![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
The impact of systems of ability grouping on students is the subject of intense debate among educators and researchers. Arguments in favor of ability grouping generally focus on its effectiveness for instruction (Feldhusen 1989). Arguments opposed to ability grouping focus on the issue of equity, particularly as related to ethnicity and class. Many critics of ability grouping suggest that such grouping helps to maintain and perpetuate class status from one generation to another in the United States by sorting children from different backgrounds into different curricular programs (Gamoran and Mare 1989). Opponents also argue that ability grouping is unfair to low achievers, citing problems of peer models, low teacher expectations, and slow instructional pace (Braddock 1990; Rosenbaum 1976, 1980; Oakes 1985; Gamoran and Mare 1989). Finally, other researchers suggest that these arguments may be irrelevant because ability grouping does not have a significant impact on achievement, values, or other educational outcomes (Slavin 1990; Kulik and Kulik 1982; Kulik and Kulik 1987).
Evidence for the effectiveness and consequences of ability grouping for academic achievement is not strong enough to provide conclusive support for any of the preceding positions. In a review of research evidence, Slavin (1990) concluded that the effects of ability grouping on achievement in secondary schools are essentially zero at all grade levels. However, he did note that students in the higher tracks may receive higher scores on achievement tests because they take more courses, or more advanced courses, than students in lower tracks.
Some researchers suggest that the quality and quantity of instruction, the learning climate, and the types of academic role models available to students vary across tracks and that these factors may affect students' learning (Hallinan 1991). In general, instruction in low-track classes tends to deal with simplified topics and focus on rote skills. The focus of high-track classes is on understanding of underlying concepts, problem solving, and independent thinking (Oakes et al. 1992).
The quality of teachers may also vary among tracks. Teachers often prefer high-ability classes because students are more willing to meet demands for academic work. Occasionally teachers prefer not to teach high tracks because they find it threatening to work with students who challenge their authority or who are of higher social status (Oakes et al. 1992). Finally, there is evidence that teachers themselves may be tracked, with those judged to be the most competent, most experienced, or otherwise most highly regarded at the school assigned to the top tracks (Oakes 1987).
Negative consequences of tracking may be found in domains other than academic achievement. It is possible that the social-psychological impact of track assignment can vary by track level, with consequent effects on students' self-image, motivation to learn, and effort (Hallinan 1991). High-track students often find greater meaning in schoolwork, are more motivated, put forth greater effort, and hold higher expectations for themselves compared to low-track students. Also, permanence and rigidity in a tracking system can make grouping especially salient and may heighten the negative psychological consequences of low-group assignment (Oakes et al. 1992).
Although evidence of inequity in tracking that is tied to students' ethnic and economic status is not conclusive, there are some suggestive trends. Studies indicate that at the elementary level, ethnicity and economic background do not directly determine students' ability-group placement (Oakes et al. 1992). However, it is important to note that more social- class segregation exists between schools in the United States than within schools at the elementary level than in schools at higher levels (Oakes et al. 1992).
Family background is important in the tracking that occurs during the secondary years of schooling. Using data from the High School and Beyond Survey, (Vanfossen, Jones, and Spade 1987) found that even within the top quartile of ability, students from families of high socioeconomic status (SES) were 16 percent more likely to be in the academic track than were students from families of lower SES status. By senior year, 52 percent of high-performing students from the lowest SES quartile and 80 percent of high performing students from the highest SES quartile were in the academic track. Finally, the percentage of students in the top academic track was 53 percent for students from the top SES quartile and 19 percent for those in the bottom SES quartile. Conversely, the percentage of students in a lower vocational track included 10 percent of students from the top SES quartile and 30 percent from the bottom SES quartile.
Poor and minority students are over-represented in tracks for low-ability or noncollege-bound students. Additional race and class differences occur within the vocational tracks; blacks and Hispanics were more frequently enrolled in programs that train students for the lowest level occupations (Oakes 1987). Evidence suggests that high school students of different SES and ethnic backgrounds are given different information, advice, attention by counselors, and placements (Oakes et al. 1992). Furthermore, the practice of ability grouping that involves separation by all subjects is more often found in middle-level schools with sizable enrollments of African-American and Hispanic students than in schools with lower percentages of minority students (Braddock 1990). It is suggested that variation across schools in track structures and assignment policies is an important source of unequal learning opportunities provided to students attending different schools (Hallinan 1991).
Patterns of course taking in mathematics provide some evidence that sorting of students by such characteristics as ethnicity and economic status does occur. In the case study carried out by Useem (1991), communities with higher levels of parent education were more likely to have higher enrollments in eighth-grade algebra and calculus. In a national survey, the distribution of students in the United States with comparable past achievement in four levels of eighth-grade mathematics varied with students' social background (Oakes et al. 1992). Females, whites, and students whose fathers held high-level occupations were more likely to be placed in algebra than were other students (Oakes et al. 1992). Useem (1991) suggests that the relationship between parental economic status and students' placement in ability groups might be partly explained by the greater tendency of better educated parents to be involved in decisions related to their child's education.
Students' placements by ability tend to be fixed and long-term. Those placed in low-ability groups in elementary school are likely to continue in these tracks in junior high school. Any movement between tracks that does occur is most often in a downward direction (Oakes et al. 1992).
Only 40 percent of students in American public elementary schools are assigned to the top tracks in their schools (Oakes 1987). In first grade, probably one-third to one-fourth of children are placed in the bottom group in a given subject (Entwistle and Alexander 1993). This group placement early in their education can have important consequences for the types of courses that will be available to students in later years, and may dictate later placement in high-track classes in senior high school (Oakes et al. 1992). Although decisions made about students' placement at a particular grade seem to have a slight effect on students' achievement, cumulative effects of such placement do become evident in the later years of schooling (Oakes 1987).
Retention as a method of dealing with differences in students' abilities does not affect as many students as does ability grouping. In a study of the Baltimore, Maryland school system, 20 percent of 6- to 8-year-olds and nearly 30 percent of 9- to 11-year-olds were enrolled below the modal grade for their age (Entwistle and Alexander 1993). The percentages were higher for males than for females and for minority children than for children from nonminority families. Retention is more likely to occur at specific transition points such as kindergarten, first, sixth, or ninth grades (Karweit 1992). Nationwide, retained students are most likely to be male, younger than their classmates, black or Hispanic, and identified as having behavioral problems or being immature.
Retention policy has changed over the history of the American educational system. Since the report A Nation at Risk (NCES 1983) was released, states have established specific standards for promotion from one grade to another and for graduation. Four types of educational practice can be grouped under the heading of grade retention:
Assignment to full- or part-time special education programs can be seen as a form of between-class ability grouping. In 1975, the United States Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94?142), which required public schools to identify and then to provide special education services to all children with educational, emotional, developmental, or physical disabilities (Singer, Palfrey, Butler, and Walker 1989). The act was amended in 1990 and has since been known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 101-476) (Kauffman, Lloyd, Hallahan, and Astuto 1995). This act mandates free and appropriate public education for all children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21 and sets up a system of federal financial support to states that implement the law. Funds are supplied to each school system for each child who is enrolled in a special education program, until the number of students reaches 12 percent of the school population, after which no additional funds are available. The guiding principles of the act ensure that:
Criteria for placement in special education vary widely across states and school districts. States and school districts differ in their referral practices, efficacy of child-find programs, psychometric guidelines, composition of evaluation committees, strength of professional and special interest groups, ability of parents to seek services, availability of costs and services, acceptability of particular designations, and history of legal advocacy and litigation (Singer, et al. 1989). From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the number of children receiving special education services went from 3.7 to 4.3 million; that is, from about 8 percent to nearly 11 percent of all 3- to 21-year-olds (Entwistle and Alexander 1993).
To fulfill federal reporting requirements and receive reimbursement, states and school districts are required to classify their students who have special needs. Classifications of students vary somewhat but generally correspond to seven conditions mentioned in the Education for all Handicapped Children Act: speech impairment, learning disability, emotional disturbance, mental retardation, hearing impairment, vision impairment, and orthopedic/medical impairment. The child's classification is a major determinant of the placement and services that will be provided. For example, children classified as learning disabled are usually placed in regular classes, often leaving class for a period of special instruction, while children classified as emotionally disturbed or mentally retarded are usually placed in separate classes or schools (Singer et al. 1989).
