Whole-Group Instruction Must Be Divided Into Ability Groups

In the previous post, the article that I referred to was more or less against the notion of ability-based grouping of students.  This time I focused on an article that is the stark opposite.  When I was in high school we had ability-based classes.  This was not necessarily decided by taking a test to see who was smart enough to be in the higher level classes, but most of it was based on teacher recommendations, scores in previous classes related to the subject, and the counselor’s recommendation.  I thought that by doing it this way the right kids generally ended up in the correct classes. 

On this note, the article that I read (‘Whole-group instruction’ drags down top math pupils) pertained specifically to proper way to teach math.  The authors of the article are particularly concerned with the future of the nation’s leaders, and where we will end up if we continue to teach math the way it is currently being taught, which is through whole-group instruction.  In this format all of the students are being taught the same material at the same pace.  The authors, Susan Goodkin and David Gold being there argument by saying:

“America’s recent sweep of the Nobel prizes in science and economics is a feat unlikely to be duplicated by younger generations.”

Personally I think that this is a very pessimistic attitude to hold.  The authors of this article are not teachers, but they claim to have knowledge of the educational system and to have that little faith in our youth is sad.  The authors want ability based classrooms for math, and they are trying to say that the whole group instruction is holding our future leaders back.  This may be true, but going as far as saying that we will not have anymore Nobel Prize winners based on this could be stretching it a little.  The authors do attempt to give a solution to the problem at hand.

“Frustrated parents nationwide will attest that the predominant method of elementary-school math instruction holds back our top young math minds and, as practiced under the No Child Left Behind Act, stultifies them. Remedying this requires the political will to implement a solution that is obvious but runs afoul of both liberal and conservative political agendas. “

I do not think that political action as suggested by the authors is the answer.  It would not be in the best interests of individual school districts to have a federal mandate on how different classrooms should be set up and how specific subject area should be taught to students on different levels.  While it is true that there are numerous ability levels in every school because no two students have the same capabilities, the format in which they are set up could not possibly be uniform.   That is the impression that I get from the statement above.  With all of the current problems with NCLB, I would think we would steer away from this sort of situation.  I don’t want to send the impression that the authors of this article agree completely with NCLB.  They point out that it has it’s flaws, but they conclude that what NCLB needs is another stipulation.

“The problems have increased under the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB threatens draconian sanctions for failing to bring all children up to minimum proficiency, but no penalties for failing to advance those children who already meet the standards. Thus, it pressures math teachers to aim the discussion at the least-skilled, and to ignore our future math and science leaders.”

The point is a good one, but there has to be more solutions made from school to school or within the state.  I also doubt that teachers ignore the brighter students.  It is true that sometimes they are helped less, because teachers figure they understand material, but they are not ignored.  I do think that it is especially important in subjects such as Math and English for there to be some sort of ability-grouping.  Math can be very difficult for some students, while it comes almost naturally to others.  This is why it is difficult to teach all students at the same pace.  Likewise, with English, children with high level reading abilities do not benefit much by reading below their own reading level. 

“Research consistently shows, and common sense dictates, that the best way to nurture high-ability math minds is to group these children together and give them a curriculum geared to their abilities. Rather than implementing such “ability grouping,” however, most elementary schools nationwide take exactly the opposite approach — “whole-group instruction.”

I think that when research backs up a finding as powerful as this, schools need to attempt some sort of ability-level teaching.  This does not mean that in the lower levels there must be separate classes altogether, but the teachers must make an attempt to challenge students.  There are numerous ways to do this.  One way may be grouping students in pods within the classroom.  I know that handing out different work can be difficult, but it could be done.  I liked what the authors had to say about what an equitable education would be.  This is a great response to the question that I posed in my last post.

“A truly equitable education system would provide all children, including the most advanced, the opportunity to learn at their own level — a goal that cannot be met through whole-group instruction.”

 After reading this article I do believe that it is important to make sure that students are not held back in areas where they could be striving, and if whole-group instruction is doing this than there needs to be a push for change.  The article concludes with a statement about the role of the Bush Administration in this change.

“Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has declared that this administration’s educational efforts will make sure we continue to lead the world in Nobel Prize winners.” However, if President Bush truly wants our public schools to develop math and science leaders, the federal government must provide incentives for teachers to group math students by ability. “

A change is needed, but is it a change that needs to be enforced by the federal government?  I think that it could be handled on a lower level, so that the teachers in charge of the programs have a little more say in the way the ability-based classrooms can be structured.  The teachers need to be at the center of the process and leaving the decisions up the lawmakers at the national level will not accomplish this.

‘Whole-group instruction’ drags down top math pupils”

By Susan Goodkin and David G. Gold
January 21, 2007

Full Article