... when the topic of sorting all children by ability and not age has come up, there have always been 2 responses: it's racist/classist and it's not fair to the bottom performing children because they will know that they are "less than" and their self esteem will be hurt.
Might objections be based on the older practice of "tracking" in which students were locked in to one performance level throughout their school careers? Steady improvements in identifying/addressing LD/2e issues have enabled students to make dramatic academic gains after a breakthrough. Similarly, developments in technology have provided adaptive assessments which may aid in flexible clustering.
... with one group of kids for math and a different group of kids for reading (I was considered advanced for reading but not for math). I never thought negatively about myself for being in a lower math group or the second lowest gym group. I don't think I thought much about it at all. In a way, it was a relief being with kids at a similar level--in gym for instance. Who wants to play sports with kids who are way more advanced?
Ditto. Beyond anecdotes, there is research to back this up. One link here-
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/kulik.html, to an article titled "An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives", authored by James A. Kulik, 1992:
... Self-esteem of lower aptitude students rises slightly...
