# data[].attributes.body
See Case 3 in article.

# data[].attributes.body
Fixed ideas about potential start when students internalize "I'm in the 'low' or 'middle' group."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Maths Ability Grouping: Setting Ability Groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maths Ability Grouping: Setting Ability Groups. The Dangers of ability grouping in Maths by Prof Jo Boaler from http://online.stanford.edu/course/how-to-learn-math

# data[].attributes.body
On ability grouping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download PDF

A Position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Question: How can we address differentials in access to high-quality teachers, instructional opportunities, and expectations in mathematics education?

NCTM Position

All students should have the opportunity to receive high-quality mathematics instruction, learn challenging grade-level content, and receive the support necessary to be successful. Much of what has been typically referred to as the "achievement gap" in mathematics is a function of differential instructional opportunities. Differential access to high-quality teachers, instructional opportunities to learn high-quality mathematics, opportunities to learn grade-level mathematics content, and high expectations for mathematics achievement are the main contributors to differential learning outcomes among individuals and groups of students.

Opportunity to learn remains one of the best predictors of student learning (NRC, 2001). Differentials in learning outcomes therefore are not a result of inclusion in any demographic group, but rather are significantly a function of disparities in opportunities that different groups of learners have with respect to access to grade-level (or more advanced) curriculum, teacher expectations for students and beliefs about their potential for success, exposure to effective or culturally relevant instructional strategies, and the instructional supports provided for students (Flores, 2007).

High-quality mathematics education is not just for those who want to study mathematics and science in college-it is required for many postsecondary education programs and careers (Achieve, 2005; ACT, 2006; National Science Board, 2008). Too many students-especially those who are poor, nonnative speakers of English, disabled, or members of racial or ethnic minority groups-are victims of low expectations for achievement in mathematics. For example, traditional tracking practices have consistently disadvantaged groups of students by relegating them to low-level mathematics classes, where they repeat work with computational procedures year after year, fall further and further behind their peers in grade-level courses, and are not exposed to significant mathematical substance or the types of cognitively demanding tasks that lead to higher achievement (Boaler, Wiliam, & Brown, 2000; Schmidt, Cogan, Houang, & McKnight, 2011; Stiff, Johnson, & Akos, 2011; Tate & Rousseau, 2002).

Wide variation in performance among U.S. schools serving similar students indicates that existing learning differentials can be closed and that demographic factors are not destiny when students receive high-quality instruction and the necessary support to learn grade-level content (McKinsey & Company, 2009). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics outlines a vision for high-quality mathematics instruction in Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 2000) and Mathematics Teaching Today: Improving Practice, Improving Student Learning (NCTM 2007). Research indicates that all students can learn mathematics when they have access to high-quality mathematics instruction and are given sufficient time and support to master a challenging curriculum (Burris, Heubert, & Levin, 2006; Campbell, 1995; Education Trust, 2005; Griffin, Case, & Siegler, 1994; Knapp et al., 1995; Silver & Stein, 1996; Slavin & Lake, 2008; Usiskin, 2007). "Equity does not mean that every student should receive identical instruction; instead, it demands that reasonable and appropriate accommodations be made as needed to promote access and attainment for all students" (NCTM 2000, p. 12).

(February 2012)

References

1. Achieve. (2005). Rising to the challenge: Are high school graduates prepared for college and work? Washington, DC: Author.

2. ACT. (2006). Ready for college or ready for work: Same or different? Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Service.

3. Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students' experiences of ability grouping-disaffection, polarisation, and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal,26(5), 631-648.

4. Burris, C. C., Heubert, J. P., & Levin, H. M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 105-136.

5. Campbell, P. F. (1995). Project IMPACT: Increasing mathematics power for all children and teachers (Phase 1, final report). College Park, MD: Center for Mathematics Education, University of Maryland.

6. Education Trust. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington, DC: Author.

7. Flores, Alfinio. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29-42.

8. Griffin, S. A., Case, R., & Siegler, R. S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 25-49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

9. Knapp, M. S., Adelman, N. E., Marder, C., McCollum, H., Needels, M. C., Padilla, C., Zucker, A. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

10. McKinsey & Company. (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in America's schools. Washington, DC: Author.

11. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

12. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2007). Mathematics teaching today: Improving practice, improving student learning. Reston, VA: Author.

13. National Research Council (NRC). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

14. National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008 (2 vols.). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

15. Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L. S., Houang, R. T., & McKnight, C. C. (2011). Content coverage differences across districts/states: A persisting challenge for U.S. education policy. American Journal of Education, 117(3), 399-427.

16. Silver, E. A., & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR project: The "revolution of the possible" in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Education, 30(4), 476-521.

17. Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427-515.

18. Stiff, L. V., Johnson, J. L., & Akos, P. (2011). Examining what we know for sure: Tracking in middle grades mathematics. In W. F. Tate, K. D. King, & C. R. Anderson (Eds.), Disrupting tradition: Research and practice pathways in mathematics education (pp. 63-75). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

19. Tate, W., & Rousseau, C. (2002). Access and opportunity: The political and social context of mathematics education. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp.271-299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20. Usiskin, Z. (2007). The case of the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project-secondary component. In C. R. Hirsch (Ed.), Perspectives on the design and development of school mathematics curricula (pp.173-182). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

NCTM position statements define a particular problem, issue, or need and describe its relevance to mathematics education. Each statement defines the Council's position or answers a question central to the issue. The NCTM Board of Directors approves position statements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Closing the Opportunity Gap in Mathematics Education - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download PDF A Position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Question: How can we address differentials in access to high-quality teachers, instructional opportunities, and expectations in mathematics education? NCTM Position All students should have the opportunity to receive high-quality mathematics instruction, learn challenging grade-level content, and receive the support necessary to be successful.

# data[].attributes.body
Tracking & Ability Grouping

# data[].attributes.body
On detracking...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two years ago, Julie Ward, the math curriculum coordinator for Cambridge Public Schools in Massachusetts, took a look at test scores for the district's eighth graders from the previous school year: 70 percent of white students had passed the state math tests while only 10 percent of black students had. Digging deeper into the data, she found that the numbers were part of a pattern that was consistent year to year.

Cambridge staff began trying to understand why there were such racial disparities in math performance, remembers Manuel Fernandez, the principal at Cambridge Street Upper School, who says that he and his staff noticed a strong correlation with the ways students were placed in math courses.

"Over time you end up with lower-level math courses filled with black and Latino children, and high-level math classes with white and Asian children," he said. "Students internalize it-they believe the smart kids are the white kids. Our staff said we cannot continue to divide our students this way."

Tracking-the practice of separating students by perceived ability into different classes-has been particularly pervasive and contentious in math. In eighth-grade math classes alone, 75 percent of American schoolchildren are placed in ability-based classes, making math the most tracked course in schools, according to the Brookings Institution. Decisions about tracking vary school to school but are typically based on test scores and grades, along with teacher recommendations, which some research suggests can be biased.

Students internalize it-they believe the smart kids are the white kids. Our staff said we cannot continue to divide our students this way.

In the past several years, schools and districts around the country, including ones in Cambridge, San Francisco, and Escondido, California, have eliminated math tracking, recognizing that the practice can create inequities between students, with significant ramifications as they progress through school. Lower track students receive a less rigorous and rich math curriculum, which can impact their math proficiency over time. Tracking can also stymie long-term student achievement: Algebra I is a gateway course that students must take to enroll in upper-level high school and college math classes-and in many cases, to continue in college studies at all, particularly at community colleges.

Research suggests that math tracking is not an effective practice for improving student performance, either. A 2016 meta-analysis of nearly 100 years of research found that between-class grouping, or tracking, did not benefit students at either the high or low ends of achievement, although fully jumping a grade can lead already high-achieving students to academically outperform same-age peers. Additionally, children are acutely aware of where they stand in tracked classes and identify as "smart" or "not smart" based on their placement-beliefs that can stick with them for life, according to multiple studies.

In contrast, classes where students are placed in mixed-ability groups and teachers foster a growth mindset can have the opposite effect. Research shows that students in districts that have detracked-and set high expectations for all students-scored higher on state assessments. These districts also helped staff and students internalize a growth mindset and the idea that all students can learn and improve.

Giving All Students Access

Until five years ago, eighth-grade students in the 56,000-student San Francisco district were typically placed in Algebra I or general eighth-grade math, based on grades and teacher recommendations. From 2008 to 2010, nearly 80 percent of black and Latino students were placed in General Math, while 55 percent of Asian and white eighth graders were placed in Algebra I, a higher level course. Of the black and Latino students in Algebra I, more than half had to repeat the class.

By high school, the numbers had not improved: Among the graduating high school class of 2014, less than 25 percent of all students were proficient in Algebra II, but the results were even worse for black and Latino students, just 5 percent of whom were proficient.

Math tracking systems like San Francisco's old system are ineffective in part because only some of the students are exposed to the content they need to grow as math learners while others are not, according to a statement from the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics. The NCTM points to flat national math scores over decades, the need for remedial math in college for 50 percent of students, and the poor performance of U.S. students on international tests in mathematical literacy as evidence that current practices undermine student access to learning.

With support from teachers and school leaders, the San Francisco district eliminated tracking in eighth-grade math in the 2014-15 school year, and instead required all students take Algebra I in ninth grade. Results have been striking: The repeat rate for Algebra I has plunged for all racial and ethnic groups, from an average of 40 percent to 10 percent, including for English language learners and low-income students. For black students, the repeat rate dropped from 52 percent to 19 percent, and for Latino students, from 57 down to 14 percent. At the same time, black and Latino students are enrolling in advanced high school math courses at higher rates.

"San Francisco had a strong team of math coaches and leaders who knew what research was telling them and decided to take it on," said Jo Boaler, a Stanford University mathematics education professor and researcher who has worked with the district. "What has changed is the messages kids are getting-they are no longer being told that they have a fixed brain."

