Get Schooled

By jim d

July 18, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Wow Patti,

This one is sure to become heated.

Let’s take em one at a time.

Do you see ability grouping in schools?

In High school—yes—AP and Baccalaureate classes.In lower grades—no, they are grouped more by potential based on a few test results.

Do kids seem appropriately placed?

Generally speaking, yes. But a lot of kids with the potential to do more are held back with the group. This even and maybe especially occurs with gifted children in breakout classes for part of the day and mainstreamed the rest.

Do kids and parents whose kids are in the low group know that the goal is to move up?

Again No. Schools don’t really push for this because they would then have to accommodate the children’s needs. They are dealing with the masses here and generally just don’t have the time or the inclination to inform.

* Do teachers encourage students in the low group to move up?*

I honestly think that some do not all.

Is all this ability-grouping talk just code for tracking?

Pretty much

Would families flee public schools en masse if ability grouping did not happen?

I don’t think so. We’ve been pretty well brain washed to believe our educational system is the best and that public educators know what is best for our children—Sadly we’ve accepted that premise

By Velatra

July 18, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

No, I haven’t seen any ability grouping in the five years I’ve taught in public school. Now, I don’t want people to confuse EIP classes with ability grouping. During my experience, I have had classes with a mixture of EIP students, meaning there were some who needed help with either reading or math, or both.

Here’s the catch. There could only be up to 13 students in each EIP class. In my first three years, I had at least 29 students. So what do you do with the other 16 students, which may include a gifted, special ed, or just regular students, you ask? They received the same teaching that the EIP students got when the EIP teachers came to my classroom. At those times, there were no pull-out classes because there was no room at my overcrowded school for the EIP teachers to have their own classrooms.

As I have said on other posts, my formative educational background included ability grouping. Every year, from grades three through twelve, i was in the same class with other high achievers. There was even a subgroup of “gifted” students in our class. By the time I reached middle school, several other students who were not in the high achievers classes from the beginning had joined my classes. So, yes, opportunities were there for kids to move up.

By The Gift

July 18, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Tracking is a great success in some places and a disappointment in others. Merely placing youngsters in a particular setting, or providing them with a particular set of activities, does not necessarily lead to success. On the other hand, a well-constructed program that brings gifted students together and provides them with an intellectually stimulating and important set of ideas, together with giving them practice to use their own ability to problem-find and problem-solve, seems to yield very tangible results. Tracking is a good thing because by the time students enter high school, they all should know what they like and what they want to do in the future. So they should go separate ways and not stick together as in elementary school.

In elementary and middle schools, an American class consists of a mixture of students with diverse abilities and varying socioeconomic backgrounds. During these years students are encouraged to discover and share varied ways of solving problems. In high school, students should be sorted into different schools according to their levels of academic achievement. Parents and Teachers should start from the student’s future plan. The most crucial thing is whether or not a student is planning to go to college. If so, they must go to the academic track. If on the other hand, they do not plan to go to college, but plan to work after graduating from high school, they would probably like to learn practical trade skills. So it may be better for them to go to an industrial or commercial school and get a certificate there. That way, they will have a better chance of getting a job after high school because vocational schools also maintain close ties with employers looking for high school graduates .

In order to survive in America, schools will have to attract students of high quality, and to do so, it has to send more and more students to good universities.
Teachers have already acknowledged that it is difficult to handle lower-level students who have little chance of getting into colleges or trade schools.

By The Gift

July 18, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Tracking is a great success in some places and a disappointment in others. Merely placing youngsters in a particular setting, or providing them with a particular set of activities, does not necessarily lead to success. On the other hand, a well-constructed program that brings gifted students together and provides them with an intellectually stimulating and important set of ideas, together with giving them practice to use their own ability to problem-find and problem-solve, seems to yield very tangible results. Tracking is a good thing because by the time students enter high school, they all should know what they like and what they want to do in the future. So they should go separate ways and not stick together as in elementary school.

In elementary and middle schools, an American class consists of a mixture of students with diverse abilities and varying socioeconomic backgrounds. During these years students are encouraged to discover and share varied ways of solving problems. In high school, students should be sorted into different schools according to their levels of academic achievement. Parents and Teachers should start from the student’s future plan. The most crucial thing is whether or not a student is planning to go to college. If so, they must go to the academic track. If on the other hand, they do not plan to go to college, but plan to work after graduating from high school, they would probably like to learn practical trade skills. So it may be better for them to go to an industrial or commercial school and get a certificate there. That way, they will have a better chance of getting a job after high school because vocational schools also maintain close ties with employers looking for high school graduates .

In order to survive in America, schools will have to attract students of high quality, and to do so, it has to send more and more students to good universities.
Teachers have already acknowledged that it is difficult to handle lower-level students who have little chance of getting into colleges or trade schools.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Teachers have already acknowledged that it is difficult to handle lower-level students

There’s a whole nuther blog.

Do teachers unknowingly set lower expectations for certain students? and do students work to meet teacher expectations or exceed them?

By wwww

July 18, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

jim d:

A little clarification: as a teacher, I do not find it harder to teach average or lower level students - provided I have a class of just that. In fact, I prefer the challenge. However, it is extremely difficult to have a class with gifted, slightly above average, average, slightly below average, low-IQ-but-not-sped, students who should be served under sped guidelines but aren’t for some reason, and your garden variety sped kids with varying needs and accomodations. I can tell you both from my own experience and that of other teachers that all students are not reached in this situation on a regular basis. That’s why ability grouping is a good thing.
Most students will rise to meet expecations of the teacher, but not all will. It is vital for ALL students to be in classes where this is the norm and not the exception.

By Janine

July 18, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Ability grouping does indeed exist in Dekalb Middle Schools. Not only do we have separate classes for those students labeled “gifted”, but even separate teams. THe “gifted ” team teachers must have the gifted endorsement on their certificates. Ofen, that leaves an “average ” team of students and a really “low” level. Special Education students are mixed with on of these groups for “inclusion” classes. WHat I frequently see happening is ….the lower classes are filled not only with students who do not [or have not in the past ] performed well acdemically, but also have behavior problems of one kind or another. The student’s seem to reinforce the poor academics as well as the inappropriate behavior of each other.

By Janine

July 18, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

On other words…the smart get smarter and the not so smart don’t. They have no role models in their classes. And jim d….I don’t think teachers ever intentionally set lower exectations. However, teachers must be realistic.

By catlady

July 18, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Don’t call it “ability grouping”! Ouch! That hurts! Call it skill-level grouping. Sometimes they are the same, but sometimes not. Students with skills already developed in one area need to move on to an area they don’t have mastered. Students with less-developed skills need to master them first. I am in favor of skill-grouping on a yearly or quarterly basis, with flexibility to adjust as a child’s skills become apparent. But parents, don’t demand that your child be placed in a higher-skill level—it leads to misery for your child and difficulty for the others in the group. Instead, resolve to work with the teacher to improve your child’s skills so that they will be ready to move to another group when regrouping is done.

By catlady

July 18, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Don’t call it “ability grouping”! Ouch! That hurts! Call it skill-level grouping. Sometimes they are the same, but sometimes not. Students with skills already developed in one area need to move on to an area they haven’t mastered. Students with less-developed skills need to master them first. I am in favor of skill-grouping on a yearly or quarterly basis, with flexibility to adjust as a child’s skills become apparent. But parents, don’t demand that your child be placed in a higher-skill level—it leads to misery for your child and difficulty for the others in the group. Instead, resolve to work with the teacher to improve your child’s skills so that they will be ready to move to another group when regrouping is done.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

WWWW,

Thanks for the clarification. But I’m troubled that students work to the teachers expectations instead of striving to exceed them.

Janine,

Just an observation, but I’ve seen “problem children” that really should have been in more advanced classes. Their “problems” stem from not being challenged early on.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Janine,

“teachers must be realistic”

I’m really glad ours weren’t, they held us all to the same standards and expectations. Granted some of us struggled,and didn’t perform as well as others, but were afforded the exact same opportunities, whether we took advantage of them or not.

By SET

July 18, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Of course grouping is going on. It’s called “Good Schools” and Bad Schools”. Children are grouped early and usually stay in that group for life (at least in the urban areas).

Once the grouping is done - watch who the kids date and marry. Assortive mating and all that…

Which it is one reason why it is important that families take very seriously how their children are placed. Even a child somewhat below the average academically for his group can benefit by association and his other talents may emerge child to better fit in to the higher group, such as outstanding football or other entertainment skills. A total missmatch usually doesn’t end well.

There was a book - “Brave New World” that among other things explained the concept of Alphas and Betas not wanting to be anything other than what they were, and being unhappy if forced to mix or adopt the mores of the other group.

Hmmm.

Maybe our problem is that we are not training the Betas to stay employed and out of prison. We force them to mix with the Alphas and wonder why they are bored to rage. They aren’t Alphas and they can’t learn to act like Alphas.

By SET

July 18, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Jim d:

Our teachers had classes that were already sorted. In the 50s and 60s schools were sorted by neighborhoods - or in my case the Catholic grade schools were sorted by who was willing to pay the $20 a month or whatever per kid and go through the Catholic hoops to apply and get admitted.

Yes our teachers were equal opportunity rear end kickers, not demanding less from anyone due to color or class (to a large extent). But teachers in the past did not have to live through the rotten working conditions and child pathology that today’s public school teachers do. My teachers never saw a (grown) drug baby. Or had 1st grade + HIV kids in diapers (Special Ed). No one ever pulled a weapon on a teacher in any school I attended through graduation. I’ve had relatives teaching all my life. The war stories now and radically worse than anything I ever heard in the 1970’s.

You can’t compare the past and today. Thank Johnson’s Great Society for this.

I complain about teachers on occasion but they are front line troops working for an unsupportive army. Similar to our boys in Iraq with bad flack jackets and helments and having the army cut their pay when they’re injured. So why does anyone do it?

By wwww

July 18, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Sheesh. Whatever you want to call it - skill level, ability whatever. The point is students need to be where thier needs are met EVERY DAY.

Jim d: I agree! It would be wonderful if students felt that actually exceeding my expectations was worth the work - often, school takes a back seat to sports and the social scene.
Every so often, I do get a student who strives to go above and beyond on an assignment. Sorry to say is usually a “gifted” student. Rarely to my regular ol’ average sweeties get the inclination. Always makes me wonder what gifted really means - mostly, it seems to be students who are willing to go the extra mile versus having a truly superior intellect.

By Janine

July 18, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Happy for you jimd…However , teachers today are no allowed to give the grades that are earned when those opportunities are offered but not taken. THe educrats mantra is ” OFFER THE STUDENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED”..read that [1] keep it simple or [2] fudge on the grade.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

SET,

In that regard it’s been going on since the beginning of public eduaction.

Good school / bad school

Rich school / poor school

White school / black school

my school / your school

By Lisa B.

July 18, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

In the system where I teach, elementary classes are mixed, except for EIP classes. That means that SPED kids are included in regular classrooms, while EIP kids are segregated into classes of 14 or less. In the regular ed classrooms, children are sorted into reading groups based on their ability. The groups change frequently, as children master skills. A variety of classroom assessments are used to determine in which reading groups children belong. As the teacher, I spend the most time with the lowest of the 5 reading groups in my class, and very little time with the top reading group. The top reading group normally consists of students who read 2-3 years above grade level, while the lowest group has children who read 2-3 years below grade level.

My son attends school in a different school system, as I don’t teach where I live. In his elementary school, students in each grade were leveled into 10 different homerooms from top to bottom based on test scores (ITBS, and later CRCT). The students stayed in the assigned homerooms all year. My son was typically in either the top, or next to the top class (He’s not quite gifted, but a high achiever) depending on how many kids beat him on the test. My son’s middle school mixes up all the students. I thinks this works better for some children, and not so well for others. Children begin to naturally sort themselves through academic achievement as time passes. My son, for example, will be in pre-algebra for 7th grade, but his friend who lives next door will not take pre-algebra until 8th grade. By high school, students are sorted into college prep, non-college prep, AP classes, etc. I think it is impossible not to have some grouping by ability. If my son struggled academically, I would probably have more opposition to ability grouping, because I would not want my son to be stuck in classes that often contain more behavior problems.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

WWWW,

I gotta agree.

We always taught our child if asked for a slice of bread give the bakery. It has served him well in his scholastic career. And yes he has been labeled

By SET

July 18, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Jim d:

See, that’s the problem.

Black Schools were never this bad in 1950.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

OFFER THE STUDENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED”..

Too bad that now means a guarantee!! What message does that send our kids?

By The Gift

July 18, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Acceptance, self-esteem, and confidence are very important for a child to feel part of a whole group. Feeling safe in an environment where everyone feels equal greatly effects the way a student learns especially when it comes to reading instruction. Students often say they leave school without a diploma because they don’t feel connected to anyone there. It is important to make students feel connected academically, with their peers, and with the people in the school. Schools with lower dropout rates often have policies that assign one teacher to a group of students, who continues to advise them until they complete high school. Georgia Department of Education should start a policy to creating (small) school within large schools to help promote a more personal environment.

The majority of dropouts state that they couldn’t keep up with their peers academically. Georgia must work on the remaining 3 categories

• A system to identify at-risk students early (CRCT) • Alternative programs that lead to a diploma for those who have dropped out • Challenging academic, vocational, and technical programs • A system to evaluate the effectiveness of dropout prevention programs.

