Thoughts on ability grouping in primary and secondary education

I’m going to use this post to respond to some of the comments from my previous post on genes and success. In the comment section, I endorsed what educators refer to as ability grouping.

Ability grouping is opposed by liberals who hate the idea that children have different levels of ability. So we see the typical liberal response, which was a comment by probligo:

Separating children on the basis of a perceived ability is wrong, totally wrong. That is an approach that smacks of eugenics; the kind of experimentations that Mengele carried out; the kind of pseudo-science that people use to denigrate those who are different in race or belief or religion...

Notice the hysterical liberal reaction, bringing up images of Nazi Germany, as if somehow I suggested that children should be sent to gas chambers or something. Liberals often bring up Hitler and Nazis when they can’t make a rational argument.

The ability difference between children is real, not “perceived.” When we give reading tests to children, some will score several grades levels above their real grade, and others score several grades below. Only a crazed liberal could possibly think it makes sense to put children of such widely differing abilities together in the same classroom.

I don’t merely endorse intra-school grouping, but recommend that school districts create separate schools for differing ability levels. I was the beneficiary of such ability grouping when I was a high school student. Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan uses a competitive admissions test to select only the brightest students in all of New York City. The result was a far better public high school than ever would have been possible otherwise.

My wish is that future students from middle class families that can’t afford private school tuition have the opportunity, like I had, to attend a first class public school.

One of the reasons why I was so outraged by the bogus Newsweek article about the “best high schools” is because it seems like a typical liberal plot to discredit selective admissions high schools by excluding them from the list.

* * *

Responding to what mikeca said:

Since when does society have an obligation to ensure that a person’s intelligence is “property nurtured and directed towards a useful occupation?” What happened to personal responsibility?

Only the most crazed libertarians disagree with the notion that society does have an obligation to provide education for children so they can indeed be properly nurtured and directed towards a useful occupation. I can’t for the life of me see how the notion of “personal responsibility” can truly apply to school aged children who lack the wisdom, experience, and reasoning ability to really understand the world around them. The law certainly recognizes this, which is why we have juvenile courts, and why children under the age of eighteen are not held liable for any contracts they enter into.

If lousy schools ruin intelligent children and prevent them from achieving the success they should have had based on their intelligence, then I certainly do hold society responsible. And sometimes intelligent children do get ruined when they are thrown into a school where all their peers are so much less intelligent that they don’t relate to them, and the intelligent child who seems different gets ostracized and fails to develop social skills that are needed down the road as an adult. Then we wind up with the stereotypical intelligent loser.

Comments

[William]

I think there might be a misunderstanding here. I for one thought that you were advocating different education opportunities based on your "perceived intelligence". It seems that you are merely saying there should be advanced schools for those who have been proven through tests to be smarter. It is important though that none of this intelligence seperation happens until atleast after third grade, for up to that point schools teach character & the ability to learn more than information, but after that go ahead, although there really are already many honors classes etc.

[Ken]

"I don’t merely endorse intra-school grouping, but recommend that school districts create separate schools for differing ability levels. I was the beneficiary of such ability grouping when I was a high school student. Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan uses a competitive admissions test to select only the brightest students in all of New York City. The result was a far better public high school than ever would have been possible otherwise."

I'd do it a little bit differently.

We should group according to mastered skills and new skills they have the foundation to learn. If a student has mastered fourth grade skills, he should be in - fifth grade, regardless of his age.

Forget putting all the smart kids in "enhanced" second grade - just put them in third grade instead. Give them a tangible reward for performing to the best of their abilities - accelerated progression and a shorter childhood.

[Half Sigma]

Ken, the weird thing these days is that parents are doing just the OPPOSITE, holding their kids back a grade so they can be bigger and stronger than other kids in their grades so they can excel at sports and leadership.

Sadly, maybe this reflects acknowledgement that actual academic achievement isn't a highly valued trait anymore.

[Michael H.]