Prior to a decision on special education placement, the child must undergo a full individual evaluation. A variety of tests and other materials are used to evaluate the child. No single procedure is used as the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program. The evaluation is conducted by a multidisciplinary team which must include at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge of the area of suspected disability. After interpreting the evaluation data and identifying the child as handicapped, the team develops an individualized education program (IEP). Included in the IEP are the student's current level of educational performance, short- and long-term educational goals for the student, a plan for the evaluation of student progress, and documentation of the kind and duration of the services the student will receive. The IEP and the child's progress are reviewed at least once a year to determine if revision is necessary (Mehan et al. 1986).
Once assigned to special education programs, most children remain in the programs (Walker, Singer, Palfrey, Orza, Wenger, and Butler 1988). At the elementary level, most special education students receive pull-out services, which means that students leave their regular classroom to receive specialized instruction with a small group of other students, and afterward return to their classroom (Entwistle and Alexander 1993). Elementary schools may also use push-in programs, in which a special education teacher visits the regular classroom and provides instruction to a small group of students, while the classroom teacher provides regular instruction to the rest of the class.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act also specifies protective safeguards pertaining to the rights and responsibilities of parents. The development of educational policy for a child requires parent participation, and parents or guardians must receive written notice whenever a change in identification, assessment, or educational placement of their child is proposed. If an agreement cannot be reached about the appropriate placement or the IEP for a child, then parents or educators can initiate an impartial hearing. To prepare for this hearing, parents must be given access to all educational records and information pertaining to the school's evaluation of their child (Mehan et al. 1986).
Twenty years ago, few programs existed for gifted and talented students; by 1990, 38 states were serving more than 2 million gifted students in kindergarten through 12th grade. The percentage of students identified as gifted in each state varies due to differences in state laws and practices. For example, 4 states identify more than 10 percent of their students as gifted and talented, while 21 states identify fewer than 5 percent. According to data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS), 65 percent of the public schools had some kind of opportunity for gifted and talented students, and approximately 9 percent of all eighth-grade public school students participated in gifted and talented programs (USED 1992, 1993).
Twenty years ago, only seven states had legislation and funding for gifted and talented programs. However, the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-297) established a federal presence which changed the situation markedly (USED 1993). Spurred by this legislation most states developed legislation and provided some financial support for gifted and talented programs (USED 1993). Although policies varied from state to state, by 1990, 26 state and trust territories required that schools provide specialized services and programs for gifted and talented students, and 27 had passed legislation encouraging districts to provide such programs; only 6 states and territories had no such legislation (USED 1993).
The Marland Report identified a variety of abilities, in addition to general intellectual ability, that indicate giftedness. Using the broad criteria outlined in the Marland Report, gifted students are estimated to make up a minimum of 3 to 5 percent of the student population (USED 1993). In a recent survey, however, while 73 percent of school districts indicated they have adopted the Marland definition, few said they use it to identify and serve any area of giftedness other than high general intelligence as measured on IQ and achievement tests (USED 1993). Thus, the main criteria for admission to gifted and talented programs continue to be tests and teacher recommendations (USED 1993).
States that use IQ score cutoffs to identify gifted and talented students are more likely to have larger disparities among racial and ethnic groups. Economically disadvantaged students were significantly under-served, according to NELS data (USED 1993). Nine percent of students in gifted and talented programs were in the bottom quartile of family income, compared with 47 percent of program participants from the top quartile. Several categories of students are under-represented in these programs: culturally different children, females, students with disabilities, underachievers, and students with artistic talent (USED 1993). Some minority groups are more likely to be served by gifted and talented programs than others: nearly twice as many Asian American students were enrolled in these programs than were members of any other racial or ethnic group (USED 1993).
Two of many approaches to educating gifted students are enrichment and acceleration. Enrichment typically means that students are offered more varied educational experiences. Examples of enrichment programs might include after-school or Saturday classes, resource rooms, additions to the regular classroom curriculum, or special interest clubs (Colangelo and Davis 1991).
Acceleration usually includes early entrance to kindergarten or college, grade skipping, self-paced studies, or part-time grade acceleration in which a student receives advanced instruction in one or more content areas for part of each day (Colangelo and Davis 1991). In these ways, acceleration offers standard curriculum experiences to students at a younger-than-usual age or at a lower-than-usual grade level.
During elementary school, most specialized programs are available for only a few hours a week. One study indicated that 72 percent of districts with elementary programs for gifted students use the pull-out program or resource room approach, in which students leave their regular classrooms for a few hours each week to work on special projects (USED 1993). Other popular approaches include enrichment offerings, through which students receive extra opportunities to learn, and independent study. A few school districts provide special schools or allow students to move significantly ahead of their peers. Students talented in the arts are offered few challenging opportunities (USED 1993).
The argument often given for providing gifted and talented programs at the elementary level is that the regular school curriculum fails to challenge gifted students. In one recent national study of five content areas, elementary school teachers eliminated an average of 35 to 50 percent of the regular school curriculum for gifted and talented students after tests at the start of the school year showed that these students had already mastered the content (USED 1993).
In junior high and high schools, opportunities for gifted students are scattered and uncoordinated (USED 1993). One of the main problems is that the college preparatory curriculum in the United States generally does not require hard work from able students (USED 1993). In addition, small town and rural schools often have limited resources and are unable to offer advanced classes or special learning opportunities (USED 1993). Specialized schools, magnet schools, and intensive summer programs are increasing in popularity, but they serve only a fraction of the secondary students who might benefit from them (USED 1993). Another approach to providing more challenging programs is to allow gifted and talented students to enroll in college classes while they are still in high school; however, this alternative is seldom available (USED 1993).
Students may also seek academic lessons after school hours. Private academic courses are offered, primarily by private companies for students who are having difficulty with their academic work. Other after-school programs help prepare high school students for the standardized examinations that are used as a criterion for admittance to colleges and universities.
Private tutoring is another option for students, but it is infrequently used. For example, in a recent study of first- and fifth-graders, less than 10 percent were enrolled in after-school academic classes or had a private tutor (Stevenson and Lee 1990). Among high school students, 3 percent were enrolled in after-school academic classes and 7 percent had a private tutor (Fuligni and Stevenson 1995). The cost of enrolling in after-school academic classes or hiring a tutor is prohibitive for many families. Thus, resources are often limited to students from families of higher socioeconomic status.
American educators use a wide range of methods for responding to individual differences in students' ability. These methods may be used at the classroom level, such as in instructional groups organized by ability; at the grade level, such as in instructional programs that place students from different classrooms together in special education and gifted programs; and finally, at the school level, as in the comprehensive tracking systems found in most high schools. Students may participate in these instructional arrangements for only part of the day, as in reading and mathematics groups in elementary school or special education and gifted programs. They may also be grouped during the entire school day, as in tracked high schools. The particular program that a school adopts is influenced by a host of factors, including demographic characteristics of the surrounding community, school policies, the extent and type of financial and material resources available, and the philosophies of administrators, teachers, and parents. As a result, ability grouping is carried out in a variety of ways in different schools.
Despite such variations, some common issues must be considered. Any program of instruction that is intended to accommodate students of differing ability is in part guided by the beliefs held by the practitioners involved. Some key beliefs are that every child must have equal opportunity for education but that children of differing levels of ability require different kinds of instruction. As a result, instructional programs may reflect a tension between accommodating the different instructional needs of some students without sacrificing the quality of the education available to others.
A related issue of continued concern to researchers is how students of different economic or ethnic backgrounds can be incorporated into a particular system of ability grouping. Some researchers suggest that educators and administrators may have preconceived ideas about the academic potential of students based on characteristics such as economic status and ethnicity. In addition, educators may consider certain programs of instruction as being more or less appropriate for a student based on their assumptions about the adult occupation the student is likely to enter. As a result, inequities in placement in accelerated or academic tracks may be based on ethnic or economic characteristics of students and may have profound effects on students' access to instruction of high quality.
-###-
[The Perception of Ability Differences in U.S. Education - References]