Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Looking for Support of Ability Grouping

My DD7, grade 3 (grade skipped) was homeschooling until this year. She is currently attending a public school where a large percentage of the kids are economically disadvantaged and/or learning English as a second language. The school's state standards-based test scores are low.

This year, for math instruction (only), the 3rd grade teachers opted to group all of their classrooms' students based on ability for math (homogeneous ability grouping). This has been working well for my high-achieving daughter.

Unfortunately, the Principal recently decided to return all students back to their heterogeneous homeroom classes for math instruction. She's reverting back because: "while the intent was to have flexible grouping, the groups have not changed significantly. I am concerned about the detrimental effects that grouping students for math instruction will have on overall student achievement".

I met with the Principal and shared my concerns that my daughter (and her high-achieving classmates) will likely not be sufficiently challenged when such a large percentage of her homeroom classmates are low-achieving. Her response was basically this: "higher-achieving kids in the classroom help the lower-achieving ones grow; they are good role models." She tried to reassure me that the teachers will offer differentiated instruction within the classroom.

I like the diversity at this school and I like DD7's teacher (she is a gifted adult herself). However, if my kiddo's GT needs are not met, I will pull her out. Before I make any big decisions, I'd like to present the Principal with research data showing that ability grouping, done correctly, helps ALL students. Help? Thanks!!

sadly, the principal is right. High achieving students presence improves the scores of low achieving ones.... It does nothing at all for the high achieving students.

I think that the problem that you are going to run into here is that ability grouping has not been shown to benefit ALL students. It benefits high ability students, but taking the high ability students out of the classroom hasn't been shown to benefit the lower performers. That said, it still isn't fair to damage your child for the benefit of others. I believe that Karen Roger's book, Reforming Gifted Education, has some references regarding the studies on ability grouping and how it impacts children of different ability levels.

A few links I could find online that indicate that grouping may benefit high ability and possibly average ability kids and be detrimental or at least of no specific benefit to low ability kids were:

http://jea.sagepub.com/content/15/1/58.short

http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?contentid=15684

The only article/analysis of grouping that I could find that might benefit your case with the school was this one from 1991:

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199103_allan.pdf

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el199904_loveless.pdf
This is an article from the late 90s about detracking in the name of equity. It discusses some of the studies that have been cited in support of heterogeneous grouping. It also discusses social equity.
A quote from it.
"Students in heterogeneously grouped algebra classes didn't learn as much as students in tracked algebra classes. This held true for all ability levels—high, average, and low. In contrast, when survey courses in math were heterogeneously grouped, low-ability students benefitted. Tracking apparently doesn't affect all math courses identically."

http://www.giftedteam.org/pdf/links/ability_grouping_studies2.pdf
This article discusses the various methods of ability grouping and found that if you keep the curriculum the same, there is little difference between achievements of the various ability groups, if you ability group and adjust the curriculum and pace to the group, you have some improvement in achievement in lower and middle groups, and if you offer accelerated material to the higher groups, achievement can grow by 4 years in 3 years of instruction. It discusses some of the studies that have been cited in support of heterogeneous grouping.


http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/InequityInEquity.pdf
A 44 page article that makes the case that achievement of average and below average students has been improving while achievement of the above average students has declined, and that this decline is shown in lower scores compared to other countries.

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/kulik.html

"Meta-analytic reviews have already shown that the effects of grouping programs depend on their features. Some grouping programs have little or no effect on students; other programs have moderate effects; and still other programs have large effects. The key distinction is among (a) programs in which all ability groups follow the same curriculum; (b) programs in which all groups follow curricula adjusted to their ability; and (c) programs that make curricular and other adjustments for the special needs of highly talented learners.

Programs that entail only minor adjustment of course content for ability groups usually have little or no effect on student achievement. In some grouping programs, for example, school administrators assign students by test scores and school records to high, middle, and low classes, and they expect all groups to follow the same basic curriculum. The traditional name for this approach is XYZ grouping. Pupils in middle and lower classes in XYZ programs learn the same amount as equivalent pupils do in mixed classes. Students in the top classes in XYZ programs outperform equivalent pupils from mixed classes by about one month on a grade-equivalent scale. Self-esteem of lower aptitude students rises slightly and self-esteem of higher aptitude students drops slightly in XYZ classes.

Grouping programs that entail more substantial adjustment of curriculum to ability have clear positive effects on children. Cross-grade and within-class programs, for example, provide both grouping and curricular adjustment in reading and arithmetic for elementary school pupils. Pupils in such grouping programs outperform equivalent control students from mixed-ability classes by two to three months on a grade-equivalent scale.

Programs of enrichment and acceleration, which usually involve the greatest amount of curricular adjustment, have the largest effects on student learning. In typical evaluation studies, talented students from accelerated classes outperform non-accelerates of the same age and IQ by almost one full year on achievement tests. Talented students from enriched classes outperform initially equivalent students from conventional classes by 4 to 5 months on grade equivalent scales."

Try googling paradise valley school district in Phoenix. You will find evidence there on their gifted info. page somewhere.

Why are classrooms the only place that ability grouping is somehow wrong? How come sports have varsity teams? Why do kids have to tryout for band?

Heck, a high ability student would be better off with 4 hours of quality teaching plus one hour of tutoring others than 5 hours of mediocre teaching. That's how many workplaces do it. High ability has high output and faster ramp-up and raises; they then help mentor the next level of skills.

I thought I've seen in studies that ability grouping works when the curriculum & teaching is appropriately leveled to ability.

I think the argument would probably be that the stakes are much higher.

It's similar to what we have in BC: "inclusion." Inclusion is grouping by age peers, for everyone - even the intellectually challenged kids. Kids with all ranges of abilities are kept together in the class and EAs are there to support those with significant enough challenges.

The challenged kids benefit, and sadly I think there are more challenged kids than gifted. For the typical and gifted I think it enhances socialization by stretching the boundaries and it normalizes differences, possibly resulting in a more compassionate society.

However... unless the gifted kids are grade skipped or enriched... there is obviously the huge downside of the curriculum mismatch. The challenged kids get IEPs and reduced work loads, but even an enrichment IEP for a gifted kid is lacking. They need to be grouped, at least part of the time, with like-minded peers so they can share ideas and raise the bar for each other.

In building this argument, I wouldn't worry about all students, I'd worry about low achievers, because when the principal talks about "overall student achievement," that's Navajo code-talk for "state test scores." That's her concern, because that's the legislative mandate under which she operates. If you can show how heterogeneous grouping does not boost basic test scores, you've got an argument she'll take seriously.

Alternatively, if you can offer her a compromise where you both get what you want, that's something she might consider. For example, if the school offered my DD7 a 20-min pullout for math at her ability level (compacting FTW), and then asked her to play teacher's assistant during the regular math period in the heterogeneous classroom, that'd be something we'd be interested in trying. That's a situation that wouldn't suit all gifted kids, naturally, but it would fit mine.

The way our school, which probably has similar demographics to yours (about 60% economically disadvantaged, about 70% English language learners) but is not failing anymore, does it is to cluster all "high" kids (defined starting in 3rd as those who got an "advanced" on state tests the previous year) and have them work on the next grade curriculum, at the cost of a lower teacher:student ration.

Kids at or below grade level, which by this point is a relatively smaller group, work on grade level materials with a higher teacher:student ratio.

This seems to give good results (more than half the students are in the advanced group in 3rd grade this year) while keeping most people happy (high performers get more challenge, low performers get more resources).