Introduction

1. An average primary school teacher is ill equipped to handle a multigrade classroom situation. 2. The nature of the curriculum and textbooks, which are prepared almost entirely in a monograde context create further problems. 3. Teacher training programmes have not focused on practical issues and techniques for handling multigrade teaching studies. 4. There is no training package for multigrade teachers. The aspects could be; - Time management - Improving teaching skills - Preparation and organisation of the teaching learning materials. - Organisation of art and cultural activities. 5. Timetables are not flexible enough.
Teachers of MC should have extra preparation time. Teachers assigned to MC should preferable be those who are most willing to teach. In service and information concerning appropriate

groupings, classroom organization, instructional strategies and curriculum modification should be provided to principals and teachers. In a MC there is respect for different learning styles. Teachers structure a positive learning environment where children feel successful, develop positive selfconcepts and are helpful and sensitive to others. The student benefit from having the opportunity to stay with the same teacher and classmates and experience the same teaching style and routine over a two-year (ore more) period. In a MC there is time to recognize that a childs social and emotional needs are as important as academic needs. Another advantage of more than one year in a MC is the relationship developed between the teacher and the entire family. Students feel they are successful when they are working at their own level and know that everyone should be able to do the same thing at the same time. Each child is accepted at his or her own place on the developmental learning situation. The teacher takes time to assess evaluates and plan next steps for each child. Separate subjects are replaced by an integrated curriculum, which engages children in meaningful activities that explore concepts and topics relevant and meaningful to the lives of the children. In a classroom where all children are learning at different rates and are not all the same age, there is a little competition. By helping each other, students reinforce their own understanding of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Conversations are encouraged as the children talk through their work in progress. These conversations help them understand just what they have learned. Multigrade classrooms take the focus of meeting the needs of the whole group of learners instead meet the needs of each individual student.

I.

On the conference on MGT in 1988, organised by UNESCO, five general problems came out: a. Inadequately trained teachers. b. Scarcity of varied levels and types of materials. c. Lack of flexible and special types of curriculum organization. d. Inadequate school facilities. e. Lack of incentives for teachers in multiple classes.

II.

Multigrade in Vietnam, the problems. a. There is a serious shortage of teachers, especially skilled teachers for MGT. b. Teachers of MGT are working in different isolated conditions. c. The training of teachers for MG classes does not meet the requirement in either quality or

quantity. d. Most of the MG schools lack textbooks, guidebooks and reference material. e. Multigrade classes are in very bad conditions. III. What is the principals role in a multigrade school? a. The principal plays a key-role in creating a supportive school culture. b. The principal, the head teacher must ensure that all teachers feel supported. c. The head must provide teachers with opportunities to learn multigrade teaching methods, monitor the progress of implementation and give the teachers praise, feedback and suggestions. d. The head should be adept at facilitating positive, cooperative interactions among teaching team

members. IV. There are definite characteristics of successful multigrade teachers, which should be considered in teacher selection. a. Well-organized b. Creative and flexible c. Willing to work hard. d. Resource full. e. Self directed. f. Willing to work closely with the community. g. Strong belief in the importance of cooperation and personal responsibility in the classroom with the ability to develop these characteristics in pupils. h. Prior successful experience at the grade levels to be taught. V. Seven general types of activities found in most class rooms: a. Quiet or individual study.

b. Testing c. Whole class instruction. d. Partner work e. Group discussion f. Reference work.

QUESTIONS/ACTIVITY
1. How will / can you create an enabling and effective teaching- learning environment in a multigrade classroom. 2. How could teachers spend more time on a particular subject or practice work? 3. How can a teacher maintain discipline in a multigrade classroom? 4. Which teaching aids are specific for a multigrade teaching? 5. How can a teacher be enabled to organise the subject matter in the best possible way? 6. How can the teacher understand the gaps in his or her teaching method, and appreciate student needs better?

