Why don't schools classify kids by ability instead of age?

[go_go_gadget]

One of the most frequently cited advantages of homeschooling is the option to curriculum from different levels according to students' strengths and weaknesses, but why don't schools do that? Why don't they issue an intake test and place students accordingly, and then move them up or down as necessary from that point on? Why is keeping kids in classes with kids born within the same 12-month period more important than placing them by ability? That would go a long way toward mitigating the disadvantages of large class sizes, because teachers could teach more efficiently if the range of their students' abilities was narrower. Resources might be freed up for kids at both of the extreme ends of the spectrum, even. The only problem I can think of is that it might make the graduation timeline less certain, but already some kids graduate early and others take an extra year somewhere along the line, so this wouldn't seem to be very different.

[Chris in VA]

They do, to some extent. It's very common for elementary kids to have at least 3 groups for math and reading, for example.

But school is also about the social setting, and mixing ages instead of abilities in a large group means you have to deal with those ramifications, and that can be more than the school wants to take on, esp if the kids themselves are not used to it.

[Skadi]

Classroom management. The idea is that it's easier for a teacher to control a group of 25 kids who are all the same age.

 

Ironically, schools have also taken up the philosophy that it is inherently good to have a "mixed" class of kids of different abilities and education levels, so an ideal classroom would have kids with IQs ranging from 60 to 150, kids who are barely literate with kids reading several grades above their level, etc. Academic educators seem to believe that it will "pull everyone up" by some sort of osmosis. It's a veritable nightmare for the teachers.

[chepyl]

In the town where we used to live, they administered a kindergarten screening test. They divided the kids into 3 groups, by ability - average, above avg, below avg. Then they divided the 3 piles of info sheets into boys and girls (now 6 piles). The teachers walked around the table picking one sheet from each pile until all the sheets were gone. The sheets in their hands became their class.

 

I asked why they did not divide them by ability, my friend said it would be unfair to the teachers for a couple of teachers to have only below average students.

 

*My friend was a k teacher.

 

That was the first time I seriously considered HSing, ds was only 6 months old at the time.

[Random]

Some schools do arrange students by ability instead of by age. In fact, a prestigious school in the Phoenix area does this and has had impressive results.

[lisamarie]

Some schools do arrange students by ability instead of by age. In fact, a prestigious school in the Phoenix area does this and has had impressive results.

 

:iagree: We just started sending my youngest to a K4 class at the school my DH and I graduated from. They've since gotten a new principal. In our pre-approval interview the principal told us how the school works now. All the grades have the same subject at the same time so that the kids can all go to their own levels in each subject. So a 3rd grader could theoretically go to 5th grade for math and 2nd grade for english. If only I had the $10K to send my older 2 gifted kids there I would be a happy camper.

 

It's a Christian classical school--they teach latin, rhetoric, logic, the history cycle, etc. It sure wasn't that way when DH and I were there.

[kalanamak]

Hassle and expense.

[snowbeltmom]

In the town where we used to live, they administered a kindergarten screening test. They divided the kids into 3 groups, by ability - average, above avg, below avg. Then they divided the 3 piles of info sheets into boys and girls (now 6 piles). The teachers walked around the table picking one sheet from each pile until all the sheets were gone. The sheets in their hands became their class.

 

I asked why they did not divide them by ability, my friend said it would be unfair to the teachers for a couple of teachers to have only below average students.

 

This is exactly how our local district determines classes until the "honors" program starts for math and language arts in 6th grade. My dd's first grade teacher said that they have heterogeneous classrooms in order to avoid potential lawsuits.:confused:

 

It would be so easy for this school to group by ability - all 10 classes for each grade are housed in the same building.

[regentrude]

Because it is an organizational nightmare.

You have students who are three years ahead in math, but grade level in English and maybe behind in one other subject. You'd have them constantly switching and changing for each subject, in some cases to different buildings.

Not doable. As much as I had wished for such a system.

 

And then there is the whole other problem of having a highly accelerated learner in a class with students who are 3-5 years older.

 

I can see some general tracking happening (and come from a country where that is the norm as of 5th grade). But even in a system like this, there will be kids who are still extremely advanced and not placed according to their ability.

[ereks mom]

Why is keeping kids in classes with kids born within the same 12-month period more important than placing them by ability?

 

I think it has a lot to do with the stigma that would be associated with being in the less able group. And don't think kids wouldn't realize which group they were in.

