I am not sure if any of you have ever faced this argument, but I regularly told that "the evidence shows that when mixed ability readers are paired for reading that they both improve more than in like pairs - but it's the stronger reader that improves the most". This is used as an argument for mixed ability everything, and how good it is for stronger/brighter students to be paired with weaker kids - that they will learn so much more by having to teach their peers. I think there are important lessons to be learned from helping others, both in terms of being able to explain/teach what you may have learned automagically and "just know", to say nothing of increasing patience, kindness, tolerance, etc. But I am pretty certain this research is based on children that are within a stones throw of each other (say 5-10 reader levels apart, not 3-5 years reading ability apart). I would not be happy (and am not happy right now) with my child to be getting no real instruction at her level and spending all her time in mixed ability groups because it's supposedly teaching her something. Some of the time absolutely, but not all of it. And I am not convinced that it is that great for a child who is struggling with basic concepts of reading or math to regularly have the youngest kid in the class as their teacher/reading pair because it's supposedly good for both of them? My Dd is skipped, so she's not just the youngest, she's far and away the youngest.
