Ability grouping

From WikEd

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Descriptions, definitions, synonyms, organizer terms, types of

Definition: Ability Grouping can be defined as "system of grouping in which students are assigned to classes based on their measured ability or their achievements" (Woolfolk 118). There are pros and cons to ability grouping or tracking students. Though today the terms "ability grouping" and "tracking" are used interchangeably, there is a difference in their meanings. Ability grouping refers to creating small groups within a classroom such as for reading. Tracking refers to tested students being placed into separate and different curricular tracks or "streams" as they are called in Europe. (Loveless, 1998)

Types of Grouping:

  • Ability Grouped Class Assignment - students are placed in one self-contained class based on ability or achievement.
  • Regrouping for Reading or Math - students are sorted into ability groups for one or two subjects, only.
  • Joplin Plan - students are sorted across grade levels for reading instruction.
  • Non-graded Plan - students are placed in groups according to performance not age.
  • Within-class Ability Grouping - based on ability students are assigned to small groups within a class.

[edit] Application in classrooms and similar settings

"Between-class grouping refers to a school's practice of forming classrooms that contain students of similar ability. Within-class grouping refers to a teacher's practice of forming groups of students of similar ability within an individual class." (Hollifield, 1987)

In theory ability grouping is designed to:

1. Increase the pace and raise the level of instruction for high achievers
2. Provide more individual attention, repetition, and review for low achievers.

(Hollifield, 1987) "The high achievers benefit from having to compete with one another, and the low achievers benefit from not having to compete with their more able peers." (Hollifield, 1987)

Hollifield (1987) identifies Robert E. Slavin's five recommendations from his 1986 paper, Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-evidence Synthesis, as follows:

  • Students should identify primarily with a heterogeneous class. They should be regrouped by ability only when reducing heterogeneity is particularly important for learning, as is the case with math or reading instruction.
  • Grouping plans should reduce student heterogeneity in the specific skill being taught, not in IQ or overall achievement level.
  • Grouping plans should allow for frequent reassessment of student placement and for easy reassignment based on student progress.
  • Teachers must vary the level and pace of instruction according to student levels of readiness and learning rates in regrouped classes.
  • Only a small number of groups should be formed in within-class ability grouping. This will allow the teacher to provide adequate direct instruction for each group.


"Today's tracking systems differ from the severely deterministic systems that many people conjure up when they hear the term "tracking." Placement by IQ tests is a thing of the past. The rigidity of tracks has softened, with track assignments usually made on a subject-by-subject basis. Curricular differences still exist, but they have narrowed. Middle and lower level courses join honors classes in focusing on academic work and preparation for college. Some of the barriers to entering high tracks have fallen. Academic performance, as measured by grades and teachers' recommendations, dictates most placements, not scores on standardized tests. And tracking decisions are frequently negotiable. Parents and students who are willing to risk lower grades for a more rigorous education routinely gain access to the courses that they want." (Loveless, 1998)
"Ability grouping for reading instruction appears nearly universal, especially in the early grades. Schools seek to create teachable groups of children within classes containing a broad range of skills, from students who independently breeze through children's novels to those who have yet to learn basic letter sounds. Ability grouping in math is less frequent and then only in the upper grades." (Loveless, 1998)

[edit] Evidence of effectiveness

"Standardized achievement tests show that gifted students can gain nearly a year more when ability grouping is paired with academic acceleration." (Swiatek, 2001) The problem then, is if gifted students are grouped, is the rest of the student population, by default grouped by thier ability level and is this a bad thing. "Research suggests that lower ability students achieve at the same rate whether or not they are involved in ability grouping. Further, lower ability students experience few changes in self-esteem that are related to ability grouping. When changes are experienced, they are likely to be positive—that is, the self-esteem of lower ability students may increase when they are grouped with other students of similar ability." (Swiatek, 2001). This goes against many assumptions that people have about ability grouping.

A statistical analysis published in 1992 by James A. Kulik found that students of all ability levels benefit from grouping that adjusts the curriculum to their aptitude levels. (DeLacy, 2004)

"Jeannie Oakes claimed ... in a popular but, to my mind, poorly researched book called Keeping Track, published nearly 20 years ago" that tracking was harmful to students. (DeLacy, 2004). "However, a 1998 review of the evidence on tracking over the past two decades, done by Tom Loveless, the director of the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy, found no consensus that tracking is harmful or creates unequal opportunities for academic achievement." (DeLacy, 2004)

In 1993 the then-Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley noted a "quiet crisis" in the education of top students, pointing out that "these students have special needs that are seldom met". (DeLacy, 2004)

"The federal law [NCLB] seeks to ensure that all students meet minimum standards. Most districts, in their desperate rush to improve the performance of struggling students, have forgotten or ignored their obligations to students who exceed standards. These students spend their days reviewing material for proficiency tests they mastered years before, instead of learning something new." (DeLacy, 2004)

Based on old, discredited, and sloppy research, the National Research Council recommended the elimination of all "formal or informal" tracking—even if participation was voluntary—in favor of mixed-ability classrooms. A research review by Karen B. Rogers found that grouping gifted students produced gains in achievement while cooperative learning with mixed-ability groups produced no gains for the gifted students. (DeLacy, 2004)

[edit] Critics and their rationale

Hollifield (1987) in his review of Robert E. Slavin's 1986 research cited "one of the main arguments against ability grouping is that the practice creates classes or groups of low achievers who are deprived of the example and stimulation provided by high achievers. Labeling students according to ability and assigning them to low-achievement groups may also communicate self-fulfilling low expectations. Further, groups with low performance often receive a lower quality of instruction than other groups." On beyond the problem of labeling, researchers found in "One of the most recent major studies, an analysis of data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, concluded after comparing the progress of homogeneously and heterogeneously grouped 8th graders over two years that homogeneous grouping appeared to worsen the prospects of low achievers while doing nothing to benefit high achievers. (See Education Week, Sept. 16, 1992.)" (Schmidt, 1993)

One critic is bound and determined to do away with SATs. http://www.educationet.org/z0327.html

The National Association of School Psychologists has the following criticisms of ability grouping: "Students with lower ability achieve less in lower track classes than in mixed ability classes.

