Special Education classes within the United States have been seen as the solution to providing equal education for all learners, but some view it as one of the most hindering and purely idealistic methods within education as well. A disturbing trend throughout a majority of schools depicted an overrepresentation of minority students placed in special education. Within this minority, the most overrepresented group was African American males. The manner in which special education classrooms are structured and the way placement procedures are carried out will only perpetuate this debilitating trend for minority students. What exactly causes this overrepresentation must be paid careful attention, but the possible solutions elicited by several researchers shows hope, should the current process be changed to the benefit of all students.
The exact cause of the overrepresentation cannot be pinpointed, but several factors have proven to contribute to this tendency. The most controversial piece of special education is the assessment and referral process that places students in special education classes. Teachers have the most contact with the students and are able to observe their academic progress more closely and comparatively than outside specialists. The teachers themselves do not make diagnosis of a disability, but they do initiate a referral that leads to a diagnosis. Although this technique makes sense with its general description, there are many problems that ensue. Often, teacher evaluations are not culturally conscious and are biased. Sometimes, a student may come from a home environment where they are required to take on a non-typical role as means of survival, or several other reasons. When they come to school, they bring this environmental reaction with them and it can be translated wrongly as aggression or behavioral disorders. Teacher expectations also factor in to how a student may act in class. If a teacher does not have high expectations of a student, this automatically puts them at a disadvantage. They may not be pushed harder to complete work, or be expected to complete quality work that reflects their actual potential because it is never required of them. A final critique of teacher referral and assessment contributions points to the fact that they are not qualified or trained to look for what constitutes a learning disability. A student who performs a bit slower or at a lower level than the majority of the students may make it onto the teacher’s radar, and they seek outside help form there. However, many times, students who actually need specialized attention get overlooked and aren’t assessed until much later. Rather than being misdiagnosed, they go undiagnosed; keeping the child from getting resources they could have had access to much earlier. Often overlooked is the possibility that a student is not used to a teachers instruction styles. Students who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds may be more accustomed to a skill-based instruction style, and the teacher may be using an instruction-based style. Due to the fact that they are assessed so early- usually starting during the winter of kindergarten- they are not given time to adjust to this different style. Several others just haven’t reached a maturation point where they are ready to take in so much information because they are not developmentally ready. These factors tend to go unnoticed and are not considered in the assessment process, accounting for an increased number in students entering special education that are more subject to these types of experiences.
Another cause for overrepresentation in special education can be seen in the classification of learning disabilities itself. Learning disabled is a small category under what was once called simply “autism.” Due to the inconsistent characteristics of each type of autism, the term was later broadened to “autism spectrum” to account for the wide range in umbrella classifications. Most will agree that children who are determined to have a specific learning disorder should be placed in special education so that they receive the services they need to help them get around their disability. However, when the term itself has no concretely defined characteristics, judgment is often subjective and can become inconsistent. Several students are classified based on behavior during class, which is not necessarily their fault. Even when students are placed in some disability category, often times it does not interfere with their ability to learn in the mainstream classroom, should they have certain resources. Just because someone is diagnosed does not mean they should automatically be isolated or separated from the mainstream.
One advancement made to stunt the trend that put a higher percentage of minority students in special education came with the Larry P v Wilson Riles court case of 1979 that banned the sole use of IQ tests to determine placement in special education. The tests being used were deemed culturally biased and unreliable indicators of a student’s ability to learn. The use of IQ tests is still permitted, but they must have the approval of parents and cannot be the sole determining factor of where a child is placed.
Another group that is often overrepresented within the minority category are the non-English speakers. The lack of American English linguistic skills often is translated as a need to special education where, often times, they do not receive the resources they need. A major reason for this is due to the fact that bilingual assessors are usually not present when it comes to the decision about placement and whether it can be deemed a learning disability. They tend to have little influence and consideration in the process, putting those who do not have English as their first language at a large disadvantage. Once placed, the students are at an even bigger disadvantage because, not only are their abilities not closely considered, but they do not received the services they need to become proficient in English while keeping up in their other academics. English submersion classes are one alternative many seek, but forbidding them to speak the language they know best and continuing on in one they don’t fully understand creates frustration and lost motivation. It is important to find a way to service one area of learning without sacrificing another for these children.