MY SUGGESTIONS 1. Although some school programs that group children by ability have only small effects, other grouping programs help children a great deal. Schools should therefore resist calls for the wholesale elimination of ability grouping. 2. Highly talented students benefit greatly from work in accelerated classes. Schools should therefore try to maintain programs of accelerated work. 3. Highly talented students also benefit greatly from an enriched curriculum designed to broaden and deepen their learning. Schools should therefore try to maintain programs of enrichment. 4. Bright, average, and slow students benefit from grouping programs that adjust the curriculum to the aptitude levels of the groups. Schools should try to use ability grouping in this way. 5. Benefits are slight from programs that group children by ability but prescribe common curricular experiences for all ability groups. Schools should not expect student achievement to change dramatically with either establishment or elimination of such programs.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

SET

Thats a fact!!I was raised near Detroit where some of the best black schools in the nation existed and some of our world leaders came from.

By SET

July 18, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

My parents, all their friends and their parents went to all black schools. Some of my relatives taught in all black secondary schools.

None of the pathology described in these blogs was allowed to happen in those schools. The 110lb teachers ran their classes with an iron fist and the administration could and would expell kids who crossed the line (which is probably why they didn’t have to often).

When the students graduated from these schools they were largely ready for the military, the trades, Morehouse, Howard, Lincoln, Spellman, etc. Relatively few of these students went to prison.

We could do it again. Madea could be the lunch lady.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

The Gift,

Not to be rude but, HORSEFEATHERS!

Learning’s not about feeling good it’s about applying ones self.

If you want to feel good—go to a bar.

Want to learn? Go to school and apply yourself.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

LOL SET,

Think a pistol-packing granny could get the job done?

By millie

July 18, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Yes, Dekalb County does expect teachers to pass 99.9% of kids because it “looks good ” in the media. Give a kid who earned a 65 average a 70 because he/she brought in a box of Kleenex or pack of markers. There are so many kids who are pushed through the system like a herd of cows…. Their skill levels are way below grade level — but hey — they brought in a box of Kleenex — so let’s move them on. Don’t forget, holding them back would “hurt their self esteem”. And yes, all of these kids are put in the same group. It is a double edged sword. These kids don’t have any role models in the class, but the teacher can move at a much slower pace — hence, the more advanced kids don’t get bored.

By Teacher2

July 18, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

I dream of ability grouping. The only ability designations we have at my HS are Honors/AP and SpEd. In my junior American Lit class last year I had 160 students whose reading levels ranged from low first grade to college, with every step in between and a few mainstreamed SpEd students tossed in for good measure, yet I was expected to teach each of them the same curriculum and prepare each of them to pass the written and content sections of the LA graduation test as well as the EOCT. Somehow they pulled out a combined 97% pass rate, but if they had been split into classes by ability level, I think we could have exceeded those scores. Ability grouping would make it much easier to challenge the students without boring the higher achievers and burying the lower ones. Unfortunately, there is no money for specialized, individualized education. I’ll just keep dreaming.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

July 18, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

Oh… how far have we come, with only a few more weeks before school starts. Let the ability grouping, I can’t teach THOSE kids and parents are the biggest problem BLOG continue.

But NOTE: Once you are stereotyped into a certain group, be it (academics, income level, race, occupation) it’s hard to get OTHERS to accept you as anything else but where you came from. Thus, the comments I often hear and find disturbing: ” You can take the Thug out of the Ghetto, but you can’t take the Ghetto, out of the THUG.” or “Once a Thief, always a Thief.”

The biggest problem with grouping, be it by skills or anything else - is that we create shackles that hold people in there “SO” called place. How many of you have taught children who were great in Math, but could hardly Read? What group should we put all of us, into? Choice (a.) I’m Great at Somethings (b.) I’m Great in Everything

My point: we are all good at somethings, but not in everything. Becareful how you label/group our children.

By seeing through the smoke

July 18, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

@ the gift —

there is a cult of self-esteem that prepares children for exactly nothing in the real world. Keep up the mantra of self-esteem and watch our grown children fail in the adult world of business.

Teachers have a hard job, but the education bureaucrats who preach for the cult of self-esteem make it that much harder. Children see through the smoke, too, and know they are being played and set up to fail… all in the name of self-esteem.

By millie

July 18, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

I forgot to add — these kids who are pushed through the system are the ones who can’t score a 300 on the CRCT. Doesn’t the county realize (or more importantly- the parent) that it is obvious that there is a problem when a kid who continuously makes A’s in math can’t pass the math portion of the CRCT?

By Tina

July 18, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

There is ability grouping in elementary schools -but the politically correct term now is “flex grouping”. Students are allowed to move between groups as their skills advance and develop. Our classes are homogeneously grouped by homeroom, but grouped into reading and math “flex” groups by standardized tests. A child may be in one group for place value skills, but be moved into a faster moving group for computation. This allows us to better meet the needs of the child without just teaching to the middle. Even within these groups, you still have various levels of ability, but it’s not as bad as having a 2-grade level reading ability gap!

By SET

July 18, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Amazed:

Profiling, like credit scoring, works.

If the subject concerned wants to change how others view them (want to do business with them), it’s up to them to change their content and how they display it. Like not making obligations they aren’t going to pay on time, stop the thug behavior (which includes the haircut, clothes, language, etc. and all the other issues they have that telegraph to the world that they are stupid, lazy, dishonest, promiscuous, etc.

Birds of a feather flock together because they are happier and safer that way. Nothing bad about it.

So yes. I stereotype. It’s called “experience”. You are free to do things your way.

When someone shows you what they are, believe them.

By What?!

July 18, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Amazed,

What part of kids have the oppotunity to move out of lower groups if they progress don’t you understand? How are kids “shackled” when there’s flexibility? Being in a lower ability class is not a death sentence, nor a definitive end. I know of lots of folks that moved from a lower group to a high achieving group and succeeded.

By wwww

July 18, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

I’ve noticed many mentioned the topic of grading and how that applies to ability grouping.
Wow. Grades. What a crock! In every system I’m aware of, there is an extreme amount of expecation - not necessarily always pressure (sometimes) - but certainly, the expecation, that students pass. The wealthier the district, the higher the grades are expected to be. That leaves teachers with an interesting little quandry on our hands. Do we let the students’ grades TRULY reflect BOTH the EFFORT and how well they “mastered the standard” or do we fudge a little to make everyone feel better? Most of us go with the second.
No parent wants to admit their child is average, no administrator wants to admit their school is average - and a C is average. I’ve had several students, more often than not, accumulate several zeroes and failing test grades (usually a direct result of the zeroes). In a meeting, if the zeroes are still in the gradebook, I will be asked by the admin “How many opportunities has the student had to “master the standard”? Read: “How many opportunities have you given said student to do the work?” We are expected to let a student redo tests, turn in things late, and redo projects all in the name of “mastering the standard”. This is fine with me, actually. Whatever it takes for that student to learn is my job. What is not fine to me is that a student like this, who takes multiple opportunites to do an assignment, test or project, may end up with an A or B while another student who is responsible and does things right the FIRST time has the same average. It makes grades virtually meaningless.

By Lisa B.

