Brooks Middle School has been experimenting with ability grouping this year, and some parents and educators, not surprisingly, object. The school’s “on the down-low” approach to the experiment underscores how controversial it is. The arguments against it, as articulated quite well in a “One View” essay in our Viewpoints pages Jan. 30 (“Ability grouping at Brooks: the wrong approach”) are strong. You can’t do ability grouping in a diverse school district if it means the classes end up segregated by race. I don’t know how segregated they might become, but the statistical achievement gap indicates there would likely be some segregation. In Oak Park, that just isn’t acceptable.
The “concerned Brooks parents & educators” also say “the research” doesn’t support the notion that ability grouping works. That may well be, but I tend to be a little suspicious of the “research doesn’t support” argument because only the very knowledgeable in any particular field are even familiar with what the research does or doesn’t support–and, naturally, personal biases tend to skew assessments of what research supports or doesn’t. But presuming someone in this group actually has read most of “the research” (and since I have not), I’ll take them at their word for the moment.
One argument that seems to make sense on the ability grouping side is that it must be easier for teachers to teach students of similar “ability.” What that really means, however, is students of similar “performance,” which doesn’t always correlate with ability. I know this from personal experience with my own son as he moved through District 97 more than 10 years ago.
But if ability grouping isn’t the answer, does that mean the “egalitarian” approach (entire spectrum represented in each classroom) is? I’m guessing “the research” doesn’t show much on that side either. That’s because I think we still don’t have a clue really what works in education. We know that every child has an individual “learning style,” but teachers haven’t mastered the difficult challenge of teaching (and reaching) each student.
My impression of D97 teachers during the ’90s was that classrooms ended up “self-segregating.” Human nature being human nature, harried teachers more readily teach the kids who are willing to be taught. Those who resist, for a myriad reasons, tend to fall behind or at least get shorter shrift. Only the extraordinary teachers have the ability and energy and dedication to reach out to underachieving kids and try to inspire them to fulfill their potential. We no doubt have some extraordinary teachers at D97, but, like anywhere else, we also have some ordinary teachers. Just as there are different abilities among students, there are different abilities among teachers. If you segregate by ability (i.e. performance), would ordinary teachers teach the extraordinary kids or the ordinary kids? Who would the extraordinary teachers teach? Where are their skills most needed and/or effective? You see the difficulty.
The ability grouping issue has been a hot one for a long time in D97. It was particularly volatile from the mid-1980s to the early ’90s. The reason it keeps coming back is that the alternative isn’t working either–at least not well enough.