In a message dated 12/17/2001 7:43:27 PM Central Standard Time, Michael
Atherton writes:
> As Mr. Mann points out there are two basic alternatives: you can place
students in a class that matches their ability, or you can try to
individualize instruction within one class. There are a number of ways to
structure the latter approach. 1) You can use what's called computer aided
instruction (CAI). This approach is expensive and has never been as
successful as we would like. 2) You can do the same thing using print
materials, which is less expensive and depending of the instructional
technique maybe effective. 3) You can use some type of cooperative learning,
where students help each other. [snip]
All of the above approaches are utilized in schools that differentiate the
curriculum by ability-grouping as well as in schools that do not
ability-group. What distinguishes tracked from untracked schools are the
goals, which in turn influence how different approaches to learning are used.
> This approach [cooperative learning] has been very controversial because
while it is helpful for low ability students, it does very little for
advanced students. The decision that you have to make for the third approach
is whether you are willing to sacrifice the achievement of the stronger
students for that of the weaker ones [snip].
Actually, "cooperative learning" as such is not at all controversial.
Cooperative learning strategies are utilized by teachers at schools that
differentiate the curriculum by ability-grouping as well as untracked
schools. Basically, whenever a group of students work together they have an
opportunity to learn from and help each other.
When it comes to cooperative learning, what advocates of ability-grouping
object to isn't the concept of kids working together, it's the concept of
kids of different ability-levels working together. However, in any given
subject area, some students will be stronger than others with whom they are
grouped. A certain amount of peer tutoring happens when children work
together, and many teachers deliberately put students of unequal ability
together for this purpose. Project STAR researchers noted a strong
correlation between the use of peer tutoring and average test scores in
grades K-3. A common feature of the top-scoring 10% of all project STAR
classrooms was the extensive use of peer tutoring. Source: Pate-Bain, H.,
Achilles, C.M., Boyd-Zaharias, J., & Mckenna, B. (1992). "Class size does
make a difference [Project STAR in Tennessee]." Phi Beta Kappan, 74, 253-256.
It should also be noted that few students are uniformly strong or weak in
every subject area. The brains of some kids process information in a way
that makes them strong in some areas and weak in others. By the way, if a
thematic integrative curriculum is used, it is possible for most student to
be strong, weak, and average compared to others with whom they are grouped
for a particular project.
The alternative to ability-grouping is to keep kids with a wide variety of
abilities on a single academic / college-preparatory track, and to
individualize the curriculum. In a one-track classroom, the teacher
typically can spend a lot less time on group and one-on-one instruction, and
more time actively observing and troubleshooting. In a one-track classroom
the teacher can be more focused on the educational planning process. That's
why it is possible to more effectively meet the needs of all students in an
untracked classroom.
> And, this is not a racial issue because there are stronger and weaker
students of all races...[snip]
Is it merely a coincidence that ability-grouping was not commonly practiced
by elementary school teachers prior to the 1954 Supreme Court decision in
Brown v. Board of Education? I don't think so. Ability-grouping was promoted
by self-identified white supremacists as a way to keep most blacks in their
place at the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder.
Since the late 1950's ability-grouping has been adopted as the preferred
educational model by departments of education in all 50 states and the
federal government. School districts throughout the US have also been
encouraged or mandated to offer gifted education. Gifted / talented programs
are used as a Trojan horse. If gifted / talented programming begins in grade
4, the sorting out process usually begins no later than the beginning of
grade 3. Stone, E. (1990, May 6). "Gifted children's programs: a matter of
class [New York City programs]." The New York Times Magazine, pp. 48-49+.
Ability-grouping is a colorblind practice in the sense that the idea is to
discriminate on the basis of ability, not race. However, it has a disparate
impact on whites and blacks. Test score data collected by the Minneapolis
Public Schools and disaggregated by race suggests that about 10% of the black
students and 40% of the white students were placed in gifted and talented
programs during the 1990s. Black students are also greatly over-represented
in the lowest ability-level groups, special education classes, and
alternative schools for troubled youth.
Doug Mann, Kingfield
Doug Mann for School Board
<http://educationright.tripod.com>
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
