On 29 Oct 2003 09:56:48 -0800, (Nevermind) wrote:

I know this will be a very unscientific survey, but I'm curious about
how common Erika's school's grouping system (see below) is these days.
Our school doesn't officially do ability grouping -- there is *no*
expectation that the work the kids're doing in reading or math will be
pegged to their individual ability at all, only to their age. It's
one-size-fits-all unless the teacher wants to differentiate on her
own.

How about your kids' elementary schools?

I had understood that ability grouping had become rare in U.S.
elementary schools, but if I'm wrong about that, then our school
district's system is much more vulnerable to criticism and parental
agitation for change.

First some research archived on what has been done he

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Research5/Uni...erception.html

The most common organizational arrangements adopted by
schools to handle individual differences among students are
known variously as ability grouping, tracking, and streaming
(Oakes, Gamoran, and Page 1992). Ability grouping involves
the division of academic subjects into classes or groups at
different levels for students of different abilities, which can
include both within-class and between-class grouping
(Oakes 1987). Grouping within a single classroom is most
common in elementary schools, while a wider range of
grouping plans are used in junior high and high schools
(Slavin 1990). Many comprehensive high schools place
students in classes and programs of instruction according
to their educational needs and ability. Despite this division
by ability, the students' options tend to remain open through
later years of high school and even students in lower ability
groups or classes may attend a community college or even
a four-year college (Oakes, Gamoran, and Page 1992).

In addition to ability grouping, schools use other instructional
and curricular arrangements to accommodate students of
differing ability. These include retention of a child in grade;
special education for students who have problems in school
for a variety of intellectual, emotional, or physical reasons;
and other types of special classes for children who are
identified as exceptionally able academically.

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

Elementary Schools
At the elementary level, individual differences are most
often accommodated within the classrooms through ability
grouping that is linked to instructional variation, but there is
no nationally standardized set of categories or patterns for
grouping children (Gamoran 1989). Ability grouping typically
occurs within classes when students are divided into
several small groups, separated by level of ability for
instruction in particular subjects, especially reading.
Dividing the classroom into three or four groups is the
most common arrangement. Each subgroup receives
instruction at its own level and is allowed to progress at
its own rate (Slavin 1989). In first grade, more than 90
percent of elementary schools use within-class ability
grouping for reading, 25 percent for mathematics (Entwistle
and Alexander 1993).

Though within-class grouping is the most common form of
separation, students may also be placed in groups that cut
across classes. Between-class grouping takes two forms:
it may last for the entire day, encompassing all subjects, or
it may be used for a specific subject (Oakes et al. 1992).
When between-class grouping lasts for the entire day,
students are assigned to self-contained classes on the basis
of measures of general achievement. Students then remain
with the same group of classmates for all academic subjects.
A less extreme form of between-class grouping involves
regrouping for reading or mathematics. With this system,
students remain in classes that are heterogeneous by ability
most of the day but are regrouped for selected subjects.
For example, three fourth-grade classes in a school might
have reading scheduled at the same time. At reading time,
students might leave their heterogeneous homerooms and
go to a class organized according to reading levels
(Slavin 1989).

Another approach to between-class ability grouping is the
Joplin Plan, which involves regrouping students for reading
by ability only, without regard for grade levels (Slavin 1989).
Lastly, some schools adopt nongraded plans. This approach
involves grouping arrangements in which formal grade levels
are abolished in favor of flexible cross-age groupings for
different subjects. Where nongrading is done only in reading
or mathematics, it is essentially identical to the Joplin Plan
(Slavin 1989).

Placement in groups within the same classroom typically
determines the amount and type of instruction children receive
(Entwistle and Alexander 1993). For example, low-ability reading
groups spend relatively more time on decoding activities,
whereas more emphasis is placed on the meaning of stories
in ability groups composed of more able readers. High-ability
groups do more silent reading and when reading aloud are
interrupted less by other students or the teacher. Students
with a history of membership in high-ability groups are likely to
have covered considerably more material throughout their
elementary school years (Oakes et al. 1992).

*****************
Consequences of Ability Grouping
The impact of systems of ability grouping on students is the
subject of intense debate among educators and researchers.
Arguments in favor of ability grouping generally focus on its
effectiveness for instruction (Feldhusen 1989). Arguments
opposed to ability grouping focus on the issue of equity,
particularly as related to ethnicity and class. Many critics of
ability grouping suggest that such grouping helps to maintain
and perpetuate class status from one generation to another
in the United States by sorting children from different
backgrounds into different curricular programs (Gamoran
and Mare 1989). Opponents also argue that ability grouping
is unfair to low achievers, citing problems of peer models,
low teacher expectations, and slow instructional pace
(Braddock 1990; Rosenbaum 1976, 1980; Oakes 1985;
Gamoran and Mare 1989). Finally, other researchers suggest
that these arguments may be irrelevant because ability
grouping does not have a significant impact on achievement,
values, or other educational outcomes (Slavin 1990; Kulik
and Kulik 1982; Kulik and Kulik 1987).

*************
Rigidity of Group Placement
Students' placements by ability tend to be fixed and long-term.
Those placed in low-ability groups in elementary school are
likely to continue in these tracks in junior high school. Any
movement between tracks that does occur is most often in
a downward direction (Oakes et al. 1992).

Only 40 percent of students in American public elementary
schools are assigned to the top tracks in their schools
(Oakes 1987). In first grade, probably one-third to one-fourth
of children are placed in the bottom group in a given subject
(Entwistle and Alexander 1993). This group placement early
in their education can have important consequences for the
types of courses that will be available to students in later
years, and may dictate later placement in high-track classes
in senior high school (Oakes et al. 1992). Although decisions
made about students' placement at a particular grade seem
to have a slight effect on students' achievement, cumulative
effects of such placement do become evident in the later
years of schooling (Oakes 1987).

South Carolina passed a law to encourage the use of *acheivement
grouping* in its schools.

http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/sess113...bills/4154.htm

I know that my children's elementary school classes were grouped
and regrouped for individual subjects, but I don't know if that is
still the case.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits