Defining Direction

So... this past semester has been a struggle, but a desired one. I've learned new things about myself and uncovered passions I didn't know existed. I knew that I always wanted ot get involved in education somehow, but not exactly where or how I would make changes that were necessary. I think I'm finally defining that direction I want to take that's somewhere between education reform and policy.... some papers I wrote... they're kidna long... so maybe i'll make it a series...


Ability Grouping: Making Quality Priority over Quantity
Ability grouping and tracking is a highly common practice within the United States school systems. The way it has been structured and applied has come into question and still remains an unresolved and highly disputed issue. Some view it as unfair, biased, harmful, limiting, and argue that there are more effective ways to go about ability grouping and tracking. Others contend that we should do away with ability grouping and tracking altogether for more effective teaching. The majority consensus is that ability grouping and tracking is not working in the ways it is intended, and reform is a necessity.

There are many who argue that ability grouping is ideal and should be kept in place for a variety of reasons. The manner in which children learn varies, so ability grouping accommodates those different learning needs. A problem with this claim is that ability grouping and tracking bases it structure on the idea that intelligence is measured by pace of learning, which is in turn equated with presumed ability, not a child’s capacity or capability to learn a concept. Another argument says that it helps avoid frustrations of students with different learning needs, as well as provides more individualized attention. The frustrations that are avoided only target retention and the ability for a child to regurgitate information. Instead, we should look at how ability grouping affects a child’s ability to learn qualitatively and not quantitatively. The idea of receiving more individualized attention is not a guarantee of ability grouping and tracking. Even within defined ability groups, there is still a range of “ability” within each section. In effect, the class is still taught to a select group. Students can still receive this individualized attention in mixed classes from teachers as well as students. For those who argue that ability grouping provides support for students to catch up and special opportunities for “talented” students to excel miss some very key points of education. Again, these presumptions imply intelligence is a measure of speed of learning and that age should be equated with a certain quantitative figure of knowledge. If the focus is shifted to emphasize the importance of quality learning, then the students can still receive support from each other and look for deeper understandings of concepts; a benefit to all levels. Doing away with the qualitative approach takes away the concern that the upper levels will be held back. In a way, they already are by not having knowledge of substance where they can visualize and apply what they learn. A final point to touch on is the idea that placing students in classes by ability makes it easier for teachers to teach. It seems like this idea encourages teachers to come, do their job, leave, and get paid, allowing room for dispassionate teachers who teach to the test when they don’t necessarily have to for students to do well on tests. It seems a better solution to have mixed classes that encourage creative teaching methods. Mixed classes provide the incentive for teachers to rethink their methods and find ways to accommodate different learning speeds and evoke deeper critical thinking skills in children. Reasons claimed in support of ability grouping and tracking often are made because they are looking at the intentions of ability grouping. Although the goals are positive, they often do not actually happen, which is the downfall of the structure in ability grouping.