Similarly, at Cambridge Street, which detracked eighth-grade math last year, twice as many students passed the math common assessment, and 95 percent said they wanted to pursue honors math in high school. Next year all eighth-grade classes in the district will detrack math. "It was about giving all students access to accelerated curriculum," says Cambridge Street eighth-grade math teacher Kendal Schwarz.

Promoting a Growth Mindset-for Teachers

A tracking system impacts much more than student placements, though, and can reinforce established-and flawed-perceptions about students' math competence.

More so than other subjects, math can be a sticking point for parents and educators, many of whom believe a student either gets the material (is "a math person") or doesn't. Yet in traditional classrooms, where speed of completion of rote problems is emphasized, students who "get it" are often those with more practice or who are simply good at memorizing.

Educators can often reinforce these assumptions. Studies have found that white teachers tend to have lower expectations for black students than white ones, and that black students are less likely to be recommended for gifted or advanced math classes than white students, even by black teachers, which can influence placements in a tracking-based system.

These decisions about math placements can have a considerable impact on how students see themselves and perform in math. Children, especially in middle school, internalize their placement in tracked math classes, and those who perceive themselves as low performers tend to disengage and succumb to the perceived image, or stereotype, of their group.

"Math is one of the places where we reinforce you are good at it or you aren't," says Lizzy Hull Barnes, math supervisor for the San Francisco district. "Status in the classroom is so significant in how it plays out in math."

But math mindsets don't have to stay fixed for either educators or students. In one study by Stanford researcher Dave Paunesku, students given a growth mindset message-that one's intelligence can grow with practice-mastered new math concepts more readily than students given generic encouragement. While the shift to a growth mindset can sound nebulous, concrete strategies like having students work in heterogeneous groups and visually represent their thinking, and emphasizing that "no one is good at all ways of working, but everyone is good at some of them," can help.

In Cambridge's newly detracked classes, for example, focusing on problem-solving and group work around complex tasks has helped build confidence among students of differing ability levels, says seventh-grade math teacher Stephen Abreu. "We have less of students waiting for the 'smart kid' to answer the question and more different types of learners sharing what they notice," said Abreu.

Getting Buy-in

Districts and schools can't simply detrack and assume great results will follow. Districts that have successfully detracked have had to work with both educators and parents to adapt to the new system-especially addressing the status and perceived advantage of tracking with families and students.

Districts and schools that detrack woo skeptics by explaining the benefits to all students-and proving it with results, according to Abi Leaf, the mathematics content specialist for the Escondido Union High School District in Southern California, which switched to mixed, non-tracked math classes for ninth and 10th graders in 2013. Escondido detracked when the Common Core State Standards arrived, so it was part of larger conversations about how to meet the standards, said Leaf, who added that teachers emphasize "that all children are brilliant, all people in a classroom have something to offer, and doing it fastest is not always best."

It gives adults a different experience of math, and they build a vision of what's possible.

Her district also provided significant professional development for educators-including support from outside consultants-and encourages teachers to collaborate in small teams to help change educators' mindsets about math. Since the district detracked, enrollment in higher-level math classes has increased. In addition, "teachers say they are much happier with their work," Leaf said.

Similarly, in both Cambridge and San Francisco, teachers were brought together for intensive professional learning time and worked together to rewrite the curriculum to focus on deeper rather than faster learning. Cambridge teachers worked with coaches to focus on "math talks," or ways to get more students sharing what they know (and don't) in class. Meanwhile, in San Francisco, teachers throughout the district now work collaboratively on math problems and contribute to a shared set of rich "low floor, high ceiling" math tasks and curriculum ideas that are collected at an open district website.

"It's a shift in mindsets and beliefs," Barnes says about the change. "It gives adults a different experience of math, and they build a vision of what's possible."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two years ago, Julie Ward, the math curriculum coordinator for Cambridge Public Schools in Massachusetts, took a look at test scores for the district's eighth graders from the previous school year: 70 percent of white students had passed the state math tests while only 10 percent of black students had.

# data[].attributes.body
"While I understand that there are times when students might need to be brought together in a small group for specific help, I think we might be missing some really important learning opportunities."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For the past few years I have had the privilege of being an instructional coach working with amazing teachers in amazing schools. It is hard to explain just how much I have learned from all of the experiences I have had throughout this time. The position, while still relatively new, has evolved quite a bit into what it is today, but one thing that has remained a focus is the importance of Co-Planning, Co-Teaching and Co-Debriefing. This is because at the heart of coaching is the belief that teachers are the most important resource we have (teachers, not programs or classroom materials, have the biggest potential to make a difference in the lives of our students) and that developing and empowering teachers is what is best for students.

While the roles of Co-Planning, Co-Teaching and Co-Debriefing are essential parts of coaching, I'm not sure that every coach would agree on what they actually look like in practice?

