1 Literature Review: Ability Grouping Literacy Committee, Clayton School District, James Lockhart, Co-coordinator Research team: Emily Grady, Chair; Declan Fitzpatrick; John Ryan; Sheri Steininger March 29, 2007 In education, one adage that researchers agree upon is that for every study there is an equal and opposite study. Because subjects are studied in situations that involve a multitude of variables, the context of a situation is generally the most important lens through which to view this highly polemic research. Ability grouping in instruction has proven to be just this type of complex issue. In the following report we present an overview of the research in this area from the past two decades, and organize it into the themes that emerge. Ultimately, we consider the research within the context of Clayton School District and make recommendations for the use of ability grouping in literacy classes at the secondary level. Key Terms Ability grouping - re-grouping students for the purpose of providing curriculum aimed at a common instructional level. Cluster grouping - a variation of grouping practices whereby small groups of students with similar instructional needs are clustered within a primarily heterogeneous classroom. Gifted and gifted and talented - can mean the very top 1 or 2 % in a cohort group, or even the top third of the group. Also assumes that students are globally talented, while their giftedness may be specific to a skill or content area. Much of the research included in this report does not clarify the term “gifted students." Tracking - a means of dealing with individual differences whereby educators decide “to divide students into class-size groups based on a measure of the students' perceived ability or prior achievement” (Fiedler et al. 2002).
Transcript
1
Literature Review: Ability Grouping
Literacy Committee, Clayton School District, James Lockhart, Co-coordinator
Research team: Emily Grady, Chair; Declan Fitzpatrick; John Ryan; Sheri Steininger
March 29, 2007
In education, one adage that researchers agree upon is that for every study there is
an equal and opposite study. Because subjects are studied in situations that involve a
multitude of variables, the context of a situation is generally the most important lens
through which to view this highly polemic research. Ability grouping in instruction has
proven to be just this type of complex issue. In the following report we present an
overview of the research in this area from the past two decades, and organize it into the
themes that emerge. Ultimately, we consider the research within the context of Clayton
School District and make recommendations for the use of ability grouping in literacy
classes at the secondary level.
Key Terms
Ability grouping - re-grouping students for the purpose of providing curriculum
aimed at a common instructional level.
Cluster grouping - a variation of grouping practices whereby small groups of
students with similar instructional needs are clustered within a primarily
heterogeneous classroom.
Gifted and gifted and talented - can mean the very top 1 or 2 % in a cohort group,
or even the top third of the group. Also assumes that students are globally
talented, while their giftedness may be specific to a skill or content area. Much of
the research included in this report does not clarify the term “gifted students."
Tracking - a means of dealing with individual differences whereby educators
decide “to divide students into class-size groups based on a measure of the
students' perceived ability or prior achievement” (Fiedler et al. 2002).
2
Historical Context
Ability tracking, like many educational issues, has supporters and detractors who
offer research to back their positions. Since the mid-1980's, detracking (the terms
tracking and ability-grouping are often used interchangeably) has been highly supported
after a decisive review of research was conducted by Johns Hopkins professor Robert
Slavin in 1986. His determinations caused Turning Points, the middle level reform
document of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989), to cite permanent
tracking, that in which the student spends the entire school day in a homogenous ability
group, as one of the most "divisive and damaging school practices in existence."
Beginning in the 1990's many schools followed this research and dismantled the rigid
ability tracking that often channeled students into permanent tracks, limiting many
students' opportunities for academic achievement and, consequently, professional choice.
Because the numbers of minority and low-income students were over represented in the
lower academic tracks, the issue of equitable access to a education fueled the initiative to
detrack high school programs. Rarely, however, did schools completely blend students
heterogeneously. In most cases, schools still grouped students by ability for certain
courses, especially math and literacy, often in honors classes, while making heterogeneous
grouping more feasible in other curricular areas. As students progressed to higher levels,
interest and self-selection often created de facto ability groups.
Detracking Movement: Concerns
Although strongly advocated and even described as a "moral imperative" (Slavin
1988), detracking was questioned by educators of the gifted. Some benefit to tracking
was shown. When students are grouped according to skills that are closely related to the
curriculum (such as in reading and math), and when curriculum and instruction are
tailored to students' capacities, ability grouping may raise achievement. Research at the
elementary level supports this claim more so than at the secondary level, where there are
few examples of effective instruction in low-ability classes (Gamoran 1995); however,
these benefits were perceived as tentative, and, because the practice was deemed more
ineffectual than advantageous, possibly even harmful to some groups of students, the
response was a call for detracking. Studies showed that students tracked in high ability
3
groups tended to succeed, though they did not improve in achievement. Their lack of
growth was attributed to the limitations of standardized testing in measuring gifted
students' abilities. Generally, the fear of educators for the gifted is that gifted students’
achievement will be sacrificed in order to meet the needs of the underserved ability
groups. For example, in a study of high school English classes, 73% of questions in
honors classes were grounded in literature, while only 31% were in remedial classes
(Gamoran 1995). Thus, gifted educators expressed concern that opening classes to
heterogeneous grouping might dilute the strong educations that gifted students tend to
receive. For these students, the system was perceived to be working, so there was little
incentive to change it. Many researchers in gifted education feel the "Gifted learners need
some form of grouping by ability to effectively and efficiently accomplish several
educational goals, including appropriately broadened, extended, and accelerated curricula"
(Rogers, 2002).
Support for Detracking
The rationale that made tracking the norm, ease of instruction, was shown to be
invalid by lack of achievement gains in most groups, negligible achievement gains in the
gifted track, and actual detriment to some students, especially those in the low ability
tracks. In further studies of tracked classes, the content of courses and the ability of
teachers were found to be different in different tracks. In most cases, low skilled groups
tended to have inexperienced teachers and a "starvation diet of worksheets and skill and
drills" (Gamoran 1995). Thus, issues other than tracking many be influencing the success
of gifted students in homogenous groups.
Tracking was also perceived as creating "class and race-linked differences in
access to learning" and was seen to be “a major contributor to the continuing gaps in
achievement between disadvantaged and affluent students and between minorities and
whites" (Oakes 1992, 1985). Although no proof has been found that racial or socio-
economic criteria have been overtly used to group students, minority and low-income
students are underrepresented in high achievement groups; the practice has been indicted
as "an oblique method of school segregation" (Losen 1999).
4
Ethnographic studies revealed six crucial issues in successful detracking
(Wheelock 1992):
1. Commitment to inclusion—a value for equity and dedication to academic and
social growth
2. Parental involvement—communication and assurance that curricula would not be
watered down and that "the competitive, individualistic way in which they have
come to view schooling" could be improved "when students listen to others from
different backgrounds, share knowledge, and teach their peers."
3. Professional development and support –training in whole school change,
differentiation and new curricula
4. Phase-in changes—slow and careful progress in order to make wise changes that
include everyone
5. Rethinking routines—all procedures that separated students should be examined.
6. District and state support
Ability Grouping
As a response to the elimination of wholesale tracking, ability grouping has been
the most common form of instructional delivery mode. In ability grouping, students are
grouped in a variety of more flexible ways so that they spend some portion of a school day
in heterogeneous groups and some portion in homogeneous groups.
In elementary schools, ability grouping often takes the form of leveled reading or
math groups which are organized within a heterogeneous classroom. Another form of
organization is the cluster group, which can apply to grouping of any same level of
students within a heterogeneous class, but often refers to the grouping and placement in
one class of the very top gifted students in a grade level. They are placed with a teacher
who has been trained to challenge gifted children. Although proof of improved
achievement is difficult to determine by standardized tests, because many gifted students
already score at the highest levels, the perception that gifted students are best served in
homogenous groups is pervasive among gifted education literature (Fiedler et al. 2002,
Holloway 2003, Kulik and Kulik 1992, Rogers 2002, Tieso 2003). One longitudinal study
5
of kindergarten students indicates that reading improvement in early literacy may be
facilitated by the use of ability groups in reading (McCoach et al. 2006).
Students taught in low ability groups, however, score lower on standardized tests
than if placed in mixed or high ability groups (Rubin 2006). Little research is available on
the effect of grouping on achievement for students who are deemed neither high nor low
ability, a group often labeled, "students in the middle."
In post-elementary school, where instruction is delivered in content area classes,
students can be grouped heterogeneously or homogeneously, with higher achieving
students being grouped into honors or advanced sections. On the secondary level, AP or
IB courses often are considered the challenge classes for this group of students. In a
similar way, low achieving students often are grouped to meet their instructional needs.
Although not intended as such, ability grouping often forms de facto tracks because of the
demands of course scheduling.
Consistent criteria for placement in these ability groups do not seem to exist from
district to district (Hallinen 1991). Methods of placement often include standardized test
scores, earned grades, teacher recommendations and parental requests. These methods
have been found to be imperfect in placing students, especially students from ethnic
minority groups and low socio-economic groups (Bonshek 2002). Opening enrollment, a
method sometimes used to end the segregation of high track courses, does not work to
unlock once restricted courses because students deemed "lower track” persist in holding
the school's identity of them and do not envision themselves as capable or even interested
in these courses (Yonezawa et al. 2002). Personal perceptions about the nature of ability
and achievement held by teachers also influence identification of students for these
programs (Persson 1998). Parents in the United States, especially those in affluent public
schools, have been found to have significant influence on their children's educational
placement as compared to parents in other cultures (Bracey 2003). Thus, it seems that
placement decisions for grouping are imprecise and may be inappropriately limiting
access or granting access to courses for certain students.
The recent focus on the achievement gap, and low enrollment of students of color
and low socio-economic status in high achieving groups, has called ability grouping into
question. Advocates for gifted students feel this focus, placing at the forefront the
6
minority who have been chronically underserved academically, may have diverted needed
attention from students who traditionally have been well served by tracking.
Self-Esteem and Modeling
A common perception of tracking or ability grouping has been that self-esteem of
the student would be damaged or enhanced by his placement in the grouping hierarchy.
Most studies have shown that grouping has a transitory effect on self-perception
(Gamoran 1987). Like-grouping supposedly engenders the best self-esteem. In fact,
however, the lowest self-esteem was shown among high ability students who felt
challenged by students in a like ability group who were perceived as more capable than
they were (Gamoran 1995), one reason often cited as a negative effect of grouping on
gifted students.
Another common perception, that high achieving students model positive
academic achievement and behaviors for students with lower achievement, seems to be a
myth. Students have been found to typically model their behavior on students of similar
ability to themselves in their group who are coping well (Saleh 2005, Gamoran 1995,
Kulick and Kulick 1982). Only one unpublished study of elementary students (Kennedy
1989, qtd. in Gentry 1996), conversely, found that pulling out the highest group positively
impacts the lower groups by allowing the low and average ability students to flourish
when gifted students are not present and leading the competition in the regular classroom.
Grouping, it seems, can affect self-esteem, though not in predictable or easily generalized
ways.