  • Students with higher ability do not achieve more in tracked classes than in mixed ability classes.
  • Placing students with lower ability in tracked classrooms reduces self-esteem, with a particularly negative effect on students’ sense of their own academic competence.
  • Tracking students reduces the likelihood that students placed in lower track classes will choose college preparatory courses.
  • Tracking students reduces opportunities to develop relationships among students from other racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups and has a negative effect on race relations.

[edit] Alternative explanations due to Diversity considerations

[edit] Testimonies

One area that I think mixed level grouping works well is when doing science based projects. I did a lot of group project work in science this year with my 2nd graders and I always let them choose groups based on whatever topic they wanted to study. Generally these groups naturally formed into mixed-level groups and it was interesting to see these kids work together. Because they had a common interest and topic, they worked together and the higher students naturally helped the lower students with some of the harder concepts such as vocabulary and content area while some of the lower students helped the groups out with their presentation skills or artistic abilities in final projects. It worked really well to have them in mixed groups for these types of projects. -Annie Craig, 2nd Grade Teacher

At times, ability grouping can be very effective. Specifically in reading, it makes it easier on a teacher to work in small groups of students who are at the same reading level. I had the opportunity to divide my 7th grade reading class into three groups which were each headed by a teacher. These different groups made the instruction at the individual's level and produced effective lessons. However, ability grouping can lead to tracking and it can lead to a negative effect. For example, if you take the "gifted" kids out and have them in a separate class, the classmates are missing out on valuable insight that the "gifted" kids could add to class discussions and activities. I think it can go both ways. J. Cappa

In Hilliard City Schools, tracking occurs somewhat naturally and is partially under the control of parents and students and they select courses for students. After the 6th grade, students have options for math as they prepare for the 7th grade. Based on performance and ability, students, with the assistance of their parents and after consultations with their teachers choose one of three math classes: Regular math 7, Advanced math 7, or Algebra. As the students progress through the high school, they continue to make choices based on ability and interest. This seems to work well. The students are in classes with other students who are close in ability, and the whole class is able to progress nicely through the curriculum lessons and learning activities. Within my own classes, I sometimes use small groups for problem-solving and other activities. In these small groups, I try to achieve a heterogeneous mixture of abilities so that students of higher ability are in the same groups as students with medium or lower abiltiy. This works well within the classroom as students work together and communicate ideas. The lower ability students question higher ability students who learn how to justify their solutions. Lower and middle ability students benefit from communicating about the problem-solving process, and working together, they all achieve more. (Lee Wilkinson, Hilliard Weaver M.S.)

Grouping of students has become a hot button issue at our school of late. The question is whether to continue the basic courses we offer in English and Social Studies. One of the big issues is which students are allowed in. Many teachers feel that non basic students often are able to work their way into the basic classes. It also seems that it often means that behaviorally challenged students are grouped together more often creating more discipline problems. I have taught both basic and regular American History for a number of years. While I have seen some benefits to the basic classes I am leaning toward voting to eliminate them. I think in at least American History the lower level students achieve and work better when they are with the rest of the students. I found this out when they eliminated basic for one year two years ago due to number problems. The lower level students did fine in my regular class partly because they followed the examples of the better students. An example would be in a basic class I may have a number of students who don't do or complete an assignment so others don't also. In regular almost all are turned in so students seem to be more likely to do their work. Craig Johnson

I am also in favor of ability grouping for certain subjects. I was relied of some guilt though, that I have been feeling, in terms of ability grouping for reading skills. I found through the readings that, "there is not a change in self esteem for students who have been grouped this way" (Swiatex,2001). Also, the material by Delacy supported what I have been doing in terms of gifted children's needs. I usually pair them with children of similar abilities. Overall though, I feel that the entire class benefits from utilizing mixed ability groupings as much as possible. B. Orenic

Testimonial by P. Reed:

I am very much in favor of ability grouping in certain classes. As an 8th grade math teacher, I find it very effective in math. I have 82 students divided into three groups based on a variety of factors. My lowest group only has 20 students. In this group, I have students with lower math ability and prior achievement. There are also a number that have various learning disabilities, including hearing impairment, ADD or ADHD, processing problems, etc. My top two groups can move at a faster pace in a more typical classroom situation, and I am able to cover more advanced algebra topics. I also have some of them involved in extra enrichment programs, and some compete in area math competitions. I would not be able to move at this pace if I had heterogeneous groups. My lower group has unique learning needs. I make individual accommodations for testing. I specially design lessons for them that will keep them on task. We do many more hands-on projects and the 50-minute class period is varied into three or more math activities. They don’t spend as much time in their seats as the other two groups, and spend a lot of time at the board. Today we are going to the gym to calculate free throw percentages. Next week we will learn about symmetry by taking pictures of our faces, and in the lab, cut and copy them to see if the two sides of our faces are in fact symmetrical. We will also design tessellations. We frequently spend time in the lab doing simulations of various math topics. The morale of this group is wonderful. I would not consider any of them low potential by any means, and they know I have much confidence in them. Two of them are even going into high school honors math programs. They simply have alternative learning styles, and benefit hugely from differentiated learning. Their morale would be much worse if they were placed in one of the other two groups, where we move at a fast pace and there are not as many hands-on learning opportunities. I have had no complaints from parents or students – I believe everyone is very happy with the existing method of grouping.

