Ability Grouping

Ability grouping is a widely debated topic because of its many advantages and disadvantages.

Its critics site many disadvantages to ability grouping.  Jeanie Oakes argues that homogeneous grouping is ineffective because it does not promote student learning, motivation, or self-esteem.  She also says that it is inherently racist because many minority children are in slow tracks and it is wrong to deny access to deeper academic content based on ability.  Ability grouping also denies all students authentic, real-world interactions with people of all ability levels. 

However, others argue the advantages of ability grouping. Allowing gifted students to work together allows them to be challenged by their peers and lets them experience not being the smartest kid in the room.  This also creates an environment where middle and lower level students are not competing with and being overshadowed by gifted students.  It can also lower the affect that watching gifted students success can have on lower ability students.  Without gifted students, those students are allowed to shine.  Kulik found that the achievement of low-ability students is not harmed by homogeneous grouping while higher ability are allowed to excel.

At my school, classes are not divided by ability but within my room, I find it beneficial to use a mix of homogeneous and heterogeneous groupings. I believe there are times where grouping gifted students together can allow for deeper and more challenging learning, while other times being in a mixed ability group allows gifted students to take on a leadership role.  

Ability Grouping

You ask a special education teacher her thoughts on ability grouping. ha! That is my world. However, I believe most classes should be as heterogeneous as possible. Children learn from each other. Those that aren't as skilled or as intelligent as others are able to gain skills from those who are. And the higher level students have opportunities to learn tolerance and patience. I do believe those children should be challenged however, and not given busy work. They need to be provided with opportunities to grow and work to their full potential.
While I believe classes should be heterogeneous, I also do believe in small group instruction where students are grouped based on abilities. This way, instruction is tailored to the needs of the students. According to the text, Jeannie Oakes has taken a stance against tracking. She believes it is, "Wrong to deny access to deeper academic content and opportunities based on ability". (I'm not formally citing this as it is a blog post - and I don't know if you want APA or MLA or NFL...wait...). I must say I disagree with this statement. It is unfair to move ahead of a student's ability level expecting them to understand the content which is being taught and at the same time, I believe it is unfair to hold back a gifted or higher level student in order to wait on the other students to catch up. I wonder if this woman ever taught!?! I'm clearly not the influential spokesperson though, so what do I know?
In response to the stigma theory, I do believe children are aware of the levels of groups. I recall the way we were tracked in middle school. Each group had a name, and they were all cool names (I guess), but everyone knew which group was the lower group and which group was the higher group. But these were entire classes that were grouped. Not small groups set up in a classroom.
And while we can group homogeneously in the classroom for direct instruction, we should also be grouping heterogeneously for projects and assignments. Just because a student isn't gifted doesn't mean he or she won't have something to contribute. And while a student may be gifted, it doesn't mean that student will be the one with all the great ideas and running the group. But I guess I'm getting off topic here and moving on to cooperative learning. So I'm calling it quits for this blog.

Ability Grouping

As a middle school art teacher, there is no such thing as ability grouping in an art classroom. Although I do try to group students with other students that are close to the same ability level and thinking level, it is still hard to group students together based on ability. According to the district, we are required to teach each and every child, from the highly gifted (both academically and artistically) to the severely autistic self-contained student. I also teach ESOL, Special Education, and Resource students. This must all be done at the same time due to the inclusion of these students with others so they get the “socialization” aspect. My thoughts on ability grouping are that it is a great concept. Although for exploratory teachers, like myself, it is hard to construct a constructive learning environment to meet all needs of students.

            According to the classroom textbook, ability grouping has been going in ancient cultures for centuries. I found that it was very interesting how these cultures divided “normal” people from “gifted” people. Ancient Sparta defined giftedness in military terms. Athenian boys attended private schools and the Romans had all boys and girls attend first level schools but higher education was for boys only. In Renaissance Europe, they rewarded gifted artists, architects, and writers with wealth and honor. China’s 7^th century Tang dynasty brought child prodigies to the imperial court. They accepted a multiple-talent concept of giftedness, recognized that talents must be natured and believed children should be educated according to their abilities. What stands out to me is the regulations for the Renaissance European era. Most famous artwork was created during this time period. It was also a major stepping stone to art in the future. As an artist and art educator, I find myself regularly referencing this time period for art. The Europeans new how to teach the gifted, although, like other ancient cultures, wealth and honor took a major play. In today’s time, we still branch off the gifted students but wealth and honor are not a contributing factor any more. This has provided ample students with opportunities to learn, create, and grow further than just simply being in a classroom with peers. Society benefited from helping gifted students become professionals in the past and now.

            It also seems that more interest has come in spikes according to current events for that time period. The textbook mentions that the launching of Sputnik in 1957 triggered an American effort to improve education, particularly in science for gifted students. Now, we are pushing gifted students to think like engineers so they can develop further advancements in Engineering. I wonder how long this fad will last like the push during the 1950’s-1960. I feel that ability grouping is a great thing but only if education is still pushed in the future and not a fad that comes and goes.

Ability grouping

Analyzing research is a good place to start when determining the best methods of educating students. As educators, we have an obligation to our students to employ practices that are aimed to maximize their potential for growth.  When it comes to the controversy on ability grouping, the research seems like a good place to start. This chapter contends that ability grouping for gifted students is linked to “substantial gains in academic achievement, creativity, and other thinking skills”(Davis and Rimm p.13). It seems to me that if research asserts that grouping gifted and talented student is of substantial benefit to them, then that is the method that we should be using until, other research can prove that assertion no longer valid, or until we find a method for educating gifted and talented students that is even more effective.  

There are advantages and disadvantages associated with ability grouping for gifted and talented learners. One advantage is that gifted and talented learners tend to demonstrate willingness to learn when grouped with other gifted and motivated learners (Davis and Rimm p.13). A disadvantage is that according to the stigma theory, when grouped homogeneously, gifted learners tend to have a slightly lower self-concept. In my personal opinion, because the data supports the practice of ability grouping for gifted students (Davis and Rimm p.13), I maintain that we should continue to do it.

Ability Grouping

I’ve always had mixed feelings on ability vs. non-ability groupings.  After reading chapter 1, I still remain mixed about the pros/cons of each.  This chapter makes several good points about both.

Homogeneous grouping is the type of educational experience that I had while I was in middle and high school in the core academic areas and I always felt that was a benefit for my actual education.  There was competition, which was a positive influence to study and learn more, there was a higher order of thinking present in these classes, and most importantly I got to work with students who were performing around the same level.  When taking AP classes, all of these factors were very important to assist in achievement which would impact my college career. 

This chapter expresses all of those things as positives, but I also understand the negative aspect of that.  Oakes states that students in the lower level classes, sometimes the students refer to themselves as ‘dummies’ and that their self-esteem is negatively influenced because they are not in the higher classes.  The chapter then goes on to talk about the ‘blossoming effect’ that it can have on students when they realize they are not in the higher group; it can provide that push that students may need to put forth all of their effort into learning.

Heterogeneous grouping is stated as the big push within schools currently.  Having mixed ability groups is a more adequate representation of the ‘real world’ and I completely agree.  Giving students real-world experiences is something that is getting a lot of attention recently, specifically in our district. 

Unfortunately, I actually see the opposite of heterogeneous grouping, beginning at the middle school level.  Our ELA classes are grouped by reading levels, each grade level having 2 very low/low classes, and then go up from there; same with our math classes.  We separate students based on abilities (honors/AP level/CP level) beginning in middle school also.  The lack of access to some of the information presented in those classes can be viewed as unfair to those lower-achieving students. Once students reach high school, proportionate heterogeneous grouping is almost impossible.  The highest level of students are already prepping to take college courses (if they are not already), which not all students are going to be able to take.

Ability Grouping--Melissa Wilkins

As an elementary art teacher, there is no such thing as ability grouping in an art classroom.  We are required to teach each and every child, from the highly gifted (both academically and artistically) to the severely autistic self-contained student.  And this must be done simultaneously, as the self-contained students are being "mainstreamed" in my classroom.  I have noticed several things with this model of educating students in art.  Most of the self-contained students I teach are able to come to class and get along fairly well with the other students, some even create more amazing artwork than the regular-ed students.  I have a few that are barely able (or willing) to sit at the table and write their names on their paper.  While I am an advocate for mainstreaming these children, sometimes, I do not think it is fair to the rest of the students in the classroom.  They can be disruptive to the other students, and to me as I am working to instruct the entire class.  I have had to implement my own ability grouping methods in some cases with certain students, who are completely unable to follow along.  I have to instruct the class as a whole, and then when independent work begins, I look around at the students who are completely lost and do not know where to begin.  It is at this time, that I bring them to an empty table to the side of the class, and work with them in small group or a one-on-one setting to get them started on a project.  This is the only way I know how to keep the entire class afloat, but it is difficult to monitor the progress of everyone else, while I am working one-on-one with one particular student.  I have worked at other schools, in which an entire self-contained class comes to art with their teachers/aides, in an art class entirely to themselves.  This seems to work better for them and for the teacher, because they are used to being with those students, and the art teacher gets some help from the aides that bring them.  It is a difficult issue and a sensitive balance is needed.  It is hard to know which system is best for every child.  I have found that in certain instances and with certain children, I do have to implement my own system of ability grouping in order to get anything done.  I am just one person, and it is hard to make it all work sometimes, but it is what I have to do...so I will continue as I am able.

My thoughts on Ability Grouping

As a Middle School math teacher, ability grouping is the only way!  The pace in which I move is significantly effected by the abilities of my students.  Thankfully, the higher level students (gifted) in math are placed together in an honor's class.  However, the college prep (CP) students are all grouped heterogeneously, meaning if the student is not gifted, they are placed in this group.  Students range in ability of exceeding all the way down to in need of support, according to ACT aspire scores.  This makes the pace a little more challenging, but workable.  I understand the concept of not having ability grouping, but for language arts and math, I think it's a must.  The textbook says it best on page 12.  "Gifted Education and gifted students are in deep trouble without grouping practices..."

Advantages to ability grouping as I see it are that students can work at a pace that is challenging, yet comfortable for them.  I believe students work better in a team setting when their abilities are matched equally or close to that of their peers.  I also believe that grouping would limit the fear of feeling less than another peer, which is very important for self worth.  As I said before, gifted students can be challenged and can progress through the curriculum quickly.  Gifted students don't have to slow down or lose their momentum so that other students can catch up, and visa versa.  Other students don't feel like they have to play catch up to those gifted students.

However, the disadvantages are the flip to the advantages.  Lower functioning students may feel inferior to the brighter students because they are in a lower group.  They may feel stuck in the lower group, which may cause them to give up.  Students in the lower groups may not be challenged to their potential, especially those who don't fit in the higher functioning groups, but are higher than the group they are in.  Gifted students would be held back, so that the average student's needs could be met. Gifted students may feel they are being used as mini professors, which may lead to frustration and anger.   Gifted students would not be challenged to their maximum potential if they were not homogeneously grouped.