![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
All school administrators and teachers must face the challenge of dealing with the differences in individual ability within their student population. A notable characteristic of the American public educational system is the wide variety of mechanisms that exist for accommodating differences in ability both within the school and within each teacher's classroom. There is no national set of guidelines for grouping students, or for determining the kind of coursework or level of instruction in which students should be enrolled. Thus, individual districts are left to develop their own programs and guidelines for assigning students. In general, academic subjects are divided according to the level of schooling (elementary, middle, and secondary) and by grade levels within schools. Students are not segregated into separate schools that are homogeneous by level of ability; rather, many levels of ability are represented among the students in single, general purpose schools. However, during the 1980s there was an increase in magnet and specialty schools, which provide more focused courses of study for a select group of students of similar ability (Oakes, Gamoran, and Page 1992).
The most common organizational arrangements adopted by schools to handle individual differences among students are known variously as ability grouping, tracking, and streaming (Oakes, Gamoran, and Page 1992). Ability grouping involves the division of academic subjects into classes or groups at different levels for students of different abilities, which can include both within-class and between-class grouping (Oakes 1987). Grouping within a single classroom is most common in elementary schools, while a wider range of grouping plans are used in junior high and high schools (Slavin 1990). Many comprehensive high schools place students in classes and programs of instruction according to their educational needs and ability. Despite this division by ability, the students' options tend to remain open through later years of high school and even students in lower ability groups or classes may attend a community college or even a four-year college (Oakes, Gamoran, and Page 1992).
In addition to ability grouping, schools use other instructional and curricular arrangements to accommodate students of differing ability. These include retention of a child in grade; special education for students who have problems in school for a variety of intellectual, emotional, or physical reasons; and other types of special classes for children who are identified as exceptionally able academically.
The practices that educators adopt to accommodate students' varying levels of ability are closely linked to the beliefs the educators hold. A commitment to ability grouping is embedded in a larger ideological framework (Kilgore 1991). This framework reflects a common belief in the United States that a student's ability is a fixed quantity and that the level of ability can be identified in the early years of schooling (Oakes 1987). In addition, it is often assumed that students' capacities to master schoolwork are so disparate that they require different and separate schooling experiences.
Thus, many school practitioners assume that grouping by ability promotes students' achievement because, it is argued, all students learn best when grouped with students of similar capabilities or levels of achievement. It is also assumed that for the sake of instructional efficiency students should be grouped so that they will all be able to profit from one lesson that is neither too easy nor too difficult for that group (Slavin 1989).
Two additional sets of beliefs serve as the basis for retaining students at their current grade level. One belief is related to student immaturity. This orientation is most often encountered in decisions regarding retention or extra-year placements of children in kindergarten or first grade. This practice follows a philosophy emphasizing maturation: readiness for schoolwork is a quality that unfolds on its own timetable.
The second theme is that low achievement is caused by lack of exposure to the material and can be remedied by recycling students through the material. This approach does not consider student "failure" to be failure of the system but of the student. Rather than assume that the approach or content are inappropriate for the learner, one assumes that the learner is not ready to learn the material being presented. This second orientation considers learning as a linear process in which mastery of content at one level depends on mastery at a previous level (Karweit 1992).
At the elementary level, individual differences are most often accommodated within the classrooms through ability grouping that is linked to instructional variation, but there is no nationally standardized set of categories or patterns for grouping children (Gamoran 1989). Ability grouping typically occurs within classes when students are divided into several small groups, separated by level of ability for instruction in particular subjects, especially reading. Dividing the classroom into three or four groups is the most common arrangement. Each subgroup receives instruction at its own level and is allowed to progress at its own rate (Slavin 1989). In first grade, more than 90 percent of elementary schools use within-class ability grouping for reading, 25 percent for mathematics (Entwistle and Alexander 1993).
Though within-class grouping is the most common form of separation, students may also be placed in groups that cut across classes. Between-class grouping takes two forms: it may last for the entire day, encompassing all subjects, or it may be used for a specific subject (Oakes et al. 1992). When between-class grouping lasts for the entire day, students are assigned to self-contained classes on the basis of measures of general achievement. Students then remain with the same group of classmates for all academic subjects. A less extreme form of between-class grouping involves regrouping for reading or mathematics. With this system, students remain in classes that are heterogeneous by ability most of the day but are regrouped for selected subjects. For example, three fourth-grade classes in a school might have reading scheduled at the same time. At reading time, students might leave their heterogeneous homerooms and go to a class organized according to reading levels (Slavin 1989).
Another approach to between-class ability grouping is the Joplin Plan, which involves regrouping students for reading by ability only, without regard for grade levels (Slavin 1989). Lastly, some schools adopt nongraded plans. This approach involves grouping arrangements in which formal grade levels are abolished in favor of flexible cross-age groupings for different subjects. Where nongrading is done only in reading or mathematics, it is essentially identical to the Joplin Plan (Slavin 1989).