Testimonial by R. Hall:

As a mother, I felt it was important for my 'gifted daughter' to be in the high academic group for most subjects. As a teacher, I'm no longer a fan of ability grouping as I've seen what it does emotionally to my low functioning students. -- Rhonda Hall

Testimonial by E. Morrison:

I favor ability grouping on both arenas. As a mother of two gifted students, I appreciate the extra enrichment and faster pace classes they receive. As a high school math teacher, I think it is necessary to separate students by ability level. Math is the only subject that our distict still tracks at the junior high and high school level. Seventh graders may take pre-algebra over two years, pre-algebra over one year, algebra over two years, or algebra over one year. Their subsequent math classes are based on their 7th grade year. Students are put into math classes based on several test scores, teacher recommendations, and past performance. Occassionally a student is placed in the wrong class, which is correctly either mid-year or during the next year. I teach primarily sophomore math classes: geometry, algebra II, and pre-calc (honors). My geometry students have a wide range of math abililties, while my algebra II and pre-calc students all have strong math skills.


Testimonial by H. Savoca:

I am an elementary teacher who is very familiar with the need for differentiation in student instruction. The big push in literacy right now is Guided Reading groups, where children are grouped by their level of reading ability. I think this is important since it keeps children engaged and challenged. It is certainly crucial for the varying abilities in primary classrooms (where some children are still dealing with letter-sound connections and others can already read the text). In a third grade classroom, there is also a great discrepancy among math abilities. I am constantly looking for ways to reteach and enrich at the same time. By junior high level, many children are placed in "honors" (or remedial) classes as needed. I support the notion of ability grouping and feel that being amongst peers of one's ability in the elementary setting would not be detrimental to one's self-esteem. -- Heidi Savoca

Testimonial by N. Frick:

I think that there is a need for ability grouping in certain subject areas. For instance, I think it is very important to teach students to read at their own levels. Although this might pinpoint students as good or not good readers, not good readers will not become good readers by reading texts that are too challenging for them. When grouping by ability, I think it is important to keep the groups fluid. If a student is experiencing success, allow them to move up to work with a different group. If students see that groups are not decided for the whole year, it may give them the incentive to work towards a different group. It is also important to include some projects where all students are working together at different levels.

Testimonial by C. Royer:

As a musician and teacher, I find that ability grouping is an essential way of starting beginning band students. This way the focus can be on what the group of students needs most. In this respect ability grouping is benificial.


Testimonial by J. Johnson:

I think ability grouping is just about the worse thing ever. Everyone knows who the 'slow' kids are, and who the 'smart' kids are, and its no secret no matter what is called. My entire elementary school experience was untracked, it was a very small classroom with usually no more than 10 children, if that, and the kids that needed more help received it from either the teacher or other students, but because there were more advanced students in the class (they perhaps picked up things a bit faster) everyone was exposed to the same material, and it was always beyond the grade expectations. My experience with tracking didn't occur until my sophomore year of high school, when i attended my first public school. Although I transferred into the school ranked as the number one freshwoman in my class, I was placed in regulars and honors courses. I received no extra tests to determine this, and my scores on standardized tests have always been excellent. By the next year, I was bumped up to advanced placement and college prep courses, but I'd already spent a year in regulars and honors, and what I saw there was far from pretty. The regulars kids were unchallenged, and left below the standards of any selective university, and the worse thing was that they knew it...they knew they weren't being prepared for college, or at least the good ones..and on the other side of that were kids just coasting through school. It sickens me that so many minds were left on the 'lower track' just because no one expected better. -- Jasmine Johnson


Testimonial by ...:

From grades 5-8 we were ability grouped. I was a student who always did poorly on standardized test and that was the measure for the classes that we were placed in. I think that ability grouping should not be based on one test. If ability grouping is based on a compilation of tests that determine a child's ability and the quality of work a child does is also used then within a heterogeneous class you could ability group effectly to help students. -- ??


Testimonial by ...:

As both a student who was in a school that tracked and as a teacher who has seen ability grouping practiced, I understand both the advantages and disadvantages. I saw first hand as my closest friend, a top 5% in our class student, was provided a significantly different education than I was (who was in the "average" track). It was blatantly unfair, because not only was he doing things that were more fun and enjoyable in his "honors" classes, but it was painfully evident that his teachers and the school were more willing to invest time and energy in his education rather than mine. He was asked to read and report on a different book every two weeks. I was asked on only two different occasions to read a book (in my entire high school career!). It is kind of amazing that I became an English teacher at all and graduated from the U of I cum laude. But, now though "tracking" is frowned upon, ability grouping is still alive and well: AP courses and the prep courses for them are basically another excuse to track students at some point in high school; and even if it isn't done clearly through prerequisites and requirements, there always is a sort of "interest"-grouping associated with certain courses. That is, students who have high interest, tend to have high ability, so the "low-level" course that entails the least amount of work becomes fraught with discipline problems and unmotivated students. It tends to have the same result. Such courses are clear to the teachers who will do anything possible to get out of teaching them, which results in the less-experienced and less-motivated teachers getting the job. Is there some way to break out of the "tracking" cycle? -- ??


Testimonial by Ralph Alexander:

At one point in my life I was placed in the 'high' group for math class. I struggled mightily in math class and had a solid C going for the class. Since I was in the class with a bunch of bright students, my C was the bottom of the class. My teacher asked me if I wanted to return to the next lower class the 'middle' class, she thought I would learn more and have a more enjoyable time. I hated her class, but the thought of being embarrassed by having to join the 'dummy class' was mortifying to me. I chose to stay in the 'high' grouping and struggled miserably and unsuccessfully throughout the year. -- R. Alexander


Testimonial by Janet Vallowe:

I taught junior high science (7th & 8th grades) in tracked classes. There was one "accelerated" class, six regular classes and one "low-level" class. I personally taught all three levels, so I know first-hand how the curriculum and the expectations were different at each.
A big problem was the placement of the students. One test wasn't sufficient evidence of ability, so other means like class attendance, class participation, work ethic, and academic interests were also considered. This opened student placement to parental involvement and more than once a student was placed in the "accelerated" class because of parental desire. This wasn't as much of a concern to me as what was happening at the other end of the spectrum. Those students in the "lower-level" class were not raising their academic performance by their special grouping, if anything, they were maintaining a kind of status-quo. I feel this is because they weren't expected to achieve as much as other classes and they didn't have any academic role models to watch and follow.

Our junior high eliminated tracking years ago and it has never been mentioned again. The sentiments expressed by staff members were that the elimination did not harm the "accelerated" or the regular students, and helped the "lower-level" by raising academic expectations of them. -- J. Vallowe


Testimonial by Laura Valenziano:

My high school was considered one of the best in the area; 99% of the students went off to college. Despite this, my school only offered two AP (advanced placement) courses the entire time I was there - Enlgish and Chemistry. Since my love was Biology and Math, I had no outlet for my desire to learn more, and was often bored in my classes. I think that more schools should offer these higher-class options to students who want to take them, or if the funds are not there, direct to the student to where they can be challenged - a community college course or the like. -- L. Valenziano


Testimonial by Connie Early:

"Tracking" has been a word the last several years that we, as elementary teachers, were to avoid. The other personal testimonies show both sides of what can happen. As a lower elementary teacher, many times we end up teaching "to the middle" and spending our extra time trying to help those at the low end. With a time crunch, I feel we don’t give our top students the time they deserve because we are so pressured to make sure all meet the goals. I would like for them to also be challenged. We are using a form of tracking in our first grade this year to help an unusual number of needy students. Those who were identified as needing extra help were placed in a section with a smaller number of children and more push-in help hoping the more intensive reading/math curriculum and the more one-on-one help would benefit them (and we are seeing great results). --Connie Early


Testimonial by N. Jessup:

I teach in junior high school where the only subject that is tracked is math. However, I have noticed that many classes end up being tracked because of scheduling. Another co-worker has a 6th grade language arts class that meets the first two periods of the day. This is the same class times that the 6th grade high math is scheduled. Her class is a low class because of the mix of kids. I have also seen this happen because of band, chorus, Spanish, and French classes. Those four courses usually include many of the 'higher skilled' students, so if you had a class that met during that time of the day the ability of the students are considerably lower. -- Nichole Jessup


Testimonial by [User:Ting|Ting]]:

I have a really different experiences about the ability grouping. I am from Taiwan and we adopted ability grouping in high school mainly because of the extrance exame of colleges. The students were grouped by academic achievement or IQs to be first-tier students and second-tier students. The first-tier students recieved better teaching resources and were taught for entering good colleges. The second-tier students received less teaching resources and teacher perceived them as "bad" students. Most of the students did not enter good colleges and end up going for second-tier or vocational schools. I am very against ability grouping because children should recieve same quality of education regardless of abilities. It is teachers' responsbilities to teach according to different skill levels. --Ting 12:07, 11 Dec 2004 (CST)


Testimonial by C. Snodgrass:

I have taught two levels of seventh grade math, regular and advanced. While I feel this is a good thing for the advanced kids to be challenged, I also believe the regular kids choose to not "step it up" because they are in the lower track. The kids often refer to the classes as "high" and "low" math, though the regular classes are working at grade level and the advanced kids are working ahead of grade level. I try to discourage the association to high and low. This year I have all regular level classes and I have one class that is made up of students that need more assistance than the others. I have enjoyed having this class separate because it allows me to teach that class differently to try to meet their needs and offer more encouragement for them to "step it up". -- C.S.

[edit] More Testimonies

Testimonial by S. Morrisette:

When I taught fifth grade science class, I didn't want ability grouping. My classes worked very well with all levels of ability. In fact, I was including special education students into my classroom as far back as the 1980's (before inclusion was even thought about). Since I used cooperative groups for science everyone no matter of ability was successful in my science classes. -- S.Morrisette


Testimonial by R. M.:

