Ability grouping

wrote:

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!

It is not at all hard to arrange in real life. I learn things every day from
people who are younger than I am, or less intelligent than I am, or who have
fewer degrees than I have. It's just difficult to arrange in a typical
classroom with strict curricular objectives.

In any case, most of what needs to get modeled for other children is BEHAVIOR,
not a higher level of learning as such. A very intelligent child who is goofing
off in class because s/he is not being challenged is a much lousier model for
low-achieving children than a much less gifted child who is challenged, working
hard, and enjoying learning.

Too often, the statement that "we need gifted kids to model engagement with
learning" is a substitute for the real thought "we need upper-class,
well-behaved children to model teacher-pleasing behaviors." (I don't mean that
*you* said any such thing, of course, Robyn.)

--Helen

In article , H Schinske says...

wrote:

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!

It is not at all hard to arrange in real life. I learn things every day from
people who are younger than I am, or less intelligent than I am, or who have
fewer degrees than I have. It's just difficult to arrange in a typical
classroom with strict curricular objectives.

In any case, most of what needs to get modeled for other children is BEHAVIOR,
not a higher level of learning as such. A very intelligent child who is goofing
off in class because s/he is not being challenged is a much lousier model for
low-achieving children than a much less gifted child who is challenged, working
hard, and enjoying learning.

But I think the question is more how to avoid reinforcing low acheivement by
having too high a concentration of low acheivers, setting expectations low.



Too often, the statement that "we need gifted kids to model engagement with
learning" is a substitute for the real thought "we need upper-class,
well-behaved children to model teacher-pleasing behaviors." (I don't mean that
*you* said any such thing, of course, Robyn.)

Well, that happens too.

Banty

wrote:

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.

I haven't yet run into any teacher in real life who systematically uses
differentiation techniques, including in my own experience with a private
school with extremely small classes. Doesn't mean they don't exist, of course,
indeed I have heard of some.

I don't think *most* teachers are well trained in curriculum
differentiation/compaction. I wish they were, and I do think it's a good idea.
I just don't think it's reality yet.

--Helen

In article ,
Beth Kevles wrote:

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.

Sure, small classes and more individualization would be great, but hard
to provide at a "reasonable" cost...

--Robyn

On 08 Nov 2003 02:43:30 GMT, OSPAM (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!

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.

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. I think Americans are quite
wrong in this belief and that the belief itself becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy for children when they are *defined* by the
labels.


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

Banty wrote:

In article , H Schinske says...

In any case, most of what needs to get modeled for other children is BEHAVIOR,
not a higher level of learning as such. A very intelligent child who is goofing
off in class because s/he is not being challenged is a much lousier model for
low-achieving children than a much less gifted child who is challenged, working
hard, and enjoying learning.

But I think the question is more how to avoid reinforcing low acheivement by
having too high a concentration of low acheivers, setting expectations low.


While I agree there are behavioral issues as well, I
disagree that that's the only modeling needed. Children
often need to see the next step in work output as well.
If they're struggling with sentences, they need to see
another child struggling with basic paragraphs--something
just one step ahead of where they are. Much of what they
see by way of example is too far ahead of where they are,
so they don't see it as achievable and don't know how
to get from here to there.

Best wishes,
Ericka

toto wrote in message . ..

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.

That sounds like good common sense.

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

Is there something special about reading?

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.

Another good idea.

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

By "tracking", do you mean the assignment of students into
generic "fast", "slow", "medium" groups? Where all subject
matter within these groups is at a set pace, with little
flexibility? Where student's can't take some courses from
one track, and others from another? Where there is little
mobility between tracks? And everything is group-based with
little attention to individual needs?

If so, I agree that it's harmful.

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.

So the kids are locked-in at a specific group. That makes it
no better than homogenized education, where *all* kids are
locked into the same group.

The notion that students' achievement levels at any given
time will predict their achievement in the future becomes
a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This problem exists with *any* sort of competitive grading.

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.

Like I said, flexibility.

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.

If Rick values social contact more than concentrated learning,
then the middle group is the right place for him, at least on
that basis.

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."

If done improperly.

If the school makes it seem that some groups are "higher" or
superior than others, you'll have these problems. I'd much
prefer if schools "group" or "track" on the basis of identifying
specific talents in individuals, and building up these talents,
in a non-competitive way.

Related to this, there is a very real elite group that exists
in many (perhaps most) middle and high schools. They are the
"jocks", or stear athletes. Often they enjoy special privileges
(i.e. bullying) at the expense of all the other students. Any
school that buys into this, yet refuses to support academic
talent in the name of conformity and equality, is hypocritical.

Ericka Kammerer wrote in message ...

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).

Unfortunately, there is a small group of kids who are not so
much underachievers as "anti-achievers". They tear down any
sort of academic activity, and strongly motivate other kids
not to learn. These get grouped in with the lower groups,
and are a much stronger influence than high achievers.
They are the ones with the "street cred" after all.

It matters not if the high achievers are lumped in with the
low, medium, or in their own group. Placing them in their
own group does separate them from the anti-achievers, and
allow them to learn in peace.

x-no-archive:yes


OSPAM (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

When I did my 'education' classes we all had to do a project, and mine
was on grouping. The research at that time (mid 70s) tended to show
that ungrouped classes did better as the better kids served as a good
examples for the less able ones. I didn't believe it really.

As it happened, I got my first job half time as a 7th grade science
teacher and the classes were already grouped. However the next year I
was full time and moved to a 6th grade team. We were meeting at the
beginning of the year and it looked like if we grouped the kids by
math or reading that we'd have a lot of bad actors in the same group,
plus that group would be so small that the other groups would be
unacceptably large.

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.

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.

grandma Rosalie

On 9 Nov 2003 12:02:31 -0800, (Roger Dodger)
wrote:

If the school makes it seem that some groups are "higher" or
superior than others, you'll have these problems. I'd much
prefer if schools "group" or "track" on the basis of identifying
specific talents in individuals, and building up these talents,
in a non-competitive way.

The school doesn't have to make it seem that some groups are
higher. Every kid knows the bluebirds (or whatever) is the smart
kids in reading - they figure that out all by themselves. And the
kids assign their values to the groups and feel bad about themselves
when they are in lower groups no matter how you work that, imo.


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits