03.27.13On “Ability Grouping”
You might have seen this article in the Atlantic about the “return of ability grouping” in schools. If not it’s worth the read as it’s one of several recent articles on the topic. Generally it’s the sort of article that trumpets as a new trend something that’s been quietly happening for a long time, but that’s the nature of journalism.
So what about “ability grouping”? My biggest quibble is with the name: “ability grouping.” I like achievement grouping better. After all, we’re the ones who are supposed to believe that ability is as ability does and that we can make smart happen. That said, it’s kind of an open secret among high performing schools that grouping yields results. Though the article, interestingly, confirms this with data from district schools.
To quote: “The study … found that sorting by previous performance “significantly improves students’ math and reading scores” and that the “net effect of sorting is beneficial for both high and low performing students.” The same benefits were found among gifted and talented students, special education students, and those with limited English proficiency.”
I’d just observe that as with most things in schools, the HOW makes or breaks it … i.e. the discussion should be about implementing it well if you’re going to do it rather than whether it’s “right” or “wrong” to do it. Though I believe in using grouping, I personally think a great school can do it either way and still be great.
A few thoughts on the “how” side then:
To do it right I would make sure to:
- Constantly use data to reformulate groups so kids are never “stuck” in one; re-grouping should happen multiple times per year. And it’s important to re-group to reinforce for everyone on staff that it’s “achievement grouping” not ability grouping. Their minds are plastic—it’s our job to grow them. One ancillary benefit of constantly informing your grouping decisions with data is the unexpected results. Who really performs is never quite the same as who you think—or teachers think—will really perform and that’s a great and instructive lesson for a school.
- Ensure that rigor and expectations are held high for all groups, especially the “low” group. You have to be on it every day to constantly shape the discussion about the strugglers—that they can and will get there… we’re going to slow it down for them and teach them differently; we’re not watering it down. Plus our accountability for getting them there is NOT diluted. For me, for example, this means that everyone has to read text at their grade level—not just their instructional level—or higher.
- Think not so much about but when—do you group all day? Or just at critical moments—e.g. reading and writing? Ironically this can create a synergy with larger class size: Just an argument here but I’d rather have 32 kids per class and take the extra money to hire a reading specialist to do small “achievement groups” (high or low targeted groups) than 26 kids per class and no ability to be more targeted.
Here’s the link:
Now over to you: What else is important to think about when grouping?
Absolutely have seen the difference that keeping expectations high can make for all ability groups — especially the “low” group. The pride gained by a student when she’s moved to a grade-level group shows her her true ability. Thanks for the name change, “achievement groups,” I much prefer it. The groups also allows me to focus my attention strategically on those who most need it.
An important aspect that makes achievement grouping successful, that I did not see mentioned above, is differentiation. When curriculum and instruction is truly differentiated to match the needs of the group, the impact is much more significant.