Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Ability Grouping Research

I know this has been discussed here before but I can't seem to find it. Could someone please point me to some good articles in support of ability grouping for *both* advanced learners and lower-ability learners?

Thanks so much!

I keep hoping someone will post so I am bumping you.

For gifted kids, they need rate and level accommodation; something not discussed much when speaking only of ability grouping. The same could be said of the slowest learners.

Did you see the op-ed Davidson Twitter recently had on this debate in Portland, OR area schools?

A short google brought up this:
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199103_allan.pdf

The major problems with the research in the field appear to be that a) gifted students were excluded from the research, but results are applied to them indiscriminately, and b) studies are not carefully differentiated as to whether different ability groups received ability-differentiated instruction including differentiated learning objectives, and those objectives could be adequately demonstrated by testing.
Meaning that if you teach the same average ability curriculum and test for grade level standards, it doesn't matter whether you group or not : the high ability kids will do well, the average kids will do averagely and the low ability kids will struggle. In other words, does not really matter what kind of classroom your needs aren't met in.
But if you have an ideological axe to grind, you can use those poorly designed studies to advocate against grouping for the gifted and the high ability kids (defined in this article at some point as the top 33 %, who I think deserve ability leveled instruction as well.

NAGC has several articles

http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/grouping

http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Grouping%20Position%20Statement.pdf

http://ektron.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=162

Wanted to add that the bad rap of tracking IMO results from times and or places (Germany is one to this day) that put all the low ability kids in a separate school which then ends up concentrating all kids from risk situations, from low SES backgrounds, with parents living in poverty or being unemployed or uneducated, and second language learner and kids with mild learning disabilities and with major behavioral problems, every one else trying to get the hell out of those schools and make it into the medium ability schools. I think those kinds of schools concentrating a high risk population shouldn't exist, and they have been proven to make every kid even worse of than the would be, the concentration of risk factors obliterating any benefit the targeted instruction might bring.

I am not sure about separate remedial classrooms either - makes it too easy for every one, teachers and kids alike, to just give up. Combining low and medium ability classrooms, instruction targeted at the middle, with lots of tutorial support for those who need it, push in, pull out, after school, whatever, might be best. It's sort of what Finland does, where the level of instruction is high enough that 50% of all kids will at some time have been in special ed. But they do not separate their high achievers and do admit that they often lack challenge.

http://www.casenex.com/casenet/pages/virtualLibrary/gridlock/groupmyths.html

Another one that will keep you nodding your head. It is amazing that all this research is out there but the myths appear to be getting stronger.

Hah, I think this would be what you are looking for - a bit old, but says exactly what you'd want it to:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9204/rbdm9204.pdf

But won't parents who are able to avoid sending their children to schools with lots of at-risk children? Germany has separate schools based on ability. The U.S. segregates based on house prices.

To the degree that public schools may be funded by local property taxes, some may hold your view. However:
1) state and federal funding formulas work to mitigate this effect in redistributing funds.
2) students may enroll in public schools outside the district in which they reside.
3) families may choose to enroll their students in a variety of alternative schools utilizing public funding, such as charter/choice/voucher schools.
4) house prices may fluctuate greatly based on supply/demand, and many neighborhoods contain a mix of residential properties from starter homes to mansions. Both home price and availability may be based strongly on the economy, specifically the availability of local employment.

To stay on topic, many thanks to those who posted links, especially Tigerle for posting these links: