A Comparison of Pupil Achievement in Graded and Nongraded Primary Classrooms

The effectiveness of the nongraded school

“…While one study (11) reported the arithmetic reasoning achievement scores of children from graded classes superior to that of children from nongraded classes, the remaining arithmetic reasoning results divided almost equally between favoring the nongraded * The numbers in brackets refer to the numbered list of references at the end of the article. (13,16) and showing no significant difference (7,26,30). In arithmetic fundamentals the children from nongraded programs appear to have an advantage since four of the six studies reported found differences favoring them (13,16,26,30), and the remaining two found no significant difference (7,11).…”

“…(13,16) and showing no significant difference (7,26,30). In arithmetic fundamentals the children from nongraded programs appear to have an advantage since four of the six studies reported found differences favoring them (13,16,26,30), and the remaining two found no significant difference (7,11). While the children from nongraded classes appear to have an advantage over their counterparts from graded classes in arithmetic fundamentals and reasoning, it is far from commanding, since for nearly every study reporting an advantage there is one reporting no significant difference.…”

“…Seven out of ten of the studies report negligible differences in the language arts performance of children from these classes (1,7,11,13,14,26,30). Of the remaining studies, two (5,20) reported differences favoring the nongraded and one the graded (6).…”

“…However, only rarely in the studies covered did cross-class grouping dislodge the traditional selfcontained class (13,22,27). More commonly, nongrading meant in practice homogeneous grouping with achievement and ability or some combination of both used as the homogenizing elements.…”

“…Reading performance in the elementary school merits closer inspection because of the frequency with which it is researched. Measures of general reading attainment were used 15 times (1,2,3,8,11,12,14,16,17,18,19,21,26,29,30)* while the sub-skills of comprehension and vocabulary development were studied 14 times (2,5,6,7,11,13,17,18,20,22,24,26,28,30) and 13 times (2,5,6,7,11,13,17,18,20,22,24,26,30) respectively.…”