 

To some extent, most schools do group by ability level. They compromise, though, and group by ability level within a given age group. This is especially the case in schools with a fairly large population, but you also find it in small schools in which there are only a few kids in a particular grade. When I taught 5th grade in a fairly large school, there were 4 classrooms of 5th graders. They were divided into 2 ability groups; I had the lower group and taught them English and reading, and the teacher next door taught math and science to that same group. The teachers across the hall taught the higher group. Even in small schools, there are often different reading groups within the same classroom; the teacher will often have a helper who takes one group while she works with the other.

[ereks mom]

...I asked why they did not divide them by ability, my friend said it would be unfair to the teachers for a couple of teachers to have only below average students...

 

It IS unfair, but that's the way it was done when I taught in the public school. The teachers with the most seniority got to pick the classes they wanted, and of course, they picked the top classes. I had the low group every year for 5 years. I never had fewer than 24 students, and one year I had 33. Yes, 33 kids and no teacher's assistant, because our district only had assistants for grades K-3 at that time. (It is my understanding that they now only have assistants for kindergarten.) After 5 years, I quit. I was burned. out.

Edited November 5, 2011 by ereks mom

[Rosie_0801]

It IS unfair, but that's the way it was done when I taught in the public school. The teachers with the most seniority got to pick the classes they wanted, and of course, they picked the top class. I had the low group every year for 5 years. After that, I quit. I was burned out.

 

We had a friend with a crazy high IQ who taught English. Thanks to seniority, he was "dumped" with the low ability class and loved it. It was the only class he taught where he was allowed to actually teach, because the system had more or less written off those kids. I think he would have been delighted to teach more classes like that!

 

Rosie

[JessieC]

Most schools do some ability grouping within the same-age group, but I don't think this would work well on a school-wide basis. I mean, if you had a sixth grader who struggled in school, would you really want him or her to spend the day with second graders, or vice versa? This could be very tough on some kids.

[silliness7]

One of the most frequently cited advantages of homeschooling is the option to curriculum from different levels according to students' strengths and weaknesses, but why don't schools do that? Why don't they issue an intake test and place students accordingly, and then move them up or down as necessary from that point on? Why is keeping kids in classes with kids born within the same 12-month period more important than placing them by ability? That would go a long way toward mitigating the disadvantages of large class sizes, because teachers could teach more efficiently if the range of their students' abilities was narrower. Resources might be freed up for kids at both of the extreme ends of the spectrum, even. The only problem I can think of is that it might make the graduation timeline less certain, but already some kids graduate early and others take an extra year somewhere along the line, so this wouldn't seem to be very different.

 

I remember being sorted out into reading classes in elementary school and my sister tells me her kids are sorted out these days too. In highschool I was in the honors track. There was one classful of students in my graduating class that were on the same track. Aside from electives we took all of our classes together. I know there were some college prep tracks and some vocational tracks. So I think they do try to do this to some extent. Of course this would be more difficult with smaller schools.

[MeaganS]

When I was in middle school, one of the schools I went to did this. They were situated right across the street from the high school, so when it was determined 6 weeks after I moved there that I was wasting my time in 7th grade math, they just put me in with the 8th graders doing Algebra. They also allowed me to take a foreign language and science classes at the High School. So when I was in 8th grade, I walked across the parking lot to go to French II, Algebra II, and Physical Science. I loved it, and because it was sort of the norm there, no one thought it was weird at all. Granted, not all that many kids got to be advanced like that, it was more like their version of the Gifted program. Although, now that I'm thinking about it, their gifted program was one of the best I can remember as well. (I went to 12 different schools K-12, so I got to see a lot of what worked and what didn't from a child's perspective. It is a lot of what has influenced my decision to homeschool.)

[GoVanGogh]

Isn't "sorting by ability" a bit different, though, than say - promoting (grade advancing) by ability?

I read a few years ago about a school in (believe it was?) Colorado that was testing out grade promotion much like a college. All children enter at one level, say 101. When they mastered that material they were promoted to 102, 103, etc. Then a child could move through the subjects they had a natural talent in, but linger in those areas they need a bit more help.

"Sorting by ability" doesn't accomplish anything because schools tend to lump all students as either below average, average or above average across the board. My ps neighbor who reads at a high level but struggles with math cannot be grouped with the "above average" students because he isn't across the board advanced. He is grouped with the below average students because he is struggling in one area.

[AnnaM]

Just touching on the comments about kids being with other kids older or younger than them, but wouldnt that actually be ideal for the kids? They get a wider range of interaction and depending on how things were run you have older children learning empathy and how to help the youngers? I guess that is an utopian classroom but it works well in my head LOL

[Elinor Everywhere]

:iagree: We just started sending my youngest to a K4 class at the school my DH and I graduated from. They've since gotten a new principal. In our pre-approval interview the principal told us how the school works now. All the grades have the same subject at the same time so that the kids can all go to their own levels in each subject. So a 3rd grader could theoretically go to 5th grade for math and 2nd grade for english. If only I had the $10K to send my older 2 gifted kids there I would be a happy camper.

 

It's a Christian classical school--they teach latin, rhetoric, logic, the history cycle, etc. It sure wasn't that way when DH and I were there.

 

So it CAN work. Love that.

[chepyl]

It IS unfair, but that's the way it was done when I taught in the public school. The teachers with the most seniority got to pick the classes they wanted, and of course, they picked the top classes. I had the low group every year for 5 years. I never had fewer than 24 students, and one year I had 33. Yes, 33 kids and no teacher's assistant, because our district only had assistants for grades K-3 at that time. (It is my understanding that they now only have assistants for kindergarten.) After 5 years, I quit. I was burned. out.

 

That is unfair. If you're going to sort by abilities in K, the teachers should take turns. Every third year each teacher would take the below avg group.

[Laura Corin]

They used to in Britain. Children sat on benches, known as 'forms' in one-room classrooms (often one room for girls, one for boys). You progressed from bench to bench within the classroom, depending on what you had learned, not your age. When you finished the 6th form, you left school. I don't know when age-related classes began - perhaps when schools got bigger?

 

Laura

[Ester Maria]

1. Logistics (organizational issues);

 

2. The cost of handling those organizational / scheduling / extra teachers issues that would arise if one wanted to attempt it;

 

3. "Fairness" among teachers (there are very few enthusiasts who would volunteer to teach a below average class; likewise, obviously, most teachers are thrilled to teach the accomplished and smart students);

 

4. Parental ego concerns (most parents tend to overestimate their children's actual intellectual capacities, from my experience; grouping children like that could be quite problematic for many parents, bring about tension at home and forcing child to perform better at all costs; often you would have a factor of societal shame, etc.);

 

5. Child ego concerns (much more problematic than the previous one: children can easily start thinking of themselves as "not cut out for this or that subject" or not cut for learning in general; there is a whole moral issue of separating children this young and possibly ostracizing them based on academic performance);

 

6. The idea that other than the educational one, a school has a strong secondary (or, these days, more like *primary* :rolleyes:) social function and that it is optimal that children recieve their education within approximately the same age / emotional maturity group as well as be exposed to a natural variety of temperaments, intellects, backgrounds, etc.;

 

7. Inadequate criteria for selections in the first place (IQ tests are very problematic in and of themselves; school tests are typically not "smart" enough or elaborate enough to provide a fair assessment, etc.);

 

 

If you ask me, some of these are fair and legitimate concerns. You really DO compromise a whole lot of things by opting to organize a school that way. On the other hand, no solution is ever going to be perfect, so why not have an imperfect solution which at least helps our best and brightest rather than an imperfect solution of No Child Gets Ahead?

I find the middle ground, i.e. a tracking system (with fixed classes on different levels), to be the optimal solution, albeit imperfect too. True, within a tracking system it is not possible to oscillate so much individually, but classes on the whole are all given higher / lower level instruction.

[Murmer]

The problem is that dividing in k means children can never get out of the group they were placed in at 5. That is why they don't ability group because it is wrong....now allowing true differentiation is a different story. Schools need to figure out a way to let kids move at their own levels and not in a factory made manner. Many schools do this in reading but they really should do it for all subjects.

[go_go_gadget]

Because it is an organizational nightmare.

You have students who are three years ahead in math, but grade level in English and maybe behind in one other subject. You'd have them constantly switching and changing for each subject, in some cases to different buildings.

Not doable. As much as I had wished for such a system.

 

And then there is the whole other problem of having a highly accelerated learner in a class with students who are 3-5 years older.

 

I can see some general tracking happening (and come from a country where that is the norm as of 5th grade). But even in a system like this, there will be kids who are still extremely advanced and not placed according to their ability.

 

When I was in elementary school, we were shuffled from building to building for different subjects (P.E., science, art) anyway. I don't really see why that would be a problem. Just like in middle or high school, you'd go to a different room at the bell.

 

Regarding very advanced kids in with older kids, that's where the possible resources that could be freed up by the entire school running more efficiently could come in, and the most advanced students could possibly have their own class. And yes, there would still be some students who would be so far above or below the mean that they wouldn't be served perfectly by it, but the vast majority of students would be far better served than they are in the current system and the extremes would still be better off than they are now.

 

I think it has a lot to do with the stigma that would be associated with being in the less able group. And don't think kids wouldn't realize which group they were in.

 

I'm sure they would notice, just as they notice now when they're sorted into reading groups or they see that Student A finishes their math in 1/10th the time everyone else does, or that Student B never finishes. I don't see much of a difference, except that instead of pretending that differences don't exist when everyone can clearly see that they do, everyone would get more out of their education.

 

Most schools do some ability grouping within the same-age group, but I don't think this would work well on a school-wide basis. I mean, if you had a sixth grader who struggled in school, would you really want him or her to spend the day with second graders, or vice versa? This could be very tough on some kids.

 

Again, a case for a separate class for low achievers, just like a separate class for high achievers.

 

Isn't "sorting by ability" a bit different, though, than say - promoting (grade advancing) by ability?

I read a few years ago about a school in (believe it was?) Colorado that was testing out grade promotion much like a college. All children enter at one level, say 101. When they mastered that material they were promoted to 102, 103, etc. Then a child could move through the subjects they had a natural talent in, but linger in those areas they need a bit more help.

"Sorting by ability" doesn't accomplish anything because schools tend to lump all students as either below average, average or above average across the board. My ps neighbor who reads at a high level but struggles with math cannot be grouped with the "above average" students because he isn't across the board advanced. He is grouped with the below average students because he is struggling in one area.

 

What the Colorado school you mentioned does is basically what I was suggesting, just with more detail. And I contend that it isn't that "'Sorting by ability doesn't accomplish anything,"' it's that the schools that assign a child's ability "rank" according to their ability across the board are not sorting by ability very well.

 

The problem is that dividing in k means children can never get out of the group they were placed in at 5. That is why they don't ability group because it is wrong....now allowing true differentiation is a different story. Schools need to figure out a way to let kids move at their own levels and not in a factory made manner. Many schools do this in reading but they really should do it for all subjects.

 

That's exactly what I was suggesting, that incoming students should be assessed and placed accordingly, and then move up or down as needed.

Edited November 6, 2011 by go_go_gadget

[ondreeuh]

Our school does this. My kids go to a two-room school with a total of 13 students. The five primary students (grades 2-6) are often split into a group of 2 and a group of 3. The 8 high schoolers are taught together except when my daughter does independent work.

 

The main difficulty I see is teaching everyone different material. Math is the only subject that is truly customized for each student (they are given placement tests and do Saxon mostly on their own). In the primary room, reading is done by ability group. Writing is individualized, so that all students in a group will write about the same material but will have different expectations as to their writing. One kid might write an essay while another will write a paragraph. Science and social studies are done altogether and the content is rotated.

 

In the high school room, this system falls apart. I think for it to work, the students would have to be pretty darn independent. That's not the situation at our school. Because the kids are all missing different pieces of different levels, my husband tries to teach what most of them need and figure for some kids it will be review. In order to get "credit," the students have to pass assessments to show they have mastered the material. Well, some pass and some don't, and the teacher has to move on.

 

There are advantages of a multi-age, multi-level school, especially in the way the kids of various ages relate to each other. It helps that they're all related to each other (except for my kids).

[Heather in Neverland]

We group by ability for math and reading from kindy on up at my school. It was the first thing i instituted when i got the job.

 

It is tough, expensive, and an organizational nightmare.

 

But it is worth it.

[JFSinIL]

My middle school did math this way for a time - every three weeks we would be tested and resorted, We either stayed put for a redo of the three weeks of material or got to move on to another classroom, Believe me, those of us who had a hard time with math got frustrated and were teased for never budging from our "slot". I spent FOUR three-week rotation in the same spot before doing well enough on a test (and I did copy off another kid's paper at the time, being desperate) to move on. There was no outside tutoring or help - just if you didn't "get" a math concept you got to retake the same teaching presentation over and over until YOU did.

 

After a semester of remedial math in high school, I have never taken another math class (this was decades ago, before schools made x number of years of math and algebra a graduation requirement). Only the materials I used with my own kids in homeschool (VideoText, Teaching Textbooks, Chalkdust - different programs for different kids!) made sense to me, so that decades after bad school math experiences I "get" algebra, etc.

 

I think placing kids by ability instead of age in school, outside of reading/math, would led to too many parents pushing to have their kids placed in higher groups, and lots of teasing amongst the kids.

[LizzyBee]

They did when I was in school, but most schools don't any more because it's not politically correct.

[zaichiki]

There are two private schools in MA that do something like this. They've got age-groupings, like K-3, 4-6. I've heard that this is common with Montessori schools, too.

[zaichiki]

We group by ability for math and reading from kindy on up at my school. It was the first thing i instituted when i got the job.

 

It is tough, expensive, and an organizational nightmare.

 

But it is worth it.

 

 

Heather,

 

Can you expound a bit on how this approach is tougher, more expensive, and more of an organizational nightmare than the typical grade-level arrangement?

 

Curious.

:)

[zaichiki]

It IS unfair, but that's the way it was done when I taught in the public school. The teachers with the most seniority got to pick the classes they wanted, and of course, they picked the top classes. I had the low group every year for 5 years. I never had fewer than 24 students, and one year I had 33. Yes, 33 kids and no teacher's assistant, because our district only had assistants for grades K-3 at that time. (It is my understanding that they now only have assistants for kindergarten.) After 5 years, I quit. I was burned. out.

 

Hold up. Why is it unfair for a teacher to get below-average students? I taught special ed in my former life. I LOVED those kids. You teach differently, sure, but you're a teacher and it's your job to teach kids. It doesn't matter how advanced the kids are: they still need to be taught. It's not unfair that some teachers teach 1st grade material and some teach 5th. Same deal. If a teacher only wants to teach a certain type of learner I wonder about *why* he/she became a teacher.

 

I think the specific issue and your burnout were related to the number of kids and the lack of an aide. I agree that *that* is unfair.

[kiana]

Hold up. Why is it unfair for a teacher to get below-average students? I taught special ed in my former life. I LOVED those kids. You teach differently, sure, but you're a teacher and it's your job to teach kids. It doesn't matter how advanced the kids are: they still need to be taught. It's not unfair that some teachers teach 1st grade material and some teach 5th. Same deal. If a teacher only wants to teach a certain type of learner I wonder about *why* he/she became a teacher.

 

I think the specific issue and your burnout were related to the number of kids and the lack of an aide. I agree that *that* is unfair.

 

I would hypothesize that it's unfair that a teacher who actively wants to teach a variety of learners would always get the lowest level. And yes, while it IS their job to teach kids it gets frustrating to always have the kids who are far behind, and to never have a few who are capable of actually getting it after instruction.

 

I would also add, though, that imo if any class is overpopulated it should be the one at the highest level.

[beaners]

I think there are ways to make this more possible in the classroom. I do see some difficulty for a teacher in our current set up where such a large amount of time is devoted to managing and moving students.

 

I've been doing a lot of reading over the last year and a half about schools in different countries. In Japan there isn't differentiation at the elementary level. It's actually preferred to have large groups with different ability levels. In the ideal situation, you will have many different kinds of responses to a question. Some will be correct and further ahead of the current material. Some may approach the problem in a unique or roundabout way. Some will be incorrect and illustrate a common mistake. Some will be wrong on a fundamental level for the problem and allow an opportunity to show why something couldn't work. At least, that's the theory. It seems to work out fairly well from what I've read, including a book about an American family who spent a year in Japan. I don't think that you can easily transplant that type of mixed group into another setting and get the same results. The culture of working as a group and valuing all members of that group compared to the emphasis on individuals achieving as much as possible for themselves presents an obstacle.

 

I can also see some objections to free promotion for all students. My 4 year old is moving into about a fifth grade reading level. (Wow, that sounds pretentious. It's an example, sorry!) My 5th grade class read the Giver when it first came out. I would not want her reading that story, and I doubt she would have the life experience to understand a few of the themes. She certainly couldn't compose two pages of freewriting on the book without her hand falling off, although she could narrate them. It's not even a high school class and I'm uncomfortable. And this is why homeschooling is awesome.

 

I think the system would work out well for slightly advanced students. I think it could be beneficial for average and slightly behind students if done properly. I think it would probably be a bit cruel to some of the struggling students in the setting of our current culture. I hesitate to say cruel, because that's a slightly stronger sentiment than I feel. Perhaps it would be unkind? Done properly, it should be an opportunity for students to work at their own level and progress when they have mastered the material. I'd guess it's more likely to work out in a way that convinces students they have no reason to keep trying.

 

All of my thoughts here assume an average small school system (graduating 100 seniors) through a very large system (500, 1000+). I think this kind of setup works quite nicely in very small schools with less than 100 students total, because so much can be individualized to the student. Economies of scale can work to the advantage or disadvantage.

[Heather in Neverland]

Heather,

 

Can you expound a bit on how this approach is tougher, more expensive, and more of an organizational nightmare than the typical grade-level arrangement?

 

Curious.

:)

 

Well, at least with the way we do it, it requires more personnel. For instance, our 3rd grade class has two home room teachers and we have one additional math teacher. So when it is time for math each day we have three different levels of math going just for third grade.

 

We have 32 third graders. Eight of them go into the highest group that is running approximately a full grade level ahead. This is the extra math teacher. The rest are split (not always evenly) into two additional levels which equate to on grade level and below grade level.

 

And there is also the one girl we have who is extraordinary and takes algebra with the high schoolers. If kids are more than one grade level advanced then they don't go to any of the 3 levels for their grade. We send them to a class with older kids.

 

And we do this for all the grades. So this means we need extra rooms for the extra math teachers on a campus that is already full. We need to schedule math blocks among grade levels so that we can maximize space and teachers as well as try to schedule around available higher math classes in middle school and high school for those who need it. Luckily we are all on the same campus so at least distance is not an issue.

 

We also assess and reassess and move kids when necessary. And that is just for math.

 

Don't get me started on the complexities of reading levels. :D

 

But it is totally worth it. Our kids are flourishing and our test scores are through the roof. But man do I have a headache sometimes. :tongue_smilie:

 

Yes we get parents who want their kids in a higher math for prestige sake. No I do not bend to them. Hence the headache. What we do NOT have are kids making fun of other kids for their math groups. They are amazingly supportive of one another.

 

It is tough but it works.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Heather in NC

[zaichiki]

it gets frustrating to always have the kids who are far behind, and to never have a few who are capable of actually getting it after instruction.

 

IME the kids *were* capable of getting "it," you just had to adjust what "it" was and how "it" was taught. For example, my 10 year olds were learning to write sentences following the formula article, adjective, noun, verb. We did go on from there, but that was the goal for a particular lesson. The typical 10 year olds were writing mini-essays and had their own "formulas." Was it horrible for me? No. If I had wanted to teach essays and never got the chance over a long period of time I'm sure I would be disappointed. But, isn't that like a teacher being "stuck" with 2nd grade when they want to teach middle school? I think this issue is separate from the reasons to/not to ability group. I think administrators *should* consider teachers' preferences and *should* try to be more fair over time to more teachers, BUT that's unrelated, IMO, to whether or not children should be grouped by ability.

[Ellie]

Classroom management. The idea is that it's easier for a teacher to control a group of 25 kids who are all the same age.

Yup, that's the history of the age-segregated classroom. Started back during the Industrial Revolution, hoardes of immigrants coming over to the U.S., gangs of children roaming the streets, poor things, compulsory education to get them off the streets, women teachers unable to control the older boys, age-segregated classrooms so men teachers could handle the older boys...Teachers themselves didn't want age-segregated classrooms; it was government. Nothing changes, does it?

[Haiku]

Because kids usually aren't at the same level for every subject, so there is no way to neatly divide them. It would be a logistical nightmare for schools. It was probably fine in a one-room schoolhouse with 15 kids, but it wouldn't work in a modern elementary school that has 400 kids.

 

Tara

[Laura Corin]

There are two private schools in MA that do something like this. They've got age-groupings, like K-3, 4-6. I've heard that this is common with Montessori schools, too.

 

The Montessori groupings worked well for a bright child in the early years, but there wasn't the flexibility in that particular school to cope with, for example, at 3rd grader working at a 5th grade level, i.e. across the class boundary.

 

Laura

[kiana]

I think this issue is separate from the reasons to/not to ability group. I think administrators *should* consider teachers' preferences and *should* try to be more fair over time to more teachers, BUT that's unrelated, IMO, to whether or not children should be grouped by ability.

 

I agree 100% with you here.

[kiana]

The Montessori groupings worked well for a bright child in the early years, but there wasn't the flexibility in that particular school to cope with, for example, at 3rd grader working at a 5th grade level, i.e. across the class boundary.

 

Laura

 

Right. I think it could work well if you've got enough kids to have a group for the ones who are working across boundaries (e.g. let's take all the k-3s who are working at 4-6 level together), but if you have an 8yo who's 'maxed out' and nothing more to do and you STILL can't move up, you've just postponed the problem.

[kiana]

And there is also the one girl we have who is extraordinary and takes algebra with the high schoolers. If kids are more than one grade level advanced then they don't go to any of the 3 levels for their grade. We send them to a class with older kids.

 

I like your school :D

[Laura Corin]

In the junior school (up to age 12) it's done within the same classroom. The publisher produces more than one text book for a particular year - one will have the full basic curriculum, another will have that with less reinforcement and more extension. The better-at-maths children will work on the second text book, but all will end the year with the basics mastered. The English differentiation is more ad-hoc: different spelling lists, etc.

 

In the senior school, English and maths are usually streamed. There doesn't seem to be any problem with students looking down on pupils who are in lower streams. It doesn't always work though. This year the English ability is strong in Calvin's year, so the split of 40 pupils into two classes of 20 would not have worked: some strong pupils would have ended up in a mixed-ability class, whilst others would have been taught with their ability peers. They decided to do the whole thing mixed-ability. Calvin isn't too pleased with this, and can't wait for the streaming next year: people choose standard level or higher level in a given subject.

 

ETA: I forgot to say, at the beginning of the school at age 4 or 5, they have two mixed-ability classes, one for those with earlier birthdays, one for those with later birthdays. They have found from experience that this works because the developmental difference will be great at that age, but will even out (more or less) later.

 

Laura

Edited November 6, 2011 by Laura Corin

[SailorMom]

I would say maturity should be a bigger issue that ability.

If you have a very mature 5 yo, most likely they will be owrking at a higher level anyway. Whereas even a 5 yo with higher level abilities cannot cope well in a more mature environment and shouldn't be asked to.

[chiguirre]

IME the kids *were* capable of getting "it," you just had to adjust what "it" was and how "it" was taught.

 

I think the problem is that in a mainstream classroom, you don't get to adjust what "it" is or how "it" is taught, you just get judged by the standardized test scores that your students get on "it". So if you get a whole class of low-performing but not IEP-worthy students, you're out of luck.

 

Part of why I homeschool is the insistence that ALL students (even those with an IEP) have to take the TAKS test and schools are strictly limited as to the % of students that can take modified versions.

[Roadrunner]

Most schools do some ability grouping within the same-age group, but I don't think this would work well on a school-wide basis. I mean, if you had a sixth grader who struggled in school, would you really want him or her to spend the day with second graders, or vice versa? This could be very tough on some kids.

 

O.K. I haven' read all the responses, but....

The school can schedule math across all grades at a same time. So 10am you have math for an hour and maybe at 1pm you have reading across an entire school. If you do that, you are taking care of organizational nightmare (who goes where when and missing what). The odds are the majority of kids would end up with groups within the same age, so it's unlikely a six grader (5th most likely since 6th grader would be in middle school) would be part of a group with all second graders. It's more likely there will be one 2nd grader sitting in with bunch of 5th graders, which creates less problems. Also, if the school has a fifth grader reading at a second grade level, that kid has bigger problems than social perception.

My kiddos are in PS (I am an afterschooler). I volunteer in my 1st grader's classroom and my little experience shows me at least in his class there are only two kids that would need to be moved away from current reading groups into fifth grade level. Couple more could be in a second grade reading group and the rest are exactly where they belong. So, I think it's very doable if they actually wanted to do it, but I think they prefer standarizing all the children.

[ChandlerMom]

I would say maturity should be a bigger issue that ability.

If you have a very mature 5 yo, most likely they will be owrking at a higher level anyway. Whereas even a 5 yo with higher level abilities cannot cope well in a more mature environment and shouldn't be asked to.

 

True academic maturity has to do with the ability to focus and play with ideas, not to sit and "behave" in a classroom. :tongue_smilie:

 

Trouble is "maturity" in ps is determined by how well a child can sit quietly and not make any extra work for the teacher. Kids who are working at a higher level finish their work sooner and are expected to sit quietly dong NOTHING for 10-20min while the rest of the class finishes up. IMO that's not a reasonable expectation in the K-4 grades and a "smart" kid is more likely to be labeled as "immature" because they are being asked to do something (sit and do nothing all day, bored) that the "slower" kids are not. How would holding them back help with that?

 

Also, about 1/4 of kids in the US are introverts, which means their social skills may lag their academic skills. Holding them back is unfair to them academically and hanging around with younger kids is hardly going to teach them to improve their behavior.

 

ETA: Don't forget the recent study showing kids are more likely to be DX with ADHD simply because they are younger than their peers:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38740077/ns/health-childrens_health/t/younger-kids-may-wrongly-get-adhd-diagnosis/#.Tra03mDC5Xc

 

TO me, one of the best things about hs is being able to meet my kids where they are. But the "maturity card" drives me a bit nuts. I was the youngest in my class and far ahead; I was the kid year after year asked to sit quietly and wait for my peers, then get yelled at for talking or taking out something to do, then the school wanted to block my skipping a grade in math because of "maturity" -- skipping was the best thing for me by far, and amazingly maturity stopped being an issue when I had something more interesting to do than count how many holes were in each ceiling tiles in the classroom 100 times a day.

 

IMO, you cannot even begin to judge maturity until you provide a suitable level of materials.

Edited November 6, 2011 by ChandlerMom

[justamouse]

Classroom management. The idea is that it's easier for a teacher to control a group of 25 kids who are all the same age.

 

Ironically, schools have also taken up the philosophy that it is inherently good to have a "mixed" class of kids of different abilities and education levels, so an ideal classroom would have kids with IQs ranging from 60 to 150, kids who are barely literate with kids reading several grades above their level, etc. Academic educators seem to believe that it will "pull everyone up" by some sort of osmosis. It's a veritable nightmare for the teachers.

:iagree:

[regentrude]

The school can schedule math across all grades at a same time. So 10am you have math for an hour and maybe at 1pm you have reading across an entire school. If you do that, you are taking care of organizational nightmare (who goes where when and missing what)..

 

That works as long as the kid's ability does not require placement in a different school building. In our town, elementary is k-4, then they go to a middle school for 5-7, Jr high for 8+9, high for 10-12.

A 6th grader working on 9th grade math would have to be driven to a different building.

Getting to and from class is already a big problem for high school students taking dual enrollment at the university; they can often not choose the class which would be best for them because they have to be back for the next period at the high school/

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

:iagree: We just started sending my youngest to a K4 class at the school my DH and I graduated from. They've since gotten a new principal. In our pre-approval interview the principal told us how the school works now. All the grades have the same subject at the same time so that the kids can all go to their own levels in each subject. So a 3rd grader could theoretically go to 5th grade for math and 2nd grade for english. If only I had the $10K to send my older 2 gifted kids there I would be a happy camper.

 

It's a Christian classical school--they teach latin, rhetoric, logic, the history cycle, etc. It sure wasn't that way when DH and I were there.

 

That sounds fabulous!!

[Rosie_0801]

Hold up. Why is it unfair for a teacher to get below-average students?

 

Well, since in many places teacher pay or their contract renewal is tied to student outcomes, whoever teaches the low-ability students who aren't technically special ed, is going to miss pay rises or be at a higher risk of not keeping their jobs. It's no good for the teacher's mortgage repayments if s/he becomes the "veggie" teacher along with the "veggie" class. (I assume our veggie classes are your remedial classes, but they might not be. The bottom track class, anyway.)

 

Rosie

[Roadrunner]

That works as long as the kid's ability does not require placement in a different school building. In our town, elementary is k-4, then they go to a middle school for 5-7, Jr high for 8+9, high for 10-12.

A 6th grader working on 9th grade math would have to be driven to a different building.

Getting to and from class is already a big problem for high school students taking dual enrollment at the university; they can often not choose the class which would be best for them because they have to be back for the next period at the high school/

 

You are right. So at least it would solve some problems but not all. Also, I have noticed some schools have EPGY online for advanced kids and other don't. So maybe for 3rd graders doing 7th grade math, they could just do it self-paced at the computer. My guess is in that situation you are really dealing with a trully gifted kid who is going to need a very different attention level than just math challenge. It's too bad but that's the child population whose needs are probably most difficult to meet in a school setting.

 

One of the private catholic schools (runs K throught 8) has classes based on ability around here, so I am just plagiarizing their schedule. :tongue_smilie: