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.

Ability Grouping, Sheryl Elliott

Ability grouping has advantages.  One advantage to grouping gifted and talented students together is they can work together to meet their potential.  The teacher can provide instruction that can challenge them and help gifted and talented students grow. The material taught can be much more rigorous. Projects can be completed that will allow the gifted student to be ready for middle school, high school, and college. This also provides an advantage for those non-gifted and talented students.  They will be able to move at an appropriate pace without feeling frustrated.  Just like a 4A football team should not compete against a 1A football team, non-gifted students should not feel the pressure of being in class with a gifted and talented student. 

     Ability grouping also has disadvantages.  Too man “chiefs” in one room can be bad for both the teacher and the student.  Gifted and talented students usually have strong personalities and like to be leaders.  This has the potential to cause conflict when working in groups.  Another disadvantage to ability grouping is it does not allow gifted students the chance to be work with everyone.  They are surrounded by peers who are very similar to themselves.  The real world is not like that.  Gifted and talented students need to be able to function in a society where they are surrounded by all academic abilities.  

Ability Grouping- Anna Smith

Ability grouping is the systemic organization of students according to ability levels. I was surprised to read that there is a considerable amount of of opposition to this practice, considering the many benefits and the long history of different appearances of ability grouping throughout time. While the chapter does recognize some drawbacks to ability grouping that have been researched, most of these theories seemed to be discounted.

Of the downsides to ability grouping discussed, Oakes contributed two. The first is that it is simply ineffective, although the chapter doesn't share any of the the data to prove this. Secondly, she alleges that it is discriminatory. My initial response to that, is that it would be discriminatory to deny a group of students' right to be challenged and fully meet their potential. If ability grouping for GT students is discriminatory, then special education and resource classes would also be considered discriminatory, yet I can't imagine denying the latter students these classes and opportunities to build the skills they need and deserve.

The many benefits of ability grouping were apparent to me throughout the chapter, both for GT students as well as non-gifted. I've worried and dealt with the dilemma of having my more advanced students have to 'wait' for their peers to understand a concept, or sit through a lesson that I'm reteaching to them, or simply learn a less complicated concept because their classmates aren't as likely to be able to master it, for example. To provide them with a group of co-learners who are similarly able and motivated would lessen that issue. Especially when it comes to group work, GT students were disadvantaged. They often do the bulk of the work and/or their partners "get away" with doing less; this leaves the GT student feeling slighted, taken advantage of, or frustrating which of course, is not conducive to their best learning. 

Likewise, cooperative learning groups (of mixed ability) are not beneficial to gifted students. They may like to work alone, or they end up "teaching" their group and not learning anything new. I am guilty of doing this, and have been taught that this is a beneficial way to facilitate a lesson. Even when I was being taught, I asked myself "what does the gifted student end up learning though?" and "how do you organize the groups so that everyone is paired with someone of the right ability?"

The chapter seemed to support to me the benefits of grouping students together by their ability. It says that non-gifted students do better in this environment too. This year, my ELA classes are grouped by reading level and there are very obvious differences between my classes. To be able to take certain activities to my higher or lower classes rather than try to reach all levels inside one class period is a precious opportunity that I am enjoying! I also like that they spoke about Gardner's multiple intelligences, although I try to incorporate the variety of those different learning styles in all of my classes, not just my higher level students. I think they are important and valid for all learners.

Ability Grouping - Brittany Daly

Ability grouping has been and continues to be a frequently debated topic in regard to gifted education. While some have moved to abolish ability grouping altogether, others see the benefits that ability grouping can have. Ability grouping can take different forms. A grade level can be divided into classes based on student ability. This form of ability grouping is often referred to as tracking.  Another form of ability grouping can occur within the classroom for small-group instruction or cooperative learning activities. When making an argument for or against ability grouping, one must take into account which of these forms of ability grouping is being discussed.

When grade levels are grouped by ability, it is the gifted children who are most likely to benefit.  Often times, they will have the smaller class size and the more enthusiastic teacher. According to James Gallagher, they will most likely benefit from a richer curriculum and more individualization within their classroom. When gifted students are grouped homogeneously, teachers may be able to challenge students to reach a deeper level of understanding.  Students grouped into a gifted class will likely be further challenged by their peers.  Research has shown that gifted students in a homogeneously grouped class have scored higher than their peers in mixed-ability class.

Jeanie Oaks argues that tracking is discriminatory because many minority children are often grouped together in a slower track. She also argues that tracking is unfair to those in the slower tracks because they are less likely to get a rich education, and they may not have as many opportunities to delve deeper into academics. When students are grouped heterogeneously, all students are more likely to be presented with the same learning opportunities.  In a heterogeneously grouped class, students can interact with peers of all ability levels.  Higher achieving students may have the opportunity to teach or help another student.  A student who is struggling can turn to a peer for assistance.  In a heterogeneously grouped class, teachers can use cooperative learning activities to further group students.  Depending on the activity or assignment, the teacher may use heterogeneous grouping when grouping his/her students. However, the teacher has the option to group his/her students based on ability. This may allow gifted students to delve into a higher depth of knowledge, and it may allow the teacher to work more closely with a group that may need a little more assistance.

Both of these arguments have valid points.  It is important for gifted students to have the opportunity to work alongside other gifted students so they can challenge each other; however, shouldn’t we want this very same thing for all students?  Our district’s use of a weekly pull-out program for gifted students provides these students with a more challenging curriculum while still allowing them to interact with students of all ability levels. 

Ability Grouping-Melody Johnson

There are many advantages and disadvantages to ability grouping all students, particularly the gifted students. 

As a middle school self-contained teacher, I have seen first hand the advantages of ability grouping students.  My students receive instruction on their level and complete assignments and activities that they are comfortable with and are successfully able to do.  Not only does this help assist the student to be successful at their level but also provides a level of confidence for them.  I believe that for gifted students, ability grouping can catapult them to new academic heights because they too will be working at their level.  Through this they will feel confident in their abilities to solve higher level thinking skills and may move through concepts quicker than another classes.  I also see gifted students being challenged by other gifted students in the same classroom, whereas that may not be the case in a heterogeneous classroom.

However, I also see the disadvantages of ability grouping for all students.  Again, as a teacher of self-contained students, I have had students successfully mainstreamed into regular education classrooms and pushed academically.  The regular classroom was more difficult for them, but they were exposed to grade level standards and expectations and their scores usually improved.  I believe that the same could be said of gifted students.  Even though they are academically or artistically gifted, exposure to other students would have its advantages.  I can see this benefiting the gifted students more so socially. Many gifted students would benefit from socialization with nongifted peers as opposed to homogeneously grouping. Many gifted students would also benefit from being in a leadership role in the heterogeneous classroom. Some of these students would shine in the regular education classroom, whereas in the "gifted" classroom they are just an average students.

All of these are valid points to consider when discussing ability grouping gifted students.

Ability Grouping - Karilyn Parker

After reading through the chapter and article, I can definitely see the advantages and disadvantages of  ability grouping.

Ability grouping advantages for gifted and middle/low level students are that it allows for those higher level thinkers to be given learning situations to help each of them raise their learning potential at an accelerated pace. The low and middle level students have also been seen to still perform at the same level whether they are in a heterogeneous or homogeneous grouped classes. There is also the factor that gifted students would be in a class with highly motivated learners who are willing and interested in the learning. Low and middle level students feel that they can also begin to rise to the occasion, because they are not competing with gifted students.

The disadvantages of ability grouping are that gifted students are not getting any interaction with middle/lower level thinkers to be able to see other's view points. The group discussions with students of all different levels helps promote good questions and thinking skills. Also, teaching a room full of higher level thinkers can sometimes result in a lot of "leaders" in one room, which doesn't allow for a lot of good discussion but just a play for power.

Ability grouping-Rachel Johnson

Ability grouping gifted and non-gifted children has advantages and disadvantages. 

Kulik concludes that by grouping gifted children they can achieve high levels of academic success.  A classroom with all gifted children can accelerate learning and teacher to higher DOK levels than a heterogeneous classroom.  Whereas in a heterogeneous classroom a gifted child might be bored, in an ability grouped classroom a gifted child can rise to their reach his/her potential.  In the same aspect, if low and middle level ability students are grouped with like peers in classrooms they can have academics taught at their level.  A teacher would be able to move a slow pace for the lower level class allowing more student success. 

There are also some disadvantages to ability grouping children.  When grouped with others of liked giftedness, gifted children have little interaction working with peers who are not gifted.  In the “real world” people have to interact successfully with those from all ability backgrounds-not just those of backgrounds similar to them.  Also, Kulik (2003) pointed out that children of low and middle-abilities had higher self-esteem when grouped heterogeneously.  The ability to learn from one’s peer is greatly diminished when children are grouped by ability.  

In conclusion, ability grouping is not always adventitious for gifted or non-gifted children.  I have found in my class over the past years that I enjoy having a mixture of ability level.  This allows for peer learning, livelier class discussions, and a variety of view points.

Ability Grouping--Kelli Donald

After reading an article and the chapter about ability grouping pulling from my previous experience, I have to say I have mixed feelings about the topic.  As with just about all ideas in education, there seem to be definite advantages and disadvantages for gifted and talented students in reference to ability grouping.  Throughout my teaching career, I have heard the term cooperative learning/ability grouping frequently and have always assumed it is a great teaching practice for all students.  And it has worked very well for me many times.  But after just a few short weeks into my study of G/T students I see that grouping students to work based on academic ability isn't always such a good thing.


What I do like about ability grouping is being able to differentiate instruction with small groups.  By having the high, medium, and fragile students in their own groups, I am able to meet more individual needs with specific instruction.  The students are also more comfortable and less intimidated when working with students along their same ability level.  It also gives the G/T students opportunities to explore their creativity and bounce ideas off of others students who are more like them.  I also like ability grouping for G/T because they don't always get stuck doing all the work for the group.  The responsibilities are more balanced. 


Some disadvantages to ability grouping include for one assigning an ability level to students.  Sometimes I am guilty of considering a student in my "low" group a low student in all areas.  Which is unfair and not necessarily true.  And vice versa the students in my higher groups sometimes may get the short end of my instruction if I seem to be running low on time in groups.  I just assume they will be able to figure out how to do some of the things on their own.  Students also pick up on their ability groups and begin to self-identify as high or low.  This doesn't happen as often with heterogeneous groups.  Sometimes the lower/medium students are motivated to work harder if they are in groups with some of the top students. 


Overall, I am a huge fan of cooperative learning.  I am on the fence about ability grouping, however.  For me and my classroom there are times when ability grouping works well, such as math small groups.  It seems to be better for me to heterogeneously groups students in Social Studies and Science activities so my students are mixed together to learn how to work with all types of people.  The latter scenario is, in my opinion, more like what students will experience in the real world.  The workforce is a melting pot of people of all abilities so learning how to cooperatively work with everyone is very beneficial. 

Ability Grouping - Jennifer Ullery

Ability grouping is the term used when students are grouped homogeneously based on their learning abilities.  This can take different forms:  within-class grouping, cross-grade grouping, special classes/pullout groups.  I believe that when classes are formed with students that have similar abilities, it is beneficial for both the students and the teacher.  The teacher would be able to focus on certain skills that that particular group of students needs to focus on, whether it is a gifted and talented grouping or a lower level grouping.  In a classroom that has all different levels, it is hard to reach both the student that is reading a third grade level in middle school and the student who is reading on a collegiate level.  However, if there were a class for just gifted and talented students, the teacher would be able to allow them to follow certain paths of interest because they can pick up the basics more quickly.  Also, with a class that has lower level students, the teacher can focus on vocabulary and building that information up more slowly so the students are not so overwhelmed.

Some advantages to ability grouping is that gifted students would be in a classroom with other students that have similar interests.  The teacher can adapt activities and lessons to be more in-depth.  With heterogeneous grouping, the gifted student may feel bored because they understood the concepts more quickly than the rest of their classmates.  Rogers (1991) noticed that ability grouping "produces substantial gains in academic achievement, creativity, and other thinking skills."  When  gifted students are grouped in a class together, there is a higher achievement level.  Another advantage is when the gifted students are not in the classroom, it gives the other students an opportunity "to shine" (Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner, 1993).

Disadvantages to ability grouping are more on the social and self-esteem level.  Gifted students tend to have difficulties with their social skills, and if they are in a classroom with a mix of levels, they can work more on those social skills they will need in life.  In a homogeneous classroom, gifted students are more likely not to gain those social skills.  When students are grouped based on ability, the lower level students may think of themselves as stupid or dumb.  However, this could also happen in a mixed class because lower level students will see high level students grasping concepts more quickly and getting better grades.

Ability Grouping - Robin Wright

Ability grouping has been argued over for many years. Is it beneficial or not? Does it cause a decrease in self esteem? Any type of grouping should be conducted in a way that would benefit all students involved. Furthermore, it should also motivate them to want to achieve more.

I believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages when it comes to ability grouping gifted students.  However, I don't think they should be completely separated all the time.  I also feel that the way our district pulls our gifted and talented students one day a week is the best solution.  One advantage is that they are with other interested, high ability learners that they can relate to.  Often times, gifted students view themselves as strange or different, and being grouped with other high level learners can actually increase their self esteem.  Research has shown that gifted students learn faster alone and being grouped in a Horizon classroom allows them to do individual projects due to smaller class sizes.  This advantage also decreases the lack of academic interest and motivation that some gifted students experience, because the gifted grouping allows for accelerated work more suited to their level of learning.

