In Ability Grouping, Students Can Learn at a Pace Set for Them

One of education’s most contentious debates is over the pluses and minuses of grouping children by ability. Strong and plausible arguments can be made on either side, supported by reputable authorities and credible evidence.

Last week I summarized the main arguments of those who seek to abolish ability grouping. This week, it’s time to hear from the “pro” side.

Generally, advocates of ability grouping say it is the best way to meet the diverse skill levels of students.

If ability grouping were eliminated, its supporters say, the resulting heterogeneous classes would hurt students--especially the highest and lowest achievers--in several ways.

The main concern is that mixing high-, average- and low-achieving students in the same class would mean that each group receives less instructional time--something that’s already at a premium in California’s unusually large classes.

For example, in a typical heterogeneous class, there are at least a few students whose skills are so poor that they need extensive remedial help. That means students at other skill levels are likely to get short shrift.

In addition, gifted children may suffer in heterogeneous classes because they’re held back by low-achievers who need constant reteaching. That can lead gifted students to boredom, disruptive behavior, disinterest in school and, ultimately, lower performance.

Opponents of ability grouping say this can be avoided partly by using high achievers as role models and peer-tutors for lower achievers.

But grouping advocates disagree; they say the role of gifted (and all other) students is to learn, not to teach their peers.

Separating students into ability groups makes more sense, they say. It allows the fast learners to move more rapidly, and gives the slower learners the gentle pace and reteaching they need.

Grouping advocates also dispute their opponents’ claim that children are stigmatized by assignment to high, average or low groups. The stigma will still occur in heterogeneous classes, they predict, as children quickly realize their place in the classroom “intelligence hierarchy.”

Supporters of grouping further argue that the stigma felt by average and low students will only increase when they are forced to compete with superior students in the same room, day after day.

Also, some studies of heterogeneous classes suggest that high achievers develop contempt for their lower-achieving peers, whom they perceive as holding them back.

Thus, instead of providing an egalitarian environment, mixing ability levels in a class only reminds children of their differences and shortcomings.

Teachers who favor ability grouping worry that heterogeneous classes also create more inequities between ability groups.

They ask, for example, how a teacher can give the same assignment to a gifted child and a student with limited English skills, then grade their work fairly.

Although grouping opponents answer that children should receive assignments appropriate for their ability levels, grouping fans doubt the feasibility of coordinating several teaching strategies, assignments, exams or sets of standards--all at the same time, in a single class period, every day.

In fact, some surveys of teachers indicate that the demands of meeting the needs of a heterogeneous class drive teachers back to the traditional method of “teaching to the middle.” Again, high achievers and low achievers suffer.

Those favoring ability grouping are quick to note that most schools that have abolished ability grouping make a significant exception: They retain an assortment of honors, gifted and advanced placement classes. Isn’t is hypocritical, they ask, for schools that claim to espouse egalitarian, heterogeneous grouping to retain such blatantly elitist programs? If high achievers are given honors programs that focus on their specific learning needs, shouldn’t the low and middle students (about 60% of students at a typical school) be permitted similar benefits?

Thus grouping advocates suggest separating low-, average- and high-ability students and giving them equally good teachers, materials and instruction--and equally high expectations. That way, students can benefit from courses that are designed for their particular skill levels.

And, with frequent re-evaluation, every student can have the opportunity to advance as far as he or she is capable.

Mary Laine Yarber teaches English at Santa Monica High School.