July 18, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

My husband teaches at a technical college and is fed up with public schools’ concern with student esteem rather than student achievement. Each quarter my husband gets students who passed every course, every grade level, graduated from high school and are basically unemployable. THAT hurts their feelings! Not to mention, many of these students are young fathers, whose girlfriends and wives quickly have no use for them when their lack of bread-winning ability becomes evident. That, too, hurts their feelings!

I would never hurt a child’s self-esteem by treating him or her badly, using sarcasm or name-calling, etc. Nor will I lie to students by allowing them to believe they are doing fine academically when the opposite is true. I am very frank with my students about their abilites, strengths and weaknesses, and work with students on plans to improve. If pointing out areas of weakness that need work hurts their self esteem, so be it.

By Velatra

July 18, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Amen, Lisa B !!!!!!

By Lisa B.

July 18, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Grades are a problem. For example, if a 4th grade student reads on a 2nd grade level, the student is supposed to read books on his or her level. That said, the student’s tests are on 2nd grade level books, book reports and projects are on 2nd grade level books, etc. If the student does every single assignment on time and makes A’s on them, should the child get an A in the 4th grade reading class when all work was done on a 2nd grade level? If the child is given a B or C for making A’s on her reading level, does that punish the student for doing his or her best? By the way, that student probably can’t pass the CRCT in reading.

It’s tough.

By The Gift

July 18, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

@jim d & seeing through the smoke. Kids need boosters to help their self esteem. After all, they are not adults. They need to be encouraged to work hard and succeed in school. That doesn’t mean the standards should be lowered in the classroom.

Georgia already is GROUPING BY GRADE (AGE) AND NOT BY ABILITY. Teachers and Parents need to encourage students to build their individual talent, skill, and ability instead of appearance (sports).

GEORGIA PROBLEM IS TRYING TO FIND A BALANCE Ability grouping increases student achievement by reducing the disparity in student ability levels, and this increases the likelihood that teachers can provide instruction that is neither too easy nor too hard for most students. The assumption is that ability grouping allows the teacher (1) to increase the pace and raise the level of instruction for high achievers, and (2) to provide more individual attention, repetition, and review for low achievers. The high achievers benefit from having to compete with one another, and the low achievers benefit from not having to compete with their more able peers. One of the main arguments against ability grouping is that the practice creates classes or groups of low achievers who are deprived of the example and stimulation provided by high achievers. Labeling students according to ability and assigning them to low-achievement groups may also communicate self-fulfilling low expectations. Further, groups with low performance often receive a lower quality of instruction than other groups. THE GIFT Plan (1). This grouping plan assigns students to heterogeneous classes for most of the day but regroups them across grade levels for reading instruction. For example, a reading class at the fifth grade, first semester level might include high achieving fourth graders, average achieving fifth graders, and low achieving sixth graders. There is strong evidence that the Joplin Plan increases reading achievement. THE GIFT Plan (2). This plan includes a variety of related grouping plans that place students in flexible groups according to performance rather than age. Thus, grade-level designations are eliminated. The curriculum for each subject is divided into levels through which students progress at their own rates. Well- controlled studies conducted in regular schools generally support the use of comprehensive nongraded plans. Grouping plans should allow for frequent reassessment of student placement and for easy reassignment based on student progress. Teachers must vary the level and pace of instruction according to student levels of readiness and learning rates in regrouped classes. Only a small number of groups should be formed in within-class ability grouping. This will allow the teacher to provide adequate direct instruction for each group.

By Lisa B.

July 18, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Gift, You make some excellent suggestions. Students often have strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others.

By jim d

July 18, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Well thats a fine kettle of fish.

Let’s not hurt little johnny’s self esteem—let’s make sure he gets all B’s so he can qualify for the hope scholarship.

Just exactly what the hell do you thinks going to happen to his self esteem when he flunks out there? And what gives you the right to deprive deserving students of the hope benefits that were reduced because of all the little johnies that were flunking out?

Educrats like you really pis$ me off.

By millie

July 18, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Yes, too much self esteem is part of the problem. I have been told countless times by the school counselor that it is not beneficial to a child to fail a grade level because it will damage the child’s self esteem. The counselor also adds that reaearch shows that making a child repeat a grade does not do anything to help the child. Keep in mind that the child probably only came to school every other day and may have only completed 10% of the work. What have we taught the child by passing him along? The lesson is that he/she never has to do anything to earn success…. In real life success is not handed out…. You have to work hard for it. Padding grades and passing kids along is a dirty trick we play on kids.

By Concerned Teacher

July 18, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Grouping can be a good thing and bad thing. I was grouped in very bottom class setting in elementary school. That experience was not to my liking I buckled down and studied hard and worked my way out of that group by the 4th grade and graduated high school and college with honors. Just because a child starts out in the bottom doesn’t mean they have to stay there. It can either motivate them to get out or make them comfortable and lazy. Essentially it is up the child to make the final decision whether not or they are going to work their way of the group setting. Of course, it also helps to have parents there to motivate them the way my mother and father motivated me.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

July 18, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

SET -

I must have really struck a nerve with you today. You are always profiling, so why should today be any different.

I won’t ask you to take off your blinders for today, but credit scoring is worthless. If you don’t think so, go inside a bankruptcy courtroom and see how many low-income, lazy, saggy pants, promiscuous thugs you find. NOT MANY - they were discreted for living in the wrong neighborhood or put their real name (TRE, DeNESHA or JaMOnica) on their credit card application.

If you didn’t know, they usually look like the people you most likely prefer to associate with.

I will give you this much, you would find a long line of REPO. But, the people you think so highly of, do just as much damage to society as a whole. However, you don’t flag them as NOT CREDIT WORTHY, because you make the assumption, that they will and can pay. However, they operate just like DELTA.

Gotta LOVE YOU SET…..

What?! - I understand completely. The vast majority of kids in lower groups never move up. In many schools, the entire school is the “lower group”. The entire school is “shackled” into that category, without any REAL chance of redeeming itself. Schools with large numbers of “Lower Groups”, need smaller class sizes, the best of our innovative teachers and lots of special attention. Be it afterschool tutorial programs and/or weekends instructions.

By em

July 18, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

I think it was Lee Iacocca who said that teachers should not be concerned with students’ self-esteem; they need to be concerned with students’ self-worth and self-worth comes through hard work and achievement.

By linda

July 18, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

We have a watered down version of ability grouping where I teach. I see students move into higher groups often, however no child ever seems to move down. Hmmmm…..

One problem is that groups don’t seem to be formed on hard data and as such it is difficult to regroup due to parental pressure. We do need ability grouping, but it is only as worthwhile as a recent recheck on a skill level. Students from enriched homes do start off ahead in kindergarten but sometimes should not remain in that category. Therefore they stay in the above grade level group and keep it from being truly advanced. To be fair, regrouping should occur often to allow slow starters to move ahead when they are ready and average but enriched kids to level out and be placed appropriately.

Why don’t we regroup regularly???

By catlady

July 18, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

What kills me is when a parent will tell me that their lazy, grades-behind kid isn’t doing well because he is “bored”. I tell ‘em, “when he aces this stuff that is too easy or uninteresting to him, we’ll have him tested for the accelerated program.” While I agree it is possible to be bored, the best way to show me the stuff is too easy is to quickly grasp every concept and show mastery of it. Read extra material on the subject! Participate in discussions! But, of course, what the student wants is entertainment.

By SM

July 18, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

I have a problem with the “TAG” programs at public schools. These programs are called Talented and Gifted, what kind of a message are we sending students not in these programs? I also take issue with the fact that when TAG students are pulled out of the classroom, the teacher is not suppose to introduce any new material so that the TAG students do not miss anything. However, when a student is pulled out of class for EIP or Speech, the teacher is allowed to introduce new material and the student is just expected to catch up. So while the TAG students are off learning more, other students are left behind doing review or busy work.

By Janine

July 18, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

Self esteem infusion is not the role of the school. Why do you think fully 1/2 of our students entering college require remedial classes? Our educrats have to have an EPIPHANY!! We must teach a CRITERIA…If the students meet that criteria they pass…If they do not..they do not pass! I tell my students in middle school when they say,”I TRIED”…. YOu are a great person, I like you so much…but “TRYING”doesn’t get it anymore!..You must suceed in order to get the grade..That is life, and if I taught you anything different, I would not be doing my job. When educrats realize this, and impart this to the students, we will no longer be the “bottom feeders”. Most,[not all] private schools operate this way. It is my opinion that, if there is no change, in 20 years our country will be led by private school students…sprinkled with very few students from a few public schools which decided to teach instead of coddle.

By Ernest

July 18, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

I would like to see more schools use ability grouping. I believe by having an environment of students with similar abilities makes it easier for the teachers to provide targeted instruction for that audience. It should provide a means for students to move up and perhaps move down, where appropriate.

Obviously, this is easier for high school students given they change classes with different teachers. How early (what grade) can elementary school students change classes for something like this to be implemented?

A question to the teachers or whomever might know the answer. I recall ability grouping when I was in school back in the 60’s and 70’s. I understand somewhere in the 80’s it was eliminated due to allegations (maybe truths) that some schools ‘subjectively’ placed students in slower classes. Can anyone shed any insight on this? If this is true, perhaps there are still hard feelings that ability grouping cannot be objectively implemented.

By Decaturparent

July 18, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

In our system, we have gifted pullout in 2nd and 3rd, but I believe that we may move toward some more inclusionary model for 4th and 5th because the 4th/5th academy is becoming and International Baccalaureate school, and apparently, the IB folks frown on pullouts. Frankly, I don’t know how it will work out. I would think that it would be hard for a teacher to reach a class that is 1/3 gifted, 1/3 average and 1/3 well below average. We shall see…

SM - there is one thing that you need to keep in mind about “TAG” programs. Schools already have extensive programs to reward “gifted” students in other areas and no one complains about it - in fact people go out of their way to support it. Children who “make the cut” for these particular gifted programs are given star status at their school and reams of money is spent on making them look even better. People actually congregate and pay money to watch their gifted performances. Those that don’t make the cut… well they don’t get the status, they don’t get the money and they don’t have anyone admiring their talents - they just have to cope? What a terrible hit to self esteem!

What is this hideous program that exludes so many children simply because they lack certain skills??? Athletic teams! Can you explain to me why it’s OK to reap reams of attention and money on the athletically gifted while we have little more than disdain for the mentally gifted? Maybe it’s just because athletes are more interesting to watch. I would think that the latter would be a bit more important to society, however.

We live in a silly world.

By Ernest

July 18, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

Decaturparent, well said point about the ‘other’ gifted students!!

By Lisa B.

July 18, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

I agree with some of the bloggers that we don’t challenge enough of our students. If a 4th grade student, for example, excels in math, why can’t he attend math with 5th graders? If he’s on level in reading, he stays with his class for that subject. The middle school where I live has a multi-age level group. 6th, 7th and 8th graders are on the same “team” of five teachers and are ability grouped. The students end up with all age ranges in each class. I can’t wait to see how it works out. The program just finished year two, so the first group will attend high school this year. I am not sure what will happen to 8th graders at the end of the coming year who haven’t mastered all the required skills.

Then again, I am not sure I’d want an 8th grader sitting next to my 6th grader.

We spend a ton of time and energy on poor performing students, and not nearly enough on medium and high achievers. I am afraid this is really going to come back to haunt us one day.

By lynn d

July 18, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

Our elementary school begins changing subjects in first grade (and some years Kindergarten) — the early grades are usually reading or math (almost never both). The kids are grouped by ability for subjects like reading and math. By the upper grades, they change for every subject but only reading and math are ability grouped, science and social studies are mixed grouped (except that some years the kids who are most behind in the basics get pulled out for these subjects as well).

It works beautifully for the kids at the top and pretty well for the kids in the middle. It is more difficult for the TEACHER who has the bottom group — our school is very diverse and the kids at the bottom are often very, very low.

Our groupings are suppose to be flexible during the school year, but it is hard for kids to move, mostly because of the pace that they are covering material is different.

At the middle school, gifted kids have all their core sujects together (math, language arts, science and social studies). This is a fairly unique model in Georgia (and maybe anywhere). It works under the assumption that if your child is gifted in one thing they are gifted in all things. It is kind of baloney. I will tell you, because of funding formulas in Georgia, it does bring in a fair amount of teacher points into the school. If you test into gifted at anytime, you are place on this team.

There is also a high achievers group and a general level. I think this model would work better with 4 levels, gifted, high acheiver, middle and low.

By decaturparent

July 18, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

Sorry about all the typos - I stink at typing!

By thomas

July 18, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

I am so glad we are having this discusssion.

I BELIEVE IN HETEROGENOUS GROUPING AT THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL. I came to this opinion through personal experience (I have taught in both situations). I used to believe in tracking and that is what ability grouping is- TRACKING, sorting kids based on informal assessments and test scores.

In theory, it is believed that it is easier to teach students who are all of the same level. In reality, that is not true.

To make a long story short- PEOPLE WHO WANT “ABILITY GROUPING” ACTUALLY WANT TO SEPARATE “HIGHER ACHIEVING” STUDENTS FROM THE REST OF THE POPULATION. ALSO SOME TEACHERS THINK THEY WILL HAVE LESS WORK IF THEY ONLY HAVE ONE GROUP OF STUDENTS.

What ends up happening is that all the “lower achieving students” are dumped in one room to perish, while the “smart” kids get to get away from everybody else. It is elitism. In a mixed ability room, if the teacher does it right, everyone benefits. A rising tide lifts all boats.

By GA law every school has to offer gifted instruction. Those really high achieving get 5 1/2 hours of enrichment every week. The classroom teacher can offer some enrichment in the classroom. This is an issue over social stratification.

With No Child Left Behind, we can’t afford “good classes” and “bad classes”. We can’t put all the gifted and middle level students in one room and all the “lower achieving” students, ESOL, SPED, and behavior problems in another and expect the have equal outcomes. If at least 65% of the students in every subgroup don’t pass the test, we all lose.

By SM

July 18, 2006 07:06 PM | Link to this

Decaturparent, I hear what you are saying and I am firm believer that if a student doesn’t make the grades, the student doesn’t play. We are not doing these students any favors by letting them get by without making the grades just because they have athlethic ability. I have a son who plays all kinds of sports and is very good at them. He knows if he doesn’t make the grades first, he won’t be playing. That decision is not up the coach, its up to me.

I didn’t mean to sound like I was complaining about the TAG program, I don’t mind the program, but lets not penalize the other kids who are not in the program and lets not tell these “TAG” students that they are better than other students. When you call a program “Talented and Gifted” you are basically telling students not in the program that they aren’t gifted and they don’t have any talent. Thats the problem I have. Parents demand that their child be tested for TAG so that they can say that their child is in the program. We have so many kids in TAG, that on TAG days, very few students are left in the class.

By Lynn

July 18, 2006 07:28 PM | Link to this

According to the NCLB, grouping according to ability is going to be gone. ALL children will learn in the same class levels; mentally impaired are to be mainstreamed with regular education children in all ON LEVEL academics. For example, freshmen who are mentally impaired will take algebra. This is all not good for all concerned, especially the teachers who are trying so hard to please a myriad of bosses. Low ability students will be forced to sit through four years of high school classes that they can never master or barely meet with success. Pitiful for all concerned, especially the teachers. Mentally impaired students should be allowed to mainstream where they can meet with social success. No law from congress is ever going to make these children equal in academics. Someone needs to face up to reality and soon before we lose an entire generation of students. Why should regular and advanced education children be stymied by low ability students? When is someone going to take up for the average and above-average students?

By TechFella

July 18, 2006 07:36 PM | Link to this

The reason our public education system is such a joke these days is that there is no real ability grouping. When I was a kid in Cobb county they let us go to the TARGET program at a regional school every Tuesday… but the rest of the week we were sitting around bored. So that creates a huge problem in that your future leaders are 1) not learning anything, and 2) not learning the value of hard work.

The education system (even HS) is severely flawed. There is very little fluidity in the system. Kids rarely graduate early or late, and so there is no incentive to get ahead. Even in High School, they disincentive smart kids away from smart kid classes by offering 5 hours of homework every night.

I feel that if I was in a good private school, or perhaps in a public system system somewhere else, I would be a few years further ahead in life and wouldn’t have had to learn certain lessons the hard way. My roomate from Kuwait started college at 17, while I had to wait until 19… and I scored 200 points higher on the SAT. America can offer better.

By decaturparent

July 18, 2006 07:47 PM | Link to this

Re the athletes, I wasn’t referring to the fact that they get special treatement re grades at all. That’s a different topic for a different blog day. What I am saying is that kids who are athletically gifted are recognized and no one minds that the ones who are not athletes are made (sometimes painfully) aware of that fact.

If schools can reward athletic talent, you would think that, given their mission, they would reward intellectual talent. Both types of talent (mental and physical) are largely inherited but have some component of upbringing and resources. So why are muscles rewarded without worrying about self esteem but when anyone talks about rewarding brains - people freak out.

Perhaps we should require that anyone who wants to gets to play on the football team (or insert whatever other team you wish). There should no longer be jr. varsity and varsity. All kids will play varsity even if they can’t run across a field without falling down. Those kids who are clumsy will be told that they too are athletically gifted.. but just in a different way.

The best athletes will have to sit on the bench for most practices while the “slower athletes” catch up on their skills. If the gifted athletes get bored and act up, they will be disciplined accordingly. The best athletes will never start games because it would hurt the self esteem of the ungifted to realize that they stink at football.

The gifted athletes will get worse and worse because they will be so unfit from sitting on that bench throughout most of the football season. The clutzes will be worked like dogs and be very fit but still clutzes. The entire team will have reached an even level of mediocrity, however, and only the gifted athletes will be the ones who do not meet their potential.

Doesn’t make sense does it? Why do we waste talent so that everyone can feel mentally equal until it is painfully proved otherwise when they reach adulthood?

And I say this as a parent of one child who is designated “gifted” and one who is not. My child who is not “gifted” doesn’t have self esteem issues at all. She just realizes that she’s not as good as certain things as her brother… but she is better at other things - big deal.

By SM

July 18, 2006 08:10 PM | Link to this

Decaturparent - You have a very valid point.

By SET

July 18, 2006 08:17 PM | Link to this

Amazed:

Good to hear from you again. During the 4 years of (undergrad) College I worked in both banking and retail credit doing lending and collections. My undergraduate degree is Business with Accounting and Economic History emphasis. The law degree came next.

So I can’t depend on your comment on credit risk and bankruptcy. My position on credit scoring methodology and profiling stands because it’s a reflection of my work experience and classroom training on risk assessment but I’d love to hear more about your background and life experiences & training.

From time to time I’ve commented on the fact that as modern statistics and computerization develop it’s getting harder for people to get away with ripping off those who have their eyes open. Profiling works.

We are moving beyond actuarial scoring contract default risk (credit scoring) to the point where California is about to pass “Jessica’s Law” which will require the actuarial scoring (Static-99 scores) of all sex offenders and the using the scores in Megan’s List (Internet posting of sex offenders). So for the first time some citizens will be forced to publicly bear a number that serves as their official level of “liklihood” to commit a (particular - sex) crime in the future within 5, 10, 15 or so years. We have over 100K sex offenders in this state - although many of them are moving to OR. Jessica’s Law will be on the November Ballot - the next general election along with Arnold for Governor again. It’s expected to pass overwhelmingly. (Arnold also) Some of the new employment/hiring software I’m hearing about promises rapid grading and sorting of job and promotional applicants.

While we exchange comments on this blog the world around us is changing. We tell the kids in school nonsense about not “Stereotyping” people while that is exactly what every sane person does. I want public school to prepare these kids to come into the world at 18 and have a chance to get what I got from life. I’m from Public High School. We spent less time talking about anything being “fair” and more time debating history. “Self Esteem” came from a high GPA and SAT scores.

The socialization and discipline taught in the public schools impairs the students. To get things back to the correct way we used to have, we need to start imposing standards and splitting apart those who can cut it on an academic track from those who can’t.

The A track goes to college, the B track goes to work, the C track goes to jail.

I’m afraid that our state’s urban public schools are turning out too many C track kids - especially black males - when better policies would produce more A and B students. Yes, some of those policies should include profiling and segregation. If one wants to move from one campus to another that can be accomplished. Act up or Act down.

Even while we talk about what is already common practise in developed nations, we are losing kids who could do better if they were in an environment better suited to them. Once they turn 18, they are being sorted based on their accomplishment and deportment. Let’s start a little earlier and get them better trained for it.

By SET

July 18, 2006 08:26 PM | Link to this

Amazed:

Something else you said - that the entire school is in the lower group. I don’t think so. Once you get a large group of random people there will be some bright people in that group. They will try to hide themselves so they fit in. They are good at that.

If we were looking for them they could be identified and brought forward for greater education. Yes if the Bell Curve and related research is true you will have fewer of them in (for example) white groups compared to Asian groups - but they are there.

The fact that they have a faster brain processing speed doesn’t mean they are able to do everything well but they would be better at training requiring abstract reasoning. Can we say “College Track”?

But they’d better be forced to learn to conjugate the verb To Be. And be kept out of the way of those who can’t.

By Lee

July 18, 2006 08:39 PM | Link to this

The public schools are being grouped by ability - it’s just that public school officials are too stupid to realize it (or in denial).

You see, for years, parents of high performing students and parents who actually give a rip have been slowly, but surely, pulling their kids out of public schools and placing them in private schools. The kids who are left are having to contend with being placed in classes of honor roll students, average students, students with behavior problems, students with mild to severe learning disabilities, and students who can’t speak a word of English. As teachers have blogged, they are having to come up with 4-5 lesson plans for the same class. Good luck on learning in that environment.

25 years ago, there was only two private schools within a half hour’s drive of my hometown. Now, there are probably 15-20. There is a reason for that - they are filling a very real need in the marketplace.

To paraphrase, those who can, send their kids to private school. Those who can’t, ignore the water lapping at their neck and deny the ship is sinking.

By SET

July 18, 2006 08:47 PM | Link to this

Regarding the CA profiling scheme for our sex offenders:

On Static-99 - it doesn’t measure risk of Doing a sex crime, it measures your risk of being convicted of a new sex crime within a specified number of years. It is accepted that the risk of doing it is higher because most don’t get convicted for everything they do. Among other “risk factors’ counted against one in this system is how many times the person has been “accused” of certain crimes whether or not they were ever convicted or were in fact not responsible. That’s how actuarial tools work. Some credit scoring models take away points if you have no phone listed in your name. (Pause for the shouts of “that’s unfair!”) I think those were phased out in CA because so many people don’t want to be listed that question lost it’s value.

My point is that stereotyping is what all creatures do for survival and profit. No apologies. The kids can just get used to it so they aren’t so clueless when they compete in the workplace and for spouses. And trying to teach bright and dull in the same room may work for 1st grade but not for 11th. Way too many problems mixing the two groups after puberty.

By luvs2teach

July 18, 2006 08:50 PM | Link to this

As far as elementary and high school go, I can only comment as a parent and share what my children experienced.

Elementary - my daughter was in mixed ability classes throughout - she was often tested for gifted, but never quite made it. She had terrific teachers who knew how to challenge her. My son had a slightly different experience in that in 3rd grade his school began a math program that gave the kids a pre-test every unit and then grouped the kids based on the pretest - next unit, new pretest and new groupings were formed. It was very effective. He too was referred for gifted testing, but didn’t quite make it. The gifted program was a one-day-a-week pullout model which I wasn’t thrilled with anyway.

In high school, there are on-level college prep, honors, and AP in addition to team-taught and small group sped classes (which are being eliminated as we speak due to NCLB). Math and reading also have remedial classes. My daughter mainly took honors and AP to “get away from the idiots” - her words - and those “idiots” are the kids oin the supposedly “college prep” on-level class. My son likes to be a big fish in a small pond and he prefers the on-level classes - he appreciates the smaller body of work and he finds the idiots amusing.

To the parent upset with the “TAG” label - I tell my kids they have talents, just not the ones necessary for the class - my daughter is an amazing artist and my son has a wicked sense of humor. They are well-balanced and good kids - I’m happy with that! Don’t forget - Einstein never would’ve made it in a gifted program, and Ted Kazinski was gifted, too - it’s not the gifts, but what you do with them!

By luvs2teach

July 18, 2006 09:00 PM | Link to this

Now the “speaking as a teacher” post…

This is funny, because I’m actually in a class working on my gifted endorsement, and one of the things we talked about today was ability grouping. There have been studies showing the benefits of ability grouping for gifted students since the early 90s(see my post under the diversity blog), but now some are showing that all students benefit from some opportunities to work with others of similar ability.

One thing I thought was interesting is that being identified as gifted is like being a Marine - once a Marine, always a Marine - once identifed as gifted, always gifted - even if later test scores don’t hold up!

At my school, we have accelerated math classes, which you are placed in through a test. It is not considered a gifted class. We also have gifted social studies, language arts, and science classes - a student can qualify for one suject, but not another, which I think is better than a blanket placement. We don’t have gifted reading, but 8th graders who qualify are put in foreign languages - again, not considered a gifted class, although most gifted kids are in there.

I think we have a long way to go before we get it right! It’s too politically charged, for one thing. Too many folks have their interests in keeping the status quo. There is the issue of labeling and elitism. It’s more complicated that you could imagine, and on that note…

Good night all!

By teacher/parent

July 19, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

The EIP teachers at my school know their students are expected to make AYP, just as every other student, so they teach BOTH the grade level curriculum and supplemental reading (direct instruction, etc.). They are chosen as EIP teachers after proving their track record with student achievement because they will have the daunting task of raising students up more than one grade level in one year. These students are often put back into the general ed classrooms (and go on the pass the CRCT) and other students who need these services are brought in.

Expectations and motivation are everything. A teacher might not be able to get a few parents on board but if the child discovers they enjoy reading and learning they will start reading and studying at home. That’s why teachers should stop focusing their attention on the few parents who are flat out not concerned with their child’s education and should redirect their attention to interesting, engaging lesson plans that stimulate the children’s curiosity.

By holdingajc"accountable"

July 19, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

I’d like to share my experience about an “expert” who gave us a “demonstration” in ability grouping and small group instruction.

She pulled out a video where the kids had been divided into ability groups, then proceeded to have us watch a 20 minute demonstration on small group learning.

I commented at the end, “I found it unusual that in 20 minutes the teacher didn’t have to talk to the other groups even once”.

She said that the other kids were doing independent learning, and that they would get equal time with the teacher.

I persisted “But shouldn’t the teacher at least make eye contact?”

She said “It just takes time to train them that way”. (So we were to believe that 12-15 students could work independently with not even so much as eye contact from the teacher…)

Finally I had had enough of this and asked point blank “There WERE no other students in the room were there?”

A strange uncomfortable silence came over the room…and if looks could kill, I’d be dead.

I wasn’t “polite” I was told. BUT, if some trainer is going to come give some pie in the sky training that an administrator is going to make teachers “accountable” for implementing, then teachers better learn to assert themselves when they are being lied to.

My point is, I’ve seen teachers critized for whole group teaching and not breaking students into ability groups, when the reality is sometimes you HAVE to do that because students can’t/won’t work independently, and teachers aren’t given the authority to impose the necessary discipline needed to train them to work that way.

This unwillingness to acknowledge the role of discipline is why we have “reforms” which beget “reforms” which beget “more reforms”.

In the end, it doesn’t matter how you group them, if they are allowed to act a fool.

And a personal pet peeve about ability grouping: the political correctness that says teachers should call groups names like “the redbirds” and “the bluebirds” or the “allstars” and the “superstars”.

Who do we think we’re fooling? Like the students don’t KNOW?! I’m not saying to go out and destroy their self esteem, but I have found the quickest way to lose credibility with students is to give them a load of bullhockey under the guise of “political correctness”.

It’s not rocket science; it’s just a matter of having the political will to do what’s right…IMHO

By Lisa B.

July 19, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Accountable,

When a consultant visited my elementary school to show us how to work with students in small groups, the other kids stayed in the room and behaved beautifully! Of course, other than the consultant, many othe adults were in the room including the principal, assistant principal, curriculum director, and eight 4th grade teachers. Most students work independently just fine when there are TWELVE adults in the room!

Consultants don’t live in the real world.

By Lisa B.

July 19, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Another problem with the teacher working with small groups is that the low groups tend not to work well independently. Sure, mine were quiet, but spent time drawing pictures, folding paper, etc. The struggling kids need to be in the teacher’s group every day! The highest group of kids are easily left out of the teacher’s group because they do work so well independently. Again, most of our efforts are focused on our struggling kids. We are told over and over in staff meetings to pull up those lower kids. The bright kids will make it anyway. Sad.

By catlady

July 19, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

I think sometimes the usefulness of achievement -grouping depends on the size of the school. In the small rural elementary school my children attended (about 220 students in k-7), their needs as high-achieving were met in the regular, heterogeneous classroom. (Well, in reading they were sent up 2 grade levels, but you can do that in a small school.) They were given extra projects to work on to extend their learning in other classes, and teachers took time to take them aside to do extra things with them. When we went to large school situations, gifted or advanced classes were necessary, in my opinion. It seemed like, in the “lump-lump”classes, most students were just taking up space. Little active engagement at all. One term my daughter had to be in a lump-lump class for science because of a conflict with some specialized class and it was very disheartening. In the end, parents have to push for the climate they think will be most productive for their child: challenging, but not overwhelming.

By holdingAJC"accountable"

July 19, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

To Lisa B: Amen! Your example highlights the FACADE we call “reform”.

The consultant wants to get paid, so he/she is happy to be there.

The principal wants the school to look “under control” so he/she shows up with the Asst. Principal.

The Curriculum Director is DARN sure going to be there, lest the school be short a sub and he/she has to actually TEACH.

And the eight 4th grade teachers are just HAPPY to be out of the room for a day, to get a respite from the verbal and/or physical abuse (no that is NOT hyperbole, teachers DO get assaulted and it DOES get swept under the rug).

And somewhere, there’s a school board member, education official, or politican “proud” that reform is “working”.

And people thought Alice in Wonderland was strange…

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

July 19, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

SET – I have an undergraduate degree in Computer Science, with a concentration in statistics; but I have worked very closely with criminal systems, banks, insurance and a variety of other large organizations. I gather the raw data and use it to make sense of all the nonsense that people spill out every day. The data is only as good as the people who input the information. Therefore, if the data goes into the system biased, it will come out that way. If you don’t get my drift- here is an example: I like the color blue – so whenever I service a vehicle at my auto store, I input the description of the vehicle as a Blue Toyota or Blue Explorer. My boss comes to me with a request to identify the number of Red vehicles we have serviced in the last 2 years. Oh, boy – we have NOT serviced any Red vehicles in the last 2 years.

“The data is only as good as the people who input the information.”

You don’t know how many times, I have made the above statement. However, bad data is not always the culprit. Some people only want to hear one side of the story and most of the time it’s “tell me a good story” and they turn a deaf ear to the bad.

90% of my daily task involves data analysis, strategic planning and consulting for internal, but primarily external clients. I am very familiar with and put into practice everyday methodologies that result in the acceptance and denial of worthy credit, as well as other internal and external analysis for large organizations.

So, you don’t have to take my word for anything – it doesn’t really matter. I have the ability to assess the situation and make my own assumptions based upon my experience. I’m only 35 years old SET, so I’m sure you have more experience than I do. However, you will only end up like GM and FORD. If you don’t get my analogy about Ford and GM – ask Toyota and Honda.

By SET

July 19, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Amazed:

I’m Amazed! Really grateful for the background and look forward to the next issue.

I think you are too young - whatever that means… Wish I was 35.

So you think I will end up like GM and Ford? Keep thinking that. Old Age and cunning will overcome youth and vitality every time. One of the problems with being older is that we can see history repeating and call it as we see it in spite of the news not being good. When I was 35 I looked on the bright side of things. I have no inclination to so now when my experience and training says not to.

My experience and training says the public schools are fundamentally unsound and that their products are at such a disadvantage to the other students that is dangerous. No, I don’t think things will change in our lifetime and it would take a big external shock to make anything change. Our schools are a centralized system that mirrors conditions nationally which is not what we are supposed to have for schools. Schools are supposed to be local and decentralized. It’s tougher for a system to rot that way.

In spite of my pessimism I want things to improve to the extent possible so maybe the lions share of the blacks in the USA won’t wind up dead of AIDS or in Prison on 3 strikes. Blacks serve as canaries in the mine and the striking downward trends in that group demonstrates the collapse of the public schools as a civilizing influence.

Your part of the country is not yet under siege by Government Imported Hispanics and 3rd worlders and seeing the existing middle class & blacks systematically losing their political offices and employment prospects - CA state’s society is largely a product of WW2 and isn’t 100 or 200 years old like yours. Things are fluid here from generation to generation. It will take a little longer for your state to recognize this process. As far as the rest of the Americans I grew up with of all colors, they will not recognize this country in 25 more years as being what it once was in 1960. We will be poorer, more violent and crime ridden, and at war with ourselves with no common core (With huge numbers of feral people). Can we say “3rd world”? Your public school students will be largely in the bottom portion of that society which will be pretty low.

But by now even in GA you will be seeing the changes - but probably only if you are looking for them. I think something big and bad is coming for the USA as a whole. We should better prepare our young people to make it. Parents are the first line of defense for the kid’s future and we can all see that smart money is voting with their feet by removing all their kids from these politically correct nuthouses. The exodus of the bright from the public schools should be spurring us to correct the decay in those school systems. But it’s not.

I believe my retirement would be safer and saner if we tried to make a better life for a much larger number of young people. We are not doing this with these public schools, and the one-size-fits-all business model is a major part of the problem.

In one more generation (25 years) you will see that your liberal positions on education greased the skids for the decline of all of us. Generations of human sheep are very easy for the rich and powerful to control in a democracy. And I never did believe in accidents.

Brave New World.

By luvs2teach

July 19, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Accountable - I think you saw the same training video I did!