Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy why are kids not grouped earlier in school?

I have been wondering about this. In our school they don't group until the kids are in 7th grade. I have a child in 3rd and 1st. We have about 90 kids in each grade. They pull out 6 kids for enrichment from 3 different classes per grade for Math and Reading separately. I also hear that some kids don't get to go because of limited space. So I wonder why not take the top third of the grade and put in a class that is more challenging? Wouldn't this make it better? Or at least have the kids rotate class within the grade for a couple of subjects. I do realize some kids are better in some subjects than others. But it seems like it could be better just by doing this. Is there something I'm not getting here?

In our school district they consider that "tracking" and because of the negative stigma of tracking in the past they will not even discuss it, period.

I'm not familiar with tracking. Does this mean: one set of kids are on track to do well and the others are on track to not do as well? Is the position that the grouping would keep kids in a lower group from acheiving as well because they are labled "less potential or inferior"?

I think one of the problems is for kids who are high ability but not high achieving and therefore not likely to be placed in the higher track class. Another concern is for children who would maybe increase in their achievement but are stuck in a certain track without the possibility of moving tracks without substantial effort (this, I would think, would be of particular concern to 2E kids). And I think another concern is for lower-ability kids who come out of less-than-academically-rich home environments that would most likely be placed in lower-track classes, which may have the effect of limiting their advancement in school. So, the issue is fraught with all kinds of concerns. I'm not saying I'm for or against it. I would personally love the option of a full-time gifted classroom for two of my kids, but on the other hand I have a son with attention issues that we're working on improving and the looming math tracking in middle and high school is making us nervous that he'll be locked into a track now when our efforts to focus his attention will likely make him a much better student down the road.

Ability grouping I'm all for and has worked out well our our DC's school. The groups are reassembled several times a year in math and spelling and reading and kids do move among groups as appropriate and there are separate groups for each subject.

My magnet school has a mixed level homeroom class and they rotate for math and reading in grade 2 in which students are grouped by their abilities. Classes are sorted based on achievement tests, grades, and teacher feedback. The higher level classes must use the same curriculum but they are allowed to use higher level thinking assignments, compacting, and enrichment.
I like our leveled classes, I think it works. It is much easier to get differentiatation in the class when the students are closer in abilities.

And as for the tracking complaints, personally I'm tired of hearing them.
I live in a high minority low income county which also equates to low achieving. Subject acceleration is not allowed because its not fair to Maria, who came from a less-than-academically-rich home environment. Maria started off with a disadvantage so the pace must be slow so she can catch up.

I'm sorry that Maria started off with a disadvantage, but why should she be the one who gets to set the pace?
Instead of offering quality education, we set the bar low & grade skip the smart, if they are lucky.
Everyone must leave 5th grade on the same level or the world will stop spinning!

The real reason most people lobby against tracking is because it is assumed that it will cause the social gap to get bigger.

Just my 2 pennies

My son's school does tracking. There are two advanced classes with the same advanced curriculum. There are also 4 more classes per grade. Each class is further divided into ability groups for math and reading. Admission into the advanced classes is based on standardized test scores, grades and teacher's input. All of the gifted kids are in the advanced classes regardless whether they're high achieving. Every year, a few kids are moved up or down in the tracks.

The school does a great job of integrating minorities into the top classes. Many of the gifted and high achieving kids are minorities, of course. And many of the white kids are actually low income. You never can tell somebody's IQ or economics just by looking.

No, it means that the students are taught at their ability level. One of my neighbors has a son at the lowest track and she is very pleased that he is being taught at the right pace for him.

I volunteer at the school with kids at the low end in third grade. Those kids need extra time, more repetition to learn. The school is not holding them back. On the contrary, they're being offered the right resources to help them succeed. I'm tutoring one girl who is learning English. When her scores improve, she will be moved up.

Tracking got a bad rap in the past because once a kid got on the "slow" track, he wasn't able to get off. The sense was that it limited the educational and ultimately career options for a child.

This is NOT a necessary part of tracking, of course! Fluidity and frequent evaluation to move kids where they will learn best can (and SHOULD!) be a part of any system!

I wish ability grouping would be used more frequently. Putting kids with a solid peer group whenever possible is easier on the teachers and better for the kids.