Ability grouping and tracking can also be harmful to students’ ability to progress academically, as well as socially. Often times, ability grouping enforces social divisions that occur outside of school. Economic differences at home are often enforced when children are separated by ability at school. Those yielding from low economic areas tend to score lower on tests because lack of resources to enforce and encourage learning. Without going into too much detail, children coming from these backgrounds tend to be African- American and Latino, so they end up being grouped together at school. In the Journal of Black Studies, they observed, “a disproportionate number of minority students are found in lower ability-level tracks” (Journal of Black Studies, 1978). The Journal also points out that “minorities were overrepresented in low ability-group classes, and underrepresented in high ability-group classes” (Journal of Black Studies, 1978). In separating children of different cultures, we enforce some of the dangerous and regressive practices we are trying to move away from in the general society. Although it may not be apparent, children do notice the differences and separations by class and race. For example, with Jonathan Kozol’s research, he speaks with Pineapple, a black student who came from a low-income area. She herself brings up the question, “What’s it like over where you live?” referring to a more affluent area. Children from a school in the Bronx noted in letters to him the discrepancies in quality of education they received. Basic things most people believe any school should have were missing, and children were taking note of it. It is apparent that children are well aware of where they stand in comparison to their peers. Jeanie Oakes proposes “for low track students the self-concept becomes more and more negative as years go by and students tend to be critical of their own abilities” (Ireson & Hallam, 1999). Many times, the placement process and standards are unfair. Testing material tries to cover a general area of knowledge that is often biased and not centered on what is important for different students to learn, depending on their background (Journal of Black Studies, 1978). State tests don’t usually correlate as closely as they should to what students are focusing on in class. Other times, there are social factors that would make answers vary. “The test assumes that all students, minorities and nonminorities, have had equal access to favorable environments, in school and outside; that all share the same culture and are equally motivated to do one’s best on a test” (Journal of Black Studies, 1978). In many cases, the testing material has nothing to do with academic ability at all. Such was the case in my elementary school when I tested to switch to the academically talented and gifted class. The test consisted of patterns that we had to match the missing piece out of four choices. When I moved on to third grade, and up until now, I have yet to see where that came into place, or how it determined my academic ability in a faster paced class. Two correlating problems also include the rigid structure that doesn’t allow flexibility between levels and therefore, limits the students’ opportunity to learn. “It’s permanence and relative inflexibility can lead to a marked restriction of future options” (Ireson & Hallam, 1999). Children become “stuck” into whatever level they are placed into and tend to find it difficult to move up, even though they may be just as capable of doing well in those classes. “Tracking … places low-status students at a considerable educational disadvantage,” states Maureen Hallinan (Oakes, 1994). Requirements and the structure of classes aren’t aimed at preparing them for moving higher, but rather, keeping them at the same pace and further falling behind students in upper levels. If we continue on the path that ability grouping and tracking is leading students today, the gap between what has been determined upper and lower levels will continue to grow and harm students ability to progress academically and socially.

Ability grouping and tracking tends to affect people in different ways depending on the school structure and purpose. Deborah, a former C.E. Byrd Math and Science Magnet School student from Shreveport, Louisiana, shared her experience with ability grouping within the magnet school structure. In her school, students were grouped into a four-tier system. From the lowest ability level to highest ability level, they were labeled Neighborhood, Enriched, Honors, and Gateway. Magnet included the top three tiers. Deborah was in the Honors section and observed that most honor students “didn’t want to associate with the neighborhood kids because they didn’t test into the school. They thought that we were uppity (especially the black kids in the magnet program because the neighborhood program was mostly black).” One of the dangerous previously referred to was the enforcing of social divisions. The small minority of students who did make it into honors classes were resented by those placed in the lowest level. She also remarked that ‘the teachers made a big deal about the divisions. When we had to be together, they didn’t treat the neighborhood kids with the same respect they showed us.” There is a lack in conscious effort to bring down social barriers enforced by education, and the passive approach that ability grouping ensues only perpetuates this problem.

A move northward to the Bronx, NY takes us to Fordham Prep School where Marcos attended. Here, there were three levels that students were broken into, but since it was specifically a college preparatory school, the floor was set at college prep classes. The lowest to highest levels were called Remedial (College Prep), Honors (Pre-Advanced Placement), and Advanced Placement. Marcos was placed in the remedial classes, but had a very different experience within the structure of ability grouping. In remedial classes, he felt less pressured to be a straight A student. Also, because it was a college prep school, he felt that being in the lowest level class was not a negative. Everyone was doing college prep work, but some were just ahead of others. Raising the floor for what is deemed “bottom level” took away the negative feelings about being there. The only real negative was in the rigid structure of the school level system. It was much easier to move from honors classes to advanced placement classes, but those in remedial classes had a much more difficult time moving up the educational hierarchy. Despite the fact that certain students were considered capable of doing higher-level work, scheduling conflicts and class prerequisites limited their mobility within the groupings. If a student did in fact find some way to move to a higher level class, they were scheduled in a way that forced students to give up lunch hours and even stay in school an extra hour to attend a class. With regards to resources, all students had the same access to available resources, but more creative practices were available to upper level classes, such as more field trips for hands-on learning. In Marcos’ case, ability grouping had it positive aspects, but moving any further in eliminating other problems would prove extremely difficult given the schools rigid scheduling and pre-course requirements.

In my own experience, I have only attended and worked in public schools where ability grouping is still a prominent feature. This case will look at Marshall Elementary School, where I have spent several days working with special education classes, and the way teachers have dealt with ability grouping is one way we can approach change. Here, we see a problem discussed earlier regarding the large range of abilities even after grouping has been determined. Children within the class would split up by reading ability because some, simply put, could read, and others seemed to be barely starting. Although the children were split into two levels, they often crossed back and forth between as peer helpers, emphasizing a creative teaching style around the idea of “faith in reason.” We channeled in to their ability to learn and teach, but at the same time learn while teaching. Within the class, flexibility between groups was very easy and children were encouraged to work together. Each group worked on the same book, but at different speeds, focusing on what their needs were while going through the text. One group may emphasize comprehension, while the other emphasized word recognition and fluidity of sentences. Then, the students would share amongst each other what they learned and how they learned it.

In dealing with the social aspect of their lives within the greater population of the school, teachers took an active role. A majority of the students were African-American and Latino, so recess was a key period for them to break down social barriers. Recess was a time for mental relaxation, but it still remained a time for learning social skills. Children were assigned a task each recess to move away from remaining directly outside the classroom doorway and to make a new friend. We then followed this “assignment” up by having them report back when class resumed. Their task was also tied in with work in other academic areas such as reading and writing. In this case, there were conscious teachers actively involving themselves in the children’s lives inside and outside of the classroom. Several of the students were mainstreamed within the year because at the elementary level, fluidity between classes is a little less rigid. In this case, ability grouping was not a negative aspect to the children, but it is important to pay attention to the fact that active teachers are a necessity to its success.

“Most of the negative consequences of tracking can be attributed to a school environment that fails to provide the support needed to make tracking effective,” states Jeanie Oakes (Oakes, 1994). Completely de-tracking, riding the majority of schools of ability grouping and tracking, would be an almost inconceivable and unrealistic goal at the present time. As aforementioned, there are some ways to find success within the system of grouping. A possible way of approaching the challenges and downfalls of ability grouping and tracking is to reform what is in place. In doing so, we must make sure that it accomplishes, more closely, the initial intentions it was implemented for. Hallinan expresses the opinion that, “tracking is essentially an organizational technique with intended and unintended consequences” (Oakes, 1994). Some possible solutions include creating more placement criteria so that there is a less rigid structure and more fluidity to move between levels. Fewer levels is a tactic that some schools have seen as successful. For example, in the four-tier magnet school, the four levels only widened the gap between the highest and lowest levels. Reducing this gap provides easier transitions from one level to another. Implementing creative instruction for both lower and higher level groups will enforce and enhance deeper and qualitative learning, rather than quantitative.

Within the idea of creative teaching can be the increased interaction between levels. The more movement between and among different levels will help resolve the social aspect and put in place a more “faith in reason” attitude of both teachers and students. Both levels must feel like they are contributing something to the other levels’ academic and social experience, therefore mindsets on what it means to be in high and low level classes dissipates. There are several ways in which ability grouping can be reformed to better and more effectively assist students in their social and academic progression.

A bigger step in changing the negative effects of ability grouping and tracking would be to entirely de-track. Within mixed groups, there can be an emphasis on peer teaching and cooperative learning. Hallinan argues that, “tracking’s segregative effects can be counterbalanced by mixing students by race and social class in their untracked classes and by creating a nonracist atmosphere” (Oakes, 1994). This method physically breaks down barriers enforced by different levels of presumed ability. Students are then forced to actively learn together and play an intricate role in each other’s educational success. The ability to learn and teach becomes just as important and the ability to teach and learn. Also, reorganizing the idea of levels and changing the mindsets of students and teachers to stop thinking in quantity terms as applied to intelligence. Thematic curriculums, such as those found on college campuses can be implemented. Instead of creating classes according to speed of learning, they can now be focused on content and style of teaching. Students will be able to determine where their own strengths are, or learn according to their own preferred methods. Putting some choice into the students’ power will encourage them to seek an academic route they are comfortable with, and will still encourage them to grow academically without putting themselves along a spectrum compared to other students. Eliminating mental stigmas created by ability grouping is key to making de-tracking successful.

Ability grouping and tracking has not been a complete failure in United States schools. Rather, we have yet to counter its inherent flaws to follow more closely to what it’s successful intentions ensue. It is clear that ability grouping will not be successful should it continue on the route it is currently on and some reformative measures should be implemented for the sake of the children being placed. There are many ideas on how this goal should be accomplished, but not many significant efforts have been taken, even though their success has been proven. Acknowledging the problems and moving towards a more progressive approach will be in the best interest of today’s educators and students.