Back to the IN CASE YOU MISSED IT index
QUESTION: Our school district is currently studying the middle
school concept. I am looking for information or opinions on ability grouping
at this level. A subject of much debate has been whether students should
be in mixed ability groups or in a tracked system in the middle grades (it
would be grades 6-8), particularly in language arts and math. Any insights
from educators currently using either system would be much appreciated.
A. My middle school has always tracked 7th and 8th graders and this
year for the first time is tracking 6th graders. I happen to favor tracking.
The brighter kids can go on, read more difficult books, and take on challenges
that would only frustrate a slower learner. "brighter kids" were
often embarrased to answer too many questions because other kids were tired
of hearing them. Now the opposite side - slower kids were often frustrated
because they were always behind, just when they got caught up, they would
realize they were behind again. These same students did not want to participate,
or read aloud because their answers and abilities were never as good. In
all honesty heterogeneous will work with no behavior problems and only a
few needing help and there are many to help. That is never the case in reality,
at least not in my school with close to 900 students, many from low socio-economic
families.
A. There is a time to track. However, that time is not while a child
is in the middle school. Too many other changes taking place. Too much development
going on . Tracking in the middle school does more harm than good.
A. Do the professional educators on this list recognize the difference
between tracking and grouping? I'm fairly new around here, and am askingbecause
I don't know - though it seems to me that the terms are being used interchangably.
Someone else previously mentioned the publication "This We Believe"(which
I've not yet read, beyond summaries by third parties). Are the terms confused
in there as well?
Tracking is a particular form of grouping. Not all grouping is tracking!
In my opinion, there is no justification for tracking. On the other hand,
declining to group for access to instruction, appropriate (relative
to readiness) curriculum level and rate, and learning partners does a major
disservice to students at any grade level. I think and believe that to group
or not to group is not the issue. What we ought to be about is
placement for access to the the coursework, materials and people
needed
for student learning progress.
A. Here we go on the tracking issue again. There is a multitude of
research on the subject of tracking. Some oppose it and some support it.
As a middle school teacher who supports most all of the "This We Believe"
position paper, I have to oppose tracking as it is being described here.I
know tha t tracking is generally used with well intentions. Moreover, there
is much to be said for some of the positives that can come out of tracking,
specifically with gifted kids. I think, though, that it does more harm than
good. Reading one of the earlier posts reminded me that one of the primary
harms is that teachers have different expectations for different classes.
I remember visiting a neighboring school that wins accolades each year for
its outstanding mathematics program. As I sat and observed 7th grades classes
I made notes and asked questions during class changes. Before the start
of one class, the teacher made sure that I knew that the next class wouldn't
be as good as the others because it was only a "regular" class
and she was not able to challenge them like the others. There is something
drastically wrong with this picture.
I think that there are ways for gifted kids to spend time with each other
sometime during the day without tracking every subject and every child.
What about mixing up groups within a class setting? There are times that
I ability group at tables within one class?
Tracking is one way to sort children and it mirrors the stratified society
that we live in. Once a child is in a low track, it is somewhere between
extremely difficult and impossible to move up. There is a higher percentage
of low SES and minority kids in low tracks. I guess that I think that there
is a better way but teachers must change.
A. I teach in a school which does not "track" and I think
I have learned how to deal with the problem of wildly varying skill and
background levels in the same classroom. I find myself wondering though
why its OK for MIT, Yale, and Harvard to define their student bodies by
academic performance and test predicted capabilities but it isn't OK for
a public school to do the same. Why does a student have the "right
" to be challenged by the surroundings of a selective public university
but not selectivity through the preparatory process? Not well stated I know
but....