At the beginning of the new school year your child might 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. 

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  by ages.

Composite classes don’t mean your child is under or over achieving. They don’t mean that that your child will get work that is too hard or not hard enough.

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.  There is no hard and fast rule that says a ‘straight’ class will meet a child’s needs any better than a composite class.

The good thing about composite classes is that they draw attention to individual needs and development and facilitate individualised learning (sometimes called Personalised Learning).

Composite classes can provide significant benefits to both the younger and older students in the class. Older students can 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. 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. Research from the UK has shown children in composite classes do ‘no better or worse’ academically than their peers in a straight grade classes, 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 & 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. The most important factor in reading success was the nature and the quality of the instruction.

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.

References:

Wilkinson, I., & Hamilton, R. (2003). Learning to read in composite (multigrade) classes in New Zealand: teachers make the difference. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 221-235.

Wilson, V. (2003) All in together: An overview of the literature on composite classes. Edinburgh: SCRE Centre.

VEENMAN, S. (1995). Cognitive and non-cognitive effects of multigrade and multi-age classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(4)

Acknowledgement:

Susanne Witt. ACT Parents and Citizens Newsletter, April, 2004.