I work in a small charter school, there are 36-8th graders that are split into 3 homerooms of 12 students. The 7/8 science teacher and I usually decide the 8th grade classes since we teach them as 7th graders. Usually we split them up based on personality and behavior. This year we are toying with the idea of ability grouping to an extent. Of our 36 kids, there is a bottom 12, these students consist of sped and ELL's along with a few who it just takes a little longer to "get it". We want to put these students together in a HR (HRs travel to every class together) and evenly distribute the rest between the other two homerooms, meaning no "high level" class. I have such conflicting thoughts on this based on the research showing how bad this is. However, I truly feel that we (8th grade teachers) would hold these students to the same expectations as the other two classes, its just the way we would deliver lessons and structure the classes that would be different. I feel that we would be giving this class the chance to think for themselves and show them how excellent they really can be!
I guess I am looking for feedback from others that have done this. Does it work, am I right to be hesitant?
I have four math classes. Three are mixed ability and one is accelerated. of the three mixed ability two are special ed inclusion classes where I "team teach" (in theory) with the special ed teacher.
ReplyDeleteI would be more apt to choose a high group and mixed the other two. I think having one "low" group would be really challenging for your group work and discourse. This past year I saw impressive gains with my sped students who were included in my regular classes. I also had several of them for an intervention class. Their MAP gains were great overall.
Thats great about your MAP gains Sherrie!!
DeleteI am hoping that the workshop model we are going to use this year will help my lower kids learn to talk about the math. I feel that they just get "run over" by the other kids if you know what I mean. That was one of the reasons they were thinking of ability grouping. To give them a chance to stand out and prove to themselves that they are smart!
Robin,
ReplyDeleteYou ask a question that's important and you're right to be hesitant. Some schools ability group students for math in the upper elementary grades. This sometimes continues into middle school, although it truly depends on the philosophy of the teachers and administration. Often, the students performing at the highest levels may need enrichment and opportunities beyond accelerating the curriculum. Similar to Sherrie, I would be willing to have a challenge/higher group and a mixture of ability groupings for the other math classes. My concerns would be the informal labeling that often occurs with ability grouping (eg. 'gifted' 'low' 'high') and how the grouping criteria is communicated to the parents.
Matt
Matt, that is a huge issue for me, the kids in that low class are totally going to feel like they are the "dummy" class. They have such potential though and I really want them to have a chance to prove themselves. The good news is that we learned today that we are NOT grouping them that way!
DeleteAbility grouping has little positive impact on student achievement, with the exception of "truly" gifted students--then they are best served with like peers.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious you want maximize your students' learning potential and want to do what's best for them. May I offer up a suggestion or two? You may be already aware of this research but about a year ago I was introduced to John Hattie's research (Visible Learning) on 850 studies of programs and strategies that impact learning. He states most strategies work to some degree or another, but he identifies specific programs that teachers should maximize. Using an effect size, he's determined the hinge point is 0.40 or greater. Basically he says teachers should look to implement those strategies first. Ability grouping has a low positive effect of 0.12, which is about a 1 month gain, and in some instances it can have a negative effect.
You are probably doing the following, but I discovered the real game changers are: 1) self reported grades where students set high expectations/goals and monitor their progress (1.44 effect size), 2) formative assessment (0.9), 3) teacher clarity which includes students knowing the lesson objective and criteria for success (0.75) and 4) feedback (0.73) which gives students the opportunity to immediately apply it.
A few of these I never did, and some I didn't do well. So I was intentional and focused on them along with standards based grading, and it's made a world of difference.
Save yourself the cost of the book and check out: http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/
I'm tossing this out for discussion because you already know what not to do and may be looking for alternatives.
I'd love to hear other readers chime in.
Wow excellent resource you pointed me to! Thanks
Delete"teacherleaders" above has the research right: some studies have suggested that ability grouping helps gifted students, but too often it hurts other students. Despite your efforts to keep expectations high, that doesn't mean that's how students will see it. And as a colleague once explained to me, tracking/ability grouping might not be so bad if it weren't so strongly correlated with long-term outcomes; low-track students graduate at lower rates, attend college at lower rates, have more disciplinary problems, etc. Tracking can unfortunately be an early perpetuator of inequity.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite short article on detracking is a Phi Delta Kappan piece by Carol Corbett Burris (a well-known principal in NYC) and Kevin Welner, the director of the National Education Policy Center at CU-Boulder. I think you can find a copy here: ftp://137.164.228.14/instserv/gate/Burris%20%20Welner_Closing%20the%20Achievement%20Gap.pdf or here: http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/articles/EPSL-0505-111-EPRU.pdf.
@Raymond: "Tracking can unfortunately be an early perpetuator of inequity." Excellent point. A while back I wrote a blog post about tracking/ability grouping and how it can deny students equitable access. Our good intentions can end up reinforcing and perpetuating stereotypes, oppression, and segregation.
ReplyDeletehttp://teacherleaders.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/is-tracking-a-form-of-segregation-and-oppression/
I have always had mixed feelings about ability grouping. I teach 7th and 8th grade Math. I have taught 6th and 7th for the past two years before moving up this year. Last years 6th graders were extremely below level and I began asking myself how I felt ability grouping these students or how I would feel as a parent of one of these students. As a teacher I would think the few higher achievers might excel. However, the below level students have no one to push them or encourage in the way of peers. As far as being a parent, my own personal children would be on the higher end and I would want ability grouping so they could excel without being held back. However, again, if my child was a struggling student, I would be dead against ability grouping because I would want positive peer encouragement from classmates of the higher level. I think it just depends on how you look at it.
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense. However, I think what prompted my team to think about ability grouping is the situations where the higher achievers do not even give the others a chance to think.
ReplyDeleteI think we just need to work more on our expectations and make sure our higher achievers understand what is and is not acceptable.