Ability grouping

Banty wrote in :
[snip]
Though, is that the fault of the program, or perhaps due to the simple
fact that the groupings are accurate to begin with? (That the kids who
start out in
the 'low' groups are the kids who have the lower abilities, and so are
likely to remain in the lower groups? I mean, there are always going to be
some people on the extremes of any leaning curve. We don't live in Lake
Woebegon, where all children are above average!

I think accurate groupings will change in membership because kids mature
at
different rates, especially in the younger grades. If they're pinned in
an ability group, while it isn't as bad as tracking where all their
classmates and eventually friends are from the lower track, reinforcing
their standing, it's still a matter of outside perceptions limiting the
child's progress.
[snip]

The other factor in the youngest classes is that the 'real' age range is
much greater in the youngest classes. For instance my youngest was
5yo and two weeks at the start of the year, and oldest children in her class
were 5yo and 51 weeks. This is the same percentage age range as comparing
13yos to 15.5yos.

So even if the nearly 6yo was slightly below average for their age, and the
just 5yo slightly above average, the nearly 6yo should be 'more able' then
the just 5yo, and would be in a more advanced group.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

I think accurate groupings will change in membership because kids mature at
different rates, especially in the younger grades.

I *did* say "like to remain in the lower group." Meaning that some kids will
move up as they catch on/mature, but others will remain where they are due to
inborn abilities.
And yes, of course the groups should be flexible,and should allow for/encourage
the kids to move up (or down, if necessary) as their needs change.


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

In article , Penny Gaines says...

Banty wrote in :
[snip]
Though, is that the fault of the program, or perhaps due to the simple
fact that the groupings are accurate to begin with? (That the kids who
start out in
the 'low' groups are the kids who have the lower abilities, and so are
likely to remain in the lower groups? I mean, there are always going to be
some people on the extremes of any leaning curve. We don't live in Lake
Woebegon, where all children are above average!

I think accurate groupings will change in membership because kids mature
at
different rates, especially in the younger grades. If they're pinned in
an ability group, while it isn't as bad as tracking where all their
classmates and eventually friends are from the lower track, reinforcing
their standing, it's still a matter of outside perceptions limiting the
child's progress.
[snip]

The other factor in the youngest classes is that the 'real' age range is
much greater in the youngest classes. For instance my youngest was
5yo and two weeks at the start of the year, and oldest children in her class
were 5yo and 51 weeks. This is the same percentage age range as comparing
13yos to 15.5yos.

So even if the nearly 6yo was slightly below average for their age, and the
just 5yo slightly above average, the nearly 6yo should be 'more able' then
the just 5yo, and would be in a more advanced group.


Around here, when it was considered smart to redshirt kids, especially boys, the
upper age range would extend at least a year. At the end of second grade my son
was recommended to repeat the grade. (I didn't allow it, and he's done fine.)
One of the reasons given - he's 'young'. He has an early October birthday,
which is nearly two months before the cutoff date. One would think that would
place him well within the age range of the class, if toward the younger end just
by happenstance of where the cutoff date is set. But many kids in his class
were up to 18 months older.

Banty

In article ,
Penny Gaines wrote:

The other factor in the youngest classes is that the 'real' age range is
much greater in the youngest classes. For instance my youngest was
5yo and two weeks at the start of the year, and oldest children in her class
were 5yo and 51 weeks. This is the same percentage age range as comparing
13yos to 15.5yos.

Around here the age range is even greater. Some of the 5yo and 2weeks
kids start on time, while others are held back by their parents (often
at the suggestion of preschool teachers) and start K at 6yo and 2 weeks,
or 6yo and 2 months, or even 6yo and 6 months.... some kids turn 7 in their
K year here!