FACTS
1. Multigrade teachers must be trained to give different lessons at the same time to pupils at different grade levels. 2. Children sit in grade-groups facing their own blackboard (BB) 3. If there are two grade groups in the class the BB are placed either end of the classroom with children facing opposite directions. 4. During the lessons the teacher moves frequently between the different groups. 5. Give reading instructions to one grade; give dictation to the other grade. 6. One grade is copying handwriting math exercises from the BB, the other grade will be instructed on a new math item. 7. The extra work involved in multigrade teaching must be recognized by giving teachers 50% additional salary for two grades and 75% for three or more grades. 8. Teachers in multigrade classrooms must receive a lot of support and must meet regularly with teachers from other multigrade schools.

Multigrade Teaching a critical review of some of the literature

Introduction
Sometimes referred to as vertical grouping, the practice of multigrade teaching refers to the teaching of students of different ages, grades, and abilities in the same group. It is arguably an alternative to the age-grade form of school and class organisation in which students of the same age are grouped into the same grade regardless of other factors pertaining to levels of attainment. What it is not is mixed ability teaching in a single grade group (Little, A. 1995). The three papers selected here for critical examination are all very different; one is a piece of academic writing, drawing on research to substantiate its arguments, one is an evaluation report of a multigrade educational programme, and the final one is a manual for multigrade practitioners. As such, I will examine each in turn, setting out separate conclusions in a final paragraph after each section. The key areas for critical examination in all of the papers are: Teacher education and support Materials Curriculum Classroom practice In a case study from Vietnam, Aitkin and Pridmore summarise the importance of these issues: Teacher education was found to be often over-theoretical and tutor-led. There was little or no opportunity for guided trial and experimentation with the new approaches needed to promote independent and collaborative learning and no explicit recognition of the way in which such learning changes the role of the teacher from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side. Few teachers were able to apply their training to the real life context of their school and they were not supported in their efforts. There was lack of sensitivity in the curriculum and in teacher training to what pupils from an ethnic minority already knew, to the socio-cultural environment, to language and styles of learning (Pridmore, P. 2004: 7) These areas represent the loci of findings from much of the research carried out into the benefits of, and barriers to effective multigrade practice as a means of achieving education for all (EFA) by 2015.

It is in the light of growing evidence to support the notion that multugrade will help fill the gaps in achieving EFA by helping ensure basic education is available the hard-to-reach often the rural poor that the following papers are reviewed. 1. School and classroom organisation in the periphery. The assets of multigrade teaching by S.D. Rowley and H.D. Nielsen This work comprises one chapter in a book, which focuses on the challenges of delivering quality education for all and reaching the EFA target by 2015. The chapter is a review of the research in the field of multigrade teaching and sets out to show how different aspects of human life, culture and society in peripheral regions of developing countries can be used as assets in multigrade teaching. The work focuses on four conditioning factors of education, namely: classroom conditions, teachers, learners and the community. The authors set out the argument for how a multigrade model of classroom teaching may achieve the EFA goal. Arguably one of the key challenges to achieving education for all is located in the remotest regions, in areas in the poorest countries where small populations and tight budgets mean that the ratio of one teacher to one grade class is generally unobtainable. The authors point to the multigrade model providing a viable opportunity for school access to such populations (Rowley and Nielsen: 183). The flexibility inherent in the organisation of the grade levels in the multigrade school helps address wastage (absenteeism, repeating and drop-out rates at grade 1). In a school where multiple grades are taught simultaneously in one class period, and/or the curriculum is delivered over multi (probably two) yearly spans, the opportunities are greatly enhanced for students to re-enter after a stop-out period by eliminating the stigma attached to working below grade level on re-entry. The major effect of this flexibility is in helping to keep students motivated and capable of achieving results at their own pace. The chapter draws on statistical data to demonstrate how widespread multigrade practice is throughout the world, citing figures which show that the multigrade model is alive in both developed and developing regions (ibid: 185). The authors make the point, however, that despite the need for higher quality primary education as more and more governments come under globalised scrutiny to achieve the goal of primary education for all (EFA) by 2015, there are little or no designated strategies in place for multigrade teaching. This raises critical issues inherent to delivering quality education, i.e. teacher education, the provision of resources and materials and the design and implementation of curricular. The authors argue that the lack of strategy is particularly evident in the models of teacher education that concentrate on preparing teachers for monograde teaching. This issue is discussed in all the literature reviewed in this essay. The authors recount how historically the multigrade model of teaching was the prevalent model for education delivery in pre-industrial and agrarian societies. They analyse the influence of manufacturing principles on education and the move towards the industrial model of schooling, which divided learning into age-bound grades (ibid: 184). Critically, the authors argue that because of the way teaching practices are conceptualised within the predominant model of industrial education that this necessarily puts emphasis on what appear to be disadvantages of the multigrade pratice i.e. small buildings, sparse facilities, diverse student body. They call for an abandonment of this industrial model of education (agegraded, batch-processed classes) and a move towards what they term a family model, comparing the multigrade model to the family in that it:

 affords greater opportunity to socialise across grade levels and therefore often age levels in spaces where several grades work together approximates the natural mix of different ages familiar to learners in their own families. As such, taken within a context of the family concept of education model, the authors argue that the conditions of multigrade schooling can now be seen asassets rather than as constraints. As such, the emphasis is on multigrade practice as transformational. The authors make reference to research to lend weight to this argument and to analyse the principles of multigrade teaching and why it might be transformational. For example, they cite growing evidence that multigrade teaching can produce positive student learning outcomes (Reck, 1988: 16.) However, interestingly, they point out that few studies make detailed analysis of what it actually is in multigrade teaching practice that contributes to the favourable outcomes described in the research. While it may be the case that little has been done specifically in relation to multigrade practice, there is, however, a good deal of research available demonstrating how transformation in pedagogical practice can positively affect student learning outcomes, through a learner-centred pedagogy, personalised learning programmes, self-paced learning and peer tutoring. For example, a lot of work has been done in the UK on studying the way the progressive penetration of ICTs into schools is transforming teaching and learning. Combined with the deficit in the UK of teachers in specific subjects (mathematics, sciences and modern foreign languages), ICTs are being used to support non-specialist teachers with shared resources and lesson plans. In these classrooms, the teachers become learners and ICT becomes the vehicle, which engages the learners in discovery, transforming the role of teachers into managers of students enquiry. With a text book, a teacher can look up the answer, with a piece of software which generates problems randomly like a computer game, the non-specialist (and even the specialist) teacher becomes a part of a whole team solving the problem collaboratively, and the role of the teacher now becomes to manage that process. There is, I propose, a lot of parallels concerning transformation of teaching and learning that can be drawn between this example in the UK around which a lot of work and research is being done and the multigrade classroom. As such, I believe there is an evidence base that can be drawn on in order to analyse learning outcomes in relation to multigrade practice. The authors attempt to draw conclusions of their own with regards classroom management, such as time management, which they claim distinguishes the family attributes of multigrade teaching practice from the conventional industrial model in which the school timetable and classroom time is organised in a linear manner, the curriculum is organised according to fixed sequences and taught in small segments and learners progress through the material together. In the multigrade model, students of different ages might be combined in the study of the same material, even though they may not receive it in the same sequence in relation to other subjects in the same field. They use the example of the field of social studies, where the material might relate to world history, national history and local history. All of the grade groups will access the material in the three subjects, but not necessarily in the same order (ibid: 190). Critically, the authors cite examples of conventional school systems where the commonly held belief in the efficiency of the industrial model of grading and scheduling demonstrates weakness in implementation, which ultimately affects childrens access to education: In North Sumatra, three teachers taught two classes each by having them come in different shifts, one in the early morning, the other late. The teachers put in the conventional five-hour days, but each group of students met for only two and half hours. It is hard to imagine students making any great strides in learning with only three hours of instruction (ibid: 199).

In the way just demonstrated, case study provides a rich lens through which the authors examine what they term assets in more critical detail, and scrutinise the situations in multigrade schools in an attempt to get to the heart of what is obstructing best practices developing and becoming established. The authors cite an Indonesian case study to address the general perception that multigrade classrooms are overcrowded. The standard definition in Indonesia for its MGT school (three teachers and classrooms for 60 students) yields a comfortable student-teacher ratio of 20 (ibid: 188). They then go on to demonstrate where these figures become skewed is where many hardship posts fail to recruit the prescribed numbers of teachers or lose teachers during the year to resignation or transfer. The current projected deficit of teachers to achieve the goal of Education for All by 2015 is more than 30 million (UNESCO, 2005). The data in the chapter points out that where fully-trained teachers are scarce or unwilling to work in peripheral, often rural areas, multigrade schools may have a choice of untrained teachers or none at all. The work draws on quantitative data and the authors cite the example of Belize where 70% of teachers were untrained, i.e. defined as lacking a teacher certificate. That figure rose for grade 1 teachers to 84% (Rowley and Nielsen: 193). In these contexts, the authors pose the question whether these untrained teachers might not actually be viewed as assets? Often such teachers are individuals from the peripheral area in which they serve, for whom the local cultural and linguistic context is familiar and who are likely to have their homes and families in the local area. The authors argue that the combination of these factors differentiate these teachers positively from urban teachers, who generally have little long or even medium term commitment to staying in one place long enough to learn the complexities of multigrade teaching. This argument poses a strong rebuff to the notion of teacher certification and suggests radically different criteria for evaluating teachers value. Commenting on the Belize example, the authors draw on the literature: If the system (for recruitment generally deemed poor) had insisted on trained teachers, few of the home-grown teachers would have been appointed: in fact few of the village schools would have survived. This does not mean that teachers of MGT should remain untrained. A program now underway will provide opportunities for in-service training using a combination of distance and residential training (Nielsen, 1991). This is important, as it debates issues around where resourcing for teacher education is best placed: in initial teacher training or in ongoing continued professional development (CPD), and raises questions about how this is delivered both in terms of economics and efficacy. The authors emphasis that the area in which teachers need training and support in the multigrade model in developing countries is in resourcefulness. Multigrade models in developed countries such as Finland, the USA and Canada benefit from well-resourced classrooms with abundant materials, access to the internet and multimedia resources. In developing countries, where multigrade often represents the poorest school model, the resourcefulness of the teacher is that more critical. Often on the peripheral and cut off from professional contact, this can be a serious problem for the untrained and unsupported teacher. The authors go on to look at evidence that coping strategies devised in these situations are often practicing models of pedagogy that are burgeoning out of new western research in teaching and learning. This premise is related to the research in development context such as that commissioned for the World Bank into the effectiveness of peer tutoring (Peters, S: 2004). Teachers are using learners to help

cascade knowledge and information down to the younger learners. Teachers themselves may have to be learners along side their students as they grapple with concepts in unfamiliar subjects at the same time as their students, (as I cited in the case of the non-specialists in the UK). Instead of students being passive inputs into which value is added during successive levels of processing (as in the factory model of Fordist education) in multigrade organisations: Students are not only objects, but also subjects, contributing to the teaching process and other aspects of school operation The self-reliance and competence that even the youngest students bring to school is itself an asset (Ibid: 197). This is related to the constructivist notion of learning and links in with Piagets theory that largely attributes childrens progress in developing mental capacities, such as conceptual understanding, to their own independent experiences and discoveries. More recently work by Vygotsky has been concerned with how teaching, learning, and the cognitive development of childrens minds are related (Vygotsky, 1978), and the notion of zones of proximal development that takes the view that our knowledge of the world and the development of higher mental functions are mediated by our interaction with other human beings and the material world, (ehi et al, 2002).

Conclusion
Crucially, the paper draws out discussion of the issue of teacher education, and makes recommendations to address what might be put in place in the context of a developing country and remote, poorly resourced peripheral areas where most multigrade schools tend to be situated. It discusses adjustments that are necessary at the level of policy and school administrative and management systems. However, it has little to offer in the way of recommendations for frontline teachers, beyond citing examples of fruitful nurturing of school materials and curriculum areas by the parents and communities in which the schools are located. The praxis of the paper is in defining a process of transformation in main stream educational practices adopting pedagogy and organisation of the curriculum and school systems along the multigrade lines. This transformation would in theory raise the profile of the multigrade school and lead to standardisation and systemisation of multigrade training in initial and inset teacher educational programmes in the education system as a whole.

2. Struggling no more: An evaluation of Moltenos multigrade foundation phase classroom model by Herman Kotze This is a final evaluation report and as such would expect to draw its audience from personnel of institutions that are key stakeholders or funders of the Molteno Project in South Africa. In essence, Struggling No More is a research paper, since it seeks to add new knowledge to the subject area. It was written by a South African academic and educational consultant for the Western Cape Education Department (formerly University of Witwatersrand) and is an evaluation of the multigrade Molteno Foundation Phase Classroom model. The study is not about multigrade teaching and learning per se. However it sets out to evaluate the Molteno project, of which a key goal is to promote the notion of multigrade teaching and learning with or without the use of Molteno materials. The purpose of the report is to evaluate the programme and its impact on the quality of teaching and learning in farm schools in the Free State in South Africa.

Background
First, a little background to the Molteno project and farm schools and why multigrade methodology has been introduced to farm schools. Many African children go through school systems that do not provide instruction in the languages they speak at home a crucial factor, education specialists increasingly recognise, contributing to Africas persistently high rates of illiteracy and resulting in people entering the workforce with poor cognitive skills. UNESCO and the World Bank have been stressing for some time that teaching children in their first language lays the ground for the introduction of a second language as a medium of instruction (The South African Institute of International Affairs: 2005) In a multi-lingual country like South Africa, it is important that learners can achieve proficiency in the various languages. There is general acknowledgement that language is a tool for social development, but that learners benefit from becoming literate in their own language before learning an additional one. The Molteno Project is a non-profit organisation whose purpose is to tackle the high rates of illiteracy in South Africas African population. The projects main remit is to develop literacy materials in African languages and English at various standard (grade) levels and includes intensive educator training and school-based follow-up programmes. Approximately 20,000 teachers have been trained by Molteno project personnel and a total of some 10,000 classes are thought to be using project materials. (Rhodes University: 2005). Farm schools have been a feature of the South African education system for some time and are examples of the experience of remote and poorly resourced schooling at the lower end of educational provision in the country. This report draws on the literature to put this in context, citing Wilson and Rampheles seminal work Uprooting Poverty (1989) and suggesting that farm schools experience the worst of the problems that had characterised the separatist system of Bantu (African) Education under the Apartheid system (Kotze: 20). Problems that beset farm schools are numerous. Difficulties include instances of extreme poverty, hostile attitude from some farmers, poor educational facilities, many demotivated and mostly poorly trained educators, shortage of quality learning materials, lack of consistent departmental support and insufficient funds.

The Report
The structure of the report is standard. It starts with an executive summary, which extends into a case study with an overview of one example from the authors action research, followed by recommendations and specific suggestions across four areas. The author is quick to highlight the limitations of the evaluation process in which only one evaluator was appointed, and consequently points out the risk of the resulting data and point of view being limited. Kotze also points out that the short time scale for the evaluation afforded very little scope for gathering comparative information from non-Molteno schools. The main bulk of the report comes in the findings and conclusions from the classroom observations with work produced by the learners reproduced to demonstrate learning outcomes relating to some the points raised. The report concludes with a section of recommendations. The report is in part the result of three distinct data collection methods: part action research, which documents extracts from interviews with educators, departmental officials and Molteno trainers; partly informed from classroom observations; and part documentary study, which looks at the historical background data in an attempt to locate the Molteno programme within the national socio-cultural context of South Africa. The author clearly sets out the reasons for this approach to collecting data,