I attended an elementary school that practiced tracking, and I also attended a magnet high school (i.e., a school that was nominally public, but which entrance requirements that included standardized testing, an interview, essays, etc.). I've spent a small amount of time teaching at both the elementary level and the high school level in schools that tracked students. I have mixed thoughts on the whole debate. Regarding my experiences as a student, I know for sure that I would have been bored in a less challenging environment. Being with other relatively "advanced"/high-ability students also pushed me to achieve more than I would have otherwise. As a teacher, I have to say candidly that I've had more fun teaching advanced students, partly because they can undertake work that I myself find more interesting, and partly because they tend to be better behaved (the same parental support/pressure that helped get ahead academically results in socialization too, generally). Classes that I have seen (and been in) that mix students together regardless of ability level have both their negative sides (high-ability and/or well-behaved students are ignored by the teacher because they don't require assistance/discipline) and their positive ones (classes can be structured such that high-ability and/or well-behaved students assist their classmates both academically and behaviorally).
Anecdotally, my impression is that students in high-powered academic settings generally do better than the same students would if they were dispersed into other schools (or other tracks in the same school). I haven't yet looked for research results that show whether or not that's true. On the other hand, it's easy for both teachers and students to create very high-pressure situations in which students achieve but are very stressed (with consequences including depression, cheating, etc.).
Others have commented here that there's a lot to be said for having high expectations of all students, and I couldn't agree more. It certainly falls to the teacher to make the work as interesting as is reasonably possible no matter what the students' ability level is. -- R.M.


Testimonial by S. Morrisette:

I too did not test well on the required tests before entering high school. I was then placed in classes they thought I warranted. After one week of school, I was so bored and the teachers were so tired of me being the only one answering questions that I was changed to more appropriate classes. All through my schooling people would look at my test scores and figure I did not measure up to being in the more challenging classes. I really think some people were really surprised that I graduated from college (married with a child) in just four years with a B+ average. -- Sharon Morrisette


Testimonial by M. Roberts:

I use ability grouping at the middle school level for math on my sixth grade team. I find ability grouping to be beneficial and appropriate for math at this level. Students have such varied levels of skills in this content area, that I've found it difficult to teach in a heterogeneously grouped class. To eliminate the problems often associated with ability grouping, we make sure that these groups only affect math class. To do this every teacher on my team teaches math to a leveled group of students at the same time, that way tracking does not occur. - - M.R.


Testimonial by C. McCulley:

Many schools today have implemented homogenous grouping in their classrooms. A primary goal of these schools is to provide an educational opportunity for all. Many issues have been raised as to the different advantages and disadvantages to having homogenous groupings in schools. While there are both pros and cons to these issues, de-tracking the curriculum can provide a less desegregated feeling among schools. Even though it will be difficult to change the norms of the homogenous tracking of students in schools, it will provide more opportunities for below-average students and minorities, give students the chance to take other classes, and create a better feeling of cooperative learning in schools. -- C.McCulley

Testimonial by K. Darche:

I have been studying the way the Northern Ireland groups their children. At the age of 11, children verbal reasoning tests and 11-Plus exams. From there they are placed into one of two levels, depending on their scores. They stay in that group for the remainder of their education. (An excellent article on this can be found at http://www.casenet.org.uk/mcca.html ) Which means that their education road is predetermined, students who score well, have more options, can choose more electives. Students who score poorly take classes which prepare them for skilled work. I am uncertain if this is a route worth taking. So many of my fellow students did not blossom with education until they reached college and began taking classes that really interested them and then they scored off the chart. However, I have seen that this may just be the thing needed in America as we constantly adjust our teaching for the low achieving students, and just thinking that the high end achievers will enrich themselves on their own. K. Darche

Testimonial by K. Mills:

Ability grouping can be rough when it is used to define "slow" groups of students. However, I have seen ability grouping where students are pre-tested to see who already knows the material. That way grouping is determined by previous educational experience. If a teacher in a previous class taught a concept then those students will probably benefit from some advanced work. However, if students do not know the material, it is not that they are necessarily slow, it is just that they haven't been previously instructed in this area. I have also seen ability grouping where students can choose which group to be a part of. This can be very successful, but the drawback is that students will sometimes choose to stay in lower groups with their friends when they should be in a more advanced group. K. Mills

Testimonial by S. Davila:

I don't believe in tracking. I think this just sets kids up to fail. I think that a class should include students with a variety of levels, but they can be put into groups for a variety of subjects. Students should never been in the same groups. Sometimes the groups can be made up of students having trouble with the same topic or sometimes groups can be made of students who understand the topic and those that don't. Students should have the opportunity to excel, they shouldn't be put into a group where they feel they're not good enough.

Testimonial by Valerie Munds:

I have been teaching school for ten years. I have taught 5th and 6th grade in three different states. I have found that ability grouping may help the class run smoother and definitely makes my job easier. What I have found for the children is in some cases it can be very demeaning. This past year I had six groups in my 5th grade reading class. A boy in my lowest level reading group came to me and asked me if he could please move up to another group. He told me he knew that the other books were harder to read and that if he worked really hard he could do it. I about fell our of my rolling chair. I do everything I can not to draw attention to the fact that some groups are higher than others. The fact is that the kids figure it out if indeed you are ability grouping. They highest group feels like and have told me in many cases that they are the smartest. It is a tough call for a lot of educators. I have found over the years that the best policy is continual change. Sometimes I may have reading groups, reading partners, read alouds, reading and writing with mixed abilities and sometimes the same abilities. After all, as educators we have to admit that abilities do change. In order for this change to take place the child with the lesser ability should be exposed and even submerged at times with children of higher abilities.

Testimonial by Christine Yeoman:

As a child ability grouping caused me nothing but grief. In the private school I attended we were grouped based on our performance, no test scores. I spent most of my time grouped with the lower students, since I did not like homework and often felt bored. It wasn't until I reached college that I discovered that I was gifted. I have since forgiven my educators but work very hard at not letting the students I teach suffer from similar consequences.