Equity and Excellence
The conflict between advocates and critics of tracking and ability grouping lies in
their differing emphases on excellence and equity. Those who believe that high-ability
students will be unchallenged and bored in heterogeneous classes feel that tracking and
ability grouping are necessary to meet the needs of these students. Proponents of
academic equity for all students believe that homogeneous tracking practices deny
students, especially students from minority and lower socio-economic groups, full access
to opportunity. Both sides cite studies that support their contentions.
7
Current research on the academic achievement gap indicates that awareness of the
disparity of opportunity coupled with high standards, rich curriculum and effective
teaching for all students can make a difference in achievement of excellence and equitable
access to it for all students. Going back to the definition of tracking as described by
Fiedler et al., "perception of ability and previous achievement" seem to be the strongest
influences on how students are grouped. A shift in research focus from perceived levels
of ability to student access to the resources that foster ability has revealed that cultural
competence, high expectations, traditional policies, and extra benefits such as independent
tutoring available because of economic status may be more responsible for achievement
than innate ability (Noguera and Wing 2006). The one consistently mentioned benefit of
homogenous grouping, ease of planning instruction, does not seem to be worth the
negative influence on achievement that separating students by ability for instructional
purposes—especially in their early years—has on encouraging and expecting high
achievement in all students.
Conclusion
Because of the "developmental aspect of ability and the role of intervention in
turning aptitude into achievement" (Bonshek 2002), current best practice seems to favor
grouping students with as much heterogeneity as possible. Accepting that the
identification of ability is often a "perceived" notion, and ability tracking a practice that
creates inequalities, leads to endorsing heterogeneity as a primary grouping practice. In a
longitudinal study that compared several schools using tracking, variability among schools
was shown in their consistency in fostering student achievement at all levels, thus
revealing that homogenity in instruction may not be as influential in instruction as
perceived (Hallinan 1994). A rigorous study at the racially and economically diverse
Rockville district on Long Island showed that eliminating grouping and offering the same
rigorous IB curriculum program to all students with appropriate support increased the
Regents Diploma rate to 96% in 2005, from rates of 58% for the district and 38% for the
state in 1996 (Burris and Welner 2005, Garrity 2004). The entire January 2006 issue of
the journal Theory into Practice (TIP) was devoted to research supporting best practice of
detracking and heterogeneous grouping based on the key belief that students who had in
8
the past been assigned to classes based on low ability will be "more not less successful if
given great challenges" (Rubin 2006). The issue is divided into three forms of practice:
illuminating the beliefs held by teachers, students and the community; reshaping
instructional practice; and reshaping school structures.
Joseph Renzulli, the Director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented at the University of Connecticut, recognizes that just as low ability students can
achieve in challenging settings, gifted students need not feel shortchanged in
heterogeneous groupings if teacher preparation and available resources are available. He
believes that the "practices that have been a mainstay of many special programs for the
gifted are being absorbed into general education by reform models designed to upgrade
the performance of all students" (2005). He proposes a Schoolwide Enrichment Model
(SEM) including such practices as co-teaching, curricular compacting and training for
teachers in enrichment strategies that help differentiate instruction for students at all levels
(Renzulli 1998).
Looking at these divergent studies shows that both ability grouping and
heterogeneous grouping can work for students. To quote the late Albert Shanker, the
former president of the AFL, "The question is not, 'Should we track or reject
tracking?' It is, 'How do we organize schools and classrooms, given the fact that
kids learn differently and at different rates?" (1993). Because issues like preparation,
self-perception, cultural influence, parental pressure, teacher preparation, ethnicity, even
time of day can influence the development and perception of ability, we must consider the
context as we plan for the most effective way to structure our schools and classes to best
meet the needs of all students.
Suggestions for Grouping That Benefits All Students
1. Use heterogeneous grouping as the preference.
2. Reduce class sizes to facilitate the differentiation of instruction that heterogeneous
grouping entails.
3. Use specialists such as special education teachers, reading specialists and
enrichment teachers effectively to meet the individual student needs within
9
heterogeneous settings (such as the co-teaching structure currently being used at
CHS).
4. When ability grouping is used:
• avoid locking students into a permanent placement
• rotate teaching assignments so that all students have access to effective teachers
• develop all teachers to be aware of the needs of all students
• make the entrance criteria to high level classes explicit and fair
• use strategies like cluster grouping, which maintains heterogeneity while
addressing special needs and interests of students who need challenge and
support.
10
Bibliography
Books and Articles
Ansalone, George and Ming, Charlotte 2006. Programming Students for Academic Success: The PLS--An Alternative to Traditional Tracking.Educational Research Quarterly. 29(3) 3-10.
Ansalone, George and Bifora Frank 2004. Elementary School Teachers'Perceptions and attitudes to the Educational Structure of Tracking. Education.125(2) 249-258.
Barbour, Nita H. 1990. Flexible Grouping: It Works! Childhood Education 67(2) 66-67.
Boaler, Jo 2005. The "Psychological Prisons" from Which They Never Escaped: The role of Ability Grouping in Reproducing Social Class Inequalities.
FORUM: for promoting 3-19 comprehensive education. 47(2) 135 -144.
Bonshek, Jane. The identification of able socially deprived pupils: LEA advice to primary schools. Support for Learning. 20(1) 5-11.
Braddock, J. 1990. Alternatives to Tracking. Educational Leadership, 47 (7): 76-79.
Burris, Carol Corbett, Kevin G. Welner and Edward W. Wiley 2006. Closing theachievement gap by detracking high school classes. Unpublished paperpresented at AERA, San Francisco 4/8/06.
Burris, Carol Corbett, and Kevin G. Welner 2005. Closing the Achievement Gapby Detracking. Phi Delta Kappan. 86(8): 594-598.
Cohen, E. 1997. Working for Equity in Heterogeneous Classrooms. New York:Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, F. 1994. Prom Pictures: A Principal Looks at Detracking. EducationalLeadership, 52(4): 85-87.
Cone, J. 1993. Learning to Teach an Untracked Class. The College Board Review,169: 20-31.
Cooper, R. 1996. Detracking Reform in an Urban California High School:Improving the Schooling Experiences of African American Students. Journalof Negro Education, 65(2): 190-208.
11
DiMartino, Joseph and Sherri Miles 2005. Reaching Real Equity in Schools. Education Digest. 70(5): 9-13.
Fiedler, Ellen D., Lange, Richard E. and Winebrenner, Susan 2002. InSearch of Reality: Unraveling the Myths about Tracking,Ability Grouping, and the Gifted. Roeper Review, 24(3): 108 (4p).
Fine, M. 1991. Framing Dropouts: Notes on the Politics of an Urban Public HighSchool. Albany: SUNY.
Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M. and LePore, L. 1995. An OrganizationalAnalysis of the Effects of Ability Grouping. American Educational ResearchJournal, 32(4): 687-715.
Gamoran, A. 1992. A Synthesis of Research: Is Ability Grouping Equitable?Educational Leadership, 50 (2).
Gamoran, A. and Berends, M. 1987. The Effects of Stratification in SecondarySchools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research. Review ofEducational Research, 57: 415-435.
Garrity, Delia 2004. Detracking With Vigilance. The School Administrator.Retrieved March 7, 2007 from www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2004_08/garrity.
Gentry, Marcia 1996. Total School Cluster Grouping: An Investigation of Achievementand Identification of Elementary School Students.<http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newsletter/spring96/sprng964.html>
George, P. 1992. How to Untrack Your School. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.
Hallinan, Maureen T. 1994 School Differences in Tracking Effects onAchievement. Social Forces. 72(3): 799-820.
Hallinan, Maureen T. 1991 School Differences in Tracking Structures and Track Assignments. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 1(3): 251-275.
Haycock, Kati 2006. No More Invisible Kids. Educational Leadership. 64(3): 38-42.
Holloway, John H. 2003 Grouping Gifted Students. Educational Leadership. 61(2): 87.
Holloway, John H. 2001 Grouping Students for Increased Achievement.Educational Leadership. 59(3): 84.
Ireson, Judith and Susan Hallam 1999. Raising Standards: is ability grouping theanswer? Oxford Review of Education. 25(3):344 (16p).
12
Khmelkov, V. & Hallinan, M. 1999. Organizational Effects on Race Relations In Schools. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4).
Kretovics, J., Noblit, G, et al. 1995. All Children Can Learn -- The Unmet Promise: A Study of Ability Grouping and Tracking in North Carolina Schools. Chapel Hill, NC: NC Education and Law Project.
Kulik, J. and Kulik, C. 1992. An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping:Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Storrs, CT: The National ResearchCenter on the Gifted and Talented.
Kulik, J. and Kulik, C. 1987. Effects of Ability Grouping on Student Achievement.Equity and Excellence, 23(1-2): 22-29.
Kulik, J. and Kulik, C. 1982. Effects of Ability Grouping on Secondary SchoolStudents: A Meta Analysis of Evaluation Findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19 (3).
Lockwood, A. T. 1996. Tracking: Conflicts and Resolutions. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin. Oakes, J. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. NewHaven: Yale University Press.
Losen, Daniel J. 1999. Silent Segregation in Our Nation's Schools. Harvard CivilRights - Civil Liberties Law Review. 34(2) 517-546.
Lynn, L. & Wheelock, A. 1997. Making Detracking Work. The Harvard Education Letter, 13(1).
Mallery, James & Mallery, Janet. 1999. The American Legacy of AbilityGrouping: Tracking Reconsidered. Multicultural Education, 7(1): 13-15.
Marsh, R. & Raywid, M. 1994. How to Make Detracking Work. Phi Delta Kappan,76(4): 314-318.
McCoach, Betsy, O'Connell, Ann and Levitt, Heather 2006. Ability GroupingAcross Kindergarten Using an Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. TheJournal of Educational Research. 99(6): 339-46
Mehan, H. et al. 1996. Constructing School Success: The Consequences of UntrackingLow-Achieving Students. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mehan, H. 1997. Tracking Untracking: The Consequences of Placing Low-TrackStudents in High Track Classes. In P. Hall (ed.) Race, Ethnicity, andMulticulturalism: Policy and Practice. New York: Garland.
13
Noguera, Pedro A. and Jean Yonemura Wing, eds. 2006. Unfinished Business: Closingthe Achievement Gap in Our Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oakes, J. & Wells, A. 1998. Detracking for High Student Achievement. EducationalLeadership, 56(3).
Oakes, J., Wells, A., Jones, M. and Datnow, A. 1997. Detracking: The SocialConstruction of Ability, Cultural Politics, and Resistance to Reform.Teachers College Record, 98(3): 482-511.
Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. 1996. Developing Alternatives to Tracking and Grading. InL. Rendon and R. Hope (Eds.) Educating a New Majority. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Oakes, J. 1995. Two Cities' Tracking and Within-School Segregation. TeachersCollege Record, 96: 681-90.
Oakes, J. & Guiton, G. 1995. Matchmaking: The Dynamics of High SchoolTracking Decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (1): 3-33.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A. and Page, R. 1992. Curriculum Differentiation:Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meanings. In P. Jackson (ed.), Handbook ofResearch on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
Oakes, J. 1986. Keeping Track, Part 1 and Part 2: The Policy of CurriculumInequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (1 and 2).
Oakes, J. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.
Page, R. 1991. Lower Track Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Peltier, Gary L. 1991. Why do secondary schools continue to track students?Clearing House. (64) 4.
Persson, Roland S. 1998. Paragons of virtue: Teachers' conceptual understanding of highability in an egalitarian school system. High Ability Studies. 9(2) 181 (16p).
Pool, H. & Page, J. (eds.) 1995. Beyond Tracking: Finding Success in Inclusive Schools. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Renzulli, Joseph S. 2005 Applying Gifted Education Pedagogy to Total Talent Development for All Students. Theory Into Practice. 44(2) 80-89.
Renzulli, Joseph S. 2001. Enriching Curriculum for All Students. ArlingtonHeights, IL: Skylight Professional Development.
14
Renzulli, Joseph S. 1998. A Rising Tide Lifts all Ships. Phi Delta Kappan. 80(2)104 (8p).
Renzulli, Joseph S. and Reis, Sally M. 1998. Talent development through curriculumdifferentiation. NASSP Bulletin. 82(595) 61 (14p).
Rist, R. 1970. Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-FulfillingProphecy in Ghetto Education. Harvard Educational Review, 40: 411-451.
Rist, R. 1973. The Urban School: A Factory for Failure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rochester, J. Martin 2002. Class Struggle: Beseiged Schools, Bewildered Parents, Betrayed Kids and the Attack on Excellence. San Francisco: Encounter Books.
Rogers, Karen B. 2002. Grouping the Gifted and Talented. Roeper Review, 24(3): 103-108.
Rubin, Beth C. , Guest Editor 2006, January 2006 Theory into Practice (TIP):Detracking. 45 (1).
Saleh, Mohammad et. Al. 2005. Effects of Within-Class Ability Grouping on Social Interaction, Achievement, and Motivation. Instructional Science: AnInternational Journal of Learning and Cognition. 33(2) 105-119.
Segro, G. 1995. Meeting the Needs of All Students: Making Ability GroupingWork. NASSP Bulletin, 79(568), 18-26.
Shanker, Albert. 1993. The Debate on Grouping. New Republic. 208(8): 43.
Slavin, R. 1990. Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: ABest-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, (Fall): 471-499.
Slavin, R. 1990. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R. 1988. Synthesis of Research on Grouping in Elementary and SecondarySchools. Educational Leadership, September.
Slavin, R. 1987. Ability Grouping and Its Alternatives: Must We Track? American Educator, Summer.
Slavin, R. 1987. Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in ElementarySchools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57: 293-336.
15
Steinberg, A. and Wheelock, A. 1993. After Tracking What? Middle Schools Find New Answers. In A. Steinberg (ed.), Adolescents and Schools: Improving theFit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Letter.
Stevens, R. and Slavin, R. 1995. The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects onStudents' Achievement, Attitudes, and Social Relations. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 32(2): 321-351.
Tieso, Carol L. 2003. Ability Grouping is Not Just Tracking Anymore. Roeper Review. 26(1): 29-36.
Tomlinson, C. 1999. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of AllLearners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.
Tomlinson, C. 1995. How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Welner, K. and Oakes, J. 1996. Ability Grouping: The New Susceptibility ofSchool Tracking Systems to Legal Challenges. Harvard Educational Review,66(3): 451-470.
Wheelock, A. 1992. Crossing the Tracks: How "Untracking" Can Save America'sSchools. NY: New Press.
Wheelock, A. 1992. Untracking for Equity: The Case for Untracking. Educational Leadership, 50(2).
Winebrenner, Susan 2006. Effective Teaching Strategies for Open Enrollment Honors and AP Classes. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. 17(3):31-49.
Winebrenner, Susan 2001. Teaching Gifted Kids in the Regular Classroom. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Yonezawa,S., Wells, A. S. and Serna I. 2002. Choosing Tracks: "Freedom ofChoice" in Detracking Schools. American Educational Research Journal39(3): 37-57.
Videos/Films
Off Track: Classroom Privilege for All, Michelle Fine, et al., 1998 -- tells the story of a non-tracked class in world literature.
16
THE CURRENT MODEL AT CHS
9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th GradeCollege PrepEnglish I
Honors English I
College Prep English II
World History/English II
Honors English II
American Literature(recommended)
Electives
Honors AmericanLiterature (recommended)
Electives
AP Literature
AP Language
Assumptions:• Because students develop mentally and physically at different stages, possess distinct
talents, and come to school from various backgrounds, groupings in high school must beflexible in order to meet students where they are.
Student Support:Low-achieving/ELL students Students at this stage receive support through theLearning Center, English I/II, Reading Improvement, Study Center, SSD services, co-taughtcourses (previously referred to as class within a class, or CWC), Conferenced English(summer school), and ELL English or ELL Reading. With the exception of the summerschool course, the other support courses and services are usually offered in tandem with aCollege Prep English I class.
Middle-achieving students The majority of students are supported and challenged inCollege Prep English I. Some degree of differentiation occurs. Highly talented students ofEnglish have further opportunities to move into honors classes during their sophomore, junior,and senior years.
High-achieving students A minority of students needing higher academicchallenge can find it in Honors English I. Opportunities to deepen knowledge beyond thealready high level of expectations of the course are also available.
9th Grade Core Curriculum:College Prep English I• Ten conferenced writing assignments• Two independent reading assignments (IRAs)• Core texts: The Odyssey, Romeo & Juliet, Lord of the Flies, A Raisin in the Sun,
Ellen Foster, Greek mythology, poetry, short fiction• Additional shared class texts• Two formal speeches
17
Honors English I --Additionally, this course includes• Greek drama• three more IRAs• even higher expectations for writing assignments• more self-directed reading.
The Funnel Approach:In addition to two sections of freshman honors out of the typical 11 to 12 total sections offreshman English, the following trend has been observable over the last several years:• Three sections of sophomore honors• Three sections of junior honors (four sections 2007-08 school year)• Three sections of AP English Lit (plus the addition of one section of AP English
Language this year).This approach is by design. The goal of English teachers is to monitor, cultivate, andencourage students to seek academic challenge in honors when and if they are capable of it.The result, resembling a funnel opening upward, shows fewer students in Honors English I,more in Honors English II, still more in Honors American Lit., and even more in AP.Similarly, English teachers monitor students who need greater support, differentiate asneeded, and take advantage of the numerous support classes and services in the building.
Pros and Cons:Pros ConsLimited enrollment in honors benefits giftedstudents while enriching College PrepEnglish I classes with strong students.
The "funnel approach" (see above) offersflexibility of placement over time andmotivates higher-achieving students to seekhonors admission.
The system benefits high-achieving students.
The system reduces diversity, oftensegregating students by race and, to a lesserdegree, by gender.
Students find it difficult to make aninformed decision about honors enrollmentbefore entering 9th grade.
The placement process is complicated notonly by students' unfamiliarity with it butalso by the pressures exerted on middle-school faculty.
The system places a higher burden ofdifferentiation on College Prep teachers.
18
CURRENT CHS ENGLISH DEPT. COURSE OFFERINGS
GRADE 9 GRADE 10College Prep English I* College Prep English II*Honors English I* Collaborative English II/World/U.S. History II*Reading Improvement I and II** Honors English II*Newspaper Writing** Reading Improvement I and II**ELL English** Newspaper Writing**ELL Reading** ELL English**
ELL Reading**College Prep English I/II-Credit Recovery
GRADE 11 GRADE 12 Honors American Literature AP English Literature
American Literature AP English Language and Composition Great Works of British Literature American Literature
Shakespeare Great Works of British Literature Contemporary World Literature Shakespeare Advanced Composition I and II Contemporary World Literature
Mass Media Advanced Composition I and IIAdventure Literature Mass MediaCreative Writing Adventure LiteratureFilm in American Society Creative WritingNewspaper Writing** Film in American SocietyReading Improvement I & II** Newspaper Writing**Topics & Themes in Reading & Writing Reading Improvement I & II**ELL English** Topics & Themes in Reading & WritingELL Reading** ELL English**College Prep English I/II-Credit Recovery ELL Reading**
Plays: Researching, Writing, and Reviewing***
* One of these must be taken ** Non-Conferenced Courses *** 1/4 credit, cross-listed with performing arts
[For an even more comprehensive description of course offerings, access the Program of Studies online by goingto www.clayton.k12.mo.us and choosing Clayton High School from the menu.]
Assumptions:• Honors classes in English cover the same core texts that the regular courses do, though
honors classes add additional texts and investigate the material more deeply; in otherwords, they are comparable to courses for college majors. Most students do not declare amajor in college until at least their second year, and many colleges and universitiesrequire a foundational course to establish their standards of reading and writing and corecurriculum. This model follows that pattern.
• The placement process from 8th to 9th grade is difficult and unreliable. It intrudes uponthe 8th grade year and creates as many frustrations as it does benefits. Honors 9th gradeteachers often report that many students in the class do not show more aptitude for thesubject than many students in the regular college prep classes. Social pressures, lack ofmaturity, and developmental issues often privilege some students' placement and preventothers. These issues often affect underrepresented groups in higher-level Englishcourses, namely males and minority students. Since most of the research indicates thatplacement decisions are based on perception as much as ability, allowing students tomake the transition to the high school before choosing a "major" would allow them todetermine if they want to devote their intense study to English. If so, their 9th gradeteacher would encourage them and prepare them for the honors level in 10th grade. Thisprocess also would relieve the phenomenon of the overburdened student.
• Grouping students in a heterogeneous setting allows students to gain the benefits ofdiversity, model and/or witness an achievement dynamic in the class, and strive forachievement to gain honors placement in 10th grade, if desired. Teachers whoconsciously plan for a variety of student needs are better teachers for every student.Allowing all students to have a consistent beginning in their English studies in highschool makes achievement for all students an equitable possibility.
• This placement decision for grouping into honors or college prep sections on the 10thgrade level would be made in January of 9th grade, and would be based on course work,standardized test scores in grades 7 and 8 (possibly an ERB in the fall of 9th grade?), andteacher recommendation. The same override policy would be available to parents andstudents who disagree with the teacher recommendation. The ability to move into thehonors sections is open to students every year, through the application process.
20
Student support:On all levels, English conferences allow for individual support. Since all students will betaking the same course, scheduling will be easier, allowing several sections to be scheduledsimultaneously. This will allow teachers to support team planning, and blending of classesfor some activities to assist in meeting all student needs.
Low-achieving/ELL Students Co-taught classes, special district support, learningcenter tutoring, study center, reading strategy courses
Middle-achieving students Co-taught classes, special district support, learningcenter tutoring, study center
High-achieving students Possible cluster grouping, contracting for grades, otherservices as needed
Core Curriculum:Teachers and the literacy committee agree on core texts for each level, and all will follow thestate and district learning objectives in determining the skills taught at each level. Allstudents will participate in the conferenced writing program and produce five processedpieces per semester. Teachers may differentiate complexity of assignments to addressstudents' needs, abilities and interests.
Pro and Cons:Pros Cons• Students not labeled and pigeon-holed• Ease of scheduling• Acknowledgement of the personal and
developmental nature of academicachievement
• Diversity of race, gender, and socio-economic status
• Reduction of anxiety for placement at thetime of transition
• Flexibility of placement for grades 10,11 and 12
• Students included in the placementprocess
• Effective differentiation is challenging• Risk of slighting gifted and/or remedial
students• Placement decision must be made early
in the student's high school career• Need for extensive professional
development, and high expectations foractual implementation
21
SCENARIO: THREE ACHIEVEMENT GROUPS HONORS, COLLEGE PREP & REMEDIAL
9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th GradeRemedial English I
College Prep English I
Honors English I
Remedial English II
College Prep English II
Honors English II
Remedial AmericanLiterature
College Prep American Lit
Honors American Lit
Remedial electives
College PrepElectives
AP Literature orAP Language
Assumptions:• There are three reasonably distinct and distinguishable groups of students who are best
served by working in classes of mostly alike students. In this way, teachers can targetinstruction towards particular texts, skills, and products that are most appropriate for theclass’s level of achievement. Teachers can determine the area of greatest need within eachgrouping of students and target instruction in order to provide appropriate challenge andencourage appropriate growth. This way the educational expectations for each groupingcan be high, respective to that group, while still being attainable.
• In a standards-based curriculum, an appropriate rationale for grouping can made based ondata that certain students have already demonstrated the attainment of certain specificlearning objectives, while others have not demonstrated attainment of the prerequisitelearning objectives. The EPAS tests (Explore, Plan, and ACT) that the district alreadyadministers to all are sufficiently standards based for use in grouping students. Untilteachers develop criterion referenced assessments that indicate attainment of certainlearning objectives, a combination of grades, standardized tests, student work samples, andteacher recommendations can be used to determine placement.
• At some point at either semester or year-end, students have the opportunity to demonstratetheir academic achievement in terms of grades, test scores, and level of independent work,and move up or down a track.
Potential categories for grouping:Honors students show high academic achievement as measured by prior grades andstandardized test scores, and earn teacher recommendations affirming ability to workindependently. The placement committee determines appropriate criteria that balance testscores, grades, and teacher recommendations in order assure that honors selection anddesignation is made based on advanced attainment of learning objectives and capacity forself-directed work—not caps, quotas, or parental lobbying.
22
College Prep students demonstrated success in the preceding curriculum, demonstrated theappropriate attainment of learning objectives, and earned standardized test scores that indicatea reasonable expectation of success in college.
Remedial students did not demonstrate success in the prior curriculum, did not demonstrateattainment of learning objectives, and earned standardized test scores that indicate a lowexpectation for success in college.
Support for low-achieving students: In this model, low-achieving students are supported bychallenges and learning objectives appropriate to their grouping. Staffing of supportpersonnel is easy to schedule and organize because the students who need support are all inthe same classes. There is some SSD support in the college prep courses for students whoseIEP recommends placement in the regular curriculum.
Core curriculum: Teachers and the literacy committee come to consensus about what texts,skills, and products are common to all classes at a particular grade level. The core texts aretaught in all levels, but the level of teacher support and the complexity of learning objectivesare variable. Conferencing program continues at all levels, but the standards for length,complexity, and independence research are variable.
Honors designation: Honors credit is easy to distinguish on student transcripts becauseHonors is included in the title and the course description.
Pro and Cons:Pros Cons• Appropriate challenge for students of
differing levels• Ease of teacher planning
• Difficulty and high stakes of makingappropriate placements
• Difficulty of scheduling, possibility ofcreating de facto, grade level tracking inall courses.
• Rigidity of track• Motivation and behavior issues are
compounded in remedial classes• Risk of creating de facto segregation
9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th GradeCollege Prep English I College Prep English II American Literature Electives
AP Literature orAP Language
Assumptions:• Humans are infinitely variable and the educational process is infinitely complex. However
a school groups its students, any teacher is faced with a group of students with a complexdisparity of skills, interests, learning styles, and background knowledge. Heterogeneousgrouping acknowledges this reality in the structure of the curriculum. Students arescheduled into classes specifically to assure a balanced mix of academic achievement.
• With the framework of differentiated instruction, it is the task of the teachers to clearlydefine the learning targets, usefully assess the students’ relative levels of achievement, andthen use strategies like flexible grouping, student choice, tiered lessons, and curriculumcompacting to address the inherent differences among students.
Support for low-achieving students, including SSD: Support for low-achieving studentscomes in the form of CWC or collaborative teaching arrangements, Learning Center anddouble blocking with reading support.
Core curriculum: The core curriculum is maintained by a common set of texts, concepts,and learning objectives held steady while teachers determine the appropriate ways toacknowledge and adjust to the range of differing interests, learning styles, and levels ofreadiness in their students. Teacher may chose to vary the content, the process, or theproducts as long as the defined learning objects for the course are being met.
Honors designation: Students in heterogeneous classes can contract for honors attainment.Advanced learning objectives, more complex texts, and more independently producedproducts characterize honors. Students who can establish in a pretest that they have masteredthe learning objectives of the course can be excused from some learning activities in order tohave time to work on attainment of honors- designated learning objectives.
24
Pro and Cons:Pros Cons• Acknowledges student variability,• Students not labeled and pigeon-holed• Ease of scheduling• Acknowledges the personal and
developmental nature of academicachievement
• Diversity of race, gender, and socio-economic status
• Effective differentiation is difficult• Risk of slighting gifted and/or remedial
students• Need for extensive professional
development, and high expectations foractual implementation
• Need for clear articulation of corelearning objectives
College Prep English I• Regular 9th graders• Some 10th grade
_Academic Lit grads
Academic Literacy I• Low-Achieving 9th
Academic Literacy II• Very low-achieving
10th graders needingfurther remediation
College Prep English II• Accelerated 9th graders• Regular 10th graders• 10th or 11th grade
Academic Lit. grads
American Literature• Accelerated 10th• Regular 11th• 11th or 12th grade Academic Lit grads
Electives• Accelerated 11th• Regular 12th• Some 12th grade
Academic Lit grads
AP LiteratureAP Language• Accelerated 11th• Regular 12th• Accelerated 12th
Assumptions:There are “core learning objectives” that the district has the responsibility to assure that allstudents demonstrate attainment of before graduation. Students will vary in the amount oftime and support required to attain these learning objectives. Greater flexibility of studentplacement exploits the benefits of heterogeneous grouping without ignoring the vastdifferences in essential skills that have often accrued by high school.
Course structure:Teachers and the literacy committee propose, and the school board approves, the “assuredcurriculum,” a set of texts, concepts, learning objectives, and products that all students willmaster before graduation. When students transition to high school, they are placed in coursesbased on the same criteria as in the Three Achievement Groups model; however, the coursesstudents are placed in will also be populated with sophomores and juniors who are workingtowards the same learning objectives.
• Accelerated 9th grade placement: College Prep English II Students can be acceleratedwith high academic achievement as measured by grades, high standardized test scores, andteacher recommendations affirming the students' ability to work independently. TheLiteracy Committee determines appropriate criteria that balance scores, grades, and teacherrecommendations in order assure that selection is made based on advanced attainment oflearning objectives and capacity for self-directed independent work—not caps, quotas, orparental lobbying.
• Regular 9th grade placement: College Prep English I Students who havedemonstrated success in the preceding curriculum, have demonstrated the appropriate
26
attainment of learning objectives, and for whom standardized test scores indicate areasonable expectation of success in college.
• Remedial 9th grade placement: Academic Literacy Students whose have notdemonstrated success in the prior curriculum, who have not demonstrated attainment oflearning objectives, and for whom standardized test scores indicate a low expectation forsuccess in college.
Support for low-achieving students, including SSD: Support is still provided in CWC andcollaborative teaching arrangements. Learning Center and double blocking with readingsupport may still be appropriate. Students in dire need of academic support can still be heldto the standard of college readiness by graduation because they may have two years ofintensive remediation with the option of double blocked reading support in the remaining twoyears.
Core curriculum: The core curriculum of learning objectives must undergo a re-examination to assure college readiness by the end of American Lit. The vast majority ofstudent would have three of four years in common.
Honors designation: Honors could be noted on high school transcripts for acceleratedstudents. More significant are the additional opportunities for AP study. Some acceleratedstudents would have to option of two full years of AP study, allowing students to prepare forand take both the Lit and Language AP exams. Other accelerated students would have theoption of a year of additional study before enrolling in an AP course.
Pros and Cons:Pros Cons• Multiage classrooms• Acknowledges student variability,
students not labeled and pigeon-holed• Flexibility of placement based on student
achievement• High-achieving students have more
elective options
• Multiage classrooms• Difficulty and high stakes of making
appropriate placements• Reduction of core curriculum to two
courses• Low-achieving students have limited
exposure to core curriculum, electives
27
SCENARIO: OPEN ENROLLMENT IN HONORS/AP MODEL AT CHS
9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade
College Prep EnglishI
Honors English I
College Prep English II
World History/English II
Honors English II
American Literature(recommended)
Electives
Honors American Literature(recommended)
Electives
AP Literature
AP Language
Assumptions:• Students should have the opportunity to select the level of challenge that they and their
parents believe they should pursue.
• The classroom teacher is responsible for maintaining rigor and high standardsregardless of class composition.
Student Support:Low-achieving/ELL students Students at this stage receive support through theLearning Center, English I/II, Reading Improvement, Study Center, SSD services, co-taughtcourses (previously referred to as class within a class, or CWC), Conferenced English(summer school), and ELL English or ELL Reading. With the exception of the summerschool course, the other support courses and services are usually offered in tandem with aCollege Prep English I class.
Middle-achieving students The students will be supported and challenged inCollege Prep English I and in Honors. Some degree of differentiation will occur.
High-achieving students Students seeking higher academic challenge find it inHonors English I. Opportunities to deepen knowledge beyond the already high level ofexpectations of the course are also available.
9th Grade Core Curriculum:College Prep English I• Ten conferenced writing assignments• Two independent reading assignments (IRAs)• Core texts: The Odyssey, Romeo & Juliet, Lord of the Flies, A Raisin in the Sun, Ellen
Foster, Greek mythology, poetry, short fiction• Additional shared class texts• Two formal speeches
28
Honors English I --Additionally, this course includes• Greek drama• three more IRAs• even higher expectations for writing assignments• more self-directed reading.
Pro and Cons:Pros Cons• Students not labeled and pigeon-holed by
the institution• Reduction of anxiety for placement at the
time of transition• Students and parents make the placement
decision• All students have access to the honors
curriculum
• Difficulty maintaining rigor andstandards in honors/AP courses
• Students choosing honors/AP coursesbecause of social reasons—friendships and collegeadmissions—not because ofintellectual abilities or interests
• Students may group themselves intocourses by race and economic status
• Parents and students may call forweighted grades to compensate forlower grades (B’s and below) thanstudents might have earned in non-honors/AP courses
• The designation of “honors” is amisnomer if the majority of studentschoose to enroll in honors courses