Take for example co-teaching, what does it mean to co-teach? Melynee Naegele, Andrew Gael and Tina Cardone shared the following graphic at this year's Twitter Math Camp to explain what co-teaching might look like:

Above you can see 6 models that each can be described as Co-teaching. While I completely understand that these 6 models might be common practices in schools when 2 teachers are in the same room, and while I am not speaking out against any of these models, I'm not sure I agree that all of these models are really co-teaching. Think about it, which of these models would help teachers learn from and with each other? Which of these promotes students learning from 2 teachers who are working together? Which of these models promotes separating duties / responsibilities in a more isolated approach?

I will admit that after looking at the graphic (without being part of the learning from #TMC17) I was confused. So, I went on Twitter to ask the experts (Melynee Naegele, Andrew Gael, Tina Cardone and others who were present at the sessions) to find out more about how co-teaching was viewed. I was interested to find out from reading through their slideshows and from Mary Dooms that often, the "co-teacher" is often a Special Education teacher and not an Instructional or Math Coach.

So, I thought it might be worth picking apart a few different roles to think more about what our practices look like in our schools.

Co-Teaching as a Special Education Teacher

Special Education teachers and Interventionalists do really important work in our schools. They have the potential to be a voice for those who are often not advocating for their own education and can offer many great strategies for both classroom teachers and students to help improve educational experiences. When given the opportunity to co-teach with a classroom teacher though, I would be curious as to which models typically exist?

In my experience, the easiest to prescribe models would be model 3 or 4, parallel teaching / alternative teaching. Working with a large class of mixed-ability students isn't easy, so many classroom teachers are quite happy to hear that a special education teacher or interventionist is willing to take half or some of the students and do something different for them. I wonder though, is this practice promoting exclusion, segregation, integration or inclusion?

While I understand that there are times when students might need to be brought together in a small group for specific help, I think we might be missing some really important learning opportunities.

At the heart of the problem is how difficult it is for classroom teachers to differentiate instruction in ways that allow our students to all be successful without sending fixed mindset messages via ability grouping. Special Education teachers and interventionalists have the ability, however, to have powerful conversations with classroom teachers to help create or modify lessons so they are more open and allow access for all of our students! Co-teaching models 3 and 4 don't allow us to have conversations that will help us learn better how to help those who are currently struggling with their mathematics. Instead, those models ask for someone else to fix whatever problems might be existing. The belief is that the students need fixing, not us! Rushing for intervention doesn't help us consider what ways we can support classroom teachers get better at educating those who have been marginalized.

The more time Special Education teachers and interventionalists can spend in classrooms talking to classroom teachers, being part of the learning together and helping plan open tasks/problems that will support a wider group of students... the better the educational experiences will be for ALL of our students! This raises the expectations of our students, while allowing US as teachers to co-learn together. I think Special Education teachers and Interventionalists need to spend more time doing models 1, 5 and 6, then, when appropriate, use other models on an as-needed basis.

Co-Teaching as a Coach

The role of instructional coaches or math coaches is quite different from that of a Special Education teacher or Interventionist though. While Special Education teachers and Interventionist focus their thoughts on what is best for the students who might be struggling in class, Coaches' are concerned more with content, pedagogy, the beliefs we have about what is important, and the million decisions we make in-the-moment while teaching. Coaching is a very personal role. Together, a coach and a classroom teacher make their decision making explicit and together they learn how to be a great math teacher. The role of coaches is to help the teachers you work with slow down... and this requires the ability to really listen (something I am continually trying to get better at).

Coaching involves a lot of time co-planning, co-teaching and co-debriefing. However, in order for co-teaching to be effective, as much as possible, the coach and the classroom teacher need to be together! Models 1, 5 and 6 seem to be the only models that would make sense for a coach. Otherwise, how could a coach possibly coach?

To me, the more we as educators can talk about our decisions, the more we can learn together, the more we can try things out together....... the better we will get at our job! We can't do this (at least not well) if co-teaching happens in different places and/or with different students!

As always, I want to leave you with a few reflective questions:

How would you define co-teaching? What characteristics do you think are needed in order to differentiate it from teaching?

If you don't have someone to co-teach with, how can you make it a priority? How can your administrator help create conditions that will allow you to have the rich conversations needed for us to learn and grow?

If you are a Special Education teacher or an interventionist, how receptive are classroom teachers to discuss the needs of those that are struggling with math? Are conversations about what we need to do differently for a small group, or are conversations about what we can do better for all students?

If you are a math coach or an instructional coach, what are the expectations from a classroom teacher for you? How can you build a relationship where the two of you feel comfortable to learn and try things together? What do conversations sound like after co-teaching?

Are specific models of co-teaching being suggested to you by others? By whom? Do you have the opportunity to have a voice to try something you see as being valuable?

School boards and districts often aim their sights at short-term goals like standardized testing so many programs are put into place to give specific students extra assistance. But does your school have long-term goals too? At the end of the year, has co-teaching helped the classroom teacher better understand how to meet the various needs of students in a mixed ability classroom?

For more on this topic I encourage you to read Unintended Messages or How Our District Improved

I'd love to continue the conversation. Write a response, or send me a message on Twitter ( @markchubb3 ).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For the past few years I have had the privilege of being an instructional coach working with amazing teachers in amazing schools. It is hard to explain just how much I have learned from all of the experiences I have had throughout this time. The position, while still relatively new, has evolved quite a bit...

# data[].attributes.headline
NCTM President, Matt Larson, warns against tracking at MSU 

# data[].attributes.subject
NCTM President, Matt Larson, warns against tracking at MSU 

# data[].attributes.body
Slide from Sept 2017 presentation

# data[].attributes.headline
Heterogeneous grouping is a MUST for elem students

# data[].attributes.subject
Heterogeneous grouping is a MUST for elem students

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Heterogeneous grouping is a MUST for elem students. Diversity helps learning, tracking gives damaging fixed mindsets and reduces learning. https://t.co/bya6BHxTj5

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Heterogeneous grouping is a MUST for elem students. Diversity helps learning, tracking gives damaging fixed mindsets and reduces learning. https://t.co/bya6BHxTj5

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
@joboaler what is your position on heterogeneous vs homogeneous groupings for elementary math students in Canada? #RCDSBMath

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Heterogeneous grouping is a MUST for elem students. Diversity helps learning, tracking gives damaging fixed mindsets and reduces learning. https://t.co/bya6BHxTj5
— Jo Boaler (@joboaler) September 14, 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Heterogeneous grouping is a MUST for elem students. Diversity helps learning, tracking gives damaging fixed mindsets and reduces learning. https://t.co/bya6BHxTj5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.includes.tweets[].text
@joboaler what is your position on heterogeneous vs homogeneous groupings for elementary math students in Canada? #RCDSBMath

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Heterogeneous grouping is a MUST for elem students. Diversity helps learning, tracking gives damaging fixed mindsets and reduces learning. https://t.co/bya6BHxTj5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Heterogeneous grouping is a MUST for elem students. Diversity helps learning, tracking gives damaging fixed mindsets and reduces learning. https://t.co/bya6BHxTj5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
@joboaler what is your position on heterogeneous vs homogeneous groupings for elementary math students in Canada? #RCDSBMath

# data[].attributes.headline
Ability Grouping: Better for Students or Easier for Schools?

# data[].attributes.subject
Ability Grouping: Better for Students or Easier for Schools?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Education Week - Coach G's Teaching Tips

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"I truly believe that it is my job not to discover the limits of what a child can do, but actually to give them ways of breaking through those limits," ~ William H. Johnson , Superintendent, Rockville Centre School District

All of my students (9th graders) were more than two years behind in math when I began teaching in the Chicago Public Schools in 1993. (This was based on students' 8th grade test results and confirmed by my own assessment.) Even more challenging for me was the range of students' deficits--2nd grade through 6th grade levels--within the same class.

I addressed this challenge in many ways including heterogeneous groups based on math skills, homogeneous groups based on behavior, whole-group instruction targeting middle and/or low students, and independent work on differentiated assignments. But nothing worked, as reflected in students' lack of learning, off-task behavior, and feedback form comments including:

I do not like class because he's always giving us stupid work.

Maybe it will be better if the work were a little more challenging for me.

All the good students and bad students should sit together because a bad student can probably do better if not provoked by other bad students.

The following year was even more challenging for me because, while most of my students (also 9th graders) were again more than two years behind, some were performing at 7th or 8th grade levels. My solution: divide each class into two groups--high and low--based on skill levels. In other words, what is commonly referred to as ability grouping.

I never worked harder in or out of the classroom than I did when preparing and presenting two lessons per class. Yet despite my diligence, ability grouping was as ineffective as anything I tried the previous year, and students once again let me know this through their actions (misbehavior and lack of learning) and words:

Sitting in groups is what I don't like. It makes certain people think they're not as smart as others.

You are too bogus Coach G. You know Group A is not that smart and Group B is smart, and you separate us so we look dumb. All of us should be in the same group to help each other out.

If you are only going to teach one part of the class, what do you expect the other kids to do, sit and look stupid. We're supposed to talk man, I thought you knew that.

I don't feel right being split into different groups because it makes us feel like we don't amount to anything and sometimes I feel uncomfortable about that.

Coach G, you make it seem like it's a smart and dumb group in math because you put people that know how to do math together, and people that don't know how to do math and that's not right.

These and other similar comments from students helped convince me to stop using ability grouping. This feedback was particularly compelling to me because it came from students in low and high groups. It's also important for teachers to notice what students . And in this case, not one student spoke out or wrote to me in favor of ability groups. don't say

Though students were grateful to me for scrapping ability groups ("Thank you for understanding and not putting us in that group."), I still didn't know how to address their diverse learning needs. But through research, workshops, conversations with colleagues, trial and error, ongoing feedback from students, and relentless reflection, I developed the student-centered approach that I've shared on this blog. An approach characterized by high expectations of all students, and classroom structures and strategies that enable students to meet those expectations including:

Assigning students to heterogeneous groups with the expectation that, per my Hierarchy of Help, they first work through academic tasks independently at their own pace using all available resources; then consult with group member(s) if necessary; and finally, seek the teacher's help when all members of a group are stuck.

Ensuring all students have a meaningful and challenging academic task at all times, including early finisher activities for students who complete an activity while their peers are still working on it.

As always, I evaluated the merits of this approach based on its effects on students. This included increases in engagement and learning among my least advanced students such as those in my " Encore Algebra" class. It also included positive responses from advanced students, who many people believe are shortchanged when schools forgo ability grouping (and/or tracking):

This experience that I had in this class was like no other experiences I've had. But it's a cool thing... You make us want to think and want to learn. It's not just a copy problems from the book routine but it's like a help me, help you thing.

I worked hard, and learned a lot of new and interesting math.

Out of all of my math classes I learned the most out of this class.

You taught me a lot of things that I thought were very hard for me to learn.

I recognize that ability grouping may meet the needs of diverse groups of students in some instances--an example being well-run guided reading where teachers create regular opportunities to assess and address all students' needs rather than isolate themselves with the guided reading group. But as I used it and as I've most often seen others use it, ability grouping is flawed for many reasons including these misguided presumptions:

Ability is defined by students' past performance (usually on a test) rather than their potential.

Students' past performance (again, usually on a test) is strictly a reflection of their ability, without regard for other factors that may affect learning or students' ability to demonstrate what they've learned.

Ability--again, defined by past performance--is a more reliable predictor of success than effort is.

Learning has more to do with intelligence than with self-reliance, resourcefulness, persistence, and other non-cognitive qualities.

It's more important for teachers to assist struggling students than to assess all students.

Teachers should plan lessons with the goal of preventing students from making mistakes rather than preparing for their mistakes.

Students need teachers to be their primary source of information. (I'm not sure this was ever the case, but it certainly isn't now when students have the world at their fingertips.)

Differentiated instruction requires different tasks for different students.

In Detracking for Excellence and Equity, Carol Corbett Burris and Delia Garrity share why and how their district, Rockville Centre in New York, eliminated tracking in favor of heterogeneous classes with equal and high expectations of all students. They not only explain why detracking is necessary, but also how to build support for it among teachers and parents, how to revise curriculum to "level-up" instruction, and how to support teaching and learning in heterogeneous classrooms.

Burris and Garrity provide an inspiring and practical model for school leaders seeking to bring excellence and equity to their districts. But they also acknowledge that Rockville's transformation took "years of steady and thoughtful work, with parallel attention to adults' and students' learning needs," as Jeannie Oakes and Martin Lipton point out in the foreword of Maybe that's why there's been a Detracking for Excellence and Equity. resurgence of ability grouping in recent years: not because it's better for students, but because it's easier for schools.
Join my mailing list for announcements about the work I do to improve teaching and learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
ability grouping tracking heterogeneous groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ability Grouping: Better for Students or Easier for Schools?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I never worked harder in or out of the classroom than I did when preparing and presenting two lessons per class. Yet despite my diligence, ability grouping was ineffective, as reflected in students' actions and words: "You are too bogus Coach G.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Detracking for Excellence and Equity
Carol Corbett Burris and Delia T. Garrity
About the Authors | Comments

About This Book

Ability grouping. Leveling systems. Streaming. This is the modern way of talking about tracking -- the traditional practice of sorting and selecting students based on test scores and other criteria, and then steering these groups into "the most appropriate" course of study.

In 1987, New York's suburban Rockville Centre School District faced the fact that its longstanding tracking system was resulting in unequal educational opportunities and allowing racial and socioeconomic stratification of its student population.

School leaders embarked on an ambitious program of reform: reexamining beliefs about intelligence, ability, and instruction, and offering all students the opportunity to study a rigorous curriculum in heterogeneous classrooms.

In this book, authors Carol Corbett Burris and Delia T. Garrity, veterans of the Rockville Centre School District, offer an experience-based and research-supported argument that detracking-implemented with planning, patience, and persistence-can do in every school district what it did in theirs: raise achievement across the board and dramatically narrow the achievement gap.

Their main goal is a practical one: to provide educational leaders with proven strategies for launching, sustaining, and monitoring a successful detracking reform. Here, you'll read

Why detracking is necessary, the benefits it brings, and how to build support among teachers and parents

How to revise curriculum to "level-up" instruction

How to establish a multiyear, personalized professional development program to help teachers address new instructional needs

How to best support effective teaching and learning in a heterogeneous classroom

Detracking for Excellence and Equity outlines a comprehensive approach built on self-reflection, direct action, vigilant supervision, and a set of very clear beliefs: that schools and opportunity matter; that acceleration and enrichment will improve all students' achievement; and that all students deserve access to the best curriculum.
See the book's table of contents and read excerpts.
Audio Interviews with the Authors (MP3s)

Share This Page

Book Details

Are You a Member?