Hi Half Sigma and Ken
I just wanted to comment about the idea of promoting exceptional kids up a grade. I think it is a bad idea because there is more than one kind of maturity involved here. Some children are academically very bright but socially a bit awkward. My son is like that.

He is bright enough to go to the next grade but his friends are in his grade or the lower grade. He just doesn't relate well to old kids. Emotionally he is bit immature, and I don't mean undisciplined, just awkward.

I think in general that classes run more smoothly if all of the children are of similar age, maturity, and academic achievement. Some people think that poor achieving students will do well if they have some high achieving classmates. I think it might be bad for both of them. The high achiever suffers a dumbed-down curriculum and the low achiever suffers from realizing how very inferior he or she is. I remember the jealousy that the ordinary kids felt towards the "brains" in the class.

[Reader]

There real concern here is allocation of resources. In other countries where this type of seperation (ie. gifted vs. mundance students) is done, the trend is that the gifted classes have the best teachers. Parents of smart kids tend to be smart themselves and would insist on better teachers. Good teachers wants to teach the smart kids because it is probably a more enjoyable experience for them. Smart kids understand the value and prestige of having world class teachers.

However, the opponents of this approach rightfully points out that the real bright kids perhaps don't need the best teacher. They can probably learn the material on their own. It is often the average students that benefits the most from a superior teaching staff (greater value on the margin). This whole ability separation is viewed as an elite altitute that is hostile to social justice.

This discussion is incomplete without a serious discussion on resource allocation and the justification behind it.

[Michael A. Clem]

I don't know what you mean by "society". As I see it, society only has the obligations that society chooses. But I don't buy the idea that government is or represents society, since it's usually based upon flawed decision-making. I'm against the public education system.
Young children obviously cannot be held fully responsible for their education, but their parents or guardians can be. Just like anything else having to do with parenting, older children can gradually take more responsibility for their education.
As for ability grouping, I have no particular objection to it. I'm all for professional educators making recommendations, as long as they're just that: recommendations, and not legal mandates.

[mikeca]

I think we are talking about very different things here.

The state certainly has an obligation to offer a quality education, but if a student decides to drop out and never finishes high school, is society to blame for that? If a student, who could easily get into college, decides he doesn’t want to go to college, is that societies fault? If a student goes to college and majors in art history and then discovers there really aren’t many jobs for art history majors, is that societies fault?

Yes society should encourage all students to finish high school, encourage the best students to go to college, and encourage students to major in fields that are likely to lead to reasonable jobs, but if students make poor decisions, that is there fault, not societies.

Are you going to tell me that society failed Bill Gates because it did not force him to finish college?

[probligo]

"The ability difference between children is real, not “perceived.” When we give reading tests to children, some will score several grades levels above their real grade, and others score several grades below. Only a crazed liberal could possibly think it makes sense to put children of such widely differing abilities together in the same classroom. "

First point - how reliable are the "tests" used to grade children?

Second point - many tests rely upon "knowledge levels". If a child has been taught by old Miss Plunkett at a two classroom country school then I can imagine that his/her "knowledge level" might be a couple years behind a dumb kid whose parents have been able to afford a top city school.

So, with respect, this "crazed liberal" is somewhat sceptical of the logic used to justify the programmed system of eugenics that you propose.

To illustrate, consider the following extract from a biography -

"In 1887 Ernest, on his second attempt, won a Scholarship to Nelson College, until that time the only scholarship available to assist a Marlborough boy to attend secondary school.

For the next three years Ernest boarded at Nelson College. In 1889 he was head boy (the Dux of the school, hence his nick-name `quacks'), played in the rugby team and, once again on his second attempt, won one of the ten scholarships available nationally to assist attendance at a college of the University of New Zealand. "

Now, note that it twice took this person two attempts to gain the scholarships that he sought. Do you think that this indicates a "lower intelligence level" than others of his time?

I would suggest not, because if Ernest, Lord Rutherford had been withdrawn as "not capable" at either of those two hurdles I suspect the world could be quite a different place today.

[Half Sigma]

"So, with respect, this "crazed liberal" is somewhat sceptical of the logic used to justify the programmed system of eugenics that you propose."

Eugenics is the philosophy or impoving society by influencing who has children. Now I don't see where in this post I talked about that topic.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why liberals hate to talk ability differences. Liberals assume that the next step after acknowleding that such differences exist is government policies to encourage those with higher ability to have more children.

[probligo]

OK, you got me with the semantics and pedantry.

What then is the "correct" terminology (from your dictionary) for the pre-determination of social class and standing through the use of arbitrary and scientifically dubious "testing" methods?

Ever read "Brave New World"? Is there a parallel there somewhere between the state-imposed "caste" system and the "ability based streaming" methods that you are promoting?

Try another little bio -

"Colin Murdoch was born in Christchurch in 1929. He was ambidextrous and dyslexic; the latter, he told the Timaru Herald in 1995, made school a struggle, but he outgrew the condition in later life. "

Now, where in your system of "ability streaming" would a boy suffering dyslexia and the consequent learning difficulties end up?

How about the inventor of the disposable syringe, and the "tranquillizer dart gun"?

Or you might like to try this one -

"Poor health and poverty may have fuelled Nathan's desire to escape the stale rigidity of industrial England, where opportunity was reserved for the privileged few and class discrimination was a life sentence. His early days led also to a belief in a greater, collectivist social good, egalitarianism and "selfless and dignified citizenship" - themes to become admired in colonial New Zealand and part of the national character."

That is the start that Joseph Edward Nathan got - and this is where he ended -

"Glaxo SmithKline, the largest pharmaceutical group in the world, had its origins in a place far removed from the centres of world commerce: a dairy creamery in Bunnythorpe, near Palmerston North, and a general trading company started in Wellington, New Zealand in 1873. "

Again, what might have happened if this boy's ability had been judged in part on his health as not being of great worth.

No, I as a crazed liberal wonder at how these people came to prominence in their respective fields.

Your ideas, sir, would place even greater barriers in their path.

I say no.

[Half Sigma]

scientifically dubious "testing" methods

My favorite online dictionary defines the scientific method as follows: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

I fail to see how the development of standardized tests fails to fit in with the scientific method. There have been entire books written about the mathetmatics of testing. Maybe you need to do more research. Look up "item response theory," for example, at university library.

[probligo]

The definition of "scientific method" goes back to Descartes. That is not the question I asked.

Stop being a crazed liberal and answer some direct questions instead of avoiding issues.

What chance might a dyslexic child have in your system?

Would a child be allowed two tries at an entrance qualification or streaming test, or only one?

Would your system penalise a child because attendance at school had been affected by poor health?

Would your system make allowance for the child for whom English is a second language, not primary?

Y'see, Halfsigma, what I am hearing from you (and from a number of people who are promoting similar ideas in this country) is the kind of elitist self-promoting snobbery that only just manages to cover quite serious personality deficiencies.

As a kid who came out of the bottom end of the education system in this country, I understand what IQ tests (the vogue in my time), and the more recent "top of the pops" general intelligence tests are like. "Bottom end" of the education system? Ranking in this country is an arbitrary community socio-economic scale - 1 for "poorest", 10 for "richest". The thinking is that the quality of education runs parallel to that. I am the product of a Decile 2 school. My kids attended a decile 9 school. The only comment on my ability at school was that I should become a top-dressing pilot - because of my ability at low flying.

Kids from the same school; one daughter of a solo mum (reputedly the village whore) now owns a chain of six Sydney restaurants; at least three from my grad class are university lecturers in different disciplines; a girl who regularly topped the class was (last time I spoke with her) a commercial fisherman; a girl who was consistently toward the bottom of the class has a national reputation as Mayor of the Far North District Council, a post she has held for at least ten years.

What you are proposing is that the sysem of grading you promote could predetermine the abilities of all of these kids at the age of (I guess) eleven or twelve.

I say NO. That can not be done. There is no scientific basis for any claim that it can be done.

Not once during your tirades have you mentioned the contribution that YOU are making to your childrens' education. I think back to the hours I spent, trying to help my kids understand fundamentals, not doing their homework for them but explaining HOW to handle fractions, learning (with them) the principles of sets and the associated math, helping with reading and comprehension, getting them to think and understand rather than reproduce.

Why did I do that? Not because of any perceived deficiency in the education system. They were attending what were accepted as being in the top five percent schools in Auckland. The standard of the teachers I met confirms that in my mind.

No, I had the responsibility to ensure that my kids had a respect for education and its value. I had a responsibility to them to ensure that they LEARNED and UNDERSTOOD what they were learning. Not so that they could pass examinations. Learned so that they could use the principles, the processes, the facts, and had the ability to teach both themselves and their own children in turn.

Your promoted "ideal" ignores or by-passes that responsibility entirely.

[Half Sigma]

"What chance might a dyslexic child have in your system?"

A better chance than one in which there was no ability grouping, because if there were no ability grouping then the dyslexic child would be placed in a regular classroom where he couldn't keep up.

Obviously the dyslexic child needs an environment suited to his learning disability.

[probligo]

At last!! A straight answer. Platitudinous as one might expect, but at least direct.

Well I guess that there is more than one dyslexic child out there whose potential career will be relegated "to his apparent ability".

Now, how about another one... there were four that I asked.

[quadrupole]

Please for the love of God ability group children. There are few hells quite so unpleasant as being a highly gifted child in a normal class setting.

You're six. Your pears are interested in paste and different words for bodily functions. You are interested in arms control.

You're eight and desparately seeking instruction in algebra because you taught yourself all the arithmatic in the textbooks, but there isn't a teacher in the elementary school qualified to teach it to you.

You are 12 and reading 'War and Peace', your class is reading 'The Magic Bicycle'.

12 years of imprisonment and torment. Most of the adults I know who were gifted children would have been better off left to run feral.

[probligo]

quadrupole,

For each of the examples you give, what were the parents doing for their gifted child. How much effort do you think that they might have been putting into helping the child both scholastically and emotionally? Would you subject your children to the "12 years of imprisonment and torment" you mention, or would you be trying to find some way for the existing system to cater for your child's needs? I know which I would be doing.

A truly gifted child can, in this country, be attending university at age 13. There is nothing to stop that from happening. There might be 1 of those children here every 5 years... say 1 in 20 million population if annualised. On that basis, there might be 20 or perhaps 30 in the whole of the US that fall into that category each year. If you are one, I am honoured to have met you if only briefly and virtually.

But why are you demanding that the whole of the education system be uprooted and pulled apart solely for the benefit of those 20 or 30.

As I have been trying to say in my comments thus far, there is a far greater danger, in my opinion, that a child will be disadvantaged by the proposed system. There is a far greater number who will potentially be disadvantaged.

As the example - how many times will a child be allowed to try and determine the streaming level appropriate for their ability? Once, twice? Or will it be a continuous process? If the latter, then look carefully at the example set up in NZ. It is called NCEA, and a search through www.nzherald.co.nz or www.stuff.co.nz will turn up more than enough to give you a picture of how it works and what it means.

If a child gets only one crack at the cherry, then what happens to the likes of Ernest, Lord Rutherford who took two years to gain each of the scholarships that earned him eventual entry to Cambridge. The first was from primary school to secondary, the second for university at Christchurch NZ (not Cambridge).

No. I think that the proponents of this madness are nothing more than elitist neo-middle class, and most of them could care less about their childrens' education. Halfsigma might like to enlighten us as to how much time HE puts into his childrens' education.

Do you have any gifted children quadropole? Mine weren't, but one is an Honours grad in Engineering the other is doing alright for herself as well... That in spite of there being no "ability streaming" in their schools other than being allowed to work at their own pace, and to earn their advancement through the school. There was also considerable and sympathetic assistance from both parents when required.

[quadrupole]

probligo,
I was one of the gifted children in question. So was one of my brothers. So where most of my current peers.

There are a lot more of us out there than you think, but you don't notice us because the current system both starves us and wastes vast quantities of our time. I can't tell you the number of gifted kids I saw 'leveling out' as I grew up out of shear boredom. It was terrifying to watch.

I've known enough of the people who've managed to realize some reasonable fraction of their original potential that I find your 1 in 20 million laughable. I'd put it at a lot closer to 1 in 10,000 or better at the level of functioning you describe based on my childhood experiences. And there are levels of giftedness below the '13 year old going to college' level you pose that also benefit greatly from more enriched tracks, and suffer greatly in untracked schooling.

I would highly recommend reading this essay as it explains the issue far better than I can given my current level of anger and frustration on the issue.

[Half Sigma]

probligo: "For each of the examples you give, what were the parents doing for their gifted child."

Rich parents have the resources to send their kids to a private school. Middle class parents are stuck with the public school system where, in most cases, ability grouping is frowned upon and they will not do anything at all for the gifted child, ruining his potential.

Quadrupole seems to understand this pretty well. Read his (or her) comments.

[quadrupole]

Half Sigma,
Fortunately I was coming from the middle class, but I know some really sharp folks who grew up gifted in the lower class... they were unbelievably screwed...

[Half Sigma]

Because intelligence is a genetically inherited trait, and becaue it's correlated with one's class, as one moves up in class a higher percentage of that class's children will fall in the cateogry of being gifted.

I'm sure that at the best private schools, the average intelligence of the students is far above average, so gifted children aren't so out of place.

But if the gifted child's parents are from the lower class, then the child probably lives in a lower class district and winds up at a school where academic performne and expectations are extremely low and the gifted child is look upon as a problem more than anything.

I had a friend in high school who was a really bright black kid from the ghetto. He wound up going to Harvard, based on his pretty high SAT score and high grades. He was lucky that New York City at least had a high school for gifted students. If he was stuck in the neighborhood high school who knows what would have happened?

[quadrupole]

Half Sigma,
While I generally agree with you about correlations with class, it's important to keep in mind that America is hugely class mobile, and that we recently had a lot of class busting shifts in culture.

I've known very gifted folks who's grandparents where upper class, but whose parents managed to plunge them all the way down to lower class (whether through drug addiction, single parenthood, or just a refusal to not be stupid hippies). It's also not uncommon to see families traverse up and down in less dramatic fashions.

[probligo]

Well, I guess that I have to accept what you say. Quadropole, I repeat my earlier statement that I am honoured to meet a "gifted person".

Seems to me that the differences we have are in outlook.

You are the product of your system.

I am the product of a "socialist", state run school, secular, and predominantly classless system. I reckon I did pretty good from it. I also think my kids did all right from it as well. I fear for my grandchildren because successive governments now seem determined to leave (what I think was a pretty good) old system and replace it with the kind of models that you are trying so hard to leave behind.

Well, if Halfsigma is not prepared to take on the problems that Lord Rutherford or Colin Murdoch or Joseph Nathan might experience under your ideal system then America will be all the poorer for it.

BTW I would be interested to know just how you would define "very gifted". Is that IQ based? Or is it based on assessment of talent and potential? Or is more subjective than that?

[indiancowboy]

I concur with those hwo've stated the need for ability grouping. My biggest hell were those classes/schools where there was nothing to challenge me. Not ability grouping harms those with above average abilities as much as it hurts those with below average abilities.

Another way that keeps kids engaged are academic extracurriculars, especially Academic Decathlon and (in Texas) UIL.

the thing i loved about Acadeca was that there were three 'groups' in each school's team based on GPA. so you had 4.0, 3.0, and 2.0 students, all with a love of learning.

It got some of those 2.0 students off their asses and had them reconsider college.