澳门跑狗论坛

All of my students (9th graders) were more than two years behind in math when I began teaching in the Chicago Public Schools in 1993. (This was based on students鈥� 8th grade test results and confirmed by my own assessment.) Even more challenging for me was the range of students鈥� deficits--2nd grade through 6th grade levels--within the same class.

I addressed this challenge in many ways including heterogeneous groups based on math skills, homogeneous groups based on behavior, whole-group instruction targeting middle and/or low students, and independent work on differentiated assignments. But nothing worked, as reflected in students鈥� lack of learning, off-task behavior, and comments including:

I do not like class because he鈥檚 always giving us stupid work.

Maybe it will be better if the work were a little more challenging for me.

All the good students and bad students should sit together because a bad student can probably do better if not provoked by other bad students.

The following year was even more challenging for me because, while most of my students (also 9th graders) were again more than two years behind, some were performing at 7th or 8th grade levels. My solution: divide each class into two groups--high and low--based on skill levels. In other words, what is commonly referred to as ability grouping.

I never worked harder in or out of the classroom than I did when preparing and presenting two lessons per class. Yet despite my diligence, ability grouping was as ineffective as anything I tried the previous year, and students once again let me know this through their actions (misbehavior and lack of learning) and words:

Sitting in groups is what I 诲辞苍鈥檛 like. It makes certain people think they鈥檙e not as smart as others.

You are too bogus Coach G. You know Group A is not that smart and Group B is smart, and you separate us so we look dumb. All of us should be in the same group to help each other out.

If you are only going to teach one part of the class, what do you expect the other kids to do, sit and look stupid. We鈥檙e supposed to talk man, I thought you knew that.

I 诲辞苍鈥檛 feel right being split into different groups because it makes us feel like we 诲辞苍鈥檛 amount to anything and sometimes I feel uncomfortable about that.

Coach G, you make it seem like it鈥檚 a smart and dumb group in math because you put people that know how to do math together, and people that 诲辞苍鈥檛 know how to do math and that鈥檚 not right.

These and other similar comments from students helped convince me to stop using ability grouping. This feedback was particularly compelling to me because it came from students in low and high groups. It鈥檚 also important for teachers to notice what students 诲辞苍鈥檛 say. And in this case, not one student spoke out or wrote to me in favor of ability groups.

Though students were grateful to me for scrapping ability groups (鈥淭hank you for understanding and not putting us in that group.鈥�), I still didn鈥檛 know how to address their diverse learning needs. But through research, workshops, conversations with colleagues, trial and error, ongoing feedback from students, and relentless reflection, I developed the student-centered approach that I鈥檝e shared on this blog. An approach characterized by high expectations of all students, and classroom structures and strategies that enable students to meet those expectations including:

• Assigning students to heterogeneous groups with the expectation that, per my , they first work through academic tasks independently at their own pace using all available resources; then consult with group member(s) if necessary; and finally, seek the teacher鈥檚 help when all members of a group are stuck.
  
• Engaging students in .
  
• Ensuring all students have a meaningful and challenging academic task at all times, including for students who complete an activity while their peers are still working on it.
  
• Using to assess all students鈥� needs in a timely manner and provide .

As always, I evaluated the merits of this approach based on its effects on students. This included increases in engagement and learning among my least advanced students such as those in my 鈥溾�� class. It also included positive responses from advanced students, who many people believe are shortchanged when schools forgo ability grouping (and/or tracking):

This experience that I had in this class was like no other experiences I鈥檝e had. But it鈥檚 a cool thing... You make us want to think and want to learn. It鈥檚 not just a copy problems from the book routine but it鈥檚 like a help me, help you thing.

I worked hard, and learned a lot of new and interesting math.

Out of all of my math classes I learned the most out of this class.

You taught me a lot of things that I thought were very hard for me to learn.

I recognize that ability grouping may meet the needs of diverse groups of students in some instances--an example being well-run where teachers create regular opportunities to assess and address all students鈥� needs rather than isolate themselves with the guided reading group. But as I used it and as I鈥檝e most often seen others use it, ability grouping is flawed for many reasons including these misguided presumptions:

• Ability is defined by students鈥� past performance (usually on a test) rather than their potential.
  
• Students鈥� past performance (again, usually on a test) is strictly a reflection of their ability, without regard for other factors that may affect learning or students鈥� ability to demonstrate what they鈥檝e learned.
  
• Ability--again, defined by past performance--is a more reliable predictor of success than effort is.
  
• Learning has more to do with intelligence than with self-reliance, resourcefulness, persistence, and other non-cognitive qualities.
  
• It鈥檚 more important for teachers to assist struggling students than to assess all students.
  
• Teachers should plan lessons with the goal of preventing students from making mistakes rather than preparing for their mistakes.
  
• Students need teachers to be their primary source of information. (I鈥檓 not sure this was ever the case, but it certainly isn鈥檛 now when students have the world at their fingertips.)
  
• Differentiated instruction requires different tasks for different students.
  

In , Carol Corbett Burris and Delia Garrity share why and how their district, Rockville Centre in New York, eliminated tracking in favor of heterogeneous classes with equal and high expectations of all students. They not only explain why detracking is necessary, but also how to build support for it among teachers and parents, how to revise curriculum to 鈥渓evel-up鈥� instruction, and how to support teaching and learning in heterogeneous classrooms.

Burris and Garrity provide an inspiring and practical model for school leaders seeking to bring excellence and equity to their districts. But they also acknowledge that Rockville鈥檚 transformation took 鈥測ears of steady and thoughtful work, with parallel attention to adults鈥� and students鈥� learning needs,鈥� as Jeannie Oakes and Martin Lipton point out in the foreword of Detracking for Excellence and Equity. Maybe that鈥檚 why there鈥檚 been a in recent years: not because it鈥檚 better for students, but because it鈥檚 easier for schools.