Testimonial by A. Barkauski:

Ability grouping is something I have always been a proponent of since I had been in tracked classes for every subject since the second grade. I tried taking a regular course when it was only offered that way, and the class moved much too slow for me and I found myself bored and picked on for knowing the answers. The homework was busy work so I stopped doing it, and the teacher could not understand why. I think the major point of making ability grouping work and minimizing the bad points is to have a system where students have more weight in the decision of whether or not they move up or down in the tracks. It's when the sole determinant is testing that there is a huge problem with separating classes.

Testimonial by K. Flaherty:

I think there are positives and negatives to ability grouping, but I think the negatives outweigh the positives. I am a twin and my brother and I were placed in first grade in different reading groups. Because of that, it caused so much seperation and comparison between us throughout school. Right away, I was looked at as being more intelligent than him, even though this wasn't the case. I was immediately put into the gifted track, while he was on the other track. All because I was put in the Red reading group and he was in the Green.

Testimonial by L. Gowler:

When I was in 1st grade I remember reading as the only subject where we were grouped according to ability. The "smart" kids were Red birds, the "normal" kids were Blue birds, and the "dumb" kids were Yellow birds. I distinctly remember that and the labels that we as first graders assigned to ourselves depending upon our grouping. In many of my classmates as we grew older we remained in our first grade "bird grouping." I also remember many of the Yellow birds were not necessarily "dumb" kids but behavior problems.

Testimonial by H. Eichelberger:

During my years in middle school and high school we were grouped based on our ability to perform on standardized tests. For me, this was bad because I never did well on this type of test. However, I was able to join the "gifted" group by taking both Algebra-Trig and Pre-Calculus in the same year. Once I entered the "gifted" group, I was able to keep up with the material. After graduating high school, I reflected upon my high school career and realized how much at a disadvantage I had been at by being placed in the lower group because of a test score. I personally feel that if a school is going to group students, then they should look at other aspects besides the test scores. Just because a student performs poorly on a standardized test does not mean he/she is not "gifted."

Testimonial by A. Rosu:

I teach regular classes of high school math and, some times, I have really good students, but for some reasons they are not offered the possibility of using their whole potential. More than that, I had hard time to convince the people responsible with the gifted students to take those good students. One reason was that a particular student was taking a double period of English, so he could not keep up with the work. Finally, I convinced the head of the gifted program to admit my student and now he is the best getting straight A’s in the program.

Testimonial by K. Kleckauskas I have seen ability grouping work effectively in my student teaching with elementary school students. When I student taught 2nd grade, the curriculum was differentiated which meant that for math and reading, students were grouped according to ability level. For science, students were grouped cooperatively and the remaining subjects were taught in a whole-group format. I thought that the ability grouping for math and reading was very effective because the students who excelled in the class were able to be challenged and were given material that was appropriate for their abilities. The average students in the class received grade-level work that kept their skills sharpened. The students who were performing below average were able to get the extra help they needed by getting assignments and activities that were targeted at their abilities. In using reading as the example, since literacy is such a vital skill, it is important that students learn how to read and to become literate individuals if they are going to succeed in their education and in society as a whole. By grouping students according to ability in this endeavor, it allowed students to learn at their own pace so they can succeed. Had the class been given one reading to do as a whole class, this would not have been helping students, but would've rather caused the struggling students to fall behind and the gifted students to lose interest and become bored. -K. Kleckauskas



Testimonial by K. Kleckauskas:

I have seen ability grouping work effectively in my student teaching with elementary school students. When I student taught 2nd grade, the curriculum was differentiated which meant that for math and reading, students were grouped according to ability level. For science, students were grouped cooperatively and the remaining subjects were taught in a whole-group format. I thought that the ability grouping for math and reading was very effective because the students who excelled in the class were able to be challenged and were given material that was appropriate for their abilities. The average students in the class received grade-level work that kept their skills sharpened. The students who were performing below average were able to get the extra help they needed by getting assignments and activities that were targeted at their abilities. In using reading as the example, since literacy is such a vital skill, it is important that students learn how to read and to become literate individuals if they are going to succeed in their education and in society as a whole. By grouping students according to ability in this endeavor, it allowed students to learn at their own pace so they can succeed. Had the class been given one reading to do as a whole class, this would not have been helping students, but would've rather caused the struggling students to fall behind and the gifted students to lose interest and become bored. -K. Kleckauskas

I teach in a K-8 building and our classes are very small. Our special needs students are involved in our classes as well. We group with in the classroom but the students are all of mixed ability. At times you have to make decisions to group students based on their ablility, and place them with students of like ability. It is when the district separates students like this for instruction the students entire school experience that it becomes unfair to all students. B McArthur

[edit] Even More Testimonies

(Note: mcornell added the More Testimonies and Even More Testimonies categories in order to shorten the overall section lengths. This is such a popuplar page to add testimonies to, that this section was exceeding 32K, which causes problems in some browsers, such as Firefox in my case)

I have been viewing a lot of educational situations through my 10-year-old's eyes. His class uses ability groups for math, reading, and vocabulary, but not for the other subjects. What occurs in his class is that the same students are not in the "highest" ability group in all subjects. They seem to recognize this and realize that it's ok for some people to have more advanced skills in some areas but not in others. However, it doesn't change the one problem I have with ability grouping -- it generally means that one or more of the groups gets less attention while the teacher is working with one of the groups. That means while one group is working directly with the teacher, the others are doing "quiet" activity work, personal reading, etc... Less teaching is involved, and I think that is a detriment. M Cornell

My experience with ability grouping has been interesting. The children were grouped only for math and language arts. There was the “back room group” and the “front room group.” Each of these groups were mixed age, ranging from 5 to 7 years of age. The children seemed to be unaware of which group was the “smart” group and which group was the “need extra help” group because the students varied in age and grade level so much. For instance, a child who was originally supposed to be in the PreK class because of her age (4 years old) worked in the front room group, while her friend who was also 4, was in the back room group. This also worked for children who were 6 years of age- some in the front and some in the back. I never overheard the students talk about their feelings about the groups, but rather they shared their excitement for what each was learning. Was this a realistic situation of ability grouping or was this not the experience of most? -TYM

I believe that too many times in education the upper level children are left to fend for themselves. At least at our school, the lower level students are catored to and cuddled while the higher end student seems to go unnoticed and just quietly get an A. Our school gets a tremendous amount of money for the lower level student, while the gifted children seem to get no attention. I understand you don’t want the lower level students to get frustrated, but how about giving the gifted student a chance to make themselves better for the future? -- Dale Donner

It is fascinating to me that this topic has provoked such a reader response. After reading some of the prior testimonies, I have noticed that a theme of class size has emerged. It seems that with smaller class sizes, that tracking isn't necessary -- that the smaller class size allows the teacher to interact enough with the students to challenge the kids who are ready to be challenged and to help the kids who are struggling. I was in a tracking system in elementary school (dividing reading groups and math groups) and then in an enrichment tracking in junior high school (no middle school at that time in our town). High school the levels were more dispersed, but you had options for honors or AP classes. I don't know what I would have done in junior high if I hadn't been in the enriched classes -- I developed such comraderie with the other students and felt so challenged by them and the curriculum. It made for positive experiences at an awkward time, and helped me ride out the negative aspects of adolescence. When I got to high school (10-12 grade), we had so many more options, and 3 junior highs fed into the high school, making it a place of 2000 students (my graduating class was 565). So the group of students I was so close to was very dispersed. My sophomore year, I took college-prep Geometry instead of Honors. It was such a disappointment. The teacher was new and a good number of students in the class weren't interested in learning, so they took advantage of the teacher's desire to make sure everyone was understanding. In my biology class, which was college-prep (no honors available), there were guys in the back of the classroom who wrestled during class causing disruption. But I'm thinking the teacher really makes a difference, because the next year, I took college-prep history. It was one of the most significant classes of my high school experience -- one that I learned a lot from. The difference I think, was the teacher was a good leader in the latter example. As an educator today, I worry about some kids accepting that they are "slower" or "not as smart" when they are put into lower groups. But I know as a bright and hard-working student that I needed the stimulation and community of the enriched classes. Student motivation I think could sort out students more accurately. -- Elaine

I am for ability grouping. I have seen it work well in several settings. I understand the issue of self-esteem of the lower group, but I believe that they should not be told that they are the lower group! Too often I see classes watered down to meet the needs of the entire group, and I know that the gifted learners in the group are getting nothing from the experience. I also question the value to the gifted learner of teaching a low-achieving student a concept- other than reinforcement, I think that the time could be better spent encouraging the gifted student into higher order thinking. -S. Yunker

I believe that every child should be challanged. Weak or strong, subject to subject, children have different abilities. One of our greatest challanges is to help each student grow no matter where they are at. Gifted students have the right to be challanged and continue to grow just as much as a less gifted student. Teaching to the middle no longer is acceptable. T. Ashley

I feel that my personal testimony will probably sound much like most of the rest of the responses above. I feel that it is important to sometimes use ability grouping and to sometimes use heterogeneous groups. I feel that it is important to remember that "ability group" does not necessarily mean level. For example, if I have a reading "ability group" it may not be based on their reading level, it may be based on the students strategy needs. I might have a group of students who need to monitor their errors and those students may have reading levels that are very different. It is also difficult to "track" students as a whole class because a student who is not necessarily a strong reader may be very strong in math. It is imperative that students not be pigeon holed in one group because of their ability in one particular area. All students can teach and learn from each other and they need to be given the opportunity to work with a variety of students of different abilities. --Amanda P.

I'm not surprised at the volume of testimonials! This topic emcompasses all aspects of education. As a young band director, I was opposed to ability grouping--which I defined as putting your "best" kids in one class and your "worst" in another. I felt it was detrimental to performance ensembles--it sets up the "lower" band (or "bad" band) for failure! After working with another teacher who does ability group, I now have a changed opinion. The rationale for ability grouping is related to skill mastery. We have advanced performing groups and intermediate performing groups. The advanced groups are available to students who extend their learning, going beyond expectations, and have a high degree of skill. The intermediate groups are thought of as being "on-grade-level." The material covered is similar to the advanced group, but the pacing is more appropriate, as are skill demands. Ability grouping has worked well within my community. All kids get a positive experience, where no one is struggling with material "over their heads" or "bored out of their minds" waiting for others to catch up. -S.Scott

Testimonial by C. Hatchett: I remember being placed in the 'slow' reading group in the middle of third grade, and there was no doubt about it, we were the 'slow' ones when compared to the other students. Comparison is the biggest problem that I see in ability grouping. I agree that students should be evaluated by a standard, but to homogenously group students denying any opportunity for collaboration with other types of students is simply ineffective in regard to creating a classroom community that is interdependent on the knowledge, abilities, gifts and talents that each child brings to the learning experience each day.


