But what about larger groups at the upper levels. What about top 5%, top 10%, top 20%, top 50%. Or what about students between percentiles 75 and 90? Why shouldn't all students at all levels be entitled to be taught at their approximate level? There should be classes catering to all levels, and placement in these classes should be purely meritocratic. This merit should not be compromised to fulfil other types of quotas. As long as everyone is being taught at their approximate level, how could it possibly matter if there are measurable demographic differences between the classes? I've never seen any convincing argument not to do what I'm suggesting.
I agree with you. Group by ability whenever it makes sense, which I think is as early as KG, and let the demographic chips fall where they may. Make the grouping flexible, so that children can move to different groups at least annually, and so that grouping is done by subject. However, even if ability grouping is done right, the presence of racial and SES gaps in academic achievement will mean that some groups will be very underrepresented in the top classes. Civil rights leaders will condemn these "disparities" and will not accept the main explanation that I would offer. In order to have realistic and effective educational policies, certain realities need to be widely understood. In the mean time, affluent parents self-segregate by moving to areas with "good schools" and send their children to after school programs that are not concerned with diversity.
Except that if *ability* grouping is done correctly, the higher level classes actually should be more representative of the school's overall demographics. The higher level classes will likely skew a little in favor of Asian/white and higher SES, but but not by enough that those classes should be entirely Asian/white and higher SES, unless of course the rest of the school is as well (Space City area outside of Houston for example).
The problem is that ability grouping is very rarely done correctly. The students are grouped by *achievement* instead, politics plays too large a part (teachers' children, the children of their friends, and the students of higher SES who "look" the part of a "smart" kid get in at higher levels IIRC), and teacher pleasers are chosen over gifted trouble makers. That is why civil rights leaders often object, because the grouping process itself is biased, not that ability grouping is.
And I say all this as one who vigorously supports ability grouping (when done well), because without it I would possibly have quit school in 1st grade.