again highlighting the disadvantage of presenting findings from just one evaluator working alone. By raising this issue and demonstrating the resulting care and thought put into formulating methodologies which would reduce the risk of bias, the author addresses the most immediate concern a reader may have when first approaching this report. A process of triangulation is described as the methodological model that helped to validate the data, and was obtained in the following ways: A series of interviews were conducted with a wide range of educators, and Molteno trainers helped to validate some of the information Secondly, classroom observations and a study of learners work over the previous year helped the author to gain further validating evidence Lastly, although the sample was small, a process of interviewing and observing non-Molteno classes helped to validate and corroborate the evidence. This triangulation approach is effective because it succeeds in capturing a 360 degree overview for maximum evaluation of the project. Most of the criticism from previous evaluation reports of the Molteno foundation programme focussed on educator training (Kotze: 18). The lack or poor quality of educator training is widely accepted to be a major factor contributing to the negative experience of multigrade teachers and learners (Little: 2005 & Pridmore: 2004). The author in this report makes educator training in multigrade teaching and learning the principle focus and he cites the quality of the classroom-based teaching as the most important factor pertaining to the success of the Molteno programme. High levels of attainment in literacy and language development in the farm schools visited are attributed to the multigrade model adopted in the schools and the Molteno materials, giving weight to the argument that multigrade teaching can help South Africa reach the EFA goal for basic education. The report demonstrates through the case studies of teachers who were interviewed and observed in their classrooms the positive impact of exposure to quality multigrade educator training and subsequent classroom support visits, as well as the excellence of the Molteno materials. Importantly, the report reflects the teachers views to demonstrate the transformation in teaching practice. Teachers who were interviewed describe a shift in their practices away from what they term traditional (e.g. chorusing and chanting, and whole-class instruction), towards what they consider to be improved practice. They felt that the teacher education that Molteno provides helped them to adopt more effective classroom and time management skills for delivering the curriculum to multiple grades within the same classroom session. There is evidence of the nature of the teacher education deployed by Molteno trainers, for example, Kotze describes how some teachers he interviewed discussed how the Molteno training had introduced them to the practice of keeping a reflective diary for continued professional development and designing effective learning tasks. The focus on a reflective diary as an effective tool in teacher self-development is alluded to later in the introductory overview section of the report in outlining a recommended methodology for developing good multigrade teaching practice. This kind of self development tool is used in many instances within educational practice which points to a general acceptance of the benefits of this as a vehicle for teacher development. For example, the Institute of Education at the University of London incorporates it in its own post graduate programmes as a learning vehicle; it is also deployed as part of CPD in the UK education workforce, and in the process of gaining the Advanced Skills Teacher (AST) status in the UK.

Although the report is clear that there were few instances of observations of non-Molteno trained educators as part of the evaluation, (a quantitative survey demonstrates just just two out of nine classes observed for the evaluation were taken by non-Molteno trained educators), the findings from classroom observation indicate substantial difference between the quality of classroom methodology. In the Molteno schools there is a distinct and observable process of learner centeredness, with a strong focus on helping the learner work independently. The same cannot be said of the non-Molteno classes. (Kotze: 33). The report is balanced in its considerations of what factors constitute such difference, stating that non-Molteno educators were trying their best and alludes to the deficiencies in the environmental conditions experienced in many rural South African schools, including: lack of learning resource materials educators are isolated and do not benefit from being part of a professional network traditional teaching styles dominate The evaluation includes detailed qualitative data from structured interviews with Moteno trainers and management staff and these form part of the triangulation adopted in the methodology. One of the strengths of the organisation and forward thinking of the Molteno trainers, the report points out, is their inclusive approach to policy implementation of Molteno principles, not only in providing clear and constant feedback to stakeholders, but in making inroads into partnership working with the provincial Education Department.

Conclusion
The report is at once an evaluation of multigrade teaching in practice and a discursive analysis of teaching and learning theory. In places the latter can distract from the main purpose of the report, but is an interesting and successful attempt to use the opportunity of the evaluation process in order to highlight the authors endorsement of the multigrade model of education to improve teaching and learning in South African schools. I strongly suspect that English is the authors second language, and in some places this leads to odd use and confusing structure of discourse, which necessarily makes for some difficulty in interpreting all of the issues and arguments. However, the strength of the report lies in the triangular methodology and the principles of action research for gathering data. The substantial and varied reference to research and the strong focus on inclusion of teachers, Molteno trainers and owners of policy makes this both an illuminating and valid report. 3. Instructional Delivery and Grouping in The Multigrade Classroom, in The Multigrade Classroom: A Resource for Small, Rural Schools, Susan Vincent (ed.) This booklet is number five in a series of seven training packs produced by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon, and is based on an earlier publication by Bruce Miller, who has done considerable work in the field of multigrade teaching both within the context of North America and developing countries. The book is aimed at the multigrade educator and anyone else for whom multigrade teaching and learning is of interest. It draws on research-based evidence to validate the arguments and methodologies it demonstrates indicating their potential impact on learning and relating research and findings in instructional practice in the multigrade classroom to theoretical models in the literature. One of the general recommendations Kotze made in his evaluation report on the Molteno Projects multigrade model in the preceding review focused on the urgent need for the development of a

comprehensive educators manual containing information on how to run multigrade classes, lesson preparation, methodology of multigrade classes, time essential principles of multigrade teaching, portfolios, time management, classroom management, task setting, materials development etc. It is worth noting that the manual being reviewed here is currently being deployed in the Western Cape Province and sets out practical guidance in the application of some if not all of Kotzes list of points. Some of these points will be discussed here. The research cited in the book is largely applicable in a North American context and can, as such be problematic in applying to the culture and context of a developing country, in which educational resources are likely to be more scarce, the level of educator training much less and the structures and governance of schools and administration less developed or sustained. However many of the questions initially raised are of universal value because they are concerned with questions that are fundamentally about the teaching and learning process, namely: What is the role of the teacher and the learners in the learning process and in relation to one another? What is lacking in the predominant lecture-recitation format of instruction, i.e. in the didacticism of prevailing pedagogy? What alternatives are there to current classroom practices, which induce large levels of student passivity? The book cites data indicating that more than 60% of student time in a survey of North American schools is involved in passive activities where students either listen to the teacher or do seatwork assignments (Vincent: 3). The opening chapter of the book challenges the reader to consider these issues and locates its own responses to them in the research literature, for example: Good and Brophy: 1987 and Goodlad: 1984. The book uses practical illustrations to demonstrate the methodologies it comments on, including for example short extracts from teacher-pupil exchanges, or through contrasting traditional teacher-centred with learner-centred classroom practices. There is also effective use of case-based examples presenting practice from real multigrade classrooms (Vincent: 29). In this way, similar to the work by Kotze, the reader, especially the multigrade practitioner looking for help and support in improving classroom practice, is able to conceptualise how the techniques described can be applied in practice. The book as an educational practice manual is clearly and intuitively laid out, with effective use of side margin headers for easy reference to the content of a passage, short bullet points which act as quick check-list style guidelines to best-practice techniques and plenty of diagrammatical information that helps make the content accessible and digestible for a variety of readers. This is particularly important in the context of its deployment in South Africa, where for many educators English is not their first language. A key feature that the book details is the Basic Practice Model of instruction, which may be highly relevant in the classroom in a developing context, since this model, it is claimed, is most beneficial to the multigrade teacher for use in basic skills instruction. Previously in this essay I have touched on arguments for utilising the multigrade method as a potential vehicle to achieve EFA in basic education in even the remotest or underdeveloped regions (Little: 2005 & Pridmore: 2004). Two areas are focussed on

in this book: the learning environment and the learning activities. Whilst the ensuing explanations and instructions for achieving best practices in both areas are clear and well referenced to theory and research, there is little context for the educator in a poorly resourced and isolated situation to hang his or her actual experience on. A major area for consideration as Kotze indicated in his report focuses on independent study and individualised instruction as an effective mode of learning in the multigrade classroom where the teachers role needs to focus on being a manager and coach in the learning process and students will necessarily need to become more responsible for task selection and the pace of their work (particularly where this is dictated by the need to be flexible around other commitments, such as work or responsibilities at home). This manual, because of its orientation to the North American educational context, is premised on the notion that classrooms will be well resourced with plenty of varied instructional material to aid selection across multiple grade levels. This is not conducive to development contexts in general, accept in exceptional situations, for example, the schools which have access to specific materials such as the example of Molteno projects evaluated in the previous paper. However, the book provides a balanced view of individualised study. Once again, referring to the literature, it identifies several issues or concerns with this method in the multigrade classroom, especially in a developing context, including: Research indicates greater levels of academic achievement in basic skills where direct teacher instruction takes place Where students are left on their own, there is greater need for good quality instructional materials Teachers need to be highly trained in strategies for time and classroom management (Good & Brophy: 1987) What is more, a whole section of the manual is devoted to the use of computers as instructional tools in the multigrade classroom, exalting their potential not simply as tools for learning, but, and perhaps more crucially for the multigrade school which is invariably on the periphery, as network devices linking both learners and teachers to others in distributed areas for the purposes of sharing work and collaborating in learning processes. However, given the very conditions of remoteness that many multigrade schools exist in and the poor technical infrastucture, this is unlikely to be of value to most contexts of multigrade teaching. Research indicates that some 49% of the worlds population lives in rural areas and issues of poverty and affordability suggest this is unlikely to change very rapidly if at all (Skuse, A: 2000).

Conclusion
In the main, this book is useful for multigrade classroom practitioners. The materials, if adapted to specific contexts through translation into local languages and use with corresponding collateral relevant to the context in which they are being used e.g. case studies and scenarios including examples of student work and teacher designed materials could be effective self-instructional material for the multigrade educator in a remote area. The main barrier for teachers in a remote region of a developing country is located in the academic nature of the content. The book draws on concepts and research that may be alien and new or difficult for unqualified and/or inexperienced teachers to understand. Although the material references academic

research, the layout and organisation of the content build systematically on the key concepts, making the material accessible to readers who may have little or no academic experience. However, while practical enough to aid implementation of good practices in classroom, the general level of the book is pitched higher and as such may be more appropriately aimed at teacher-trainers, local educational managers or policy makers, as it deals with matters concerning curriculum, school organisation, student grouping and provisions of resources and materials.

Bibliography Good, T.L., Brophy, J.E. (1987) Looking in Classrooms (4th edition), New York, NY: Harper and Row. Goodlad, J.L. (1984) A place called school: Prospects for the future, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Kotze, H. (2000) Struggling no more: An evaluation of Moltenos multigrade foundation phase classroom model Final draft report of the Joint Education Trust (JET). Little, A (1995) Multigrade Teaching: a review of practice and research, serial No. 12. Overseas Development Adminstration, London. Little, A (2005) Learning and Teaching in Multigrade Settings, Paper prepared for the UNESCO 2005 EFA Monitoring Report. Nielsen, H.D. (1991) Using Distance Education to Extent and Improve Teaching in Developing Countries in Perspectives on Education for All, Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre. Peters S J. (2004) Inclusive Education: An EFA Strategy for all Children, World Bank. Pridmore, P (2004) Education for All: The Paradox of Multigrade Education, keynote address presented at the 2nd International Conference on Multigrade Teaching. Reck, C. (1988) The Small Catholic Elementary School: Advantages and Opportunities, Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association. Rhodes University http://www.rhodes.ac.za Rowley, S.D.,Nielsen, H. D. (1997) School and classroom organisation in the periphery. The assets of multigrade teaching, in Nielsen, D. H. and Cummings, W. K. (eds.) Quality education for all: Community oriented approaches, London: Garland Publishing Inc. ehi, M., Karlsdottir, R. and Gudmundsdottir, S. (2002) Socio-cultural Foundation of Inclusion in Norwegian Schools in Socio-Emotional Growth and Development of Learning Strategies, University of Oslo, Department of Education Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway. Skuse, A. (2000) Information, Communication Technologies, Poverty and Enpowerment, DFID (source: Imfundo). The South African Institute of International Affairs http://www.saiia.org.za/ UNESCO, (2005) Education Today, No. 12, UNESCO, Paris. Unknown (1999) Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping in The Multigrade Classroom in The Multigrade Classroom: A Resource Handbook for Small Rural Schools, Vincent, S. (ed), Northwest Regional Education Laboratory Oregon. Unknown, Multigrade Schools Organizing for Effective and Efficient Delivery, World Bank Topic Brief: Multigrade Schools. http://www1.worldbank.org/education/est/resources/topic%20papers/Multigrade%20Schools.doc Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. The development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, F., Ramphele, M (1989) Uprooting Poverty: The South African Challenge, Cape Town: David Philip.

http://haifisch.co.uk/?p=86