Ability grouping

I don't think that *ability* in reading or math is set in stone for
life. Skills can be mastered. If it takes a bit longer for some,
that doesn't mean they haven't got the ability to master those
skills.

Oh, I never said it was set in stone. I said that some kids will move up (or
down.) But some kids will always be better at particular subjects, or worse at
those subjects, for whatever reason, and so will be likely to remain in roughly
the same groups they began in. (So if a child remains in a lower reading group,
for example, it should not be assumed that it's due to prejudice or lack of
flexibility in the program, but, perhaps, because that particular child is
simply not a good reader.)

Also, note the difference between the philosophies here of the
Japanese and other Asian cultures who believe that hard work
always trumps *ability* and the American culture which believes
things are set in stone from birth.

Hmm... you must live in a different 'American culture' than I do, becuase I
have never believed that things are set in stone from birth.

that the belief itself becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy for children when they are *defined* by the
labels.



Nor do I believe that children should be defined by labels. However, I also
don't see how it benefits any child to be placed in a learning environment
where the work is either far above, or far below his or her current abilities.
And, given that the children in any particular grade ARE going to have a fairly
wide range of abilities, I fail to see how a class can offer a fair a
reasonable educational program for all the students without some sort of
ability grouping. A completely mixed class will hurt both the bright kids who
are forced to sit there reading "Run Spot, run," when they are able to read
chapter books, AND the kids who are STRUGGLING to read "Run Spot, run," when
they haven't yet mastered their letters.


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

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

On 10 Nov 2003 03:05:50 GMT, OSPAM (Naomi Pardue)
wrote:

A completely mixed class will hurt both the bright kids who
are forced to sit there reading "Run Spot, run," when they
are able to read chapter books, AND the kids who are
STRUGGLING to read "Run Spot, run," when
they haven't yet mastered their letters.

The age-mixed one room schoolhouse was completely ability
mixed, yet I don't think it hurt the bright students because
each child worked on different curricula as necessary.

I would like to see more age-mixed classes. I think k-3
can be profitably mixed and 4 to 6 or 7 as well. In these
instances, I think you could group and regroup even more
easily by what skills children had mastered because the
brightest k student would probably not have mastered
work that was beyond the slower 3rd grade students.

Also you could profitably use group projects where some
physical skills were beyond the brighter but younger student
yet were easily within the capacity of the slower older
students. And the brighter older students could be advanced
partly because teaching younger students helps them gain
the capacity to communicate what they know and also helps
them gain deeper knowledge *because* they must explain
it to others.


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

toto wrote in message . ..
On 10 Nov 2003 03:05:50 GMT, OSPAM (Naomi Pardue)
wrote:

A completely mixed class will hurt both the bright kids who
are forced to sit there reading "Run Spot, run," when they
are able to read chapter books, AND the kids who are
STRUGGLING to read "Run Spot, run," when
they haven't yet mastered their letters.

The age-mixed one room schoolhouse was completely ability
mixed, yet I don't think it hurt the bright students because
each child worked on different curricula as necessary.

If you know much about educational history, you would know that, by
and large, the one room school house resulted in a population that
received an education that, by contemporary standards, would be
considered, appallingly poor. Each child may well have 'worked on
different curricula', but that meant sitting at his or her place
studying a text book for hours, and then being called forward to
'recite' for the teacher -- meaning asked to parrot forth the material
in the book. The child wasn't expected to actually understand what he
was learning, or use the material in any meaningful way. (And a large
percentage of children simply left school at a very early age, either
because they were needed at home, or because they found school boring,
or because they couldn't handle the work and became frustrated.
Without any compulsary attendence laws, nobody really cared if they
attended school or not.)

While one room school houses today might provide 'ideal learning
environments' that is more likely to be due to the fact that they ALSO
tend to be extremely small schools, so the teacher is able to provide
plenty of individualized instruction. Traditional one-room schools
commonly had 30+ students and one teacher.

I would like to see more age-mixed classes. I think k-3
can be profitably mixed and 4 to 6 or 7 as well. In these
instances, I think you could group and regroup even more
easily by what skills children had mastered because the
brightest k student would probably not have mastered
work that was beyond the slower 3rd grade students.

Shaina's school has mixed age classes. K/1/2 are in one class, 3-4 in
another, and 5-6 in a third. But, within each of these classes,
reading and math are ability grouped so the students can work and
learn at their own level, and are not frustrated with work that is too
difficult, or bored with work that is too basic.

Also you could profitably use group projects where some
physical skills were beyond the brighter but younger student
yet were easily within the capacity of the slower older
students. And the brighter older students could be advanced
partly because teaching younger students helps them gain
the capacity to communicate what they know and also helps
them gain deeper knowledge *because* they must explain
it to others.

They do some of that too, within the other subjects. (They do both
group projects with students of varying ages and abilites grouped
together, and they do individual projects where each child is expected
to work to his/her own ability.) And outside of the curriculum.
Shaina spends part of the her free time with one of the K-2 classes,
reading aloud to them. She enjoys it immensely. The little kids enjoy
it too. Everyone benefits. But I don't think it's HER job, as a
student, to devote HER learning time exclusively to helping the slower
learners in her own class, when she could be learning more material
that she is capable of mastering. That surely isn't fair to her.

Naomi

In article , Naomi Pardue says...

I don't think that *ability* in reading or math is set in stone for

Nor do I believe that children should be defined by labels. However, I also
don't see how it benefits any child to be placed in a learning environment
where the work is either far above, or far below his or her current abilities.
And, given that the children in any particular grade ARE going to have a fairly
wide range of abilities, I fail to see how a class can offer a fair a
reasonable educational program for all the students without some sort of
ability grouping. A completely mixed class will hurt both the bright kids who
are forced to sit there reading "Run Spot, run," when they are able to read
chapter books, AND the kids who are STRUGGLING to read "Run Spot, run," when
they haven't yet mastered their letters.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It's just that it has to be done
right, else the kids as a whole are better off without it.

I've been fortunate in having seen an apparently well-implemented ability
grouping in reading benefit my son. But I can also see what his vulnerability
would have been to be greatly harmed by a poorly-implemented ability grouping
approach. As it was, he was nearly inappropriately held back permanently! If
ability grouping were more set in stone, I can be fairly sure his second grade
teacher would have with no hesitation placed him in the bottom group, never to
be given the opportunity to rise to his potential.

Banty

In article ,
Rosalie B. wrote:

So someone (maybe me) suggested that they just stay in their
homerooms. This made some difficulty for the math and Language Arts
teachers, but basically that was what we did. It didn't make any
difference to me, because I didn't have textbooks in any case. It
seemed to work as well as grouping them would have done - especially
since in middle school at that time they were graded on whether they
were working up to their ability. (In elementary school they were
graded on whether they met the grade standards of achievement and in
HS they were grade strictly on a numeric basis.)

I don't know how different this is really from the old time one-room
school house.

The main difference is that you had only 11yos in the group
(approximately). So, an 11yo who was advanced would never have anyone
older and more advanced to look up to, and an 11yo who was struggling
would never have anyone younger who could look up to them. To
simulate the old-time one-room schoolhouse, you would need a multiage
grouping. Also, my undestanding is certainly that within that
multiage heterogeneous one-room schoolhouse group, kids would be
certainly broken out into smaller groups for various types of instruction.
There would probably be at most as many groups as there were "grades"
but placement in the groups was generally definined by ability rather
than solely by age, and usually the overall group was small enough that
even within the "ability groups" there would be individualization of
expectations as well.


--Robyn

In article ,
toto wrote:
On 10 Nov 2003 03:05:50 GMT, OSPAM (Naomi Pardue)
wrote:

A completely mixed class will hurt both the bright kids who
are forced to sit there reading "Run Spot, run," when they
are able to read chapter books, AND the kids who are
STRUGGLING to read "Run Spot, run," when
they haven't yet mastered their letters.

The age-mixed one room schoolhouse was completely ability
mixed, yet I don't think it hurt the bright students because
each child worked on different curricula as necessary.


This is more or less my kids' school's approach. It is a K-8 ungraded
"two-room" schoolhouse with about 30 students. For most of the day,
"middle school" (approx. 11-13yos) works separately from the
"elementary" group, but they join in for morning meetings and certain
projects. Within the elementary group, they are divided into two
groups, more or less a K-2 group, and a 3-5 group, though the two
elementary groups are together a lot. The principal is also the
elementary teacher. There is a separate middle school teacher, a
part-time French teacher, and a bunch of student-teachers and parent
volunteers.


Reading in the elementary group is completely individual. The ones
learning to read get a lot of one-on-one, and the others read books
chosen cooperatively by student and teacher, meet regularly with the
teacher to discuss them, and do various age- and ability-appropriate
activities related to the book in their reading journals (summarize
chapters, look up vocabulary words, answer questions, discuss
characterization, etc.) Middle school does more traditional group-based
literature studies where they all read the same book and then discuss,
etc. I think they still also do much individualized reading as well.

For Math, the kids are divided into 3 large groups, by ability (basically
one group for basic numeracy through addition and subtraction with
regrouping, the next for basic operations and introduction to fractions,
the highest for fractions, decimals, pre-algebra, geometry, etc.) Within
those groups (especially the middle one) there is a lot of individualization
of expectations, and many times a sub-group will be split off and work with
a student teacher or parent volunteer. There are a couple of kids beyond
the top group doing assisted independent work at the appropriate levels.

French is done in 2 large groups, based on ability/experience. Again,
expectations within each group vary according to the student's individual
abilities.

For science and social studies, they sometimes work in the K-2 and 3-5
large groups, and sometimes do projects in smaller gropus that mix the
two groups. (Right now they are doing a TOPS project on electricity with
all the elementary kids broken into groups of 3, with the ages spread out
so that older children can help the youngest ones in each group. The
output expectations vary by the child's age/ability as well.) Generally
middle school does science/social studies separately. Each child also
does a year-long independent study on a subject of their choice, and
presents information they have learned to the rest of the school twice
a year. Obviously, expectations and independence increase as the students
get older. (The youngest students usually need to have someone read their
research materials to them, and help them write down the things they want
to include in their report/project.)

To do this well takes a *lot* of skill on the part of the teachers, plus
a lot of classroom support from college students and parents (or other
volunteers). The principal/founder/elemetary teacher is planning to
retire within the next 10 years, and the school is already working on
the plan of how to cope with that. The plan includes paying her replacement
to overlap with her for an entire year to really see how to make so many
different things work.

I'm not saying this is the best plan for all students, and it would be
hard to scale up to a 500-student school (you would have to basically have
20 multiaged one-room-schools-within-a-school or something) but it does
seem to work out really well for the kids who are there. Everyone has
someone to look up to and someone to provide a model for (possibly not
both every year, particularly in their first and last years, but certainly
most of the time over the course of their time in school). Transition to
traditional high schools seems to work out fine as well.

--Robyn

x-no-archive:yes (Naomi) wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On 10 Nov 2003 03:05:50 GMT, OSPAM (Naomi Pardue)
wrote:

A completely mixed class will hurt both the bright kids who
are forced to sit there reading "Run Spot, run," when they
are able to read chapter books, AND the kids who are
STRUGGLING to read "Run Spot, run," when
they haven't yet mastered their letters.

The age-mixed one room schoolhouse was completely ability
mixed, yet I don't think it hurt the bright students because
each child worked on different curricula as necessary.

If you know much about educational history, you would know that, by
and large, the one room school house resulted in a population that
received an education that, by contemporary standards, would be
considered, appallingly poor. Each child may well have 'worked on

Hey - less of that appallingly poor. My dad went to such a school and
he got his PhD.

different curricula', but that meant sitting at his or her place
studying a text book for hours, and then being called forward to
'recite' for the teacher -- meaning asked to parrot forth the material
in the book. The child wasn't expected to actually understand what he
was learning, or use the material in any meaningful way. (And a large
percentage of children simply left school at a very early age, either
because they were needed at home, or because they found school boring,
or because they couldn't handle the work and became frustrated.
Without any compulsary attendence laws, nobody really cared if they
attended school or not.)

While one room school houses today might provide 'ideal learning
environments' that is more likely to be due to the fact that they ALSO
tend to be extremely small schools, so the teacher is able to provide
plenty of individualized instruction. Traditional one-room schools
commonly had 30+ students and one teacher.

I would like to see more age-mixed classes. I think k-3
can be profitably mixed and 4 to 6 or 7 as well. In these
instances, I think you could group and regroup even more
easily by what skills children had mastered because the
brightest k student would probably not have mastered
work that was beyond the slower 3rd grade students.

Shaina's school has mixed age classes. K/1/2 are in one class, 3-4 in
another, and 5-6 in a third. But, within each of these classes,
reading and math are ability grouped so the students can work and
learn at their own level, and are not frustrated with work that is too
difficult, or bored with work that is too basic.

Also you could profitably use group projects where some
physical skills were beyond the brighter but younger student
yet were easily within the capacity of the slower older
students. And the brighter older students could be advanced
partly because teaching younger students helps them gain
the capacity to communicate what they know and also helps
them gain deeper knowledge *because* they must explain
it to others.

They do some of that too, within the other subjects. (They do both
group projects with students of varying ages and abilites grouped
together, and they do individual projects where each child is expected
to work to his/her own ability.) And outside of the curriculum.
Shaina spends part of the her free time with one of the K-2 classes,
reading aloud to them. She enjoys it immensely. The little kids enjoy
it too. Everyone benefits. But I don't think it's HER job, as a
student, to devote HER learning time exclusively to helping the slower
learners in her own class, when she could be learning more material
that she is capable of mastering. That surely isn't fair to her.

Naomi

grandma Rosalie

On 10 Nov 2003 07:00:35 -0800, (Naomi) wrote:

But I don't think it's HER job, as a
student, to devote HER learning time exclusively to helping the slower
learners in her own class, when she could be learning more material
that she is capable of mastering. That surely isn't fair to her.

No, it needs to be a balance.

But, as I pointed out when you teach, you learn in greater depth, so
it's not wasted time at all. This has to be set up appropriately, but
it is a better way, imho.


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

In article ,
toto wrote:
On 10 Nov 2003 07:00:35 -0800, (Naomi) wrote:

But I don't think it's HER job, as a
student, to devote HER learning time exclusively to helping the slower
learners in her own class, when she could be learning more material
that she is capable of mastering. That surely isn't fair to her.

No, it needs to be a balance.

But, as I pointed out when you teach, you learn in greater depth, so
it's not wasted time at all.

The first time or two maybe. The hundredth time you tutor your peers in
long division, you don't learn anything, I can assure you from vast
personal experience.

--Robyn

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:23:13 GMT, (Robyn
Kozierok) wrote:

The first time or two maybe. The hundredth time you tutor your peers in
long division, you don't learn anything, I can assure you from vast
personal experience.

You should not be tutoring the same subject continuously as that
sometimes sets bad habits in stone as well as not teaching you
so much.

And of course, tutoring in skills is not necessarily what the bright
children should be doing. Mentoring and working on projects with
kids who are less bright, teaching them some of what you know
and letting them teach you other things is much more interesting
and helpful.


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits