REFRAMING THE PERIPHERY: A CONCEPTUAL SYNTHESIS OF MULTIGRADE AND INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGIES

• Dr. Emira T. Halbrin

  Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Cape Town, South Africa

  Author

• Dr. Oren V. Melquade

  Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia

  Author

For a third of the world's students, school isn't a single grade in a single room; it's a dynamic mix of ages and abilities guided by one teacher. This is the reality of multigrade education, a model often seen as a last resort and pushed to the margins of educational discourse. At the same time, the powerful movement for inclusive education has been working to transform mainstream schooling, yet often struggles to find its footing in the day-to-day reality of the classroom. This paper argues that these two stories are not separate—they are deeply intertwined. We suggest that the multigrade classroom, far from being a problem to be solved, is one of the most natural and promising environments for inclusive pedagogy to truly come to life. Through a narrative exploration of the research, we map the core ideas that give multigrade classrooms their unique character, viewing them through the lens of what it means to be truly inclusive. Our analysis brings to light six key "knowledge territories" that educators in these settings draw upon: (1) Child-Centered and Developmentalist Philosophies; (2) Socio-Constructivist and Participatory Learning Theories; (3) The Pedagogy of Place and Community; (4) Cooperative, Collectivist, and Democratic Education; (5) The Human Rights and Social Justice Imperative; and (6) The Explicit Language of Inclusive Pedagogy. By weaving these threads together, we propose a new way of thinking: the Framework for Inclusive Multigrade Pedagogy (FIMP). This framework, built on a foundation of core principles, practices, and the conditions needed to thrive, is offered as a practical tool for educators, leaders, and policymakers. Our aim is to spark a new conversation—one that reframes the inherent diversity of the multigrade classroom as its greatest strength and positions these unique spaces as vital sources of innovation for creating schools that work for everyone.

1. Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects, 49(3), 123–134.

2. Ainscow, M. (2020a). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16.

3. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.

4. Bailey, G. J., Werth, E. P., Allen, D. M., & Sutherland, L. L. (2016). The Prairie Valley Project: Reactions to a transition to a schoolwide, multiage elementary classroom design. School Community Journal, 26(1), 239–263.

5. Barad, K. (2007). In Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke UP.

6. Barton, G., & Baguley, M. (2014). Learning through Story: A collaborative, multimodal arts approach. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 13(2).

7. Bjøru, A. M. (2023). Multi-grade teaching in a small rural school in Northern Norway. In D. Hirshberg, M. Beaton, G. Maxwell, T. Turunen, & J. Peltokorpi (Eds.), Education, equity and inclusion – teaching and learning for a sustainable north (pp. 213–229). Springer.

8. Black Hawkins, K., Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2007). Achievement and inclusion in schools. London: Routledge.

9. Bourn, D., & Hatley, J. (2022). Target 4.7 of the sustainable development goals: Evidence in schools in england. research for our shared world. DERC Research Paper no. 22. London: UCL Institute of Education.

10. Carrete-Marín, N., & Domingo-Penafiel, L. (2022). Textbooks and teaching materials in rural schools: A systematic review. CEPS Journal, 12(2), 67–94.

11. Carrete-Marín, N., Domingo-Penafiel, L., & Simo Gil, N. (2024). Teaching materials in multigrade classrooms: A descriptive study in spanish rural schools. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 1–10.

12. Colbert, V., Chiappe, C., & Arboleda, J. (1993). The new school program: More and better primary education for children in rural areas in Colombia. In H. M. Levin, & M. E. Lockheed (Eds.), Effective schools in developing countries (pp. 52–68). The Falmer Press.

13. Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE). (2008). Policy Briefing 5. Increasing access through multigrade teaching and learning.

14. Cornish, L. (2006). What is multi-grade teaching? In L. Cornish (Ed.), Reaching efa through multi-grade teaching: Issues, contexts and practices (pp. 9–26). Kardoorair Press.

15. Cornish, L. (2021). Quality practices for multigrade teaching. In L. Cornish, & M. J. Taole (Eds.), Perspectives on multigrade teaching. Cham: Springer.

16. Cornish, L. (2021a). History, context and future directions of multigrade education. In L. Cornish, & M. J. Taole (Eds.), Perspectives on multigrade teaching. Cham: Springer.

17. Cronin, Z. (2019). To mix or not to mix: A critical review of literature on mixed-age groups in primary schools. Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research e-Journal, 6, 165–179.

18. Domingo Penafiel, L., & Boix Tomas, R. B. (2015). What can be learned from Spanish rural schools? Conclusions from an international project. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 114–126.

19. du Plessis, A., & Subramanien, B. (2014). Voices of despair: Challenges for multigrade teachers in a rural district in South Africa. Educational Research for Social Change, 3(1), 20–36.

20. Ecleo, J. M. Q. (2022). Traversing Mission odyssey in multi-grade world. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 98-81.

21. Eikeland, I., & Ohna, S. E. (2022). Differentiation in education: A configurative review. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 8(3), 157–170.

22. Fargas-Malet, M., & Bagley, C. (2022). Is small beautiful? A scoping review of 21st-century research on small rural schools in Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 822–844.

23. Florian, L. (2008). Inclusiom: Special or inclusive education: future trends. British Journal of Special Education, 35, 202–208.

24. Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828.

25. Gardner, H. (2001). Jerome S. Bruner. In J. A. Palmer (Ed.), Fifty modern thinkers on education. from piaget to the present. London: Routledge.

26. Garland-Thomson, R. (2011). Misfits: A feminist materialist disability concept. Hypatia, 26(3), 591–609.

27. Germeten, S. (2022). Mixed-age groups in early schooling: A turnover in pedagogical practice? In U. Harkonen, & E. Savolainen (Eds.), Sustaining international views on early childhood education (pp. 10–20). Finland: University of Joensuu.

28. Goransson, K., & Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 265–280.

29. Graham, L. J., Medhurst, M., Tancredi, H., Spandagou, I., Walton, E., & Graham, L. J. (2023). Fundamental concepts of inclusive education. Inclusive education for the 21st century: Theory,policy and practice (2nd edition, pp. 60–80). Routledge.

30. Greenhlagh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 16(6), 48.

31. Gristy, C., Hargreaves, L., & Kucerova, S. R. (2020). Educational research and schooling in rural europe. an engagement with changing patterns of education, space and place. Information Age Publishing.

32. Hedges, H., & Cullen, J. (2012). Participatory learning theories: A framework for early childhood pedagogy. Early Child Development and Care, 182(7), 921–940.

33. HundrED.org. (2024). Fundacion Escuela Nueva. https://hundred.org/en/innovations/fundacion-escuela-nueva.

34. Hyry-Beihammer, E. K., & Hascher, T. (2015). Multi-grade teaching practices in Austrian and Finnish primary schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 104–113.

35. Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4), 396–406.

36. Kazi, A. S., Moghal, S., & Aziz, F. (2018). Mixed-age group teaching in second language learning: An observational study of a Montessori classroom in Pakistan. Journal of Early Childhood Care and Education, 2, 87–100.

37. Kvalsund, R., & Hargreaves, L. (2009). Reviews of research in rural schools and their communities: Analytical perspectives and a new agenda. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 140–149.

38. Little, A. W. (Ed.). (2006). Education for All and multigrade teaching: Challenges and opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer.

39. Magnusson, L. O., & Backman, K. (2022). Teaching and learning in age-homogeneous groups versus mixed-age groups in the preschool–the Swedish example. Cogent Education, 9(1).

40. Marshall, C. (2017). Montessori education: A review of the evidence base. Science of Learning, 2(11).

41. Montessori, M., Oswald, P., & Benesch, G. (1997). Basic ideas of montessori’s educational theory: Extracts from maria montessori’s writings and teachings. Oxford: Clio Press.

42. Naparan, G. B., & Alinsug, V. G. (2021). Classroom strategies of multigrade teachers. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1), 100–109.

43. Navarra, I. (2019). Benefits and challenges of mixed-age classrooms for small schools: The Montessori approach to early childhood education. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of the Journal Scuola Democratica ‘Education and postdemocracy’, 1.

44. Nilholm, C. (2020). Research about inclusive education in 2020 – How can we improve our theories in order to change practice? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(3), 358–370.

45. Raggl, A. (2015). Teaching and learning in small rural primary schools in Austria and Switzerland—Opportunities and challenges from teachers’ and students’ perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 127–135.

46. Ramsay, F. (2019). Colombia’s escuela nueva (“New school”). building skills and social competences through an independent and cooperative learning environment. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust UK.

47. Roberts, J., & Eady, S. (2012). Enhancing the quality of learning: What are the benefits of a mixed age, collaborative approach to creative narrative writing? Education, 40(2), 205–216.

48. Ronksley-Pavia, M., Barton, G. M., & Pendergast, D. (2019). Multiage Education: An exploration of advantages and disadvantages through a systematic review of the literature. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 24–41.

49. Rouse, M. (2008). Developing inclusive practice: A role for teachers and teacher education? Education in the North, 16, 6–11.

50. Shalom, M., & Luria, E. (2019). The multi-age school structure: Its value and contributions in relation to significant learning. Educational Practice and Theory, 41(1), 5–21.

51. Smeaton, E. (2024). Do mixed-aged classes in small schools create ideal conditions for metacognitive regulation? North Yorkshire Coast Research School.

52. Smit, R., & Engeli, E. (2015). An empirical model of mixed-age teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 136–145.

53. Smit, R., & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1152–1162.

54. Smit, R., Hyry-Beihammer, E. K., & Raggl, A. (2015). Teaching and learning in small, rural schools in four European countries: Introduction and synthesis of mixed-/multi-age approaches. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 97–103.

55. Stone, S. J., & Burriss, K. G. (2019). Understanding multiage education. Routledge.

56. Taole, M. J. (2014). Multi-grade teaching: A daunting challenge for rural teachers. Studies of Tribes and Tribals, 12(1), 95–102.

57. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1990). World declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic learning needs. Paris: UNESCO.

58. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.

59. Vigo Arrazola, B., & Soriano Bozalongo, J. (2015). Family involvement in creative teaching practices for all in small rural schools. Ethnography and Education, 10(3), 325–339.

60. Vigo Arrazola, B., & Soriano Bozalongo, J. S. (2014). Teaching practices and teachers’ perceptions of group creative practices in inclusive rural schools. Ethnography and Education, 9(3), 253–269.

61. Woodin, T. (2019). Recovering histories of co-operative education and training: Character, culture and citizenship. In T. Woodin, & L. Shaw (Eds.), Learning for a co-operative world education, social change and the co-operative college. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.

• pdf

All articles published by The Parthenon Frontiers and its associated journals are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) International License unless otherwise stated. 

Authors retain full copyright of their published work. By submitting their manuscript, authors agree to grant The Parthenon Frontiers a non-exclusive license to publish, archive, and distribute the article worldwide. Authors are free to:

• Share their article on personal websites, institutional repositories, or social media platforms.

• Reuse their content in future works, presentations, or educational materials, provided proper citation of the original publication.