Homogeneous class groupings (SAT, college, public schools, mathematics)

[Oldhag1]

Has the time finally come for us to return homogeneous class groupings? Our delusion that "we are all equal" has been very detrimental to our top students. It seems like in our effort to have "no child left behind" we have basically assured that no child will get ahead.

The other key factor in preserving academic quality was the practice of grouping students by ability in as many subjects as possible The contrast was stark: schools that had "severely declining test scores" had "moved determinedly toward heterogeneous grouping" (that is, mixed students of differing ability levels in the same classes), while the "schools who have maintained good SAT scores" tended "to prefer homogeneous grouping."

The Other Crisis in American Education - 91.11

[Everdeen]

When I started teaching, students were ability grouped. A couple of years later, that was bad (Before NCLB). Now we are back to grouping.

[jtab4994]

When did we stop grouping children by ability? We still have honors and AP classes in high school. Are we talking about lower grades here?

[citylove101]

The problem with tracking is that while it can make life easier for teachers, who don't have to bother differentiating their instruction, it can make it tougher for kids. Even in elementary schools, I've seen that kids will often take their cues and supplement their learning from each other as much as from the teacher. The opportunity to do this is lost when classes are tracked and the entire onus for learning is put on the teacher who then has to divvy up her time and energy among the 20 or 25, or 30 students she has. The analogy is like people with big families: They teach the oldest ones how to behave and how to act and the older ones help the younger ones, taking some of the pressure off the parents.

I think tracking can be even more insidious at higher level grades, when teenagers -- not adults -- are the biggest influence other teenagers have. So you have, say, a low-ability math class where no one studies, no one understands the work, no one thinks they're going to college, etc etc, and all that is reinforced because the kids are learning in an echo chamber of failure and low expectations.

But do mixed ability classes hurt the strong student? Well for starters, I wouldn't look at SAT scores, as the author of this story does to determine the quality of learning. These tests can be prepped and the SAT predicts first-year college performance and little more -- certainly not true learning. What hurts the strong student are taking classes with students who have behavioral issues that get in the way of learning and classroom instruction, and that is VERY seperate from academic skills. The slow reader and the fast reader can work at their own pace in the classroom quite easily if everyone is willing to do what they can do. But they can't do that, and the teacher cant help them do that when behavioral problems are present that the teacher can't deal with. (And don't believe that such problems are limited to poor kids in minority schools. Teachers I've known in affluent suburbs have told me that their kids can be hell on wheels too, much of it stemming from lax parenting and a sense of entitlement.)

In high schools some tracking may make sense in certain classes -- but even then its not always given. Many studies have shown, for instance, that average kids placed in AP classes tend to do much better in college (even failing the AP tests) than average kids never exposed to tough educational requirements.

The author differentiates between tracking and ability grouping, but I think that's a distinction few public schools make anymore. Most schools are relatively inflexible about this and once a kid gets labeled as slow, average, or gifted, there is very little room for mobility, and most parents find pushing for a change in a kid's classes difficult to impossible.

And like all conservatives, the author blame everything bad in the schools on the '60s. Haven't we had enough of that? He should leave his ideology behind.

[Everdeen]

The argument now is that the slower learners, at least in secondary mathematics, influence the teachers' curriculum pace. With slower learners in the class, the teacher slows down instruction to, hopefully, scoop up more students. It rarely works and the more advanced students suffer.

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by citylove101

The problem with tracking is that while it can make life easier for teachers, who don't have to bother differentiating their instruction, it can make it tougher for kids. Even in elementary schools, I've seen that kids will often take their cues and supplement their learning from each other as much as from the teacher.

And in the meantime the high end kids are stagnating, waiting for their fellow classmates to catch up. So while heterogeneous classes do help low performing kids, it hurts high end kids. Have you ever watched how frustrated and bored a kid, who can read chapter books, gets when the teacher has to spend all the instruction time teaching the sounds of letters? This sets the stage for bright student misbehavior.

Originally Posted by citylove101

The opportunity to do this is lost when classes are tracked and the entire onus for learning is put on the teacher who then has to divvy up her time and energy among the 20 or 25, or 30 students she has. The analogy is like people with big families: They teach the oldest ones how to behave and how to act and the older ones help the younger ones, taking some of the pressure off the parents.

Not like families at all. Here is the rationale of the schools and teachers.

• When the state testing comes up Johnny "high end" Student already performs 2 grade levels above what is required, he is going to pass the test no matter what I do.
• Billy "low end" Student, on the other hand, who can barely perform at the level required two grades ago, is going to kill us on the testing and if we don't bring up his score, we will be a failing school.
• I will be evaluated on the test scores at the end of the year.
• As long as my students score at the level required by the state I won't be in trouble, but students scoring above that level have no impact on whether I am considered a failing teacher/school.
• I have a limited amount of time.
• I have essentially have no choice but to spend my time working to get Billy up to grade level, if I want him to pass that test. On the other hand, I can just throw a book a Johnny and he'll score great on the test anyway. Maybe if I'm lucky, I can convince Johnny to help teach Billy, then I can help Ralphy, who is even lower than Billy.

Best case for Johnny? He likes to read and his parents supplement his education, so while he doesn't soar like he should have, at least he's maintaining. Worst case? Johnny doesn't like to read, thinks Billy and Ralphy are idiots, resents having to help them, and becomes a PITA in order to get at least some kind of the teacher's time.

Originally Posted by citylove101

I think tracking can be even more insidious at higher level grades, when teenagers -- not adults -- are the biggest influence other teenagers have. So you have, say, a low-ability math class where no one studies, no one understands the work, no one thinks they're going to college, etc etc, and all that is reinforced because the kids are learning in an echo chamber of failure and low expectations.

You want them all in the same math class in high school!?!?!?!


Which route do you want the school to take?

• You have no classes beyond rudimentary math, maybe a little Algebra. To h#$% with the kids that could and should have taken Geometry, Trig, Calculus. So what if they have to now take 3-4 extra classes in college than was traditionally done.
• You place all kids in the higher types of math, including those that can't do multiple number subtraction or long division without a calculator. Instead of honing what skills they do have, they can just pull failing grades, be frustrated, be totally clueless, feel like they are stupid because they just don't get it, hate school, and not see the point of even bothering.

Holy cow........

Originally Posted by citylove101

But do mixed ability classes hurt the strong student? Well for starters, I wouldn't look at SAT scores, as the author of this story does to determine the quality of learning. These tests can be prepped and the SAT predicts first-year college performance and little more -- certainly not true learning. What hurts the strong student are taking classes with students who have behavioral issues that get in the way of learning and classroom instruction, and that is VERY seperate from academic skills. The slow reader and the fast reader can work at their own pace in the classroom quite easily if everyone is willing to do what they can do.

Based on over two decades of teaching - no. Behavior problems, by all means, slow down the academic pace but so does having to stop repeatedly and re-teach. The behavior problems are more frustrating to the teacher but, in reality, students with differeing abilities are more frustrating to the students. The slower students, who don't get it drive those that understood the concept after hearing once nuts - as do the fast kids who seem to know everything, and look at you like you're an idiot everytime you ask a question, when you are the struggling student. By the way, they all know who each other are, regardless of whether they are in the same class or different classes.

Originally Posted by citylove101

But they can't do that, and the teacher cant help them do that when behavioral problems are present that the teacher can't deal with. (And don't believe that such problems are limited to poor kids in minority schools. Teachers I've known in affluent suburbs have told me that their kids can be hell on wheels too, much of it stemming from lax parenting and a sense of entitlement.)

Some of those hell-on-wheels kids are very definitely a result of spending years being bored silly. And in many ways, they are much harder to deal with than low end kids who are behavior problems. The little turkeys are creative, inventive, sneaky, and quite proficient in taking others down with them.

Originally Posted by citylove101

In high schools some tracking may make sense in certain classes -- but even then its not always given. Many studies have shown, for instance, that average kids placed in AP classes tend to do much better in college (even failing the AP tests) than average kids never exposed to tough educational requirements.

And the pace of that AP class will be slowed down from what's supposed to be a breakneck speed because those kids will need more time to process the harder material and they'll need more of the teacher's help. So while it may help the average child, again it will be at a cost from the high end kids.

Originally Posted by citylove101

The author differentiates between tracking and ability grouping, but I think that's a distinction few public schools make anymore. Most schools are relatively inflexible about this and once a kid gets labeled as slow, average, or gifted, there is very little room for mobility, and most parents find pushing for a change in a kid's classes difficult to impossible.

That we do agree with, at least to a degree. There should be mobility and simply because someone is high in math doesn't mean they are high in English, and other variations of the same type of comparisons. Also, sometimes it seems like all of the sudden out of the blue, there are a few kids that suddenly get it and they need to be moved. And, of course, there are the well raised children, who out-paced their peers in the early grades because their parents worked with and read to them, who hit a wall where that early leg up loses its impact.

However, try explaining to a parent that their child getting a C in College Prep English this year does not mean he should be put in regular English so he can have straight A's or, more commonly, that just because their child worked their butt off and got an A in regular English, it is not necessarily a good idea to put them in AP English next year because based on your years of teaching experience, the teacher knows that child will probably fail.

[citylove101]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

. Here is the rationale of the schools and teachers.

• When the state testing comes up Johnny "high end" Student already performs 2 grade levels above what is required, he is going to pass the test no matter what I do.
• Billy "low end" Student, on the other hand, who can barely perform at the level required two grades ago, is going to kill us on the testing and if we don't bring up his score, we will be a failing school.
• I will be evaluated on the test scores at the end of the year.
• As long as my students score at the level required by the state I won't be in trouble, but students scoring above that level have no impact on whether I am considered a failing teacher/school.
• I have a limited amount of time.
• I have essentially have no choice but to spend my time working to get Billy up to grade level, if I want him to pass that test. On the other hand, I can just throw a book a Johnny and he'll score great on the test anyway. Maybe if I'm lucky, I can convince Johnny to help teach Billy, then I can help Ralphy, who is even lower than Billy.

I think this is the crux of a LOT of problems. Now standardized testing (NCLB) deserves a thread on its own, maybe in Great Debates, but the point is that it has changed so and greatly warped what schools and teachers can and do accomplish. Originally, we used the tests to pinpoint student weakness in a subject and better help the kid. But now that has expanded so that these scores are used to grade teachers, hand out bonuses, influence teacher evaluations, affect funding, and rank, evaluate, and even close entire schools.

Without this sort of pressure, far from what NCLB originally intended, teachers have told me that they would be freer to help whichever kids needed it in whatever ways they needed it. But they can't now because they are forced to spend as much time as possible propping up the weakest ones. In this I agree with you. But I think the answer is not to shove all the slow students in one class and all the smart ones in another, but to get the testing beast under control and back to what it was originally intended for. I know. Easier said than done.

[Ivorytickler]

I do think we're teaching the top of the class less because the bottom has to be pulled along but that's what we chose when we chose NCLB. NCLB means that we put the most effort on the struggling student. That doesn't leave much for those who could do more.

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by citylove101

But I think the answer is not to shove all the slow students in one class and all the smart ones in another, but to get the testing beast under control and back to what it was originally intended for. I know. Easier said than done.

I don't think the answer is to shove them in separate classes for all subjects but, for core academic subjects I do think they need to be ability grouped to better serve all students. I have taught homogeneous classes and heterogeneous classes and here's what I found:

Low end students: In homogeneous classes I can gear all the instruction at a level and in a manner that they can understand and grasp. They have better grades. They are more likely to turn in their work. They participate in class discussions at a significantly higher level, instead of just listening or acting bored. They ask for help more instead me having to ask them if they need help. They discuss things with their classmates rather than being just told answers. They have a better attitude towards the class. I can order written materials better geared towards their comprehension. I can make sure they actually get the basics of the subject because if I need to take three days for them to get the information, then I take it. I don't cover a subject as deeply, but I can make sure they get the really important points because I can concentrate on those instead. They experience success and they aren't scoring significantly below their neighbor on work. They can be actual participants in group work instead of just freeloaders. They get more of an opportunity to be leaders naturally instead of the teacher having to make it artificially happen. No, they aren't exposed to as much, but they actually have a chance of learning what they are exposed to. They do better on those annoying tests because instead of having to guess at everything, they actually know about half of them.

Upper and High End: In homogeneous classes the depth of material they can learn is vastly increased and the shear volume is amazing. Instruction and discussions move from simply factual to analytical. They actually have to work for those A's instead of just getting them, giving them the opportunity to learn study skills and work habits that they will need in college. Makes a lot of them not quite so cocky. They lose all that unproductive free time because they are no longer twiddling their thumbs waiting for others to finish. They don't feel as resentful of group project, because they aren't the ones doing all the work for four people to get the same grade. The reading material can incorporate more technical information and higher level vocabulary. You can increase the expectations of the class. You can increase the amount of independent projects. You aren't ignoring them so you can take care of lower students. Their test scores are even higher.

I know ability grouping gets a bad rap. Part of the problem is that we used to give the lower end kids the worst teachers or the newest teachers, so they were being short changed. They need teachers who understand their needs, respect them, and are willing to teach in a way they need to be taught. Studies done in schools with ability grouping where they properly staff all levels of classes, show that both groups have a higher self esteem and like school better. As far as the stigma goes - the kids already know who is high and who is low; putting them in the same class doesn't hide it. In some ways it makes it crystal clear because you hear their questions and answers, and you see the products they create.

[ElijahAstin]

Tracking makes complete sense at the HS level, so long as groupings are flexible and there's no penalty for letting someone take a good-faith stab at an honors/AP course they weren't recommended for.