http://news.yahoo.com/decade-criticism-student-grouping-rises-170948578--politics.html
After decade of criticism, student grouping rises
By PHILIP ELLIOTT | Associated Press – Mon, Mar 18, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Teachers say they are grouping students of similar abilities with each other inside classrooms and schools are clustering pupils with like interests together — a practice once frowned upon — according to a review of federal education surveys.

The Brookings Institution report released Monday shows a dramatic increase in both ability grouping and student tracking among fourth- and eighth-grade students. Those practices were once criticized as racist and faced strong opposition from groups as varied as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to the National Governors Association.

"Despite decades of vehement criticism and mountains of documents urging schools to abandon their use, tracking and ability grouping persist — and for the past decade or so, have thrived," said Tom Loveless, a senior fellow at the centrist Brookings Institute's Brown Center on Education Policy, who wrote the report.

Ability grouping was common during the 1960s and '70s in elementary school and allowed educators to put their students already in the same classroom into smaller clusters based on their understanding of the lessons. For instance, students who already had mastered their basic multiplication tables could go ahead and start working on more advanced calculations.
Tracking is similar, but happens between academic years and divvies the high school students up into schedules based on their records. An example would be to send some sophomore students into honors courses while others remained in basic courses.

Both faced criticism because they exacerbated racial and socioeconomic differences.

"What happens is ability groupings create stigma and stigma is a bad thing," American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in an interview. "The moment that you create a label that says 'this is a slow learner' or 'this is a fast learner,' that's a stigma you've created for a kid."

*********************************************

Comment on the last paragraph -- there *are* fast learners and slow learners.

They do this (pretty much only with reading) at my daughter's elm school, and they do it for nearly everything at DS9'd charter school. I am a big fan.

Honestly, I get pretty tired of the high-flown theoretical discussions of both tracking and clustering/grouping-- on EITHER side.

The bottom line is that the people actually working in real classrooms with real students have always done this, WILL always do it, and pretty much cannot serve ANY students well unless they do it, and they don't need a lot of data on "best practices" and "inclusion" to know how to do the right things with the construct.

Seriously. This isn't rocket science. Teachers are NOT about making kids in the "elephant" group feel like crap because they aren't "tiger" kids. Try teaching BOTH groups of kids that material all at once and only the central quartile is going to be getting "appropriate" instruction, however-- and who does THAT help??

There is also a significant amount of flexibility involved in most 'tracking' systems-- that is, few kids are "locked" into a particular track without any way to flex the placement if it becomes less suitable.

Sheesh.

I have to disagree HK. I'm sure that thoughtful teachers group by ability, but I've met too many people who are offended by the idea to believe that everyone who works in a classroom groups by ability. DS12's second grade teacher had him tutor the other kids when the work was too easy for him; when I complained after he told me, she told me that she'd "been taught to use her best students." Another one told me, in a panel discussion where I was the odd man out, that advancing the better students wasn't necessary because "they were already proficient [in the task at hand]!!!" The idea that they could move to the next task seemed alien to these people. Etc. Isn't lockstep teaching one of the things that drives many of us to this site?

It's an ideology thing. Randi Weingarten wouldn't be where she is today if her ideology represented a small minority.

True that.

I guess I'm used to hanging out with the trouble-making sort of educator.

LOL.

On the other hand, that attitude of "well, this is the ceiling" isn't entirely inconsistent with ability grouping, either.

When you outstrip what "the top group" is doing, then you get to be a tutor, see...



Some teachers do this as self-defense alone, incidentally, since that particular kind of child can either be introverted and quietly read much of each day, or a complete and total disruptive force within a classroom. Best to keep the latter sort busy with SOMETHING. LOL.

Yeah, but I think that this really just argues semantics.

Which I still see as rather ridiculous since in my mind (and that of many good educators I've known) it's all ONE thing-- kids need the education that they are ready for, are capable of learning from, and they need to feel included in a classroom environment of peers.

The labeling and hand-wringing over the labels is just-- well, it's just weird. It ignores the pragmatic aspects of things which are more or less unchanging generation after generation. Some kids ARE at different readiness levels. That's all.

I mean, I do get what you're saying, MoN. I do. This is what our district does, too. There really ISN'T any meaningful GT here, because it is what has been used to replace that nasty term "tracking."

Oh, except that we no longer even call it "GT" after elementary school. It's just "honors" or "advanced" or "AP." (You know, versus "standard" or "basic" or "foundations" or "essentials.")

But it's still ability grouping, when you get right down to it. How could ANYONE think that an AP class is a "mixed ability" classroom?? Well, I mean-- technically, it IS, but only in the sense that you can call it either thing, depending upon how narrowly you define "similar ability." KWIM? This is the problem with GT programs that try to be "inclusive" and wind up capturing 20%+ of a school population-- they really amount to tracking at that point, which is just the broader version of ability grouping. Kind of, anyway.

Often, in elementary, kids with similar needs CAN be grouped in one classroom, and then swapped out to other subject specialist teachers within a grade cluster. That actually works tolerably well when implemented carefully, since you can have three second grade teachers, each an endorsed subject specialist in Math/Science, Literacy, in Social Sciences... that way, all the kids in the grade can be grouped into classrooms based on language arts levels (or math levels- whatever you want to consider the "base")... and from there, pulled into other rooms for on-level instruction in the other areas in the instance of the kids who need either much more intensive instruction, or those ready for advanced material (past grade level). It's a little complicated to schedule, but it can work really well. Some kids will be paired with particular teachers for reasons other than their basic academic placement (so perhaps one of those teachers is better for dealing with kids who have anxiety, or another who is great with psychomotor OE's or something).



This business of "spreading them out" has never made sense to experienced classroom teachers, I'll say that. Aside from fairly serious behavioral problems, I mean. It doesn't help anyone-- well, except for administrators who get soundbites that deliver the warm fuzzies. :sigh:


Of course, mandatory test-test-testing gets in the way of all of this authentic learning anyway. So it's still sort of a moot point.

The Brookings report

"How Well are American Students Learning: With sections on the latest international tests, tracking and ability grouping, and advanced math in 8th grade"

is at http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/03/18%20brown%20center%20loveless/2013%20brown%20center%20report%20web.pdf .

Except for math, our district worked to dismantle all ability grouping/tracking mechanisms until just 2 years ago when they were found to be out of compliance on state gifted policy.

While it's true that differentiating in the normal classroom "can be effective" it's also show in studies that it rarely comes close to approaching the effectiveness and growth rate that pull out classes do for GT students. This is only looking at academic outcome, it doesn't address the social / emotional aspects of GT education, which also are much easier to address in a classroom full of peers.

Knowing numerous GT educators in numerous schools, they often tell me that they discourage the idea of normal classroom differentiation as opposed to pull out programs, however, administration prefers normal classroom differentiation as it doesn't create scheduling problems and it puts an additional teacher into a normal classroom where the GT teacher can model differentiation to the normal classroom teacher, "Team Teaching" as the administration likes to label it. The problem with "Team Teaching" is that there is no study that shows it to be anymore effective.

I had a meeting with the local school district's curriculum coordinator and superintendent a couple of years back. The district claims in their literature and website to be "Data driven and committed to best practice" I asked what data and or studies they used to to determine that differentiation in the normal class room was best practice for GT students, the only answer I got back was, "Well.......lots of school districts do it that way." When I persisted about the data or studies they used to base their decision on, they changed the subject. No surprise there.

Schools will often spin the method they use in a very pretty picture, however, when it comes to backing that method with data and studies, they have trouble doing so.

I didn't go to school in the US . But the school where i went to was in Asia , and over there , back in high school , they have classes for the " super smart ones - fast paced " and " smart ones - regular pace " and finally " and okay ones = slower pace "

This worked just fine for us , we didn't have label this or label that , despite the fact that our classroom was divided based on the intelligence of each students . We still hung out with each other , we never said you're slow learner , or you're the smart ones . Well we acknowledged that they're from which class , but we never really thought it would label us and stick to us forever .But again , this worked just fine for all of us .

What it amounts to is being politically correct vs. being best practice. The two often collide.

In my opinion - and I do not expect everyone to agree with it:-

Not to differentiate is actually the worst thing to do.

This is something that ought to be obvious to anyone that thinks about this for more than a couple of nanoseconds - pre the lobotomy that is usually applied in US colleges in the name of 'Political Correctness' at least.

People with the ecomonic and political means to opt out into better schools that do differentiate will - leaving the underprivileged to fall deeper into the mire.

Iron sharpens iron...

I am not in the US - our schools use a spread them out and then have groups within the class at least for the early years. It just seems to make so much work with a wide range of skills in the class. Also when there are 24 kids in the class who have had between 4 and 22 months schooling I find it highly improbable that they fall neatly into 4 or 5 reading levels so some kids must be in groups above or below their ideal level.

They usually don't fall neatly into a few reading / math / science levels, you're correct. It takes a master teacher to be able to differentiate effectively with such a wide range of students, however, master teachers aren't the ones being hired, they're too expensive for the public school's budget, they're hiring the teacher with the min. qualifications that is the cheapest....and in many states all learning abilities must be mixed into the normal class room.

I am grateful that my children's school has consistently used tracking starting in 1st grade even though the district GT curriculum does not start until 3rd grade. There is some shuffling between 1st and 3rd grade but the majority of kids have been together in the same class since 1st grade. It is simple to implement and beneficial to the kids in the top 15% or so.

I think that intra-class grouping is much trickier to implement and I have only seen it done well back when I was in elementary school and tracking didn't start until 7th grade.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...-to-grouping-students-by-ability/274362/

Let's Go Back to Grouping Students by Ability
Since the late 1960s, well-meaning educators have shied away from placing kids in "faster" and "slower" classes. Now that trend is reversing—and for good reason.
BARRY GARELICK
The Atlantic
MAR 26 2013, 10:20 AM ET

I'm curious...where is your school located?

This essay explains why some educational policy-makers and researchers are opposed to ability grouping. The comments at the site by Sherrie273, Django, and Brianna are much more persuasive to me.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/05/michelle_newsum_tracking_our_w.html
Michelle Newsum: Tracking Our Way to Wider Achievement Gaps
Education Week
May 29, 2013

No, I specifically wanted to be in the back row in Orchestra.

I mean, if you wanted to be better, you had to practice.

And practicing an instrument is boring beyond words.

Actually my third-grade math class worked this way--but that was over 40 years ago. I did find it motivating and I think other students who were usually in the top ~fourth or third of the class did too, but I do wonder what effect it had on the students near the bottom. It was not a 'tracked' or accelerated class, so students of all abilities were in there together. That was the only class and the only year I ever saw that kind of arrangement.

It was in classes like this where I figured out that my intelligence could be used as a sledgehammer to psychologically smash other students.

So, it also causes problems for the top of the class.

Winning!

As I have mentioned before on this board, the teachers at DD's gifted magnet seem to semi-routinely announce grades and call out high achievers. They also send home report cards and standardized test scores in the kids' binders without an envelope or any instructions to keep them private.

I find this odd and troubling. It feel deliberate since it's happened in both classes, with two very different teachers.

DD is a high achiever and is often on the receiving end of these comments. She does not like it.

M of N, that's always been the way band and orchestra were seated in all the ones I have been in. It's traditional practice, though I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it had been eliminated.

I kept doing it to fill in part of the "well-rounded" checkbox for college.

Strictly going through the motions.

That's awesome, I fully support the NASP in this dream! (cue violins)

Especially if the "accommodation" is something better than handing the kid a workbook for a year of self-instruction in the back of the classroom.

DeeDee

DD?


Is that you?

Ooh! Ooh! I did that in third grade using fourth grade material and then got to repeat the fourth grade material in fourth grade.

I'm not sure if I even learned much the first time through it. I slept through it in fourth grade.

'creative' being a euphemism for 'lowering standards' to further alienate the children with the most potential.

I think that's it exactly. There's probably an assumption among many educators (I've certainly heard it) that the higher achievers and/or brighter students are okay because they're already passing the test. NCLB and its onerous conditions don't help.

It would help if educators in general were smarter. Schools are an environment with a high focus on cognitive activities. In this kind of environment, smarter people understand the needs of other smarter people in a way that others just don't.

we sure found that out (the hard way) this year! it never occurred to me that our carefully-chosen private school would take the view that if she was WAY beyond grade level, there was clearly no problem. i guesssss... but only if you ignore the whole wanting to quit school/wanting to be dead thing. at 5 years old.

"Accessible" is also a euphemism for the same thing. "We need to make the textbook more accessible" = "We need to dumb it down."

Beautifully put-- but especially the bolded portion.

We had ability grouping when I was at school with up to 6 groups. Being with the top 15%-20% of students is vastly better than lumping everyone together. You can move through material more quickly and, for example, get to calculus by grade 9 or 10. People around here are used to thinking of top 2.5% or top 0.1%, but even a top 15%-20% group can gain a couple of years over an average group.



What an infuriating article. I really wasn't aware of such extremist views. Why do some people think "Wider Achievement Gaps" is a bad thing. If everyone learns to the best of their ability, then of course there will be wider achievement gaps. Wider achievement gaps is what should happen.

I understand your frustration, and with kids in public schools, I've experienced it first hand. However, I think it is worth keeping in mind that practices to reduce the achievement gap are not driven by the notion that every child has equal potential.

Let's not forget that differences in environment also contribute to the gap. While my kids do have high IQs, their high level of achievement can be attributed in part to privilege - their basic human needs are met in a comfortable loving home where their every interest is indulged and supported and their every achievement is applauded. It is in the best interests of our society to support kids who are not so lucky to be privileged in the way mine are, so they have the necessary basic skills to have some quality of life as they become adults.

Right-- but the problem with implementing those (laudable) intentions is that there is a conflation of opportunity with measurable impact.

Just providing opportunity isn't enough, apparently... and we have to label and 'diagnose' reasons why some people don't/can't/won't take advantage of those opportunities and achieve the way that others (who already had them) do.

The assumption really DOES seem to be that if we're doing this all correctly, then EVERY child will be a high achiever.

That's simply not the case. It's very troubling that this is used as an argument against grouping by ability/readiness.

Not in our school district - I think they'd be ecstatic if every student learned how to read and do basic arithmetic. We're nowhere close to that right now.

And there is some good evidence that having a range of achievement levels in a class can benefit those at the lower end. That said, however, our district has extrapolated that evidence to dogmatic extreme by putting the *full* range of achievement levels in *every* classroom. There are many problems with this strategy, and the HG students suffer from it the most. I think the optimum lies somewhere in between this approach and full-on *tracking*. Grouping is just now being reintroduced in our district but there is a lot of pushback in the schools, from teachers AND parents....

If the home environment is a factor in lower achievement (which I believe it is), then focusing on the school environment won't correct the problem. But refusing to ability group does create new problems for any students who aren't moving at the group's pace.

Giving extra help to low SES may help them if done thoughtfully (which is wonderful). But I don't see why this means that kids who need a much faster or slower pace have to be gypped out of meaningful learning opportunities.

Right-- the problem isn't going to be solved by placing high ability students with those who need remedial pacing/material.

The underlying problem being one of non-enriched educational opportunity...

what the research seems to actually show is that ALL children do well with ENRICHED learning environments. But that is not the same thing as saying that they all achieve like HG+ learners. They don't-- but too many administrators think that the two things should be the same.

Placing high ability and low achievement kids in the same classrooms and giving them ALL the same instruction doesn't serve anyone very well. Giving them similar opportunities and enrichment within their on-level instruction is a GREAT idea, however-- but you've made that task a LOT harder if there is too wide a range of readiness and ideal pacing within that classroom.

Most states have a limit on class size. I sometimes wonder what would happen if class limits were expressed in standard deviations rather than numbers of students.

Imagine if you give the students an entrance exam for each subject. You calculate the mean and standard deviation of the scores. Then you divide them up into classrooms by standard deviations: Everyone between -3 and -1 SD in one class, everyone in -1 to +1 SD in another, and everyone in +1 to +3 SD in the last. You are treated as equally exceptional whether you are significantly above the mean, or below.

What would it be like to teach each of those classrooms?

Would this be fair?

Approximately 2/3 of standardized normally distributed samples are between -1 and 1, with 1/6 below -1 and 1/6 above 1, so your suggestion would result in the middle group (-1 to 1) having 4 times as many students as the bottom group or the top group (since 2/3 = 4*1/6).

Indeed, not all will achieve like Above Average+ learners.

Here's some exciting news.

Apparently, being from a low SES and then becoming highly achieving causes you severe physical stress.

"The authors found that the socioeconomically at-risk kids who reported low levels of depression, conduct problems, and substance abuse and who were rated as highly competent by their teachers in fact showed the greatest signs of physical distress. In other words, the more kids seem to be fighting their way to success, the more their health seems to suffer."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201306/the-hidden-costs-resilience

It's psychology today so I have no idea whether it's actually good science.

DS just completed Kindergarten. He enjoyed working in his first grade workbook and also third grade math sheets when he finished ahead of the class. But I didn't enjoy seeing him do twice the amount of work than he should have. The Kindergarten math sheets came home side-by-side with the third grade ones. It was ludicrous.

We knew he'd be in for more of the same if he was re-enrolled for next year and have headed off that disaster (we think, anyway) with enrollment in a blended-grade charter for first.

Hmm...well, maybe the logic was "Just because he can multiply doesn't mean he knows how to count."

Or maybe there was a misconception about giftedness: "Gifted kids love to do lots and lots of worksheets."

I honestly don't understand it either.

Thanks for putting numbers with it. My questions is really about what prevents teachers from meeting students at their level effectively. Is it the number of students, or the discrepancies in ability? A combination? My guess it's a combination, but what is the proper weighting of those factors?

The class limits could also work in tandem:
1) No class shall be larger than 25 kids.
2) No class shall include students more than 2 SDs apart.

Students who are outside the target range of the curriculum probably also require a disproportionate amount of time, DAD22.

So I'm thinking that curriculum itself needs to not be more than one SD away, too.

Students who are outside because they are able to absorb the material can just sleep through class.

I'd say its a combination of both factors, with a third factor being the skill level of the teacher, where the relevant skills are managing instruction at different levels simultaneously AND content knowledge. In many districts elementary and middle school teachers have a K-8 certification, i.e., no specialized content knowledge. They have to learn extra to teach HG students at an appropriate level while also developing/delivering lessonss for the rest of the students.

The NYT now has an article on this, mostly about ability grouping by a teacher within a classroom, rather than assigning different ability groups to different teachers at the same grade level.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/e...bility-regains-favor-with-educators.html
Grouping Students by Ability Regains Favor in Classroom
By VIVIAN YEE
New York Times
June 9, 2013

Ahhh-- you beat me to it! I was just coming to post this.

I'm flabbergasted at some of the comments which indicate that such a practice is "wrong" or "harmful," however...

and deeply saddened by the remarks from educators which indicate a mindset which entirely fails to even contemplate what to do with children who are either unable to learn at the pace of the other 25-30 children in a classroom... or have no need to "learn" anything being taught in that room to begin with, since they already know it.

The teacher who indicated that failing to 'group' for instruction was effectively failing to teach 2/3rd of the class in their proximal zone was absolutely accurate.

What amazes me is that they really believe this stuff. Many people I've spoken to have been so committed to this kind of thing, there is no changing their opinions.

I remember debating a proposed project that was based on a blatantly pseudoscientific method. I was not the only person in the room who felt this way and we were picking it apart. Another person responded, "Everything you say is correct, but I'm going to give this one a very high rating because if it's right, it would just be so wonderful."

I honestly have no idea how to counter this way of "thinking."