# data[].attributes.body
In the article, The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate, the author provides the viewpoints of the pros and cons of ability tracking. The author states that when the curriculum is adjusted to correspond with academic ability, student achievements are boosted. One of the arguments is that poor, low-income students are put into groups in which they do not thrive as much as other income students. In the past, tracking was "rigid" and "deterministic." Before, students grouped in certain criteria stayed on that academic level for the rest of their high school experience. The article states that now students are grouped among their math and english proficiency and their transcripts show how the student has personally moved up or down in each subject's hierarchy. Ultimately, the author is encouraging that schools must be granted the autonomy to decide grouping policies.

# data[].attributes.body
When you refer to pages 30 and 35, you will see vocational courses. These courses are a more intense form of ability tracking. MCA and MVROP targets students who specifically want to work on computers or career building classes. This has a positive effect on students because they have the opportunity to put themselves in an environment where they can succeed with other students rather than wait for students to catch up to their work pace or work comprehension.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, Ability Grouping, Tracking, and How Schools Work, published in Education Next on April 8, 2013 by Tom Loveless, he argues that ability tracking allows educators to differentiate instruction. He goes on to explain that ability tracking was taboo under predominantly qualitative and impressionistic research. Loveless does this by providing sources of previous research and studies on the effectiveness of ability tracking in classrooms. The studies date back all the way to the 1920s and discusses how the use of ability tracking dropped in the 1990s. Ultimately, Loveless claims that ability tracking is the best way for teachers to maximize distributing information properly.

# data[].attributes.body
At NMHS, students are given a course catalog. In this catalog, students have a variety of traditional courses to choose to take during the school year. When you refer to pages 8, 14, 18, 21, and 25, you will see that students have the option to choose a class at their preferred academic level(s). You will also notice that there are  courses students will follow until the end of high school. This has a positive effect on students at NMHS because they have the opportunity to start at their highest academic ability and move their way up in course achievements.

# data[].attributes.body
In the news report, Grouping Students by Ability Regains Favor in Classroom, published in The NY Times on June 9, 2013 by Vivian Yee, she claims that ability tracking has brought back effective learning in classrooms. Yee does by using statistics about students' academic performances and quotes from Tom Loveless (a senior in Governance studies at Brookings Institution). Yee mentions that in 2009, 71% of teachers grouped students according to their reading ability and in 2011, 61% of teachers grouped students according to their math ability. Ultimately, both Yee and Mr. Loveless claim that practicing ability grouping allows teachers and principals to combat diverse levels of ability and achievement with strategies that result in success for each student.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, Research Spotlight on Academic Ability Grouping, published in National Education Association, the author claims that ability tracking can be both motivational and prepares students for work forces later in life. Ability tracking is the act of grouping children together according to their academic talents in the classroom. The article states that ability tracking allows teachers to create lessons and activities tailored to specific groups of learners, therefore targeting each group with the information they ultimately need to succeed. Over all, the author is suggesting the benefits of ability tracking in classrooms.

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 4: How effective is ability tracking in education?

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 4: How effective is ability tracking in education?

# data[].attributes.body
Ability Grouping, Tracking and How Schools Work by Tom Loveless

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 2013 Brown Center Report on American Education was released two weeks ago. One of the studies is on ability grouping. A key finding is that elementary teachers are using ability grouping again. Ability grouping is the practice of dividing classes into small instructional groups, especially for teaching reading. According to data collected by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the frequency of ability grouping's use in fourth grade reading instruction rose about two and a half times, from 28 percent in 1998 to 71 percent in 2009.

This year marks the 30 th anniversary of the publication of How Schools Work by Rebecca Barr and Robert Dreeben, a book in which ability grouping plays an important role. I became aware of the book at the University of Chicago in 1988 as a Ph.D. student. Robert Dreeben was my program advisor and dissertation chair.

Ability grouping is one method by which educators differentiate instruction. The term "differentiation" refers to the many ways that schools try to tailor different learning experiences to children's varying levels of performance. In the 1980s, I earned a masters degree in special education and taught both learning handicapped and gifted students. Differentiation was in my blood when I arrived at Chicago.

Differentiation was also under fire. Ability grouping and tracking were becoming taboo. The popular research at that time, which was predominantly qualitative and impressionistic, condemned tracking and ability grouping for harming black, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged students. This literature often depicted teachers as stupid or evil: stupid by robotically following tradition and unwittingly imposing harmful practices on students; evil by harboring race- or class-based prejudices that manifested in low expectations for many kids.

That is what made How Schools Work so refreshing. The book honors teachers in a profound way, not in a "you are all saints and we love you" way, but in a manner much more meaningful-by studying teachers' work. Barr and Dreeben followed a group of Chicago first grade teachers as they taught reading. A wealth of data was collected so that hypotheses could be tested empirically. In How Schools Work, readers discover that first grade reading groups operate within a grand organizational scheme: groups nested in classrooms, classrooms housed within schools, schools situated within a big urban district. Seemingly routine tasks of teaching are transformed into thoughtful, important activities. Teachers do not appear to be stupid or evil. They appear to be professionals engaged in purposeful activities.

In 1988, "The Formation and Instruction of Ability Groups," was published in the American Journal of Education. Adam Gamoran, a Chicago graduate student at the time, worked on the project producing this paper. Dreeben and Barr describe as "technological" the ways in which teachers form groups and then instruct them; not technological in the sense of using computers or electronic media but in the sense of applying craft knowledge in the pursuit of an occupational end, in this case, the goal of organizing a classroom full of first graders so that they can be taught how to read.

The notion that teaching is primarily intuitive ("teachers are born not made") was directly refuted. When they teach reading, teachers must juggle four inputs, each with its own constraints -student aptitude, the difficulty of reading materials, time devoted to instruction, and coverage of curriculum. The combination of these four inputs must be expertly managed to optimize learning. Sure, sometimes teachers have to fly by the seat of their pants while teaching, but for most of time, they employ craft knowledge to attain just the right mix. Kids do in fact learn how to read, and first grade, more than any other grade, is where that wonderful accomplishment can be observed while it happens.

Teachers aren't perfect. They can make mistakes. They can form groups that are too large, too small, or too unwieldy in composition; move groups too fast or too slow; teach from a curriculum that is too demanding or too easy; or fail to provide enough time for instruction. They can also be unfair - even bigoted - but that's not the norm.

It is heartening to note that as the use of ability grouping is increasing a new generation of researchers is bringing sophisticated statistical techniques (and open minds) to bear on questions involving both ability grouping and tracking. Tracking, the middle and high school practice of grouping students into separate classes as opposed to grouping students within a class, has always drawn the most scholarly attention. And the most opprobrium.

In a recent NBER working paper, Courtney A. Collins and Li Gan classify Dallas schools as sorted or non-sorted based on the heterogeneity of classes in math or reading achievement. The study also considers heterogeneity in the dispersion of students identified as gifted and talented, limited English speaking, or special education. Sorting is found to produce significantly positive effects in both reading and math - and for both high and low achievers. The researchers conclude:

This study has valuable policy implications because unlike many school policy variables, the composition of classes can often be changed with little need for increased funds. A school with a fixed number of classrooms and teachers can increase efficiency by rearranging students in the most effective way possible. This study suggests that creating classes with lower levels of dispersion of score or ability level may improve the achievement outcomes for students across the score distribution (Collins and Gan, 2013, page 20).

The study joins a long line of research dating back to at least the 1920s. The overriding concerns have been to determine whether tracking and ability grouping are good or bad (whether they produce positive effects) and whether they are equitable (even if some students benefit, is it at the expense of others). The evidence on these questions is mixed. To adequately summarize the literature would require a series of posts, and I will return to this topic in the future. The main point I would like to make in concluding this post pertains to the renewed popularity of tracking and ability grouping, not to whether either practice is warranted by research.

In the late 1980s and into the 1990s, powerful groups condemned ability grouping and tracking, among them, the National Governors Association, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Children's Defense Fund. The use of ability grouping dropped significantly in the 1990s. Tracking in middle schools declined in all subjects but math. According to the NAEP data reported in the Brown Center Report, ability grouping has made a strong comeback in the past decade.

The resurgence of ability grouping accentuates the need for new research questions. If educators are going to use ability grouping again, how should they employ this tool so as to maximize potential benefits and minimize potential harms? How large should groups be? How many groups should a teacher create, and how much time should be spent with each one? Do low achieving groups require more direct instruction than high achieving groups? How often should students be assessed and regrouped? Are different curricula more effective with different groups? Notice the thrust of these inquiries. Such questions are directed towards producing new knowledge on the craft of teaching and to guide teachers in improving their practice, not towards the policy question of whether to group or not to group.

A fine example of this kind of study is provided by Carol McDonald Connor and colleagues at Florida State University. The researchers conducted a randomized field trial of software that organizes first grade reading instruction. The algorithm employed by the software considers each child's entering skill level and progress made during the school year to recommend several dimensions of instruction, including assignment to small, homogenous ability groups, the amount of time spent on code- versus meaning-focused literacy, and teacher/child versus child-managed delivery. The targets for these recommendations are dynamic; that is, they change in response to periodic assessment of children's progress. Children in the experimental classrooms gained about two months in reading achievement over those in the control group.

I hope the new generation of researchers will take up more questions like those in the FSU study. The debate over tracking and ability grouping has gone on for nearly a century. Research has not answered the key questions in dispute, at least not to the protagonists' satisfaction. It's time for some different questions. How should researchers proceed? A good place to start is reading How Schools Work. It's just as fresh and illuminating today as when it was published thirty years ago.

-Tom Loveless
Tom Loveless is a senior fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings.
This blog entry first appeared on the Brown Center Chalkboard at the Brookings Institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ability Grouping, Tracking, and How Schools Work - Education Next

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 2013 Brown Center Report on American Education was released two weeks ago. One of the studies is on ability grouping. A key finding is that elementary teachers are using ability grouping again. Ability grouping is the practice of dividing classes into small instructional groups, especially for teaching reading.

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 5: Does ability tracking give every student equal educational opporunities?

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 5: Does ability tracking give every student equal educational opporunities?

# data[].attributes.body
The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate

# data[].attributes.body
MCA (pg. 30), Mission Valley ROP (pg. 35)

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 3: Is ability grouping effective at NMHS?

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 3: Is ability grouping effective at NMHS?

# data[].attributes.body
Ability Grouping at NMHS: Course Catalog (pgs. 8, 14, 18, 21, 25)

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 2: How does ability tracking effect students?

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 2: How does ability tracking effect students?

# data[].attributes.body
NY Times by Vivian Yee

# data[].attributes.body
National Education Association

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is ability tracking?
2. How does ability tracking effect students?
3. How effective is ability tracking in education? Is this effective at NMHS?
4. Does ability tracking give every student equal educational opportunities?