Aboutthe Authors

CAROL CORBETT BURRIS has served as principal of South Side High School in Rockville Centre School District, New York, since 2000. Prior to becoming principal, she was an assistant principal at South Side, a teacher of Spanish at the middle and high school level, and a school board member for 10 years. Carol received her doctorate from Teachers College, Columbia University.
Read More
DELIA T. GARRITY has been a public school educator for 37 years, serving as a math teacher, teacher of the gifted, mathematics department chairperson, curriculum supervisor, assistant principal, and assistant superintendent. Since 1999, she has been the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction in Rockville Centre School District, New York, where she provided the leadership in opening academic doors to all students and designed a comprehensive professional learning model for teachers.
Read More

Keywords

Other Books by Keyword

Other Resources by Keyword

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ASCD Book: Detracking for Excellence and Equity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Detracking for Excellence and Equity Carol Corbett Burris and Delia T. Garrity About the Authors | Comments About This Book Ability grouping. Leveling systems. Streaming. This is the modern way of talking about tracking -- the traditional practice of sorting and selecting students based on test scores and other criteria, and then steering these groups into "the most appropriate" course of study.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From time to time, Education World reposts a previously published article that we think might be of interest to administrators. Before reposting, we update all links and add new resources to the articles. We hope you find this archived article to be of value

Logic, emotion, and research often clash in the longstanding debate over the advantages and disadvantages of ability grouping (tracking). Should it be left up to the courts to decide whether such grouping is fair or not?

Is ability grouping (or tracking) an efficient way to handle differences in student abilities? Does such grouping benefit students---or does it unfairly label them? Research, logic, and emotion often clash when responding to those questions.

Ability grouping increases student achievement by allowing teachers to focus instruction, proponents say. Teaching a group of like-ability students allows teachers to adjust the pace of instruction to students' needs. For example, a teacher might instruct at a slower pace---providing more repetition and reinforcement---with a group of low-achieving students than he or she would with a group of high achievers. A class of high achievers might be given more opportunities for independent research and cooperative group discussion than a group of low achievers would be given; high achievers might be asked to apply their skills to solving higher-level thinking problems too.

So goes the theory behind grouping by ability.

But is that fair? Is the theory supported by research? And what do the courts have to say about grouping by ability?

In a comprehensive review of research on different types of ability grouping in the elementary school, Robert E. Slavin (1986) found that some forms of grouping can result in increased student achievement. Slavin's review focused on five grouping plans.

Grouping students as a class by ability for all subjects doesn't improve achievement.

Students grouped heterogeneously for most of the school day, but regrouped according to ability for one or two subjects, can improve achievement in those areas for which they are grouped.

Grouping heterogeneously except for reading instruction (commonly referred to as "The Joplin Plan") improves reading achievement.

Nongraded instruction---instruction that groups students according to ability rather than age and that allows students to progress at their own rates---can result in improved achievement.

In-class grouping---a common approach in which teachers break out two or three ability-based groups within a class for instruction---can benefit student achievement. (Slavin's research supports this practice for math instruction. Findings related to reading instruction aren't as conclusive; in-class grouping is so widespread a practice for teaching reading that it's difficult to find "control groups" for such a comparative study.)

Any grouping plan, Slavin concludes, must allow for frequent reevaluation of students' skills, and such grouping must allow for easy reassignment of students who show progress.

"UNTRACK" THOSE SCHOOLS!

Ability grouping doesn't improve achievement and is harmful to students. Such grouping should be banned, says Anne Wheelock, author of Crossing the Tracks: How "Untracking" Can Save America's Schools (New Press, 1992). The practice of grouping by ability is too widespread and too widely accepted, Wheelock adds.

Wheelock says that about 60 percent of elementary schools practice some form of whole-class ability grouping, including Chapter 1 classes and special classes for gifted students. Survey results published in Education Week (see Resources below) in 1995 found that two-thirds of U.S. high schools were at least moderately tracked.

Ability tracking is harmful for a number of reasons, Wheelock told Instructor in A Talk with Anne Wheelock.

The criteria used to group kids are based on subjective perceptions and fairly narrow views of intelligence.

Tracking leads students to take on labels---both in their own minds as well as in the minds of their teachers---that are usually associated with the pace of learning (such as "slow" or "fast" learners). Because of this, we end up confusing students' pace of learning with their capacity to learn.

We associate students' placement with the type of learners they are and therefore create different expectations for different groups of students.

Once students are grouped, they generally stay at that level for their school careers, and the gap between achievement and levels becomes exaggerated over time. The notion that students' achievement levels at any given time will predict their achievement in the future becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Wheelock doesn't dismiss all forms of ability grouping. For instance, she notes, a group might be set up within a class to help students who are having difficulty with a specific skill. Or a group might be formed to "pre-teach" a skill to a group of students who might have difficulty grasping a concept.

ABILITY GROUPING'S EVERLASTING EFFECTS

Carol Nelson tells the stories of "Rick" and "Monica," two of her college students who were majoring in elementary education in Organizing for Effective Reading Instruction. Those two students talked about the effects on them of ability grouping when they were in elementary school.

