BURKEonBOARD

(Sept. 27, 2008) – On a lot of things, I ain’t necessarily the smartest bear in the woods. But you can teach me.

One of the issues I’ve come across running for school board is called grouping. Turns out it’s quite the controversial subject among educators. I mentioned grouping in passing in an earlier posting and someone wrote to ask what I knew about it and my opinion of it. I thought I’d share that response with you.

Ability grouping has many shapes and sizes. A useful definition is from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Education Wiki (http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Ability_grouping):

Definition: Ability Grouping can be defined as a “system of grouping in which students are assigned to classes based on their measured ability or their achievements” (Woolfolk 118). There are pros and cons to ability grouping or tracking students. Though today the terms “ability grouping” and “tracking” are used interchangeably, there is a difference in their meanings. Ability grouping refers to creating small groups within a classroom such as for reading. Tracking refers to tested students being placed into separate and different curricular tracks or “streams” as they are called in Europe. (Loveless, 1998)

Types of Grouping:

• Ability Grouped Class Assignment – students are placed in one self-contained class based on ability or achievement.
• Regrouping for Reading or Math – students are sorted into ability groups for one or two subjects, only.
• Joplin Plan – students are sorted across grade levels for reading instruction.
• Non-graded Plan – students are placed in groups according to performance not age.
• Within-class Ability Grouping – based on ability students are assigned to small groups within a class.
• Ability grouping (also called tracking) is controversial in education. In some places it has risen to the level of a legal matter where legislatures and the courts have been called on to make judgments.

Opponents of grouping and/or tracking support that position for a variety of reasons ranging from egalitarianism (everyone should get exactly the same education) to those who cite research that seems to suggest higher achievement in ungrouped/untracked student populations. Proponents of grouping and/or tracking think, and have research to support their position, that grouping does a better job of putting students of similar ability together allowing for an education best suited to them and higher overall achievement of all groups.

As in many debates, the devil is in the details. The harshest criticism of grouping/tracking, in my opinion, is based on the methods used to create the groups and assign students to tracks. Whether conscious or not, grouping, in most cases, is at least partially based on subjective judgments. Racial, ethnic, social and economic factors come into play according to some research. Prior achievement is a factor in grouping and tracking and some argue that in K-12, and even beyond, prior achievement is not always a good predictor of ability or future achievement.

There are other factors with regard to grouping and tracking that spill over into the political and labor arenas. It is not hard to see how this issue may fall out along political ideologies. With regard to labor issues, teachers unions tend to oppose grouping and tracking as unfair to teachers, particularly those who might be saddled with the “slow kids.” It is “fairer” for teachers, or so the argument goes, if all teachers are faced with similar arrays of students of varying abilities.

One of the most common types of grouping, in-class grouping, typically for reading and math, also has the most serious drawback (in my opinion) in that while one in-class group is receiving instruction, the other groups are not. At a time when teachers complain about not having enough time to teach all they have to teach, creating an environment that precludes some student from receiving instruction while in class is counterproductive. Nothing bothers me more than to hear my daughter say, “I did my homework in class.” That says to me her teacher wasn’t teaching her then. Better solutions are the Joplin and No-grade plans.

Ultimately, whether we group or track is not the question. Grouping and tracking is a continuum, not an “either, or.” My sense, based on chats with Farmington teachers, is that our district tends toward a lesser application of grouping and tracking techniques. Based on my limited knowledge of the subject and my personal philosophies, I would tend toward a higher level of grouping and tracking, particularly as we move into the upper middle school and high school grades. I sense that you or someone close to you is a teacher or somehow involved in education on a professional level. If you have thoughts, I’d like to hear them. Not too many people care about grouping other than to ask why their kid isn’t in the fast group.

One other side issue that may or may not bear in this matter is the federal No Child Left Behind law. I am fundamentally in favor of the law’s concept and disheartened by it application. At its core, NCLB is about accountability which is vitally important. But by mandating achievement of minimum standards by all students in all schools, NCLB necessarily forces administrators and teachers to make sure all students achieve that minimum standard instead of high levels of achievement. Some would argue that meeting minimum standards and high achievement are not mutually exclusive, but in a world that is willing to pay top dollar for the cream of the crop, we are creating an educational system that only guarantees skim milk. Accountability and immutable standards are at once NCLB’s strength and weakness.

I hope to have a conversation with the district’s new superintendent for education services, Dr. Christine Weymouth, in the next several days and will make a point of raising this issue with her to get her perspective.

Thank you for your question. It’s helpful to collect my thoughts on this matter and put them into words. Thanks for that opportunity.

Tim Burke