Ability grouping

Roger Dodger wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..

On 5 Nov 2003 12:36:39 -0800, (Roger Dodger)
wrote:


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.

Trust me, it's rare.

No, I don't trust you... Cite some statistics that show this. Every
school my own children went to grouped by ability for reading and
many did for math as well as early as kindergarten and 1st grade.


Cite some statistic to show the contrary. Every school that I went
to, except high school in a limited capacity, did not group by ability.


Raze (1984) found that 77 percent of school districts
in the US implemented ability grouping or tracking. (Search
the ERIC database for more information.) Doesn't sound rare
to me. Research, by the way, seems to cast a lot of doubt
on the efficacy of ability grouping or tracking for all but
advanced/gifted students, but there's a lot of variability in
how it's implemented that likely confounds much of the research.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


Raze (1984) found that 77 percent of school districts
in the US implemented ability grouping or tracking. (Search
the ERIC database for more information.) Doesn't sound rare
to me. Research, by the way, seems to cast a lot of doubt
on the efficacy of ability grouping or tracking for all but
advanced/gifted students, but there's a lot of variability in
how it's implemented that likely confounds much of the research.

Great, but that research is 20 years old and my have little or
no bearing on current educational policy. My own anecdotal
experience is in line with this number, but that doesn't mean
much.


--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

Robyn Kozierok wrote:

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


Raze (1984) found that 77 percent of school districts
in the US implemented ability grouping or tracking.

Great, but that research is 20 years old and my have little or
no bearing on current educational policy. My own anecdotal
experience is in line with this number, but that doesn't mean
much.


I only cited that one because it was the one I
could find quickly that had a number (and it's also after
the Great Tracking Debacle that caused many schools to
stop tracking or even grouping). More recent abstracts
were saying ability grouping was "common" or "frequent" or
some such thing. Given the people I know who have some
degree of ability grouping in their schools (from various
parts of the country) this seems in the ballpark to me
as well.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote
Raze (1984) found that 77 percent of school districts
in the US implemented ability grouping or tracking. (Search
the ERIC database for more information.) Doesn't sound rare
to me.

No, though that is almost 20 years old now. As I'm sure you know, the
politics of grouping has changed a lot in 20 years.

Research, by the way, seems to cast a lot of doubt
on the efficacy of ability grouping or tracking for all but
advanced/gifted students,

I guess my feeling is that if it helps a group of kids who
demonstrably need help, without hurting other kids, then it's a good
thing. However, as you say,

but there's a lot of variability in
how it's implemented that likely confounds much of the research.

Yes. I admit I'm no education expert, but when I read about "good"
grouping approaches, I just can't imagine how it would not benefit the
kids -- all the kids.

On 6 Nov 2003 18:27:52 -0800, (Nevermind) wrote:

Research, by the way, seems to cast a lot of doubt
on the efficacy of ability grouping or tracking for all but
advanced/gifted students,

I guess my feeling is that if it helps a group of kids who
demonstrably need help, without hurting other kids, then it's a good
thing. However, as you say,

but there's a lot of variability in
how it's implemented that likely confounds much of the research.

Yes. I admit I'm no education expert, but when I read about "good"
grouping approaches, I just can't imagine how it would not benefit the
kids -- all the kids.

http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin009.shtml

In a comprehensive review of research on different types
of ability grouping in the elementary school, Robert E.
Slavin (1986) found that some forms of grouping can
result in increased student achievement. Slavin's review
focused on five grouping plans.

Grouping students as a class by ability for all subjects
doesn't improve achievement.

Students grouped heterogeneously for most of the school
day, but regrouped according to ability for one or two
subjects, can improve achievement in those areas for
which they are grouped.

Grouping heterogeneously except for reading instruction
(commonly referred to as "The Joplin Plan") improves
reading achievement.

Nongraded instruction---instruction that groups students
according to ability rather than age and that allows students
to progress at their own rates---can result in improved
achievement.

In-class grouping---a common approach in which teachers
break out two or three ability-based groups within a class
for instruction---can benefit student achievement. (Slavin's
research supports this practice for math instruction.

Findings related to reading instruction aren't as conclusive;
in-class grouping is so widespread a practice for teaching
reading that it's difficult to find "control groups" for such a
comparative study.)

Any grouping plan, Slavin concludes, must allow for
frequent reevaluation of students' skills, and such
grouping must allow for easy reassignment of students
who show progress.

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

Ability tracking is harmful for a number of reasons,
Wheelock told Instructor in A Talk with Anne Wheelock.

The criteria used to group kids are based on subjective
perceptions and fairly narrow views of intelligence.

Tracking leads students to take on labels---both in their
wn minds as well as in the minds of their teachers---that
are usually associated with the pace of learning (such as
"slow" or "fast" learners). Because of this, we end up
confusing students' pace of learning with their capacity
to learn.

We associate students' placement with the type of
learners they are and therefore create different
expectations for different groups of students.

Once students are grouped, they generally stay at that
level for their school careers, and the gap between
achievement and levels becomes exaggerated over time.
The notion that students' achievement levels at any given
time will predict their achievement in the future becomes
a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Wheelock doesn't dismiss all forms of ability grouping.
For instance, she notes, a group might be set up within
a class to help students who are having difficulty with a
specific skill. Or a group might be formed to "pre-teach"
a skill to a group of students who might have difficulty
grasping a concept.

ABILITY GROUPING'S EVERLASTING EFFECTS

Carol Nelson tells the stories of "Rick" and "Monica," two
of her college students who were majoring in elementary
education in Organizing for Effective Reading Instruction.
Those two students talked about the effects on them of
ability grouping when they were in elementary school.

Rick wrote about why he always worked so hard to remain
in the middle group. "The higher group, you see, always had
so much stuff to do and I never saw those kids out to recess
because they had to stay in and finish what they had started.
Now the lower group was not the group to be in either. Even
as young as first grade, I knew what it meant to be in the
lower group and how those kids were thought of as "lower"
than the rest of us. This is the problem with labeling and
grouping."

Monica wrote "I have nothing but bad memories about my
reading groups in elementary school. I was constantly being
left behind and humiliated by my teacher… No attempt to
help me as an individual by my teacher was ever made---
and if it had, it probably wouldn't have been a pleasant one.
I think that teachers should be more patient with those
students who have reading problems and maybe offer
other ways to help than put them in the low group."


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

Nevermind wrote:


Yes. I admit I'm no education expert, but when I read about "good"
grouping approaches, I just can't imagine how it would not benefit the
kids -- all the kids.


The criticism usually levied is that for the lower
groups, the kids lack examples of higher achievement, get
discouraged, and feel labelled (and "live down" to their
labels). But again, I think one has to exercise a lot of
caution, as there are zillions of ways to do ability
grouping and it's hard to study them well.


I think the key is to have easy mobility between the ability levels. It's
worked fairly well for my son. He's gone from remedial reading, to the bottom
of three groups, to the middle group, as he's progressed.

Banty

Nevermind wrote:


Yes. I admit I'm no education expert, but when I read about "good"
grouping approaches, I just can't imagine how it would not benefit the
kids -- all the kids.


The criticism usually levied is that for the lower
groups, the kids lack examples of higher achievement, get
discouraged, and feel labelled (and "live down" to their
labels). But again, I think one has to exercise a lot of
caution, as there are zillions of ways to do ability
grouping and it's hard to study them well.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Banty wrote:


I think the key is to have easy mobility between the ability levels. It's
worked fairly well for my son. He's gone from remedial reading, to the bottom
of three groups, to the middle group, as he's progressed.


I think that's certainly one of the key things, and
the research seems to bear that out. It can be challenging
to implement, though, and some schools that claim mobility
don't really evidence much in reality ;-) I still think
that having some ability grouping, done well, is the better
approach, but there are lots of ways it can be implemented
poorly.

Best wishes,
Ericka

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!

(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. )






Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

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

In article , Naomi Pardue says...

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!

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.

My son *was* having trouble catching on to reading, and did leap forward at a
certain point. If it was believed that ability grouping reflected a permanent
ability status, it would be really bad for him. He'd be better off in a
single-paced classroom, where he'd at least have the opportunity to mature from
being one of the ones dragged along to one that basically 'got it'.

Banty