Comments

One of the schools we looked at for our son did this to, though they spread the groupings across two grades. That is, they assess the first and second graders as a single group, then break out that group into as many homogenous ability subgroups as they have 1st and 2nd grade teachers. They do the same thing with math.

-- DougSundseth - 21 Apr 2006

This would work really well if the classes were scheduled with sufficient duplication so that a student and her parents could easily devise a schedule that looks like:

• 1st period: 3rd grade math
• 2nd period: 4th grade science
• 3rd period: 2nd grade reading

etc.

And then partway through the semester she moves up from 2nd grade reading to 3rd grade reading, but still at 3rd period.

-- GoogleMaster - 21 Apr 2006

Was this a charter school?

-- CatherineJohnson - 21 Apr 2006

Catherine,

I don't understand why the title for this page says Catholic school. What I described was at our ordinary public school.

-- DanK - 21 Apr 2006

Oops. I hadn't seen the update from Loveless. Nevermind.

-- DanK - 21 Apr 2006

" ...how are they going to deal with her in second grade? The answer is that nobody is quite sure."

This is the big question. Will the A,B,C, and D groups become de facto tracks? This isn't necessarily bad if the curriculum is the same. However, starting in first grade, it may be hard after a couple of years to change tracks unless they have specific methods to help kids cross the gaps. For four classes with four teachers, what if one track becomes becomes filled up too much? Someone might decide that they have to eliminate some students from group D. Four levels sounds like a bit too much. Two levels at each grade sounds like plenty. After that, they could jump up a grade level. Unfortunately, at our public schools, acceleration is not an option, even in the same classroom.

-- SteveH - 21 Apr 2006

Bonnie grossen's article How should we group to achieve excellence with equity? is a good primer on ability grouping.

-- KDeRosa - 21 Apr 2006

Wickelgren had a whole cool way of staggering math instruction...I'll have to find that & post it.

-- CatherineJohnson - 21 Apr 2006

KELLER METHOD FOR K-5

Wonder if anyone's done it.

-- CatherineJohnson - 21 Apr 2006

KDeRosa^?,

Thanks for the Grossen link.

Ability grouping makes eminent sense but the opposition to it is ferocious. It's egalitarianism run amuck. Everybody loses under the current heterogeneous-mixing regime, but the dogma is deeply entrenched.

See the opening lines of the article for a sense of the hostility to ability grouping:

Ability grouping in America has become a loaded word. In response to inequities of the past associated with ability grouping, an emerging national agenda among nearly all reform constituencies is claiming that ability grouping is bad, it is racist, it must be eliminated (Oakes, 1985, 1990; Wheelock, 1992). Slavin (1991), for example, argues:

"The burden of proof for the antidemocratic, antiegalitarian practice of ability grouping must be on those who would group, and no one who reads this literature could responsibly conclude that this requirement has been met." (p. 70). Hastings sees the equity issue in more absolute terms:

"The answer to the debate on ability grouping is not to be found in new research. There exists a body of philosophic absolutes that should include this statement: The ability grouping of students for educational opportunities in a democratic society is ethically unacceptable" (Hastings, 1992, p. 14).

From my experience teaching, I've come to the conclusion that a potentially more palatable alternative to despised ability grouping would be grouping by behavior. I was able to observe repeatedly how a minority to half the class is able to paralyze teaching for the other half that is willing to learn. This condition prevailed in urban classrooms full of disadvantaged students.

-- CharlesH - 21 Apr 2006

I think a lot of the problem is how the bottom group is perceived and handled. I think we talked about this several months ago, but one of the best comments (probably Steve said it) was that the bottom group has to be viewed as the group that needs to catch up. The absolute greatest fear you have as the parent of a struggler is that the school will simply accept the situation. If the attitude is more about pushing them to catch up with their peers than I think parents, and even teachers, would be more accepting.

I will never forget holding back tears as I realized my seemingly perfect son was going to have to go to a special ed preschool. The first meeting with the experts is an absolute killer as they carefully choose their words so as not to devastate you in one shot.

But mostly, I will never forget the principal reassuring me with great confidence that their job was going to be to push hard to get him "school ready". She said, and I quote, that they were going to "bombard him with stimuli." It felt as though they were not going to accept the situation if there was any way possible. That is what the parent in that situation needs to know.

The biggest fear you have for your slow learner is that he will never be expected to do any more. He will be stuck there forever. The label is on and he can never escape.

-- SusanS - 22 Apr 2006

From Grossen's article:

"Ability grouping in America has become a loaded word. In response to inequities of the past associated with ability grouping, an emerging national agenda among nearly all reform constituencies is claiming that ability grouping is bad, it is racist, it must be eliminated ..."

High schools group by ability, but it's only racist for the lower grades? Lots of educational practices could be racist (like low expectations or assuming that child's education requires proper home support), but allowing kids to advance at their own educational pace is not one of them. Apparently this has to be done in a heterogeneous learning environment to pass the racist test. This won't fix the problem, but it will make some people feel good.

-- SteveH - 22 Apr 2006

Everybody loses under the current heterogeneous-mixing regime, but the dogma is deeply entrenched.

I agree.

It's not just the fast learners who are hurt by the heterogeneous-mixing regime. It's everyone.

At the same time, I understand perfectly well why the anti-tracking movement has prevailed.

"He's a 3."

That's Christopher's guidance counselor telling me, on the phone, a year and a half ago, what Christopher was.

I'll never forget that!

He's a 3. Direct quote. When I pointed out that Christopher had never scored anything less than a 4 on the state tests he said the state tests didn't matter - the first and last time I've heard that from anyone associated with the middle school.

-- CatherineJohnson - 22 Apr 2006

hoo boy

behavior grouping - there's a thought

otoh, you could put all the wild characters together and hire a Marine to teach them

it would work, too

-- CatherineJohnson - 22 Apr 2006

the bottom group has to be viewed as the group that needs to catch up. The absolute greatest fear you have as the parent of a struggler is that the school will simply accept the situation

I agree, but the problem doesn't just reside with the bottom group.

Christopher was completely sc***** being put in the middle group.

The middle group - this is Wickelgren's point - is the slow group for the rest of the world.

But once you're in the middle group in Irvington, you're staying there.

You are AVERAGE.

-- CatherineJohnson - 22 Apr 2006

But mostly, I will never forget the principal reassuring me with great confidence that their job was going to be to push hard to get him "school ready". She said, and I quote, that they were going to "bombard him with stimuli." It felt as though they were not going to accept the situation if there was any way possible. That is what the parent in that situation needs to know.

Definitely.

Those preschool folks are the salt of the earth. They really are.

-- CatherineJohnson - 22 Apr 2006

keywords: fluidachievementgrouping

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 May 2006