It is possible that placement in special education would not be viewed so negatively if it wasn’t seen as such a dead end option. One book focusing on why there are such a large percentage of minorities in special education asks, “Is special education really a solution, or is it more of an exile method?” Researchers observed that the ideal special education classroom boasts smaller classes, which are rarely a reality. Individual attention and instruction was not present and the style was similar to that of a general education classroom, defeating the purpose of the student’s initial placement. Special education classes were often too restrictive and didn’t have their main focus at mainstreaming the students, reflected in the low rate of exiting from special education.
Some other disadvantages seen by entering special education programs looks at the separation aspect. Students are taken away from the mainstream students and often labeled with terms holding a negative stigma. There is often a drop in the students’ self esteem when they are isolated into there classrooms form their normal group of peers. The most detrimental aspect to special education occurs when they are moved and they do not receive the resources required to compensate for their needs. The effectiveness of the classroom setting comes into question. If the special education classes are not serving their main purpose, then why have them in the first place? By moving them, we are not guaranteeing them the needed services they are hoping to receive. If the students’ progress is not monitored to make sure their move into the special education classroom is proving effective, then special education is a dead end point of no return for these children. Just by placing them into these classrooms cannot be seen as the immediate solution. They must be carefully monitored and observed just as they were in the mainstream classrooms to see if this switch is even a benefit to the child, or if it is hindering them even further from reaching their full potential.
Growing up, it was common to be the only African-American student in any of my classes. In my entire education from kindergarten to senior year of high school, the largest number of African-American students in one class was two- including myself. I witnessed the lacking expectations, despite the fact that I had a full load of advanced placement classes, and was discouraged from taking upper level classes when I requested a switch. Working in special education classrooms, it became a norm to see all but two African-American or Latino students. I have experienced the non-English speakers who didn’t belong there, but just needed a different approach to learning academics as well as English. Two students were mainstreamed who didn’t exhibit any learning disability, but rather a behavioral problem that was quickly resolved with a change in attitude and instructional style. The classroom had a clear goal of capitalizing on each student’s strengths and eventually mainstreaming every single student.
It is possible to make special education classes more effective and structured to benefit the students for whom they are created. Several solutions have been proposed, keeping in mind that special education doesn’t have to be limited to those with defined disabilities. Specifically looking at the case for African-American males, one journal proposed a three-part plan. The first step was to “create programs, opportunities, and incentives to increase the number of African-American teachers.” In doing so, they create role models for the younger African-American males so that they can see potential in themselves. A change in expectations will boost their motivation to do well and will be tailored to their preferred instruction style. The second step was to “train all pre-service and in-service educators to successfully teach African-American students,” essentially making them more culturally aware. Being more aware of the differences in culture and learning styles will allow teachers to be more effective in reaching out to more children outside the majority.
The final step of the proposed plan includes the creation of the “Black Male Classroom” that “caters to the education of black boys only.” This classroom would be characterized as having “black male teachers, twenty to twenty-four students per class, cooperative learning, a Self-Esteem Through Culture Leads to Academic Excellence curriculum, physical education, daily nutritional meals, whole-brain lesson plans and tests, mathematics word problems, academic contest and assemblies, and monthly parents meetings.” Although this final piece is a good solution, education should cater to all ethnic backgrounds. This “Black Male Classroom” can also be beneficial for other students and not specifically black males. In coming up with solutions, one must think inclusively rather than exclusively.
Some other solutions were described in the Journal of Negro Education. One of the most appealing solutions sought to restructure the entire segment of special education to label services rather than students. In doing so, all students can take advantage of the services offered. Special education becomes a support service for everyone, therefore releasing it of its negative stigma. A unified education system would be seen as “supportive rather than alternative” to avoid the separations created between students and the isolations of certain other students. In making these changes, special education would become more efficient and sought after by all students. This system is more inclusive of everyone, and not just those observed to need the services.
As far as assessment restructuring, a new focus and purpose would prove most effective. Testing and observation can still be a factor, but have the purpose of “guiding instruction, rather than determining program eligibility.” Assessment can be used in directing instructional styles and services needed by building off the strengths of the students. A major component to this program change’s success would come from parent involvement. The communication process between parents and teachers would change by creating a community where direct involvement is encouraged. When educators and parents show an active interest in a student’s education, they will see the importance, encouragement, and find motivation to further themselves.
“Schools need to become places whose goal is facilitating the process of learning for life. Where learning is perceived as valuable and the foundation on which more learning can be built. Where everyone learns rather than simply where students are sorted and prioritized to separate the more able form the less able.” The overrepresentation of minorities within special education is rooted in a multi-tiered and complex compilation of problems ranging from the cultural aspect to the structure of special education classrooms themselves. Special education reform must focus on creating an all-inclusive environment where all can benefit. Schools as sorting machines will always exhibit some form of misrepresentation of any group should they continue with this role. It is not until the grander problem is solved, or at least restructured, will we see the problem of overrepresentation of minorities resolved.
Monday, December 31, 2007
A Personal Relection
Growing up in American society today, various practices and ideas are subconsciously installed in our minds and accepted without question. Many times, we don’t see how harmful these practices can be in education when we fail to recognize what we are actually doing. My experiences as a Philippino and African American female, I found out first-hand what it was like to be surrounded by situations where I was told my way was wrong, and had to let go of practices that were common in my own culture. If educators do not become more culturally responsive, they risk having a devastating effect on a child’s education and capabilities.
Many times, one hears of the difficulties of being educated as a person of color in a majority white school. However, when one is brought up very differently than the stereotypical African-American child, assuming that each child can be approached in the same way can be even more harmful. A teacher can be culturally conscious, but when the culture of a student is not 100% visually determined, or not done on a case by case basis, their attempt to address the child’s differences can serve to further harm the child in their education. Growing up, my family emphasized more of my Philippino culture, so I did not fit the stereotypical black one that people could see on the outside. Stylistically, I grew up participating in conversations that were a constant exchange; each person constantly giving feedback, finishing each others thoughts and sentences, and not waiting until one person was completely finished and then taking your turn. When I began elementary school, this is how I approached conversations, but after a while, this practice became discouraged and I kept receiving negative feedback when I did so. I had to relearn how to converse in the school setting, feeling that what I was doing was wrong, when in actuality, it all came down to a cultural factor.
Conversation content wise, I was brought up learning to speak eloquently and with a sense that “this is how an educated person speaks,” and not with the sense that “this is how you talk black and this is how you talk white.” So, when I was in school, teachers as well as peers were surprised by how I expressed myself and exceeded their expectations. Before I was even able to exhibit my abilities, I had already been judged and categorized to act and speak a certain way. I was confused when people approached me, assuming I would speak one way, and I received something extremely opposite. This attempt at categorizing me and not successfully being able to made it feel like I was at fault for something that should not be labeled as right or wrong. As a result, I began to hold back and speak less often, for fear of the negative feedback I would receive.
In addition to being Philippino and African-American, my education was also effected by my gender. As a female, there were many discrepancies between my treatment and expectations in the classroom compared to the males. As discussed in class, females were given significantly less attention, partially because expectations were already set higher, and the attention was seen as unnecessary. Teachers also tried to assist me with the “show me” style, which I adamantly rejected because I knew I learned and understood better when I could solve the work with minimal guidance. I also excelled early on in math and science; an area usually characterized as a strength in males. The reason for this could be because I grew up being educated and teaching early on in my father’s special education class that was predominantly male. As they learned different concepts, I was right over their shoulders learning along with them. Later on, I was teaching boys in the same way I had learned.
As much as I resisted certain practices towards females, some were inevitable. Specifically, in first grade, I would speak up to get attention because I wanted to prove that I was just as capable as the other students. Several times, I would overhear the teacher as a student to show that they understood something to her, but when I perked up and wanted to prove the same, I was told to be quiet and began being ignored or pushed aside. In Myra and David Sadker’s book Failing at Fairness, they call attention to the negative effects of females being ignored, which I am able to notice currently. When I became aware that I was expected to sit quietly and do my work, it became very difficult to break the strongly enforced habit. Even after enrolling myself into discussion-based classes today to break this routine, it is still a challenge. It does not matter how much I want to say something, something tells me that speaking up is wrong, and there is that subconscious fear of negative consequences should I do so.
Unfortunately, the problems I faced growing up are still very apparent and need to be addressed before we forget that they are problems and accept them without question. My younger brother, this passed year, received a progress report stating that he was in danger of failing with a C and a D. When my father contacted the teachers, their explanations for his unsatisfactory grades were that he was “just to lazy,” (which was later emphasized again at the end of a grammatically incorrect letter from an English teacher) and that he “simply decided to not do his work for a while,” according to his math teacher. My brother attends my same high school and is one of a couple black students in his class. Comparing the reactions of this teacher with my white and female peers who also had difficulty with the same instructors, it was clear that they were trying to assume certain things about my brother in connection with his skin color and gender.
My “lazy” brother was on the school varsity soccer team (that claimed the section title), a state traveling team (ranked nationally), the school track team (medaling at most, if not all meets), and also in the school marching band (ranked third in the nation). A lazy and careless student would not be actively involved in so many extracurriculars and a key component to each organization, but the teachers did not see this side of him and only made assumptions based on one small piece of subconscious biases they had projected onto him that had become socially accepted. My brother’s alleged decision to “simply not do his work for a while” suddenly became magic when the work mysteriously appeared in a lost group of papers the teacher had himself, which came with a quick apology and a higher grade. Both teachers were ready to sit back, satisfied with a failing student, assuming that he should not be held to high expectations. Both were also surprised by my father and brother’s persistence in wanting to solve the problem and didn’t anticipate the maintained high self-expectations.
My brother ended up with B’s in both classes, but one must be concerned for the other students who are in these classes being stamped with stereotypes of blacks or males, and even further encouraging the stereotypes as athletes. Villegas and Lucas cite that “teachers who lack sociocultural consciousness will unconsciously and inevitably rely on their own personal experiences to make sense of students’ lives,” which is what happened in the case with my brother. The potential danger that this apathetic, stagnant, and uncaring approach to teaching, and failure to address one’s own biases that have a negative effect on students is a crucial issue to address and not let by so easily.This case affirms what Villegas and Lucas point out when they say that “evidence suggests that many teachers see students from socially subordinated groups from a deficit perspective. Lacking faith in the students’ ability to achieve, these teachers are more likely to have low academic expectations for the students and ultimately treat them in ways that stifle their learning.” Had my father not advocated so adamantly for my brother, the ways in which my brother was treated could have easily held him back in his future potential. It is apparent that gender biases harm both males and females in very different, but equally damaging ways.
As I continue in my education and find myself wanting to become an educator myself, I must find some way to avoid making the same mistakes that inhibited my success in school. The biggest challenge may be that I grew up in a society where certain practices are made acceptable and subconsciously practiced daily, so it may be more difficult for me to recognize my own biases. Anthropologist Margaret Mead said, “If a fish were an anthropologist, the last thing it would discover would be water.” For this reason, it is so difficult for many to recognize their biases, even when they are pointed out, because we have accepted so many practices blindly that we forget to question, or fail to notice how and why we treat people differently. As a student aid, I am able to take a step back and observe first-hand how we exhibit our biases unknowingly, and be able to identify them. Only after I can recognize it in others can I more closely look for my own and make a conscious effort to avoid acting on any biases I may have constructed into habit. Also, learning from my own experiences, I must also make a conscious effort to avoid making assumptions as to character or cultural practices based on phenotypic features themselves.
One incident I have already faced in the cultural aspect was when I was teaching a first through third grade special education class. I was working with a student who was a native Spanish speaker learning the English alphabet. He would successfully pronounce and recognize the first two letters “A” and “B,” but when it came to the next letter, he would mumble and I would correct him by saying, “C.” After a few botched attempts and head cocks in confusion, I realized that every time I said, “C,” he interpreted this as, “Si,” meaning, “yes” in Spanish. Instead of repeating my mistake, I explained to him in Spanish that we would learn the alphabet, first, in all Spanish. Afterwards, we would move to English when he was ready. As soon as we made the switch, he was doing fine learning in Spanish. English was still a bit of a struggle, but I stopped sending mixed messages, and he understood that he had to code switch for different dialects. My mistake is reflected in the article on Ebonics. Once we made the switch, the student stopped resisting. In Lisa Delpit’s article “What Should Teachers Do? Ebonics and Culturally Responsive Instruction,” she states that, “The teacher must know how to effectively teach reading and writing to students whose culture and language differ from that of the school, and must understand how and why students decide to add another language form to their repertoire. All we can do is provide students with access to additional language forms.” Taking this approach benefited me and, more importantly, the student I was teaching.
The ultimate and unsolved question becomes, “How do we progress and move away from hidden and accepted biases that lead to harmful practices?” There have been many signs of progression with regards to addressing these different biases in education. Workshops specifically geared towards eliminating, or at least recognizing how serious and debilitating gender biases are presents a huge step in the right direction. Many are learning to break down stereotypes and letting go of gender roles that boys and girls should play in school, and also becoming more aware of teaching styles towards both. There are also workshops in places built on becoming more culturally conscious. Bridging Cultures is one workshop that teachers specifically on Latino culture and values of collectivism.
Simply recognizing what a bias or misunderstanding of a culture looks like is not enough to solve the problem. We must also inform ourselves from the child’s perspective and culture to work towards incorporating a learning style for students on a case-by-case basis. First, having faith in the child’s ability, then letting and encouraging what they know to be their strengths shine will work to their best advantage in the classroom. Ana Maria Villegas and Tamara Lucas write in “The Culturally Responsive Teacher” that it takes “a new way of looking at teaching that is grounded in an understanding of the role of culture and language in learning.” In this, we must also understand our own culture; what has become socially accepted and how we may ineffectively impose our own culture on others.
Many times, one hears of the difficulties of being educated as a person of color in a majority white school. However, when one is brought up very differently than the stereotypical African-American child, assuming that each child can be approached in the same way can be even more harmful. A teacher can be culturally conscious, but when the culture of a student is not 100% visually determined, or not done on a case by case basis, their attempt to address the child’s differences can serve to further harm the child in their education. Growing up, my family emphasized more of my Philippino culture, so I did not fit the stereotypical black one that people could see on the outside. Stylistically, I grew up participating in conversations that were a constant exchange; each person constantly giving feedback, finishing each others thoughts and sentences, and not waiting until one person was completely finished and then taking your turn. When I began elementary school, this is how I approached conversations, but after a while, this practice became discouraged and I kept receiving negative feedback when I did so. I had to relearn how to converse in the school setting, feeling that what I was doing was wrong, when in actuality, it all came down to a cultural factor.
Conversation content wise, I was brought up learning to speak eloquently and with a sense that “this is how an educated person speaks,” and not with the sense that “this is how you talk black and this is how you talk white.” So, when I was in school, teachers as well as peers were surprised by how I expressed myself and exceeded their expectations. Before I was even able to exhibit my abilities, I had already been judged and categorized to act and speak a certain way. I was confused when people approached me, assuming I would speak one way, and I received something extremely opposite. This attempt at categorizing me and not successfully being able to made it feel like I was at fault for something that should not be labeled as right or wrong. As a result, I began to hold back and speak less often, for fear of the negative feedback I would receive.
In addition to being Philippino and African-American, my education was also effected by my gender. As a female, there were many discrepancies between my treatment and expectations in the classroom compared to the males. As discussed in class, females were given significantly less attention, partially because expectations were already set higher, and the attention was seen as unnecessary. Teachers also tried to assist me with the “show me” style, which I adamantly rejected because I knew I learned and understood better when I could solve the work with minimal guidance. I also excelled early on in math and science; an area usually characterized as a strength in males. The reason for this could be because I grew up being educated and teaching early on in my father’s special education class that was predominantly male. As they learned different concepts, I was right over their shoulders learning along with them. Later on, I was teaching boys in the same way I had learned.
As much as I resisted certain practices towards females, some were inevitable. Specifically, in first grade, I would speak up to get attention because I wanted to prove that I was just as capable as the other students. Several times, I would overhear the teacher as a student to show that they understood something to her, but when I perked up and wanted to prove the same, I was told to be quiet and began being ignored or pushed aside. In Myra and David Sadker’s book Failing at Fairness, they call attention to the negative effects of females being ignored, which I am able to notice currently. When I became aware that I was expected to sit quietly and do my work, it became very difficult to break the strongly enforced habit. Even after enrolling myself into discussion-based classes today to break this routine, it is still a challenge. It does not matter how much I want to say something, something tells me that speaking up is wrong, and there is that subconscious fear of negative consequences should I do so.
Unfortunately, the problems I faced growing up are still very apparent and need to be addressed before we forget that they are problems and accept them without question. My younger brother, this passed year, received a progress report stating that he was in danger of failing with a C and a D. When my father contacted the teachers, their explanations for his unsatisfactory grades were that he was “just to lazy,” (which was later emphasized again at the end of a grammatically incorrect letter from an English teacher) and that he “simply decided to not do his work for a while,” according to his math teacher. My brother attends my same high school and is one of a couple black students in his class. Comparing the reactions of this teacher with my white and female peers who also had difficulty with the same instructors, it was clear that they were trying to assume certain things about my brother in connection with his skin color and gender.
My “lazy” brother was on the school varsity soccer team (that claimed the section title), a state traveling team (ranked nationally), the school track team (medaling at most, if not all meets), and also in the school marching band (ranked third in the nation). A lazy and careless student would not be actively involved in so many extracurriculars and a key component to each organization, but the teachers did not see this side of him and only made assumptions based on one small piece of subconscious biases they had projected onto him that had become socially accepted. My brother’s alleged decision to “simply not do his work for a while” suddenly became magic when the work mysteriously appeared in a lost group of papers the teacher had himself, which came with a quick apology and a higher grade. Both teachers were ready to sit back, satisfied with a failing student, assuming that he should not be held to high expectations. Both were also surprised by my father and brother’s persistence in wanting to solve the problem and didn’t anticipate the maintained high self-expectations.
My brother ended up with B’s in both classes, but one must be concerned for the other students who are in these classes being stamped with stereotypes of blacks or males, and even further encouraging the stereotypes as athletes. Villegas and Lucas cite that “teachers who lack sociocultural consciousness will unconsciously and inevitably rely on their own personal experiences to make sense of students’ lives,” which is what happened in the case with my brother. The potential danger that this apathetic, stagnant, and uncaring approach to teaching, and failure to address one’s own biases that have a negative effect on students is a crucial issue to address and not let by so easily.This case affirms what Villegas and Lucas point out when they say that “evidence suggests that many teachers see students from socially subordinated groups from a deficit perspective. Lacking faith in the students’ ability to achieve, these teachers are more likely to have low academic expectations for the students and ultimately treat them in ways that stifle their learning.” Had my father not advocated so adamantly for my brother, the ways in which my brother was treated could have easily held him back in his future potential. It is apparent that gender biases harm both males and females in very different, but equally damaging ways.
As I continue in my education and find myself wanting to become an educator myself, I must find some way to avoid making the same mistakes that inhibited my success in school. The biggest challenge may be that I grew up in a society where certain practices are made acceptable and subconsciously practiced daily, so it may be more difficult for me to recognize my own biases. Anthropologist Margaret Mead said, “If a fish were an anthropologist, the last thing it would discover would be water.” For this reason, it is so difficult for many to recognize their biases, even when they are pointed out, because we have accepted so many practices blindly that we forget to question, or fail to notice how and why we treat people differently. As a student aid, I am able to take a step back and observe first-hand how we exhibit our biases unknowingly, and be able to identify them. Only after I can recognize it in others can I more closely look for my own and make a conscious effort to avoid acting on any biases I may have constructed into habit. Also, learning from my own experiences, I must also make a conscious effort to avoid making assumptions as to character or cultural practices based on phenotypic features themselves.
One incident I have already faced in the cultural aspect was when I was teaching a first through third grade special education class. I was working with a student who was a native Spanish speaker learning the English alphabet. He would successfully pronounce and recognize the first two letters “A” and “B,” but when it came to the next letter, he would mumble and I would correct him by saying, “C.” After a few botched attempts and head cocks in confusion, I realized that every time I said, “C,” he interpreted this as, “Si,” meaning, “yes” in Spanish. Instead of repeating my mistake, I explained to him in Spanish that we would learn the alphabet, first, in all Spanish. Afterwards, we would move to English when he was ready. As soon as we made the switch, he was doing fine learning in Spanish. English was still a bit of a struggle, but I stopped sending mixed messages, and he understood that he had to code switch for different dialects. My mistake is reflected in the article on Ebonics. Once we made the switch, the student stopped resisting. In Lisa Delpit’s article “What Should Teachers Do? Ebonics and Culturally Responsive Instruction,” she states that, “The teacher must know how to effectively teach reading and writing to students whose culture and language differ from that of the school, and must understand how and why students decide to add another language form to their repertoire. All we can do is provide students with access to additional language forms.” Taking this approach benefited me and, more importantly, the student I was teaching.
The ultimate and unsolved question becomes, “How do we progress and move away from hidden and accepted biases that lead to harmful practices?” There have been many signs of progression with regards to addressing these different biases in education. Workshops specifically geared towards eliminating, or at least recognizing how serious and debilitating gender biases are presents a huge step in the right direction. Many are learning to break down stereotypes and letting go of gender roles that boys and girls should play in school, and also becoming more aware of teaching styles towards both. There are also workshops in places built on becoming more culturally conscious. Bridging Cultures is one workshop that teachers specifically on Latino culture and values of collectivism.
Simply recognizing what a bias or misunderstanding of a culture looks like is not enough to solve the problem. We must also inform ourselves from the child’s perspective and culture to work towards incorporating a learning style for students on a case-by-case basis. First, having faith in the child’s ability, then letting and encouraging what they know to be their strengths shine will work to their best advantage in the classroom. Ana Maria Villegas and Tamara Lucas write in “The Culturally Responsive Teacher” that it takes “a new way of looking at teaching that is grounded in an understanding of the role of culture and language in learning.” In this, we must also understand our own culture; what has become socially accepted and how we may ineffectively impose our own culture on others.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
