Ability grouping is one of many major controversies concerning the education world. Kulik (1992) has defined it as “a practice that places students into classrooms or small groups based on an initial assessment of their levels of readiness or ability” (cited in Tieso, 2005). Just by reading over its definition, it is obvious as to why it is so controversial because there are so many factors to consider: children’s confidence, interaction between lower and higher level students, and the curriculum and how it is delivered to the groups in the different types of grouping.
The most common concern parents and educators have appears to be student confidence. While this is something to consider, allowing it to be the deciding factor could be a large mistake in the long-run. This program was designed to split up levels of learning so that each group could receive an education that is more helpful and caters more to their individual level and pace of learning. Robert Slavin believes this about ability grouping; “Separate but not equal. For students with lower abilities, the benefits that come from removing the pressure of having to compete with the class whiz appears to be quickly outweighed by the lower self-image that comes from being in the “slow” class” (cited in Rachlin, 1989). The separation of levels in subjects has nothing to do with separation of the un-“equal” and while the competition of “ the class whiz” is canceled out, the lower-level students are more inclined to work at their own pace in a group that is more at their level. If it is the teachers that are not making it clear that ability grouping is not a separation of “slow” and “better,” but a separation of children into a group that will cater to their level of learning and needs in a subject, then yes, complications will arise. Teachers who use ability grouping should begin giving students an honest explanation as to what ability grouping really is; how it is beneficial and what good is trying to be accomplished. There will always be children who will tease others, but the program shouldn’t be eliminated because children don’t fully understand or grasp the meaning of the separation of levels. If children are explained the goal of ability grouping in simple terms, perhaps there would be no discrimination against this so-called “slow” group.
There are some educators that use ability grouping that believe it can be effective. Principal Allan S. Vann (1999), is a fan of math ability grouping, “Not only did 100 percent of our third graders receive passing scores on our most recent state math test, but more than 70 percent of them achieved “mastery level” by answering more than 85 percent of the questions correctly (p. 1). Along with teaching children to understand the purpose of the separation, and showing it is not being used as a negative concept, there are other debate-able factors to consider.
Tieso observed, “Ability grouping practices have come under attack in the past two decades because of concerns over issues of social and economic equity (Oakes 1985, Slavin 1990) and potential damage to students’ self-concept and self-efficacy. However Kulik (1982) and Marsh and Parker (1985), found little evidence to substantiate these concerns” (cited in Tieso 2003, p 7). Again, there is too much of a focus on equality in ability grouping. We as Americans expect everyone to consider ourselves equal in everything when it is a false belief. Every student has subjects they do well in, and subjects they need assistance in. The focus should not be on equality in ability grouping as much as, is it actually effective? Tieso pointed out a quote from Feldhusen and Moon (1992). They proposed that “educators must be responsive to the reality that students begin new units of study with differing abilities, learning styles, and motivation levels. Some [students] are ready for fast-paced, high-level, very abstract instruction; for others, instruction must be adjusted to fit their particular needs or deficiencies” (Tieso, 2003, p 8). Teachers should realize this or students will always be grouped as a whole and will never embrace the fact that it is acceptable to not be great at everything but that it is important to seek individual attention when struggling.
The only concern that should be focused on and contemplated about is how the curriculum is brought about and handled. Tieso shared some insight from Passow (1962). He suggested that the results of numerous studies on ability grouping depend less on the fact of grouping itself than upon the philosophy behind the grouping, the accuracy with which the grouping is made for, the purposes intended, the differences in content, method and speed, and the technique of the teacher (cited in Tieso 2005, p 2). Passow suggests in this quote that success more often than not, depends on the effectiveness of the teacher’s methods and how the teacher approaches and delivers the curriculum. The problem with most programs that create controversy is that glitches in them are not being handled correctly. Ability Grouping controversy tends to be simply too concerned and focused with emotional and curriculum concerns.
While no program can be completely perfect or without flaw or controversy, and ability grouping is far from perfect, if teachers are catering to the groups needs, providing solid curriculum, and explaining purposes of ability grouping, ability grouping should be as effective as it set out to be.
Please wait...