plot?

September 24, 2012, 

Even if the stories in the media based on the National Standards data are wildly astray, even if the National Standards themselves might be flawed, even if a-whole-host-of-other-reasons- and-excuses, there is still good cause for concern about the lag in the results between writing skills and reading skills and the growing gap between girls and boys.
For a child that can speak, reading should come easily. Once the penny drops that those marks on the page are representation of something he or she already knows – words – then progress should follow. Once a child realises that those stories are about him or her and the world they live in then it quickly follows that the developing reader seeks the company of others through print and in worlds beyond their own.
So how does this process, mastered by so many, go astray? One answer has to be over issues of quantity. Some children read more than others, are read to more than others, receive books as presents more than others, snuggle up to Mum or Dad in an evening for a warm read more than others. They put in the hours and are greatly advantaged. Even though this all happens out of the reach of a teacher or a school, they come to the classroom task fitter and better prepared.
Then there are the considerations of relevance of material and so on. Reading is an inside out process in which children get meaning from print by bringing meaning to it. If the increasing diversity of students is not matched by diversity in the materials being used there will be an impact on progress. But schools are on to this.
So why the lag in the writing results? Well, it is obvious that you learn to read by reading but a little less obvious that you learn to write, no, not by writing but by reading. If reading development slows, writing development slows even more.
Comments following the stories in the press were initially on the impact of texting on language development and especially reading and writing. This was, I would suggest, well off the mark. Text language is a sophisticated use of language and requires sound reading skills to “de-code” the truncated forms of words. Even in reading conventional texts, readers get more clues from the skyline of the consonants than they do from the shape of the vowels. If texting impacts negatively on language development then it should impact much more widely and clearly across the whole cohort and yet it seems not to do so.
Now, what is this with the boys? This data makes sense only in relation to historical trends for there has always been a gap between boys and girls that flattens out over time. Boys start a little more slowly but do catch up. Has this gap increased? It is hard to tell from just one instrument.
So what would be the challenge posed by these media stories? Well, instead of indignation the education community could respond by taking a good look at the picture and assessing a little more closely any messages that are in it. I would guess that there is a concern about reading and writing – who cares about how large it is in national terms, the impact is at the level of each and every child for there has not been delivered to a school ready to learn these things (with the exception of the rare occasions when a child who cannot progress into uses of the printed word). The access to early childhood education could be a factor but one which primary schools have to deal with.
I wonder whether enough time is spent on teaching actual handwriting. The self-discovery of a version of printing seems to me to leave too many with a slow and laborious means of writing. On the other side of that question is the matter of using technological devices apart from a keyboard, can the touch screen be used effectively for writing without the skills of using a keyboard effectively – touching the letters one by one in the style of a hen eating grain does not constitute the skills of the touch-typist.
There is all that talk after Gladwell about 10,000 hours being important to really reach the highest level of proficiency in a skill. New Zealand students spend about 8,000 hours at school between the ages of 5 and 14 so clearly what happens outside of school is critical. Harnessing the community in the battle for proficient readers and writers will be critical. But first there has to be a clear emphasis on those areas.
Perhaps the curriculum now needs to be clearer in its expectations in these areas. Immediately I hear a great shout that this would be exactly what had been pointed out as the key danger of national standards – they would influence the curriculum. Well, if the curriculum is currently not producing readers and writers that would be a jolly good thing!
Finally, it is not enough simply to have only proficient readers and writers. As Vygotsky put it – “ideas are not merely expressed in words but come into being through them.” If we want our community to be nourished by elegant ideas then we need to have a supply of elegant readers and writers, those who use the language for good purposes and in ways that can inspire, challenge, clarify, argue, defend, express emotions, paint pictures, guide others and wallow in delight, mischief, light heartedness and powerful use of powerful words.
Reading and writing are much more than merely behaviours on a list is some educational statement, they are about the quality of our lives.

Reversal of class teacher ratio policy a welcome move

The announcement by our Minister Hekia Parata today that the government is to remove the changes to class teacher ratios is a welcome recognition that the original policy was both ill conceived and flawed. As a leader it takes some real fortitude to realise when you have made a huge mistake and be brave enough to fess up and make a change to right the wrong.