Placement in groups within the same classroom typically determines the amount and type of instruction children receive (Entwistle and Alexander 1993). For example, low-ability reading groups spend relatively more time on decoding activities, whereas more emphasis is placed on the meaning of stories in ability groups composed of more able readers. High-ability groups do more silent reading and when reading aloud are interrupted less by other students or the teacher. Students with a history of membership in high-ability groups are likely to have covered considerably more material throughout their elementary school years (Oakes et al. 1992).
At the junior high (middle) school level, between-class tracking by ability replaces the within-class groups of elementary school (Oakes et al. 1992). Results of a survey of junior high school principals indicated that two-thirds or more of the nation's junior high schools use at least some between-class ability grouping; more than 20 percent assign students to all of their classes according to ability. The proportion of students who are in fully tracked programs, in which all classes are grouped by ability, increases from 12 percent at fifth grade to 25 percent at sixth through ninth grade (Braddock 1990). The percentages of students who experience at least some homogeneous grouping increases from about 70 percent at fifth grade to about 80 percent at sixth grade and 85 percent during the subsequent 3 years.
In contrast to the elementary school years, the use of ability groups is especially prevalent in mathematics during junior high school. The majority of seventh-graders (84 percent) are placed in between-class ability groups in mathematics, and by grade nine, 94 percent of students are grouped in this subject. According to results from the 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), school administrators reported that 77 percent of eighth-grade students were grouped by ability in mathematics. Only one-third were grouped by ability in science (National Science Foundation [NSF] 1993). In both mathematics and science, placement in a particular ability group is correlated with students' socioeconomic status (SES). In a study conducted in 1988, eighth-grade students of low SES were more than twice as likely to be in a remedial mathematics class than students of higher SES (U.S. Department of Education [USED] 1992).
A particular form of tracking seen in middle and junior high schools is block scheduling, a system in which students are assigned to a group based on ability and spend all or most of the day with the same group of students (Slavin 1990). Some block schedules keep students together for instruction by several teachers. In this system, students may move as a single group from teacher to teacher throughout the day, or each class of students may remain in the same room while the teachers move (Braddock 1990).
In seventh and eighth grade, ability groups involve more than different levels of learning in the same subject. By then, course material is strongly differentiated and students at different levels take different courses. In mathematics, students are typically assigned to one of three or four groups differing by level of ability, ranging from remedial mathematics to accelerated mathematics. Enrollment in the accelerated track is restricted by an array of school policies, so in 1988, only 29 percent of eighth-graders took algebra or advanced mathematics (USED 1992). In the same year, 47 percent of eighth-graders reported attending only a general mathematics class, and 7 percent reported attending some kind of remedial class (USED 1992). Students in general mathematics classes are exposed to a curriculum that essentially reviews the content of elementary school courses. Because the general mathematics classes cover different topics from those in the accelerated classes, it is very difficult for students to catch up with the accelerated group and become eligible as 12th-graders to take calculus or other fifth-year secondary mathematics courses (Useem 1991).
Structure. Ability grouping continues into the secondary school years in the form of between-class tracking. According to the 1990 NAEP, school administrators reported that by 12th grade 74 percent of students were placed in science classes by ability, and 80 percent in mathematics (NSF 1993). Tracking systems at the secondary level usually have between three and six tracks (Vanfossen, Jones, and Spade 1987). In all tracking systems, judgments about students' academic performance are the basis for group placements. Classes and tracks are labeled in terms of performance levels of the students?such as advanced, average, or remedial?or according to students' expected postsecondary goals?such as college preparatory or vocational. The resulting groups or tracks are not merely a collection of different but equally valued instructional groups; instead, they form a hierarchy within schools with the most academic or the most advanced tracks considered the "top" (Oakes 1987).
In recent decades, some American high schools have moved away from formal tracking to a system in which students enroll in courses on a subject-by-subject basis (Oakes et al. 1992). In this system, the number of elective courses open to students approximately matches the number of required courses. As a result, students may earn equivalent credits but gain very different knowledge, leading to many different versions of a "high school education." Furthermore, even in this elective system, when students are assigned to a high-level class for one subject they tend to be assigned to a similar level in other subjects. The end result is a set of strict curricular tracks. For example, from a national survey, 60?70 percent of 10th-graders in honors mathematics were also enrolled in honors English; the degree of overlap is similar in remedial mathematics and English (Oakes et al. 1992).
Course content. Curriculum and instruction in the various tracks are tailored to the perceived needs and abilities of the students assigned to them. Thus, based on track assignments, students at various track levels experience school differently.
The extent of such intertrack differences varies across schools. In general, lower track students have fewer mathematics and science courses available to them and are nearly always required to take fewer academic courses. Lower track students have greater access to elective courses in the arts and vocational subjects than most students in the academic tracks, whose schedule of required courses allows little time for electives (Oakes 1987). A national survey showed that students in the middle track usually took first-year algebra in 9th grade, geometry in 10th grade, and second course in algebra in 11th grade; some took precalculus in 12th grade. Students in the top achievement track usually took geometry in 9th grade, second course in algebra in 10th grade, precalculus in 11th grade, and calculus in 12th grade (NSF 1993).
Placement. American educators consistently report that a combination of criteria determine student placements, including standardized test scores, teacher and counselor recommendations, prior placements and grades, and the student's own choice. In general, however, level of academic performance is a strong determinant of the track to which a student is assigned. In the 1982 High School and Beyond Study, 61 percent of students with test scores in the highest quartile had entered the academic track by sophomore year, compared with 12 percent of those in the lowest quartile (Vanfossen, Jones,& Spade 1987).
Decisions about track assignment are particularly difficult during the student's transition from middle or junior high school to high school. If grades and recommendations from teachers and counselors are used to make ninth-grade track assignments, then one must ask how these indicators of ability compare across the different middle or junior high schools that feed into the ninth grade (Hallinan 1991). Some schools report that in disputes over placement, students' and parents' wishes prevail over teacher recommendations, test scores, and previous grades (Oakes et al. 1992). Even when students choose their own courses, they receive counseling on which courses are appropriate. In one study, approximately 30 percent of high school seniors not taking mathematics or science reported that they had been advised by teachers or counselors that they did not need an additional course in that area (NSF 1993).
Differences among schools. Placement in tracks is influenced not only by students' characteristics but by school characteristics as well. Each school's practices of scheduling and grouping are affected by such local constraints as the availability of human and material resources for instruction, the demographic conditions of the surrounding communities, and the educational philosophies of administrators and teachers (Braddock 1990). For example, while school districts often require a minimum enrollment, class size is usually restricted by physical limitations within the school and by contracts with the teachers' union (Kilgore 1991). Also, a district usually determines the track levels for its schools, thus limiting the local school administration to decisions governing track size and homogeneity of tracks (Hallinan 1991).
The structure of tracking across schools and the impact of tracking on students varies widely depending on what policies a particular school adopts. The classic form of tracking involves student assignment to the same ability level across many classes, the use of very specific criteria for admission to a track to ensure homogeneity within the track, and little room for mobility once a student is assigned to a particular track. In such systems, students enroll in programs that dictate their entire array of courses (Oakes et al. 1992). Schools with less mobility in tracking systems tend to have greater between-track inequality in mathematics and verbal scores and lower overall mathematics scores (Gamoran 1992).
Some research has focused on the striking differences between private Catholic schools and public schools. Catholic schools have less instructional differentiation between tracks than public schools. For example, catholic schools tend to place greater academic demands on students in noncollege tracks, requiring more academic course work and more rigorous class work, compared to noncollege tracks in public schools (Gamoran 1992). In an observational study of three Catholic high schools, students and teachers were found to hold positive views about assignment to low tracks and were optimistic about the possibility of advancement. Catholic schools not only have higher achievement after measured background variables are taken into account, but for mathematics they have less inequality between tracks (Gamoran 1992).
Case studies. Many of the general trends described above are reflected in the results of two studies of particular school systems. One study, conducted by Hallinan (1991), sampled 2,050 students from public and private middle schools across two districts that feed into eight public and private secondary schools. Hallinan studied track assignment as students moved from eighth to ninth grade, considering the characteristics of both students and schools. A five-tiered structure in mathematics remained in place in every school every year unless not enough students qualified for admission to the advanced track. Hallinan concluded that the track structure is not as much a response to variation in the student population as a reflection of the outside constraints on school officials, established by factors such as district policies. Therefore the assignment of students to this designated structure reflects school officials' efforts to adapt to characteristics of their student population as well as to organizational constraints on their resources. As a result, schools vary in policy for placement of students in a track, size of tracks, ability level of students at each track level, and distribution of students across tracks. For example, students assigned to a certain track level in one school may have higher ability than those assigned to the same track level in a different school.
Another study, conducted by Useem (1991), involved interviews with school administrators in 26 cities and towns in the Boston area, mothers of 6th- and 7th-graders in 2 schools in adjacent suburban Boston districts, and middle-grade mathematics teachers in these 2 schools. Some districts appeared to encourage or direct students into advanced mathematics classes, while others had policies that acted as filters and essentially discouraged students from attempting to join the fast track. Those districts that encouraged the assignment of students to an accelerated sequence had mathematics coordinators who believed it was advantageous for students to study calculus in high school and who believed criteria for entering the fast tracks should not be too elitist or selective. Furthermore, in these districts, the placement criteria for accelerated mathematics did not rely heavily on standardized test scores and did not have high cutoff points for admission to accelerated work.
Districts that encouraged students most vigorously did not block or discourage parents and students who tried to override the schools' placement recommendation. Instead, they tended to assist students who were doubling up on mathematics courses in order to catch up with accelerated students. In the less encouraging districts, it was common practice for high schools and many middle schools to ask parents who were disregarding a teacher's placement recommendation to sign a formal waiver or to write a letter of waiver. Parents who attempted to change their child's placement were frequently subjected to "cooling out" attempts by teachers and administrators (Useem 1991).
Continued
[The Perception of Ability Differences in U.S. Education - Part 2]