--Robyn

Naomi Pardue wrote:

It can be challenging
to implement, though, and some schools that claim mobility
don't really evidence much in reality ;-)

Though, is that the fault of the program, or perhaps due to the simple fact
that the groupings are accurate to begin with? (That the kids who start out in
the 'low' groups are the kids who have the lower abilities, and so are likely
to remain in the lower groups? I mean, there are *always* going to be some
people on the extremes of any leaning curve. We don't live in Lake Woebegon,
where all children are above average!


Agreed, but I think it is far from uncommon for children,
especially in grade school, to hit their stride at different
ages, causing children who have fine ability to appear behind
at times and then to zoom ahead when they get their act together
*and* are given the opportunity. So while I wouldn't expect
to see most children moving among groups, I would expect to
see *some* movement, and in some programs you don't see that.
Also, it's easy to see *why* you don't see mobility in some
programs. If the groups are not carefully coordinated, it
becomes *impossible* to move kids without a lot of difficulty
(because they will have missed out on the skills previously
taught to the more advanced group). We ran into that problem
last year. The system in use at our school is *supposed* to
support mobility among groups, and usually it does, but we
ran into a particular teacher who caused the system to
break down. Obviously, you can always run into someone
in a good system who's mucking up the works, but my point
is that retaining that mobility requires constant vigilance
and commitment, or you will very shortly end up with a
system that effective *has* no mobility.


(As the mother of a child who IS 'above average' in most school subjects, I'd
be pretty peeved if she were forced to study at a level targeted to meet the
needs of her slowest-learning peers. (And my personal experience with classes
that are NOT 'ability grouped' is that they DO end up being targeted to the
slowest kids, not even the 'average' kids, because the teachers don't want to
leave too many kids too hopelessly behind.) She'd be bored senseless. )


Sure, and having a couple of kids above average myself,
I totally see your point. On the other hand, if you were the
parent of an average or below average kid, you'd be pretty
peeved if the school was using a system demonstrated to be
to the detriment of your child that relegated her to less
skilled and engaging teachers, that removed from her
examples of of higher achieving students so that she
adjusted her concept of "normal" or "acceptable" downward
further than her abilities warranted, and that made it
difficult for her to move up if and when she rose to the
challenge. While I do believe in ability grouping, at
least when done in certain ways, all of these are common
weaknesses in the system even when implemented with the
best motives. One has to be *very* careful, or it becomes
a real problem for all but the high achieving students.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

Naomi Pardue wrote:

It can be challenging
to implement, though, and some schools that claim mobility
don't really evidence much in reality ;-)

Though, is that the fault of the program, or perhaps due to the simple fact
that the groupings are accurate to begin with? (That the kids who start out in
the 'low' groups are the kids who have the lower abilities, and so are likely
to remain in the lower groups? I mean, there are *always* going to be some
people on the extremes of any leaning curve. We don't live in Lake Woebegon,
where all children are above average!


Agreed, but I think it is far from uncommon for children,
especially in grade school, to hit their stride at different
ages, causing children who have fine ability to appear behind
at times and then to zoom ahead when they get their act together
*and* are given the opportunity. So while I wouldn't expect
to see most children moving among groups, I would expect to
see *some* movement, and in some programs you don't see that.
Also, it's easy to see *why* you don't see mobility in some
programs. If the groups are not carefully coordinated, it
becomes *impossible* to move kids without a lot of difficulty
(because they will have missed out on the skills previously
taught to the more advanced group). We ran into that problem
last year. The system in use at our school is *supposed* to
support mobility among groups, and usually it does, but we
ran into a particular teacher who caused the system to
break down. Obviously, you can always run into someone
in a good system who's mucking up the works, but my point
is that retaining that mobility requires constant vigilance
and commitment, or you will very shortly end up with a
system that effective *has* no mobility.


(As the mother of a child who IS 'above average' in most school subjects, I'd
be pretty peeved if she were forced to study at a level targeted to meet the
needs of her slowest-learning peers. (And my personal experience with classes
that are NOT 'ability grouped' is that they DO end up being targeted to the
slowest kids, not even the 'average' kids, because the teachers don't want to
leave too many kids too hopelessly behind.) She'd be bored senseless. )


Sure, and having a couple of kids above average myself,
I totally see your point. On the other hand, if you were the
parent of an average or below average kid, you'd be pretty
peeved if the school was using a system demonstrated to be
to the detriment of your child that relegated her to less
skilled and engaging teachers, that removed from her
examples of of higher achieving students so that she
adjusted her concept of "normal" or "acceptable" downward
further than her abilities warranted, and that made it
difficult for her to move up if and when she rose to the
challenge. While I do believe in ability grouping, at
least when done in certain ways, all of these are common
weaknesses in the system even when implemented with the
best motives. One has to be *very* careful, or it becomes
a real problem for all but the high achieving students.

Best wishes,
Ericka


Right. In my son's case, as it was, he had at least one teacher lobbying to
slow down his education permanently when he was in his younger years. If
reading groups weren't as fluid as they were in his school, it would have been
worse to have the ability groups than to have no groups at all. He could have
been relagated down permanently due to circumstances of age of entry, prevailing
practices of other parents concerning age of entry, his particular development
pattern, and the class assignment lottery.

Banty

I *did* say "like to remain in the lower group."

Aarghh... that should have been "likely" to remain... I've always been below
average in typing ability...


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

On the other hand, if you were the
parent of an average or below average kid, you'd be pretty
peeved if the school was using a system demonstrated to be
to the detriment of your child

Oh, absolutely. What we want is a system that best meets the needs of all the
children.
This kinda goes back to our discussion of school PE classes. There are plenty
of examples out there are bad schools and teachers, and schools that do these
things badly. But, there are also examples of schools and teachers that do it
well. So, since we know that it is possible to do it well, ideally we should
try to do it well so that everyone can benefit.


But -- if it isn't possible to do it well in a particular school, I think it
is human nature for each of us to seek to get the best for ourselves and OUR
families; and if an imperfect style of 'ability grouping' means that my gifted
child gets what she needs while being detrimental to someone else's less gifted
child -- I'm gunna be selfish and say that my child deserves to get what will
benefit her, and another mother's child will have to struggle on as best he
can!

(Having said that, I think that the ability grouping in Shaina's school IS
flexible and works very well. The kids spend most of their time in mixed group
classes with kids of all abilities, and are only ability-grouped for math and
reading. In fact, nobody even bothered to tell us that Shaina was in a gifted
program until last year, and we didn't get anything in writing about it until
this year, though she's been in it since, I think, 2nd or 3rd grade.







Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

In article ,
Naomi Pardue wrote:
On the other hand, if you were the
parent of an average or below average kid, you'd be pretty
peeved if the school was using a system demonstrated to be
to the detriment of your child

Oh, absolutely. What we want is a system that best meets the needs of all the
children.

The problem is, I'm not sure such a system exists (or has been
implemented widely enough to be studied). Pretty much every
educational strategy I've ever seen studied has advantages for some
students, but disadvantages for others. If the "best practice" for
average and lower achievers is to be in classes/groups with higher
achieving kids, but that is disadvantageous for the higher achieving
kids, someone loses. You'd need some kind of system where every child
gets to play mentor some of the time and mentee at other times, but
that's difficult to arrange!

(From my children's experience, I've seen well-implemented multiage
groupings do this pretty well -- any given kid will likely only be at
the very top or very bottom of the pack for at most one year of ideally
at least 3 years in the group, but I don't know that there is good
research to back up my anecdotal observations.)

--Robyn

Hi -

The research I recall seeing (quite some time ago, now) suggests that
ability grouping is a distant second-best to small classes. If you have
small classes, about 14-16 kids, most teachers can successfully handle a
variety of abilities, providing an appropriate education to all.

Not a panacaea, but certainly worth thinking about,
--Beth Kevles

http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would
like me to reply.