One disadvantage of ability grouping gifted students all the time would be that they are separated from students with varied ability levels.  In reality, these students are the ones they will be working with in the real world, and they need to know how to interact with them.  They need to develop the patience and cooperative learning skills to work with someone on a lower ability level.  One fact that can be considered both a disadvantage and an advantage, is that gifted students are often times the "teachers" in groups in the regular classroom.  However, the gifted child can learn a lot from teaching someone else a new concept or skill.

Grouping gifted students some of the time can be beneficial academically.  Socially however, it can cause a disconnection with the majority of the population.  Looking towards the future and the interactions they will experience, this may prove to be a challenge for them.  

Ability Grouping - Jonathan Terry

Ability grouping is an intense topic within gifted education.  Over the past few decades, various studies were conducted that promoted, and subsequently tore down, the notion of heterogeneous or homogeneous ability grouping.  No matter which side of the argument you align with, developing a gifted program should always seek to be beneficial to the students and push them to reach their full potential.

Speaking strictly from a middle school teacher's perspective, there is a lot of validity in both arguments.  The current model in District 6 middle school's is slightly split.  Students attend homogeneously grouped classrooms for their math and English courses, and attend heterogeneously grouped classrooms for science and social studies.  In this instance, homogeneously grouping students is an essential part of making sure each student is prepared for high school and, eventually, college.

Creating low, medium, and high level courses within the grade-level has made a huge difference at my school.  Not only can gifted students be challenged with more rigorous material, but lower ability students can receive the modified pace they need to succeed.  Teachers of our Read 180 program for ELA rave about the great strides their students have made, many of which will end on grade level by the end of the year.  In this case, homogeneous grouping is making a huge impact by placing students with peers of the same ability level so that the playing field is level for each student.

One of the biggest disadvantages researches use when attempting to invalidate homogeneous grouping is the issue of self-esteem.  With the 7th graders that I teach, self-esteem plays a huge role when placing them in ability-grouped classrooms.  I have heard students in the Read 180 program refer to it as the "dumb class".  At this point in their maturity, a student may believe that the opinion of his or her friends is more important than their reading ability.  As far as gifted grouping goes, we also have an influx of parents overriding their child into a Horizons level class at registration time.  While I do agree that some students need a little extra push to perform higher academically, the inclusion of regular-ability students in a gifted class can have negative repercussions.  The class is no longer a true gifted class and those students that are higher level will not get the enrichment they deserve.

Ability Grouping-Sara Margaret West

    

Gifted education has not always taken precedent in the world of education.  However, research involving gifted education began in the 1870s and continues today.  There is much discussion when it comes to grouping "gifted" students.  What is the best method?  Should they be grouped? Will it hurt their self-esteem? Everyone has an opinion, but we must look at what is best for the students.  We also need to prepare them for their future.  

            Some people have tried to abolish ability grouping altogether. Between class grouping, cross-grade grouping, and with-in class grouping are some of the different ways some classes are grouped.  Jeanie Oakes points out that these groupings do not benefit the students in any way.  She believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to group students based on ability.   

Kulik conducted research that shows everyone benefits from grouping, even the non-gifted students.  Rogers states that students who are pulled out have substantial gains in their learning and thinking.  He credits these gains to the willingness of gifted students, their higher ability, and the interest of teachers. 

After reviewing all the research, it is easy to see why classes would benefit from being grouped by ability.  Students would be able to work on their level and be challenged in ways that are appropriate for them.  The gifted students would not get bored, and the low level students would be challenged in a way that would benefit them.  We differentiate our instruction anyway, so why not have it differentiated for a smaller homogeneous group? 

Self-esteem was addressed as a possible concern. However, a valid point was made that self-esteem grows when you have successes.  When you place gifted students in an environment where they are challenged, their self-esteem may be challenged.  They no longer are the only ones who know how to do it nor are they the only ones who understand it right away. They are equally paired with others and challenged to grow in their abilities.  Their successes would be fewer; however, would mean more.  Lower and middle achieving students will have more opportunities to succeed and would not feel overshadowed.

Although we group heterogeneously in schools, there are still homogeneous grouping taking place in the classroom.  In my classroom students are grouped based on ability in guided reading groups and math groups.  I do not worry about their self-esteem.  Instead, I am focused on making sure they have the knowledge needed to succeed, which will build their self-esteem.  Students are ability grouped once they get to middle and high school.  The benefits are clear, so why not group them by ability in elementary school? 

Read the brief section in Chapter One on Ability Grouping.  What are your thoughts on ability grouping gifted students?  What are the advantages/disadvantages?