Rick wrote about why he always worked so hard to remain in the middle group. "The higher group, you see, always had so much stuff to do and I never saw those kids out to recess because they had to stay in and finish what they had started. Now the lower group was not the group to be in either. Even as young as first grade, I knew what it meant to be in the lower group and how those kids were thought of as "lower" than the rest of us. This is the problem with labeling and grouping."
Monica wrote "I have nothing but bad memories about my reading groups in elementary school. I was constantly being left behind and humiliated by my teacher No attempt to help me as an individual by my teacher was ever made---and if it had, it probably wouldn't have been a pleasant one. I think that teachers should be more patient with those students who have reading problems and maybe offer other ways to help than put them in the low group."

BUT IS ABILITY GROUPING LEGAL?

Writing in Harvard Educational Review (see Resources below), Kevin G. Welner and Jeanne Oakes assert that the courts can play an important role in "detracking" America's schools. They point to research (Fullwood, 1991) that revealed that 53 percent of White Americans regarded African Americans as likely to be less intelligent that Whites; 55 percent of White Americans felt Latinos were likely to be less intelligent that Whites. Where does that perception come from? The perception might be based, in part, on school systems that track their students according to ability. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) might have started the era of desegregation, Oakes says, but ability grouping has canceled out many of the possible benefits of that landmark decision. Tracking, in many cases, is just another form of racial segregation. One test of the use of ability grouping was highlighted in an article which appeared in the magazine Principal (see Resources below). In that article, authors Perry A. Zirkel and Ivan B. Gluckman wrote:

Approximately half the students in the Augusta, Arkansas, school district are African American. The district has used ability grouping since 1970, when it was forced to dismantle its segregated system. In 1991, an African American parent filed suit, claiming that the district's ability grouping and placement practices violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.
In 1992. . . . the district changed its policy of maintaining three homogeneous ability groups (low, middle, and high) for each class, an arrangement which saw a disproportionate number of African American students in the lower ability groups. Under the new policy, grades K-3 would gradually move from homogenous to heterogeneous grouping over a three-year period, and grades 4-6 would retain homogenous grouping only for math, reading, and language arts under a so-called "modified Joplin plan."

The court decided that the Augusta district's pervasive ability grouping policy for grades K-3 violated the Fourteenth Amendment, but that the modified Joplin plan for grades 4-6 did not violate the Constitution [Simmons v. Hooks, 843 F. Supp. 1296 (E.D. Ark. 1994)]. The difference appeared to be the evidence, in the form of expert testimony, that grouping for reading had beneficial effects that outweighed the stigma of homogeneity.

In their conclusion, Zirkel and Gluckman note, "the legal boundaries are, on the whole, notably broad with regard to ability grouping. Principals should recognize that the answer to the issue of heterogeneous versus homogeneous groups is in many cases a matter for educators, not judges, to determine."

THE DEBATE CONTINUES

So is tracking a fair way for educators to deal with the wide disparity in students' abilities? Or is it a form of discrimination that has few benefits for students and ought to be outlawed? The issue has been the subject of debate for many years---and will be for years to come. One thing is certain: Further research is essential for educators (and, perhaps, for the courts) charged with making informed decisions about the advantages or disadvantages of ability grouping.

Article by Gary Hopkins
Education WorldÂ® Editor-in-Chief
Copyright Â© 2006 Education World

Related Resources

It's the Law: Ability Grouping
By Perry A. Zirkel and Ivan B. Gluckman,Principal, September 1995.

Ability Grouping: The New Susceptibility of School Tracking Systems to Legal Challenges
By Kevin G. Welner and Jeanne Oakes,Harvard Educational Review, Fall 1996.

Tracking May Not Be as Common a Practice as Assumed, Study Says
The results of a survey published inEducation Week, May 3, 1995.

An Organizational Analysis of the Effects of Ability Grouping
A study of the effects of ability grouping in 92 honors, regular, and remedial English classes in eighth and ninth grade, by Adam Gamoran, Martin Nystrand, Mark Berends, and Paul C. LePore,American Educational Research Journal, Winter 1995.

Learning: Tracking
By Naomi Barko,Parents, January 1996.

Related Sites

Does Ability Grouping Help or Hurt? -- A Talk with Anne Wheelock
Grouping students by ability is one of the most talked-about topics in education. Does it benefit students? Inhibit their learnin? Not matter?

Ability Grouping in Elementary Schools
An ERIC Digest report by John Hollifield. This report summarizes the conclusions of Robert E. Slavin's 1986 comprehensive review of research on the different types of ability grouping in elementary schools.

Organizing for Effective Reading Instruction
An ERIC Digest report by Carol Nelson looks at studies of within-class reading ability grouping.

Originally published 07/18/1997
Last updated 02/24/2009

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Ability Grouping the Way to Go---Or Should It Go Away? | Education World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From time to time, Education World reposts a previously published article that we think might be of interest to administrators. Before reposting, we update all links and add new resources to the articles. We hope you find this archived article to be of value Logic, emotion, and research often clash in the longstanding debate over the advantages and disadvantages of ability grouping (tracking).