I teach at an extremely small jr hihg/high school. We group by ability in one subject: math. The grouping does not occur until fresman year. Our 7th graders and 8th graders are divided into 2 sections - 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B. These sections are randomly filled. However, the highschoolers get a choice of math classes. Algebra IA is the upper level, while Algebra iB is the lower level. Algebra 2A is the upper level, while Algebra 2B is the lower level. I often wish we had ability grouping in the jr high. In those classes, I have extremely bright kids who can do a lot of beginning algebra and in that same class, I have a few students who cannot do basic multiplication. I don't think ability grouping would solve all of the problems, but I do believe that it would be beneficial for the students. I could spend longer on a topic without losing the attention of my students, because a majority of those students would need the longer instruction. In turn, I could go faster with the higher level students so they could learn more. I would never want to lower the self esteem of a student, but sometimes you need to do what is best for the student. In my high school classes, I teach the lover levels. But there is still a vast difference in ability. I have straight "A" students , failing students and all of those inbetween. ---Jodi Herrmann


I teach fourth grade and at the beginning of the year we give the DRA to each student to find thier reading level. We use these to create guided reading groups. I try to frequently change the grouping arrangements based on how students are progressing. This is supposed to keep us from "tracking" students. Many teachers find this difficult to do because of the time involved in preparing so many different groups and constantly switching the groups. I also think that it is extrememely important for students to be learning at a level that is right for them, otherwise they are either going to fall behind or not excel like the could. E. Kilroy

At the high school level, ability group is absolutely necessary in math. It is beneficial to each group of students, high achieving and low achieving. The lower achieving math students need to be able to work at a pace that allows them to understand each topic before moving on to the next topic. Since math is very sequencial, if all students were grouped together the lower achieving students would never be able to keep up. At our school, freshman year is the first year that students are grouped by ability and I have found that the lower achieving students are much more comfortable in a classroom with students with similar abilities. For the first time, these students feel comfortable asking questions that they may not have asked before when half of the students in the classroom already understood the material. These students often come out of their shells in this type of classroom. I have had this discussion with English teachers at our school and they agree for the same reasons that I have listed above. The English department also sites a negative effect of ability grouping. They say that the most important thing that the lower achieving students miss through ability grouping is the quality of the discussions (when reading novels) that the higher achieving group has. R. Grunloh

I taught 7th grade math for 4 years and during that time we instituted a lower-ability math class. The biggest problem we had was trying to determine who to place in that class. At first it was suggested that students who received D's or F's in their previous math class be given first opportunity. It soon became apparent, though, that not all of those students belonged in that class. We had some kids who were plenty intelligent enough to make it through a traditional 7th grade math class, but lacked the ambition or parental involvement to make that happen. Once we finally determined which students belonged in the class, our attention then focused on what curriculum to follow. Clearly, the curriculum we had was too much, too soon for some of them. It took 2-3 years of trial and error before we finally established a curriculum that seemed to work for those students and still meet the state requirements for what was to be tested. (This latter part was especially important to the administration.) My point in writing all of this is...make sure that when tracking (or whatever you want to call it) is being implemented that all details are thought out thoroughly ahead of time. Treating the kids like guinea pigs while you figure it out is not helpful to them in any way.

Ability Grouping is most sucessful when students remain in the place that they are assigned too. At the high school level, students can often "opt out" of their selected ability level, often times placing a high functioning student in a class that is far too simple and not challenging enough to engage them at their capacities. My concern is the classroom management implications of giving students this lee-way to essentially self select their own academic track.

A colleague and I differ on whether our middle school math classes should be achievement grouped. I say definitely yes. Having taught in homogeneous groups, I found that the higher ability students were slowed down by the lower students, and the lower students felt inadequate in the shadow of the high achievers. Unless the teacher is particularly skilled at differentiation, I think homogeneous math groups are detrimental to the progress of all students. Even with differentiation, the students recognize the differences in their assignments and instruction. NCLB has lead to an increased focus on making sure students meet minimum requirements. While the push to get low performing students up to par is ideologically great, we end up spending all of our resources on the lower kids. Yes, they deserve the resources, but what about the gifted students for whom funding has been cut? Aren't these the students who will become our nation's leaders and innovators? Shouldn't they be given the resources they need to excel? T. Stilts

[edit] References and other links of interest

Links

Wiked>Tracking

Wikipedia>Ability Grouping

Answers.com>Ability Grouping

edweek.org>Research Center>Tracking

Working to Improve Schools and Education>Ability Grouping, Tracking, & Alternatives



References

DeLacy, Margaret. (23, June 2004). "The ‘No Child’ Law’s Biggest Victims? An Answer That May Surprise." Education Week. Retrieved March 23, 2005 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/06/23/41delacy.h23.html?querystring=evidence%20support%20ability%20grouping

Hollifield, John. (1987). "Ability Grouping in Elementary Schools." ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education Urbana IL. ED290542. Retrieved March 23, 2005 from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-927/grouping.htm

Loveless, Tom (July 1998). "The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate." Thomas B. Fordham Foundation Publications. Retrieved March 23, 2005 from http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=127&pubsubid=804

Schmidt, Peter. (13 October 1993). "Debate Over Ability Grouping Gains High Profile." Education Week. Retrieved March 23, 2005 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1993/10/13/16side.h12.html

Swiatek, Mary Ann. (Spring 2001). "Ability Grouping: Answers to Common Questions." C-MITES News. Retrieved March 23, 2005 from http://www.cmu.edu/cmites/abilitygrouping.html

Woolfolk, Anita. 8th ed. Educational Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 118.

NAASP Position on Ability Grouping. http://www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper_ag.html. Retrieved May 12, 2005.

Retrieved from "http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Ability_grouping"
Personal tools