Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research All Together Now? (the need for ability grouping)

http://educationnext.org/all-together-now/
Educating high and low achievers in the same classroom
By Michael Petrilli
Education Next
Winter 2011 / Vol. 11, No. 1

The greatest challenge facing America�s schools today isn�t the budget crisis, or standardized testing, or �teacher quality.� It�s the enormous variation in the academic level of students coming into any given classroom. How we as a country handle this challenge says a lot about our values and priorities, for good and ill. Unfortunately, the issue has become enmeshed in polarizing arguments about race, class, excellence, and equity. What�s needed instead is some honest, frank discussion about the trade-offs associated with any possible solution.

U.S. students are all over the map in terms of achievement (see Figure 1). By the 4th grade, public-school children who score among the top 10 percent of students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) are reading at least six grade levels above those in the bottom 10 percent. For a teacher with both types of students in her classroom, that means trying to challenge kids ready for middle-school work while at the same time helping others to decode. Even differences between students at the 25th and at the 75th percentiles are huge�at least three grade levels. So if you�re a teacher, how the heck do you deal with that?

In the old days, �ability grouping� and tracking provided the answer: you�d break your students into reading groups, with the bluebirds in one corner, tackling advanced materials at warp speed, and the redbirds in another, slowly making their way through basic texts. Likewise for mathematics. And in middle and high school, you�d continue this approach with separate tracks: �challenge� or �honors� for the top kids, �regular� or �on-level� for the average ones, and �remedial� for the slowest. Teachers could target their instruction to the level of the group or the class, and since similar students were clustered together, few kids were bored or totally left behind.

Then came the attack on tracking. A flurry of books in the 1970s and 1980s argued that confining youngsters to lower tracks hurt their self-esteem and life chances, and was elitist and racist to boot. Jeanne Oakes�s 1985 opus, Keeping Track, was particularly effective in sparking an anti-tracking movement that swept through the nation�s schools.

<rest of article at link>

I mentioned this article to our school principal. In light of budget cuts and increased class sizes, I asked if there was any movement to cluster or track kids in classrooms according to ability. He bristled at the mere mention of "tracking." He denied that there was any merit in such grouping except for gifted kids (we have a gt program at our school). He did not address how he meets the needs of gifted kids who are not in gt classrooms. At the same time, he said that they differentiate in the classrooms by doing small group clustering when appropriate for a specific skill. He proceeded to tell that his teachers did not find it difficult to differentiate. (Funny, that's not what I've heard . . .)

It seems like "tracking" is a taboo word but "clustering" is not. I just found it disappointing that he would not even discuss changing how they assign kids in the traditional classrooms. It seems like it would be easier for teachers if they only had to teach a span of 1-2 levels as opposed to 4-5.

Count your blessings - at least he wasn't hostile. One could be lynched for such questions in our district.

Having got that little rant off my chest, I'll add that we've had a number of fabulous teachers who have gone to great effort to accommodate our kids.

A real concern about "tracking" arises when it is impossible for a child who is placed in a lower track to move to a higher track in later years. There should be at least yearly opportunities to "jump the tracks". Maybe "ability grouping" or "placement by achievement" are better terms to use, although many school officials will oppose ability grouping no matter what it is called.

It's interesting, because even though I was identified as gifted at some parts of my schooling, I wasn't in others. So I have had the experience of being put into a class in my first year of high school with children who couldn't read (and I'd been reading since before I started school), I was in mathematics classes with kids with quite low levels of ability, etc. And I was averaging C's and even D's. Not one of my teachers questioned whether I was in the right place or not. TBH, I didn't ask either.

Then I moved schools, and my mother argued for me to be in a higher stream (what we called it here). Thankfully I was put in one, as there was more room there anyway, on the condition that I had to keep up.

And I did. Without really even trying to, I was doing better at school, doing harder work, and while I was still bored, I did better, and averaged b's, and some A's and a few c's

That is what I get worried about with this. One vindictive teacher when I left primary (our elementary) nearly messed up my life in a truly bad way. If your going to do it, you sure better get your testing/leveling or whatever ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I'm not sure we do that right now.

Our elementary school used "modified" grouping. For third grade, students went to workshops - such as comma workshops and when they understood the material, they attended another class that was taught by an incredible teacher where they learned all kinds of topics.

Instead of reading groups, they had "book clubs". In this school, many students were reading five years ahead and this made the books more interesting.

I grew up in the "tracking" days and even though it is taboo now, everyone is trying to get back to the education we had with the elephant in the room.

I'll throw out another example. I have a son that is twice gifted - superior thinking ability, but profoundly dyslexic. His reading is at least 5 years behind, yet his reasoning skills are above the 90th percentile.

In most public schools, all the SPED kids get lumped together. His school showed me a separate classroom comprised of students with a wide range of needs including physical, verbal and developmental. I was crushed. Yes, my child cannot read and write, but he can think. In fact, he "thinks" better than most. Yet, due to his poor reading and writing skills, he would be crushed in honors or AP classes. He cannot demonstrate his skill and knowledge in a traditional manner.

Our answer is to enroll him in a private school that can handle his unique profile. He is in a school with very small classes that offers integrated support. Most importantly, he is placed with other gifted kids.