As committed educators here at Pinehill our only focus is delivering quality learning outcomes for our children and improving the achievement gains our students make.

There are other ways to save money in the education sector without compromising the quality learning most of our New Zealand schools are delivering.

At a time when savings need to be made in government expenditure, our challenge is work with the government in protecting the great things in our New Zealand education system.

Trust and collaboration is what is needed.

Class Size and Student Achievement


There's no getting away from it, a good teacher in a large class is better than an average teacher in a small class.  However, even a good teacher will have less time to support children's learning if class sizes increase. Good teachers in smaller classes equal better learning outcomes for all our children.

The misconception behind all the talk about teacher pupil ratios is that it is a resource funding ratio not a class size ratio at all. Our roll generates approximately 25 government funded staff positions based on current ratios. Of the 25 positions this includes the principals position, support teachers and non teaching management staff. At Pinehill this means nearly three (3) of the 25 government funded positions are not available to put into classes. This means we cannot provide the stated ratio of teachers to pupils. Our class sizes are already larger than those stated in the budget announcements.

Our school by and large has very good teachers delivering quality learning for all our students. The issue with the latest round of budget announcements on class pupil teacher ratios is that it could result in increased class sizes for Pinehill. Any increase in class size will have an impact on the number of interactions a teacher is able to have with a child - which may impact on the quality of the learning all our children enjoy.

While the politicians say repeatedly that its the schools choice about class size, the reality is that we have little flexibility on setting class size while retaining effective leadership and support for our teaching staff.

Here at Pinehill our Board has long recognised this by resourcing the provision of up to 2 additional teaching positions each year in order to maintain lower class sizes.  As a state funded public school, one needs to ask the question - Should this be necessary?

We will continue to deliver the best learning outcomes for all our children - in spite of Government policy, however if you find this policy concerning you may wish to write to our local MP and let him know your thoughts.

Thank you to everyone who came out and attended the parent information evening on digital learning. If you would like to view the slides from the presentation click on the link below.

http://www.slideshare.net/julienlesueur/digital-learning-pie-160512

http://www.slideshare.net/dakinane/2012-pinehill-parentmeeting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PQ3pSfKziU

Questions and comments, we look forward to your thoughts.

We have now confirmed the details for the Digital Learning Parent information evening. This will be held on Wednesday 16 May starting at 7.15 in the hall.

The first part of the evening will be a presentation outlining the role of digital learning and how it is impacting on our children. We will also discuss the DL survey results and some of the initiatives we are planning.

Part 2 will be a hands on demonstration of some of the work our children are doing using digital technologies to enhance their learning. A range of class levels will be on hand in Pohutukawa block for 30 minutes.

It is expected the evening will conclude at by 8.30pm.

We look forward to you joining us

A need for real change.....

They say there are two givens in life -  death and taxes. However in the world we live in, most people would agree that change should be added as the 3rd given.

Yet how often do we resist or fight change that is positive simply because of a fear of the unknown. In education we would probably be viewed as one of those institutions most resistant to change when in fact our role in society  -  to prepare our students for the world they are living in, demands we be responsive to changes in that world.

Our children born in the last 10 years ( let's be generous) are digital citizens. Their world is one of computers, smart phones, youtube, social media, Google... you could add many more. Yet as schools we are only just coming to realise the students we teach no longer engage with the methodologies of the past.  Why ? Partly because they can access their learning 24/7 and partly because the new technologies they have access to outside school are more engaging in an increasingly media centric world.

Imagine for a moment what this might have looked like in a 1960’s school. Children of the time live in a world of pencil, paper, radio and a little broadcast television. They arrive a school to find that these things are forbidden. Writing on slates is the only way children could record their writing.... Are you getting the picture. There would have been a revolution.

Back to today’s school. How much longer can we delay introducing the technologies that our children use at home into our schools. In a world where many older students are increasingly seeing school as an irrelevant part of their lives, schools effectiveness in preparing our children for the world they live in is at risk - unless we embrace the need to change both the way we teach  and the technologies we use.

Yes, there are some hurdles to jump. Cost of devices, equity of access,  security of equipment. These are not insurmountable obstacles. The longer we delay the inevitable, the more our learners will find schools as we know them, increasingly irrelevant.